‘When you want to know ‘what’ Holy Mother Church believes, go to the magisterium, because it is in charge of teaching it to you, but when you want to know ‘how’ the Church believes, go to the faithful people” ~ Pope Francis
Paul VI's comment (in the scanned image) about people making complaints not out of "true devotion" but "spiritual indolence" disappoints me. Like really? Anyone who wants to kneel for communion just hates change? There's no devotional motivation behind it?
It reminds me of Pope Francis' frequent dismissal of traditionalists (as in his newly published autobiography) as "rigid." You can't claim to be against clericalism if you're going to dismiss out of hand what the laity are telling you because you don't like it.
I bristle also because it's that lofty Ciceronian invective style of rhetoric which I see in a lot of educated corners of the Church, both on the "left" and "right." It's not pastoral or Christian. It's divisive, dismissive, and smug.
If you dismiss someone by calling them names in lieu of an explanation, it's a good indication that you are ignorant, don't actually have an explanation, and are hoping everyone is too hurt (or enthused) to notice.
Sherry Weddell has a statement in her book Forming Intentional Disciples that I come back to again and again: never accept a label in place of a story. I.e., never assign a label to someone, ask why they say/do/believe what they do.
A good corollary is to avoid labeling people names they wouldn't call themselves. Not an absolute rule, but a useful standard when engaging in spirited, but good faith, debate.
Interesting. I tend to accept labels that are essentially categorizing beliefs, e.g. Catholic, Arian, Stoic; or labels that indicate membership in a group, e.g. Catholic, conservative, pipe welder, prostitute, and only dispute the accuracy/inaccuracy of those labels.
But there are a lot of labels that are intended to describe why a person is or does or doesn't do something, and ascribing motivations to a person you do not know is something I generally classify as rash judgement. People are sufficiently complex, and what goes into our decisions is sufficiently complex, that we simply don't have enough information without, as you say, the story.
"Priests also regularly told inquiring members of the laity that this [i.e., standing during Communon] was a deeply historical practice, that it had been the norm in the Latin-rites of the Catholic Church for more than 1,300 years – “from at least the 4th to the 17th century” was the common refrain from McManus, Conway, and others. For that reason, they argued, it was a better practice than kneeling and merited being implemented again."
I am interested in the priests’ perspective- our priest suggested it was in some ways easier and faster to distribute along the Communion rail, but I suppose if you were old and in poorer shape it might be hard to walk up and down along the rail. But, if that were the case a single kneeler provided for those who want to kneel (instead of the odd “communion table” idea) could still allow the priest to stand in one place to distribute… Is it hard on priests’ backs to distribute to those who kneel? I don’t understand the enthusiasm so many priests seem to have had for standing reception.
One argument from Polish and TLM priests (since kneeling for Communion is the norm in Poland) is that it is easier for the priest especially when people are kneeling at an altar rail as everyone is in the same position, relatively same height, with the priest directing how to position himself rather than waiting on what the communicant will do in a line standing (move his body forward, back, taller than the priest, much shorter). There is also a lower risk of sacrilege with the downward movement of the Host, as it is much less likely for the host to fall outside the communicant's mouth. Sometimes laity, before they were brainwashed, had much more common sense than the revolutionary leftist bishops and priests of the 1960's.
Excellent reporting! It is shocking how little justification there is as the foundation of this change - and how the earliest authoritative text people like Cardinal Cupich can point to is from 2001!
For the past 15 years at big Masses at our cathedral (Chrism Mass, Ordinations, etc.), the number of people kneeling to receive Holy Communion gets larger, and the age of the people kneeling gets younger. I'm tickled pink, and I hope the older priests take note.
Wow, a lot of research went into this article. I've never seen such a thorough treatment of the subject. Thank you for doing such excellent work! I'm very impressed and learned a lot.
Personally, I prefer to not fight about this. Members of my immediate family both kneel and stand, and we don't ever really talk about it. The most reverent position for an individual is such a personal thing. As Cardinal Arinze says about different preferences on this topic, "Leave them in peace and not in pieces."
I agree about not fighting bc there is room for individual piety in expression with posture. Neither is better but rather particular to the person (like hand Vs mouth IMO).
The problem seems to be certain folks of a certain age demographic that rhymes with Moomer keep trying to tell folks who feel called or obliged to kneel how wrong and incorrect they are. Perhaps if that constant incorrect correction would cease, so would the fight?
And also what would help stop arguing is MORE altar rails slash kneelers IMHO. I say this bc anecdotally it works so well in my parish. So many people floor knelt that father thoughtfully added a kneeler to communion line at front of altar steps. The beauty of this is that it makes kneeling go more smoothly with less line hold up but in no way inhibits or prevents those who would like to stand from doing so. They just stand in front of it. Interestingly to me is the fact that the number of people who kneel dramatically increased in our parish once the kneeler arrived. Perhaps bc it’s easier to do? Perhaps bc the kneeler announces it’s permitted and you won’t be given a hard time? Either or both it’s definitely a nice option. Also the kneeling population segment crosses all ages, sexes and ethnic/cultural backgrounds. As does the standing. People of literally all kinds do both.
I agree. When I’m at a parish that stands for Communion I stand, even though my preference would be to kneel. I try to respect the customs of the parish. (And if it is one’s own parish you would hope that the pastor could be sensitive to the pious desires of his flock.) That being said, it is so nice to have the option to kneel, and there is always the option to stand in front of a kneeler as you say. When our parish starting using the Communion rail our pastor made it clear people were free to stand to receive along the line. I just don’t see uniformity of posture as that important in what is, arguably, the most personal moment of the Mass, as long as reverence and care for the Blessed Sacrament can be maintained.
The more you study the liturgical changes of the 60s and 70s the more you find the same theme: nobody asked for it, nobody liked it, and nobody stuck around for more.
The vast majority of the bishops implementing these changes have gone to their eternal reward. I don’t think it’s fair for the younger generation of bishops to apologise for decisions they never made. I’ll settle for the upcoming crop millennial bishops to CAREFULLY study the 1960s and 1970s. There’s a lot of important lessons about change and how we should do it as a Church to be learned.
Right. But that only goes so far and how many generations of bishops are going to apologise for crimes of the forebears that they had no control over or ability to affect? Are we still going to be doing this in 100 years? A thousand? I’m not sure it’s as helpful as we all think it is. Class apologies are fraught and problematic even in the present moment.
To be clear, if a bishop is has a priest he is actually overseeing does a wicked thing, I expect him to take responsibility and make adequate apologies and restitution/penance/ensure justice is served as a father takes responsibility for his children. I don’t expect him to apologies for all wicked clergy everywhere through out history.
This wasn't just one wicked priest or bishop. This stuff was near-universal among the clergy of the time and much of it was tacitly supported by Paul VI. There was way way way more spiritual abuse in that time than child sexual abuse
Another aspect not covered by this report is that the numbers of communicants were increasing during the 1960s (for a number of reasons, including the reduction of the fast to just one hour, more encouragement to regularly receive communion, less emphasis on the need to sacramentally prepare) - and so celebrants were keen to speed things up. Also the rise in exactly the kind of large eucharistic celebrations described by the article. I’d be interested to to know how standing communion enabled and encouraged the introduction of extraordinary eucharistic ministers, who were never a “thing” in the days of the altar rails. In fact, I am more and more wondering whether the issue over altar rails isn’t kneeling at all, but rather the fact that it would mean a return to only the celebrant priest distributing communion…
I think it is much ado about nothing. The Ordinariate and Tridentine parishes I attend only have priests distribute communion. It takes surprisingly little time to communicate a few hundred people at the rail.
Also, there is not a need for everybody to receive at every Mass. Desirable. Yes. Laudable. Yes. Required? No. People need to chill.
Part of me feels we have tokenized the Eucharist by focusing so much on frequent reception instead of regular reception; Mass has been reduced to only the reception of the Eucharist, in a sense. This is part of the reason I think so many people leave after communion, instead of waiting for the priest to recess, they feel they have met their obligation and can leave.
If one is in a state of grace, they should do what the Our Father says, give us this day our daily bread. Jesus didn't say people need to chill. And in the bread of life discourse Jesus most assuredly said the opposite of your opinion.
Given how long the Church went on with infrequent reception, I don't think the bread of life discourse is quite as impossible to interpret both ways as you say.
If "daily bread" in the Our Father referred so strictly to Holy Communion, I believe we would have an obligation to receive Holy Communion daily, rather than once a year.
I certainly prefer to receive whenever I am well disposed, except that I refrain from second Mass, specifically because I don't want it to become common. But I am also well aware that the obligation is to attend Mass, and not to receive Holy Communion.
It was also common among clerical writers of the Late Medieval and Early Modern periods to refer Jesus's words one should not cast one's pearls before swine and do not give what is holy to dogs to the laity. I would not take the Church's approach to the laity then as anything but an aberration.
They are now willing to have us read Scripture in a language we understand as opposed to trying to burn translators at the stake and they also give us sermons in the vernacular during Mass, as opposed to giving talks on proper behavior outside Mass. Those who are not ordained are now allowed to preach on the streets without being considered heretics. St. Francis was ordained a deacon for a reason.
I've heard far more from laity regarding Church teaching than I have from priests. By the time I was in college, I figured priests either didn't really know the Faith, or had no intention of sharing their knowledge with the rest of us, because the sermons contained more anecdotes and pop culture references then faith, morals, or the spiritual life. The Church refrains from labeling anyone a heretic now, and so far from burning a heretic at the stake, seems incapable of laicizing abuser priests.
It looks a bit like a pendulum swing to me, which is what happens when people determine that what they are doing is quite wrong, and proceed to do the opposite wrong thing, rather than re-orienting toward the good, the true, and the beautiful.
I should add a limit: Prior to my current parish, I heard far more from laity regarding Church teaching than from priests. And that was almost entirely on the internet. My priests now are much better.
Vatican II said the laity were supposed to be the evangelize and people are taking them up on that. The sermons you describe would have fit those not during the Mass medieval sermons quite well, so in some ways not much may have changed. And abuser priests need to be laicized as quickly as it can be ascertained that they are abusers.
Having received via spoon while standing, I expect both that and intinction would be easier at a Communion rail. I had to bend my knees a lot to get low enough, while bending over backwards to try to get positioned right. I expect you get better at it over time, but kneeling is easier.
I don't need a kneeler to kneel, but plenty of people do.
The Communion Rail is dual purpose: it is an extension of the altar, so that you can receive from the altar, and it is an extended kneeler, so that reception of Holy Communion can go a bit more quickly, and still give everyone time for recollection. I actually don't see why one would object to the rail, but not to the kneeling.
Because the rail separates one from Christ who said let the little children come unto me and do not prevent them while kneeling acknowledges that Jesus is God as well as man.
If a rail is sufficient to separate one from Christ, than what must the Tabernacle be doing? Completely closed, 360 degrees of opaque, and practically always locked. How can a tool for the distribution of Holy Communion, or for maintaining accessibility to the Real Presence in the case of the Tabernacle, be a preventative against intimacy with Him? That's like saying the queuing line fencing at a theme park is a barrier to the rides.
Christ lives in our hearts. The only separation is sin. The only barrier is to discourage devotion, study, and the spiritual life and everything else that draws us closer to Him.
I'm not saying there is no relevance to the senses: seeing, hearing, smelling, touching. That's the whole point of smells and bells and all the various cultural Catholic customs. But it's not everything, and the fact that you can safely unlock a church and leave the tabernacle there without special codes or maintaining a constant guard (of sorts) means that the tabernacle brings Christ's presence to far more people. And it is bringing His actual presence to them, not just the opportunity to hang out with a box. *That* is huge.
See also the historical coincidence of (several decades beforehand) transportation via automobile and thus city planning to reflect car transport, parishes farther apart and thus larger, plus everything else you have noted from a liturgical/sacramental point of view
One despairs at the number of large parishes that have 4 or 5 present deacons who never seem to be present for more than one mass a weekend who allow lay people to do their job for them.
We have 2 deacons covering 5 weekend Masses. In a church that seats 700, With 4 ministers of the precious body (priest, deacon, 2 EMHC) and 4 EMHC for the Precious blood, we need 6 EMHC at each of our 5 weekend Masses.
We only have one priest, our pastor. So the point you are trying to make is rather elusive in my neck of the woods.
I also remember not liking the change, and as was mentioned in the article, the simply rude arguments used to promote the change did not help. One was to call the altar rail a "fence". I preferred to look at it as bringing the altar to us in the pews. There is still a "fence", whether a rail is present or not. (Except for the occasional very small children, it would seem. :-) The "communion stations" of St. John’s Abbey in Collegeville, Minnesota in 1961 seemed to me to have that flavor of extending the altar for those standing.
I also lament the loss of the paten, though it is used in a small parish here. The loss of the paten can be easily justified, in my mind, by a lack of altar servers and others available to serve at Mass.
However, years later, I now find those folks that insist on kneeling to be irritating. (That is likely a flaw in me, not them.)
Friends, 64% against is not an "essentially universal reaction by the laity against being forced to receive Communion standing". I mean you could call it, "broad" or "widespread" or something, but making a stretch like this really makes it seem like this is a piece of persuasive writing rather than a history.
I also had this thought, but my second thought was that it depends on the sense attached to "universal" in the statement you quote: if "universal" means "among almost all people", i.e., that almost everyone reacted negatively to the change, then I agree it is inaccurate; however, if "universal" means "all across the country," i.e., that pretty much in every diocese this was the predominant feeling, then it sounds like it might be accurate.
This piece also overlooked the fact that as late as 1962, including the opening Mass of Vatican II, not everyone received the Eucharist and the RITE OF COMMUNION WAS STILL OUTSIDE OF THE MASS. The council, by focusing on posture of receiving (after Mass, before Mass, wherever, whenever) would have dedicated band width to posture instead of bringing that rite within the Mass.
Back in 2002 I had been kneeling to receive or genuflecting before reception since at least 1990. Then we were instructed by our parish priest that we were supposed to bow instead of kneel and the instructions would become effective in six months. I made the kind of deep bow I normally make when I lector and was told after Mass that I was only supposed to bob my head. Luckily I was moving to a new parish and I had a heads up about this problem.
I spoke to the Administrator of my new parish, a man wise beyond his approximately 80 years, who told me that since I had thought the situation out and thought it was wrong to give less reverence to God Almighty present in the Eucharist than to a man made altar, he gave me permission to continue genuflecting. I also wrote to the USCCB to object to what they were doing, with a copy sent to my local bishop John D'Arcy and another to the Congregation for Divine Worship. The USCCB responded and I explained to them again why they were wrong, with copies of both their letter to me and my response sent to the other two parties, my bishop and the Congregation in Rome. Cardinal Gregory, then president of the USCCB, responded. I responded to him, with copies of both his letter and mine going to the other two parties. He answered me again, and I repeated what I had done before. Then Bishop D'Arcy wrote me saying I was being led astray by EWTN and Adoremus. I responded to him that I didn't listen to EWTN and had never heard of Adoremus. I sent a copy of both our letters to Rome. He wrote me back that he tried not to be holier than the Church. I don't recall whether I sent a copy of that letter to Rome or not, but didn't waste any further time trying to argue with him.
Two years later I received a letter from the Congregation for the Sacred Liturgy giving me permission to genuflect before receiving the Eucharist and suggesting I discuss this with the local hierarchy. Since I had already had the discussion I didn't see any reason to go over that territory again and continued to genuflect before receiving until I ripped up my meniscus which now prevents me from genuflecting.
> He wrote me back that he tried not to be holier than the Church.
Well! Maybe that's what's wrong with the Church! Bishops who are trying to *not* be holier than the average person are *necessarily* going to be below average in holiness! The rest of us should continue to try to be saints so that we can pull up the average value that the falsely-humble are targeting.
“Thank you for informing me, your excellency, of your desire to avoid greater holiness. As for me, I’m just trying to become perfect as my heavenly father is perfect. I hope you’ll understand.”
On the other hand the reason he was our bishop was that while he was in Boston he objected strenuously to the moving of priests with a history of child abuse to new parishes. So they exiled him to Fort Wayne-South Bend where he refused to allow legitimately accused priests to return to ministry. So I consider him holy for that reason, and certainly holier than the Boston leadership.
A letter from the Curia in the Rome?! Just to get permission to genuflect?! In the 2000s?!
Insanity. Baffling. I mean, needing a permission slip just to go to Mass (TLM) in the post-Ecclesia-Dei era (a la Milwaukee, for example) is insulting enough to a pious mind, but at least that was still the 80s about the TLM, so it's not as hard to imagine. This? Wack.
Everything I learn just radicalizes me further and further into the belief that those people back then (and the ones among us still today) simply eaither hate Jesus or are so flippant that they don't care at all about him (to which one must say: what's the difference?)
Apathetic people are not useful. Passionate people with momentum (Saul in Acts).can be redirected in a sort of slingshot maneuver. Would that we were either hot or cold, and not lukewarm.
I think that’s too harsh a characterization. I think, like many of us can do, they got a philosophical bee in their bonnet (“modernity!”) and read everything through that lense. (All “tribes” within the Church can fall prey to this on both ends of the liberal-traditional spectrum.) Also, many of the priests had grown up in a very clericalist age such that even when they were making changes that were supposed to get away from that it became instead “let ME tell YOU how we can make things more equitable” (this is ever the liberal problem- “I love equality so much, don’t argue with me and let me make everything more equal for you!”). But I hope and think that they loved Jesus but were just normal ignorant/prideful Christians who jumped on a bandwagon.
"Pray, pay, and obey" wasn't just a sarcastic mantra. The laity really were expected to do as they were told, and they really did expect to be told what to do. I remember being astonished while reading The Story of the Trapp Family Singers (yes, that Maria Von Trapp) to discover that in the course of deciding that refusing Hitler 3 times was very dangerous for one's health, and that they should probably flee the country, they asked their bishop if they should go, and if America was the right place. He responded by saying it was the Will of God (thankfully). I can't say I would ask my bishop for permission before fleeing for my life. But frankly, given that they were fleeing for their lives, I can't really blame the bishop for not giving them a dissertation about how they really didn't need permission to do that.
These were not necessarily people who didn't care about Jesus. But if you train a young elephant that they cannot break the rope that binds them (or that they are bad for trying), the adult elephant will not try. It has been successfully infantilized.
I just wish people would be honest, your preferences are preferences. It is not more reverent to receive standing or kneeling. I don't think that we should impose a universal mode of reception. Let people receive how they want and how best expresses their devotion to the Eucharistic Lord. The smugness one way or the other of one mode of reception being more pious is so tiring.
The smugness of casually dismissing genuine concerns of the faithful on matters of public ritualized communal worship of Christ, is so tiring - wouldn’t you say?
> It is not more reverent to receive standing or kneeling
BUT I'm sure you'll agree it IS more reverent to have servers with patens at all Sunday Masses, so that there is some chance of catching a dropped host before it hits the ground. Accidents happen and we ought to be prepared.
I don't think I quite agree that there's not a hierarchy in gestures. Yes, there's not an inherently universal hierarchy in that sense, but in the Latin rite I do think kneeling and genuflecting communicate a higher level of reverence than standing. I say this as someone who normally stands to receive Holy Communion because our parish doesn't have an altar rail. But the grammar of our ritual actions in the Latin rite would, I think, lead us to naturally understand kneeling to communicate a more profound reverence than standing.
Thanks for this detailed and interesting history. If only the Church of the 60s (of Vatican II?) had been Synodal rather than clerical!
What will the Church today choose?
Vatican II was still trying to get the rite of communion into the Mass in and around 1962. See my post below.
‘When you want to know ‘what’ Holy Mother Church believes, go to the magisterium, because it is in charge of teaching it to you, but when you want to know ‘how’ the Church believes, go to the faithful people” ~ Pope Francis
Paul VI's comment (in the scanned image) about people making complaints not out of "true devotion" but "spiritual indolence" disappoints me. Like really? Anyone who wants to kneel for communion just hates change? There's no devotional motivation behind it?
It reminds me of Pope Francis' frequent dismissal of traditionalists (as in his newly published autobiography) as "rigid." You can't claim to be against clericalism if you're going to dismiss out of hand what the laity are telling you because you don't like it.
I bristle also because it's that lofty Ciceronian invective style of rhetoric which I see in a lot of educated corners of the Church, both on the "left" and "right." It's not pastoral or Christian. It's divisive, dismissive, and smug.
If you dismiss someone by calling them names in lieu of an explanation, it's a good indication that you are ignorant, don't actually have an explanation, and are hoping everyone is too hurt (or enthused) to notice.
Sherry Weddell has a statement in her book Forming Intentional Disciples that I come back to again and again: never accept a label in place of a story. I.e., never assign a label to someone, ask why they say/do/believe what they do.
A good corollary is to avoid labeling people names they wouldn't call themselves. Not an absolute rule, but a useful standard when engaging in spirited, but good faith, debate.
Interesting. I tend to accept labels that are essentially categorizing beliefs, e.g. Catholic, Arian, Stoic; or labels that indicate membership in a group, e.g. Catholic, conservative, pipe welder, prostitute, and only dispute the accuracy/inaccuracy of those labels.
But there are a lot of labels that are intended to describe why a person is or does or doesn't do something, and ascribing motivations to a person you do not know is something I generally classify as rash judgement. People are sufficiently complex, and what goes into our decisions is sufficiently complex, that we simply don't have enough information without, as you say, the story.
“You can't claim to be against clericalism if you're going to dismiss out of hand what the laity are telling you because you don't like it.”
All of this was well said, but I particularly appreciate this astute observation.
"Priests also regularly told inquiring members of the laity that this [i.e., standing during Communon] was a deeply historical practice, that it had been the norm in the Latin-rites of the Catholic Church for more than 1,300 years – “from at least the 4th to the 17th century” was the common refrain from McManus, Conway, and others. For that reason, they argued, it was a better practice than kneeling and merited being implemented again."
Now do pews.
Great article!
100%!
I am interested in the priests’ perspective- our priest suggested it was in some ways easier and faster to distribute along the Communion rail, but I suppose if you were old and in poorer shape it might be hard to walk up and down along the rail. But, if that were the case a single kneeler provided for those who want to kneel (instead of the odd “communion table” idea) could still allow the priest to stand in one place to distribute… Is it hard on priests’ backs to distribute to those who kneel? I don’t understand the enthusiasm so many priests seem to have had for standing reception.
Think of all the steps priests would get in on Sundays.
One argument from Polish and TLM priests (since kneeling for Communion is the norm in Poland) is that it is easier for the priest especially when people are kneeling at an altar rail as everyone is in the same position, relatively same height, with the priest directing how to position himself rather than waiting on what the communicant will do in a line standing (move his body forward, back, taller than the priest, much shorter). There is also a lower risk of sacrilege with the downward movement of the Host, as it is much less likely for the host to fall outside the communicant's mouth. Sometimes laity, before they were brainwashed, had much more common sense than the revolutionary leftist bishops and priests of the 1960's.
Receiving on the tongue from someone shorter than you without kneeling can be quite the exercise.
Many a squat have I made - with babe in arms no less! 😂
Excellent reporting! It is shocking how little justification there is as the foundation of this change - and how the earliest authoritative text people like Cardinal Cupich can point to is from 2001!
For the past 15 years at big Masses at our cathedral (Chrism Mass, Ordinations, etc.), the number of people kneeling to receive Holy Communion gets larger, and the age of the people kneeling gets younger. I'm tickled pink, and I hope the older priests take note.
Wow, a lot of research went into this article. I've never seen such a thorough treatment of the subject. Thank you for doing such excellent work! I'm very impressed and learned a lot.
Personally, I prefer to not fight about this. Members of my immediate family both kneel and stand, and we don't ever really talk about it. The most reverent position for an individual is such a personal thing. As Cardinal Arinze says about different preferences on this topic, "Leave them in peace and not in pieces."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcZhjmYn1K8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQ_mumD5az8
I agree about not fighting bc there is room for individual piety in expression with posture. Neither is better but rather particular to the person (like hand Vs mouth IMO).
The problem seems to be certain folks of a certain age demographic that rhymes with Moomer keep trying to tell folks who feel called or obliged to kneel how wrong and incorrect they are. Perhaps if that constant incorrect correction would cease, so would the fight?
And also what would help stop arguing is MORE altar rails slash kneelers IMHO. I say this bc anecdotally it works so well in my parish. So many people floor knelt that father thoughtfully added a kneeler to communion line at front of altar steps. The beauty of this is that it makes kneeling go more smoothly with less line hold up but in no way inhibits or prevents those who would like to stand from doing so. They just stand in front of it. Interestingly to me is the fact that the number of people who kneel dramatically increased in our parish once the kneeler arrived. Perhaps bc it’s easier to do? Perhaps bc the kneeler announces it’s permitted and you won’t be given a hard time? Either or both it’s definitely a nice option. Also the kneeling population segment crosses all ages, sexes and ethnic/cultural backgrounds. As does the standing. People of literally all kinds do both.
Kneelers as an option alongside or either side of the standing communion line work well as temporary solution.
I agree. When I’m at a parish that stands for Communion I stand, even though my preference would be to kneel. I try to respect the customs of the parish. (And if it is one’s own parish you would hope that the pastor could be sensitive to the pious desires of his flock.) That being said, it is so nice to have the option to kneel, and there is always the option to stand in front of a kneeler as you say. When our parish starting using the Communion rail our pastor made it clear people were free to stand to receive along the line. I just don’t see uniformity of posture as that important in what is, arguably, the most personal moment of the Mass, as long as reverence and care for the Blessed Sacrament can be maintained.
I personally hate kneelers for Communion just as I love kneeling. One can effectively kneel without them.
If one is young and/or fit, that is. The option of something like a prie-dieu is helpful.
I agree that it's a very impressive piece of research; I particularly enjoyed the montage of medieval illustrations
The more you study the liturgical changes of the 60s and 70s the more you find the same theme: nobody asked for it, nobody liked it, and nobody stuck around for more.
The bishops owe the laity an apology.
The vast majority of the bishops implementing these changes have gone to their eternal reward. I don’t think it’s fair for the younger generation of bishops to apologise for decisions they never made. I’ll settle for the upcoming crop millennial bishops to CAREFULLY study the 1960s and 1970s. There’s a lot of important lessons about change and how we should do it as a Church to be learned.
The clergy (as a class) apologize for the action of previous clergy (as a class) all the time
Right. But that only goes so far and how many generations of bishops are going to apologise for crimes of the forebears that they had no control over or ability to affect? Are we still going to be doing this in 100 years? A thousand? I’m not sure it’s as helpful as we all think it is. Class apologies are fraught and problematic even in the present moment.
To be clear, if a bishop is has a priest he is actually overseeing does a wicked thing, I expect him to take responsibility and make adequate apologies and restitution/penance/ensure justice is served as a father takes responsibility for his children. I don’t expect him to apologies for all wicked clergy everywhere through out history.
This wasn't just one wicked priest or bishop. This stuff was near-universal among the clergy of the time and much of it was tacitly supported by Paul VI. There was way way way more spiritual abuse in that time than child sexual abuse
I've already made my "stance" known about kneeling and altar rails .(https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/after-traditionis-is-reforming-the/comment/85995924 and https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/after-traditionis-is-reforming-the/comment/86001699)
This was a fantastic article: well written and well researched. Thank you for writing it Nico and Pillar for publishing it.
Another aspect not covered by this report is that the numbers of communicants were increasing during the 1960s (for a number of reasons, including the reduction of the fast to just one hour, more encouragement to regularly receive communion, less emphasis on the need to sacramentally prepare) - and so celebrants were keen to speed things up. Also the rise in exactly the kind of large eucharistic celebrations described by the article. I’d be interested to to know how standing communion enabled and encouraged the introduction of extraordinary eucharistic ministers, who were never a “thing” in the days of the altar rails. In fact, I am more and more wondering whether the issue over altar rails isn’t kneeling at all, but rather the fact that it would mean a return to only the celebrant priest distributing communion…
I think it is much ado about nothing. The Ordinariate and Tridentine parishes I attend only have priests distribute communion. It takes surprisingly little time to communicate a few hundred people at the rail.
Also, there is not a need for everybody to receive at every Mass. Desirable. Yes. Laudable. Yes. Required? No. People need to chill.
Part of me feels we have tokenized the Eucharist by focusing so much on frequent reception instead of regular reception; Mass has been reduced to only the reception of the Eucharist, in a sense. This is part of the reason I think so many people leave after communion, instead of waiting for the priest to recess, they feel they have met their obligation and can leave.
If one is in a state of grace, they should do what the Our Father says, give us this day our daily bread. Jesus didn't say people need to chill. And in the bread of life discourse Jesus most assuredly said the opposite of your opinion.
Given how long the Church went on with infrequent reception, I don't think the bread of life discourse is quite as impossible to interpret both ways as you say.
If "daily bread" in the Our Father referred so strictly to Holy Communion, I believe we would have an obligation to receive Holy Communion daily, rather than once a year.
I certainly prefer to receive whenever I am well disposed, except that I refrain from second Mass, specifically because I don't want it to become common. But I am also well aware that the obligation is to attend Mass, and not to receive Holy Communion.
It was also common among clerical writers of the Late Medieval and Early Modern periods to refer Jesus's words one should not cast one's pearls before swine and do not give what is holy to dogs to the laity. I would not take the Church's approach to the laity then as anything but an aberration.
How should we take the Church's approach to the laity now?
They are now willing to have us read Scripture in a language we understand as opposed to trying to burn translators at the stake and they also give us sermons in the vernacular during Mass, as opposed to giving talks on proper behavior outside Mass. Those who are not ordained are now allowed to preach on the streets without being considered heretics. St. Francis was ordained a deacon for a reason.
I've heard far more from laity regarding Church teaching than I have from priests. By the time I was in college, I figured priests either didn't really know the Faith, or had no intention of sharing their knowledge with the rest of us, because the sermons contained more anecdotes and pop culture references then faith, morals, or the spiritual life. The Church refrains from labeling anyone a heretic now, and so far from burning a heretic at the stake, seems incapable of laicizing abuser priests.
It looks a bit like a pendulum swing to me, which is what happens when people determine that what they are doing is quite wrong, and proceed to do the opposite wrong thing, rather than re-orienting toward the good, the true, and the beautiful.
I should add a limit: Prior to my current parish, I heard far more from laity regarding Church teaching than from priests. And that was almost entirely on the internet. My priests now are much better.
Vatican II said the laity were supposed to be the evangelize and people are taking them up on that. The sermons you describe would have fit those not during the Mass medieval sermons quite well, so in some ways not much may have changed. And abuser priests need to be laicized as quickly as it can be ascertained that they are abusers.
But can you easily receive under both species at a Communion rail?
Having received via spoon while standing, I expect both that and intinction would be easier at a Communion rail. I had to bend my knees a lot to get low enough, while bending over backwards to try to get positioned right. I expect you get better at it over time, but kneeling is easier.
I am not in the least opposed to kneeling, just Communion rails. One does not need a Communion rail in order to kneel. I did so without one for years.
I don't need a kneeler to kneel, but plenty of people do.
The Communion Rail is dual purpose: it is an extension of the altar, so that you can receive from the altar, and it is an extended kneeler, so that reception of Holy Communion can go a bit more quickly, and still give everyone time for recollection. I actually don't see why one would object to the rail, but not to the kneeling.
Because the rail separates one from Christ who said let the little children come unto me and do not prevent them while kneeling acknowledges that Jesus is God as well as man.
If a rail is sufficient to separate one from Christ, than what must the Tabernacle be doing? Completely closed, 360 degrees of opaque, and practically always locked. How can a tool for the distribution of Holy Communion, or for maintaining accessibility to the Real Presence in the case of the Tabernacle, be a preventative against intimacy with Him? That's like saying the queuing line fencing at a theme park is a barrier to the rides.
Christ lives in our hearts. The only separation is sin. The only barrier is to discourage devotion, study, and the spiritual life and everything else that draws us closer to Him.
Which is why when I can I go to churches with 24/7 adoration. The difference between a monstrance and a tabernacle is huge.
I'm not saying there is no relevance to the senses: seeing, hearing, smelling, touching. That's the whole point of smells and bells and all the various cultural Catholic customs. But it's not everything, and the fact that you can safely unlock a church and leave the tabernacle there without special codes or maintaining a constant guard (of sorts) means that the tabernacle brings Christ's presence to far more people. And it is bringing His actual presence to them, not just the opportunity to hang out with a box. *That* is huge.
Yeah. Intinction. The priest dips the Body in the Blood before placing on the tongue.
I've been places where that was done and it worked. I have been told that's what the Eastern Churches do.
See also the historical coincidence of (several decades beforehand) transportation via automobile and thus city planning to reflect car transport, parishes farther apart and thus larger, plus everything else you have noted from a liturgical/sacramental point of view
One despairs at the number of large parishes that have 4 or 5 present deacons who never seem to be present for more than one mass a weekend who allow lay people to do their job for them.
We have 2 deacons covering 5 weekend Masses. In a church that seats 700, With 4 ministers of the precious body (priest, deacon, 2 EMHC) and 4 EMHC for the Precious blood, we need 6 EMHC at each of our 5 weekend Masses.
We only have one priest, our pastor. So the point you are trying to make is rather elusive in my neck of the woods.
I also remember not liking the change, and as was mentioned in the article, the simply rude arguments used to promote the change did not help. One was to call the altar rail a "fence". I preferred to look at it as bringing the altar to us in the pews. There is still a "fence", whether a rail is present or not. (Except for the occasional very small children, it would seem. :-) The "communion stations" of St. John’s Abbey in Collegeville, Minnesota in 1961 seemed to me to have that flavor of extending the altar for those standing.
I also lament the loss of the paten, though it is used in a small parish here. The loss of the paten can be easily justified, in my mind, by a lack of altar servers and others available to serve at Mass.
However, years later, I now find those folks that insist on kneeling to be irritating. (That is likely a flaw in me, not them.)
Friends, 64% against is not an "essentially universal reaction by the laity against being forced to receive Communion standing". I mean you could call it, "broad" or "widespread" or something, but making a stretch like this really makes it seem like this is a piece of persuasive writing rather than a history.
I also had this thought, but my second thought was that it depends on the sense attached to "universal" in the statement you quote: if "universal" means "among almost all people", i.e., that almost everyone reacted negatively to the change, then I agree it is inaccurate; however, if "universal" means "all across the country," i.e., that pretty much in every diocese this was the predominant feeling, then it sounds like it might be accurate.
This piece also overlooked the fact that as late as 1962, including the opening Mass of Vatican II, not everyone received the Eucharist and the RITE OF COMMUNION WAS STILL OUTSIDE OF THE MASS. The council, by focusing on posture of receiving (after Mass, before Mass, wherever, whenever) would have dedicated band width to posture instead of bringing that rite within the Mass.
Back in 2002 I had been kneeling to receive or genuflecting before reception since at least 1990. Then we were instructed by our parish priest that we were supposed to bow instead of kneel and the instructions would become effective in six months. I made the kind of deep bow I normally make when I lector and was told after Mass that I was only supposed to bob my head. Luckily I was moving to a new parish and I had a heads up about this problem.
I spoke to the Administrator of my new parish, a man wise beyond his approximately 80 years, who told me that since I had thought the situation out and thought it was wrong to give less reverence to God Almighty present in the Eucharist than to a man made altar, he gave me permission to continue genuflecting. I also wrote to the USCCB to object to what they were doing, with a copy sent to my local bishop John D'Arcy and another to the Congregation for Divine Worship. The USCCB responded and I explained to them again why they were wrong, with copies of both their letter to me and my response sent to the other two parties, my bishop and the Congregation in Rome. Cardinal Gregory, then president of the USCCB, responded. I responded to him, with copies of both his letter and mine going to the other two parties. He answered me again, and I repeated what I had done before. Then Bishop D'Arcy wrote me saying I was being led astray by EWTN and Adoremus. I responded to him that I didn't listen to EWTN and had never heard of Adoremus. I sent a copy of both our letters to Rome. He wrote me back that he tried not to be holier than the Church. I don't recall whether I sent a copy of that letter to Rome or not, but didn't waste any further time trying to argue with him.
Two years later I received a letter from the Congregation for the Sacred Liturgy giving me permission to genuflect before receiving the Eucharist and suggesting I discuss this with the local hierarchy. Since I had already had the discussion I didn't see any reason to go over that territory again and continued to genuflect before receiving until I ripped up my meniscus which now prevents me from genuflecting.
> He wrote me back that he tried not to be holier than the Church.
Well! Maybe that's what's wrong with the Church! Bishops who are trying to *not* be holier than the average person are *necessarily* going to be below average in holiness! The rest of us should continue to try to be saints so that we can pull up the average value that the falsely-humble are targeting.
“Thank you for informing me, your excellency, of your desire to avoid greater holiness. As for me, I’m just trying to become perfect as my heavenly father is perfect. I hope you’ll understand.”
On the other hand the reason he was our bishop was that while he was in Boston he objected strenuously to the moving of priests with a history of child abuse to new parishes. So they exiled him to Fort Wayne-South Bend where he refused to allow legitimately accused priests to return to ministry. So I consider him holy for that reason, and certainly holier than the Boston leadership.
A letter from the Curia in the Rome?! Just to get permission to genuflect?! In the 2000s?!
Insanity. Baffling. I mean, needing a permission slip just to go to Mass (TLM) in the post-Ecclesia-Dei era (a la Milwaukee, for example) is insulting enough to a pious mind, but at least that was still the 80s about the TLM, so it's not as hard to imagine. This? Wack.
Everything I learn just radicalizes me further and further into the belief that those people back then (and the ones among us still today) simply eaither hate Jesus or are so flippant that they don't care at all about him (to which one must say: what's the difference?)
Apathetic people are not useful. Passionate people with momentum (Saul in Acts).can be redirected in a sort of slingshot maneuver. Would that we were either hot or cold, and not lukewarm.
I think that’s too harsh a characterization. I think, like many of us can do, they got a philosophical bee in their bonnet (“modernity!”) and read everything through that lense. (All “tribes” within the Church can fall prey to this on both ends of the liberal-traditional spectrum.) Also, many of the priests had grown up in a very clericalist age such that even when they were making changes that were supposed to get away from that it became instead “let ME tell YOU how we can make things more equitable” (this is ever the liberal problem- “I love equality so much, don’t argue with me and let me make everything more equal for you!”). But I hope and think that they loved Jesus but were just normal ignorant/prideful Christians who jumped on a bandwagon.
Insanity yes, baffling, no.
"Pray, pay, and obey" wasn't just a sarcastic mantra. The laity really were expected to do as they were told, and they really did expect to be told what to do. I remember being astonished while reading The Story of the Trapp Family Singers (yes, that Maria Von Trapp) to discover that in the course of deciding that refusing Hitler 3 times was very dangerous for one's health, and that they should probably flee the country, they asked their bishop if they should go, and if America was the right place. He responded by saying it was the Will of God (thankfully). I can't say I would ask my bishop for permission before fleeing for my life. But frankly, given that they were fleeing for their lives, I can't really blame the bishop for not giving them a dissertation about how they really didn't need permission to do that.
These were not necessarily people who didn't care about Jesus. But if you train a young elephant that they cannot break the rope that binds them (or that they are bad for trying), the adult elephant will not try. It has been successfully infantilized.
Since I had the permission of my pastor I genuflected, even after he left.
I just wish people would be honest, your preferences are preferences. It is not more reverent to receive standing or kneeling. I don't think that we should impose a universal mode of reception. Let people receive how they want and how best expresses their devotion to the Eucharistic Lord. The smugness one way or the other of one mode of reception being more pious is so tiring.
The smugness of casually dismissing genuine concerns of the faithful on matters of public ritualized communal worship of Christ, is so tiring - wouldn’t you say?
> It is not more reverent to receive standing or kneeling
BUT I'm sure you'll agree it IS more reverent to have servers with patens at all Sunday Masses, so that there is some chance of catching a dropped host before it hits the ground. Accidents happen and we ought to be prepared.
Yes, I do agree with you there. I wish that use of patens was more common.
Or bring back those communion tables! I've never seen one, but they sound perfect for standing
I don't think I quite agree that there's not a hierarchy in gestures. Yes, there's not an inherently universal hierarchy in that sense, but in the Latin rite I do think kneeling and genuflecting communicate a higher level of reverence than standing. I say this as someone who normally stands to receive Holy Communion because our parish doesn't have an altar rail. But the grammar of our ritual actions in the Latin rite would, I think, lead us to naturally understand kneeling to communicate a more profound reverence than standing.
I really like this phrase: "grammar of our ritual actions in the Latin rite"