A reader writes:
Since converting and having a great respect for the Eucharist, I have always genuflected before receiving the Eucharist. The New General Instructions of the Roman Missal says the norm for receiving is to bow. Today I genuflected and was confronted by the priest (at a parish I was visiting). Our parish priest told us the norm was to bow but if we desired to genuflect it could not be denied us.
Was I wrong to genuflect and was I wrong to suggest to the priest that he was wrong — and that one could not “forbidden” from genuflecting?
The situation in the law is not as clear and explicit as one would want, and to disern Rome’s attitude to this question one must look at more than one document. First, here is what the American version of the GIRM says:
The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.
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. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand at the discretion of each communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood [GIRM 160].
The way the law is written, in America one should make a bow of the head before receiving Communion and then receive standing. The way Americans read law, this would be interpreted to mean that you don’t do anything else, like make a genuflection before receiving.
However, things are more complicated than that. To see why, let’s look at a different passage from the GIRM:
In the dioceses of the United States of America, they should kneel beginning after the singing or recitation of the Sanctus until after the Amen of the Eucharistic Prayer, except when prevented on occasion by reasons of health, lack of space, the large number of people present, or some other good reason. Those who do not kneel ought to make a profound bow when the priest genuflects after the consecration. The faithful kneel after the Agnus Dei unless the Diocesan Bishop determines otherwise.
With a view to a uniformity in gestures and postures during one and the same celebration, the faithful should follow the directions which the deacon, lay minister, or priest gives according to whatever is indicated in the Missal [GIRM 43].
Here again we have a passage dealing with the posture of the faithful in America. The way Americans read law, it would be interpreted strictly. But that interpretation is misleading. The law has to be understood in the sense in which it is intended by Rome (which approved the law and whose interpretation of the law is definitive), and Romans do not read law the same way Americans do. Americans tend to take a much stricter interpretation of law that admits of no exceptions unless they are stated in the text itself. Vatican officials, however, often understand laws in a more permissive way that allows for unwritten exceptions.
The latter appears to be what is going on here. In the Roman Curia, and in Europe in general, they take a much more relaxed view of posture than we do. Frankly, curial officials don’t understand why Americans are such posture Nazis. In their view, the basic posture is spelled out in the law, but if some individuals choose to assume a different posture, it’s no big deal (as long as the person isn’t being disruptive of others, e.g., by doing backflips down the central aisle while going to Communion).
This is something that people with a sound formation in liturgical law have known for a long time, however it recently became possible to document it. In a response issued June 5, 2003, the CDW issued a response which stated:
Dubium: In many places, the faithful are accustomed to kneeling or sitting in personal prayer upon returning to their places after having individually received Holy Communion during Mass. Is it the intention of the Missale Romanum, editio typica tertia, to forbid this practice?
Responsum: Negative, et ad mensum [and for this reason]. The mens [reasoning] is that the prescription of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, no. 43, is intended, on the one hand, to ensure within broad limits a certain uniformity of posture within the congregation for the various parts of the celebration of Holy Mass, and on the other, to not regulate posture rigidly in such a way that those who wish to kneel or sit would no longer be free.
This response deals specifically with the question of kneeling after receiving Communion, but it also states Rome’s general interpretation of the posture provisions of the GIRM for the laity, which is that the provisions are “to ensure within broad limits a certain uniformity of posture within the congregation for the various parts of the celebration of Holy Mass, and on the other, to not regulate posture rigidly.”
This applies to GIRM 160’s statement regarding doing a bow as much as it applies to kneeling before, during, or after Communion. In fact, if the Holy See takes a non-rigid attitude toward kneeling before, during, or after Communion then it is a fortiori obvious that the same attitude is taken toward genuflecting, which is a much less dramatic thing to do posture-wise than kneeling.
The Holy See is getting tired of receiving complaints from America about priests and others denying people Communion, publicly humiliating them, or privately browbeating them for assuming traditional postures that express the faithful’s reverence for Christ in the Eucharist.
In fact, Rome has become concerned about lack of reverence for the Eucharist, and they’re going to have a problem with the laity being forbidden or browbeaten over assuming any traditional posture that they feel they need to assume to express their personal reverence for Christ in the Eucharist.
More could be said on this, but that’s the basic answer. If you want to go on genuflecting before you receive, Rome won’t have a problem with that. To decrease the chances that today’s situation will recur in the future, you might consider genuflecting just before you reach the head of the Communion line (i.e., when the person in front of you is receiving) and then make a bow when you are at the head.
Hope this helps!
Jimmy,
Is Rome just as flexible regarding the posture during consecration?
In my parish, there are no kneelers and about half the congregation sit during the consecration, is this OK with Rome, even though it is contrary to the GIRM as stated above.
“This applies to GIRM 160’s statement regarding doing a bow of the body . . . ”
But, Mr. Akin, GIRM 160 makes reference only to a bow of the head, not to the profound bow in which one bows at the waist, i.e., a “bow of the body”.
Jimmy, if you’ll notice the GIRM specifies a bow of the head, not a profound bow (a bow of the body from the waist). The GIRM is not quite as traditional as you would like. . . .
You’re correct. Problem fixed. Got 160 and 43 jumbled in my head for a sec.
Hello Jimmy:
Thanks for your help. The link I provided is to my “pretty much” final draft which I will mail on Monday to the priest who reprimanded me for genuflecting. I used a good bit of your material and gave you credit. Hope that is OK.
Steve Ray
You rule Steve!
“Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.
Yeah right. I have yet to have anyone tell me the reason this is the norm. The next time someone complains you ought to ask them to explain the reason for the norm and where the tradition for the norm came from and watch them squirm. One the other hand I only see maybe 1 out of 20 people, if that, that make any sign of reverence at churches I have attended and you don’t hear priests castigating anyone for NOT bowing.
And then there is the extraordinary Eucharistic minister abuse practised by the same priests that is commonplace as well.
Its all about moving the line along, can’t be having mass longer than an hour now can we? Gotta get their obligation over with as soon as possible.
Jimmy,
Your comments regarding the “Holy See being tired of complaints” doesn’t make it clear if they are tired of the complainers or tired of the clerical actions that create the complaints.
Can you clarify? Thanks.
Tom
I used your new search to find an old discussion.
Here is a passage from Cardinal Arinze, published in Notitiae January 2004, page 20. He encourages a degree of tolerance, but draws the line at genuflections:
“Movements and Postures have their importance. They contribute to make the Eucharistic celebration resplendent with beauty and noble siimplicity. A common posture observed by all shwos the unit of the worshipping community. Therefore indications of when to stand, kneel or sit should be observed. [Footnote 14: Cf GIRM nn. 42-44]
“A Catholic should learn to sacrifice his or her personal preferences for the sake fo the community. Nevertheless, those who issue norms or directives about postures should avoid all appearance of rigid regimentation. A Sunday congregation is not an army. There are old people who have arthritis. There are nursing mothers who have to look after over-active babies or infants. And there are people whose Eucharisitc piety or sensitivity would be hurt if they were compelled to receive Holy Communion standing rather than kneeling. While therefore we should not encourage those individuals who genuflect or kneel ostentatiously as an act of protest, who should allow God’s children reasonable freedom. For example, it seems too rigid to demand that everyone keep standing until the last communicant has received Our Lord. Why not allow those who have received Communion and returned to their seat to stand, or kneel, or sit? The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments understands art. 43 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal in this sense.”
It is from a speech in Chicago of 11 October 2003.
Rome is saying it does not have a problem with lots of things. But it is not fair to say that Rome does not have a problem with genuflecting before receiving Communion.
John: Thanks for writing. Nice to see you posting on the blog. I enjoy the info on your
Roman Rite site.
I am quite happy to receive Cardinal Arinze’s directives on this matter, but there is a difficulty in that the passage you quote above contains an ungrammaticalism at the key point, making me unable to tell what Cardinal Arinze is saying about genuflecting. Could you point to an online source for the text or, if you keyed it in, could you re-check the key sentence and re-post?
I also would point out that the Cardinal refers to those who genuflect or ostentatiously kneel “as a sign of protest.” He expressly allows kneeling as a sign of Eucharistic piety, so it would seem that the “as a sign of protest” phrase is operative here. In other words, if one genuflects or kneels out of Eucharistic piety rather than protest, he doesn’t have a problem with it. This would especially seem to apply to those who genuflect as unobtrusively as the correspondent, who genuflects prior to reaching the head of the line, at which point he makes the prescribed sign of reverence.
Also, FWIW, the Cardinal speaks of *not encouraging* those who genuflect or ostentatiously kneel as a sign of protest. He does not speak of forbidding them to receive Communion or publicly chastizing them, as happened to the correspondent.
Thanks for the comments about romanrite.com.
I have not found the article on the internet. It is published in Notitiae of January 2004, the journal of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, page 20. I photocopied it and have checked that I have typed it in correctly.
I think a genuflection, when the U.S.A.’s Conference of Bishops have decided there is to be a bow of the head, is a sign of protest. Even if it is not intended as a protest, that is a likely interpretation.
I see similiarities with what you wrote about Lifeteen: “This illustrates the problem that is generated when individuals diverge from Church law (or teaching). Doing so encourages people to think and act in objectively problematic ways and to form emotional attachments to things that are at variance with the Church’s praxis (or doctrine). Consequently, people are set up for a rude awakening when they find out that what they have been taught or habituated to is not, in fact, what the Church requires.”
So a firm foundation should be built here.
What about what the CDW said? Was this negated by something?? Snip and link follow below.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWADORI.HTM#receiving
CONGREGATIO DE CULTU DIVINO
ET DISCIPLINA SACRAMENTORUM
Prot. n. 2372/00/L
2. Does the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments intend by Nos. 160-162, 244, or elsewhere in the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, that the people may no longer genuflect or bow as a sign of reverence to the Blessed Sacrament immediately before they receive Holy Communion?
Resp.: Negative.
The US bishops are clear that the norm is to bow and remain standing. Yet there are a number of parishioners in my parish who have tripped, could not get back up, or kicked some one from behind because of their insistence of the kneeling to receive. Fine. I have never and will never refuse to give them the Eucharist. But I have pointed out that this is not only a distraction at this solemn moment of receiving our Lord, but also a sign of disunity, self will and defiance of those of us pastors who are simply trying to maintain the rules. We get criticized, gossiped about and verbally attacked on just about everything by the ultra liberal and ultra conservatives in our parishes. What ever happened to just being orthodox?
Percocet addiction recovery.
Percocet sexual effects. Buy percocet online. How long does percocet 7.5 stay in your system. Percocet.