Fr. Rick Poblocki (aka – his priestly awesomeness) fields a question:
| Defending Truth and Tradition in the Roman Catholic Church |
| Defending Truth and Tradition in the Roman Catholic Church |
Fr. Rick Poblocki (aka – his priestly awesomeness) fields a question:
I love this guy. I wish he was a pastor here in Rochester. Maybe he could have a talk with Fr. Faletta from St. Lawrence. He reprimands people for genuflecting before receiving communion. He’s the only one that I know of that does that. Pretty upsetting.
Whether or not the rubric as written is a good idea is one question, but this priest is unfortunately entirely wrong in claiming that “the rubric is very clear, where it says that before receiving Communion, each member of the faithful is to perform some act of faith, or some indicating sign of belief in the presence of Our Lord in the Holy Sacrament, respect to our Lord present there.” That’s not what it says at all. It says, “When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the Sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister.”
I wish people would not claim that clear regulations and rubrical directives do not exist just because we don’t like what they say. We’ve got to be better than that. How would we feel if priests were going around deceiving people that a rubric for the TLM that says “the faithful kneel to receive Holy Communion” actually said, “just adopt whatever posture you think is reverent”?
This sort of nonsense just makes us all look like hypocrites the next time we try to tell the libs that they have to follow a rubric.
PhilQ – The Holy See permits for communicants to kneel when receiving Communion. That would not be a bow, but it is definitely permitted.
From the Congregation for Divine Worship, Prot. n. 47/03/L:
Dr. K: First, that does not explain why the speaker misrepresented what the GIRM says. Second, your quotation refers to the posture for receiving Communion, not to the sign of reference to be made beforehand. (Second-and-a-half, kneeling to receive Communion is not permitted, it is simply not punished by withholding the Eucharist or by making accusations at that moment. Rather, as the GIRM explains, “such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm [of standing].”) Third, the bow would still be required, because the GIRM does not state that it can be omitted if you decide on your own to adopt a different posture. It says, “When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head.” Did I miss that it was Opposite Day or something? Is it really so hard to show some obedience?
I completely support bringing back altar rails, and I am consistently awed by the experience when I receive Communion in the TLM. But I also support following the rubrics that we have with a willing spirit — precisely because I want us to be taken seriously, and because I value obedience to a norm I wouldn’t have chosen over disobedience on the presumption that I know better. The norm is standing, with a bow. There is no permission given to kneel. Out of pastoral sensitivity, Rome has specified that kneelers are not to be punished or accused of unfaithfulness, but Rome has definitely not changed the norm to “stand or kneel, whatever you feel like.” To take that sign of generosity and then turn around and say, “See! Rome said it’s just fine to kneel, the GIRM is wrong!” will be a quick way to make sure pastoral concessions like that aren’t granted very often.
Loophole lawyers who try to sell us on the proposition that “The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. . . . When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the Sacrament as a gesture of reverence” actually means “Feel free to stand or kneel, and go ahead and bow or do whatever else you consider to be a token of reverence” are not one whit different from the libs on the other side who try to tell us, for instance, that it’s just fine to wear the stole over the chasuble because the norms should be interpreted in light of the importance of making evident the priest’s sacramental role as expressed through the stole.
“Say the black, do the red” does not mean “Kick and scream and fight as hard as you can to avoid having to do the red if it doesn’t suit your personal preference.” We’re all called to humble and willing obedience to the liturgy and to our sacred pastors.
Face it PhilQ. It really bothers you that people show reverence for Jesus. You’re contradicting yourself here. Does it state in the GIRM that the faithful cannot genuflect or kneel? I believe the reason behind the bow is for everyone to show at least some form of reverence towards our Lord, instead of receiving communion the same way as children receive candy on Halloween.
PhilQ,
I actually had the same concerns as you present which is why I asked the question of Fr Poblocki. I didn’t ask it in response to a pastor’s particular treatment or anything – I was just curious as I didn’t see it accounted for in the GIRM. I’ll do what I can to present this argument to Fr. Poblicki and see what kind of response we can get. Thanks for your comments.
-Ben
I don’t know why you feel the need to establish your “cred.”
Correct, that is the norm. I do not buy the second part though. This letter from the CDWDS is permission enough in my book, just as permission has been given for communicants to receive in the hand in the form of an indult despite the universal norm that Communion be given on the tongue.
Redemptionis Sacramentum says “[91.] In distributing Holy Communion it is to be remembered that “sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who seek them in a reasonable manner, are rightly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them”. Hence any baptized Catholic who is not prevented by law must be admitted to Holy Communion. Therefore, it is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing.”
Right, it’s not the norm, but it is permitted. It not being licit to deny Communion to those who kneel means that one can kneel.
I am not aware of anything granting permission for the stole to be worn over the chasuble.
Because of people like Anonymous 8:09, who cannot tolerate the idea that the motivation for following the rubrics might actually be intellectual honesty and a spirit of obedience rather than a secret hatred of Jesus.
But the definition of what’s permitted is not whether or not Holy Communion can be denied for it. A priest cannot deny Holy Communion because I do not kneel after the Sanctus, or make the responses in the preface dialogue, or say the Confiteor when that form of the penitential rite is used, but you cannot draw from that the conclusion that it is “permitted,” carte blanche, to omit those things. In other words, the fact that Rome has decided not to punish something by denying the Sacrament does not, by itself, mean that there is no rule in the first place.
Rather, as Eucharisticum Mysterium states:
One way is to be chosen, and the faithful should willingly adopt it. I would have chosen kneeling, but sadly they don’t leave those things up to me.
Has the Holy See addressed the items you listed?
They have specifically addressed kneeling for Communion.
What more can I say than to read the following (Prot. n. 1322/02/L): “Even where the Congregation has approved of legislation denoting standing as the posture for Holy Communion, in accordance with the adaptations permitted to the Conferences of Bishops by the Institution Generalis Missalis Romani n. 160, paragraph 2, it has done so with the stipulation that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds.”
“with the stipulation that” makes it sound like the lay faithful are permitted to kneel for Communion even where standing has been adopted as the norm. This is not a “loophole”, it’s a right, and it’s straight from the Congregation which regulates our worship.
Unfortunately, Masses were recently suspended at the only church in the diocese where you could still kneel at the Communion rail….. St. Thomas the Apostle.
There’s always St. Stanislaus, which offers the Extraordinary Form every Sunday at 1:30 PM. Everyone kneels, and no one gets heckled for it. Try it sometime – you won’t be disappointed. The next High Mass is on the 12th, Gaudete Sunday.
We should all be robots during Mass. Everyone should be synchronized.
PhilQ,
I presented your reasoning to Fr. Poblocki. Here is the response he gave:
http://ben.cleansingfire.org/audio/poblocki_communion_2.mp3
in a nutshell, he says that it’s so obvious that genuflecting is quite alright that it doesn’t need to be written into the GIRM. He says, “who would argue with showing more reverence than is required?” I can buy it, but I see your point as well. I’m going to continue to genuflect.