Your opinion on Posture for Reception of Communion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mysty101
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I must disagree here with the GIRM, and there is such a thing in the church as following your conscience, and doing what you feel is correct. If kneeling was good for the better part of 19 centuries to receive our Lord, who the heck is it who came up that it is better to stand? Maybe they are out to lunch, and maybe they are really some liberal theologian. We are not Lemmings, and it is not like we are Luther here, we only want tradition and worship restored back to our church.

This entire concept of Communion in the Hand and standing and throwing out the altar rails and kneelers is Protestant. If you read any book on Luther and the reformation, the rewording of the consecration that is used in Mass today is almost identical to what Luther wanted, as well as make it a communal meal, with each person on line waiting for their handout.

We must pray for the full restitution of the Traditional Latin Mass, I am, and many as well that I speak to after our masses, that it is the only thing that can save the church. Once you change the mass and how people worship, you have defeated them. No matter what has ever taken place in history, we always defended the mass, but we allowed it ourselves to be thrown away. Pope Paul himself knew he made a mistake, it was he who said that he let Satan into the sacresty. The only problem today, with the altar rails gone, and with no more distinction and barriers, per Vatican II between the laity and the Priest, I dont think Satan can find where the sacresty is!
Nota Bene:
I take it you have not read the latest version of the GIRM and Redemptoris Sacramentum? That, or you did not understand their contents?
Click to expand...
 
40.png
BulldogCath:
We must pray for the full restitution of the Traditional Latin Mass, I am, and many as well that I speak to after our masses, that it is the only thing that can save the church. Once you change the mass and how people worship, you have defeated them. No matter what has ever taken place in history, we always defended the mass, but we allowed it ourselves to be thrown away. Pope Paul himself knew he made a mistake, it was he who said that he let Satan into the sacresty. The only problem today, with the altar rails gone, and with no more distinction and barriers, per Vatican II between the laity and the Priest, I dont think Satan can find where the sacresty is!
Click to expand...
You may pray for whatever you wish, but just speak for yourself. There are far more Catholics who either agree with their Bishops, or will deffer to their Spiritual leaders, rather than decide what is better for the whole community, and talk about their “rights” As I said, I have no problem with someone kneeling, if there are provisions. What about the “rights” of those who do see the reverence in a beautiful orderly procession, and kneeling in adoration afterward? Do they need be disracted by someone kneeling on the floor, and then trying to get up? If you really think that Jesus prefers kneeling to a spirit of unity and cooperation, go where there are provisions to kneel. Don’t trip up my 88 year old mother. (She would have tripped and fallen over a genuflector, if I didn’t catch her)
 
40.png
BulldogCath:
If kneeling was good for the better part of 19 centuries to receive our Lord, who the heck is it who came up that it is better to stand?
Click to expand...
Bulldog,

While I am on your side, you need to be accurrate when your post. Making up facts to support your position is not very becoming of Catholics.
Since the thirteenth century it was customary here and there to spread a cloth (held by two acolytes) for those communicants kneelings at the altar. Later on, in the sixteenth century this cloth began to be layed over a table or bench which had been placed before the communicants between the nave and the presbyterium. This was found very convenient for and orderly coming and going. Various synods now laid down prescriptions along these lines. However, in place of table or bench, solid rails of wood or stone gradually came into use, but they were calculated for kneeling and hence were made lower-our communion rail, which since the seventeenth century has almost everywhere taken place of the former Screen.
Click to expand...
When the faithful go to Communion we say nowadays: They approach the Lord’s Table. This had never meant the communion rail or any of it’s fore runners, but from the very begining it always meant only the altar table, the mensa Domini at which the Sacrament was confected, and from which it was distributed. Nevertheless, it still remains a splendid task for the church-architect so to arrange and align the structure mentions as to trace the comnnection with the holy table which we actually approach when we kneel at the Communion rail.
Click to expand...
That the Body of the Lord should be received kneeling is a custom which slowly and gradually gained the ascendancy in the West between the eleventh and sixteenth centuries.Prior to that it was the practice, as we have said, to stand while communicating. (The Mass of the Roman Rite, Joseph Jungmann, 1951, Benzinger Brothers, page 375-376 volume II)
Click to expand...
 
40.png
Mysty101:
You’re still reading & responding :bigyikes:
Click to expand...
Really there is nothing more to be said on this subject. You bring up the GIRM, others bring up the letters from the CDW, and people argue over documents and what “norm” means. This has been done and done and done again, nothing more is to be gained from this. I myself prefer kneeling for communion, and do so when there is a rail or a kneeler as I voted option 2, again I restate that the attempt to ban kneeling by the USCCB was just another in a long line of bad liturgical decsions from the USCCB, as others in this thread have poited ou. But that said, all that has needed to be said has been said on this issue, and I hope this thread is locked down before it becomes a full on flame war.
 
Church Militant:
Unless they’re are altar rails and provisions for me to kneel. It matters not to me…He matters most and I kneel humbly in my heart regardless of my posture.
Click to expand...
Amen! 👍
 
Yes, and I do fall on my knees when I return to my pew after a reverent procession to receive Him, as He has requested through the successors of His Apostles.
Mt 16:19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.”
Click to expand...
 
40.png
otm:
Someone in Rome may say that the posture for standing is only allowed if the permission to kneel is still granted, but the fact is that the GIRM is the rule, and it was passed by the bishops and approved by Rome as written. Rome was eminently capable of not approving the GIRM as written, but they did so. They did not require that any permission be granted for kneeling. The presumption is that Rome knows what they are doing when they approve a rule, the stament in the letter notwithstanding. A good analogy is the approval/ diapproval of translations. Rome is eminently capable of withholding approval until they get what they want.
Click to expand...
This is a very good point, which has not been refuted. RS, which is a far more official document than the letters, and was signed by the Pope was and possibly still is under question because of that exact situation. The pouring of the Precious Blood was allowed by the approved GIRM. I believe it is Cannon Law which says it cannot be reprobated without an official change to the GIRM. This does make sense—someone reading the GIRM does not necessarily have access to these documents.
 
Defensor

You are correct and I have taken note, I sometimes say the 19 centuries because it seems that the lack of reverence started at that same time, that in this country, all morals went down the drain, and abortion was legalized, etc which was of course the 60’s and 70’s, which were probably one of if not the worst time for our church, other than possibly now or the Arayan heresy.

I will be honest, I go to church to worship our Lord and the sacrifice he made for me, and if kneeling was good enough from the 13th century (correction noted) till the 20th, then I trust the saints of yesteryear before I trust these liberal modernists who have taken over. If they want to throw me out, I will go to the nearest St Pius X chapel, I really dont worry about the person next to me (sign of peace, another dumb thing) or the laity, I am there to worship God, to show my respect and not receive him like some beggar on a food line standing with my hands outstretched. I go to confession (note the word confession, and do confess my sins as per the examination of conscience), and to atone for my sins, which are many so that I, as well as my family, can have our souls saved, be out of mortal sin, and get to heaven when I am called back. GIRM or no GIRM.

thank you as I learned something
Defensor Fidei:
Bulldog,

While I am on your side, you need to be accurrate when your post. Making up facts to support your position is not very becoming of Catholics.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
otm:
There may be a hierarchy of authority, but there is also a heirarchy of law, and that is, where a law has been passed by a lower authority, a higher authority cannot simply overrule it by a letter. There is a process that must be gone through, or laws become meaningless. When the authority has been granted to a lweere authority by a greater to pass a law, then that law stands, for most purposes.

The comment in a letter by one individual in a dicastery in Rome as to the obedience or disobedience of a particualr act is just his opinion when it flies in the face of a particular law. It is somewhat the equivalent of asking a judge a question of law. If he is not in court hearing a case in which that particular law is addressed, anything he says about that law is only his personal opinion. When he is trying the case, then his statement is no longer a personal opinion, but a ruling. Rome did not make a ruling on the issue, and the law stands that the norm in the United States as to posture for receiving Communion is standing.

Someone in Rome may say that the posture for standing is only allowed if the permission to kneel is still granted, but the fact is that the GIRM is the rule, and it was passed by the bishops and approved by Rome as written. Rome was eminently capable of not approving the GIRM as written, but they did so. They did not require that any permission be granted for kneeling. The presumption is that Rome knows what they are doing when they approve a rule, the stament in the letter notwithstanding. A good analogy is the approval/ diapproval of translations. Rome is eminently capable of withholding approval until they get what they want.
Click to expand...
Prot. n. 47/03/L Rome, February 26, 2003
Code: 
  This Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has received your letter dated December 1, 2002, related to the application of the norms approved by the Conference of Bishops of the United States of America, with the subsequent *recognitio* of this   Congregation, as regards the question of the posture for receiving   Holy Communion.

  As the authority by virtue of   whose *recognitio* the norm in question has attained the force of law, this Dicastery is competent to specify the manner in which the norm is to be understood for the sake of a proper application. Having received more than a few letters regarding this matter from different locations in the United States of America, the Congregation wishes to ensure that its position on the matter is clear.

  To this end, it is perhaps useful to respond to your inquiry by repeating the content of a letter that the Congregation recently addressed to a Bishop in the United States of America from whose Diocese a number of pertinent letters had been received. The letter states: "...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".

  This Dicastery hopes that the citation given here will provide an adequate answer to your letter. At the same time, please be assured that the Congregation remains ready to be of assistance if you should need to contact it again.

  With every prayerful good wish,   I am

 Sincerely yours in Christ,
[signed]
Mons. Mario Marini 
Undersecretary
Those in this dicastery seem to be the authentic interpreter of the liturical law. Are you arguing this authority is wrong or has no standing? Rome can correct him if he was not speaking for the Pope. It is not being overruled by a letter,but clarified by the legitimate authority. If the Vatican can not be trusted, why should we trust the US bishops? Whose in charge? The GIRM must have an interpreter?

BTW, you argue that Rome may say one may not be refused communion if they kneel, but that same authority is not charged with interpreting the norms for receiving communion?
 
THE HIPOCRITICAL STATEMENT OF THE CENTURY COMING FROM MY OWN CHURCH-

REFUSE COMMUNION FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT TO KNEEL TO RECEIVE OUR LORD TO SHOW OUR LOVE AND RESPECT AND REVERENCE AS THIS IS AGAINST THE SO CALLED “GIRM” THAT MAKES NO SENSE---------BUT ALLOW COMMUNION TO LIBERAL CATHOLICS WHO PROMOTE ABORTION AND OTHER EVILS, CAMPAIGN FOR IT, AND HAVE NOT SEEN THE INSIDE OF A CHURCH OR CONFESSIONAL FOR PROBABLY 10 YEARS
BUT AS LONG AS THEY ARE STANDING—GIVE IT TO THEM!

AND YOU WONDER WHY PEOPLE DONT BELIEVE IN VATICAN II, AND ALL THAT HAS COME FROM IT???/
40.png
Mysty101:
This is a very good point, which has not been refuted. RS, which is a far more official document than the letters, and was signed by the Pope was and possibly still is under question because of that exact situation. The pouring of the Precious Blood was allowed by the approved GIRM. I believe it is Cannon Law which says it cannot be reprobated without an official change to the GIRM. This does make sense—someone reading the GIRM does not necessarily have access to these documents.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
otm:
A profound bow is from the waist, as opposed to a bow of the head. How far one bows from the waist (how far forward) is not indiciated, but the bow should be eonought that an observer would be able to note that you bowed from the waist, not bobed froward a bit.

As always, common sense applies.
Click to expand...
:rotfl: Yes, I am familiar with bowing; I used to be an alter boy :bigyikes: er um… I should say altar server… I suppose I should have worded that like this; what makes a profound bow different from a regular one and will anyone know the difference? Actually, I was making an attempt at humor… Well, there goes a career as a catholic humorist straight to the depths of hell. :crying: I guess I’ll stick with accounting.
 
BulldogCath said:
THE HIPOCRITICAL STATEMENT OF THE CENTURY COMING FROM MY OWN CHURCH-

REFUSE COMMUNION FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT TO KNEEL TO RECEIVE OUR LORD TO SHOW OUR LOVE AND RESPECT AND REVERENCE AS THIS IS AGAINST THE SO CALLED “GIRM” THAT MAKES NO SENSE
Click to expand...

Where did you see this statement from the church? Or did you just make this up?

BTW - Your CapLock is on.
 
40.png
fix:
BTW, you argue that Rome may say one may not be refused communion if they kneel, but that same authority is not charged with interpreting the norms for receiving communion?
Click to expand...
What I am saying is that the quotes above in the first place address the issue of punishment, which was not addressed originally by the GIRM, and which occured in some parishes in several diocese. The punishment was addressed by Rome as not permitted, and the GIRM now reflects that change.

There is a failure of logic to say that the norm is standing and then attempt to say in the same breath that the specific comment in the GIRM that one kneeling is not to be refused Communion but is to be counseled means that standing is no longer the norm. If they are to be counseled, that phrase must have meaning. Those who are saying that Rome granted them a right to kneel simply ignore that part of the GIRM.

Furthermore, the GIRM has the status of law, the letter doesn’t. If a letter conflicts with the plain meaning of the law, the law prevails. If the law did not prevail, then the law would not be a law; it would have no meaning.

There is a difference between a law, and the punishment allowed for violating that law.
 
40.png
otm:
What I am saying is that the quotes above in the first place address the issue of punishment, which was not addressed originally by the GIRM, and which occured in some parishes in several diocese. The punishment was addressed by Rome as not permitted, and the GIRM now reflects that change.

There is a failure of logic to say that the norm is standing and then attempt to say in the same breath that the specific comment in the GIRM that one kneeling is not to be refused Communion but is to be counseled means that standing is no longer the norm. If they are to be counseled, that phrase must have meaning. Those who are saying that Rome granted them a right to kneel simply ignore that part of the GIRM.

Furthermore, the GIRM has the status of law, the letter doesn’t. If a letter conflicts with the plain meaning of the law, the law prevails. If the law did not prevail, then the law would not be a law; it would have no meaning.

There is a difference between a law, and the punishment allowed for violating that law.
Click to expand...
Does the law not need an interpreter? Is that dicastery not in charge of interpreting it? You make the Vatican’s response a mere letter without giving it the authority it requires. The law is at the service of the truth. The truth is the Vatican has jurisdication and can easily interpret the liturgical norms as necessary.

If you read the entire letter how can you explain away the sentence stating the norms were allowed only with the understanding kneeling would still be permissible for those that chose to kneel? There is even debate about what the word “norm” really intends. That is why we look to the Vatican for clarification.
 
It just means the pastor has to be patient with those who have no idea what Norms are, nor respect for authority. Unlike a recalient child, he can’t refuse their little temper tantrum, but can explain to them nicely (later) why they are NOT suppose to do it if the Diocese has said NOT to.

Personally, I would pop em up along side the head to get their attention. 😃
 
I do realize that I was not as clear as I would have preferred in the options on this poll. I will redo it, and see if we can be at least clear in our discussion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top