Your opinion on Posture for Reception of Communion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mysty101
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
TNT:
I tried on multiple threads to get someone, anyone, even a priest to give clearly those reasons…dead silence.
Only one gave a proposed answer, indirectly from the document of VATII:
Click to expand...
I have answered yiu many times regarding some of the practicle reasons
Mainly the organized solemnity of the whole liturgy in general—many people have difficulty kneeling, but try to do it anyway, and disrupt the procession, especially in a large congregation. An orderly procession is far more reverent than people up & down. It was also changed to foster unity in the Mass-- everyone who kneels can stand, but not everyone who stands can kneel.
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
Actually, I believe that is a prohibition against “self” communication.
Click to expand...
Correct–which why self-intinction is also wrong.

We’ve been over the difference between take & receive—you cannot take Communion (either the Body or the Blood) yourself, but you may receive the Host either in the hand or on the tongue
 
PS
40.png
TNT:
In Short: Ecumenism
Ecumenism: The tearing apart of the INSIDE to gain acceptance from the OUTSIDE. (TNT)
Click to expand...
If this were true of the standing norm, why is Communion on the tongue permitted? Wouldn’t we look more to close the gap between us and the orthodox Catholics by also remaining kneeling?
 
40.png
serendipity:
no matter how old I get this fear is still with me, that I will drop the host somehow, so I feel best receiving communion in the hand from the priest, standing.
Click to expand...
The practical reasons are very valid—some who try to kneel, but really are not quite physically able should realize this.
 
40.png
JakeW:
We have a communion rail, padded kneelers, and we kneel. Period done end of story.

Quite frankly the whole standing is the “norm” business is ONLY about not spending the money to put back the communion rails that they ripped up on the 70’s.

**EXACTLY. **

And nobody here seems to care why???
Click to expand...
I infer from this that the Church’s formal instruction can be ignored whenever we suspect its intentions are inappropriate. And moreover, until we get an answer regarding “the reasons for this norm,” we can assume the Holy Spirit is not speaking to us on this matter.
Peace.
John
 
40.png
otm:
It is my understanding that the posture in the United States is standing. So the question of no provision is answered by the fact that there is a provision.
Click to expand...
There are posters here outside the US and outside the Latin rite.
 
I can’t really answer this poll because at my Novus Ordo parish we have been instructed to not kneel for Communion. When I go to the Indult, however, I kneel , and I far prefer it.
 
Sunday is a Resurrection Day - I stand and my preference is to stand throughout the Service sitting only for the Liturgy of the Word and the Homily.

Kneeling is penitential and therefore not appropriate on such a joyous occasion .

During the week I kneel whenever possible - given a degree of Arthritis.

Before I am shouted down - I attend an RC Parish BUT in my own practice I am EC
 
This response applies to the position after Communion, not the posture for reception of Communion
“There is no rule from Rome that everybody must stand during Holy Communion. There is no such rule from Rome. So, after people have received Communion, they can stand, they can kneel, they can sit. But a bishop in his diocese or bishops in a country could say that they recommend standing or kneeling. They could. It is not a law from Rome. They could – but not impose it. Perhaps they could propose. But those who want to sit or kneel or stand should be left reasonable freedom.” adoremus.org/1003Arinze.html
Click to expand...
Obviously Cardinal Arinze would not say people can sit to receive Holy Communion.
 
40.png
krazykatlady:
I can’t really answer this poll because at my Novus Ordo parish we have been instructed to not kneel for Communion. When I go to the Indult, however, I kneel , and I far prefer it.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t that be you “kneel, if there are provisions, and have not been instructed to kneel.”?
 
Yes, I could have offered a 4th option

Follow the practice of the Parish.

which would have indicated cooperation regardless of personal preference, which is the Spirit of the GIRM instruction.

That is the option I do usually follow–silly me for not posting the option.
 
40.png
Mysty101:
The practical reasons are very valid—some who try to kneel, but really are not quite physically able should realize this.
Click to expand...
You would agree that they are an exception to the vast majority.
I have been to countless “Anglican Use” and indult Masses. The # of those who cannot kneel can be counted roughfly 2-3%… One does not change the whole for the minor allowable exception, unless it is some govt beauracracy.
“Practicality” is a ruse as you well know.
My signature applies here.
 
john ennis:
I infer from this that the Church’s formal instruction can be ignored whenever we suspect its intentions are inappropriate. And moreover, until we get an answer regarding “the reasons for this norm,” we can assume** the Holy Spirit is not speaking to us on this matter**.
Peace.
John
Click to expand...
  1. One may obey and still use their knoggin to ask why. Blind obedience can be a road to heresy or apostasy. In the end times that is a theological certainty. Read the Catechism. Obedience is a moral virtue, but ALWAYS subordinate to and at the service of, the 3 Theological virtues. Not the other way 'round.
  2. What “spirit” the USCCB is following is also debatable. There is no warrant that the HS 's intent is being followed in matters of regional discipline. After all, the indult KNEELS, the NOM STANDS., Eastern rite stands. Here we are narrowing to the Latin Rite, wherein 2 mutually exclusive disciplines are in effect. HS? Come now.
    Signature applies here also.
 
Your response is quite prejudiced against those who are not able to kneel easily. They are definitely a notable minority, and cannot accommodate the kneelers wishes. I believe the number who choose to kneel in a standing Parish is even smaller, and they could easily stand.
 
40.png
Mysty101:
Your response is quite prejudiced against those who are not able to kneel easily. They are definitely a notable minority, and cannot accommodate the kneelers wishes. I believe the number who choose to kneel in a standing Parish is even smaller, and they could easily stand.
Click to expand...
I never said they SHOULD NOT STAND, did I? NO.
Code: 
**"Wherein the ILLOGICAL becomes COMPLETELY logical.."**

It is diffucult for some disabled to even GET TO MASS.. WHY oh WHY has the USSCB not (yet) told **us all** to go to Mass at their abode (or in the hospital) instead of a central church building miles from their abode? As it is, they have NO mass. According to you, predjudice is the ultimate reason.
In saying that allowable execeptions do not determine the rule is LOGICAL, NORMAL, and in no way predjudicial.
Surely you can do better.

BTW:
The poll shows 54% prefer kneeling so far. So much for the desire to stand even after years of “indoctrination” and propaganda toward standing. There’s a message there?
 
TNT said:
1. One may obey and still use their knoggin to ask why. Blind obedience can be a road to heresy or apostasy. In the end times that is a theological certainty. Read the Catechism. Obedience is a moral virtue, but ALWAYS subordinate to and at the service of, the 3 Theological virtues. Not the other way 'round.
2. What “spirit” the USCCB is following is also debatable. There is no warrant that the HS 's intent is being followed in matters of regional discipline. After all, the indult KNEELS, the NOM STANDS., Eastern rite stands. Here we are narrowing to the Latin Rite, wherein 2 mutually exclusive disciplines are in effect. HS? Come now.
Signature applies here also.
Click to expand...

I hereby swear off a lifelong habit of blind obedience.

Really, it’s possible I assumed too much. I thought you were asserting that every Church instruction is subordinate to our own suspicions (not well-grounded and truly conscience-related reservations, but feelings–like, for example, being P.O.'d at the Church). I withdraw the implied accusation.

I don’t dispute either of your points; rather, I only urge that we not forget about humble submission whenever it’s just pride or prejudice that is holding us back.

Peace as always.
John
 
40.png
TNT:
BTW:
The poll shows 54% prefer kneeling so far. So much for the desire to stand even after years of “indoctrination” and propaganda toward standing. There’s a message there?
Click to expand...
Yes, the message is that 79% of the people will subject their will, and understand that they are not free to change these postures to suit our own individual piety and 21% will not.
In addition to serving as a vehicle for the prayer of beings composed of body and spirit, the postures and gestures in which we engage at Mass have another very important function. The Church sees in these common postures and gestures both a symbol of the unity of those who have come together to worship and a means of fostering that unity. We are not free to change these postures to suit our own individual piety, for the Church makes it clear that our unity of posture and gesture is an expression of our participation in the one Body formed by the baptized with Christ, our head. When we stand, kneel, sit, bow and sign ourselves in common action, we given unambiguous witness that we are indeed the Body of Christ, united in heart, mind and spirit.
Click to expand...
Email us at liturgy@usccb.org
Committee on the Liturgy | 3211 4th Street, N.E., Washington DC 20017-1194 | (202) 541-3000 © USCCB. All rights reserved.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top