This is what he reports:
“In the Seattle Cathedral I was just denied communion kneeling and made a scene of. He [priest or EMC?] eventually, after a minute standoff scoffed, said I ought to learn obedience, and then threw the Sacred Host sideways into my mouth.”
In his blog, Fr. Z or Zed quotes the following rubric for receiving Holy Communion:
Redemptionis Sacramentum states:
[91.] In distributing Holy Communion it is to be remembered that “sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who seek them in a reasonable manner, are rightly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them”. Hence any baptized Catholic who is not prevented by law must be admitted to Holy Communion. Therefore, 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.In our pew missalettes, we have an attachment which states: "Standing for Holy Communion is the norm in the USA; kneeling is the exception. Bot are allowed and the choice is yours."
As a parish which strives to be hospitable, we provide kneelers for those who choose the "exception." And while the norm in the EF Mass is to kneel, no one is forced to stand or derided for doing so at Communion time.
Progressive, ill-informed ideologues will state that having people receive Holy Communion kneeling or standing is divisive! How ridiculous and how ideological! We allow all kinds of options for people at Holy Communion which could be considered divisive if we were all ideologues. For example some people receive on the tongue, others in the hand and when receiving on the hand there are a variety of styles, some licit and others not. Then there is the chalice. When it is available, some choose to receive from it and other don't. By extension, some stand, some don't! What's the big deal? The problem is that so many progressive Catholics and some traditional are ideologues about how Holy Communion is received.Of course there are right and wrong ways, licit and illicit, but kneeling or standing are not among the wrong or illicit ways nor are either of these divisive!
Fr. Z also quotes the following: God compelled the devil to show himself to the Desert Father Abba Apollo. He was ugly, black, skinny limbs and had NO KNEES to adore God on. Pope Benedict said: “The inability to kneel is seen as the very essence of the diabolical”.
But there is an ugliness to the dictatorship of progressives as noted above and seen below. Tradition keeps beauty and restores it where it has been lost:
My final comments: In terms of the restoration of Holy Name, I would have placed the sanctuary up three steps instead of two. Everything only two steps high from the nave disappears in a full church. It is unfortunate that an altar railing wasn't included in this marvelous restoration.
Finally, with the glorious traditional altar with reredos and altar-table it is redundant to have a flimsy although marble and fixed free standing altar. It would have been better to have the table part of the older altar separated from the reredos for easy circulation around it and for Mass facing the congregation in either direction. It would still appear to be a single unit as is the case for the Church of the Most Holy Trinity in Augusta which sliced the altar-table away from the reredos allowing for both ways of celebrating the Mass:
After and before the altar table was separated from the reredos: