Wrong to kneel?

[Vittorio23]

I went to Mass today in a different diocese than my own. At Mass, the people knelt after the Sanctus. After the Agnus Dei, they did not. Being accustomed to kneeling here (and believing it proper to do anyways), I knelt down despite being the only one to do so. Should I have stood in conformity with the rest of the people? Or was it okay for me to kneel anyways (I could hardly consider the idea of standing when Our Lord is present, especially when kneeling seems to be a perfectly accessible option)?

Second question…

There were three priests celebrating this Mass (and one religious brother as well). When it came time to Holy Communion, two of the priests distributed Holy Communion, while the brother and other priest remained seated. Then two lay-persons went up to distribute Holy Communion, the Most Precious Blood of Christ. Why shouldn’t the third priest have been distributing the Blood of Christ, instead of a lay person?

As such, I try (if it is possible) to receive Holy Communion from a priest over an EMHC. In this case, I received the Body of Christ, but decided to bow to the Blood of Christ rather than receiving under that species as well. The reason being that the priest could have been distributing Holy Communion, but instead was merely sitting. Now I am thinking that I should have received and that my not doing so was for the wrong reasons. Any thoughts?

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I went to Mass today in a different diocese than my own. At Mass, the people knelt after the Sanctus. After the Agnus Dei, they did not. Being accustomed to kneeling here (and believing it proper to do anyways), I knelt down despite being the only one to do so. Should I have stood in conformity with the rest of the people? Or was it okay for me to kneel anyways (I could hardly consider the idea of standing when Our Lord is present, especially when kneeling seems to be a perfectly accessible option)?

Second question…

There were three priests celebrating this Mass (and one religious brother as well). When it came time to Holy Communion, two of the priests distributed Holy Communion, while the brother and other priest remained seated. Then two lay-persons went up to distribute Holy Communion, the Most Precious Blood of Christ. Why shouldn’t the third priest have been distributing the Blood of Christ, instead of a lay person?

As such, I try (if it is possible) to receive Holy Communion from a priest over an EMHC. In this case, I received the Body of Christ, but decided to bow to the Blood of Christ rather than receiving under that species as well. The reason being that the priest could have been distributing Holy Communion, but instead was merely sitting. Now I am thinking that I should have received and that my not doing so was for the wrong reasons. Any thoughts?

I believe that you should have followed the regular members after the Lamb of God and remained standing. I do this when visiting other diocese. I would not say that it is wrong to kneel, but this is something that the local Bishop can determine for his diocese.

There sould have been no need for EMHC with the other priest and Religious available. That was incorrect use of EMHC’s.

 

[John_Lilburne]

I went to Mass today in a different diocese than my own. At Mass, the people knelt after the Sanctus. After the Agnus Dei, they did not. Being accustomed to kneeling here (and believing it proper to do anyways), I knelt down despite being the only one to do so. Should I have stood in conformity with the rest of the people? Or was it okay for me to kneel anyways (I could hardly consider the idea of standing when Our Lord is present, especially when kneeling seems to be a perfectly accessible option)?.."

I think you should have remained standing, at least in the USA.

From the 2002 General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) approved for the USA, which can be accessed from romanrite.com/girm.html :

“43. … In the dioceses of the United States of America, …
The faithful kneel after the Agnus Dei unless the Diocesan Bishop determines otherwise.”

I am relieved that in the GIRM for Australia they decided people should kneel, rather than leaving it the the individual bishop. It avoids the confusion described, of people not knowing what the Diocesan Bishop has determined.

 

[MusicMan]

I have struggled with the kneel question. The last time I went to Mass while visiting my in-laws, the church had just switched to standing after the Agnus Dei. I didn’t know this. When I knelt down (like I’m used to doing), some guy rapped me on the shoulder and said, “Hey, buddy, we stand in this diocese.” I didn’t respond, but I stayed kneeling.

I haven’t been back to this church since. I solved the Sunday Obligation issue by finding a nice little Byzantine Church that lets me hide in the back and finds my “Latin-Riter” mistakes amusing.

My feeling on the topic is that because I am both a territorial member and registered member of the **** Diocese, and I am subject to the authority of that Bishop. We kneel in my diocese, therefore, I kneel after the Agnus Dei.

As for who you receive from, there was no need for lay people to serve as emHC at that Mass, however, who you receive the Eucharist from should never be a determiner of whether or not you receive it.

 

[otjm]

I have struggled with the kneel question. The last time I went to Mass while visiting my in-laws, the church had just switched to standing after the Agnus Dei. I didn’t know this. When I knelt down (like I’m used to doing), some guy rapped me on the shoulder and said, “Hey, buddy, we stand in this diocese.” I didn’t respond, but I stayed kneeling.

I haven’t been back to this church since. I solved the Sunday Obligation issue by finding a nice little Byzantine Church that lets me hide in the back and finds my “Latin-Riter” mistakes amusing.

My feeling on the topic is that because I am both a territorial member and registered member of the **** Diocese, and I am subject to the authority of that Bishop. We kneel in my diocese, therefore, I kneel after the Agnus Dei.

As for who you receive from, there was no need for lay people to serve as emHC at that Mass, however, who you receive the Eucharist from should never be a determiner of whether or not you receive it.

There is, however, a very old phrase - when in Rome, do what the Romans do… in being in another diocese, since the bishop of that diocese has jurisdiction over it, one should do what the bishop requires when the bishop has the authority to determine (I won’t go down that other path here). since a priest, going to another diocese is thereby required to submit to the authority of the bishop of that diocese even though the priest belongs to a different one, there is no logical reason that visitors are not likewise so required.

 

[MusicMan]

There has been, however, discussion over when travelling, which Holy Days and fasting regulations does one follow? In the US, Catholics are allowed to eat meat on Fridays, but there are some countries where they are not. In that country, what does one do on Fridays. I believe the thread on CAF that dealt with this came to the conclusion that you followed the law of your home diocese.

When attending the Liturgy in a Rite other than one’s own, Catholics are also required to observe the fasting regulations for their own Rite. Thus, if a Latin Riter attends the Liturgy in another Rite, he only need fast for one hour before Communion, regardless of what the rules in that Rite are.

However, you make an excellent point that when a priest is in another diocese, he submits to the authority of that Bishop, not his own.

I dunno. I solved the problem for me by going to a different Rite when I visit the in-laws. To the best of my knowledge, that is probably the only diocese I will visit where standing is the norm.

 

[otjm]

I went to Mass today in a different diocese than my own. At Mass, the people knelt after the Sanctus. After the Agnus Dei, they did not. Being accustomed to kneeling here (and believing it proper to do anyways), I knelt down despite being the only one to do so. Should I have stood in conformity with the rest of the people? Or was it okay for me to kneel anyways (I could hardly consider the idea of standing when Our Lord is present, especially when kneeling seems to be a perfectly accessible option)?

When you are in a different diocese, you are under the jurisdiction at least to some extent, of that bishop. If it is an issue which you are not sure about, doing the same as the other parishoners avoids being a distraction to them. The Mass is not a time to be a distraction to others.

It may not have been a brother, unless he was serving the Mass; he may have been a deacon. Your comments are not clear on the point, but brothers don’t celebrate Mass. Whatever. All things being equal, yes, the third person celebrating the Mass should have distributed Communion; however, it is not always wise to make judgements; there may have been a valid reason they didn’t.

As such, I try (if it is possible) to receive Holy Communion from a priest over an EMHC. In this case, I received the Body of Christ, but decided to bow to the Blood of Christ rather than receiving under that species as well. The reason being that the priest could

have been distributing Holy Communion, but instead was merely sitting. Now I am thinking that I should have received and that my not doing so was for the wrong reasons. Any thoughts?One receives because it is Christ; who is distributing it is of extrmem minimal importance compared to Who is received. While perhaps not as egregious as those who at a TLM will not receive any Hosts if they were consecrated at a NO Mass, the focus needs to be on Who we receive.

Just for giggles, imagine the following scenario: you refuse to receive from someone who is obviously not the priest (note: I am not getting into whether it is the Host or the Cup; I am well aware that one is not required to receive from both). As you pass by, you have the experience that the disciples on the road to Emmaeus had - they were in the presence of Christ but did not recognize Him. How would you feel, after passing by, if you suddenly realized it was Christ distributing, and you chose not to go to that line? Just curious…

[/QUOTE]

 

[otjm]

There has been, however, discussion over when travelling, which Holy Days and fasting regulations does one follow? In the US, Catholics are allowed to eat meat on Fridays, but there are some countries where they are not. In that country, what does one do on Fridays. I believe the thread on CAF that dealt with this came to the conclusion that you followed the law of your home diocese.

What I would do, if I was aware that the rule where I was visiting was more restrictive, would be to follow the rule; scandal is a very minor issue here, but I would be cognizant of the rule out of respect to those who were under it. That’s my take, fwiw.

To the best of my knowledge, that is probably the only diocese I will visit where standing is the norm.

Well, if you come out to Oregon, at least in western Oregon we stand. You are certainly welcome to visit; the area is beautiful!

 

[Vittorio23]

When you are in a different diocese, you are under the jurisdiction at least to some extent, of that bishop. If it is an issue which you are not sure about, doing the same as the other parishoners avoids being a distraction to them. The Mass is not a time to be a distraction to others.

That makes sense. I just wasn’t sure. The last time I had been to this particular church (it was at our local Grotto), a group of our parish had come and our priest celebrated Mass (along with another priest from the Grotto). Our entire parish still knelt, as we do normally. I wasn’t sure what to do when I wasn’t with a group.

It may not have been a brother, unless he was serving the Mass; he may have been a deacon. Your comments are not clear on the point, but brothers don’t celebrate Mass. Whatever. All things being equal, yes, the third person celebrating the Mass should have distributed Communion; however, it is not always wise to make judgements; there may have been a valid reason they didn’t.

There were three priest celebrating. The fourth person I am thinking was either a deacon or a religious brother, but I am almost sure he was a brother-- I saw him more closely after Mass, and he wore a black habit with a rosary hanging from his side.

One receives because it is Christ; who is distributing it is of extrmem minimal importance compared to Who is received. While perhaps not as egregious as those who at a TLM will not receive any Hosts if they were consecrated at a NO Mass, the focus needs to be on Who we receive.

Just for giggles, imagine the following scenario: you refuse to receive from someone who is obviously not the priest (note: I am not getting into whether it is the Host or the Cup; I am well aware that one is not required to receive from both). As you pass by, you have the experience that the disciples on the road to Emmaeus had - they were in the presence of Christ but did not recognize Him. How would you feel, after passing by, if you suddenly realized it was Christ distributing, and you chose not to go to that line? Just curious…

Yeah… pretty much exactly what was going through my mind after I decided not to.

 

[MusicMan]

I think my biggest hang-up was how rude that parishoner was to me about kneeling. I grew up kneeling and have resided in three different diocese where kneeling is the norm.

If I ever visit western Oregon (which would be a nice vacation someday), I will certainly stand out of respect for the law and those following it.

 

[2livfree]

I personally don’t believe it was wrong to kneel. It should not cause a distraction. I kneel during the Lord’s Prayer, to receive Communion, and cover my head. If that is a big distraction for other members of my church they have never mentioned it.
As for the third priest I’m from Florida and we have so many priests that literally could not stand to offer communion for that amount of time (fractured hips, arthritis, and the fact that they were supposed to retire ten years ago are among the top reasons).

 

[Ad_Deum]

Whatever the proper rubrics of the Mass state it must be done…
About the priests not giving communion when there are many of them sitting, and let the lay non-ministers I mean lay ministers to distribute the host, well they are committing a violation to the NOM rubrics. Isn’t lay ministers are used when there are gazillion communicants and only one priest. For me I prefer the priests and deacons to give Holy Communion no matter how long it takes, than to lay ministers who are not ordained to give it.

Pax

Instaurare omnia in Christo

 

[Brendan]

Just for giggles, imagine the following scenario: you refuse to receive from someone who is obviously not the priest (note: I am not getting into whether it is the Host or the Cup; I am well aware that one is not required to receive from both). As you pass by, you have the experience that the disciples on the road to Emmaeus had - they were in the presence of Christ but did not recognize Him. How would you feel, after passing by, if you suddenly realized it was Christ distributing, and you chose not to go to that line? Just curious…

That is precisely why I will only recieve from a priest if at all possible; because I KNOW he is Christ. The priest celebrates Mass in persona Christi, he IS Christ.

You picked an interesting analogy there, because Emmaeus describes exactly the function of the priest at Mass. While we don’t recognize the risen Christ as in the person presiding over the instruction of the Word ( “he words were burning in our hearts”), the disciples recognized Him fully in the breaking of the bread. We are called to do the same with the priest when he too provides us with Bread from Heaven.

Which is exactly why I will recieve the Eucharist from a priest and (mostly) a priest alone. A lay person MAY be an Emmaeus\Christ, the priest, without a doubt, IS one.

 

[Brendan]

And back to the OP.

Rome has given authority to the local bishop to make the determination on if to stand or kneel after the Agnus Dei. We should respect Rome in this matter.

I was in a similar situation last Sunday. I attended Mass in a diocese that was not my own. I knew (from posts here), that the bishop of that diocese had mandated the standing position. Fine, I obeyed, not an issue.

One thing though, it helps to check things out in advance to see if the bishop has, in fact, mandated that position. There are more than a few parishes in the US that remain standing when the bishop had mandated another position ( I encountered that in a different diocese). One is obligated to kneel under those circumstances.