No-Kneeling Rule Sparks Widespread Outcry

LINCOLN, Neb. - A new directive on the posture for receiving Communion is being implemented in a way that those who wish to receive kneeling are often humiliated.

The new directive merely codifies what has been a practice since the 1960s, and it isn't meant to prevent those who still receive kneeling, usually at an altar rail, from doing so.

Nevertheless, Adoremus Bulletin editor Helen Hull Hitchcock and EWTN news anchorman Raymond Arroyo said they have heard from people all over the country who are being forced to stand.

"We've gotten a lot of reports from Southern California of people being interfered with, told they must stand during the distribution of Communion, stand until everyone has received and refused Communion if they knelt," Hitchcock said.

The July issue of the U.S. bishops' Committee on the Liturgy newsletter says that kneeling is "not a licit posture for receiving holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States of America unless the bishop of a particular diocese has derogated from this norm in an individual and extraordinary circumstance."

In fact, Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Neb., "has given a derogation so people can kneel if they prefer," said Father Mark Huber, chancellor. "There has been a lot of confusion" about the new norm, said Father Huber, who speculated that there will "probably be enough questions sent to Rome to lead them to make a clarification."

The new norm comes out of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM), a set of directives on how to celebrate and assist at Mass. Published with the new edition of the Roman Missal, the GIRM says communicants may receive standing or kneeling, as established by the bishops' conference.

The U.S. bishops requested a number of other adaptations to the GIRM. Before approving them, Cardinal Jorge Medina Estévez, prefect of the Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, insisted that the bishops add a clarification that communicants should not be denied the Eucharist because they kneel. The adaptation says that instances of people kneeling should be addressed pastorally "by providing the faithful with the proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm."

Cardinal Medina's letter, from Oct. 25, 2001, stated: "This dicastery [Vatican department] agrees in principle to the insertion [of the standing adaptation]. At the same time, the tenor of not a few letters received from the faithful in various dioceses of [the United States] leads the congregation … to urge the [bishop's] conference to introduce a clause that would protect those faithful who will inevitably be led by their own sensibilities to kneel, from imprudent action by priests, deacons or lay ministers in particular, or from being refused holy Communion for such a reason as happens on occasion."

Msgr. Anthony Sherman, assistant director of the bishops' Committee on the Liturgy, affirmed that one can not be refused Communion for failing to stand, but he said that people ought to "accommodate themselves to the new norms."

But insistence on standing is causing angst for many individuals and groups riding the wave of what they see as a return to traditional pious practices but which others see as nostalgia for the pre-Vatican II Church. It also is presenting a dilemma for people who are aware of the need for obedience to priests and bishops but feel a need to show respect for the Blessed Sacrament in what they consider a traditional, more reverent posture.

Parishioners at St. Patrick's Cathedral in Fort Worth, Texas, say several people have been humiliated by priests or eucharistic ministers who have insisted that the communicants stand before they are given Communion. They say their complaints to Fort Worth Bishop Joseph Delaney and Msgr. Hubert Neu, pastor of the cathedral, have not yielded satisfactory answers.

The parish council wrote to Cardinal Medina. An undersecretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship replied July 1, reiterating the stipulation that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Communion on those grounds.

"The priests have stopped coming to the altar rail," said Robert Gieb, an attorney who is president of the parish council. He pointed out that parishioners never stopped the practice of receiving at the rail after Vatican II. He said many parishioners were angered by implementation of the new norm, which started in the diocese on the solemnity of the Body and Blood of Christ in June.

"The Eucharist is the heart of the Catholic faith," said parishioner Bobby Ryan, 40, who finds it hard to give up the devotional kneeling he has learned since he became a Catholic in 1995. "For people who have knelt all their lives, and a bishop saying you shouldn't kneel, there's something wrong. … I'd think it would make a bishop happy to have people in his diocese who want to kneel."

Gieb, who said he and a few other parishioners still kneel, complains of what he calls the "posture police, who want to prohibit the faithful from dropping on their knees before God."

Msgr. Neu said he does not deny or delay Communion to anyone who kneels. "We're going by the norm," he said, pointing out that the bishops want uniformity in practice. People who kneel are "going contrary to the norm, but I've given Communion to them." Bishop Delaney could not be reached for comment.

The U.S. bishops' liturgy committee, in an article titled, "Postures and Gestures at Mass," said that standing is a sign of respect and honor: "This posture, from the earliest days of the Church, has been understood as the stance of those who are risen with Christ and seek the things that are above [emphasis in original]. When we stand for prayer we assume our full stature before God, not in pride, but in humble gratitude for the marvelous thing God has done in creating and redeeming each one of us. By Baptism we have been given a share in the life of God, and the posture of standing is an acknowledgment of this wonderful gift."

Communion, said the unsigned article, one of a series of bulletin inserts on the Roman Missal, is "the sacrament which unites us in the most profound way possible with Christ who, now gloriously risen from the dead, is the cause of our salvation."

The article, which can be read on the committee's Web page (www.nccbuscc.org/liturgy/girm/bul3.htm), gives a brief overview of the history of kneeling. It says kneeling signified penance in the early Church, when kneeling was forbidden on Sundays and during the Easter Season and "the prevailing spirit of the liturgy was that of joy and thanksgiving." In the Middle Ages, kneeling signified the homage of a vassal to his lord, it said, and more recently, the posture has signified adoration. The article does not cite authorities for this historical overview.

The committee's July newsletter noted the GIRM emphasizes that in matters of gesture and posture "greater attention needs to be paid to what is laid down by liturgical law and by the traditional practice of the Roman Rite, for the sake of the common spiritual good of the people of God rather than to personal inclination or arbitrary choice."

In their consideration of the GIRM, the U.S. bishops "repeatedly recalled the need for uniformity in all prescribed postures and gestures," the newsletter said. "Such uniformity serves as a 'sign of the unity of the members of the Christian community gathered for the sacred Liturgy' and it 'both expresses and fosters the spiritual attitude of those assisting,'" said the newsletter, quoting the GIRM. "Likewise, a lack of uniformity can serve as a sign of disunity or even a sense of individualism."

The new norm also instructs the communicant who stands to receive to bow his head before the Host or Precious Blood as a gesture of reverence. It does not say anything about genuflecting or making the sign of the cross, which some Catholics do before receiving from a priest at the head of a line.

But Bishop William Higi of Lafayette, Ind., wrote in his diocesan newspaper in June that "a person is not to genuflect before receiving." He speculated that many people genuflect in response to reports of low levels of belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

"However, the sign of reverence has now been clearly determined for the United States," he wrote in his weekly column in The Catholic Moment. "It is a bow of the head."

"Should a person insist on kneeling for the reception of holy Communion, Communion will not be denied, but they clearly will be demonstrating dissent from the mind of the Church," Bishop Higi continued. "Rather than reverence, the emphasis will be refusal to embrace particular law approved by the Vatican for the United States."

Father Gerry Pokorsky, who heads Credo, a society of priests advocating high-quality translations for the Mass, finds it "disproportionate" to insist that kneeling is "illicit" when there have been so many other problems in the Church in recent years.

As to the liturgy committee's article claiming that kneeling was an act of penance in the early Church, Father Pokorsky cites St. Paul's dictum that, "At the name of Jesus, every knee shall bow."

"That doesn't sound like penance to me, it sounds like adoration," the Arlington, Va., priest said. "Why this aversion to acts of piety? It's such a one-sided emphasis. Will the bishops now be attendant to all the liturgical abuses?"

As an example of those abuses, Father Pokorsky spoke of priests failing to perform the ritual washing of the hands after the presentation of the gifts. Other Catholics pointed out that some celebrants fail to genuflect after the consecration and lay ministers in the sanctuary often are exempted from the requirement to kneel during the Eucharistic Prayer.

What many Catholic lay people are complaining about is that priests who are cavalier themselves about following obligatory liturgical norms become draconian in enforcing an optional directive on lay people. And bishops who ignore flagrant liturgical abuses by priests promote strict adherence to liturgical norms when it comes to a common posture for lay people.

Dominican Father Giles Dimock, a former professor of liturgy and now dean of the Dominican House of Studies in Washington, D.C., said it's helpful to have a uniform posture, but that this goal must be balanced against individual devotion and the common good.

"I would never dream of refusing Communion to someone who wants to kneel," Father Dimock said. "They feel it's necessary" to show reverence in such a way.

At the same time, communicants should be aware that Communion needs to be distributed to others in an orderly way. As a professor at Franciscan University in Steubenville, Ohio, Father Dimock was accustomed to giving Communion to students on their knees, but he said a few knelt a bit longer than a regard for others in line would allow. For those few students, the priest said, it was "like their own personal holy hour."

When they pulled it in my parish last Lent, I had no idea what was going on. I hadn't seen it in all my years. They acted like it was always done, but I swear it was new.

Are there any conservative-minded Catholics in the Atlanta area that have found a Novus Ordo Mass that is not out and out offensive? I don't mind going to the Novus Ordo, as that is what I grew up with, but the presentation gets worse and worse all the time and more disrespectful of Christ, no matter how many parishes I try.

It looks like its Latin or nothing for me at this point.

I don't mind going to the Novus Ordo, as that is what I grew up with, but the presentation gets worse and worse all the time and more disrespectful of Christ, no matter how many parishes I try.

It looks like its Latin or nothing for me at this point.

I'm somewhat in the same boat. The closest Latin Mass to me is at 10 am in Soulard just south of Downtown St. Louis. It's about 20 minutes to half an hour highway driving. It happens that my church job starts at 10 or 10:10 on Sunday morning. So I go to 9 at the parish between me and my job. If the music problem would go away, this parish would be just fine. Nice and conservative. The liberals have fled to the social justice club parishes in the bad neighborhoods. I think if push came to shove the pastor at this parish would go back to using the Communion Rail in a heartbeat.

Growing up, I really never saw a Communion Rail used until we moved to the east coast for a while. I actually liked it better, and then a new pastor ripped it out.

What does the Vatican propose in a parish of 7500 average Mass attendance on Sundays and one priest?

If people examined their consciences better and understood the Church's traditional teaching on the disposition necessary to receive Communion, the Communion lines would be much shorter.

I shouldn't complain too much, a lot of Catholics aren't fortunate to even have access to the Latin Mass, but mine is a good 50 minutes away. Of course, I know of people that drive hours to go every Sunday.

My most recent parish seems conservative in how they celebrate the Mass (at least relative to others), and the homilies are generally non-offensive. But like yours, the music is the worst. The responsorial psalm has had all pretense dropped as to be a psalm, and is now one guy singing his best improvisational blues. The other music is folk, or what I would expect to be in a Pentacostal church. It really is embarassing, and

It's really crazy in the South, the Catholic churches try so hard to be Protestant, that I don't even know why they bother. The inconvenient little thing called the Eucharist seems to be the only vestige of Catholic doctrine or tradition left, and I don't doubt they would eliminate that if they could think of a way.

But like yours, the music is the worst. The responsorial psalm has had all pretense dropped as to be a psalm, and is now one guy singing his best improvisational blues.

We kind of lucked out here. Psalms are required to be Responsorial, preferably either chant or psalm tones. The problem is that midwesterners have lazy tongues and, even with mikes, you can't understand a word. All the Jesuit folk music started here, so weaning people off of it hasn't been easy. I prefer the organ, but alas, at 9 the guy plays piano.

The other music is folk, or what I would expect to be in a Pentacostal church. It really is embarassing

It is embarassing, that's for sure. And that so many Catholic musicians are working in the protestant churches should be a source of shame.

If people examined their consciences better and understood the Church's traditional teaching on the disposition necessary to receive Communion, the Communion lines would be much shorter.

Ah, yes. Would you reimpose the three hour fast as well?

Can't have too many folks receiving the Eucharist, can we? Those of you who would go every week could'nt preen, could you?

You must agree with another poster who recently joined this site ("Maximilian"), who maintains that 99% of all Catholics are in the state of mortal sin.

And that so many Catholic musicians are working in the protestant churches should be a source of shame.

Catholics are skin-flints. Most think that a couple of bucks thrown in the basket is "stewardship" because nobody has the guts to tell them otherwise. Half the Catholics in America would be run out of the Baptist Church for stinginess.

Can't have too many folks receiving the Eucharist, can we? Those of you who would go every week could'nt preen, could you?

That's kind of cold, sinkspur. I'm sure he is only concerned with the disposition of his brothers and sisters souls.... just like St. Paul said, and just as the Church teaches.

I guess you think it would be a bad idea to have priests and bishops preach on the power and efficacy and need of Confession?

That's kind of cold, sinkspur. I'm sure he is only concerned with the disposition of his brothers and sisters souls.

Loyalist's discouraging reception of the Eucharist. If I didn't know better, I'd swear he's discouraging it as a way to eliminate the widespread use of Eucharistic Ministers.

Adult Catholics will be called to account for their actions. I'm not in favor, as our newly-arrived Maximilian is, of condemning Catholics to hell while they're still alive. Nor am I, as Loyalist seems to be, in favor of wagging-fingers at fellow members of the Body of Christ.

I've got a big beam to get out of my own eye that will likely take the rest of my life.

The practice of frequent Communion has waxed and waned throughout Church history.

Frequent Communion was encouraged by Popes Leo XIII and Pius X during a period when a habit of excessive scrupulosity around concerning the reception of the Sacrament was common among Catholics in Europe. It was the right thing to do for the time.

Today, most people have lost a sense of sin and the need for sacramental Confession. There has also been a corresponding decline in belief in the Real Presence. The less internally disposed Catholics are to receive sacramental grace, the less efficacious the Sacrament is.

There is desperate need of proper catechesis on the subject, which hasn't been generally available for the past 35 years. Too many people just don't understand what statement they make by receiving Communion and the reproach of an unworthy Communion.

Obviously priests can't police everyone who goes up to receive Communion. That is something each individual must do, in examining his conscience, for himself.

>>It looks like its Latin or nothing for me at this point.

If you're in Atlanta, you're in luck. You seem to have one of the best indult Latin Mass communities in the US, St. Francis de Sales, run by the FSSP. The CTNgreg email list has several members from the parish and they are highly enthusiastic. Unlike most other indult situations, it's a real parish and not just 1 Mass on Sunday.

How is asking you why it is important to you that the Novus Ordo remains 'normative' a "gotcha"? It was in reference to your straight out statement to that effect which you offered early on in this exchange. You were plainly evasive. Any person who reviews the whole thread could see that. Why did you run when you were presented with an opportunity to expand on your own statements?

Oops! I asked you another direct question. Mea culpa. ;-)

Seriously, please don't play these games. It just wastes bandwidth and makes people think that you are not a serious individual, rather you make it so very easy to consider you a mere dilettante or even an obstructionist .

Sursum Corda

You seem to be the only one who thinks I'm "playing games."

I'll put my bona fides as a "serious poster" up against yours any time.

If you think the Novus Ordo is not "normative" in the Roman Catholic Church today, then I suggest it is you who are not a serious individual.

>>I'm not in favor, as our newly-arrived Maximilian is, of condemning Catholics to hell while they're still alive.

Rather than "condemning" people to hell, which is God's job, I'm warning people that they are OBJECTIVELY in a state of sin. And that they are in danger of eternal damnation. There is no greater charity than saving a soul from hell.

If you want to read someone who REALLY gets into this topic, and especially related to the issue of receiving communion, try reading the Cure of Ars. We are reading his sermons before we say our family rosary, and he is one person you can count on to not pull any punches. He gives it to you right between the eyes.

If more priests copied his sermons instead of making up their own psycho-babble, we'd be reforming the Church, the way he reformed the Church in France after the devastation of the French Revolution. And, like Loyalist pointed out, we'd have no problem with excessively long lines for communion.

The grave sin here is PRESUMPTION. It is a huge problem for today's Church. Reading the Cure of Ars is the best cure. And speaking of hell, he personally suffered attacks from the devil that are frightening to read. Maybe that's why he was careful to avoid presumption (in its technical sense), and why he was so avid to save the souls of his parishioners.

Our Lady of Mount Carmel, in Littleton, CO ( on the southern edge of Denver) is a real parish too. We have our own church, rectory, parish hall, etc. We are also an FSSP apostolate. We have the privilege of the presence of two FSSP priests and the assistance of another wonderful priest, a Franciscan.

Archbishop Charles Chaput, OFM, Cap. Ordinary of Denver, dedicated our church a year ago this past September. He has been wonderfully supportive of our preferred 'use' of the Liturgy.

Despite the great distances many of us must drive to attend Mass and other non-liturgical functions, our community is truly vibrant.

We have a new Knights of Columbus Council, of which I am a member.

God bless to you and other faithful supporters of the FSSP.

Sursum Corda

>>You must agree with another poster who recently joined this site ("Maximilian"), who maintains that 99% of all Catholics are in the state of mortal sin.

Here's another cure for presumption (meaning unwarranted confidence in salvation), read this post:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/766975/posts

I guess it's no longer such a shock to think of a priest dying with unconfessed mortal sins on his soul. But it's a scary prospect that should alarm all of us.

Since this priest was admittedly lax with himself, I can imagine that he was lax with his parishioners as well. In fact, he says that Christ told him so to his face. I'll bet he's become a regular Cure of Ars today.

Thinking of our final end is the time-tested method to begin our spiritual life, a method endorsed by all the great saints. For most of us, that means contemplating imminent eternal damnation. Until we face that reality, we are only fooling ourselves about being Catholics, or even "religious."

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.