Why Kneel for Communion

[ConstantineTG]

Not insensitive in the least. This discussion concerns the Latin Rite, per the OP.

Of course its insensitive. If we’re discussing about Americans, should we make statements that would put Africans or Indians or Chinese in a negative light? Can you say “having dark skin is ugly” without coming off as racist? Will you say, “on no, I’m only talking about Caucasians”.

Let me go over to Eastern and proceed to tell them what I think they should do and see how long it lasts. If I did THAT it would be insensitive.

Nothing I said was uncharitable. I don’t care what they do because I’m not them and I don’t know enough about them to discuss their traditions. It’s none of my business. Besides, the only time I asked a question over there, it was only after the 8 - 9th reply I got an answer. I thanked the person who answered and left.

What’s insensitive is the derailing of specific Latin Rite topics.

Pax tecum

See, not caring about what people do because you’re not a part of what they do is insensitive. Thats why the world is in such a mess today. We can’t respect what other people do because they’re different, because they are in another part of the world, because we don’t care. Thats not a Catholic attitude.

 

[SunnaB16]

They weren’t turfed out. The Coptics and Chaldeans have preserved CITH and have used them from the beginning until today.

Along with a number of others on this thread, i`m not concerned with what the Copts and Chaldeans, or any other Eastern Rites have done! Our only concern is with the Roman Rite. Bringing in the others is a red herring.

The statement about ancient customs being turfed out was meant to cover more than just the way of receiving Communion; but keeping with that for a moment: Communion under both Species was stopped because some of Hus`s followers claimed that to receive our Lord totally, it was*** ESSENTIAL ***to receive Him under both Species. Since the reintroduction of that practice, some Catholics have fallen for the same belief… er heresy.
The Church has grown in wisdom over the centuries.

Another example:
“The Ancient Church” didnt celebrate Mass on altars, but on tables. Of course She didnt! How could She have “fancy churches” while under persecution? Same with statues, vestments etc. etc. etc.

Lately, there has been a lot of very dishonest appealing to what was done by “The Ancient Church”.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Along with a number of others on this thread, i`m not concerned with what the Copts and Chaldeans, or any other Eastern Rites have done! Our only concern is with the Roman Rite. Bringing in the others is a red herring.

It is not. You want to disregard something thats legitimately a part of our Church. The Rites are not separate. We are ONE Church. You can’t look at each part of the Church in isolation and say one practice is bad in one part and good in another. Since the Coptics and Chaldeans are Catholics, it very much reflects our entire faith.

If you don’t want to argue about another Rite, how about Franciscans receiving CITH in the last 1200 years in the Roman Church?

The statement about ancient customs being turfed out was meant to cover more than just the way of receiving Communion; but keeping with that for a moment: Communion under both Species was stopped because some of Hus`s followers claimed that to receive our Lord totally, it was*** ESSENTIAL ***to receive Him under both Species. Since the reintroduction of that practice, some Catholics have fallen for the same belief… er heresy.
The Church has grown in wisdom over the centuries.

But saying one practice or another (receiving both or just one Sacred Species) is good or bad not the proper way to say the appropriateness or acceptability of a practice within a Rite.

Another example:
“The Ancient Church” didnt celebrate Mass on altars, but on tables. Of course She didnt! How could She have “fancy churches” while under persecution? Same with statues, vestments etc. etc. etc.

Lately, there has been a lot of very dishonest appealing to what was done by “The Ancient Church”.

There’s a lot of dishonest appealing everywhere.

 

[At_Trent]

** In an ideal sense, there should be an American Church, Chinese Church, Japanese Church, etc., each incorporating traditions of each culture into worship, the same way the Apostles did it in the First Century.**

Yes, but we are discussing the RC norm

But his statement is not fair.

I can’t judge the Eastern Churches. I accept them, but must focus on my own. I’m still learning about Her.

What’s insensitive is the derailing of specific Latin Rite topics.

Pax tecum

Of course its insensitive. … Thats not a Catholic attitude.

 

[At_Trent]

If you don’t want to argue about another Rite, how about Franciscans receiving CITH in the last 1200 years in the Roman Church?

There’s a lot of dishonest appealing everywhere.

Franciscans (Friars Minor, commonly known as the Grey Friars), founded 1209
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendicant_orders

1209 + 1200 = 2409 2409-2010=399

:clapping:

Did anyone mention the greatest pope in history who granted Mendicant orders the right to preserve their Rites and rubrics ? The New Order nor the Gregorian Rite as codified by Pope St Pius V has ever had CITH introduced by Rome.

It’s a novelty introduced on a whim with no discussion, discernment, or approval by Rome. A total about face from the way things are done regarding the liturgy and rubrics.

Archbishop Schneider blows every argument and myth offered by supporters of it out of the water. What is tolerated per reluctant indult doesn’t resemble past liturgical form and development one iota.

To deem otherwise is denial pure and simple. Dishonesty plagues the internet indeed.

Dominus est friend.

.

 

[Veronica7978]

I was going to vote that we all recline at table, receive in the hand, and pass it along, just the original communicants did at the last supper. Talk about original! Seems silly though, huh?

I thought of this too. I’m sure Jesus didn’t correct their posture.

 

[At_Trent]

Franciscans (Friars Minor, commonly known as the Grey Friars), founded 1209
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendicant_orders

1209 + 1200 = 2409 2409-2010=399

:clapping:

Did anyone mention the greatest pope in history who granted Mendicant orders the right to preserve their Rites and rubrics ? The New Order nor the Gregorian Rite as codified by Pope St Pius V has ever had CITH introduced by Rome.

It’s a novelty introduced on a whim with no discussion, discernment, or approval by Rome. A total about face from the way things are done regarding the liturgy and rubrics.

Archbishop Schneider blows every argument and myth offered by supporters of it out of the water. What is tolerated per reluctant indult doesn’t resemble past liturgical form and development one iota.

To deem otherwise is denial pure and simple. Dishonesty plagues the internet indeed.

Dominus est friend.

.

Typo, the bolded word ever should read Never.

 

[SunnaB16]

It is not. You want to disregard something thats legitimately a part of our Church. The Rites are not separate. We are ONE Church. You can’t look at each part of the Church in isolation and say one practice is bad in one part and good in another.

The fact remains that for the great majority of the Roman Rite laity, up until the 1970s it had been COTT and kneeling for centuries.
im not attacking the other Rites! And, as stated twice already, i wouldnt favour (decided that “advocate” sounds too pompous) banning outright CITH and standing. How can you be fairer than that?

In this country at least, a number of bishops and priests have tried to suppress COTT; to say nothing of kneeling! Intimidation has been used. i experienced it, regarding COTT…went to a more agreeable Novus Ordo church.

Since the Coptics and Chaldeans are Catholics, it very much reflects our entire faith

Very true. Ditto for us Latin Rite fans of the TLM. So, it works both ways. Yes? No?
.

If you don’t want to argue about another Rite, how about Franciscans receiving CITH in the last 1200 years in the Roman Church?

Franciscans are Franciscans…most of us are not. That`s splitting hairs.

But saying one practice or another (receiving both or just one Sacred Species) is good or bad not the proper way to say the appropriateness or acceptability of a practice within a Rite.

Restricting Holy Communion for the laity to just the Host was an attempt to prevent the spread of yet another heresy. The Church had the best of reasons for doing it.

PS
Veronica:
The Apostles had just been consecrated bishops.
We`re not bishops.
Also, them days were early days.

 

[roadsend]

I thought of this too. I’m sure Jesus didn’t correct their posture.

How do you know what posture the Apostles actually assumed at the last supper?
How do you know how they received Communion?
Hoe do you know whether or not Jesus corrected them in any of these things?

 

[Veronica7978]

How do you know what posture the Apostles actually assumed at the last supper?
How do you know how they received Communion?
Hoe do you know whether or not Jesus corrected them in any of these things?

Because I know Jesus.

 

[roadsend]

Because I know Jesus.

So do I, but I wasn’t there at the Last Supper and I would not presume to speculate on the intricate details of what happened about which even the saints and the experts cannot agree.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

This conversation is all over the place. Please answer the OP and stay on that topic.

Thomas Casey
Moderator

 

[MikeDunphy]

More on #3 at usccb.org/liturgy/innews/072002.shtml (shortened due to CAF word restrictions):

**Posture…

Happily, that statement in the July, 2002 USCCB Newsletter was followed by this correction from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments in February 2003:

“… while this Congregation gave the recognitio to the norm desired by the Bishops’ Conference of your country that people stand for Holy Communion, this was done on the condition that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds. Indeed, the faithful should not be imposed upon nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly when they kneel to receive Holy Communion”

 

[ProVobis]

Happily, that statement in the July, 2002 USCCB Newsletter was followed by this correction from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments in February 2003:

Mike, thanks for this. But I wonder if communion rails or kneelers are addressed in any of the documents regarding kneeling for communion. Although I favor kneeling only, I do admit it would be hard to comply with a request to receive kneeling in the congested receiving area where two or more lines converge and most people stand or move forward or step to the side, etc., without causing some disruption. Just trying to be realistic here. I receive standing in the OF myself, but only because I don’t want to draw attention to myself.

 

[rosary_kat]

:newidea:
I’d just like to make one aside here. I do realize that this entire discussion is regarding instructions for the “general” clergy/congregation, so let me say that first.
:tiphat:
However, please remember that not all congregants can kneel anywhere and not all clergy can bend down to the kneeling parishioner. Some physical limitations should be kept in mind.

Just because you can kneel, doesn’t mean the priest is capable of leaning over that far.

Be aware of your clergy and be kind to all. It’s always a good idea to speak with your priest and let him know your wishes, he will certainly let you know how to proceed.
:heaven:

 

[Robert_Burns]

I briefly remember kneeling at the Communion rail, I’m 50 and by the time I received my first Eucharist the kneeler was yanked from the area before the altar and sent to areas unknown.

I’m a revert to the Church - perhaps that tells the story of the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s right there.

I’d like to kneel to receive Jesus in the Eucharist. It’s fitting, I think.

To follow Moses, the Magi, and the angels who also kneeled before God.

Precisely , Why not kneel.

 

[MikeDunphy]

Mike, thanks for this. But I wonder if communion rails or kneelers are addressed in any of the documents regarding kneeling for communion. Although I favor kneeling only, I do admit it would be hard to comply with a request to receive kneeling in the congested receiving area where two or more lines converge and most people stand or move forward or step to the side, etc., without causing some disruption. Just trying to be realistic here. I receive standing in the OF myself, but only because I don’t want to draw attention to myself.

FWIW, Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University wrote “no document explicitly mandates or even suggests that the removal of altar rails is required by the liturgical reform”. (Fr. McNamara is not a traditionalist).

I have not observed anything more than a trivial, momentary slowing of movement when people kneel to receive. Surely, even in Churches that have converging Communion lines, some arrangement could be made to accommodate kneeling recipients in at least one line. A church lacking an altar rail might make a portable kneeler available, for example, which would not only make it easier to kneel, but would also alert people to possibility that someone might decide to kneel.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Franciscans (Friars Minor, commonly known as the Grey Friars), founded 1209
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendicant_orders

1209 + 1200 = 2409 2409-2010=399

:clapping:

LOL
I knew I got confused somewhere. Yes, they were founded in 1200, not existing for 1200 years. I’m only human

 

[JReducation]

Actually, the Franciscan family has no exact date of foundation, since we do not know exactly when the first brothers joined Francis. We were approved by Pope Innocent III in 1209.

That being said, the practices of many Franciscan provinces and custodies do not apply here, for a number of reasons.

1. 
   *]In the 13th century rubrics were not as specific as they became with Pope Pius V.
   
   *]The Friars did not run parishes. All masses were in the friars’ chapels and oratories. When they attended mass at a local parish they followed the local rubrics.
   
   *]The Friars were not founded as a religious order of priests, as were their contemporaries, the Dominicans. They were founded as a brotherhood of lay brothers, with a few priests who entered desirous of being brothers. Therefore, the focus in their liturgy was to adore God, while preserving the equality between them.
   
   *]The Order always made a great effort to avoid clericalism among the friars.
   
   *]The conventual practices of the friars were not then and are not now the practices in parishes run by any of the branches of the Order. The friars endeavor to follow the local bishop in those chapels, churches and oratories that fall under the jurisdiction of the Diocesan Ordinary.
   
   *]A distinction has to be made between what is proper to a religious house and what is proper to a parish. The ancient religious orders, among them the five Franciscan Orders, are exempt from many of these rules, because of antiquity. There has always been a provision in Canon Law that if something is an old and established custom, it remains law unless it is explicitly abrogated by the Holy See or the Law.
   
   *]There was never a prohibition forbidding Communion on the tongue. In many provinces, the friars do receive on the tongue, because this was the custom that they brought from home when they entered the order.
   
   All that being said, it is true that reception of Communion in the hand is not a sin. It would never have been admitted by the founder, had he believed that it was a sin. The ancient custom was to genuflect before receiving Communion.
   
   If you want to see the ancient custom and how our chapels were built, look at the chapel on EWTN. There is not communion rail. There are no kneelers in the choir, which is where the friars hear mass. There is a deep reverence for the Eucharist when the friars go to receive Holy Communion. That chapel is built differently from a public church, because it’s was not built to be a public church. It was the monastery chapel of the Poor Clares.
   
   At the shrine, the construction is different, becaues the shrine was deliberately built for the public. They have kneelers and a communion rail. However, the gate is always open. That’s a very typical Franciscan custom. I’m not sure why. It’s one of those things that everyone does and have done for so long that no one remembers why.
   
   Fraternally,
   
   Br. JR, OSF

 

[doughnut]

i was taught to stand and receive, and with the exception of one in a hundred, most people stand to receive in our parish. as i don’t feel a particular inclination to kneel, i remain standing, and offered a solemn bow just before my turn. if i’d had kneel, i reckon i would be clumsy in my action, and caused more issues and less respectful than i would if i offered a firm bow.