[sockmonkey]

At my RC Parish, which is Anglican Use, we all receive, kneeling at the altar rail, by intinction. It is our liturgical norm.

I thank God everyday for the Anglican Use, and pray for it's continuation. At my former RC Parish, it was one innovation upon another. Plenty of room for liberation theologists, wiccan prayers, Charismatic weirdness, and dancing girls, but if you had any conservative or traditional leanings, you were **** out of luck.

I don't think I'd ever find myself going SSPX, but if it weren't for the AU, I don't know what I'd do. I would last at the local Parish or Hospital Chapel about a month, and then I'd just lose it, totally. I am convinced that at least in the US, there are many who are trying to destroy the Catholic Church from within, and in my Archdiocese, they seem to have the upper hand.

I can see why we my Parish is busting at the seams, even so far as to having folks move here from out of state just to be able to join our Parish.

[narses]

Ping.

[Polycarp]

(Oops, wrong FReeper the first time...)

You beat me to posting this by mere minutes. I'll go have my thread deleted.

[Polycarp]

EWTN Ask the Experts forum:

Genuflection before communion forbidden by bishop

Question from Dr. Brian J. Kopp on 12-13-1998:

Dear Father,

Below is a letter our local Bishop just sent to all the priests in this Diocese (Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown, PA) in which, for all intents and purposes, he forbids genuflection before receiving the Eucharist. The specific paragraph is directly below in quotes:

"Should an individual of this Diocesan Church wish to make a further sign of reverence just prior to receiving Holy Communion, that sign is to be that of the sign of the cross. In any case, making the sign of the cross in silence should precede receiving Holy Communion rather than follow. Thus, in order to seek uniformity of movement and posture, I direct the sign of the cross to be the sign of reverence prior to the reception of Holy Communion.

Uniformity in Liturgy is desirable as a sign of our unity in Jesus Christ. It expresses our oneness in the Eucharistic Lord and of our reverence and love for the Sacrament of the Lord's Body and Blood. This uniformity of word and movement will enhance the expression of our liturgical celebration of unity in Christ as we of the one Household gather around the one table and eat and drink the one bread and cup that is Jesus the Lord."

Can he do this? Are the faithful who practice genuflection before Communion required to be obedient to this "Directive," which seems to be a denial of our right, expressed by Fr. Regis Scanlon, OFM in a file in EWTN's library online, to show a form of "latria" at reception of Communion? Any help you can offer would be appreciated.

Dr. Brian J. Kopp
Johnstown, PA

Answer by Fr. John Trigilio on 12-14-1998:

SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM (Vatican II) said:
"#22 (1) Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See, and, as laws may determine, on the bishop. (2) In virtue of power conceded by law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of bishops' conferences, legitimately established, with competence in given territories. (3) Therefore no other person, not even a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority."

The General Instruction on the Roman Missal (GIRM) #21 says:

"However, it is for the Bishops' Conference to adapt the postures and gestures here described as suitable for the Roman Mass"

EUCHARISTICUM MYSTERIUM # 4 and INAESTIMABILE DONUM # 11 state that to receive Holy Communion kneeling is a sign of reverence in itself. When not
kneeling, SOME form of reverence is encouraged. The Bishop can even REQUIRE it.

My reading of the texts, however, is that while the Bishop has the authority to mandate that some form of reverence be given when receiving Holy Communion while standing, he can only say that the sign of the cross is the bare MINIMUM but he cannot say that a genuflection is not allowed. The law affords him parameters on what is the minimum required but he does not have the authority to curtail the EXTRA reverence given by a genuflection. ONLY the Holy See itself or the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) can do that, as stated above. Hence, the local bishop can say that in his diocese, AT LEAST the sign of the Cross will be made prior to receiving Holy Communion OR he could require a bow of the head or he could mandate a genuflection. My reading of the law, however, is that an individual bishop does not have the prerogative of the Episcopal Conference or the Holy See to prohibit someone from going beyond the minimum requirement WITHIN REASON. Ergo, someone cannot disrupt the Communion line by kneeling for a long period of time (they should do that in the pew or at the altar rail). To
exclude genuflection seems to go beyond the scope the law allows. Msgr. Peter Elliott agrees with this in his book, "Liturgical Question Box, p. 114 (copyright 1998, Ignatius Press) and again in his book "Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite", #336 (copyright 1995, Ignatius Press)

For him to proscribe genuflection would be as unlawful as to prescribe someone to stay standing. The law does not give that much latitude to any one pastor or bishop. The unity and uniformity of liturgical gestures is not limited to the parish or even the diocese but since we live in the Catholic church, it should be a more universal unity and uniformity. Hence, the law is clear that Rome on behalf of the universal church and the Episcopal
Conference on behalf of the nation can make such decisions.
--Fr. Trigilio

[yendu bwam]

Boys are being raped throughout the Church, and bishops feel compelled to use their precious time and authority (those who are not already laughing-stocks) to keep people from reverencing Christ.

[Land of the Irish]

How many versions of your normative Mass are floating about these days? They seem to vary quite immensely on all levels: parish, diocese, archdiocese, country, etc. Are they all legitmate and equally pleasing to God, except for that dreadful, so consistent Indult that you hope the next Pope abolishes?

[SuziQ]

I'm an Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist, and I would never refuse Holy Communion to anyone who is kneeling before God. There is no one in our Parish who does so, but there are some who genuflect before receiving and I just wait until they are done. Most folks in our Parish receive in the hand but there are a few who receive on the tongue. I don't understand why this would be a problem to the Bishops, these folks are certainly not bothering anyone.

The ones I have trouble with are the ones who try to snatch the host from my hand, or those who barely raise their hands and open them, then amble halfway down the aisle before they put it in their mouths. But the most disconcerting thing I've seen so far (and I forgot to tell our Pastor about last week) was the woman who broke off a piece of the host to give to her little daughter who was about 3 because the little girl was running alongside her mother whining! We need a sermon on the proper attitude for receiving the Body and Blood of Jesus!

[Irisshlass]

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."


This is tooooo much!

[Maximilian]

I saw a report that Archbishop Loverde came to Christendom College recently, and after he saw all the students kneeling at the altar rail, he said that they were "insufficiently catechized" and that they needed to be instructed to receive communion standing.

I haven't seen this report elsewhere, so I wonder if anyone else has heard the same thing, and if they know what the result has been?

[Irisshlass]

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?"

Good point!

[vita_brevis]

..."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."

This is exactly my problem with this "no kneeling" business... have the bishops cracked down on the liberal liturgical abuses, NO! Now they want to crack down on people kneeling or genuflecting? What's wrong with this picture?

[Lady In Blue]

Thanks for the post.

[nickcarraway]

ping

[Slyfox]

"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 Pope has already said that there must be some sort of act of reverence at the recieving of Communion. That's is why you see people genuflecting when they have to stand to recieve Communion. Watch EWTN. Lots of people genuflect. My parish is used to seeing many people genuflect.

To me it is indeed a joy when I am at a Mass where kneeling at the Communion rail is still allowed. I feel like I am home.

You'd think that all parishes would welcome true reverence for Jesus. Lord knows with all the Church is having to endure, some people reverently praying should be thought to help the situation.

[Desdemona]

Hmmmm.....Interesting.

The Hitchcocks are members of the parish where I've been going. The altar rail is still there, but nobody uses it right now.

[Dajjal]

Cardinal Medina's letter, from Oct. 25, 2001, stated: "This dicastery [Vatican department] agrees in principle to the insertion [of the standing adaptation].

What a surprise: the Vatican agreeing 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 principle.

[Irisshlass]

http://www.rcf.org/docs/strada01.htm

24 September 2002


The Most Reverend Paul S. Loverde
Diocese of Arlington
200 North Glebe Road, Suite 704
Arlington, VA 22203

Your Excellency,

I am writing to most strongly protest the despicable treatment of the Honorable Richard Black, member of the Virginia House of Delegates, by your Cathedral's Rector, Fr. Dominic Irace, at the 9:30 Mass on Sunday, 22 September. During Delegate Black's first visit to the
Cathedral for Mass, he dropped to one knee to receive Holy Communion, as he regularly
does in his home parish and elsewhere; Fr. Irace, however, told him that he must stand to receive. Delegate Black chose, instead, to move on, since Fr. Irace would only administer the Sacred Host under his (Irace's) "terms."

This affront to Delegate Black, and his family, is doubly shameful because Delegate Black is, without question, the most courageous defender of the innocent unborn on the floor of the House of Delegates in Richmond. One has to wonder if Fr. Irace would have been so bold as to refuse Holy Communion to Senator Ted Kennedy or other militantly pro-abortion "Catholic" politicians who regularly attend Mass in Arlington churches.

To further compound this outrageous insult to the Black family, Fr. Irace verbally assaulted Delegate Black, shouting insults to him as exited the Cathedral. When Delegate Black tried to avoid Fr. Irace, pointing out that he had refused him Holy Communion, Fr. Irace shouted "you liar!" several times. As Delegate Black left the Cathedral, Fr. Irace loudly called him
a "conservative idiot," before many witnesses (from whom you will no doubt hear). Are these "pastoral skills" fit for a Rector? (One doubts, for example, that Irace would have called Ted Kennedy a "liberal idiot.") The irascible Irace's tongue-lashings and rude outbursts are, unfortunately, well known to many, but this time he has crossed all bounds of civil behavior, especially as the Cathedral Rector.

I most strongly recommend that you or your Chancellor take the following actions to remedy this shameful situation:

* Instruct Fr. Irace on the contents of the letter from Jorge Cardinal Medina Estevez (Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments), which includes this admonition to the American bishops: ". . . 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. . ." (25 October 2001, italics mine).

* Enroll Fr. Irace in a course (or two) in pastoral skills and/or anger management;

* Personally contact Delegate Black and apologize to him and his family on behalf of the diocese, assuring him that, in accordance with Vatican direction, he will not be refused Holy Communion for kneeling in any diocesan church.

I look forward to hearing from you on this most important matter, which certainly would not pass the "Washington Post test."

Respectfully in Christ,


Joseph A. Strada