Receiving Communion

[epiclesis]

Just out of curiosity, are those who are planning to start kneeling for Communion, while the rest of the assembled body stands, planning on talking with the Pastor first to seek counsel in this? Or is it the plan to just do it?

No judgement here - just curiosity.

[Cam42]

[quote]The indult determines how a rule is applied in a particular country, that is then the norm for that country.[/quote]

This line of reasoning is incorrect. If this were true, then the Tridentine Mass, which has the status of indult would then be the norm.

An indult, by definition, is the exception to the norm. It is allowed to appease members of the faithful. This is also the case with standing.

The universal or Roma Acta is kneeling. An indult, which the bishops have deemed normative is the common practice. However, according to the Holy See, as Appy and I have both shown, kneeling is to hold pride of place. If one is to receive on the knees, he must know why he is doing it. THAT is the point of catechesis, not to slap him on the wrist.

One is not being disobedient by following a universally accepted norm. That defeats the purpose of the univerality of the action. If a priest wishes to catechize me after Mass, I welcome it, but it has never happened, not even once.

[quote]The norm is standing, kneeling is NOT listed as an option. It is not a multiple choice.[/quote]

It most certainly is. I refer you to GIRM no. 160 and Redemptionis Sacramentum nos. 90 and 91. They have been posted here several times.

[quote]In view of the law that "sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who opportunely ask for them, are properly disposed and are not prohibited by law from receiving them" (canon 843 1), there should be no such refusal to any Catholic who presents himself for Holy Communion at Mass, except in cases presenting a danger of grave scandal to other believers arising out of the person's unrepented public sin or obstinate heresy or schism, publicly professed or declared. Even where the Congregation has approved of legislation denoting standing as the posture for Holy Communion, [b]in accordance with the adaptations permitted to the Conferences of Bishops by the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani n. 160, paragraph 2, it has done so with the stipulation that [i]communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion[/i] on these grounds.[/b] (Jorge Card. Medina Estevez, Prefect for Discipline of the Sacraments)[/quote]

Cardinal Estevez has the full blessing and authority to make this statment by virtue of his office at the time, by the Holy Father.

All of this is moot anyway, because Redemptionis Sacramentum is a more recent document than that of the US bishops. Insofar at that is the case, it is more defintive than that of a particular conference.

[quote]The norms contained in the present Instruction are to be understood as pertaining to liturgical matters in the Roman Rite, and, mutatis mutandis, in the other Rites of the Latin Church that are duly acknowledged by law. (RS no. 3)[/quote]
[quote]The last chapter of the present Instruction will treat of the varying degrees to which the individual norms are bound up with the supreme norm of all ecclesiastical law, namely concern for the salvation of souls. (RS no. 13)[/quote]
[quote]This Instruction, prepared by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments by mandate of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II in collaboration with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was approved by the same Pontiff on the Solemnity of Saint Joseph, March 19, 2004, and he ordered it to be published and to be observed immediately by all concerned. (RS no. 186)[/quote]
[quote]"[b]The faithful should receive Communion [i]kneeling or standing,[/i]
[/b]as the Conference of Bishops will have determined", with its acts having received the recognitio of the Apostolic See. "However, if they receive Communion standing, it is recommended that they give due reverence before the reception of the Sacrament, as set forth in the same norms". (RS no. 90)[/quote]
[quote]In distributing Holy Communion it is to be remembered that "sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who seek them in a reasonable manner, are rightly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them". Hence any baptized Catholic who is not prevented by law must be admitted to Holy Communion. [b][i]Therefore, it is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ's faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing.[/i][/b] (RS no. 91)[/quote]

This document released in March 2004, by new Prefect Cardinal Arinze, is in complete harmony with the letter written by his predecessor in 2002. It is also the normative action. And the bishops have not made a statement of ammendment or affirmation to Redemptionis Sacramentum. Therefore it is binding until such time as ammended. Kneeling is acceptable and it is a very obedient action, to be universally accepted.

Cam42

[Cam42]

[quote]are those who are planning to start kneeling for Communion, while the rest of the assembled body stands, planning on talking with the Pastor first to seek counsel in this?[/quote]

Since it is a universally accepted action, one does not need permission to do so. If the priest would like to catechize, then he may initiate it, but that initiation is on the shoulders of the priest, not the communicant to seek it out.

As I have stated, I have been doing this for over 10 years now, and I have not had one priest catechize me on this issue. BTW, I am a daily Mass goer, so multiply 365 times 10 years (give or take a week total of missing Mass, in 10 years). That would be roughly 3650 Masses that I have attended or served, and not once have I been approached by a priest. This is in three different countries by the way, the USA, Israel, and Italy.

Cam42

[argent_paladin]

I did not think that I would be drawn into a debate on this subject after leaving the seminary. But here goes:

First let's look at the General Instruction (again)
160. The priest then takes the paten or ciborium and goes to the communicants, who, as a rule, approach in a procession.

The faithful are not permitted to take the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them from one to another. The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.

When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the Sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood.

Now, this represents an uneasy compromise. Basically, Rome prefers kneeling, the US bishops standing. So, who should we be obedient to? Well, in this case, it is cler. The Vatican deligated their authority on this matter to the national conference, thus what they say should be obeyed. But, what, exactly, are they saying? Two things:
1. Standing is the norm
2. BUT those who kneel shouldn't be denied but should be catechised.

So, Cam, your boasting about never being approached by a priest indicates that you go to services where the priests have chosen not to follow the General Instruction. So, why is it ok for the priest to ignore this part of the GIRM, but I assume you would have a problem if a priest ignored another part?

Just because kneeling is grudgingly allowed doesn't mean that one is "free" or has a "right" to do so. It simply means that the highest level of punishment (denying eucharist) is not appropriate.

We should obey our bishops. We should stand.

HOWEVER, I had real problems with this and as an important technicality, each diocese must implement the GIRM in its own diocese, incorporating the national norms as well as the local ones. So, until that happens (it hasn't in all diocese) I would say that you can kneel. And, local custom can be a good guide. I think if you recieve at an altar rail, you may kneel. But I can't see how the current norms would support kneeling while in procession at communion. While not, strictly speaking, ilicit, it is contrary to the intentions of the governing authority, and carries with it a spirit of disobedience.
However, more egrigious in my opinion is the absence of any gesture of reverence whatsoever. The GIRM clearly states that this is required and I would say that over half of the communicants I see on a Sunday make no visible sign. And I have never even heard a priest mention its importance or remind people of its necessity. I think it is far worse to offer no sign of reverence than to over an inappropriate one.

I compromise by genuflecting before recieving communion because I think it is logically implied in the norms.

[argent_paladin]

one more thing
"Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm."

This posed a major problem for me as a seminarian. I want to be obedient to the bishops and they say that I have to tell those who kneel the "reasons for this norm". Note, not "reasons for standing", i.e. obedience to authority, but the reasons WHY the bishops decided to stand rather than kneel.
And I was stuck because the didn't give us any good reasons. Rome prefers kneeling. Tradition strongly prefers kneeling. Theology prefers kneeling. Scriptural witness is near unanimous in kneeling. So, I was being told to explain the reasons why, when there really aren't any, except perhaps "It slows down the procession" or "someone could spill something". Of course, that's why you have altar rails and servers with patens. So the real reason is that we don't want to go back to altar rails. Or that kneeling is to "medieval" and "hierarchical".

But, it is the norm, so I obediently follow. Even if it makes no sense. At least I won't have to catechize something I don't know.

[MichaelFilo]

I got called Cam Jr.

As far as everyone who added to this debate, thank you, I've come to a greater understanding of the situation. Now that I am positive that I am not breaking Church laws, and folllowing Rome in practice, I am more convinced that this form of reception is the way I shall receive for the rest of my life.

Disobedience is going against the Church. I don't think kneeling is going against the Church, merely working within guidelines that are set forth. I would think it is disobedient to call the action of kneeling before receiving our Lord disobedience, since the Church allows it. Isn't it a bit wrong to judge what is more obedient when Rome has spoken on the matter? If the universal norm is to kneel, then even the norm here doesn't overide that norm. Both are perfectly correct, just one is the norm, and one isn't in the states. In the Latin Rite overall they happen to hold oppisite postions.

God bless,
Mikey

[Cam42]

[quote]So, Cam, your boasting about never being approached by a priest indicates that you go to services where the priests have chosen not to follow the General Instruction....[/quote]

I am not boasting. I simply saying that most parishes don't catechize over reception of Holy Commuion, which you, yourself admit to.
[quote]The GIRM clearly states that this is required and I would say that over half of the communicants I see on a Sunday make no visible sign. And I have never even heard a priest mention its importance or remind people of its necessity.[/quote]

[quote]So, why is it ok for the priest to ignore this part of the GIRM, but I assume you would have a problem if a priest ignored another part?[/quote]

It isn't. My point about not being catechized is that it is wrong. I thought that was implied, apparently not.

[quote]Just because kneeling is grudgingly allowed doesn't mean that one is "free" or has a "right" to do so.[/quote]

Where is "grudingly" allowed? And if Rome and the rest of Catholic history, according to you think that it is more appropos, then why is there a grudge?

[quote]We should obey our bishops. We should stand.[/quote]

Doesn't Redemptionis Sacramentum trump the US bishops by it's nature as a document of correction? It is a newer and a clarification on the documents now. So, do only some parts of Redemptionis Sacramentum apply or does all of it? I would say the latter.

[quote]And I was stuck because the didn't give us any good reasons. Rome prefers kneeling. Tradition strongly prefers kneeling. Theology prefers kneeling. Scriptural witness is near unanimous in kneeling. So, I was being told to explain the reasons why, when there really aren't any, except perhaps "It slows down the procession" or "someone could spill something".[/quote]

Again....I have never been approached, perhaps bad catechesis from the bishops?

[quote]Of course, that's why you have altar rails and servers with patens. So the real reason is that we don't want to go back to altar rails.[/quote]

Why is that again? It doesn't make sense to me. Never has. I agree with you that Rome doesn't see it that way, tradition doesn't see it that way, and theology doesn't see it that way...kneeling.

BTW, I think that we agree on most of this argent_paladin.

Cam42

[Cam42]

Mikey.....

You rock :headbang:

Cam42

[MichaelFilo]

I am going to ask both Cmother and Argent to explain why it is disobedience. Deviating from an indult-allowed norm to the universally accepted form of Communion is not even beggining to get close to disobedience. Maybe to steer this discussion in the right discussion the word disobedience should be defined

Dictionary.com defines it as:

[quote]                      Refusal or failure to obey.[/quote]

Webster defines it as

[quote]                      Refusal or neglect to obey.[/quote]

Is kneeling a refusal, failure, or neglect to obey? Would deviating from the norm be disobedience? The norm is NOT the only option, but is the preferred option. If the other options are left open by the Church, then in following the other options there is no refusal to obey, since the Church has granted the right to US Catholics to receive by means of kneeling. It isn't neglect to obey, since to neglect something would require that it be established as the only rule; instead, I am far from neglecting to obey, but caring to find out what it is I am to obey. Is it a failure to obey? Far from it, since as a Catholic in the Latin Rite I am allowed to kneel to receive the Blessed Body and Blood, I am obeying the Church because she has granted me the right to receive in this manner. The only disobediance that could occur is if I did this as a protest to the norm, if I did something that isn't allowed (say, falling on the floor completely before God in the Eucharist), or anything to that nature. I ask you to show me how I am disobeying anything.

Cam is number one /sublimnal message.

God bless,
Mikey

[argent_paladin]

To answer your question as straight forward as possible, Mike....

It is disobedient because it goes against the expressed preference of the proper authority. That is clear from the context of paragraph 160. Using a secualar metaphor, if some directive said "Jaywalking is not to be punished with a $1000 fine and one year in prison but rather a warning" that doesn't imply that jaywalking is an acceptable option. Similarly, just because kneeling is not to be punished with denying the Eucharist, that doesn't mean that it is an acceptable option. The Church wanted to communicate two parallel truths:
1. Communicants should recieve standing
2. Ministers should not deny communion to those who break rule 1.

Two doesn't deny one, it only governs the punishment for breaking rule 1: a warning (or catechisis) rather than a punishment. But it is still not an acceptable option, as of now, in most diocese. But again, it all depends on the local bishop. In Lincoln, its fine, but I won't try it in the LA Cathedral. Pick your battles.

And perhaps this is all based on a misunderstanding. Michael, am I to infer that you will, from now on, after processing (standing in line), drop down to your knees and expect the priest to offer communion, even though you are the only one doing it? While I admire your zeal and intention to be obedient, I question your prudence. Unfortunately this behavior might reflect badly on you if you seek to be a eucharistic minister, board member, youth leader, seminarian, etc in your parish or diocese. The main reason I dropped the issue was because my immediate superiors were very firm. As a Dominican, I can complain, but I must submit to authority.

What would you do, Michael, if a priest, as he should, came to you after communion and gave you proper catechisis for the reasons for the norm"?

I will obey my bishop but fight to change the norm. In a parish that uses altar rails, I will happily kneel. But I won't single myself out during communion, the ultimate sign of unity, by engaging in a very obvious and eyecatching display of exercizing my option.

Obedience comes from ob-dire, latin for to hear from or about. The essence of obedience is to hear. You perhaps are obeying the letter of the law, but not its spirit, and I am afraid that puts you in very bad company.

[argent_paladin]

Cam,
RS was not intended to challenge or change particular law regarding liturgical practice in particular regions:
It is not at all the intention here to prepare a compendium of the norms regarding the Most Holy Eucharist, but rather, to take up within this Instruction some elements of liturgical norms that have been previously expounded or laid down and even today remain in force in order to assure a deeper appreciation of the liturgical norms;[9] to establish certain norms by which those earlier ones are explained and complemented; and also to set forth for Bishops, as well as for Priests, Deacons and all the lay Christian faithful, how each should carry them out in accordance with his own responsibilities and the means at his disposal.

It's purpose, therefore, is to explain, clarify and amplify previous instructions. In paragraph five, it talks about how the norms of liturgy are to be obeyed:
The observance of the norms published by the authority of the Church requires conformity of thought and of word, of external action and of the application of the heart. A merely external observation of norms would obviously be contrary to the nature of the Sacred Liturgy, in which Christ himself wishes to gather his Church, so that together with himself she will be “one body and one spirit”.

So, kneeling because it is technically an option that is not prohibited is conformity of external action but not of the heart. Also, it is contrary to the "one body and one spirit" understanding of communion.

In graf 7 we see that " all should conform to the ordinances set forth by legitimate ecclesiastical authority." I alluded to in in a previous post, but the National Conference really has no canonical authority on its own. That is why it is important to know what the norms are that were laid down by you local bishop. "It pertains to the diocesan Bishop, then, “within the limits of his competence, to set forth liturgical norms in his Diocese, by which all are bound”"

Paragraph 90 is the key:
"[90.] “The faithful should receive Communion kneeling or standing, as the Conference of Bishops will have determined”, with its acts having received the recognitio of the Apostolic See. “However, if they receive Communion standing, it is recommended that they give due reverence before the reception of the Sacrament, as set forth in the same norms”.[176]"

The proper way to receive is to be determined by the Conference of Bishops. The Conference in America says standing, so we should receive standing. The text is quite clear. It gives its authority to the Conference, and the Conference says to stand. There is not even a provision proteting those who choose to kneel.

It is very simple. The valid authority, the Pope delegated responsibilty to the CDW which delegated its proper authority in this matter to the US Bishops. They say that the norm is standing. the punishment for disobeying this norm, however, is not denial of communion, but catechisis. But it is still disobedience.

[JP2Iloveyou]

One quick note...many have said that Rome desires the faithful to kneel. I don't think this is the case objectively or subjectively. The documents are quite clear that communicants may receive while standing, objectively; subjectively, have any of you ever been to a Mass in Rome? They are among the most disorganized for reception of Holy Communion I have ever seen. I'm not knocking Rome here or anything, I am just stating a fact. People sit, stand, and kneel whenever they feel like during Mass, they go up to Communion in no order whatsoever, and they almost exclusively receive standing. This is the case even in St. Peter's and for Papal Masses, probably moreso for Papal Masses because of their magnitude.

[argent_paladin]

Well, when we say "Rome" we mean Cdls. Arinze (CDW) and Ratzinger (CDF). Ratzinger stated his preference with support in The Spirit of the Liturgy and Arinza in some interviews. So, if by Rome you mean Rome, then no, but if by Rome you mean "the two most powerful people in the Vatican Curia", then yes, Rome prefers kneeling.

[Cam42]

[quote]But it is still disobedience.[/quote]

I have to disagree with you. One cannot be disobedient for obeying a universal norm of the Church. If one makes the distinction that you are making, it is tantamount to saying that the bishops are setting themselves apart from Rome, by superceding a norm that has approval from the Holy See. That cannot happen. A bishop or groups of bishops cannot do anything that contradicts Rome (ie. the Holy See).

I also believe that you are misunderstanding the concept of catechesis. It is not a punishment as you assert, but rather it is a confirmation as to why one kneels. The priest is not to say, "You are wrong for kneeling, even though it has ecceliesatical approval from Rome."

But rather he is to say, "If you choose to kneel, these are the reasons why you are kneeling. (Insert sound and valid reasoning here) Are you aware of these reasons? If not, I will teach you."

That is catechesis. That is what the Congregation of Divine Worship and the Sacraments is getting at, when they talk about catechesis. There isn't to be a negative connotation to the catechetical process, but a positive one.

With that being said, I would like you to answer these questions for me....

1. Can I be denied Holy Communion if I kneel?
2. If I kneel, can the US bishops ever stop me from this action?
3. Do the bishops give tacit approval to kneeling as an option with proper catechesis?
4. Does the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments approve of this action?
5. Does the Holy Father agree?
6. If I am being obedient to the universal norm, how can I be disobedient in my diocese?

[quote]when we say "Rome" we mean Cdls. Arinze (CDW) and Ratzinger (CDF).[/quote]

Yes, but when they are acting as prefects, they have full authority given them as extensions of the office of the Holy Father. They speak with his tacit approval, when in these roles.

[quote] if by Rome you mean Rome, then no, but if by Rome you mean "the two most powerful people in the Vatican Curia", then yes, Rome prefers kneeling.[/quote]

By Rome, I mean the Holy See. By Rome, I mean the Holy Father. By Rome, I mean the Congregations that have full support and approval of the Vicar of Christ. By Rome, I mean the extension of the teaching office of the Pope that is given to those in these positions. Both Cardinals Ratzinger and Arinze gain the approval of the Holy Father before publishing statements that deal with faith and/or morals. Rome is more than the two most powerful people in the Vatican Curia, Rome is the Church.

Here is another analogy. While I was in college, the chapel I attended Mass in did not kneel for the Canon of the Mass. This was an accepted practice by Campus Ministry and was also an accepted practice by Archbishop Flynn. He has celebrated many a Mass at UST where no one knelt. I knelt. Was I being disobedient? Archbishop Flynn did nothing to stop this action or correct it, so I can infer that it was accepted. This went on for several years. As a liturgical assistant in campus ministry, I was privy to certain conversations immediately after Mass between the campus minister, Fr. Tolaas and Archbishop Flynn. There was never any mention of a change in this policy. The reasoning given, it is tradition at UST to stand. Therefore we stand. Incorrect logic. And an error.

While the particular norm may be to stand for Holy Communion, if I choose to kneel, I am to be allowed to do so. I am to receive catechesis on the postition that I am taking, and then I may continue to do so. If you disagree with my understanding of catechetics, I would like to know the catechetical reasoning as to why I am in error. (Remember, I cannot be disobedient to my bishop while being obedient to Rome, that is fallacious.) I don't think that catechetics is a tool for correction in this instance, but rather a tool for clarification; ie. if you kneel, this is why you kneel. It is not, you are wrong for kneeling, do you want to continue? And if you do want to continue, go ahead, just know that you are wrong. That line of reasoning makes no logical sense whatsoever.

[quote]The documents are quite clear that communicants may receive while standing, objectively; subjectively, have any of you ever been to a Mass in Rome?  They are among the most disorganized for reception of Holy Communion I have ever seen.[/quote]

Yes, I have. I have been at arguably one of the largest Masses to take place in St. Peter's each year, Midnight Mass at Christmas. I sat about 10 yards behind the Holy Father. I totally disagree that it is disorganized. There were roughly 10,000 people to come to Holy Communion, give or take and it took roughly 20 minutes to distribute. That is not disorganized. I would say that is very orderly. And incidentally, I received Holy Communion from the hand of John Paul II. The line to receive from him was also quite orderly. (Apparently, I need this caveat.....I am not boasting that I received from JPII, but rather I am illustrating that the line to receive from him was orderly)

Cam42

[Mary's Knight, La]

US Bishops prefer standing so I stand. In places where I am sure it will not cause scandal, where I have noticed communicants in front of me doing it, I genuflect before receiving, the retreat team I'm on does this, neither priest nor bishop has asked us to do otherwise.

genuflecting before receiving as the sign of reverence is probably a good option for those who feel simply standing there is too irreverant. but note it is not our feelings of reverence that matter obedience to God's church including your local bishop is always reverent.