Why Kneel for Communion

[rosary_kat]

“Obey your Bishop” ? Why don`t the Bishops respect the wishes of the Bishop of Rome?

Whatever "the Bishops" did or didn’t do is on their consciences and their souls, not yours. In that respect, what they need are our prayers. Our “job” is to be obedient servants, not critics or Monday-morning quarterbacks. Sure, we can register our dismay, but harping on the same thing year after year for forty plus years is just getting tiresome. But then again, some people simply cannot be pleased, nor can they be happy unless they’re grousing about something. My heart and my prayers go out to those folks. But my ear plugs are handy.

My suggestion to everyone is let go of the past, stop holding that grudge, flick that chip off your shoulder and rejoice in the here and now. His Holiness is turning the tide and the future is bright. “God is in His heaven and all is right with the world”.

 

[po18guy]

Good question. I am not knowledgeable enough to answer such a question. But what I do know is that in asking me to stand, the bishops and the priests are NOT asking me to sin, so I should respect their request and be obedient. We are to submit to one another out of reverance, as we would to Christ. Unless and until we are asked to do something that our fully-formed conscience would lead us to conclude is sinful, we should submit to the authority of our bishop and priests. Simply being in error is not the same thing as being in sin. Bishops who disagree, or for very valid reasons must follow a different course of action from other bishops in other dioceses, should not be assumed to be in open rebellion with Rome. If we are instructed to kneel to receive, or if we are informed that we are allowed to kneel, then I will probably do so, as long as I would not run the risk of tripping people. But until that day, I will remain obedient to the current instructions for receiving communion in the OF masses that take place in churches that have no communion rail. The reality is that our parish has grown so large that we cannot fit in our church any longer. We have three standing-room-only masses in our parish hall (read: school gymnasium) and consequently have no pews or kneelers. Padded folding chairs and a hardwood basketball floor covered with a tarp is what we’ve got. There is almost no one kneeling due to lack of space. (Sometimes I wonder if we are accidentally violating fire codes when we have especially full masses, where rows of standing people are along the back.) But rather than grumble about lack of reverence or evidence of pride, I am worshipping the Lord with a grateful heart for what He is doing in our small community. How can we complain about postures when the Lord’s church is bursting at the seams? I have similar feelings whenever I see or hear complaints about EMHCs.

Amen! Well said. Whatever happened to submission and obedience? Has it completely disappeared in this day of personal preference lead by the ego? Spoken like a true disciple of Christ.

 

[ProVobis]

Whatever "the Bishops" did or didn’t do is on their consciences and their souls, not yours.

Probably but that’s of little consolation to many of those who have held the Blessed Sacrament in the highest esteem for a long time.

My suggestion to everyone is let go of the past, stop holding that grudge, flick that chip off your shoulder and rejoice in the here and now.

Easier said than done.

 

[SunnaB16]

Whatever "the Bishops" did or didn’t do is on their consciences and their souls, not yours. In that respect, what they need are our prayers. Our “job” is to be obedient servants, not critics or Monday-morning quarterbacks. Sure, we can register our dismay, but harping on the same thing year after year for forty plus years is just getting tiresome. But then again, some people simply cannot be pleased, nor can they be happy unless they’re grousing about something. My heart and my prayers go out to those folks. But my ear plugs are handy.

It`s only by “harping on the same thing year after year” that we members of the laity can get most of these bishops to take the slightest scrap of notice of us: sort of like the widow and the unjust judge.
Like it or not, the recovery is a lay-led one.
We can be pushed only so far…and eventually, something snaps.

My suggestion to everyone is let go of the past, stop holding that grudge, flick that chip off your shoulder and rejoice in the here and now. His Holiness is turning the tide and the future is bright.

If we forget the past, the future will be pretty grim. The Holy Spirit wont let us do that. Some of us dont want to be ostridges. Father Corapi, Mother Angelica and like-minded folks have the right idea. We`re required to speak out.

Without the visible and vocal support of us peasants in the pews, Pope Benedicts task would be much more difficult, if not impossible. ***He needs to be constantly reminded that hes not alone.***

“***God is in His heaven ***and all is right with the world”.

And God in His Heaven works through human instruments.
It`s up to us.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Not a bad thing at all if it were just a piece of ordinary bread you were receiving in a food line.

Tell that to the Chaldeans and Coptics.
Further, tell all Eastern Catholics what you think about receiving Communion standing.

 

[Layman]

How can you distinguish between what happened and by what you describe as a natural development? How do you compare this with previous developments of the Tridentine Mass, or even how the Tridentine Mass came to be?

Trent standardised the Roman rite. What we are experiencing now is an unneeded revolution. There was no major defect to address in our worship, but we got a new Mass anyway.

This is a top-to-bottom revolution. CITH cannot be viewed separately. That’s my point. It’s the cumulative effect of all the changes. A new Mass, a re-ordering of our sanctuaries, the laity much more to the fore, the symbolic decrease in dignity of the priest and, most tellingly, the breaking, modification* and removal of symbols of our religion.

Here’s the kicker: those who are pro these changes think they’re being clever. Whereas in truth they are going down the same path the Anglicans took. The New Mass is like Cranmer’s Mass. The Anglicans are just a bit farther ahead.

[Example: Went to semi-famous Anglican church recently. Free-standing Henry Moore altar, pews-in-the-round, relatively bare of icons. Tasteful and dead. They have nowhere left to go except silliness, emptiness and infamy if they continue as-is.]

• e.g. super-stylised icons and the relentless emphasis on Pentecost.

 

[ProVobis]

Tell that to the Chaldeans and Coptics.
Further, tell all Eastern Catholics what you think about receiving Communion standing.

Don’t need to. They have managed to turn the practice into a discipline so to give greater glory to God. On the other hand, statistics of those in the West seem to show greater disbelief in the Real Presence. COTT on the tongue kneeling worked well in the West for over a thousand years. Maybe it’s a culture thing, I don’t know.

 

[FrancisB]

Layman, the Church thought there were some major defects in the Tridentine Missal. That’s why St. Pius X made some changes to the mass and encouraged the people to pray the people’s responses rather than letting the servers do it for them. That is why continued adjustments were made to the Rite throughout the early 20th Century. It is part of the reason that the Second Vatican Council was convened. Not everything that changed happened after Vatican II. Go compare the Missal approved at Trent with the one from 1962 and you will see that this unchanging idea is just nostalgia tainting history. And please don’t take that as an attack on the traditional mass; I love it and prefer it to the Ordinary Form in many ways, but we have to be honest about our past to move forward.

As for the question at hand, kneeling versus standing is at its root a matter of cultural practices, not religious ones. I don’t think anyone would advocate anything other than the idea that the only fitting posture for receiving communion is the one that shows the most respect for God being truly present in the Eucharist. The question is what the most respectful posture is, and this is greatly dependent upon culture. I find it suspicious that the Western Europeans have forgotten that they ought to kneel in the presence of kings, let alone the King of Kings. It is not surprising to me that our Holy Father, himself of Western European descent, prefers that people kneel, as they ought before the King of Kings. But other cultures have other ways of showing respect and we need to be cognisant of that. It is part of the problem with having only one Latin Rite; there is less room for variations that would allow the gestures to best reflect the cultural norms that reinforce the timeless, unwavering truths of the mass. If it is disrespectful in a particular culture to kneel, then how can we in good conscious instruct them to kneel before the Eucharist? Are we not then encouraging them to be disrespectful to God when, in fact, we wish quite the opposite?

Here in America, I’m not sure that there is a single posture that best reflects the reverence owed to the Eucharist. My heart, which belongs entirely to the Western European tradition, begs me to kneel before my King. But my mind, which is informed by American culture, says that we do not kneel before our leaders to show them respect. We greet them standing upright, look them in the eye, and shake their hand. How can we say then that receiving communion in the hand while standing is not reverent when that is how we would meet the men we hold in greatest esteem in our community? I just don’t know that there is a single answer in a pluralist country.

 

[Momofmyangels]

How can we say then that receiving communion in the hand while standing is not reverent when that is how we would meet the men we hold in greatest esteem in our community? I just don’t know that there is a single answer in a pluralist country.

But that is the problem. You are equating “the men we hold in greatest esteem in our community,” (mere men) with God. That is just it. We do not equal God. He deserves an infinite amount of reverence, adoration and worship that He alone is due. God cannot and should not ever be brought down to our level.

 

[Layman]

AFAIK, the 1924 is the last missal that had more, rather than less i.e. it was the last one before the editing became progressively more subtractive. Using 1962 as an example misses the mark.

CITH, standing, was not normal in the Roman Catholic Church until some progressive Dutch clergy tried it off their own bat. Then, for no obvious reason, as it was not part of the culture, the USA got an indult for it (unless ‘Stand tall, America!’ counts). **COTT, kneeling is a very humbling thing to do in Western culture. In the context of that tradition, changing over to CITH, standing from a laywoman makes no sense if you truly believe that the King of Kings is present in the Host.

It makes perfect sense, however, if you now believe that you, the layman are now holier or the Host is somehow less so. **

I find it grimly amusing that people now call for more cathechesis to generate more reverence at Mass when all the changes were to introduce more populism i.e. bringing it down to the level of the people, ‘The People’s Mass’.

 

[FrancisB]

But that is the problem. You are equating “the men we hold in greatest esteem in our community,” (mere men) with God. That is just it. We do not equal God. He deserves an infinite amount of reverence, adoration and worship that He alone is due. God cannot and should not ever be brought down to our level.

No, I am not. Equating them would be making them equal. I am not doing any such thing. In fact if you read my whole post, you would have seen that.

Here’s the problem: there is nothing intrinsic in kneeling that makes it a reverent posture. That is a cultural practice associated with the Western European idea of kingship. We kneel before God because He is “King of Kings.” And the Latin Rite came out of this tradition and when it was still just Western Europe that was a part of the Latin Rite, it was clearly the only fitting posture. In the East [and here I speak of Eastern Europe, not China] they had different postures because they had different cultural practices. The Byzantines weren’t standing because they were trying to disrespect God. They were standing because they did not view kneeling in the same terms that the Western European mind did.

Now we come over to the Americas. We have Western Europeans bringing over their religious traditions and converting the natives. That was a wonderful moment for the Catholic faith, but the church has not yet come to terms with the full extent of what that meant. There were many different cultures that had no prior understanding of Western European kingship all now being asked to conform to norms that were informed by those ideas. What would have perhaps made more sense would have been to create multiple Western Uniate Rites: an Meso-American Rite, an Andean Rite, an Amazonian Rite, &c. that would each show the light of Catholic truth through the lens of those local cultures. Instead, they were first made to become Iberian and then to accept Catholicism in much the same way that the early Christians tried to force the gentiles to become Jews before converting to Christianity.

As a white man, I have no problem kneeling and receiving communion on the tongue. It feels natural and reverent to me. I prefer to take communion that way, in fact. What I was saying is that I don’t think it’s appropriate to force people of other cultural backgrounds to adopt such postures unilaterally.

In other words, what–outside of a cultural view of kingship–makes kneeling intrinsically more reverent than standing?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Don’t need to. They have managed to turn the practice into a discipline so to give greater glory to God. On the other hand, statistics of those in the West seem to show greater disbelief in the Real Presence. COTT on the tongue kneeling worked well in the West for over a thousand years. Maybe it’s a culture thing, I don’t know.

How can you acurately connect standing and CITH to dwindling belief in the Real Presence? There is a dwindling belief in the faith in general because of increasing secularism.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Trent standardised the Roman rite. What we are experiencing now is an unneeded revolution. There was no major defect to address in our worship, but we got a new Mass anyway.

This is a top-to-bottom revolution. CITH cannot be viewed separately. That’s my point. It’s the cumulative effect of all the changes. A new Mass, a re-ordering of our sanctuaries, the laity much more to the fore, the symbolic decrease in dignity of the priest and, most tellingly, the breaking, modification* and removal of symbols of our religion.

Here’s the kicker: those who are pro these changes think they’re being clever. Whereas in truth they are going down the same path the Anglicans took. The New Mass is like Cranmer’s Mass. The Anglicans are just a bit farther ahead.

[Example: Went to semi-famous Anglican church recently. Free-standing Henry Moore altar, pews-in-the-round, relatively bare of icons. Tasteful and dead. They have nowhere left to go except silliness, emptiness and infamy if they continue as-is.]

• e.g. super-stylised icons and the relentless emphasis on Pentecost.

So what you’re saying is that if CITH came in without the other major changes, it would be more natural and acceptable?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Layman, the Church thought there were some major defects in the Tridentine Missal. That’s why St. Pius X made some changes to the mass and encouraged the people to pray the people’s responses rather than letting the servers do it for them. That is why continued adjustments were made to the Rite throughout the early 20th Century. It is part of the reason that the Second Vatican Council was convened. Not everything that changed happened after Vatican II. Go compare the Missal approved at Trent with the one from 1962 and you will see that this unchanging idea is just nostalgia tainting history. And please don’t take that as an attack on the traditional mass; I love it and prefer it to the Ordinary Form in many ways, but we have to be honest about our past to move forward.

Defects? Wasn’t the thrust of Vatican II was to meet the quick changes coming into the world? The world has changed a lot in the last 100 years than it did in the last 2000.

 

[FrancisB]

The world has changed more in the last century than it had in the 1900 years before that? Some how I doubt that very much. You think the life of the average person in 1st century Judea was in any way close to the same as that of the average person in 19th Century America? Perhaps in that neither had television or cars, but not in their view of the world, the rights that they were afforded, or the creature comforts that were common to them. The world had been changing constantly the whole time. Trent was a response to the changes that had occurred during the Reformation. It standardised things not because variation was wrong but because they were afraid that variation would lead to parts of the Protestant heresy seeping into the church. By the pontificate of St. Pius X, there were different problems in the world and the mass had to change to deal with those problems because while the purpose of the mass has always been the same its form has changed throughout the history of the church to suit the needs of the faithful and thus he started making some of the more noticeable changes to the church that led to the council. The problem, perhaps, is only that things were done so quickly and cerebrally rather than through the long process of organic change that had traditionally been the way of the church. But this itself was a reaction to the inflexibility of Trent that tried to calcify not only the mass but many other aspects of Catholic life. Both radical adherence to Trent and radical openness to the “Spirit of Vatican II” are extreme positions. That’s why I say that while I prefer kneeling and taking communion on the tongue because of my heritage, I can see how other cultures would view it differently.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The world has changed more in the last century than it had in the 1900 years before that? Some how I doubt that very much. You think the life of the average person in 1st century Judea was in any way close to the same as that of the average person in 19th Century America? Perhaps in that neither had television or cars, but not in their view of the world, the rights that they were afforded, or the creature comforts that were common to them. The world had been changing constantly the whole time. Trent was a response to the changes that had occurred during the Reformation. It standardised things not because variation was wrong but because they were afraid that variation would lead to parts of the Protestant heresy seeping into the church. By the pontificate of St. Pius X, there were different problems in the world and the mass had to change to deal with those problems because while the purpose of the mass has always been the same its form has changed throughout the history of the church to suit the needs of the faithful and thus he started making some of the more noticeable changes to the church that led to the council. The problem, perhaps, is only that things were done so quickly and cerebrally rather than through the long process of organic change that had traditionally been the way of the church. But this itself was a reaction to the inflexibility of Trent that tried to calcify not only the mass but many other aspects of Catholic life. Both radical adherence to Trent and radical openness to the “Spirit of Vatican II” are extreme positions. That’s why I say that while I prefer kneeling and taking communion on the tongue because of my heritage, I can see how other cultures would view it differently.

Just look at what has been invented and developed in the last 100 years (give or take a few years). Flight, automobiles, the internet, cell phones, computers, etc. Materialism and secularism is on the rise, peoples morals are in an all-time low. You can’t live in a bubble anymore. In the past it is easy to distance yourself from things you would consdier immoral. Nowadays you can’t even leave your own home without something that would encourage an immoral act.

Case in point, I was watching Stephen Colbert the other night and he had this bit that involved a rapper from 2 Live Crew. Of course they were famous for that album that got banned because of sexually explicit lyrics. 20 years ago albums like that are getting banned, but today sexuality is part of Pop music, which is mainstream.

Today’s new wave of Protestantism is powered by such moral relativity. Evangelicals, non-denominations, Pentecostals, etc. Their thrust is a fell-good, rock-and-roll revolution type of worship telling people that they can cling to moral relativism because God loves them regardless.

I do agree with what you said that the Mass had to change to meet this problems in the world. But I don’t think it was because the old Mass is defective. The world is changing and the Church had to find a way to get people back in the Church (or stay in the Church) as the lure toward materialism and secularism has increased 10-fold (maybe more) in the last 100 years.

 

[FrancisB]

Just look at what has been invented and developed in the last 100 years (give or take a few years). Flight, automobiles, the internet, cell phones, computers, etc. Materialism and secularism is on the rise, peoples morals are in an all-time low. You can’t live in a bubble anymore. In the past it is easy to distance yourself from things you would consdier immoral. Nowadays you can’t even leave your own home without something that would encourage an immoral act.

Case in point, I was watching Stephen Colbert the other night and he had this bit that involved a rapper from 2 Live Crew. Of course they were famous for that album that got banned because of sexually explicit lyrics. 20 years ago albums like that are getting banned, but today sexuality is part of Pop music, which is mainstream.

Today’s new wave of Protestantism is powered by such moral relativity. Evangelicals, non-denominations, Pentecostals, etc. Their thrust is a fell-good, rock-and-roll revolution type of worship telling people that they can cling to moral relativism because God loves them regardless.

I do agree with what you said that the Mass had to change to meet this problems in the world. But I don’t think it was because the old Mass is defective. The world is changing and the Church had to find a way to get people back in the Church (or stay in the Church) as the lure toward materialism and secularism has increased 10-fold (maybe more) in the last 100 years.

Do you honestly feel that the world is more immoral now than it was in the past? You worry about sexually explicit lyrics, but when paganism was in its prime most pagan faiths practised human sacrifice. And it was just as hard to avoid that if you didn’t agree because travel was more difficult in the past. And anyway, what would make temptation any less tempting in the past?

You think moral relativity is new? It’s in the Bible. “Quid est veritas?” --Pilate.

Please don’t think I’m defending any of these things. I am merely saying that immorality has always been with us and always will be. Inventions don’t create immorality. The internet is the perfect example: it helped to disperse immorality, but it also helped to disperse the Catholic faith. It is a tool that can be used for good or for evil.

No, the world is always changing. The fact that the Church, in order to protect itself from Protestantism, stopped changing was what created the problem. The flood that occurred when the doors were opened caused more harm than good, for now, but things will all come around again. God is still watching over His Church.

 

[ProVobis]

The world is changing and the Church had to find a way to get people back in the Church (or stay in the Church) as the lure toward materialism and secularism has increased 10-fold (maybe more) in the last 100 years.

I’m a bit confused here. Is the Church supposed to adapt to its environment more than have different cultures adapt to the Church’s Magisterium of the Ages? Why would you think that fewer would leave the Church if the Church simply did what they wanted?

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’m a bit confused here. Is the Church supposed to adapt to its environment more than have different cultures adapt to the Church’s Magisterium of the Ages? Why would you think that fewer would leave the Church if the Church simply did what they wanted?

The Church has always adapted to culture from the beginning. Otherwise we won’t be Latin Rite or Byzantine Rite or whatever Rite Catholics today. We all would be Jewish Christians like the first Christians were.

You are confusing things the Church can change and the things the Church cannot change. The way you say it is as if the Church changed one thing, then everything must or can be changed. Even the Church pre-V2 in the 20th century is very different from the Church during Trent, or even 1000 years ago. So why are we resistant to changes today when the Church itself, who is living, has changed and adapted through the course of history from Day 1?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Do you honestly feel that the world is more immoral now than it was in the past? You worry about sexually explicit lyrics, but when paganism was in its prime most pagan faiths practised human sacrifice. And it was just as hard to avoid that if you didn’t agree because travel was more difficult in the past. And anyway, what would make temptation any less tempting in the past?

Yes, I believe it is. Modern technology has provided people with less inhibitions. Because we don’t have to face other people anymore we are more bold unlike in the past. A hot new item here in British Columbia today is a Rave party that occured last week where a teenage girl was gangraped and photos were posted on Facebook. Sure, rape has happened since the beginning of time, but this blatant? People are so proud of it? During the Roman and Macedonian Empires, and even before, homosexuality has always been present. But at what point in human history are people clamoring for Same Sex Marriage? At what point of history is artificial birth control considered a health issue rather than an issue of “I’m having an adultrous relationship and I don’t want to get caught”?

You think moral relativity is new? It’s in the Bible. “Quid est veritas?” --Pilate.

Of course not. But thanks to the internet, pornography has never been more accessible to all people in all age groups. Thanks to blogs, everyone’s opinion is posted for the world to see and if you have a wrong and immoral belief, its easy to find like minded people, band together, and clamor for changes in your favor.

Please don’t think I’m defending any of these things. I am merely saying that immorality has always been with us and always will be. Inventions don’t create immorality. The internet is the perfect example: it helped to disperse immorality, but it also helped to disperse the Catholic faith. It is a tool that can be used for good or for evil.

No, the world is always changing. The fact that the Church, in order to protect itself from Protestantism, stopped changing was what created the problem. The flood that occurred when the doors were opened caused more harm than good, for now, but things will all come around again. God is still watching over His Church.

I agree that immorailty has existed from day one outside of Eden. The difference today is how empowered people have become thanks to modern technology.

As much good as we can squeeze out of today’s technology, the more that evil is using them. Yes, its odd being an IT professional I would speak out against technology, but the fact is for every Catholic Answers website, how many immoral websites do you have out there? Even seemingly innocent and neutral websites like sports sites propagate immorality one way or another.