Kneeling while receiving Holy Communion
Dorothy Hanussak
Kneeling while receiving Holy Communion
In the same vein, we can deplore the fact that the tradition of
kneeling while receiving
Holy Communion has been abolished. Whether this abolition was
officially prescribed
by the Holy See or whether individual bishops introduced this
practice in their dioceses is irrelevant. The fact is that, since
Vatican II, most altar rails
have been removed, discouraging or even preventing the faithful from
kneeling. In
Belgium, new churches are so built that kneeling is rendered
impossible. The
congregation sits during the whole Mass; only at the moment of
consecration do they
stand up for a few moments. Once again, a sacred tradition has been
ruptured, and we
can raise the question - why?
A sharp distinction between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches,
on the one
hand, and 27,000 Protestant sects on the other, is that the former
believe in the Real
Presence of our Lord and Saviour in the Holy Eucharist while
Protestants believe it to
be a mere symbol. Roman Catholics take seriously the words of Christ
"My flesh is food
indeed, and my blood is drink indeed," and therefore firmly believe
that He is
physically present under the appearance of bread and wine. The only
appropriate
physical response to this unfathomable mystery is adoration, best
expressed in our
culture by kneeling. It would make no sense whatever for Protestants to
kneel in front
of a mere symbol.
If Christ were to appear visibly to us, we would instinctively and
immediately
prostrate ourselves in front of Him (a response exemplified again and
again in the
Gospel). Failing to take the physical posture appropriate for adoration
can only weaken
the faith of the faithful in the Real Presence of Christ in the
Eucharist. For if spiritual
beliefs influence bodily behaviour, our bodily behaviour necessarily
has an effect upon
our soul - a psychological truth deeply understood by St. Benedict, the
father of
western monasticism.
One is permitted to raise a question: Was this sacred and deeply
meaningful tradition
abolished to accommodate Protestants who took offense at 'Catholic
idolatory'? Was
this unfortunate step taken to make an ecumenical gesture that would
placate our
separated brethren? Whether it has, in fact, brought Protestants an
inch closer to the
one true faith can be questioned. That it has had a negative effect on
the faith of Roman
Catholics can hardly be contested.
Bill Silverthorn
dot...@ix.netcom.com(Dorothy Hanussak) wrote:
>Kneeling while receiving Holy Communion
>In the same vein, we can deplore the fact that the tradition of kneeling while receiving
>Holy Communion has been abolished. Whether this abolition was officially prescribed
>by the Holy See or whether individual bishops introduced this practice in their
>dioceses is irrelevant. The fact is that, since Vatican II, most altar rails
>have been removed, discouraging or even preventing the faithful from
>kneeling. In Belgium, new churches are so built that kneeling is rendered
>impossible. The congregation sits during the whole Mass; only at the moment of
>consecration do they stand up for a few moments. Once again, a sacred tradition has been
>ruptured, and we can raise the question - why?
This subject caught my eye, as I have often said that I miss the
"kneeler's" and wish that Catholic's could "export" these pew additions to
Protestants. Then I realized and remembered going to Communion at the
Altar kneeler and truly remember the reverence that public kneeling had on
me at a very young age. Yes, I would give this as a wonderful return for
the Church to retain it's culture. In this I enjoyed your post .... up to
this point ... but then you start to "blame the protestants" again ... ho
hum ... your post lost its credibility. It is so tiring to hear that
everything that is "not right" or "missed" or "changed" is the fault of the
protestants ....
>A sharp distinction between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches,
>on the one hand, and 27,000 Protestant sects on the other, is that the former
>believe in the Real Presence of our Lord and Saviour in the Holy Eucharist while
>Protestants believe it to be a mere symbol.
What, pray tell does this have to do with kneelers? There are many
protestant churches that have kneelers at the front of the church for
public prayer during services. When Protestants have communion, it is not
with party hats and beer, it is a very reverent occasion that also
acknowledged the "presence" of Christ in our life. Please stop with the
"blame the protestants" for all the modernist changes that you abhore and
the loss of the things you remember. This is really sad.
>The only appropriate physical response to this unfathomable mystery is adoration, best
>expressed in our culture by kneeling. It would make no sense whatever for Protestants to
>kneel in front of a mere symbol.
IMHO, this is stereo-typing at the worst level. Yes it would make all the
sense in the world if you only knew what Protestants really taught about
the Communion meal. However, again IMHO, feeling that you are right and
they are wrong is what you are doing here. Do you not kneel before your
"mere symbol" of a crucifix? do you not not kneel in front of statues or
candles when you pray in the vestibule? Do you not kneel in the pews when
you wait to go to Confession?
Kneeling is a wonderful thing in the Roman Catholic faith that I am sad to
see that they are getting away from .... but I see NO pressure, complaint,
comparison, innuendo or anything from Protestants in history or today that
would justify the "strawman" argument you are making. If you are not happy
with the removal of the rail at your altar, write the vatican .... but
please quit blaming your favorite scape-goats, the "protestants."
>One is permitted to raise a question: Was this sacred and deeply meaningful tradition
>abolished to accommodate Protestants who took offense at 'Catholic idolatory'?
If so, shouldn't you question their logic? Catholic "idolatry" was hardly
the question in the differences on the Eucharist. Idolatry comes into
discussion in the icons, rosary, crucifix, etc. You are building a
strawman that has a "weak bed" and even if this is ignored, you would have
to point your disappointment at those within your church that errored and
not at the Protestants that you wrongly assume they copied. One of the
attractions to Pentacostal services, is the openness of public prayer
kneeling in the front of the church, in prayer with the pastor and elders.
>Was this unfortunate step taken to make an ecumenical gesture that would
>placate our separated brethren? Whether it has, in fact, brought Protestants an
>inch closer to the one true faith can be questioned. That it has had a negative effect on
>the faith of Roman Catholics can hardly be contested.
Perhaps it was made to make RCC less different, which if that is so is a
shame. But then is the mass in the "venacular" also a step toward
protestantism? I personally feel that it was quite beautiful to follow the
Latin Mass in my English missal, praying while the Latin cantoring could be
heard, kneeling during Communion in either my pew or at the altar. None of
this should be changed and definitely wrongly BLAMED for the change because
of Protestants. There is no ecumenical value in Roman Catholic Services
making these kinds of changes and there is even less ecumenical value when
one "hints" at it being done "for the protestants."
Bill
Anthony Laferriere
Dorothy Hanussak wrote:
>
> Kneeling while receiving Holy Communion
>
> In the same vein, we can deplore the fact that the tradition of
> kneeling while receiving
> Holy Communion has been abolished. Whether this abolition was
> officially prescribed
> by the Holy See or whether individual bishops introduced this
>
> practice in their dioceses is irrelevant. The fact is that, since
> Vatican II, most altar rails
> have been removed, discouraging or even preventing the faithful from
> kneeling. In
> Belgium, new churches are so built that kneeling is rendered
> impossible. The
> congregation sits during the whole Mass; only at the moment of
> consecration do they
> stand up for a few moments. Once again, a sacred tradition has been
> ruptured, and we
> can raise the question - why?
>
> on the one
> hand, and 27,000 Protestant sects on the other, is that the former
> believe in the Real
> Presence of our Lord and Saviour in the Holy Eucharist while
> Protestants believe it to
> "My flesh is food
> indeed, and my blood is drink indeed," and therefore firmly believe
> that He is
> appropriate
> physical response to this unfathomable mystery is adoration, best
> expressed in our
> culture by kneeling. It would make no sense whatever for Protestants to
> kneel in front
> of a mere symbol.
>
> immediately
> prostrate ourselves in front of Him (a response exemplified again and
> again in the
> Gospel). Failing to take the physical posture appropriate for adoration
> can only weaken
> the faith of the faithful in the Real Presence of Christ in the
> Eucharist. For if spiritual
> beliefs influence bodily behaviour, our bodily behaviour necessarily
> has an effect upon
> our soul - a psychological truth deeply understood by St. Benedict, the
> father of
> western monasticism.
>
> meaningful tradition
> abolished to accommodate Protestants who took offense at 'Catholic
> this unfortunate step taken to make an ecumenical gesture that would
> placate our
> separated brethren? Whether it has, in fact, brought Protestants an
> inch closer to the
> one true faith can be questioned. That it has had a negative effect on
> the faith of Roman
> Catholics can hardly be contested.
Also to be found in the EWTN Library is an article from the Holy See that
says an act of adoration is required before receiving the Host and that
the act best used to show that adoration is the genuflection. Many
people in my parish receive the Host in their hands step to the side and
genuflect before taking the Host into their mouth. Once I find the
article's title I will post it for you so that you can read it, too.
Robert F Underhill
Dorothy, the answers to all your questions can be found in the GENERAL
INSTRUCTIONS. There is an edition with the comments and recommendations
of the American Bishops for under $10.00, which I have seen in Catholic
stores in Boston, Manhattan and Washington, D.C.
I'll try to locate my copy and post the publishers name if you wish.
Another source to answer all your posts is the magazine RELIGIOUS LIFE
put out by the Institute On Religious Life 3051 North Chtistiana Avenue,
Chicago. IL60618 - $10.00 a year. They have a good library of back
issues for sale.
There are articles in the current issue which I received yesterday on
Consecrated Life, Luturgical Dance (not allowed during the
liturgy), the moral implications of IVF, the use of the sacrarium
(the illegal disposition of consecrated wine), recommended texts
for grammar schools, the effect of religion in stopping AIDS and
STDs, Poor Clares, Missionaries of Charity, and "Man's Immortal Sout
and the Catechetical Controvery - plus articles concerning Bill
Clinton which I have quoted under Mayan Girl's "Why I'll Vote
Democratic"
This is the one magazine I save my copies of for reference (though they are
inaccesible at the moment) and I am sure that I have on file articles on
all the interesting issues your raise in your several current postings.
Bless you for your concern; more of us need to share it.
Bob Of Boston
--
GMDowns
In article <3227E3...@gte.net>, Anthony Laferriere <atha...@gte.net>
writes:
>article from the Holy See that
>says an act of adoration is required before receiving the Host and that
>the act best used to show that adoration is the genuflection.
If you read the directive on reception of Holy Communion, you will see
that it does in fact, call for an "act of adoration". But I think it is
described as happening before reception of the Body of Christ either in
the hand or in the mouth. While an "act of adoration" can take many
forms, many Catholics feel comfortable with genuflection. While the
person in front of you is receiving the Body of Christ, the suggestion is
made that you genuflect and be back in a standing position for your
reception. I have observed this practice in several places and if done
with thought and care, does not interrupt or cause any disruption. What
does cause interruption and disruption is if someone chooses to kneel in
front of the priest or eucharistic minister when receiving. I find the
practice of kneeling in front of the priest distracting and less than
reverent.
Dorothy Hanussak
In <50816o$h...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> w...@ix.netcom.com (Bill
Bill, You missed the first post explaining that I would post a long
article of Alice Von Hildebrand's in parts, this was due to the fact
that the original article was 5 pages long. None of the article is
mine, as the post titled Von Hildebrand said.
ho
>hum ... your post lost its credibility. It is so tiring to hear that
>everything that is "not right" or "missed" or "changed" is the fault
of the
>protestants ....
See my comment above.
Again, READ THE POST TITLED ALICE VON HILDEBRAND. YOU have jumped the
gun with all of your attempts to down grade me.
Dorothy Hanussak
In <3227E3...@gte.net> Anthony Laferriere <atha...@gte.net>
writes:
>Dorothy Hanussak wrote:
>>
>> Kneeling while receiving Holy Communion
Anthony wrote:
>Also to be found in the EWTN Library is an article from the Holy See
that
>says an act of adoration is required before receiving the Host and
that
>the act best used to show that adoration is the genuflection. Many
>people in my parish receive the Host in their hands step to the side
and
>genuflect before taking the Host into their mouth. Once I find the
>article's title I will post it for you so that you can read it, too.
I would appreciate seeing the article. My husband and I have stopped
receiving in the hand and receive in the mouth only, before doing so,
we both genuflect. The first time we did it, the priest was surprised,
you could see. I guess they are all used to us now.
Dorothy
Dorothy Hanussak
In <Dx03s...@world.std.com> por...@world.std.com (Robert F Underhill)
writes:
>Dorothy, the answers to all your questions can be found in the GENERAL
Bob, none of the article was from my words, but were from Alice Von
Hildebrand. As explained in the first of the series of posts, the one
titled Alice Von Hildebrand, it was her article that I found and
seperated into segments because the article was five pages long.
I have already decided that abstinence should be done the old way as
much as possible, kneeling should be done before receiving Communion
and etc.
Dorothy
Mark Johnson
gmd...@aol.com (GMDowns) wrote:
>In article <3227E3...@gte.net>, Anthony Laferriere <atha...@gte.net>
>writes:
>>article from the Holy See that
>>says an act of adoration is required before receiving the Host and that
>>the act best used to show that adoration is the genuflection.
>While an "act of adoration" can take many
>forms, many Catholics feel comfortable with genuflection.
Isn't that, however, only to trivialize the ought as something of
whimsy and inchoate idiosyncracy? Maybe there's actually a reason we
all _ought_ to kneel. It's an outside possibility, at least, would you
not agree?
>What does cause interruption and disruption is if someone chooses to kneel in
>front of the priest or eucharistic minister when receiving. I find the
>practice of kneeling in front of the priest distracting and less than
>reverent.
Sure, because there's no rail, no altar boy, no priest carefully
saying more than Body of Christ - and some won't even say _that_
anymore - and no careful preparation prior to receiving The Eucharist.
Of course, it's 'distracting' to behave reverently in an irreverent
ceremony. That's crystal clear, and painfully obv. Personally, I've
never seen this, though I once, myself, did kneel at Ash Wednesday,
after waiting in line, rather than be 'blessed' by some proud 'EM'
rather than the priest, who just sat by to watch his lil experiment.
But that was the only time. HOWEVER, the next time a priest refuses to
say a word as I come up to receive Communion, I'm going to stop right
there, and 'distracting' or not, I'm going to ask him, point black -
do you believe this is the Body and Blood of Our Lord, Jesus Christ -
and if he replies, yes, I'll then simply say - then why not just say
so, please. And if he doesn't believe it, and if he's even an old
style pre-Vat II priest, then what does that say about how even the
priest sees 'new order'? I mean, really. Distracting, you bet it's
distracting. What we all need, you, me, everyone - is The Mass.
Peace.
MAYAN GIRL
dot...@ix.netcom.com(Dorothy Hanussak) wrote:
>Kneeling while receiving Holy Communion
>In the same vein, we can deplore the fact that the tradition of kneeling
while receiving
>Holy Communion has been abolished... In Belgium, new churches are so
built that kneeling is rendered
>impossible. The congregation sits during the whole Mass; only at the
moment of
>consecration do they stand up for a few moments. Once again, a sacred
tradition has been
>ruptured, and we can raise the question - why?
Someone told me that the Office of Divine Worship has come out with
guidelines about this. Supposedly they are encouraging people not to
kneel. Some priests in our diocese do not have the people kneel at
anytime during the Mass. This person also told me about some other areas
that are doing this like the state of Hawaii (are they one diocese?).
Anyone else hear any of this?
Laura
Caliban100
Yes I have Laura. I work with the Missionaries of Charity and while
talking to one of the nuns she told me how distraught they were to hear
that the bishop in St. Paul's, Alta, Canada (Cardnial Gagnon's old
diocese), was insisting that the nuns remain standing for all mass, and
their Holy Hour of Adoration. I heard that the Bishop was sending a
priest to check up on the nuns to ensure that they complied with his wish.
I was shocked and called a Wanderer reporter in San Jose, and I was
shocked when he told me "That's nothing new, in San Jose they have been
forcing us to do that for years now."
Hilary
Bill Silverthorn
dot...@ix.netcom.com(Dorothy Hanussak) wrote:
Sorry, but I would suggest in the future that you add her name to each post
or at least in the subject line since it is a natural expectation that a
reader will assume that the author is the submitter and not a natural
expectation that every article posted will be read. i.e. explanations
about one post in another will always lead to misunderstanding ... the
fauth of the media.
>>ho hum ... your post lost its credibility. It is so tiring to hear that
>>everything that is "not right" or "missed" or "changed" is the fault of the
>>protestants ....
>See my comment above.
and mine ....
>>>A sharp distinction between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches,
>>>on the one hand, and 27,000 Protestant sects on the other, is that the former
>>>believe in the Real Presence of our Lord and Saviour in the Holy Eucharist while
>>>Protestants believe it to be a mere symbol.
>>
>>What, pray tell does this have to do with kneelers? There are many
>>protestant churches that have kneelers at the front of the church for
>>public prayer during services. When Protestants have communion, it is not
>>with party hats and beer, it is a very reverent occasion that also
>>acknowledged the "presence" of Christ in our life. Please stop with the
>>"blame the protestants" for all the modernist changes that you abhore and
>>the loss of the things you remember. This is really sad.
>>>The only appropriate physical response to this unfathomable mystery is adoration, best
>>>expressed in our culture by kneeling. It would make no sense whatever for Protestants to
>>>kneel in front of a mere symbol.
>>IMHO, this is stereo-typing at the worst level. Yes it would make all the
>>sense in the world if you only knew what Protestants really taught about
>>the Communion meal. However, again IMHO, feeling that you are right and
>>they are wrong is what you are doing here.
>Again, READ THE POST TITLED ALICE VON HILDEBRAND. YOU have jumped the
>gun with all of your attempts to down grade me.
No, I am responding to an article posted by you, if the author is not you
then my comments are directed to the author but that error is not mine.
However, I can only assume that you agree with this post or you would not
have posted it. I accept and understand now and do wish that I knew who
wrote it before I posted my reply but that would only change the "person"
of my reply. If you are representing Ms. Hildebrand's view's "in proxy"
then please support them, as I am only "countering" with my own feedback of
stating how tiring it is to constantly hear of the "Protestants" being the
cause of all the wrongs and the inflictors of all that is disagreeable with
the RCC.
>> Do you not kneel before your
>>"mere symbol" of a crucifix? do you not not kneel in front of statues or
>>candles when you pray in the vestibule? Do you not kneel in the pews when
>>you wait to go to Confession?
>>
>>Kneeling is a wonderful thing in the Roman Catholic faith that I am sad to
>>see that they are getting away from .... but I see NO pressure, complaint,
>>comparison, innuendo or anything from Protestants in history or today that
>>would justify the "strawman" argument you are making. If you are not happy
>>with the removal of the rail at your altar, write the vatican .... but
>>please quit blaming your favorite scape-goats, the "protestants."
Bill
Dorothy Hanussak
In <50g6i8$c...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> calib...@aol.com (Caliban100)
writes:
>Yes I have Laura. I work with the Missionaries of Charity and while
>talking to one of the nuns she told me how distraught they were to
hear
>that the bishop in St. Paul's, Alta, Canada (Cardnial Gagnon's old
>diocese), was insisting that the nuns remain standing for all mass,
and
>their Holy Hour of Adoration.
Excuse me for butting in here, but I find this so sad and painful that
I can't resist. What is happening to our Church/religion?????
In non-religious life we are supposed to give the so called important
people 'respect.' Why are we being denied the right to give respect to
Jesus who is, IMHO, THE most important person? There can be NO reason
for this that would ring logical or true.
A comment was once made about me (I forget from whom) as to the length
of time it would take me to 'get used' to the changes in the Church as
it is today. After reading this, I can finally answer....
It will take me to my death because they keep adding and subtracting
things from the practise of the Catholic religion at Mass and
otherwise. The Novus Ordo Church is in DEEP trouble folks.
I heard that the Bishop was sending a
>priest to check up on the nuns to ensure that they complied with his
wish.
This is outrageous! Since when do the Bishops, or anyone else for that
matter, have to monitor how the nuns pray? (Hilary, please, I DO NOT
mean you. I mean whomever started this monitor the nuns thing.)
>
>
>I was shocked and called a Wanderer reporter in San Jose,
Is the Wanderer some kind of religious paper?
Dorothy
Dorothy Hanussak
In <50hqe9$l...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com> w...@ix.netcom.com (Bill
Silverthorn) writes:
>
>dot...@ix.netcom.com(Dorothy Hanussak) wrote:
>
>>In <50816o$h...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> w...@ix.netcom.com (Bill
>>Silverthorn) writes:
>>>
>>>dot...@ix.netcom.com(Dorothy Hanussak) wrote:
>>>
>However, I can only assume that you agree with this post or you would
not
>have posted it. I accept and understand now and do wish that I knew
who
>wrote it before I posted my reply but that would only change the
"person"
>of my reply. If you are representing Ms. Hildebrand's view's "in
proxy"
Bill,
I saw an article, found it interesting and posted it because I thought
others might find it interesting. <PERIOD>
If you want to know how I feel about any of the topics, since this one
that seems to offend you is on kneeling, I agree with the act of
kneeling before receiving Communion out of respect for Our Lord. I will
not get into your problem with hearing how "Protestants" get blamed as
the cause of all wrongs, because I, personally, had no intent of
placing blame when I read this article. My reason for agreeing with
kneeling is the respect I feel should be paid to Jesus. For the author,
it apparently went further, for me I have only the due homage I feel
should be paid to one of the greatest sacraments the RCC has.
Dorothy
Bill Silverthorn
calib...@aol.com (Caliban100) wrote:
>Yes I have Laura. I work with the Missionaries of Charity and while
>talking to one of the nuns she told me how distraught they were to hear
>that the bishop in St. Paul's, Alta, Canada (Cardnial Gagnon's old
>diocese), was insisting that the nuns remain standing for all mass, and
>their Holy Hour of Adoration. I heard that the Bishop was sending a
>priest to check up on the nuns to ensure that they complied with his wish.
>
>I was shocked and called a Wanderer reporter in San Jose, and I was
>shocked when he told me "That's nothing new, in San Jose they have been
>forcing us to do that for years now."
>Hilary
I am not Catholic but I do feel that the "kneeling" is a blessing, a
wonderful signature, something that the Church should keep forever. This
would be a sad case indeed if the above is true. However I cannot also
help but read a little bit of here-say (not to be confused with heresy!
;-). What was the actual message from the bishop, etc. is beyond me but
perhaps a actual quote would be better. Also, is the "Wanderer" a
Christian newletter in San Jose? Just curious.
Anyway, I would love to know why any Catholic Church would want to get away
from kneeling???? It is a real shame that Catholics have to attend a
Pentacostal service at an Assembly of God Church if they want to kneel at
the Altar. I don't where they will go if they want a kneeler in the pew!
God Bless,
Bill
Mark Johnson
w...@ix.netcom.com (Bill Silverthorn) wrote:
>Anyway, I would love to know why any Catholic Church would want to get away
>from kneeling????
I can only guess because 'one mass is as good as another', as certain
'better way' priests are wont to say, when what they really mean is
that they _prefer_ the way of certain 'separated brethren', eastern
Catholics even, who insist this is the way to go. Call it 'ecumenism'.
Call it . . . . well, be original (but be charitable).
Peace.