Part 4: US Bishops on GIRM 160; Vatican Reiterates "no denial of Communion"

It has been some time since I wrote the last post in this series - Part 3 (link at bottom). With the release of Summorum Pontificum, along with far less time to write of late, I had an unintended suspension of this series.

In part 3 we examined a letter from the CDW's prefect at the time, Cardinal Medina Estevez, in which he accepted a provision submitted by the diocese of the United States which made standing for Holy Communion the norm. It was accepted on condition that Communion not be denied and that a clause be added, "to protect those faithful who will inevitably be led by their own sensibilities to kneel from imprudent action by priests, deacons or lay ministers in particular, or from being refused Holy Communion for such a reason as happens on occasion."

The USCCB in it's July 2002 newsletter published the following:

POSTURE

It should be noted that the General Instruction o the Roman Missal assigns to Conferences of Bishops the decision as to whether the faithful should stand or kneel at the time of reception of Holy Communion. (no. 43 §2) The Bishops of the United States have decided that the normative posture for receiving Holy Communion should be standing.

Kneeling is not a licit posture for receiving Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States of America unless the bishop of a particular diocese has derogated from this norm in an individual and extraordinary circumstance.

The provision which follows this section is provided for those extraordinary circumstances when a communicant acts in contradiction to the decision of the bishops. Under no circumstances may a person be denied Holy Communion merely because he or she has refused to stand to receive Holy Communion. Rather, in such instances, the priest is obliged to provide additional catechesis so that the communicant might better understand the reason for the Bishops' decision to choose standing as the normative posture for receiving Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States of America.

What is interesting here is that a clause is added as Cardinal Estevez wanted, but left priests in a rather precarious position: What to do after that "additional catechesis" if the communicant persists in kneeling. We will get to that in the second of two protocols issued by the Holy See (below).

Furthermore, prudence would suggest that a priest not try to catechize someone in such a way as to make a scene. Rather, whenever "instruction" takes place, prudence dictates that it be done in private so that the dignity of the individual may be retained.

In this link at Our Lady's Warriors, is a string of four letters out of the Holy See - essentially the heart of communications on this whole issue.

First comes Prot. n. 1322/02/L on July 1, 2002

You can get the whole thing by clicking that link above - I'll summarize and extract below:

In the first paragraph:

• Cardinal Estevez expresses alarm over receipt of many letters within a particular diocese indicating people are being refused Holy Communion because they kneel.
• The Cardinal asks the bishop to investigate.

The second through fourth paragraphs are worth posting in full (my emphases in bold, and comments in red):

The Congregation in fact is concerned at the number of similar complaints that it has received in recent months from various places, and considers any refusal of Holy Communion to a member of the faithful on the basis of his or her kneeling posture to be a grave violation of one of the most basic rights of the Christian faithful, namely that of being assisted by their Pastors by means of the Sacraments (Codex Iuris Canonici, canon 213). In view of the law that "sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who opportunely ask for them, are properly disposed and are not prohibited by law from receiving them" (canon 843 ß 1), there should be no such refusal to any Catholic who presents himself for Holy Communion at Mass, except in cases presenting a danger of grave scandal to other believers arising out of the person's unrepented public sin or obstinate heresy or schism, publicly professed or declared [While politicians who openly advocate or support abortion freely receive Communion in most cases, some who kneel were being denied on that basis - go figure!]. Even where the Congregation has approved of legislation denoting standing as the posture for Holy Communion, in accordance with the adaptations permitted to the Conferences of Bishops by the Institution Generalis Missalis Romani n. 160, paragraph 2, it has done so with the stipulation that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds.

In fact, as His Eminence, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger [now, Pope Benedict XVI] has recently emphasized, 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.

Given the importance of this matter, the Congregation would request that Your Excellency inquire specifically whether this priest in fact has a regular practice of refusing Holy Communion to any member of the faithful in the circumstances described above and - if the complaint is verified - that you also firmly instruct him and any other priests who may have had such a practice to refrain from acting thus in the future. Priests should understand that the Congregation will regard future complaints of this nature with great seriousness, and if they are verified, it intends to seek disciplinary action consonant with the gravity of the pastoral abuse.

It doesn't get much stronger than that. Not only should priests not deny Holy Communion to someone who kneels, but if they do, they will be disciplined.

At the same time, and with the same protocol number, a letter was sent to the individual whose letter served as the straw which broke the camel's back (recall the Vatican was receiving many such letters). Here, and this is important, Msgr Mario Marini explains that it is not only a right, but in some cases a duty, to take things up the chain.

It is troubling that you seem to express some reservations about both the propriety and the usefulness of addressing the Holy See regarding this matter. Canon 212 ß 2 of the Code of Canon Law states that "Christ's faithful are totally free to make known their needs, especially their spiritual ones, and their desire: to the Pastor of the Church". The canon then continues in ß 3: "According to their own knowledge competence and position, they have the right, and indeed sometimes the duty, to present to the sacred Pastor; their opinions regarding those things that pertain to the good of the Church".... Accordingly, in consideration of the nature of the problem and the relative likelihood that it might or might not be resolved on the local level, every member of the faithful has the right of recourse to the Roman Pontiff either personally or by means of the Dicasteries or Tribunals of the Roman Curia.

Then, Msgr Marini reiterates the heart of what was said to the bishop who received the letter from Cardinal Medina Estevez.

Are Kneeling Communicants in the US Disobedient?
Now comes the most confusing and hotly debated point I've encountered. Knowing full well how the more traditional and orthodox Catholics look upon obedience, some try to paint those who kneel as "disobedient" when they persist in kneeling following Catechesis. This is addressed in Prot. n. 47/03/L dated February 26, 2003 in the same link:

As the authority by virtue of whose recognitio the norm in question has attained the force of law, this Dicastery is competent to specify the manner in which the norm is to be understood for the sake of a proper application. Having received more than a few letters regarding this matter from different locations in the United States of America, the Congregation wishes to ensure that its position on the matter is clear.

To this end, it is perhaps useful to respond to your inquiry by repeating the content of a letter that the Congregation recently addressed to a Bishop in the United States of America from whose Diocese a number of pertinent letters had been received. The letter states: "... while this Congregation gave the recognitio to the norm desired by the Bishops' Conference of your country that people stand for Holy Communion, this was done on the condition that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds. Indeed, the faithful should not be imposed upon nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly when they kneel to receive Holy Communion".

Hence, even after providing the so-called "catechesis" on kneeling, those who persist in kneeling cannot be considered disobedient. If there is any disobedience going on it is on the part of those who persist in making an issue of kneeling communicants.

It is also interesting to note that in the BCL Newsletter of 2002 first provided in this post, it calls kneeling an "illicit" posture. Yet, the Holy See, who at the end of the day has jurisdiction to interpret it's own documents for the Church when conflict arises, says communicants are not "acting illicitly" when they kneel.

It has been my experience in debating this extensively in Catholic forums that there are some who simply do not understand that the USCCB does not have the final word. Rather, it is the other way around. The USCCB must submit to the authority of the Church on such matters, including cases like this where at least in the minds of some bishops and priests, wording was unclear. The Vatican clarified it many, many times and it appeared that word was not getting out, or some were choosing to stand by their own interpretation - always wrong and dangerous.

This series is nearing it's end, but it is not done. We will explore some writings by some resources on kneeling, and we will explore whether there are times that even the most steadfast of kneeling people should consider standing for Communion.



Part 1: GIRM 160 (Introductory Post)
Part 2: Holy See clarifies GIRM 160 in November of 2000
Part 2.5: US Adapations to GIRM Approved for Submission
Part 3: Holy See Responds to US Adapations with Suggestions


Te Deum Laudamus! Home

Kneeling for Holy Communion: Part 2.5 - GIRM 160 - US Adaptations Approved by USCCB - June 15, 2001

I knew the chronology was a maze on this issue and neglected to share with you what the US Bishops approved and submitted to the Holy See in the form of the "American Adaptations". This will put the letter I provided yesterday from Cardinal Medina Estevez in context. So, we will backtrack one step now before continuing on.

As explained by Adoremus Bulletin¹

Norms of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani [liturgical instructions in the new Roman Missal] concerning the postures of the congregation during the celebration of Mass, and proposed amendments approved by the US bishops June 15, 2001, for submission to the Holy See for necessary recognitio (approval).

In this document, we first see a review of the universal norm first, followed by what was submitted after the USCCB approval. I have emphasized in bold what pertains to our discussion.

Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani

160. The priest then takes the paten or a vessel and goes to the communicants, who, as a rule, approach in a procession.

The faithful are not permitted to take up the consecrated Bread or the sacred Chalice themselves, and still less hand them on to one another. The faithful may communicate either standing or kneeling, as established by the Conference of Bishops. However, when they communicate standing, it is recommended that they make an appropriate gesture of reverence, to be laid down in the same norms, before receiving the Sacrament.

-----------

Proposed American Adaptation of IGMR §160

160. Distribution of Holy Communion

The faithful come forward in procession to receive Holy Communion. The posture for the reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Each communicant bows his or her head before the sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives Holy Communion 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 made before receiving both the Body and the Blood of Christ.

Note that the universal norm says that Conference of Bishops determines whether the American norm will be for people to kneel or to stand. This was a fiercely debated point, and still is, in some Catholic forums. But, only the Church can interpret the "mind of the Church", which was done in the October 2001 letter we reviewed yesterday by Cardinal Medina Estevez in what is labeled "Part 3". In short, the Conference of Bishops can say that the norm is standing in the US, but as we see in later communications, they may not prohibit kneeling.

Just as a further comparison, and going back to our introductory post, compare the current US adaptation of GIRM 160 to the one directly above that was submitted.

160. The priest then takes the paten or ciborium and goes to the communicants, who, as a rule, approach in a procession.

The faithful are not permitted to take the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them from one to another. 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.

[1] Online Edition - Vol. VII, No. 5-6: July-August 2001

In my next post, we'll look at more communications from the Vatican on GIRM 160.

Part 1: GIRM 160 (Introductory Post)
Part 2: Holy See clarifies GIRM 160 in November of 2000
Part 2.5: US Adapations to GIRM Approved for Submission (this post)
Part 3: Holy See Responds to US Adapations with Suggestions



Te Deum Laudamus! Home

Kneeling for Holy Communion: Part 3 - Holy See Clarifies GIRM 160 on Oct 25, 2001

As we follow GIRM 160 since it was first released in the IGMR, we now come to an interesting letter by Cardinal Medina Estevez - then Prefect of the CDW, to the president of the USCCB, Bishop Joseph Fiorenza. The Adoremus Bulletin explains:

EDITOR'S NOTE: On October 25, 2001, Cardinal Jorge Arturo Medina Estévez, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments wrote to Bishop Joseph Fiorenza, president of the USCCB, detailing the CDW's acceptance "in principle" of proposed adaptations to the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani submitted to the Congregation for approval after the June 2001 USCCB meeting.

The letter offers suggestions and provisions for approval, and directs that the American adaptations be incorporated into the Institutio, rather than as a separate appendix, as in the present American version of the Roman Missal (or Sacramentary).

A copy of this letter was distributed to bishops and to the press at the November 2001 USCCB meeting.

When the CDW offers "suggestions and provisions for approval", these aren't the kind of suggestions that can be blown off, because ultimately, guess who gives that approval? Not the USCCB. This is a most important point because I have run across some people in various Catholic forums who actually believe that the USCCB can trump the Vatican on such matters. It's the other way around, as I have explained earlier. The Church does not mind the bishops; the bishops must work with the mind of the Church.

In this letter¹ from Cardinal Medina Estevez, GIRM 160 is once again addressed. Read it slowly and carefully.

This Dicastery agrees in principle to the insertion into n. 160 of a statement, as apparently desired by the Bishops, that Holy Communion in the United States of America is normally received standing. At the same time, the tenor of not a few letters received from the faithful in various Dioceses of that country leads the Congregation, even after a very careful consideration of such data, to urge the Conference to introduce a clause that would protect those faithful who will inevitably be led by their own sensibilities to kneel from imprudent action by priests, deacons or lay ministers in particular, or from being refused Holy Communion for such a reason as happens on occasion.

When I read this, one thing that jumps out at me are the words, "...as apparently desired....". I like to write, but I'm not good enough to dissect this, but will say that it strikes me as interesting. Does this suggest some doubt as to whether the bishops as a whole truly desired it?

Moving into what I have in bold above, we find what I would call very strong and clear language. Cardinal Estevez encourages the USCCB to include a clause to "protect" the faithful.

Protect them from what?

"Imprudent actions".

Whose imprudent actions?

"Priests, deacons, or lay ministers in particular".

No dictionaries needed here, nor does one need a degree to understand this. It is very clear English.

What justification does Cardinal Estevez have to suggest that there are imprudent actions happening with regards to how people are treated who are, "inevitably....led by their own sensibilities to kneel"? The justification is the mail that was coming into his office, which he labeled as, "the tenor of not a few letters".

From my point of view, the Cardinal was being very pastoral and very clear.

Remember, this October 25, 2001 letter was distributed to the US bishops in November 2001 AND the press, which I assume included the Catholic press. We can only hope that the laity were getting pieces of this, as well as priests who were reading Catholic news, if it was included as newsworthy. And, it comes after one clarification already in November of 2000, one which perhaps was not as readily visible to such a broad audience.

In my next post, we will look at subsequent communications out of the Vatican on GIRM 160. We're just getting warmed up.

References:
[1] Adoremus Bulletin Online Edition - Vol. VII, No. 9: December 2001 - January 2002


Previous Posts in the Series
Part 1: GIRM 160 (Introductory Post)
Part 2: Holy See clarifies GIRM 160 in November of 2000


Te Deum Laudamus! Home

Kneeling for Holy Communion: Part 2 - GIRM 160 Clarified by Holy See

Cardinal Medina Estevez, Prefect Emeritus of the CDW, who wrote the Responsum ad Dubium on genuflecting before receiving Holy Communion (below), is seen here in this unforgettable moment telling the world, "Habemus Papam" and then introduced us to Benedict XVI

In Part One of this topic, we looked at GIRM 160 in it's present form, and as adapted by the Diocese of the United States. It discusses posture during reception of Holy Communion. There have been several clarifications on GIRM 160 in various forms, and we will look at these chronologically, so we will now backtrack.

I want to be careful not to get into all kinds of peripheral topics. In debating this issue with others in Catholic forums over the years, those discussions get sidetracked with many other topics. So, this series will be limited to the topic of posture immediateloy before and during Holy Communion.

As far as I can tell, the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani (IGMR), third typical edition, was released in Latin on Holy Thursday 2000.

THE FIRST CLARIFICATION: NOVEMBER 2000

Interestingly, as early as November of 2000, a question in the form of a dubium (meaning: doubt, hesitation, reservation; to call into question), was answered by His Eminence, Cardinal Medina Estevez, who was the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments (in short, CDW). You may recognize the name of the current Prefect, Francis Cardinal Arinze.

There were two questions raised, in this Responsum ad Dubium¹. I have in bold what pertains to a part of our topic.

Cardinal Medina Estevez's Responsum ad dubium
(November 7, 2000: Prot. n. 2372/00/L)

Dubium 1. Is it the case that the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, by No. 43 of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, intends to prohibit the faithful from kneeling during any part of the Mass except during the Consecration, that is, to prohibit the faithful from kneeling after the Agnus Dei and following the reception of Holy Communion?

Resp.: Negative.

Dubium 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.

So, a clarification was quickly provided by the Holy See which makes it clear that thew newly published IGMR did not intend in any way to prohibit people from bowing or genuflecting before the Blessed Sacrament when receiving Holy Communion.

A reader asks in the comment box of Part One, if I can include genuflection before receiving. In my humble opinion, and someone can correct me, this Protocol seen above, covers that. It would not make sense for any diocese to prohibit something in it's adaptations, that the Vatican says may not be prohibited. Keep in mind, those adaptations must be submitted to the Holy See for approval and as we look at subsequent documentations on the topic, we will look at how various later interpretations mesh with these earlier communications.

What happened next?

You'll have to wait until my next post. This gets more interesting as we unpeel the layers chronologically.

Incidentally, you will see these protocol numbers in letters such as these. The online Catholic Encyclopedia explains Protocols, if this is of interest to you.

References:

[1] Adoremus Bulletin, Online Edition - Vol. VII, No. 5-6 - July-August 2001

---

NOTE: I had not mentioned it in my earlier post, but will do so now for your benefit. I have several documents lined up for this series, but want to move in a methodical fashion. Comments are welcome, but I prefer not to publish those which contain information I have not yet gotten to in our sequence. My experience in debating this issue with people, is that the sequence of events is important and therefore, I don't want to put the horse before the cart.

If someone sees an error in any of these posts, by all means, please email me at TeDeumBlog@aol.com or drop a clarification in the combox. This kind of exercise is always a learning experience for me too.

Te Deum Laudamus! Home

Sacred Signs by Romano Guardini: Walking

Image courtesy of Wendy Bumgardner,
About Walking Guide

Walking
from "Sacred Signs" by Romano
Guardini, c 1956
via the EWTN online Library

How many people know how to walk? It is not hurrying
along at a kind of run, or shuffling along at a snail's pace, but
a composed and firm forward movement. There is spring in the
tread of a good walker. He lifts, not drags, his heels. He is
straight, not stoop-shouldered, and his steps are sure and even.

There is something uncommonly fine in the right kind of walking.
It is a combination of freedom and discipline. It is poised, as
if the walker were carrying a weight, yet proceeds with
unhampered energy. In a man's walk there is a suggestion of
bearing arms or burdens; in a woman's an attractive grace that
reflects an inner world of peace.

And when the occasion is religious, what a beautiful thing
walking can be! It is a genuine act of divine worship. Merely to
walk into a church in reverent awareness that we are entering the
house of the Most High, and in a special manner into his
presence, may be "to walk before the Lord." Walking in a
religious procession ought not to be what so often it is, pushing
along out of step and staring about. To escort the Blessed
Sacrament through the city streets, or through the fields, "his
own possession," the men marching like soldiers, the married
women in the dignity of motherhood, the young girls in the
innocent charm of youth, the young men in their restrained
strength, all praying in their hearts, should be a sight of
festive gladness.

A penitential procession should be supplication in visible form.
It should embody our guilt, and our desperate need of help, but
also the Christian assurance that overrules them,--that as in man
there is a power that is superior to all his other powers, the
power of his untroubled will, so, above and beyond human guilt
and distress there is the might of the living God.

Walking is the outward mark of man's essential and peculiar
nobility. It is the privilege of man alone to walk erect, his
movement in his own power and choice. The upright carriage
denotes the human being.

But we are more than human beings. We are, as the Bible calls us,
the generation of God. We have been born of God into newness of
life. Profoundly, through the Sacrament of the Altar, Christ
lives in us; his body has passed into the substance of our
bodies; his blood flows in our veins. For "he that eats my flesh
and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him." These are his
words. Christ grows in us, and we grow in him, until being
thoroughly formed by him, we attain to the full stature of Jesus
Christ, and everything we do or are, "whether we eat or sleep, or
whatsoever we do," our work, our recreation, our pleasures and
our pains, are all taken up into the Christ-life.

The consciousness of this mystery should pass in all its joyous
strength and beauty into our very manner of walking. The command
"to walk before the Lord and be perfect" is a profound figure of
speech. We ought both to fulfil the command and illustrate the
figure.

But in sober reality. Beauty of this order is not the product of
mere wishing.

Commentary

May we walk in the presence of Our Lord, not only when in church, but in life. When we walk into church fully recollected and aware that Our Lord is in the Tabernacle, it should be reflected in our walk through the aisles and corridors: Slow, humble, and with all focus on God. We have the rest of the day to project His love to others, but these precious few moments per week or per day we have in Church should be given entirely to Him.



Blogpost series on Romano Guardini's meditations: Sacred Signs

Introductory Blogpost to Romano

Guardini's book, "Sacred Signs"
- The Sign of the Cross
- The Hands
- Kneeling
- Standing

Fr. Perrone catechizes the parish on "praying hands"

In today's Pastor's Descant, Fr. Perrone talked about the need for us to be aware of our gestures during holy Mass. He specifically targeted how we approach for Communion. I couldn't help but think about what I had just read last night in Saint Bernadette Soubirous 1844-1879 by Abbe Francois Trochu.

Bernadette, following the first apparition, described Our Lady's hands as the Rosary was prayed. The author says that among the many details that came out during questioning, was the manner in which Mary held her hands:

"..... Her hands, when she kept them joined, where pressed together along their whole length, palm to palm...."

In any painting you see of Our Lady of Lourdes, you see this posture. And, it is appropriate to recall as we read Fr. Perrone's words for our own personal reflection. We can't change what others are doing or not doing, but we ought to be conscious of what we are doing when in prayer, in Church, or at Mass. Our Lady, among other roles, is a profound teacher. Perhaps we ought to follow her lead.

Without further delay, here is the March 4, 2007 Pastor's Descant:

"You’ve all seen those disembodied hands joined in prayer, etched so masterfully by Albrecht Dürer. They adorn greeting cards, advertisements and brochures, but were surely intended for the more noble purpose of representing Christian piety. Those hands returned to my imagination in writing today on a topic, seemingly but a trifle, that should concern everyone. This is the little-regarded subject of folding one’s hands in prayer. Now, why should I write about a thing of such relative insignificance? I hear you thinking: ‘has he nothing better to say?’ It’s because little things sometimes can make a big difference and because this subject came up in a recent adult catechism class that I’m taking it up here today.

It was pointed out to me that some of our Grotto people wend their way to and fro the Communion line with arms adangling, which is to say, with hands unfolded. Truth to tell, I had never noticed. (In fact, let it be known that I make it my business not to look much at the congregation lest I lose track of what I’m doing before God.) In this matter I’m reminded of the immense loss for the Church of the teaching Sisters. They were the ones who taught and who exemplified Catholic decorum. With their disappearance from the scene in nearly every parish, we have either forgotten or had never learned how to conduct ourselves reverently in church.

No doubt, you will have noticed that I require our altar boys to keep their hands joined at the breast and pointing upward when serving Mass. There’s more reason for this than merely the edification of the faithful, although that’s an important thing. I can’t adequately explain why, but the folding–or not–of the hands has a great deal to do with the way our minds pray. If you look at the representation of angels in our church–and elsewhere in art–you will see their hands joined in prayer. Likewise the Virgin Mary. To my mind, this discipline of the hands has the effect of helping to concentrate, to focus one’s thoughts more securely on God. It’s a posture we don’t employ for anything else except prayer. Hence, like kneeling, it’s an act of the recognition of God. You can swing your arms freely about wherever you may be, but you should not in church, and especially at Communion time, because you know you are in the august presence of the Most High.

Should you think I am making too much of this, I will let our Holy Father Pope Benedict have a word. In his important and highly influential book, Spirit of the Liturgy, after recalling Saint Paul’s admission, “I train my body and subdue it” (1 Cor 9:27), the Pope says that the body needs to be trained, so to speak, for the resurrection it is meant to share. “The body has a place within the divine worship of the Word made flesh, and it is expressed liturgically in a certain discipline of the body, in gestures that have developed out of the liturgy’s inner demands...” Then, recalling that the practice of joining hands in prayer came out of the custom in feudal times of placing one’s joined hands into the hands of his ruling lord as an expression of loyalty and fidelity, the Holy Father concludes that when we fold our hands in prayer we symbolically place our hands in God’s, pledging to Him our fidelity.

Getting to my point, I’d like those hitherto ‘unyoked’ in their Communion habits to give due consideration both to the impression their nonchalant mannerism may have to onlookers and to how its correction might contribute to an improved mental disposition after receiving the holy Sacrament. Speaking for myself, I find it hard, without summoning the body’s cooperation, to concentrate in prayer. Joining my hands seems to help arrest the powers of my mind, feeble though they may be, and fixing them more pointedly on God.

There are many things of a like kind in our liturgical comportment that I might single out for ‘airing,’ such as the bowing of the head at the name of Jesus or Mary, the closing of one’s eyes at the moment of receiving Communion, and–here’s another
thing to rail against–the slipshod way we dust ourselves with the sign of the cross. But these are more for another time when my zeal might be roused to suggest other ways better to use our bodily powers to assist in our prayer. “Glorify God,” wrote the Apostle, “in your body.” (1 Cor. 6:20)."

Archbishop Raymond L. Burke, Msgr Breier, Fr. Perrone, Fr. John, and Fr. Amah during the early 2006 Marian Catechist memorial liturgy for Fr. John A. Hardon

I do hope Fr. Perrone will continue with this kind of catechesis for those of us who were busy tending to our fingerpaintings while our folks thought we were learning about the faith.

As for the book mentioned, I highly recommend it. There are many historical pictures in the book, and it is just a good read. It obviously goes much more deeper than any movie. I'm actually reading many books right now, but I only read a few pages of one of them each day.