Receive Communion standing or kneeling?

[Mysty101]

Originally Posted by ICXCNIKA

What do we do with the guy in the wheel chair?

Again we are not speaking of anyone physically unable. Even the obligationn to attend Mass does not apply, if you are ill or unable to get there.

We are speaking of people who are physically able to stand, but choose to kneel. One of the main reasons for the change in norm was because some find it very difficult or are unable to kneel. Anyone who can kneel can stand, but many who are able to stand cannot kneel.

[Mysty101]

Originally Posted by bear06

Hey Deacon Ed and Mysty,

I just looked at the Adaptations link you provided Deacon Ed, and adaptation 160 does not say that kneeling is illicit. The "illicit" quote that Mysty gave came from the BCL newsletter. I'm just guessing that the BCL newsletter isn't considered law. 160, as accepted and approved by the CDW is here http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/girm/fil2.shtml

Thanks!

Bear,

from RS

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

I believe that would give more weight to the USCCB bulletin, but that was not ever my main point. I have always agreed that since we are told not to use the term "illicit" or "disobedient", I would respect that instruction whether or not it has the force of canon law.

You did not respond to my last post

I am not talking about licit or illicit or who has authority over whom--I am speaking of choosing to act in community. It does not matter what they desire--they are choosing not to be part of the community. If they chose to stand, they chose to be part of the commmunity---I really don't understand how you can argue with that. If they desired to be part of a standing community, they would stand.

[Mysty101]

Originally Posted by ICXCNIKA

What do we do with the guy in the wheel chair?

PS You are working on a Theology Masters and you ask this question?????

[Panis Angelicas]

Originally Posted by bear06

The "illicit" quote that Mysty gave came from the BCL newsletter. I'm just guessing that the BCL newsletter isn't considered law. 160, as accepted and approved by the CDW is here http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/girm/fil2.shtml

I believe the BCL newsletter was dated July 2002. The CDW's reprimand is dated February 26, 2003.

Does anyone have the full text of this above letter?

Thanks!

http://www.catholic.com/library/liturgy/kneeling_1.asp

[Panis Angelicas]

Originally Posted by Mysty101

I am not talking about licit or illicit or who has authority over whom--I am speaking of choosing to act in community. It does not matter what they desire--they are choosing not to be part of the community. If they chose to stand, they chose to be part of the commmunity---I really don't understand how you can argue with that. If they desired to be part of a standing community, they would stand.

You really don't understand how one can argue with that?
So, what it all boils down to in your mind, is that the posture we choose while receiving Holy Communion determines whether or not we are actually members of the Community, the Mystical Body of Christ.
Those who kneel to receive Holy Communion, therefore, in your words, are not members of the Mystical Body of Christ.

Well, some people actually believe that it is the act of receiving, not the posture in which they receive, which makes them fully members of the Mystical Body.

I believe the Catechism of the Catholic Church will substantiate this, but I must warn you, it was promulgated by the Vatican, so there may be parts with which you might disagree.

834 Particular Churches are fully catholic through their communion with one of them, the Church of Rome "which presides in charity." [St. Ignatius Of Antioch, Ad Rom. 1, 1: Apostolic Fathers, II/2, 192; cf. LG 13] "For with this church, by reason of its pre-eminence, the whole Church, that is the faithful everywhere, must necessarily be in accord." [St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3, 3, 2: PG 7/1, 849; Cf. Vatican Council I DS 3057.] Indeed, "from the incarnate Word's descent to us, all Christian churches everywhere have held and hold the great Church that is here [at Rome] to be their only basis and foundation since, according to the Savior's promise, the gates of hell have never prevailed against her." [St. Maximus the Confessor, Opuscula theo.: PG 91 137-140] [882, 1369]

1348 All gather together. Christians come together in one place for the Eucharistic assembly. At its head is Christ himself, the principal agent of the Eucharist. He is high priest of the New Covenant; it is he himself who presides invisibly over every Eucharistic celebration. It is in representing him that the bishop or priest acting in the person of Christ the head (in persona Christi capitis) presides over the assembly, speaks after the readings, receives the offerings, and says the Eucharistic Prayer. All have their own active parts to play in the celebration, each in his own way: readers, those who bring up the offerings, those who give communion, and the whole people whose "Amen" manifests their participation. [1140, 1548]

continued

[Panis Angelicas]

1368 The Eucharist is also the sacrifice of the Church. The Church which is the Body of Christ participates in the offering of her Head. With him, she herself is offered whole and entire. She unites herself to his intercession with the Father for all men. In the Eucharist the sacrifice of Christ becomes also the sacrifice of the members of his Body. The lives of the faithful, their praise, sufferings, prayer, and work, are united with those of Christ and with his total offering, and so acquire a new value. Christ's sacrifice present on the altar makes it possible for all generations of Christians to be united with his offering. [618, 2031, 1109]


1369 The whole Church is united with the offering and intercession of Christ. Since he has the ministry of Peter in the Church, the Pope is associated with every celebration of the Eucharist, wherein he is named as the sign and servant of the unity of the universal Church. The bishop of the place is always responsible for the Eucharist, even when a priest presides...The community intercedes also for all ministers who, for it and with it, offer the Eucharistic sacrifice: [834, 882, 1561, 1566]

1370 To the offering of Christ are united not only the members still here on earth, but also those already in the glory of heaven. In communion with and commemorating the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints, the Church offers the Eucharistic sacrifice... [956, 969]

1371 The Eucharistic sacrifice is also offered for the faithful departed who "have died in Christ but are not yet wholly purified," [Council of Trent (1562) DS 1743]...[958, 1689, 1032]

1372 St. Augustine admirably summed up this doctrine...: [1140]

This wholly redeemed city, the assembly and society of the saints, is offered to God as a universal sacrifice by the high priest who in the form of a slave went so far as to offer himself for us in his Passion, to make us the Body of so great a head.... Such is the sacrifice of Christians: "we who are many are one Body in Christ" The Church continues to reproduce this sacrifice in the sacrament of the altar so well-known to believers wherein it is evident to them that in what she offers she herself is offered. [St. Augustine, De civ Dei, 10, 6: PL 41, 283; cf. Rom 12:5]

Mysty, Show me where the faithful who kneel are excluded from the Church's description of "community." We are all united, even with the saints in heaven and souls in purgatory. Your view of "community" is narrow and skewed.

[Panis Angelicas]

Originally Posted by ICXCNIKA

What do we do with the guy in the wheel chair?

We tell him, "Sorry, bub, this is a church only for those who stand!"

[Panis Angelicas]

Originally Posted by Mysty101

I believe that would give more weight to the USCCB bulletin,

That speaks volumes.

I have always agreed that since we are told not to use the term "illicit" or "disobedient", I would respect that instruction whether or not it has the force of canon law.

And yet, you repeated post the quote from the USCCB bulletin using the term "illicit," even after the Vatican reprimanded them for doing so...

[Deacon Ed]

Originally Posted by bear06

One other question I have for you Deacon Ed is, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that the first sentence of the below statement is directive and the second is advice. Why do you say that it is not all directive?

"...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."

Here's my thinking behind my statement. Denial of communion if a canonical penalty. It cannot be imposed without due process. The particular law that the United States has does not impose such a penalty (which would not stand up to a challenge anyway) so the CDW has the authority to issue the directive to not deny communion. Since particular law does require catechetical counseling the advice of the CDW is to not do that. That is, they are suggesting that a portion of the law not be acted on.

Deacon Ed

[Panis Angelicas]

Deacon Ed,

The CDW urged the Bishops Conference to insert a clause of protection (not correction) for those who kneel.

This Dicastery agrees in principle to the insertion into n. 160 of a statement, as apparently desired by the Bishops, that Holy Communion in the United States of America is normally received standing. At the same time, the tenor of not a few letters received from the faithful in various Dioceses of that country leads the Congregation, even after a very careful consideration of such data, to urge the Conference to introduce a clause that would protect those faithful who will inevitably be led by their own sensibilities to kneel from imprudent action by priests, deacons or lay ministers in particular, or from being refused Holy Communion for such a reason as happens on occasion.

I wonder if the Adaptation which the bishops submitted was in English, or Latin? Could it have been worded so as to sound like a clause of protection, but later when translated to English, have been misinterpretted as a clause of correction?



Does this English clause sound protective of those who kneel?

"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."

Certainly the CDW made it perfectly clear before giving the norm the force of law that those who kneel were to be protected. After giving it the force of law, they repeatedly clarified their initial instruction and admonished those who acted otherwise.

(Full text of CDW letter http://www.adoremus.org/1201-0102AmAdaptations.html . I draw your attention to paragraph 9.)

[Mysty101]

Originally Posted by Panis Angelicas

You really don't understand how one can argue with that?
So, what it all boils down to in your mind, is that the posture we choose while receiving Holy Communion determines whether or not we are actually members of the Community, the Mystical Body of Christ.
Those who kneel to receive Holy Communion, therefore, in your words, are not members of the Mystical Body of Christ.

Again you twist my words.

I'll repeat, since you didn't see it the first time
from RS

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

Looks like they do have the authority to me.

from the Girm

Distribution of Holy Communion

This adaptation will take the place of number 160, paragraph 2:

The faithful are not permitted to take up the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice themselves, and still less, hand them on to one 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.

from Postures and gestures from the USCCB

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.

So, I guess the Bishops are wrong---according to Panis--but guess what---I think I'll respect the Bishops interpretation

The ignore button---what a wonderful feature

[Panis Angelicas]

Originally Posted by Deacon Ed

Here's my thinking behind my statement... Since particular law does require catechetical counseling the advice of the CDW is to not do that. That is, they are suggesting that a portion of the law not be acted on.

Deacon Ed

Deacon Ed, I think this is the thinking behind the actions of those who kneel, and the CDW:

Before approving the norm~
October 25, 2001

... the Congregation, even after a very careful consideration of such data, to urge the Conference to introduce a clause that would protect those faithful who will inevitably be led by their own sensibilities to kneel from imprudent action by priests, deacons or lay ministers in particular, or from being refused Holy Communion for such a reason as happens on occasion.

After approving the norm ~
July 1, 2002
Even where the Congregation has approved of legislation denoting standing as the posture for Holy Communion, 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 communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds.

In fact, as His Eminence, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has recently emphasized, the practice of kneeling for Holy Communion has in its favor a centuries-old tradition, and it is a particularly expressive sign of adoration, completely appropriate in light of the true, real and substantial presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the consecrated species.

And again, more recently ~

February 26, 2003

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.

...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".

It seems it is anyone's guess as to how a priest is to provide pastoral counselling providing the faithful with proper catechises on the reasons for the norm.

I highly doubt that the CDW is telling the priests not to follow the norm.

But it is clear that those who kneel are not to imposed upon, accused of acting illicitly, nor denied Holy Communion.

So it stands to reason that the CDW may have intended that "instances" where parishoners desire to kneel, (ie: parishes where some wish to kneel) be addressed to all "the faithful," "providing pastoral counsel" (advising the entire parish) "on the reasons for the norm."

In this instance, I think some are using the word "counselling" as an admonishment, where that was never the CDW's intent. I believe the CDW meant "counsel" to mean "advise," and I don't think it meant that those who kneel need to be singled out and pulled aside for private counselling, but that all the faithful were to be advised of the reasons for the norm, that being, uniformity in posture symbolizes our unity.

[Deacon Ed]

Originally Posted by Panis Angelicas

Deacon Ed,



The CDW urged the Bishops Conference to insert a clause of protection (not correction) for those who kneel.

Yes, they did. And the bishops understood the protection to consist of not denying communion and of taking no inappropriate actions. Providing catechesis on the reason for the uniformity of posture is not inappropriate but, rather, appropriate.

I wonder if the Adaptation which the bishops submitted was in English, or Latin? Could it have been worded so as to sound like a clause of protection, but later when translated to English, have been misinterpretted as a clause of correction?

There are native English speakers in the CDW who also have a fluency in Latin. I doubt that this was the problem. Rather, I submit that the problem is that once people get an idea into their heads, it's hard to displace it with a different idea.

Does this English clause sound protective of those who kneel?

"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."

Yes, it does. It means that they will not be denied communion for choosing to kneel (protecting their rights) and it means that they will be offered an understanding of why the Church in the United States stands for communion thus protecting the rights of the Church.

Certainly the CDW made it perfectly clear before giving the norm the force of law that those who kneel were to be protected. After giving it the force of law, they repeatedly clarified their initial instruction and admonished those who acted otherwise.

Um, force of law was granted by the USCCB who enacted it as particular law. The CDW simply approved the change.

It seems, and I could be wrong here, that when you use the word "protected" you want it to mean that they can kneel and not be catechized as to the reason for a uniformity of posture. Is that correct?



Deacon Ed

[Deacon Ed]

Originally Posted by Panis Angelicas

It seems it is anyone's guess as to how a priest is to provide pastoral counselling providing the faithful with proper catechises on the reasons for the norm. I highly doubt that the CDW is telling the priests not to follow the norm. But it is clear that those who kneel are not to imposed upon, accused of acting illicitly, nor denied Holy Communion. So it stands to reason that the CDW may have intended that "instances" where parishoners desire to kneel be addressed to allthe faithful, "counselling on the reasons for the norm."

In this instance, I think some are using the word "counselling" as an admonishment, where that was never the CDW's intent. I believe the CDW meant "counsel" to mean "advise," and I don't think it meant that those who kneel need to be pulled aside for private counselling, but that all the faithful were to be advised of the reasons for the norm, that being, uniformity in posture symbolizes our unity.

Okay, one more time...

The law mandates standing. The interpretation of the law is that it cannot deny communion to one who, for whatever reason, chooses to kneel. That is their protection, and is guaranteed by the interpretation of the law given by the CDW.

As for counseling, the directives from our office of liturgy is that it is to be done "at a convenient time" but not during communion. The suggestion is that if we see the person after Mass we can offer a short (keyword "short") catechesis on the reason for uniformity of posture. Having done that the law has been fulfilled. If the person persists in kneeling we simply give him or her communion.

I fail to see what all the uproar is about.

Deacon Ed

[Panis Angelicas]

Originally Posted by Deacon Ed

Um, force of law was granted by the USCCB who enacted it as particular law. The CDW simply approved the change.

The Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship and Disicipline of the Sacraments must have it wrong then...

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.

The CDW's recognitio was required in order for the norm to attain the force of law.


The CDW stipulated that they wouldn't give the recognitio without a clause "protecting the faithful who kneel from imprudent actions by priests, deacons, and lay ministers in particular OR from being denied Holy Communion."

The American bishops then "complied" by inserting a clause stating that instances of kneeling would be pastorally addressed by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for the norm. (Some in the US seem to interpret this to mean that those who kneel need pastoral counselling, but obviously, the CDW did not.)

The clause met with the CDW's approval, the recognitio was granted, and the norm received the force of law.

Then, the CDW found that this was being misinterpretted and has striven to describe how the norm is to be properly applied.

It seems, and I could be wrong here, that when you use the word "protected" you want it to mean that they can kneel and not be catechized as to the reason for a uniformity of posture. Is that correct?

What I am saying is that I do not necessary think that "the faithful" pertains to only the faithful who kneel. "The faithful" can be everyone in the parish. To "address pastorally" could mean to give a homily. To provide pastoral counselling is something entirely different, and generally indicates an emotional imbalance of some sort. I do not believe that that was the CDW's intent, since they reiterate, well after approving the norm that kneeling is "completely appropriate."

http://www.currentpsychiatry.com/200...2_pastoral.asp

Pastoral counselors—with training in both a religious tradition and the basics of psychology and psychotherapy—can challenge rigid, defensive, or misinformed spiritual beliefs that might contribute to a patient’s psychological distress and dysfunction.1

So, you think this is what the CDW had in mind when it approved the norm? The CDW thinks that a posture which is "completely appropriate" is a result of a rigid, defensive, misinformed spiritual belief that might contribute to psychological distress and dysfunction?


I think the some of the American bishops may think this, but I do not believe that that was the CDW's intent at all!