Communion while Kneeling - Cupich off the rails

Cardinal Cupich recently published an essay condemning reception of Communion while kneeling. He stated, "no one should engage in a gesture [kneeling] that calls attention to oneself or disrupts the flow of the procession. That would be contrary to the norms and tradition of the church."

Following is a brief analysis that will show that the Cardinal's claims are theologically empty and derogatory of faithful Catholics.

Tradition for Communion while Kneeling

Kneeling for Communion has been the norm for centuries. As then-Cardinal Ratzinger wrote:

"the practice of kneeling for Holy Communion has in its favor a centuries-old tradition, and it is a particularly expressive sign of adoration, completely appropriate in light of the true, real and substantial presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the consecrated species." (Cardinal Ratzinger, 2002)

One needn't even be a scholar to know Communion while kneeling is a centuries-old tradition. You can just look at the pictures. Here are paintings from the 20th, 19th, and 15th centuries all depicting Communion on the tongue while kneeling.

Holy Communion by Angelo comte de Courten, d. 1925

Woman Receiving the Eucharist by Felix-Joseph Barrias, 1850

The Institution of the Eucharist by Joos van Wassenhove, ca 1475

Cupich's own home Chicago church, Holy Name Cathedral can be seen here with its altar rail for Communion while kneeling in these photos taken prior to Vatican II:

Holy Name Cathedral (home of Cardinal Cupich) seen above in
the 1903 stereogram and in 1958 with altar rails still in place.

Magisterial Support for Communion while Kneeling

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops echoes Redemptionis Sacramentum regarding Communion while kneeling:

"The norm... is that Holy Communion is to be received standing, unless an individual member of the faithful wishes to receive Communion while kneeling. ... 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."

Cardinal Sarah, writing in a book preface recently pointed out how antagonism for Communion while kneeling is from the devil:

And then we understand how the most insidious diabolical attack consists in trying to extinguish faith in the Eucharist, sowing errors and favoring an unsuitable way of receiving it; truly the war between Michael and his Angels on the one hand, and Lucifer on the other, continues in the hearts of the faithful: Satan's target is the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Real Presence of Jesus in the consecrated Host. .... May this book encourage those priests and faithful who, also moved by the example of Benedict XVI – who in the last years of his pontificate wanted to distribute the Eucharist on the tongue and kneeling – wish to administer or receive the Eucharist in this latter way, much more suited to the Sacrament itself. I hope there may be a rediscovery and promotion of the beauty and pastoral value of this modality. In my opinion and judgment, this is an important question on which the Church today must reflect. This is a further act of adoration and love that each of us can offer to Jesus Christ. (Cardinal Robert Sarah, preface to the book The Distribution of Communion in the Hand: a Historical, Juridical, and Pastoral Overview (2018)

Bishop Thomas Olmsted similarly referenced the devil as an opponent of kneeling before God:

According to Abba Apollo, a desert father who lived about 1,700 years ago, the devil has no knees; he cannot kneel; he cannot adore; he cannot pray; he can only look down his nose in contempt. Being unwilling to bend the knee at the name of Jesus is the essence of evil (Cf. Is 45:23, Rom 14:11). (Bishop Thomas Olmstead, "Knees to Love Christ," 2005)

The angelic battle calls to mind Scripture, where we see angels prostrating themselves before God's throne (Revelation 7:11). Such gestures of reverence can hardly be considered "calling attention to oneself," as Cupich asserted baselessly.

Around 2014, Cardinal Francis Arinze perhaps summed up the theological basis for receiving Communion kneeling in the most efficient statement: "If you believe that Christ is our God, and He is present, why don't you kneel?"

History against Eucharistic piety

Cardinal Cupich's stance on kneeling for Communion is part of a broader pattern against proper reverence for the Holy Eucharist. He has previously expressed openness to giving Communion to the divorced and remarried and those in same-sex relationships, positions that contradict longstanding Church teaching and the moral law, including that described by St. Paul (1 Cor 11:28-29) in exhorting those in sinful condition to abstain from the Eucharist. Cupich's Eucharistic procession this past June was noted for its irreverently fast pace.

Conclusion

Ultimately, it is Cardinal Cupich who stands against the Tradition of the Church. He is in contradiction with the teaching of the USCCB and Redemptionis Sacramentum and relevant parts recognized by the Apostolic See. His essay avoids confronting the theological basis for Communion while kneeling - which is a form of censorship - concealing from readers what he was opposing. Instead he attacked a strawman about self-aggrandizement and disunity. His position may ultimately work against his intent. The faithful can see what a poor theological analysis he offers compared to the theological soundness and beauty offered by those who support Communion while kneeling.

While the faithful might find the Cardinal's essay akin to a mobster's letter of intimidation, they needn't lose confidence. The theological basis for kneeling to receive Communion has a solid foundation in truth. Those who desire to receive Communion kneeling should always remember we are called to please God, not men (cf. Gal. 1:10).

A priest posting on X made a relevant observation that would both account for the theological basis for kneeling prostrate like angels before God all while maintaining unity in posture that Cupich said is important: "[W]hat if instead of coming forward individually, we line up side by side—perhaps along some sort of railing."

Pope Francis' false appeal to "communion" in blocking Latin Mass

Pope Francis' backwardly named motu proprio, Traditionis Custodes, appealed to a fictional disunity as justification for restricting the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM). 

In the document, Francis acknowledged both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI's move to promote the TLM for "the concord and unity of the Church." Two paragraphs later, Francis called for the exact opposite of his predecessors, and instead restricted the TLM for the sake of "ecclesial communion." 

Pope Francis photo by Juan David Tena, accessed at Wikimedia Commons

On November 30, 2023, EWTN's Raymond Arroyo interviewed Abp. Georg Gänswein, Pope Benedict's personal secretary.

Gänswein recalled asking Pope Emeritus Benedict in 2021 about Pope Francis' document oppressing the TLM. 

"Holy Father can I ask you a question? ... I do not understand understand that motu proprio because the liberty you gave with your motu propio years ago has bought peace in the liturgy and in the Church. And I feel this motu proprio will cause many, many problems." 

Gänswein then recalled Benedict's answer: "I hope God will help us."

Gänswein's instinct in 2021 has proven correct, as today we see "many, many problems" largely issuing from Pope Francis' antagonism for the TLM and the faithful attending. Following Francis' motu proprio, a multitude of vexed faithful have cried out. Francis' action, rather than following a trajectory of unity, has given rise to multiple faithful individuals and even formal organizations pleading for the restoration of the TLM. 

We knew nothing of such resistance and disunion during the time period Francis claimed disunity needed fixing. John Paul II wrote his indult in 1984; Pope Benedict his motu proprio in 2007. Pope Francis' motu proprio was in 2021. No such disunity between 1984 and 2021 existed. As Gänswein said, Benedict's motu proprio "brought peace." 

Speaking of the language, Pope Pius XI in 1922 said that Latin was a "great bond of unity." Pope Pius XII in 1947 said Latin was a "beautiful sign of unity."

Obstruction of Latin is also a disunion with the saints of old. For at the divine liturgy, the saints and angels are present. We especially acknowledge this during the confiteor when calling to angels and saints. Liturgical unity is not an enterprise trapped in a single generation. The presence of angels and saints for all of Christianity should not be ignored in the scope of "unity" in the Liturgy. Beyond the language, the new mass arguably preserved a mere 13% of the content of the traditional liturgy. Appealing to the new mass as somehow more unifying than a centuries-old liturgy is nonsensical.

Among the reasons the late Cardinal George Pell said of Francis "this pontificate is a disaster in many or most respects; a catastrophe" were because " liturgical tensions are inflamed and not dampened" under Francis.

The glory of Latin, in the Church's words

Following is a sample of texts in Church history pertaining to the Latin language, the nobility and encouragement of the language, as well as the glory of the Latin liturgy. Emphasis added.

If any one saith… that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only…let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, Session 22, Canon 9, 1563)

Council of Trent by Pasquale Cati, 1588

Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us. This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world... (Pope Pius V, Quo Primum, 1570)

The previous text from Pope Pius V does later in the apostolic constitution allow for pre-existing liturgies in other forms. However, I have included it above because of the force by which the Latin liturgy is elevated.

The first thing concerns fostering with every care and promoting the study of the Latin language in the literary schools of clerics; and gaining a grasp of this language, by knowing and using it, is important not merely for humanity and literature but also for religion. For the Church, since it contains all nations in its embrace, since it is going to endure until the consummation of the ages, and since it utterly excludes the common people from its governance, requires by its own nature a universal language, unchangeable, not that of the common people. Since Latin is such a language, it was divinely foreseen that it should be something marvellously useful for the Church as teacher, and that it should also serve as a great bond of unity for Christ’s more learned faithful; that is to say, by giving them not only something with which, whether they are separated in different locations or gathered into one place, they might easily compare the respective thoughts and insights of their minds, but also – and this is even more important – something with which they might understand more profoundly the things of mother Church, and might be united more closely with the head of the Church. (Pope Pius XI: Apostolic Letter Officiorum Omnium, August 1, 1922)

The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth. (Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, 1947)

Nor must we overlook the characteristic nobility of Latin formal structure. Its “concise, varied and harmonious style, full of majesty and dignity” makes for singular clarity and impressiveness of expression. … Since “every Church must assemble round the Roman Church,” and since the Supreme Pontiffs have “true episcopal power, ordinary and immediate, over each and every Church and each and every Pastor, as well as over the faithful” of every rite and language, it seems particularly desirable that the instrument of mutual communication be uniform and universal, especially between the Apostolic See and the Churches which use the same Latin rite. … Finally, the Catholic Church has a dignity far surpassing that of every merely human society, for it was founded by Christ the Lord. It is altogether fitting, therefore, that the language it uses should be noble, majestic, and non-vernacular. In addition, the Latin language “can be called truly catholic.” It has been consecrated through constant use by the Apostolic See, the mother and teacher of all Churches, and must be esteemed “a treasure … of incomparable worth.” It is a general passport to the proper understanding of the Christian writers of antiquity and the documents of the Church’s teaching. It is also a most effective bond, binding the Church of today with that of the past and of the future in wonderful continuity. (Pope John XXIII, Veterum Sapientia, 1962)

Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites. (Sacrosanctum Concilium, Second Vatican Council, 36.1, 1963)

While there are many motives that might have led a great number of people to seek a refuge in the traditional liturgy, the chief one is that they find the dignity of the sacred preserved there. After the Council there were many priests who deliberately raised ‘desacralization’ to the level of a program ... they put aside the sacred vestments; they have despoiled the churches as much as they could of that splendor which brings to mind the sacred; and they have reduced the liturgy to the language and the gestures of ordinary life, by means of greetings, common signs of friendship, and such things ... That which previously was considered most holy — the form in which the liturgy was handed down — suddenly appears as the most forbidden of all things, the one thing that can safely be prohibited. It is intolerable to criticize decisions which have been taken since the Council; on the other hand, if men make question of ancient rules, or even of the great truths of the Faith — for instance, the corporal virginity of Mary, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, the immortality of the soul, etc. — nobody complains or only does so with the greatest moderation. (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Address to the Bishops of Chile, 1988)

I am of the opinion, to be sure, that the old rite should be granted much more generously to all those who desire it. It’s impossible to see what could be dangerous or unacceptable about that. A community is calling its very being into question when it suddenly declares that what until now was its holiest and highest possession is strictly forbidden and when it makes the longing for it seem downright indecent. (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Salt of the Earth, 1996)

For fostering a true consciousness in liturgical matters, it is also important that the proscription against the form of liturgy in valid use up to 1970 should be lifted. Anyone who nowadays advocates the continuing existence of this liturgy or takes part in it is treated like a leper; all tolerance ends here. There has never been anything like this in history; in doing this we are despising and proscribing the Church’s whole past. How can one trust her present if things are that way? I must say, quite openly, that I don’t understand why so any of my episcopal brethren have to a great extent submitted to this rule of intolerance, which for no apparent reason is opposed to making the necessary inner reconciliations within the Church. (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, God and the World, 2000)

On the other hand, a variety of vocabulary in the original text should give rise, insofar as possible, to a corresponding variety in the translations. The translation may be weakened and made trite, for example, by the use of a single vernacular term for rendering differing Latin terms such as satiari, sumere, vegetari, and pasci, on the one hand, or the nouns caritas and dilectio on the other, or the words anima, animus, cor, mens, and spiritus, to give some examples. Similarly, a deficiency in translating the varying forms of addressing God, such as Domine, Deus, Omnipotens aeterne Deus, Pater, and so forth, as well as the various words expressing supplication, may render the translation monotonous and obscure the rich and beautiful way in which the relationship between the faithful and God is expressed in the Latin text. (Fifth instruction for the right implementation of the constitution on the sacred liturgy of the second vatican council, Liturgiam Authenticam, 51, 2001)

The previous text was one that ultimately discussed how to incorporate the vernacular mass, and in doing so, found itself admitting to the advantages of Latin.

The Popes and the Roman Church have found Latin very suitable for many reasons. It fits a Church which is universal, a Church in which all peoples, languages and cultures should feel at home and no one is regarded as a stranger.  Moreover, the Latin language has a certain stability which daily spoken languages, where words change often in shades of meaning, cannot have.  … Latin has the characteristic of words and expressions retaining their meaning generation after generation. This is an advantage when it comes to the articulation of our Catholic faith and the preparation of Papal and other Church Documents. … Blessed Pope John XXIII in his Apostolic Constitution, Veterum Sapientia, issued on 22 February 1962, gives these two reasons and adds a third. The Latin language has a nobility and dignity which are not negligible (cf. Veterum Sapientia, nn. 5, 6, 7). We can add that Latin is concise, precise and poetically measured. (Cardinal Francis Arinze, “Language in Liturgy,” 2006)

The Latin language has always been held in very high esteem by the Catholic Church and by the Roman Pontiffs. They have assiduously encouraged the knowledge and dissemination of Latin, adopting it as the Church’s language, capable of passing on the Gospel message throughout the world. This is authoritatively stated by the Apostolic Constitution Veterum Sapientia of my Predecessor, Blessed John XXIII. (Pope Benedict XVI, Motu Proprio: Latina Lingua, 2012)

Furthermore, after the 1960s, some riches of the liturgy were abandoned, such as its hieratic invariance, but also its geographic and historical unity, which was assured by Latin as the language of the liturgy, by the rites that had been handed down, by the beauty of its art and of the solemnity that accompanied it. The disappearance of linguistic unity in the liturgy in favor of the vernacular languages is, to my mind, one possible factor of division. … The Second Vatican Council explicitly demands that the Latin language be preserved. Have we been faithful to it? The use of Latin in some parts of the Mass can help us to rediscover the profound essence of the liturgy. Being a fundamentally mystical and contemplative reality, the liturgy is beyond the reach of our human activity. Nevertheless, it presupposes on our part some openness to the mystery being celebrated. Thus the conciliar Constitution on the Liturgy recommends a full understanding of the rites, and it prescribes “that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 54). (Cardinal Robert Sarah, The Day is Now Far Spent, p. 137-138, 2019)

It must be remembered that, from a theological point of view, every valid celebration of a sacrament, by the very fact that it is a sacrament, is also, beyond any ecclesiastical legislation, an act of worship and, therefore, also a profession of faith. In that sense, it is not possible to exclude the Roman Missal, according to the UA [Usus Antiquior, i.e. Usage of Antiquity], as a valid expression of the lex orandi and, therefore, of the lex credendi of the Church. It is a question of an objective reality of divine grace which cannot be changed by a mere act of the will of even the highest ecclesiastical authority. (Cardinal Raymond Burke, Statement on the Motu Proprio Traditionis Custodes, July 22, 2021)

The Eucharist is to be celebrated in the Latin language or in another language provided the liturgical texts have been legitimately approved. (Code of Canon Law, #928)

Extraordinary ministers should not be ordinary

Recently, bishops showed a great zeal and meticulousness for regulations regarding the coronavirus. This ranged from closing down churches altogether to detailed protocols during the reopening phase. The goal is to benefit the physical health of the faithful. Likewise, such zeal to detail should be given to those norms that protect the spiritual lives of the faithful. After all, the spiritual life is the more valuable of the two. As scripture says, "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell." (Matt. 10:28)

Woman Receiving the Eucharist by Félix-Joseph Barrias (ca 1840-65)

Meticulous attention is worth giving to spiritual norms. One such norm that is often not followed pertains to extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist. It is not uncommon to see lay extraordinary ministers even in small congregations, or even when there is a priest and deacon present. This is contrary to the regulation.

Redemptionis Sacramentum (2004) especially addresses proper use of extraordinary ministers. The document is subtitled On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist.  Here are three key paragraphs (emphasis mine):

#151 Only out of true necessity is there to be recourse to the assistance of extraordinary ministers in the celebration of the Liturgy. Such recourse is not intended for the sake of a fuller participation of the laity but rather, by its very nature, is supplementary and provisional.

We see here that recourse to extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist is not a "participation" mechanism for the laity. It is something to be availed only out of "true necessity." Many churches are not reflecting this.

#154 [B]y reason of their sacred Ordination, the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are the Bishop, the Priest and the Deacon, to whom it belongs therefore to administer Holy Communion to the lay members of Christ’s faithful during the celebration of Mass. In this way their ministerial office in the Church is fully and accurately brought to light, and the sign value of the Sacrament is made complete.

Recourse to extraordinary ministers is a concession that does not communicate the completeness of the sign that accompanies distribution of the Sacred Body and Blood by a bishop, priest, or deacon.

#157 If there is usually present a sufficient number of sacred ministers for the distribution of Holy Communion, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may not be appointed. Indeed, in such circumstances, those who may have already been appointed to this ministry should not exercise it. The practice of those Priests is reprobated who, even though present at the celebration, abstain from distributing Communion and hand this function over to laypersons.

Many parishes by default avail extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist even for modest Sunday congregations or even for daily masses where there are a few dozen attendees, if that. Such unnecessary normalization of extraordinary ministers seems exactly the type of impropriety that Redemptionis Sacramentum warns against.

#158 Indeed, the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion may administer Communion only when the Priest and Deacon are lacking, when the Priest is prevented by weakness or advanced age or some other genuine reason, or when the number of faithful coming to Communion is so great that the very celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged. This, however, is to be understood in such a way that a brief prolongation, considering the circumstances and culture of the place, is not at all a sufficient reason.

Even a priest by himself can get through a several dozen communicants in just a few minutes, particularly if a communion rail is availed. But what is, say, an extra five to ten minutes when such time can also be used for post-Communion prayer.  If one were to argue that the Liturgy is unduly prolonged, the very last part of the Liturgy that should be accelerated is the Eucharist. Christ's Body and Blood are the very "source and summit" of the one, true faith (CCC#1324). It would be easy to compensate, if necessary, to abstain, for example, from multiple verses of song that prolong the mass. Forgoing song altogether in favor of a cantor's Latin chant during processions would likewise award additional time that could be granted to the Holy Eucharist. A concise homily can also help. So could reciting, instead of singing, the Gloria. There are many other ways, if truly necessary, than trying to speed up Holy Communion.

If modern polls are accurate, upwards of two-thirds of Catholics don't even believe in the Real Presence. This is a tragedy. There is little excuse to avoid solutions that would better communicate the reality of the Real Presence. As Redemptionis Sacramentum (154) stated, the true value of the Eucharist is signally announced when distributed by an ordained minister. Limiting distribution of the Eucharist to bishops, priests, and deacons as much as possible is one simple remedy already prescribed by the Church.