by Michael Pakaluk

But first a note from Robert Royal: At The Catholic Thing, we are advocates for Faith - and reason. Which is why we bring you careful and consequential arguments like the one Professor Pakaluk makes today about kneeling for Communion. It's regrettable that we even have to make such arguments in the Church, but it's where we are. And why we cannot let up in such work. But if you're reading this, I think you know that. And you also know that we need your help. There are only three days left for this fundraising campaign. The time to act is now. Please, do.

And now for today's column...

By I never thought about the "ontology" of processions, or whether a norm could permit its own violation, until I looked at Blaise Cardinal Cupich's pastoral letter (here) from last week in which he appeared to forbid the faithful from kneeling to receive Communion, on the grounds that this would "disrupt the flow of the procession" and, contrary to the corporate spirit of Holy Communion, "call attention to oneself."

The day after reading the letter I counted time during Communion. To receive standing, I found, takes on average 3 seconds, and kneeling 5 seconds. Therefore, if 100 faithful received and half of them knelt, less than two minutes would be added, which hardly seems a disruption.

A cavil, perhaps. For sheer process, I expect the old Communion rail cannot be bested.

But here's where the ontology of processions enters in. Can the end point of a procession be a candidate for a disrupter of that procession? People are walking forward to receive, and I stick out my leg to trip someone, Then, yes. Chairs are placed in the aisle so that people must take a detour around. Also, yes. But suppose I receive standing, and I take the time necessary to ensure that the minister has seen that I am consuming the host (a neglected requirement of Redemptionis Sacramentum, n. 92)?

Would doing so "disrupt the procession"? If so, then the bride and groom disrupt the wedding procession when they arrive at the front of the Church and take their seats. And the priest and servers disrupt the procession when they bow and take their places around the altar.

No, it seems impossible for the goal of a procession to count as a disruption of that procession.

And then note the distinction in English between, on the one hand, "processing," and, on the other, "walking in a procession." The former means simply moving forward with others rather than walking back ("recessing"). The latter means the deliberate formation of a group that conceives of itself as walking together.

The latter is what Redemptionis Sacramentum means in the only passages in which it speaks of "processions." For instance, it enjoins "devout participation of the faithful in the eucharistic procession on the Solemnity of the Body and Blood of Christ." (n. 143) The latter, too, is what the priests and acolytes do at start of the mass. The latter is what the laity also do, when they bring up offerings during the mass. But most definitely the former, in contrast, is what the laity do when they go up to receive Communion.

"The Priest then takes the paten or ciborium and approaches the communicants, who usually come up in procession," so says the General Instruction on the Roman Missal. (n. 160) But this is just to say that typically they come forward. That is to say, they no longer follow the most ancient form of Communion, mentioned in the Catechism, which is distribution: "When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the 'eucharisted' bread, wine and water and take them to those who are absent." (n. thirteen forty-five)

The Cardinal conflates these two distinct things when he writes, "This is why we process into the church, process up to bring the gifts, process to receive Holy Communion and process out at the end of Mass to carry the Lord into the world." No, the faithful "process forward" to receive Communion bu...