Rorate Caeli

Communion kneeling and on the tongue made mandatory in the Cathedral of Lima

A reader from Lima, Peru has informed Rorate that to receive holy communion at the Cathedral-Basilica of Lima, Perú, the faithful must now kneel in addition to receiving only on the tongue. For that purpose, two kneelers are now put before the steps of the high altar at the moment of Communion, just like in Papal Masses.

In his sermon on September 20, 2009 in the Cathedral, Juan Luis Cardinal Cipriani Thorne, Archbishop of Lima, made the following statement:

"The most respectful way of receiving the Eucharist is kneeling and on the tongue. We must recover a sense of respect and reverence due to the Eucharist, because the love to Jesus is the center of our Christian lives. Our souls are at stake."
The Archbishop -- who has tried to make Lima a "Eucharistic City" -- also exhorted his flock to adore the Eucharistic Lord in the more than 70 adoration chapels in the city.

Readers might recall that in August, in apparent preparation for this significant move, the Cardinal had also preached a strong exhortation in favor of communion kneeling and on the tongue, as well as the use of the communion plate. (See this article on WDTPRS.) The Cardinal had already banned communion in the hand in his Archdiocese last year.

32 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'm confident that the Diocese of Spokane will follow suit!

Paul Haley said...

As the saying goes, "brick by brick". See how terribly difficult it is to bring back a sense of reverence once it has been lost? Kudos to His Excellency.

Anonymous said...

It's good for the more narrow minded traddies to remember that this cardinal is a member of Opus Dei.

Paul Haley said...

'scuse please,. I meant His Eminence in my previous post

joan said...

This is exactly what every Bishop must do.

Dan Hunter said...

This is what Pope Benedict XVI wants.

May it happen very soon in every diocese in America according to the Holy Fathers will.

Adam said...

This is good. Very good.

servusmariaen said...

I applaud his excellency for this move. I pray fervently that this will become widespread. I would hope the next move would be for Ad Orientem to return (among other things).

Anonymous said...

It's funny that you mentioned Opus Dei. I went to Mass once where there was kneeling for Communion and I found out later that it was sort-of an Opus Dei church. Most of the people there were originally from the Phillipines, which was interesting.

patt s said...

We are fortunate and blessed in Houston to have at least two Catholic churches that still allow us to receive in this manner. and have done so for the last 30 years.

gemoftheocean said...

Yes, I'm sure the people with bad knees will love never getting to recieve Communion again, and it's a nice slap at the Eastern Rite Catholics who always "stand aright and in awe."

[can we say "parochial?"

Paul Haley said...

gemoftheocean said...

Yes, I'm sure the people with bad knees will love never getting to recieve Communion again, and it's a nice slap at the Eastern Rite Catholics who always "stand aright and in awe."

It has always been the case that elderly and infirm may receive standing or, if need be, sitting as in a wheelchair or even in one of the front pews. Ushers were responsible for making the necessary arrangements with the celebrant. Of course, that was my experience in the traditional Mass before chaos reigned with people all over the sanctuary in the NO. Speaks volumes, doesn't it.

Jordanes said...

gemoftheocean said: Yes, I'm sure the people with bad knees will love never getting to recieve Communion again

You obviously know nothing of the Church's laws and customs regarding posture and reverence when receiving Communion. The Church accommodates those who are unable to kneel.

and it's a nice slap at the Eastern Rite Catholics who always "stand aright and in awe."

Sorry, we're talking about the LATIN Rite, not the Eastern Rite. If the Eastern law of standing at Communion is not a slap at the Latin universal law of kneeling for Communion, then why would you think the Latin law is a slap at the Eastern law?

Anonymous said...

If that is what the Holy Father desires, then why do all but a handful of communicants at Papal Masses receive in the hand while standing?

This reminds me of the claim that the Holy Father supposedly desires that each (Latin) parish offer at least one TLM each Sunday.

The Holy Father has made it clear that the TLM will not be offered on a widespread basis.

He also characterized Summorum Pontificum as merely "act of tolerance."

The Pope supposedly desires widespread offerings of the the TLM...

...the Pope supposedly desires that the Faithful receive Holy Communion in the hand while kneeling...

...yet 99.9 percent of Catholics at Papal Masses receive Holy Communion in the hand while standing...

...and the Pope has made it clear that the TLM will not be offered frequently throughout the Church.

The Pope hasn't even offered the TLM.

What the Holy Father supposedly desires and the actual situation regarding the state of Latin Church liturgy, particularly at Papal Masses, are at opposite ends.

Tim

Anonymous said...

Deo gratias. Little by little the novelties resulting from Vatican II are being eradicated. May the Extraordinary Form of the Mass proliferate.

Anonymous said...

Unless the Cardinal received permission from Rome it would appear he is in disobedience to Papal directives.

Anonymous said...

On the tongue and kneeling - the only way to worship and receive Our Lord.

Our Lady of She Shan and
Co-Redemptrix - Ora pro nobis.

Bo Hagerf
Kingdom of Sweden

Anonymous said...

If there is such a lack of reverence, from whence did it come? If the lack of reverence is not in you or your minor children then you need to stop judging, which is what you are doing. Jesus has said, "Do not judge, and you will not be judged; because the judgments you give are the judgments you will get" (Mt 7:1) The measure of the reverence of Christ is not in receiving in the hand or on the tongue, standing or kneeling; it is in our hearts. Only God can see in our hearts.

Anonymous said...

I found at yesterday from a priest at my church that the health authority of Santa Clara is banning communion on the tongue. I think because of swine flu, maybe some other disease too. I hope people in Lima don't get sick because of the Cardinal's new rule.

Jordanes said...

The health authority of Santa Clara has no authority to dictate to the Catholic Church how people may receive Our Lord in Holy Communion. The health authority of Santa Clara has committed a grave sin if they have really interfered with divine things, and it is also a grave sin to submit to the health authority's meddling in the Church's affairs.

No one will get sick from receiving Holy Communion on the tongue -- or at least no more than would get sick from receiving Holy Communion in the hand, or receiving the Precious Blood. If it's more important not to get sick than it is to receive Our Lord, then no one should receive Communion at any time or in any way, since there's always a chance of catching some kind of germ. But if people do get sick from the "swine flu," most people will feel poor for a few days and then get better. The swine flu hysteria is just another symptom of the materialist, atheist outlook on life, in which this life and comforts and leisure is all there is to aspire to.

Jordanes said...

If the lack of reverence is not in you or your minor children then you need to stop judging, which is what you are doing.

Rubbish. The Holy Scriptures instruct us to admonish our brethren when they err. How can we obey that instruction if we are forbidden to use our God-given faculties of judgment as you claim?

Jesus has said, "Do not judge, and you will not be judged; because the judgments you give are the judgments you will get" (Mt 7:1)

Jesus also said some men have cut off their reproductive organs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven, and told us to chop off our offending hands and gouge out our offending eyes.

The measure of the reverence of Christ is not in receiving in the hand or on the tongue, standing or kneeling; it is in our hearts. Only God can see in our hearts.

You're wrong. Reverence is indeed expressed corporeally, and is not merely an internal disposition that only God can see -- that's a Protestantish dualistic way of looking at things, not a Catholic way. Some actions are objectively more reverent than others, while other actions are objectively irreverent.

Anonymous said...

In May (according to an article I read), the Bishop of San Jose requested at least one church not to offer Communion orally as a precaution against the swine flu. Apparently, the Church and the health authority see eye to eye on this issue. If there was any sin involved, I don't think the Church would have consented. In any event, it's not like the health authority has guns to stop Communion from happening, so I wouldn't worry about government interference.

This Sunday I was told Communion at my church will not be offered at all, this time at the request of the health authority. The Church is cooperating.

Jordanes said...

If there was any sin involved, I don't think the Church would have consented.

Why do you think that? Is it because you believe bishops, priests, and lay Catholics are incapable of sinning?

Jordanes said...

If there was any sin involved, I don't think the Church would have consented.

Why do you think that? Is it because you believe bishops, priests, and lay Catholics are incapable of sinning?

This Sunday I was told Communion at my church will not be offered at all, this time at the request of the health authority. The Church is cooperating.

He who seeks to save his life will lose it.

Anonymous said...

I do not want to start a war of words. Jordanes makes an argument that reverence is measure in a corporeal form. That is only ONE way in which reverence can be given. For instance; children and adults with developmental disabilities have more reverence, love and charity in their hearts than Jordanes seem to think are simply shown by kneeling or recieving on the tongue. It may be said that we are to instruct our brethern but Jesus also said to take the plank out of your own eye before commenting on your brother! It is SINFUL to make it seem that your way of doing things is the only way when the Vatican has said no. Especially when Jesus teaches us to be true to our own hearts.

Jordanes said...

I do not want to start a war of words.

Then you shouldn't have criticised Catholics who wish the liturgy to be celebrated reverently.

Jordanes makes an argument that reverence is measure in a corporeal form. That is only ONE way in which reverence can be given. For instance; children and adults with developmental disabilities have more reverence, love and charity in their hearts than Jordanes seem to think are simply shown by kneeling or recieving on the tongue.

The topic at hand is reverence in the liturgy. Being reverent cannot be separated from expressing reverence in words and/or gestures.

It may be said that we are to instruct our brethern but Jesus also said to take the plank out of your own eye before commenting on your brother!

Good advice -- for all of us, including yourself.

It is SINFUL to make it seem that your way of doing things is the only way when the Vatican has said no. Especially when Jesus teaches us to be true to our own hearts.

He also teaches us to love the Lord our God with all our hearts. Anyway, I don't believe kneeling and receiving on the tongue is the only acceptable way, but it's objectively a more reverent way than standing and receiving in the hand.

Anonymous said...

In regard to my earlier comment, of course I think that priests and lay Catholics are capable of sinning. I do read the news. I only meant that it may not be accurate to use to the word sin as to this issue (overreaction and unnecessary might be a better fit). I bet Canon Law has something to say, I would have to look it up.

Also, where did you get the quote:"He who seeks to save his life will lose it?" If it's from the Bible, I'm pretty sure it's out of context. Please give me the citation.

The quote you used reminds me of a story about my mom. She once took Communion at church where she had a feeling people with bad diseases were drinking from the chalice, but she drank from it anyways. When she told her friend (who also drank) that she was worried about it, the friend told her that God makes all the germs in the chalice disappear, but just for having doubts, she would now get sick too. I thought it was a very wicked (and untrue) thing for her to say.

Anyways, are you saying that if someone with Ebola drank out of the Communion chalice, you would still go ahead and drink?

Jordanes said...

I only meant that it may not be accurate to use to the word sin as to this issue (overreaction and unnecessary might be a better fit). I bet Canon Law has something to say, I would have to look it up.

I'm confident canon law does not endorse secular authorities dictating to the Church how and when people may receive Holy Communion, nor a local pastor or bishop telling people that no one at all may receive Our Lord on the off chance that someone might get sick for a few days.

Also, where did you get the quote:"He who seeks to save his life will lose it?" If it's from the Bible, I'm pretty sure it's out of context. Please give me the citation.

"If" it's in the Bible? You're funny, Anonymous.

"Then He said to all, 'If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it. What profit is there for one to gain the whole world yet lose or forfeit his soul?'" (Luke 9:23-26)

"Similarly, as it was in the days of Lot: they were eating, drinking, buying, selling, planting, building; on the day when Lot left Sodom, fire and brimstone rained from heaven to destroy them all. So it will be on the day the Son of Man is revealed . . . . Remember Lot's wife. Whoever seeks to preserve his life will lose it, but whoever loses it will save it." (Luke 17:28-31, 32-33)

"Whoever loves father or mothr more than Me is not worthy of Me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me; and whoever does not take up his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it." (Matt. 10:37-39)

"Then Jesus said to His disciples, 'Whoever wishes to come after Me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. What profit is it if a man gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of Man will come with His angels in His Father's glory, and then He will repay everyone according to his works." (Matt. 16:24-27; cf. Mark 8:34-38)

"Amen, Amen, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains just a grain of wheat; but if it dies, it produces much fruit. Whoever loves his soul loses it, and whoever hates his soul in this world will preserve it for eternal life. Whoever serves Me must follow Me, and where I am, there also will My servant be. The Father will honor whoever serves Me." (John 12:24-26)

Jesus repeats this dictum several times, underscoring where our priorities must be. It all depends on what is more important to you: eternal life, or avoiding a few days of discomfort.

Jordanes said...

When she told her friend (who also drank) that she was worried about it, the friend told her that God makes all the germs in the chalice disappear, but just for having doubts, she would now get sick too. I thought it was a very wicked (and untrue) thing for her to say.

It is a wicked and untrue thing to say. There's no promise that God will make germs disappear from a chalice at Communion time, nor that God will allow someone to get sick for worrying that they might get sick from germs on the common chalice. It's sinful superstitition.

But your anecdote has nothing to do with anything I've said.

Anyways, are you saying that if someone with Ebola drank out of the Communion chalice, you would still go ahead and drink?

I do not receive Communion from the chalice -- and someone with Ebola would be incapable of going to Mass, so that's not a scenario anyone need worry about.

All the same, people shouldn't worry about picking up germs during Communion. If we are really worried about possibly passing on communicable diseases at Communion time, then no one should ever receive Communion (just like at your church, where matters of merely physical health have been placed above canon law which strictly forbids worthy Catholics from being denied the sacraments when they request them), because there's no way to be sure who is carrying what germs, who is and isn't contagious. Indeed, no one should ever get out of bed in the morning.

He who seeks to save his life shall lose it. This life is good; it is not the supreme good. Bodily health is good, but having some strain of flu for a few days is not a great disaster (and we now know that "swine flu" is just another ordinary strain of flu).

Anonymous said...

Ok, maybe a person with Ebola might be too sick to go to church, but I was only using Ebola as an example because it wouldn't have been ladylike to name certain other diseases, just use your imagination.

Anonymous said...

Sorry for the confusion, when I said this Sunday communion wouldn't be offered at all, I was mistaken (thankfully). Communion on the tongue is what was not offered.

Sprezzatura said...

Most certainly I would still receive from the chalice, for my part. St John of Shanghai, the incorrupt Russian Orthodox bishop, once gave communion to a woman with rabies. In a fit, she spat it out, but he did not fear and recovered it and consumed in spite of everyone around him cautioning him of the contagious nature of rabies. He calmly said 'nothing will happen, these are the Holy Gifts'.