“The following undated “Instructions on Receiving Communion Properly” by Oakland Bishop Salvatore Cordileone have been posed on the website of the diocesan Office of Worship.”
For the most part, the comments are depressing.
“The proper posture is standing”—of course, but from him?
Comments
111 responses to ““The proper posture is standing”—of course, but from him?”
-
Bishop C. is a conservative bishop who loves the EF form. However, he should be careful w/ these he associates with. Just look at the comments from those he attempts to please. They are showing their true colors when they don’t get their own way.
Lay down with dogs, get up w/ fleas.
-
Oh, Paul, the comments do not reflect the views of the average Catholic. Because Bishop C. has a more Traditional Catholic following, some even from the SSPX, the comments are a reflection of that small sub group, including those w/ SSPX leanings and NOT the average Catholic.
-
The PDF on the diocesan website was created 11/22/11.
The text was published in the diocesan newspaper back in June 2010.
-
Dr. Ford, with due respect: I’m not sure what you are trying to say. Shouldn’t it be encouraging that a “semi-traditionalist” (if you allow me to invent a term) is posting the GIRM verbatim? Comboxes on the internet are…comboxes, and are given to a lack of charity elsewhere and unfortunately sometimes here.
If I were progressive, I would be fairly encouraged that the bishop is publishing something that won’t be a “home run” with his friendliest constituency.
-
Bruce, what I was trying to say, by quickly drawing our attention to this document and to the comments critical of the document, that even “a conservative bishop who loves the EF” can see the deepest values in the OF, a skill some of his appreciators don’t seem to possess. I almost wrote “hooray” in the original post but I didn’t want even to seem to gloat. I am not very progressive, but I am among those who are encouraged by the document.
-
can see the deepest values in the OF
What are the “deepest values in the OF” you are referencing here?
Remember that the posture of standing for communion is not a universal one, but, “The faithful may communicate either standing or kneeling, as established by the Conference of Bishops.”
We’ve happened to decide on standing in the U.S., but it’s not universal.
-
It’s an English translation on the EWTN web site (as you link below) of an excerpt of the Latin of GIRM 160 without the American adaptations: “”Fideles communicant genuflexi vel stantes, prout Conferentia Episcoporum statuerit.”
-
-
Interesting how chalices in the hands of priests become cups in the hands of the laity.
-
The article was published at least as early as June 2010, more than a year before the new translation came into effect.
-
Well, Jack, it is “transubstantiation” in action.
-
Actually, Bill, this would be a substantial change.
-
-
-
(Sorry if this is a double post – I failed to add a last name and thus wondered if my posts made it through)
Why is negative reaction to figures of hierarchical authority (reasonable or otherwise) lauded in some cases and considered “depressing” in others? Aren’t the commenters under the +Cordileone article simply expressing the sensus fidelium?
I don’t know where I fall on the issue of standing/kneeling communion myself, but I think it’s a tad dishonest to praise dissent from bishops, priests, etc. on some issues – praise often given simply in light of disagreement itself – and not on others.@Jack Rakosky: That may be reading a little to into this, as “the minister of communion” distributing the Blood of Christ may very well be a priest.
-
I don’t understand the issue here. The GIRM states:
“160. The Priest then takes the paten or ciborium and approaches the communicants, who usually come up in procession… The norm established for the Dioceses of the United States of America is that Holy Communion is to be received standing, unless an individual member of the faithful wishes to receive Communion while kneeling (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Instruction, Redemptionis Sacramentum, March 25, 2004, no. 91).”
— from http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/roman-missal/general-instruction-of-the-roman-missal/girm-chapter-4.cfm -
“The following undated “Instructions on Receiving Communion Properly” by Oakland Bishop Salvatore Cordileone have been posed on the website of the diocesan Office of Worship.”
Well, I suppose a sufficiently naive person might assume that, just because a statement appears on a diocesan web sit, it reflects the views of the ordinary. However, in this case, I’m confident that–whatever his chancery denizens think and write–the good Bishop Cordileone does not disagree with his Supreme Pontiff’s view that the proper posture for receiving Holy Communion is kneeling, nor would he agree with the risible suggestion that we should remain standing if Christ Himself entered the room (as indeed He does in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass).
-
Eastern Catholics will not be impressed to learn that their Sunday liturgies are “risible”.
As I linked above, the document was earlier published under the Bishop’s byline in the diocesan newspaper in June 2010.
-
As you of course know, the meanings of gestures and postures are culturally conditioned. Just as standing is the natural posture for Eastern Catholics, kneeling is for Western Catholics. As wearing a beard may be a sign of defiance in one culture, a sign of conformity in another. So what’s “risible” in one context can be laudable in another. To suggest that I would remain standing when He Himself entered the room would be risible. You can speak for yourself.
-
-
Risibility, Mr Edwards, is hardly the fruit of the Eucharist. Desisting from posting peevish comments here and elsewhere might very well be, though.
-
-
Liturgists do seem to be rigid in their own theological outlook no matter the perspective. We have both the tradition of kneeling and the tradition of standing to receive Holy Communion–the east exclusively standing as I understand it and in the west a combination of both–that’s the west’s heritage. Why would anyone then not allow for either option and make either option comfortable? Is there any big deal in having a kneeler or two available for those who wish to kneel? And if one wishes to stand they could stand in front of the kneeler, it’s not that far of a reach to give someone Holy Communion either on the tongue or hand if they stand before a kneeler. Now with that said, I think the impetus for having a kneeler and providing the option of kneeling and allowing for standing in the EF Mass as an option should come from the bishop or be codified in the norms for the USA and so I won’t provide a kneeler until that happens, but I won’t make a big deal about those who kneel on the hard floor or genuflect or those at the EF Mass who stand and insist on Holy Communion in their outstretched hand.
-
The Eucharist over a kneeler sounds like quite a reach to me. Probably meant to make most people feel they should get closer by kneeling when receiving the Eucharist. A kneeler (or kneelers) permanently placed between the altar and congregation? Sounds more like an altar rail, which is what some really want.
-
-
Thank God for Bishops like this. Kneeling is a pre-Vatican 2 posture and more bishops need to speak up. The Church forbids kneeling because we should not personalize communion or use it as a time to show off or stand out. I’ve only had one incident where a visiting Catholic approached me and tried to receive kneeling; however, I instructed her to stand up and she did. Even the USCCB has mandated the posture as standing. This is a non-negotiable as far as I’m concerned. Just stand up if you believe in the resurrection.
-
I would suggest that perhaps a bit more charity could be useful in a pastoral sense. The “pre-V2 = bad, post-V2 = good” dichotomy often leads in some less than helpful directions. Furthermore, I would think that in some (who knows how many cases), those wishing to kneel are doing so out of genuine love and respect rather than a desire to show off. The same can be said for those who stand. I don’t have documentation to hand so I’m prepared to be corrected, but I was under the impression that though standing is the norm, communicants who wish to kneel are permitted to do so by the USCCB.
-
A bit more charity????? LOL!
Have you read what the traditional leaning sites say about progressive catholics?
What Barbara stated was milquetoast compared to what they state at WDTPRS and others.
Want respect? Then you need to give it. And I haven’t seen any of that lately. -
Dr. Dale, what has Michael Skaggs said or done recently that you say you haven’t seen him showing any respect?
Comparing ourselves to others — especially those we consider to be beneath us in whatever area of spiritual growth we believe we excel at — is precisely the sin of the Pharisee in Luke 18, and showing respect only to those from who you receive it is not the standard we are held to in Luke 6. If we compare ourselves to God and His standard, rather than others and their (lower) standards, we would be slower to excuse our behavior (“at least I’m better than so-and-so”) and quicker to apologize instead and strive for improvement.
If we want charity, we must be the ones to provide it. If we want respect, we must be the ones to show it; we should outdo one another in showing it!
This isn’t directed to you specifically, Dr. Dale. It’s for all of us here, and myself particularly.
-
Jeffrey
Forgive me if you’ve read my synopsis of this memory before, but the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican implies a cure to the potential feedback loop, as once stated about 40 years ago in the single most memorable homily I’ve ever heard: the homilist, having proclaimed that pericope, closed the book and stood a moment in silence before giving a single-sentence homily to the following effect: “I wonder how many of us are thanking God we are not like that Pharisee.” Silence. Sat down. More silence for a couple of minutes before proceeding to the Creed.
-
Thank you, Karl. That’s an excellent homily, one that I would not mind hearing every now and then.
When we encountered this Gospel passage last year, I related it to the college students at the Bible Study by comparing grading on a curve to grading without a curve. It resonated with them. The homilist’s pithy one-sentence meditation would also have done the trick, I’m sure.
-
And Jeffrey, that homilist’s method applies to so many other of the teachings. It never fails to give more gifts of surgically b****-slapping insight. For example, it’s why, when I encountered the history of the ascetic monastic impulse, that I instantly understood that the idea of removing oneself with the idea of isolation away from temptation is a fool’s errand – because we carry it all within us, no matter how virtuous our goal of fleeing it….
-
Jeffrey and Karl:
Before you both pass judgement I suggest you re-read my comment.
If you read my post, my comment was directed not to Michael but rather as I stated:
“have you read what the traditional catholic “SITES” say about progressive…”
and
“…compared to what “THEY STATE” at WDTPRS and “OTHERS”…”I was referring to THOSE SITES when I made the comment to Michael that you need to give respect if you want respect. I had just finished reading the comments and vile directed against Bishop C when I made that statement (read a sampling of them below). My wrath was directed to those sites and comments, not to any individuals.
Jeffrey, with your scholarly experience I find it difficult to believe that you missed that. Also, my defense of Barbara (even though she is wrong in telling the communicant to stand) in no way is evidence that I think I am better than anybody else on this site . That’s an inference you made.
And Karl I hope your comments about me, however well couched, also applies to that “potential feedback loop” between Jeff and you.
You both should re read my comment before passing judgement…
And Michael I apologize if you took offense, my comment was never directed at you but toward those “sites”. -
Dr. Rodriguez, thanks for the clarification. I’ll admit I felt a little attacked when I read your first comment and thus appreciate the second one. All is well.
Although this is merely the opinion of one person less than qualified to judge the actions of others – whether they be commenters here, or at WDTPRS as you mention, or the hundreds of other “progressive” or “traditional” sites and blogs – I don’t think even bringing up the attitudes of others is a productive way to go about things. For the most part (or at least in my experience) blogs tend to be read by and commented on by sympathetic audiences (e.g. a “progressive” blog is read by and commented on by “progressive” Catholics, a “traditional” blog is read by and commented on by “traditional” Catholics, and so on). In this way, bringing up the actions or words of “those other people,” even in the most righteous anger and indignation, merely fuels the flames more as those whom we wish acted differently will likely never read our words, and even more likely still only become angry if they do. It probably won’t help heal the wounds between the two camps, and speaking from my own experience it can serve to bolster a rather un-Christian disdain for those with whom I disagree.
In summary, after this far too long comment, I agree with your anger at vitriolic and immature comments, from either side of this unfortunate divide our Church has. But I don’t think bringing up the sins of our fellow pilgrims is going to help anything.
-
Thank you Michael.
I never intended for the comment to be directed toward you. When I finished reading the comments from the other site I was in no mood to be charitable toward their site.
Maybe I’m a bit touchy about this because we’ve had individuals in our church from that mindset. Even letters to our two priests stating that Vatican II was an abomination, and if I remember correctly, our priests going to hell, etc.Although I disagree w/ you on tactics, I agree that it’s not about their sins or passing judgement on them however, what they say should be brought to light for discernment.
Again, I apologize for any misunderstanding. -
Dale
My response to Jeffrey was an opportunistic sidebar about that pericope.
-
Dr. Dale, as the end of my comment stated, my mention of Luke 18 and Luke 6 was not specifically directed to you; only the question of “respect” which I thought was directed at Michael S. was specific to you.
I was trying specifically not to “pass judgment”; or, if that was unavoidable, to judge myself as well.
My “scholarly experience” (a degree in Computer Science) did not avail me in this instance. I was not saying that you were comparing yourself to Barbara; if anything, I was implying that Barbara was comparing herself to WDTPRS commenters, to keep herself above their level, and for that, I apologize.
Finally, I did not think that Karl was trying to make a point about anyone here, couching it in an anecdote; I read it simply as sharing a powerful homily related to the Scripture passage I referred to — nothing more, nothing less.
-
-
Removed in an attempt to starve the troll
-
Barbara, between sticking out your tongue at communicants and instructing them during the rite, you’ll get us progressives a bad name. You’ll have all the trads baying for your blood. At least if you’re going to do these things, keep them quiet. 🙂
-
I believe that’s kinda the point….
-
Echt?
-
-
oops.
-
-
DNFTT….
-
Good point – thank you!
-
-
Whether one intends to or not, assuming a posture different than the rest of the congregation calls undue attention to oneself. I have seen this most often in a communicant who kneels to receive while all others are standing, or a choir member who kneels after the Sanctus while the others remain standing. I have seen this situation cause another person to trip over the kneeling person, fall on the floor, and cause a major disruption. The actual result was disruption, not piety, despite the person’s best intentions.
When I attend an occasional Tridentine Mass, I kneel to receive Communion on the tongue as those do around me. I suppose I could insist on receiving in my usual manner of standing-a perfectly valid and licit option-but I’d rather opt for decorum. When in Rome…
-
Does this apply to the Lord’ Prayer as well? If a large number of the congregation opts to hold hands, are they or the ones not holding hands calling “undue attention” to themselves?
What about those who cannot kneel/stand/sit due to health; are they, too, calling “undue attention” to themselves?
While your personal observation is affirmed, it is not persuasive; I have seen kneeling and standing co-exist without “disruption”.-
Really?
THE TRADS ARE NOW DISSENTERS!
Follow the rules, stand only for Holy Communion.
Hand holding during the Lords Prayer? Sorry, not addressed in the GIRM so your argument is baseless. -
Kim, the norm is standing, but they can kneel on their own but it is not encouraged and accommodations (kneelers) are not required.
For too long progressives were accused of dissent because they disagreed w/ a bishop and now look… What is really revealing is the bile spewed in some of the comments, makes us progressives look quite pacifistic! -
Really?
THE TRADS ARE NOW DISSENTERS!
Follow the rules, stand only for Holy Communion.
Hand holding during the Lords Prayer? Sorry, not addressed in the GIRM so your argument is baseless.
Kim, to quote the GIRM:
“160. The Priest then takes the paten or ciborium and approaches the communicants, who usually come up in procession… The norm established for the Dioceses of the United States of America is that Holy Communion is to be received standing, unless an individual member of the faithful wishes to receive Communion while kneeling (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Instruction, Redemptionis Sacramentum, March 25, 2004, no. 91).”
– from http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/roman-missal/general-instruction-of-the-roman-missal/girm-chapter-4.cfmAnyone who kneels is following the rules.
As for holding hands during the Lord’s Prayer, I was only following the argument as presented: calling “undue attention” to yourself – though we do not have yet the definition of “undue attention”
-
-
-
I don’t understand the issue here.
Christopher, I am preparing a post that builds on what I wrote back in August about the Interiority and the Exteriority of the Communion Rite. The issue, as I see it, is the persistence of behaviors and attitudes from the EF in the OF, especially during the Communion Rites. The procession to receive communion is not one of the places in the Communion Rites for acts of adoration and private contemplation.
-
Paul Ford :
The procession to receive communion is not one of the places in the Communion Rites for acts of adoration and private contemplation.That is a fine opinion, but kneeling to receive the Eucharist in Mass is not “private contemplation” but an allowed posture.
As the GIRM allows both postures, kneeling is not just a “behavior…from the EF in the OF” but a part of the OF. -
Paul, There is no procession to receive Communion in the EF? In my parish there sure is. It’s not 2 Masses, it’s still the same Mass, regardless of OF or EF. Why should “behaviors or attitudes” be any different at one form (of Mass) or the other? This harkens back to “it’s the procession that matters” and not that we’re receiving Communion. I “feel” more community kneeling next to others at the rail waiting to receive than I do staring at their backs.
-
It seems hard to explain what the bow (until relatively recently a genuflection) before receiving the Host is other than an act of adoration mandated by the rite itself.
-
The few occasions when I have witnessed people genuflecting before receiving communion have all been the the fairly recent past. I have no recollection of people genuflecting before that. It certainly wasn’t practised by my own or my parents’ generation when I was growing up.
-
It certainly wasn’t practised by my own or my parents’ generation when I was growing up.
The point is what was mandated by the rite, not how it was observed.
-
-
-
Barbara Lowenthal :Thank God for Bishops like this. Kneeling is a pre-Vatican 2 posture and more bishops need to speak up. The Church forbids kneeling because we should not personalize communion or use it as a time to show off or stand out. I’ve only had one incident where a visiting Catholic approached me and tried to receive kneeling; however, I instructed her to stand up and she did. Even the USCCB has mandated the posture as standing. This is a non-negotiable as far as I’m concerned. Just stand up if you believe in the resurrection.
Barbara, I agree with your analysis; but I think the communicant is free to kneel to receive and that the minister is not authorized to instruct at this moment.
-
You agree that “The Church forbids kneeling;” that “the USCCB has mandated the posture as standing; and that “This is a non-negotiable?”
As posted above, the USCCB, via the GIRM, allows for kneeling as does the Church in general.
-
-
Both P. Ford and S. Pluff raise interesting questions that move the discussion away from validity/permission. I think the argument for decorum is more convincing, though, as Ford’s assertion that the communion procession is not a time for devotion leads me to another question: if we accept kneeling as an act of devotion, could it be argued that standing as an expression of belief in the Resurrection is also an act of personal devotion? If so, I would tend to agree with Pluff that uniformity of reception should arise from decorum rather than out of norms or whether or not this is a time for personal devotion.
-
Christopher, Paul’s affirmation of Barbara is in reference to her (and Scott’s) point that one might call undue attention to oneself by adopting a significantly different posture. This much seems obvious. Read the rest of Paul’s comment that when this happens, and indeed it will from time to time, the EM needs to simply roll with it and not offer correction. He said nothing about permissibility, he only speaks of how to handle the case of the communicant who diverges from standard practice. The “to join or not to join” question at the Lord’s Prayer is not relevant to this discussion.
-
Thanks, Paul, that’s what I was trying to say to Barbara.
-
I’ll accept that you know Paul better than I; his statement does not clearly say what you have given.
I use the holding or not holding hands at the Lord’s Prayer as another example of a lack of uniformity that calls undue attention…
Speaking of “undue attention” – how exactly is kneeling to receive bringing about this “undue attention?” Is the congregation so focused on the posture of each communicant?
As for the argument from decorum, that’s delving into the subjective.
-
-
Bruce, what I was trying to say, by quickly drawing our attention to this document and to the comments critical of the document, that even “a conservative bishop who loves the EF” can see the deepest values in the OF, a skill some of his appreciators don’t seem to possess. I almost wrote “hooray” in the original post but I didn’t want even to seem to gloat. I am not very progressive, but I am among those who are encouraged by the document.
To be honest, I think that’s reading into it a lot. I suppose my take is that he was saying this out of 1) obedience to the document; 2) a spirit of fraternity with his brother bishops in the US. Further, since the comments about kneeling, etc., are prefaced by “in line”, that would tell me that (all things being equal) if a priest requested that everyone communicate by kneeling at an altar rail, that the bishop would be fine with that.
In sum, I think he can say this and it’s a win-win: trads will say, “Well, if there were an altar rail, it would fix the problem”, and progressives would say, “Well, maybe he’s not that traditional after all, or is at least open-minded.”
In any case, from what I’ve seen, +Cordileone seems like a scholarly-type, not the sort that does something because it’s the neo-con current way of doing things: the same spirit that leads some of them to advocated singing the Mass…while they will sing nary a note!
-
Whether one intends to or not, assuming a posture different than the rest of the congregation calls undue attention to oneself. I have seen this most often in a communicant who kneels to receive while all others are standing, or a choir member who kneels after the Sanctus while the others remain standing. I have seen this situation cause another person to trip over the kneeling person, fall on the floor, and cause a major disruption. The actual result was disruption, not piety, despite the person’s best intentions.
When I attend an occasional Tridentine Mass, I kneel to receive Communion on the tongue as those do around me. I suppose I could insist on receiving in my usual manner of standing-a perfectly valid and licit option-but I’d rather opt for decorum. When in Rome…
Scott, if I may: for the EF Mass, the valid way of reception would be kneeling, since (it seems from Roman documents) that we are to avoid “cross-pollenization” between EF and OF. However, lest you think this post is a cheap shot (!): my misgiving with this is, how much should we regulate the laity’s posture? What does it achieve? I appreciate the spirit of fraternity that a shared liturgical posture presents, and therefore I receive standing according to the norms. However, I’ve never been sure about what that achieves if someone has a mind (an inspiration of the Holy Spirit, even) to receive another way. We have a long history of being heavy-handed in the Roman Church!…
-
Or is the formerly discouraged “cross-pollenization” the “mutual enrichment” that is now encouraged. I’m not sure we yet know the answer to this question.
In any event, I attend both some OF and some EF Masses at which their are both kneelers and standers without the diversity being a distraction. I attend others at which the norm (in either case) would be a distraction. Isn’t common sense the best quide? Except for the fact that some people just don’t have any.
-
Right, Henry, thus my caveat about “c.p.” vs. “m.e.” I have been to Masses where kneelers are provided for those who wish to kneel, and it was fine. The problems happen when a kneeler is not provided. Given a chance to respect the diversity of posture or put everyone into a mold (even if it is a laudable mold based on liturgical theology), I would tend to just put out the kneelers if the architectural plan of the church allows…pax Scott and Paul.
-
Or charity.
But who needs charity when they’ve got the rubrics memorised?!
And indeed rubrics of two “forms” – one of which was abrogated.
-
-
-
Let me add to our discussion the page on the matter of communion posture from our friends from EWTN and then I will post the text of GIRM 160 in a form that shows what is new to this edition of the GIRM.
-
Here is the GIRM as found on the USCCB site:
“160. The Priest then takes the paten or ciborium and approaches the communicants, who usually come up in procession… The norm established for the Dioceses of the United States of America is that Holy Communion is to be received standing, unless an individual member of the faithful wishes to receive Communion while kneeling (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Instruction, Redemptionis Sacramentum, March 25, 2004, no. 91).”– from http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/roman-missal/general-instruction-of-the-roman-missal/girm-chapter-4.cfm
-
My, my, some trads have their magna cappas all tied up in knots over their presumed betrayal by Bishop C. That’s what it’s all about, really.
It must be getting hot over at the pharisaical Wdtprs!-
Is this a charitable comment?
-
-
I only sampled some comments here and there, but they overall didn’t seem any worse than many of the comments here at this blog (most struck me as more tame, actually).
-
Really? More tame?
With all due respect I think you read the wrong comment section Jack.
Here is a sampling of what “traditional catholics” wrote from that site:
… The older I get I realize the Church is infiltrated with those bent on destroying our faith…
and:
…”it’s no wonder… had a hard time attending a NO mass. He probably felt the whip come out and was made to conform or be in sin, so it probably seemed that way to many…. lets punish them for not accepting the new way, slam the CCC on them, punish them for holding on to the old ways, strip them of their traditions and bring forth more confusion and division! Water down the message from the early church doctors….(personally, I’ve never heard the “whip” excuse before)
another one:
Those from the Traditional Element will continue to remove themselves from the NO … Vanity and Pride will continue to be prominent and most obvious.
and:
Maybe the bishops are beginning to write off the novus order groupies… In other words let those with faith in bobbles and bangles go whichever way the winds carry them into obscurity…
and:
The bishop is simply not being honest… That or he is ignorant of the truth.I personally like this one:
The Bishop needs to discuss the ABUSES / VIOLATIONS by the Laity of holding hands during the Lord’s Prayer with arms up in the air like Protestant tradition, and giving the sign of Peace to others that are not nearest to them.Finally there were a few honest comments, this one is an example:
Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2012 7:37 AM By Dante
WOW…for a blog that seems to attract mostly traditional Catholics I am quite saddened and surprised at the overwhelming prideful, arrogant and seemingly disobedient attitude towards a bishop of the Church who is speaking and teaching well within his authority and apostolic office. How very sad.So even one of the commentators states that he is saddened by his fellow traditional catholics who display “prideful, arrogant and disobedient” attitudes.
-
“With all due respect I think you read the wrong comment section Jack.”
No, I read the correct one.
I never said they were all good comments or that they make traditionalists look good. Rather, I pointed out that they didn’t seem that far removed from what I’ve seen of liturgical progressives when they get together online to complain about stuff they don’t like.
-
Jack, you said “here at this blog”
I was defending PrayTell.
-
-
-
Regarding the sign of reverence, currently in England and Wales the position is as follows (Celebrating the Mass, Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, 2005):
210 The Communion procession expresses the humble patience of the poor moving forward to be fed, the alert expectancy of God’s people sharing the Paschal meal in readiness for their journey, the joyful confidence of God’s people on the march toward the promised land. In England and Wales it is through this action of walking solemnly in procession that the faithful make their sign of reverence in preparation for receiving Communion.
-
Wow, I like that. I think it makes more sense, a chance to examine ones conscience. In the States some make a bow before receiving but not before talking to everyone on the way to the altar.
-
Thanks, Paul! Food for the spirit.
-
-
I understand that in many places out west, people remain standing at their pews even after they’ve received Holy Communion and until everyone has. I’ve had two occasions to witness this, the first time was odd for me as it was a mixed congregation from all over the country for a conference. The westerners staunchly refused to sit or kneel after Holy Communion, while the rest (the majority) did kneel after receiving. Those standing stood out like a sore thumb and indeed called attention to themselves. The second occasion for me to witness this was in California in early January at a large parish in a large, famous oceanside suburb of Los Angeles whose church is the same name as the town. I would say about 2/3rds of the people knelt after receiving and the rest stood. I was toward the back and while I thought it peculiar, after a while it didn’t seem to matter nor was it distracting, but the “kneelers” were the majority, maybe an act of protest or maybe the protest was the other way around?
-
In Boston, the archdiocesan norm issued several years ago is that people are to remain standing while the communion procession is continuing. That said, while some parishes (one very near me, for example) do follow it, it’s not universally taken root. So far, and mercifully, I’ve not encountered any ministers so foolish as to try to “educate” the PIPs to the minister’s preferred praxis in this regard.
-
Father Allen,
I suspect not protest at all, but a mixed-culture thing. . The folks out west may well have adopted that custom from their Latino neighbors. At the Spanish-language Masses in my parish, the custom is to stand after Communion. Not so at the English services, and we see an interesting mix at Easter Vigil.
-
Father Allan, I think you are attributing far too much to regional variation and especially to protest.
If you follow the EWTN link at Paul Ford’s comment on January 31, 2012 – 1:38 pm, there were many people (at diocesan and parish levels) around the country that interpreted the new GIRM to require standing after returning from communion until the entire communion procession had ended.
Cardinal George asked the CDW for an interpretation. Arinze replied that that the encouragement to a common posture was not intended to “regulate posture rigidly in such a way that those who wish to kneel or sit would no longer be free.”
In our diocese, as Karl reports for Boston, the GIRM was interpreted to require standing. However like in Boston, some parishes implemented this while others did not. So some parishes that started to stand after communion continue to stand while others continue to kneel. I would not be surprised that some people continue to do what they do in their home parish when they go to other parishes.
I think there is a lot of parish to parish and diocese to diocese variation, and that most people are mainly following what they have heard or seen in their home parish, or from their diocesan office rather than having a protest agenda. I suspect most if they were familiar with the EWTN link would just conform to the practice of whatever parish in which they happen to worship.
-
Jack, of course my comment on “protest” was in the form of a question–I don’t know if it is a protest or not.I simply asked the question. And as a visitor to the California church in question, I did what most people do in a particular parish and after Holy Communion I chose to sit as some were doing that too, but the majority knelt and a significant number stood. I was clearly in the minority by sitting but the person in front of me was sitting which makes it hard to kneel behind a person sitting and I was tired of standing since the back of the church went to Holy Communion first and everyone had to wait for everyone to complete the process! (Actually the side aisles went first by going toward the back of the church and down the center aisle and then once they did this successfully the back of the church went next and the people on the very front pews were last, poor souls, on display standing the whole time!)
-
Actually the pattern for going to communion that you experienced is the one used in the local church with the EP. However every one sits as soon as Communion begins (maybe because they stand during the EP? maybe because sitting is the common posture for a meal?); there are no kneelers! The floor is stone.
Since I sit on the side where the choir is, I usually receive communion early. I guess I could stand and sing since the choir is standing and singing behind me, but the parish has nice cushioned chairs in stead of pews (the meal theme again?).
-
-
-
While the discussion is focusing on the current situation in the United States, I though it might be helpful to broaden the discussion by including the relevant adaptations from other English speaking nations.
NEW ZEALAND
160. The Priest then takes the paten or ciborium and approaches the communicants, who usually come up in procession.
It is not permitted for the faithful to take the consecrated Bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them on from one to another among themselves. In the dioceses of New Zealand standing is the most common posture for receiving Holy Communion, though individual members of the faithful may choose to receive Communion while kneeling. When approaching to receive Holy Communion, the faithful bow in reverence of the Sacrament that they are to receive.CANADA
160. The Priest then takes the paten or ciborium and approaches the communicants, who usually come up in procession.
It is not permitted for the faithful to take the consecrated Bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them on from one to another among themselves. In the Dioceses of Canada, Holy Communion is to be received standing, though individual members of the faithful may choose to receive Communion while kneeling. When standing before the minister to receive Holy Communion, the faithful should make a simple bow of the head. When receiving Holy Communion on the tongue, they reverently join their hands; when receiving Holy Communion in the hand, they reverently open their hands placing one beneath the other, and they consume the host immediately upon receiving it -
AUSTRALIA
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. In Australia standing is the most common posture for receiving Holy Communion. The customary manner of reception is recommended to be followed by all, so that Communion may truly be a sign of unity among those who share in the same table of the Lord. When approaching to receive Holy Communion, the faithful bow in reverence of the Mystery that they are to receive.ENGLAND & WALES
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 faithful communicate either kneeling or standing, as determined by the Conference of Bishops. When they communicate standing, however, it is recommended that they make an appropriate sign of reverence, as determined in the same norms, before receiving the Sacrament.-
Interesting shades of approval or disapproval conveyed by the choice of words: I interpret the texts as follows.
New Zealand: Standing and kneeling are both ok, but with a slight preference for standing
Canada: Standing and kneeling are both ok but standing is preferred
Australia: Standing is best, kneeling would be frowned upon.
England and Wales: Standing and kneeling are both ok (depending on bishop), but with a reservation about standing.-
The “reservation” regarding receiving Communion while standing goes back to 1967’s Eucharisticum Mysterium:
34. a) In accordance with the custom of the Church, Communion may be received by the faithful either kneeling or standing. One or the other way is to be chosen, according to the decision of the episcopal conference, bearing in mind all the circumstances, above all the number of the faithful and the arrangement of the churches. The faithful should willingly adopt the method indicated by their pastors, so that Communion may truly be a sign of the brotherly union of all those who share in the same table of the Lord.
b) When the faithful communicate kneeling, no other sign of reverence toward the Blessed Sacrament is required, since kneeling is itself a sign of adoration. When they receive Communion standing, it is strongly recommended that, coming up in procession, they should make a sign of reverence before receiving the Blessed Sacrament. This should be done at the right time and place, so that the order of people going to and from Communion may not be disrupted.
-
In my mind it is the word “however” that conveys the negative tone about standing, subtly implying that kneeling is preferred; that word is present in the England and Wales writing but not in the text you quote. Your quote strikes me as neutral in tone. It says “When… When…” with no “however”, or any other link that would suggest that one option is worse. (But this is purely my interpretation, and I am not a native English speaker.)
-
-
-
It seems the norms for most other countries as well as our own do allow for kneeling at Holy Communion as a option for those who choose it. It shows great flexibility. Americans tend to be rigid legalists when it comes to law, civil or religious; we know how Italians approach law which is far from rigid and which has it merits. The fact is that kneeling is allowed as an “exception” in church norms; and norms are not rigid laws. Now, when will we show acts of kindness and hospitality toward those who wish to take an exception to the “norm” that is clearly allowed by the norms and provide kneelers for those who legitimately have the option to kneel to receive Holy Communion and not define the unity of the assembly so rigidly as to how they receive Holy Communion? And is not each parish in the world in unity with one another not by liturgical postures (which vary from parish to parish and country to country) but by the one Sacrifice that is celebrated and the One Lord we receive–isn’t that were we need to clarify right teaching and be rigidly orthodox about it rather than reducing “unity” to a liturgical act or posture as though these were gods?
-
“The westerners staunchly refused to sit or kneel after Holy Communion, while the rest (the majority) did kneel after receiving. Those standing stood out like a sore thumb and indeed called attention to themselves.” Fr. A.J. Mac Donald
To refer to a decision to stand as a “staunch refusal to sit or kneel”; and to employ judgmental expressions such as “standing out like a sore thumb” and “drawing attention to themselves,” to refer to the same people flatly contradicts how you are recommending other people should behave.
Perhaps it’s an occupational hazard of preaching.
-
Thank you Mary for the comment on preaching, as with all preachers, I’m glad I hit a nerve and the resultant vitriol is indeed an “occupational hazard of preaching! 🙂
-
-
Mary’s observation is on target, in that it’s pretty clear Fr. Allen, that you looked down on the people who stood after communion, even though you are saying you are in favor of tolerating their practice.
However, the original reason this was brought up needs more clarification. The two cases are apples and oranges.
The practice of kneeling/standing for communion is not expected to be at the discretion of the individual communicant or bishop, but rather a decision reached by the conference of bishops.
The practice of standing after communion, on the other hand, which is in the GIRM, is and can be a diocesan norm. As it is in several dioceses. The people who follow this are not “staunchly refusing” anything.
-
Rita, your judgement in the first paragraph is simply not true and quite condescending, period. And actually I was looking up at the people in question. But looking down on people, really Rita? No problem with what you wrote subsequently.
-
-
-
Fr. Allan J. McDonald :
Thank you Mary for the comment on preaching, as with all preachers, I’m glad I hit a nerve and the resultant vitriol is indeed an “occupational hazard of preaching!Not of preaching (which you’re called, ordained and paid to do) – of blogging (which you’re not).
-
But in America, I have a right to blog. Thanks for clarifying the distinction. I can only preach by the faculties given me by my bishop; I can blog as an American.
-
Mary
I am baffled. Fr A described his initial observation and then his own reflection that the different postures did not matter. This is not telling people what to do.
Hitting a nerve could be a good thing: I hope that a pain killer will do that if I am in pain.
Perhaps he should have written: “Gave food for thought.”
Just think how boring this blog would be if we all thought in exactly the same way.
-
-
-
I think Mary’s point is more nuanced than that.
It’s not simply a case of Fr A. J. M. describing an initial observation and following that up by his own reflection.It is the gap, indeed the contradiction, between the judgmental nature of his observations in relation to something he dislikes on the one hand, and on the other his call for others to be tolerant of difference.
-
Thanks Gerard
I think that the description of staunch is what attracted attention. Yet Scott Pluff above seems to recommend acting in keeping with local practice: opting for decorum. Those observed by Fr A were not doing so.
But Fr A goes on to say that it seemed to him, on reflection, that it did not matter. So this does not seem to be condeming those who take a different view to him.One of the good things about the blog is that one gets ideas about our fellow commenters and occasionaly are surprised as they say something unexpected. Good. A mere ding dong of contradictions would do little good. Monty Python demonstrated that.
-
“Monty Python demonstrated that.”
No they didn’t.-
Indeed they did. That was once they had established that the customer was looking for an argument rather than insults. It had to stop at the end of the allotted time: unless the argument continued in free time.
-
I was doing the skit!
-
Well done. But would all our North American readers know the piece?
-
I got the reference. Monty Python ain’t small in the US.
-
Good on you Jeff.
-
-
-
Maybe a compromise????
When I was a Eucharistic minister I always paid attention to see to it that our handicapped parishoners in the first pew were offered communion by me, and incidentally they always kneeled. Hmmm…
How about this:
Rope off the first pew. At communion, remove the rope. Those who prefer to kneel can slide from the line into the first pew to kneel for Communion. There is usually a minister nearby to offer them communion. They can easily stay there in prayer until someone else slips into the first pew to kneel for communion.
VOILA
No distractions from kneeling “in line” and no kneeler barriers to trip over (sometimes quite busy there w/ people/priest/minister coming and going) or block the view of the altar!-
Nothing wrong with a compromise!
I have to ask about “distractions from kneeling ‘in line’.” I’ve seen people walking up to communion trip over carpet, canes, crutches, their own feet, someone else’s feet and the distraction was momentary.
Does kneeling to receive cause any more distraction?-
“Does kneeling to receive cause any more distraction?”
I’m not touching that one w/ a 10 foot pole!
Has already been “heatedly” discussed before…..But I might add, I always feared that when someone kneeled they would lose their balance and fall forward into my, well, you know, you get the drift Christopher……
-
-
-
May I share a commentary on Luke 18:9-14 from a Jewish perspective”
“Some Christian readers dismiss the Pharisee as hypocritical, sanctimonious and leglistic, and in turn identify with the tax collector…However, this reading traps the interpreters to conclude…”God, I thank You that I am not like This Pharisee” places the readers in the very position they condemn….this interpretation overlooks the Pharisee’s supererogatory qualities: tithing, fasting, giving thanks without asking for something in return.
“Other readers presume the tax collector stands ‘far off’ because other worshippers ostracize him…
“Still others perceive the Temple to have become an elitist, xenophobic….’domination system’…
“Finally, we might see the Pharisee as helping the tax collector, just as the sin of one person impacts the community…so the merits of the righteous can merit the community….. Perhaps the Jews who first heard this parable understood the Pharisee’s merit positively to have impacted the tax collector. This would be the parable’s real shock: not only that the agent of Rome is justified but that the Pharisee’s own good works helped in that justification.”
—THE JEWISH ANNOTATED NEW TESTAMENT,
Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Zvi Brettler
Oxford University Press, 2011
page 138.-
Thank you
-
-
John, possibly yes but… St. Paul, I think, put an end to this and the “dead works of the Law” and considering the narratives where Jesus spoke out against the pharisees and also considering it was the pharisees who had Jesus put to death I don’t think it would fit. However, this is just my opinion and others may feel differently.
-
A couple of commenters have described the norms in England & Wales with reference to out-of-date texts. This, I believe, is the rubric as it appears in the Roman Missal currently in force:
GIRM 160. “In the Dioceses of England and Wales,
and of Scotland Holy Communion is to be received standing, though individual members of the faithful may choose to receive Communion while kneeling. However, when they communicate standing, it is recommended that the faithful bow in reverence before receiving the Sacrament.”-
Thanks Ben, I could not find the most recent edition online.
-
It’s not very easy to find it online – I couldn’t see it anywhere on the website of the Liturgy Office for England & Wales, but the Scottish Liturgy Office has posted a pdf of the GIRM as it appears in the altar missal published by CTS for Scotland, England & Wales & Australia.
http://romanmissalscotland.org.uk/general-instruction-of-the-roman-missal.html
-
-
This is certainly what GIRM 160 says now, but the Bishops’ Conference paragraph in Celebrating the Mass that I quoted above, regarding the act of walking solemnly in procession being the sign of reverence, is still de facto particular law in those countries until such time as the Norms for the Distribution of Holy Communion, referred to in the generic part of paragraph 160, are returned to the Conference by the CDWDS.
-
I can’t speak for E&W, but I presume that for Scotland the letter of Cardinal Canizares to Cardinal O’Brien of 17 March 2011 indicates that the Congregation has approved the norms in GIRM 160.
-
-
-
In the olden days when monarchies were the usual form of government throughout the world, it was common for people to kneel, if not prostrate themselves, before their sovereign as a mark of respect. This made kneeling at times in the Mass very appropriate as a mark of respect.
Now, with the elimination of kneeling before monarchs, the act of kneeling in a church has for most people become a unique symbol of our unique relationship with God. That we kneel *only* before God makes a statement in itself. It says, “My unique physical action expresses my unique spiritual action of adoring God.”
It also seems that contemplatives in the West, at any rate, find it natural (or second nature) to kneel when praying. So kneeling has itself become a symbol saying “I am praying”.
So it seems to me that this powerful symbol is most appropriate *after* actually receiving Communion, that is, when we have returned to our pews. Random people interrupting the flow of people receiving Communion by kneeling is distracting, and therefore not a good idea. (I might add that old people with typically bad knees find kneeling to receive Communion impossible or extremely difficult.)
Compromse: everyone stand when receiving Communion, kneel afterwards in the pews as a symbol of prayer and adoration.
by
Please leave a reply.