Receiving Communion

[Cam42]

[quote]This isn't rocket science....[/quote]

No it isn't. Appy, you are totally correct.

[quote]It comes down to obedience.[/quote]

Yes, it does. I am being obedient. I have been given the option, and I am excercising it.

And if I do kneel what happens to me? People snicker? They assume that I am conservative? They look at me as being a show-stopper? I am not concerned with what others think, and nothing happens to me.

Or is it that I am giving due reverence to the Blessed Sacrament.

[quote]In both cases the Congregation for Divine Worship has stated that those members of the lay faithful who kneel to receive communion are not to be sanctioned by the local ecclesiastical authorities[/quote]

This again would support the idea that catechesis is a positive and not a negative. The prevailing thought thus far is that catechesis=sanctions. This is not a correct assertion.

Cam42

[Cam42]

Cmom, argent_paladin, et al.,

How can one be obedient to Rome and disobedient to his bishop at the same time?

This is what is being said.....how does that logically follow?

Cam42

Edited February 22, 2005 by Cam42

[JP2Iloveyou]

Cam42, when were you at UST? I'm there now, although I am at SJV, so I rarely attend Mass at the campus chapel, and not once have I ever seen people not kneel during Consecration.

As for St. Peter's, generally, because of the ushers and the Swiss Guard, I think Papal Masses are a bit more organized. What I was referring to was people taking pictures at imprudent times, sitting, standing, and kneeling at different times, and prtty much behaving in a manor I would more expect form hogs than from people. Also, for what it's worth, I too was at Midnight Mass this year.

Anyway, in my experience in Rome, Communion is very disorganized. In some respects, this is a good thing because it does not expose those who are not receiving that day to as much shame. In other respects, it can be very annoying to see the European concept of a line.

Come to think of it, this gives me a parallel argument here. In the United States, there is an indult to kneel throughout the Eucharistic Prayer until the Great Amen. Everywhere else in the world, the rule is to stand following the words of Institution. Now, it seems to me that by your logic, we ought to stand following the Words of Institution, since that is what Rome wants and what the Tradition is. However, I would wager that you probably kneel for the duration of the EP, in accordance with liturgical norms for the United States. I'm curious what the difference is between this case and kneeling to receive Holy Communion.

I spoke with another priest last night about this and he said that he personally has no problem with people kneeling, and that he much prefers that to the people who come up to receive and give no sign of reverence whatsoever, or simply a small little shake of their head, but he also said he often wonders what the motives behind such an action is.

I suppose, in light of reading this debate, it seems that kneeling is acceptable, but not the norm in the U.S. Therefore, since the U.S. bishops have asked us to stand, and Rome has approved this, we ought to stand. This isn't even getting into the practicality debate, or the debate of scandal.

Some may say that if someone is scandalized by a communicant kneeling to receive our Lord, that is his or her problem and he or she should just deal with it and get over it. On one level I agree, but on another, it seems that we have a responsible to ensure that scandal is not given on our part.

[argent_paladin]

This reminds me of a controversy in moral theology. Apparently I am a probabiliorist, Appy and Cam are probablists. I'm just waiting for an aequiprobibalist to come around.
"Probabilism is the moral system which holds that, when there is question solely of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of an action, it is permissible to follow a solidly probable opinion in favour of liberty even though the opposing view is more probable."
Probabiliorism will take the more free option only if it is more probable than the less free option.

What I mean is that we all agree on the facts and law, but differ as to the interpretation. The two options are to kneel and to stand. Standing is the norm, the preferred option. For me, the mind of the lawgiver is that he intended people to follow this norm and to stand, under most circumstances. That seems the most natural way to interpret the meaning of the rule. In ecclesial-speak there is a big difference between "permitted" and "encouraged" and "required". I see standing as "strongly encouraged" and kneeling as "permitted", so, in obedience, I stand.

I do have to say that probablism won the day, but I still prefer probabiliorism, but that could just be the rigorist in me.

There could actually be many times when you might have to be disobedient to your bishop but obedient to Rome. This is not one of those times, however. Basically (and I paraphrase) Rome said "We prefer kneeling, but you should do what your bishop and the Conference tells you to do." and the Conference says "Stand when recieving, but we won't deny you if you kneel."

I guess our point of disagreement is the interpretation of not denying communion to those who kneel. You see it as an endorsement of kneeling. I see it as a recognition that denying communion would be a disproportionate sanction to the "crime" of kneeling.

I disagree with Apotheon's interpretation of the Magisteriums interpretations. Just because they do not allow sanctions doesn't mean that kneeling is an option as acceptable as standing. Some action can be illicit without meriting penal sanctions. I guess for cmom and me it is very, very simple:

Do what your bishop wants you to do, as long as they have the authority to ask you to do it.

In this case, the bishops surely do, and you know what they want. They are just too polite to punish you if you do something else (or rather, Rome won't allow it). It's like your mom saying "i would really like it if you cleaned your room." What would you do? Would you say to yourself 'Well, she didn't actually TELL me to clean my room, so if I watch TV, I'm not really disobedient..." No, because you know the intention of her statement. And you know the intention of the GIRM.

[Cam42]

[quote]Cam42, when were you at UST? I'm there now, although I am at SJV, so I rarely attend Mass at the campus chapel, and not once have I ever seen people not kneel during Consecration.[/quote]

I graduated in 1998. I was there from 1994-1998. I was deeply involved with Campus Ministry in 1996-97. I was actually an LA, but I think that I already said that. If you want more info about my time in CM, head over and talk to Amanda Osheim, she and I are great friends. (I am respsonsible for the Creed being re-introduced to the Liturgy. I also am indirectly responsible for the congregation kneeling for the Canon again, although it didn't finally happen until Fr. Huard replaced Fr. Greg Tolaas.) Anna Otto and I didn't see eye to eye on much during my time there, however, we have a mutual respect for one another now.

argent_paladin,

As I said several pages ago, I believe that we basically agree, but we are speaking past one another.

[quote]I see it as a recognition that denying communion would be a disproportionate sanction to the "crime" of kneeling.[/quote]

This is where the disconnect is. Kneeling to receive Holy Communion shouldn't be seen as a "crime." It is not. It is an acceptable practice.

[quote]Some action can be illicit without meriting penal sanctions.[/quote]

I also disagree with this assertion as well, Redemptionis Sacramentum specifically says that receiving on the knees is a licit action. The illicit action is not in receiving on the knees, but rather denying one who does.

[quote]....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. (RS no. 91)[/quote]

Here is the statement on the [i]recognitio[/i] from the Holy See:

[quote]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, [i]this was done on the condition that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds.[/i] [u][b]Indeed, the faithful should not be imposed upon nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly when they kneel to receive Holy Communion."[/u][/b] (Mons. Mario Marini; Undersecretary Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments)[/quote]

[url="http://www.liturgy.org/index.cfm/FuseAction/LawText/LawIndex/47"]Letter from Mons. Mario Marini[/url]

How much more do those of us who choose to kneel need to prove that we are not being disobedient? The recognitio was given on a condition that we who kneel were able to do so licitly and without reservation.

Cam42

[Cam42]

Also, here is catechetical information on kneeling to receive Holy Communion. This was communicated to a bishop from Jorge Cardinal Medina Estevez. I think that this was posted earlier by Appy, but I think that it bears a repost.

[quote]Congregation de Cultu Divino et Disciplina Sacramentorum

Prot. n. 1322/02/L

Rome, 1 July 2002

Your Excellency,

This Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has recently received reports of members of the faithful in your Diocese being refused Holy Communion unless while standing to receive, as opposed to kneeling. The reports state that such a policy has been announced to parishioners. There were possible indications that such a phenomenon might be somewhat more widespread in the Diocese, but the Congregation is unable to verify whether such is the case. [i]This Dicastery is confident that Your Excellency will be in a position to make a more reliable determination of the matter, and these complaints in any event provide an occasion for the Congregation to communicate the manner in which it habitually addresses this matter, with a request that you make this position known to any priests who may be in need of being thus informed.[/i]

[b]The Congregation in fact is concerned at the number of similar complaints that it has received in recent months from various places, and considers any refusal of Holy Communion to a member of the faithful on the basis of his or her kneeling posture to be a [B]grave violation[/b] of [u]one of the most basic rights of the Christian faithful[/u], namely that of being assisted by their Pastors by means of the Sacraments (Codex Iuris Canonici, canon 213).[/B] [u]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.[/u] [b]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.[/b]

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.

[i]Given the importance of this matter, the Congregation would request that Your Excellency inquire specifically whether this priest in fact has a regular practice of refusing Holy Communion to any member of the faithful in the circumstances described above and - if the complaint is verified - that you also firmly instruct him and any other priests who may have had such a practice to refrain from acting thus in the future.[/i] [u]Priests should understand that the Congregation will regard future complaints of this nature with great seriousness, and if they are verified, it intends to seek disciplinary action consonant with the gravity of the pastoral abuse.[/u]

Thanking Your Excellency for your attention to this matter and relying on your kind collaboration in its regard,

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Jorge A. Cardinal Medina Estévez
Prefect

+Francesco Pio Tamburrino
Archbishop Secretary[/quote]

and to a member of the Faithful from Mons. Marini (again):

[quote]Congregation de Cultu Divino et Disciplina Sacramentorum

Prot. n. 1322/02/L

Rome, 1 July 2002

Dear Sir,

This Congregation for Divine Worship gratefully acknowledges receipt of your letter, regarding an announced policy of denial of Holy Communion to those who kneel to receive it at a certain church.

It is troubling that you seem to express some reservations about both the propriety and the usefulness of addressing the Holy See regarding this matter. Canon 212 ¶2 of the Code of Canon Law states that "Christ's faithful are totally free to make known their needs, especially their spiritual ones, and their desire: to the Pastor of the Church". The canon then continues in ¶3: "According to their own knowledge competence and position, they have the right, and indeed sometimes the duty, to present to the sacred Pastor; their opinions regarding those things that pertain to the good of the Church".... [b]Accordingly, in consideration of the nature of the problem and the relative likelihood that it might or might not be resolved on the local level, every member of the faithful has the right of recourse to the Roman Pontiff either personally or by means of the Dicasteries or Tribunals of the Roman Curia.[/b]

[i]Another fundamental right of the faithful, as noted in canon 213, is "the right to receive assistance by the sacred Pastors from the spiritual goods of the Church, especially the word of God and the Sacraments". 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.[/i] [u]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 Institution 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.[/u]

Please be assured that the Congregation takes this matter very seriously, and is making the necessary contacts in its regard. At the same time, this Dicastery continues to be ready to be of assistance if you should need to contact it again in the future.

Thanking you for your interest, and with every prayerful good wish, I am

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Monsignor Mario Marini
Undersecretary[/quote]

Catechetics....gotta love it!!!! Clear and consistent teaching from the Holy See. I think that this is what Appy was getting at.

Cam42

[MichaelFilo]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Feb 22 2005, 12:48 AM'] 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. [/quote]
As Cam pointed out, being told about kneeling isn't a punishment. You cannot punish the practice of the universal norm. I think your reference to it as punishment or commiting a crime would be silly, because to punish the universal norm, you'd have to say it is incorrect. I don't think the US Bishops are on that boat, but you seem to be implying they are.

As far as your inference, I plan to do so. I have no intention to be a eucharistic minister, nor a board member, nor a youtheleader. I am on good terms with the priests, and if it was a problem, I'd make sure to inform them prior to about my decision, but I don't see it as something that is wrong, but instead an option given by the Church. By the way, if any priest or anyone else punishes someone for kneeling, Rome will take care of it personally, if not the Bishop. Bishop Victor Galeone has a history of not denying anyone Communion; he even didn't condemn people who publicly support abortion from receiving Communion, but he did ask them to stop. Now thats a "crime", as a matter of fact, thats a mortal sin. I am not commiting a sin even, the Bishop will understand.

If a priest did come to me (I know them all and have talked with them all extensively), then I'd appreciate them explaining it to me, and then I'm sure they'd listen to what I'd have to say. I respect their opinions, and will stop if asked to, I just don't think it'll be a problem.

As far as eyecatching displays go, my intent isn't to to be the center of attention, just to show reverence that I find proper to Our Lord. As for the spirit of the law vs the letter, if you honestly believe that an indult requiring norm can make the universal norm less preferable, I can only say the spirit of the law isn't comming to us in the same light.

I hope I came across the right way, but I don't find this as disobedience at all, and am throughouly puzzled by anyone who would say it is.

God bless,
Mikey

[Cam42]

[quote] I hope I came across the right way, but I don't find this as disobedience at all, and am throughouly puzzled by anyone who would say it is.[/quote]

You didn't. According to the Congregation of Divine Worship, one who says that receiving is a form of disobedience is incorrect and that thought should be avoided.

[quote]"...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, [u]the faithful should not be imposed upon nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly when they kneel to receive Holy Communion.[/u]" (Mons. Mario Marini; Undersecretary Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments)[/quote]

You are fine Mikey. I think that if this is something that you deem to be important, go for it, you have the support of Rome, your bishop and you have the support of Tradition. You also have my support, but that is beside the point.

Cam42

[journeyman]

I knew I wasn't capable of participating in this debate thread, you all sound like a bunch of lawyers trying to talk your way out of a speeding ticket. I apologize, that was unkind. I will make penance over on the rosary thread. We, as people in the pews, will never be able to reach a final resolution on this debate.

question: what is the church?
question: what is the primary building block of the organization we call church?
parish? diocese? archdiocese? country? continent? world?
question: who is in charge of that organizational entity?
priest? bishop? archbishop? conference of bishops? pope?
question: does tradition (small t) govern in the organizational blocks unless it contradicts Tradition (big T) as interpreted by the higher levels of the organization?
question: is it the practice of the Catholic Church to legislate every minute detail at the upper levels and "hand down" its ruling? or is it the practice to curb excesses only? (there is some term I vaguely remember that covers this concept - freely translated - or at least remembered as - leave the maximum power at the lowest possible level)
question: what is an indult?
question: how does it differ from an adaptation within the competence of bishops and bishops' conferences?
question: is there a relationship between community and communion and communal? should there be?
question: if the communicant is paralyzed, in a wheel chair, and can neither stand, kneel or bow, can they still receive? where does it say that? why should we need it written down in the first place?

without researching the topic, I can only imagine that the letters referenced earlier in the thread were written because someone, somewhere saw fit to deny communion to an otherwise qualified communicant for no reason other than his posture.

would that constitute form over substance?



ps
somewhere I read that the reason the American Bishops retained the requirement (requested special dispensation from the general norms) to have Americans (and apparently this is unique to the United States) kneel between the Agnus Dei and the great Amen is because it was felt Americans were too proud, and needed a little more time on their knees than the rest of the world

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Feb 22 2005, 03:12 PM'] I disagree with Apotheon's interpretation of the Magisteriums interpretations. Just because they do not allow sanctions doesn't mean that kneeling is an option as acceptable as standing. Some action can be illicit without meriting penal sanctions. I guess for cmom and me it is very, very simple:
[/quote]
The main point is this: it is wrong to accuse a man who kneels for communion of disobedience to the Church since the Supreme Magisterium permits this posture.

It is rather strange that some people are accusing a man who kneels before Christ the Lord of disobedience to the Church, when the CDW itself has indicated that people may do this act of worship of the Blessed Sacrament. Certainly, a man who wishes to stand may do so, but if he feels compelled to kneel while receiving holy communion, in order to adore the Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, he may do that as well, and no action may be taken against him. The Vatican Congregation which gave the [i]recognitio[/i] to the request of the U.S. bishops in the first place doesn't interpret the particular law of the U.S. bishops as excluding the practice of kneeling; thus, although standing is the preferred posture of the U.S. bishops for the reception of communion, if a man feels compelled to kneel in adoration of the true and substantial presence of Christ, he may do so, and that act of adoration must not be seen as an act of defiance or schism, but must be understood for what it is, i.e., a sign of worship.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Feb 22 2005, 03:12 PM'] This reminds me of a controversy in moral theology. Apparently I am a probabiliorist, Appy and Cam are probablists. I'm just waiting for an aequiprobibalist to come around.
"Probabilism is the moral system which holds that, when there is question solely of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of an action, it is permissible to follow a solidly probable opinion in favour of liberty even though the opposing view is more probable."
Probabiliorism will take the more free option only if it is more probable than the less free option.[/quote]
This thread isn't about moral theology; instead, it is simply about the liturgical rubrics that have been approved and authoritatively interpreted by the competent ecclesiastical authority.

Thus, I stand by what the proper Congregation of the Roman Curia has said in reference to the posture for receiving communion in the Roman Rite: ". . . while this Congregation gave the [i]recognitio[/i] to the norm desired by the Bishops' Conference of your country [i.e., the United States] 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."

If you have a problem with this ruling of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, I suggest that you take it up with them.

God bless,
Todd

[Cam42]

[quote]We, as people in the pews, will never be able to reach a final resolution on this debate.[/quote]

Actually we in the pews already have the answer. We are simply discussing that answer.

As far as your questions, they have all been answered. All you need to do is take the time to look back on this thread and see the answers. To rehash them, while great for my posting number, is not really all that necessary.

Cam42

[JP2Iloveyou]

No one has yet responded to this point and I would like for someone to respond to it. Thanks.

[quote]Come to think of it, this gives me a parallel argument here. In the United States, there is an indult to kneel throughout the Eucharistic Prayer until the Great Amen. Everywhere else in the world, the rule is to stand following the words of Institution. Now, it seems to me that by your logic, we ought to stand following the Words of Institution, since that is what Rome wants and what the Tradition is. However, I would wager that you probably kneel for the duration of the EP, in accordance with liturgical norms for the United States. I'm curious what the difference is between this case and kneeling to receive Holy Communion.[/quote]

[Cam42]

[quote]I'm curious what the difference is between this case and kneeling to receive Holy Communion.[/quote]

The difference is there is no differnce. There actually is no real difference. I kneel for the duration (including my time in Rome), out of respect for the Blessed Sacrament. I kneel to receive Holy Communion out of respect for the Blessed Sacrament.

Yes, the indult is to receive standing, but that indult was granted by the CDW on the condition that those who wish to receive not be ridiculed for showing reverence for the Blessed Sacrament.

[quote]No bodily posture so clearly expresses the soul's interior reverence before God as the act of kneeling. Reciprocally, the posture of kneeling reinforces and deepens the soul's attitude of reverence. (Bishop John Keating)[/quote]

[quote] The general norm of the universal Church is that the congregation kneel at the consecration of the Mass (GIRM 21). Further, the long and venerable custom of United States Catholics of kneeling for the entire Eucharistic Prayer was reaffirmed by our episcopal conference in 1969 for the post-Vatican Council era. (Bishop John Keating)[/quote]

The custom of kneeling for the entire Canon is a tradition within the United States. Standing for Holy Communion is not tradition within the United States.

Francis Cardinal Arinze supports this:
[quote]The rule from Rome would sanction where the bishops said, "in our country we want people to kneel throughout the consecration". From our office in Rome we will support that. So it is a bit different. But sometimes during the consecration -- suppose it is open-air or it rained and it is muddy -- you could not kneel there. But in the normal church it is possible to kneel.

[b]And that's the normal thing: to kneel during the consecration -- and even, as in this country, to kneel from the beginning -- just before consecration -- right down to just before the Our Father. [u]And that is okay[/u].[/b]

Where a particular person cannot kneel -- you have arthritis or you are a mother holding a baby -- that is understood.[/quote]

So, actually Rome supports the position Appy and I have asserted and it also supports the position of kneeling. I am well in my rights to do both and they are harmonious with one another, for they convey the very same thing, adoration and due reverence for the Blessed Sacrament.

Cam42

Edited February 24, 2005 by Cam42

[JP2Iloveyou]

With all due respect though, you said it yourself that the tradition in the U.S. is not to stand following the EP and before the Great Amen. This is not the tradition in the rest of the world. The CDW has authorized this local change (in the Diocese of the United States of America). You have said yourself that you follow the U.S. bishops' request on this matter (kneeling for the duration of the E.P.) However, you claim the tradition when receiving is to kneel. I dispute this based solely on empirical evidence from every foreign country I've ever been to. Putting that aside for the moment though, the U.S. bishops have also asked the CDW for an indult making the norm in the U.S. to stand when receiving as opposed to kneeling. You have also stated that in this case, you do not follow the indult and instead do what you claim to be the universal norm. So, my question is why do you follow one indult but not the other?

[Cam42]

[quote]Putting that aside for the moment though, the U.S. bishops have also asked the CDW for an indult making the norm in the U.S. to stand when receiving as opposed to kneeling.[/quote]

The indult was granted on the condition that those who wish to kneel for Holy Communion may do so. That is not the case with kneeling for the Canon.

[quote]So, my question is why do you follow one indult but not the other?[/quote]

The answer is that I respect the indult of the bishops and I agree with their position. I do accept that standing acceptable. I think that kneeling is more proper. This indult was given on the sole basis that those who wish to kneel may do so, without being disobedient. Therefore, I am not being disobedient.

On the otherhand, no such provision is granted for kneeling at the Canon. So I am obedient. And Rome accepts this provision. I kneel. I also happen to agree with Bishop Keating.

I say earlier in this thread speaking of standing vs. kneeling to receive:
[quote]Either way is acceptable.[/quote]

I think that it is awfully convient that everyone here (with the exception of the obvious; Mikey, Appy, and me) seems to ignore the part about the recognitio. And the conditions set upon the reception standing. At what point do you simply realize that kneeling to receive the Blessed Sacrament is a licit action in the United States.

Simply put:

Kneeling for Holy Communion - Standing is the norm, but it is completely acceptable and obedient to kneel.
[quote]The faithful may communicate either standing or kneeling, as established by the Conference of Bishops. However, when they communicate standing, it is recommended that they make an appropriate gesture of reverence, to be laid down in the same norms, before receiving the Sacrament. (GIRM no. 160) {and supporting texts}[/quote]


Kneeling for the Canon - Kneeling is the norm, any other action is illicit.
[quote]They should kneel at the consecration, except when prevented by reasons of health, lack of space, the number of people present, or some other good reason. However, those who do not kneel at the consecration ought to make a profound bow when the priest genuflects after the consecration.

But it is up to the Conference of Bishops to adapt the gestures and posture in the Order of the Mass to the customs and reasonable traditions of the people according to the norm of law. The Conference, however, must make sure that such adaptations correspond to the meaning and character of each part of the celebration. Where it is the custom that the people remain kneeling from the end of the Sanctus until the end of the Eucharistic Prayer, this is laudably retained. (GIRM no.43)[/quote]


I am being obedient in both actions. Where is the disconnect?

Cam42

[Cam42]

Also JP2,

While no one here has made the vote, if you head over to St. Agnes for Sunday High Mass (10:00a) or actually daily Mass (6a, 8a or 5:15p), you'll see that the norm for receiving Holy Communion is kneeling at the rail.

You'll also see that Mass is said ad orientam and it is totally Novus Ordo. They follow the rubrics to the letter and there are no deviations. I will even offer this, Fr. Ubel, the acting rector of SPS celebrated Midnight Mass there and he also celebrated St. Agnes day there (Solemn High Mass).

I wonder if your major sem rector was being disobedient for celebrating Mass and having those Holy Communion kneelers receive that way.

Cam42

P.S. Perhaps you already know all of that and if you do, disregard.....

[JP2Iloveyou]

well, I must admit that you have more or less convinced me. I still have a few reservations about it, but I have no problem with people who choose to receive this way. If I'm ever ordained someday, I certainly wouldn't deny Communion to anyone who choose to receive this way.

I'm also familiar with St. Agnes. We have quite a few seminarians from that parish.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='JP2Iloveyou' date='Feb 23 2005, 08:16 PM'] No one has yet responded to this point and I would like for someone to respond to it. Thanks.

[/quote]
I'm not getting involved in this argument (or any other for that matter) as I gave up phatmass for lent (except for the obvious case of prayer requests, etc.). However, I happened to see this thread while browsing through after having posted in my prayer request thread and I wanted to make one comment before I leave again. This is simply a matter correction on a point of history. The statement [quote]Now, it seems to me that by your logic, we ought to stand following the Words of Institution, since that is what Rome wants and what the Tradition is.[/quote] is not in fact correct. More specifically, standing following the words of Institution is not the traditional practice. The universal practice of the Church prior to 1970 was to kneel throughout the entire (or nearly the entire) Canon. The point at which the congregation stood differed depending on what level the Mass was (Solemn High, Low, etc.). In a Low Mass the congregation knelt (or kneels, as the situation remains in those Churches that use the Old Rite) from the end of the Preface (the beginning of the Sanctus) until Holy Communion. They then kneel again upon returning to the pew after Communion and remain in that posture until they stand for the Last Gospel. In a High Mass the congregation begins kneeling at the same time (after the Preface, before the Sanctus) and remains kneeling until the Pater Noster, at which point they stand until the completion of the Haec Commixtio and kneel again before the Agnus Dei.

Just thought I would clarify that.

[Cam42]

[quote]I'm also familiar with St. Agnes. We have quite a few seminarians from that parish.[/quote]

It is quite possibly the best example of the true intention of the Vatican II reforms of the Liturgy. Msgr. Bandas, pastor at the time, instituted the change over to the Novus Ordo. Msgr. Schuler continued the changes in the true spirit of Vatican II. Now, it falls upon Fr. Welzbacher to continue the true spirit of Vatican II.

It is called too conservative, but that simply isn't the case. St. Agnes is simply obedient. It is where I learned what I know about the Liturgy.

[url="http://www.stagnes.net/church/History.do?displayPage=chapter9"]Article on Msgr. Bandas[/url]

BTW, I know the Bauer brothers quite well.

God Bless,

Cam42