« New Blog | Main | Confrontation in St. Louis »
March 22, 2004
Kneeling? Standing?
The following comments refer to issues related to implemenation of the GIRM, particularly re/post-Communion posture, which has been contentious for a year now, and the subject of much confusion.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/567098
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Kneeling? Standing?:
Comments
RUN to the nearest traditional latin Mass, whether "approved" or not.
Posted by: Gen X Revert at Mar 22, 2004 7:08:22 PM
For one thing, it is absolutely necessary for those offended by these things, first, to speak with or write to the Pastor, and then, not receiving satisfaction, write the Bishop.
I add immediately: yes, I know. There have been countless thousands of individual protests over the years. But I am certain that far from everyone who has been scandalized has protested. And the group who do protest, protest repeatedly, unsupported by others, and are unfairly dismissed as cranks.
But between those who are troubled but do not protest, and those who will tell the story to a journalist or someone else who might get it out but refuse to have their names used or insist that the details be camouflaged to protect themselves (and Priests are the worst offenders here, sad to say), we've a sad situation. Dissenters perpetrate these outrages at will. They should be regularly, vigorously opposed, yet most often the field is forfeited to them.
C.S. Lewis says of the liturgical tinkerers, "Christ said, 'Feed my sheep,' not, 'Experiment on my laboratory rats.'"
Personally, what does one do?
Try not to get angry about it. Cultivate a strong devotional life, make sure you're doing solid spiritual reading. Get to daily Mass as often as you can -- its refreshingly simpler, and the congregation is inspiring.
If I were in the Los Angeles Archdiocese, I would either have my pocket New Testament ready for the Communion standing endurance test, or quietly pray the Rosary. The Rosary is for me such a quieting, calming prayer, and I never pray it without coming away feeling as though I'd really prayed.
(and you can offer it for the intentions of the L.A. District Attorney).
This situation is truly wrong, a real injustice. I cannot think that it will continue. Eventually, people are just going to sit down! And then, unobtrusively, you can... kneel.
Posted by: Father Wilson at Mar 22, 2004 7:11:58 PM
Oh. I forgot.
Print our Barbara Nicolosi's excellent reflection, and mail it to His Eminence Roger Cardinal Mahony. And a copy to the Pastor of St Charles Parish might be a good thing, too.
Posted by: Father Wilson at Mar 22, 2004 7:13:28 PM
Have I missed something? Is this not 2004 and do we not have new guidelines for receiving communion and prayer afterwards? I live in the Archdiocese of Chicago, and Cardinal George has written to all of our churches that we may sit or kneel after receiving Our Lord, preferably without drums and fifes to entertain us. People still genuflect without mean looks if they choose to prior to receiving the Eucharist.
No one stands here nor did they ever at the churches with which I am familiar. Is This just LA lunacy or Mahoney crackpotism?
Posted by: John Hetman at Mar 22, 2004 7:22:32 PM
Our parish was meticulous about the GIRMs for the 2002-2003 year. I have heard of standing after communion on this blog and have experienced it a Legionnaires of Christ masses I have attended at times. Otherwise, I believe there is nothing that says one must stand after communion. WRT the Prayer to St. Michael, we started saying at EVERY Mass at our parish about the time of the DC sniper and the first anniversary of 9-11. My husband & I had to use a cheat sheet for awhile til we had it memorized. [Never heard it before in our post-V2 lives!]
As I had mentioned on an earlier thread, the real legacy of the V2 implementation is the fractiousness among Catholics and Catholicsm today. We celebrate the Mass differently from parish to parish and diocese to diocese. We also hold such diverse opions about how we SHOULD celebrate the Mass and have fallen into certain camps, as a result. Unity and uniformity are needed.
Posted by: Peggy at Mar 22, 2004 7:32:24 PM
Gen X Revert, I am one of yours--that is, a gen x revert--and I'm with you the whole way. I've got a Latin rite here in Indianapolis that is just wonderful. On returning to the church, I found that the complete liturgical anarchy (and sometimes downright nuttiness) was making it impossible for me to stay grounded in my faith. What was I returning to, anyway? Once I found my present parish--which has nine, count 'em, NINE Latin rites a week--I knew I was home again.
Not that I must attend Latin rite at all times. I get plenty out of my daily vernacular up the street. But as a young man trying to reconnect with the Catholic Church, I felt I at least had to reconnect with something that was older than I was, if you follow.
Posted by: Sage at Mar 22, 2004 7:45:05 PM
This whole thing about standing after communion was sent in the form of a question by Cardinal George of Chicago [I think], and the response from Rome was that it was not the intention of the Congregation for Worship that people be prohibited from kneeling or sitting after communion.
Here in the diocese of Kalamazoo, people have been returning to their pews after receiving communion, and they have been uniformly kneeling. And it is not the end of the world. I'm for people ignoring these martinet pastors and dropping to their knees and praying, or if they have bad knees, they may sit. What possible difference does it make? As pastor, I don't care if they sit or kneel or stand after communion, as long as they thank God for the gift of His Son.
But I just love how all these bishops and pastors are interpreting these things differently from one another and imposing their will on a people who were not doing anything wrong by kneeling and praying after communion. And the priest who said that the Mass is not, not, not a time for personal prayer has to ask himself about those periods of silence after the homily and after the communion hymn or antiphon is finished. What in God's name are people supposed to do during those extended moments of silence? Avoid personal prayer? How utterly ridiculous. It is these self-contradicting pompous fools that drive me up the wall. And I'll bet that most of these liturgical leaders hadn't read the previous editions of GIRM before the new one, either.
Posted by: Fr. Brian Stanley at Mar 22, 2004 7:55:24 PM
That story is an outrage. That priest is clearly the south end of a donkey going north. That any priest would publicly humiliate someone in this way is simply contemptible.
I agree that laity who are mistreated in this way must protest. Indeed, since the Vatican has ruled that one cannot be denied communion, I think one is free to disobey the pastor in this instance.
Here is another "unorthodox" strategy. If one is ordered to stand, tell the priest or the officious usher that one has an unusual bladder control problem in which one cannot stand for more than 5 minutes without losing control, but that sitting or kneeling doesn't have the same effect and that one really, really, really, doesn't want to have an "accident" in the pews. That solution lacks integrity, I know, but it sure would be tempting!
Posted by: Patrick Rothwell at Mar 22, 2004 7:57:36 PM
The pastor is exceeding his authority and misinterpreting the GIRM. He is introducing "Spirit of Vatican II" ideology in the guise of implementing the GIRM.
Concerned parishioners must first write to the ordinary and demand their right to have the Mass celebrated correctly. Given that the ordinary in this case is Cardinal Roger the Magnificent, I don't expect much. The parishioners will probably get either:
(a) The anticipated shuffling and non-comittal response from Cardinal Rog', or outright support for the pastor's looniness.
or
(b) No response.
If either of these occurs, any Catholic can submit a dubium to Rome. In this case it should be sent to Cardinal Arinze at the Congregation for Divine Worship. It was just such a dubium (which was submitted by laypeople!) that got Arlington's Bishop Loverde's knuckles rapped regarding kneeling last year.
Posted by: Fr. Rob Johansen at Mar 22, 2004 8:05:21 PM
When I was in the seminary (this was twenty-one years ago, my first year of major seminary), we were explicitly told that to return to our choir stalls after receiving, kneel and engage in private prayer was an inappropriate exercise of private piety during Liturgy. While we did not stand during Communion (I laughed when I heard that Cardinal Mahony had directed this in L.A. -- I thought, "Why do I ever say, 'What will they think of next?' There's always something"), we were told that we must join in the communion hymn as a corporate act of worship, that communon time was no time for fracturing into private devotion.
The Cardinal has simply taken this to the next logical level. He wants everyone, not just to stand there, but to sing.
If you want to understand this better, go to the L.A. archdiocesan website. Cardinal Mahony's pastoral letter on how the Sunday Eucharist should be offered is there, and well repays careful reading. You'll understand him a lot better.
This, by the way, is why the traditional Mass was so precise in its rubrics. You might find its regimentation horrifying, but it did not leave you to the mercy of the liturgical creativity or competence of the celebrant.
Posted by: Father Wilson at Mar 22, 2004 8:18:34 PM
This atrocity has been implemented in the Diocese of San Jose California also.
So far, I just ignore it and advise everyone else to do the same.
I am a reader and extraordinary minister of the Eurcharist at our parish and looked to as a leader.
My family and I chose to kneel. If they choose to discipline us, they will have to carry us out by force.
This is one insult too many for me. I will not be moved by my bishop who allows us only one Tridentine Mass per month on Saturday night at 7:30.
Posted by: SiliconValleySteve at Mar 22, 2004 8:25:27 PM
Saint Michael the Archangel defend us from stupidity on stilts.
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at Mar 22, 2004 8:27:53 PM
Amen, Fr. Wilson! As a layperson in the pews, I for one am horrified by the way we're so often subjected to the whims and vagaries of celebrants and liturgists who've been to one liturgical seminar or another and now foist the brunt of their "education" upon us, with the monitum "The Pope wants us to [insert liturgical innovation here] so we can be in keeping with [the new GIRM, Vatican II, a spirit of unity]." I pray that the long-expected disciplinary document on the liturgy clears the air and calls for rubrics to be enforced evenly so that I can pray, rather than worry about whether this is the parish I'm supposed to stand after communion, hold hands at the Our Father, conga to communion or hug everyone at the sign of peace. It been interesting to note that some of the most fascist liturgists I've encountered so readily criticize the "aberrations" of others (Rosary after Mass? kneeling after receiving God? horrors!) while at the same time having no problem ignoring those rules which they don't like (kneeling at the consecration, bowing at the "et incarnatus est").
From creative liturgists, libera nos Domine.
Posted by: Tim Ferguson at Mar 22, 2004 8:33:14 PM
There has been at least one previous round on this subject. This time I think I will simply quote verbatim something from Cardinal Mahony's pastoral letter on the Mass:
"Coming up with cash is a liturgical act."
God bless Mother Angelica
Posted by: David Kubiak at Mar 22, 2004 8:56:09 PM
Can someone please explain to me why standing during communion is supposed to be a sign of Being One Body (or whatever) anyway? Because some people standing to go to communion and some people kneeling before and after their communion somehow signifies disunity? So that the clergy and eucharistic ministers and choir and laity all are always standing to show all are of equal value to the Body? So we won't invidiously discriminate on the basis of body posture against people who can't kneel? I demand an explanation from whomever thought this was such a luminous idea guaranteed to forge Christian Community. Until then, I kneel and/or sit depending on the state of my bad feet.
Posted by: T. Marzen at Mar 22, 2004 9:15:11 PM
Peace, all.
While I believe the Communion Procession remains in theory more of a communal act than a collection of several to a thousand private ones, there is a heaping history of lay understanding behind the current practice of kneeling after the reception of Communion.
Maybe there's a thought to "catechize" the faithful that Mass is for communal prayer and if you want private prayer in a church you should come when you can be ... well ... private. That said, people like the convenince of both one-stop shopping and the "way we've always done it." The standing/kneeling issue isn't one I'd choose to broach unless a very mature community (say of vowed religious) wanted to discuss the relative merits of each position.
Since I know many liberals who feel as I do, I wish to triangulate myself from this practice. While it is true my bishop or pastor can make liturgical law different from other dioceses and/or parishes to some degree, this is not a fight worth engaging. Of course, I would put lay EM choreography into that category as well, but sadly, Rome has already seen fit to charge into the sanctuary bullishly. I predict lay people will be protesting a lot more liturgy "updates" at the rate we're going. Meanwhile, the vital liturgical issues lie untouched.
Posted by: Todd at Mar 22, 2004 9:16:56 PM
It's happening here in Milwaukee as well, and I don't like it. I choose to kneel,and will continue to kneel.
Posted by: nicole at Mar 22, 2004 9:29:30 PM
What is the issue with staying behind to say a group rosary after daily Mass? I think I can generally see where the GIRM guidelines are coming from (I can also appreciate where the protest comes from as well). But I can't see what's wrong with group prayer after Mass...
Doug
Posted by: dbr at Mar 22, 2004 9:30:24 PM
After 17 years I'm still not used to the way Catholics use the liturgy to beat up on each other. And even after all these years I wonder if it's really about the unity of the Church or just a bunch of sick control issues. Probably unity in some situations and sick control in others. Somehow the Orthodox don't seem to worry as much about it. Of course, they don't change things every few years.
I'll say one thing: I'd just like some smarmy EME to chastise me for kneeling: "We are ONE body here." One diseased body, I think. And God help the priest who calls me out if I genuflect at the wrong moment. At the age of 52, I have just come to realize life's too short to put up with a lot of religious bull mess.
Posted by: Ken at Mar 22, 2004 10:00:21 PM
It seems we've reached the point where "liturgy" has become an industry run by bored snobs, plain and simple. And the liturgists have to keep coming up with nonsensical theories (e.g., "Mass is no place for private prayer.") because, hey, they gotta earn their keep, right? It's all just heavy-handed silliness--sound and fury signifying job security.
Yep, the liturgy is broken and needs to be fixed. The first step would be to fire all the liturgists.
Posted by: ottanbrus at Mar 22, 2004 10:00:26 PM
ummmm... Rome charging into the sanctuary bullishly? Into the Roman Rite? am I missing something?
I'm also at a loss to understand how one triangulates oneself from something.
It must be late...
Posted by: Tim Ferguson at Mar 22, 2004 10:06:35 PM
Wait a minute. Did they put a splint on your knees? How can they physically keep you from kneeling? This always mystifies me. It's a little like 2 guys with nail clippers hijacking an airliner with 250 people in it...why are you just sitting there letting it happen? KNEEL.
Posted by: michigancatholic at Mar 22, 2004 10:19:35 PM
How much crap are people willing to tolerate before they say, "We have had enough and we are going to Malibu to beg Mel to let us in the ark before the flood waters rise (further)over our heads"? Will someone please explain again why the traditional Mass is not vastly superior to the Novus Ordo? Do Catholics in LA really want to spend the next 2 or 3 years fighting against this latest silliness, instead of giving God the worship that is due Him? Do Catholics really have nothing better to do?
Posted by: Bill at Mar 22, 2004 10:21:37 PM
I guarantee you, they will NOT go to the surgical supply store and buy 5000 pairs of splints. It would attract the newspapers...LOL.
Do you know where the property ends? Go there and stand there and pray the rosary for the church. They need all the help they can get. The more people join you the better. Right after Mass would be good. =)
Posted by: michigancatholic at Mar 22, 2004 10:24:11 PM
Ken, it's sick control issues. You should hear the potty-mouthing of the laity among the *music ministry* after mass. Many of us choose not to sing their inane hymnlets.
Posted by: michigancatholic at Mar 22, 2004 10:26:22 PM
They have contempt for us because we are there to worship and not to play their silly doctrine-bending games.
Posted by: michigancatholic at Mar 22, 2004 10:27:35 PM
Bravo, nicole. I will too. They cannot physically make me stand.
Posted by: michigancatholic at Mar 22, 2004 10:28:05 PM
Thanks for your quote, Fr Wilson:
"C.S. Lewis says of the liturgical tinkerers, 'Christ said, 'Feed my sheep,' not, 'Experiment on my laboratory rats.'"
You've probably heard this one:
"What's the difference betweeen a liturgist and a terrorist?
You can negotiate with a terrorist..."
Posted by: Lynn at Mar 22, 2004 10:30:29 PM
This bs has been forced on my parish as well. The priest says it shows unity (I guess kneeling doesn't show unity) but all I hear is the crash of kneelers and all I see are people standing around, on one foot and then another, from the beginning of Communion until the end. Some chat, others look around, some are still and as my daughter said "it's like standing in line at Taco Bell". We started to sit in the back of the parish and continue kneeling but the pastor left no room for dissenters who wanted to kneel (bulletin and verbal admonishments). I guess the last straw was when at one Mass where we continued kneeling, a parishioner nearly yelled at my daughter and told her that she was supposed to be standing. It's so sad. So... after nine years at the parish, we started attending other Masses in other parishes and eventually stumbled upon the holiest priest I have ever met - hidden away in a hospital ministry. My kids get so much out of the Mass he says! They remember the homilies and the Mass is reverent. Unfortunately, the priest doesn't have a parish and CCD is going to be a problem because my daughter is in the first year Confirmation program at my old parish. My son had been out for a couple of years anyway and I don't have to put him back in for about 5 years (so he can make his Confirmation).
Anyway, keep looking around because there are holy priests, sometimes hidden in small out of the way ministries. The priest I found is actually out of my diocese (Boston) and you know what? We don't miss it anymore. No confusion, no liturgical nazis, no priest wanna be nuns, just peace and quiet and prayer with a priest who you know has your spiritual welfare at heart.
Posted by: Colleen at Mar 22, 2004 10:31:02 PM
OH and while you're kneeling, make sure your wallet is SHUT. There are plenty of places who actually need your donations for the right reasons--the food bank, EWTN, the occasional faithful religious order (Miles Jesu, Fathers of Mercy in KY, Nashville Dominicans, Fr. Groeschel's CFR in the Bronx, Mother Theresa's Sisters, etc).
The whole thing is NOT about money, I know, but the same people who get all hung up and make you do this stuff are the people who will go cataleptic if you stop forking over the $$$. Liturgist is a paid *professional* position, dontcha know.
Posted by: michigancatholic at Mar 22, 2004 10:36:27 PM
Todd,
I'm not sure there is, for the baptised, any such thing as "private" prayer, although we may be physically alone or in a group when we pray. Perhaps we might speak of "personal" vs. corporate prayer, if we have that need.
In any case, is there any particular reason the Mass (or any liturgical prayer) need be only corporate? Since the individual is incorporated into the community, why cannot the individual (or personal) prayer co-exist with the corporate prayer? Must it be either-or for the hour of Mass? That seems rather narrow.
Since you mention vowed religious, it's instructive to look at the practices of, say, the Cistercians, who have a rather brilliant legacy of incorporating the individual into the community. The individual is freed from himself by the community and the community is freed from itself by the individual. Shouldn't liturgy benefit from the interplay of the personal and corporate? Say I pray personally after Communion (in whatever bodily posture). My own experience is that time expands my heart and enables a richer contribution to the Communion hymn which follows. Of course, I'm a singer, so that's the example appropriate to me.
Posted by: Ken at Mar 22, 2004 10:39:00 PM
I always cheer (sometimes in Bronx) when I hear that chanceries are laying off people, because they're laying off these *professional* paid hangers-on. Keep layin' em off, folks. We don't need 'em. They cost a lot of cash, thank you, and turn out what? This stuff.
I hate to tell y'all but if you get 2 Catholics & a priest in a room, they can get thru Mass in fine shape without a liturgist. And even more is better. We know the Mass for Pete's sake. We hear it once a week or more.
Posted by: michigancatholic at Mar 22, 2004 10:47:49 PM
The Church is telling you not to pray....HUH? Listen to yourselves, folks.
Even scripture says you should pray always--Luke 18:1.
Posted by: michigancatholic at Mar 22, 2004 10:54:55 PM
Although this is loosely related one thing I noticed on a recent trip to Hong Kong was that almost universally everyone would receive the precious blood by self-intinction...in fact at a Mass at the Cathedral the deacons would simply hold the chalice as people would dip their own hosts in. Could they have somehow received an indult from the Holy See to allow this or is it just plain and ugly abuse?
I've noticed people in my parish here in the states from Asia tend to attempt this self-intinction so maybe it's not an abuse limited to Hong Kong?
Posted by: DWB at Mar 22, 2004 10:55:37 PM
O God, who didst fill blessed Robert, Thy bishop and doctor, with wondrous learning and virtue that he might break the snares of errors and defend the Apostolic See: grant us by his merits and intercession, that we may grow in the love of truth and that the hearts of those in error may return to the unity of Thy Church. Through Our Lord. Collect, Feast of St. Robert Bellarmine (emphasis added).
Find your nearest traditional Catholic Mass site.
St. Robert Bellarmine, pray for us! UIOGD,
Posted by: Sulpicius Severus at Mar 22, 2004 10:59:29 PM
It might be because of public health conditions there, DWB. Many Chinese are concerned--SARS etc. I work with Chinese immigrants here and hear them talking about their concerns.
In the Roman Rite, intinction is allowed, however it is to be administered by a priest or other minister, not self-administered.
"Norms for the Distribution
and Reception of Holy Communion
Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses
of the United States of America"
Congregation for Divine Worship
and the Discipline of the Sacraments
Posted by: michigancatholic at Mar 22, 2004 11:07:59 PM
Oops, meant to include the link. Here it is:
http://www.nccbuscc.org/liturgy/current/norms.htm
Posted by: michigancatholic at Mar 22, 2004 11:09:04 PM
The practice of the universal church, as confirmed in the new GIRM, is to stand throughout the Mass, except for the readings before the gospel (sit), the homily (sit), the preparation of the gifts (sit), the consecration only during the Eucharistic Prayer (kneel), and the period of silence after communion (sit or kneel).
All this business about kneeling or standing or sitting for communion is a deviation from the universal practice of the church, applicable to the U.S. only. And each bishop in the U.S. has the authority to decide whether the people kneel or stand for the distribution of communion.
So to argue that we don't kneel enough at Mass is bogus. One could even argue that, using the church's universal practice as a guide, we kneel too much, and for a reason that smacks of Angelicaism, to name the error of believing that everything was better the way it used to be.
Posted by: RP Burke at Mar 22, 2004 11:15:20 PM
RP, you have made quite a garbled argument there. You cited the official practice and then the indults the USCCB wrangled out of the CDW in Rome. Then you neatly said that we kneel too much, even though some dioceses are trying to avoid even doing what the Vatican suggests or what is clearly traditional in the US.
It is the case that we have an indult from Rome that allows bishops to make some modified rules for their own dioceses. It is also a fact that when those bishops deviate from CDW recommendations, they deviate in the direction of less kneeling, not more--and less than traditional in the US. Sooo, why do you say we kneel too much?
ARen't you telling the bishops what to do there? Umm, and you are....? LOL.
Posted by: michigancatholic at Mar 22, 2004 11:26:15 PM
I have an honest question: If the Mass is being present at the foot of the Cross (Calvary), especially after seeing "The Passion of the Christ" I cannot imagine that many of us would be standing?
Am I just too simple to understand why the standing and not the kneeling after receiving the Body and Blood that He sacrificed for us? It seems to me (from my parish experience) that most of the "holy" has gone... ad libbing and people coming and going to their various ministries (beginning with the "greeter") and Mass is just not smooth anymore and in fact seems to get more and more disjointed as the years go by. The tabernacle is a "distraction" if it's on the center altar... I just honestly don't understand.
We are though, like sheeple. I don't think I've met many people who care if they stand or kneel or who have noticed the tabernacle is among the missing.
I thank God for EWTN. Reminds me to send them another sum of money which I would have donated to the parish.
Posted by: Colleen at Mar 22, 2004 11:26:36 PM
BTW, the indult is limited. Bishops have the authority to modify some practices in their dioceses officially, BUT you cannot be denied Holy Communion for kneeling, etc. The Vatican has said this publicly.
Posted by: michigancatholic at Mar 22, 2004 11:28:20 PM
Here's the link: http://www.adoremus.org/0703Kneel.html
Posted by: michigancatholic at Mar 22, 2004 11:29:09 PM
Of course, to be really old-fashioned, we could consider the Canon 20 of Nicea (325):
Since there are some who kneel on Sunday and during the season of Pentecost, this holy synod decrees that, so that the same observances may be maintained in every diocese, one should offer one's prayers to the Lord standing.
Posted by: Ken at Mar 22, 2004 11:48:16 PM
Here in our suburban Phila. parish two "very slight changes" took effect on the First Sunday of Lent: We do a slight bow before saying "Amen" and receiving Holy Communion, and we stand before responding to the Pray, brothers and sisters....Other than that, the only other recent change has been NOT shaking hands all around at the Sign of Peace since the flu season began - and everybody seems okay with that. It has not been restored to date. We have wonderful, good priests in our parish - I thank God for them every day! By the way, Rosary, Prayer to St. Michael, before Mass (during the week and on Sunday) continues without any disturbance - our priests are delighted that one of the intentions for the Rosary is an increase in vocations to the religous life. We have three young men entering the seminary next year. We have had many wonderful Lenten programs - Novena with Benediction/with homilies on the Sorrowful Mysteries of the Rosary, Stations of the Cross two times a week, Bible Study with one of the priests once a week and Fridays (in March) Soup/Salad (our Asst. Pastor prepares this himself as his Lenten service) with various programs each Friday - Scriptural recitation of the Sorrowful Mysteries of the Rosary, a video of one of Bishop Sheen's last public speaking - on the Passion of Christ, a seminarian who will be ordained this May on the interior suffering of Our Lord and how we can unite our sufferings with Him, and the last week we will do works of charity and almsgiving - This has been one of the most personally meaningful Lents of my life so far, and I'm grateful to our priests for their dedication to their parishioners. For the record, I was taught to take the opportunity to speak to Jesus in those precious few moments after Communion - and I can't imagine ignoring Him and standing around in my pew during that time. I don't see how standing at Communion will foster greater respect for the Eucharist - and I thought that that was the goal. I'll be surprised if this practice turns up in the Phila. Archdiocese - we're the home of Forty Hours devotion - so reverence for the Blessed Sacrament is a time-honored practice here.
Posted by: ann at Mar 23, 2004 12:00:44 AM
A quick reply to "Michigancatholic":
My argument is anything but garbled. And further, I am not telling anybody anything, except that which is already being told them in GIRM.
You may not like what GIRM says, or you may want the practice of the universal church to change to conform to your wishes, or both, but I have accurately described what the rules say and the bishop's authority in his diocese.
There is much to criticize about the celebration of Mass in many parishes. Don't get me started about contemporary music, for example, or handholding. Many texts are poor, both for speaking and singing, but not because they don't look and feel like Latin: it's because they have no artistry in English.
But don't call something an "atrocity" (as SiliconValleySteve did) when it follows the rules.
Posted by: RP Burke at Mar 23, 2004 12:34:06 AM
It seems to me that if there is no private prayer at Mass, communal prayer is an empty vessel, meaningless. It is our personal prayerfulness united as a community that makes communal prayer. Currently we say "I confess...," and I understand the Credo is likely to return to "I believe...." How better could the point be made that it is the aggregate of "I" in prayer that makes a community at prayer.
Posted by: ann r at Mar 23, 2004 2:34:37 AM
Personally, I blame the whole thing on bad reading teachers. Obviously there is a real problem with reading comprehension among some priests and liturgists, as they consistently misunderstand plain English in both Vatican II and the GIRM. In this case, there's also clearly a misunderstanding of what "private piety" is, as opposed to individuals praying as part of the group.
Even though it's a pain in the butt, I think you should stand -- and offer it up, as my mom likes to say! In fact, offer up _every minute of having Roger Mahony in charge, as he is clearly in LA as a penance!
(You know, that may be the entire explanation for all post-VII problems right there. Catholics got too proud of themselves, and were sent the annoying stuff as a penance. In which case we're really in trouble, as both laity and clergy seem to keep getting collectively angrier and prouder and more sinful.)
(And boy, wasn't that an annoying pointed comment? Truly worthy of my mom. Sheesh, good thing I don't have kids or I'd be elbowing them at Mass, too.)
Seriously, though, if they want you to stand, I guess it's the responsibility of the laity to find a way to stand prayerfully. If you've got your hands folded and you're staring at the crucifix (or where it would be, if you could see past someone's back), why can't it be just as prayerful as kneeling? Standing is also one of the ancient prayer positions of the Church. You were always supposed to be praying while waiting to get out of the pew and while walking up to the altar and back, and you never found that a problem, did you? Of course not.
This is a pain in the butt (or legs) and unnecessary, but it's hardly inimical to prayer. Unless you're sitting there getting all annoyed about it every week, which is understandable but not very Christian (and a short route to driving yourself crazy).
So offer it up!
Heck, offer it up in Latin!
(This unsympathetic yet practical advice is a service of the German side of Maureen's family, who also advise you that you will sit at the table until you eat everything on your plate, and if you complain about any food, you will get another helping of it. Bon appetit!)
Posted by: Maureen at Mar 23, 2004 6:32:55 AM
I forgot to add that "offering it up" in my family exists in tandem with writing nice polite complaint letters. Also, meanwhile, the head of the family calls the archdiocese to complain, patiently staying on the line as long as needed, insisting at every turn at being transferred to that person's boss if he doesn't receive satisfaction, and schmoozing until he reaches somebody at the top and gets what he wants. This is the useful thing about having an Irish side of the family, too.
(Admonishing people during Communion in the way Barbara Nicolosi mentioned is beyond being annoying and into faith-inimical, and I didn't want to neglect a proper response to that.)
Maureen
Posted by: Maureen at Mar 23, 2004 6:49:05 AM
Looking for help here--I teach a 1st Communion CCD class and have been teaching the children how to receive Holy Communion--the Nun in charge says it is wrong for the children to bless themselves after they receive Communion. Now I am not going to confront the Nun, but I cannot find this "New Rule" anywhere. Can someone out there help me with the rules? Thanks!
Posted by: Sheila at Mar 23, 2004 7:24:18 AM
Sheila, the nun is wrong. There are no rules about whether or not to bless oneself after receiving communion; that is a pious custom. It is also a lovely and appropriate one; having received Communion, and thereby one's share in the blessed fruits of Christ's Passion, one appropriately makes the sign of the cross.
WHAT IS IT IN THESE PEOPLE that is impelled to knock down every sign of piety, remove from the churches every object of devotion, discourage every expression of love on the part of Christ's People? They aren't happy until the 'worship space' looks as sterile as a bank or the inside of a refrigerator, and the liturgy itself has been streamlined til it is the liturgical equivalent of a lecture or meeting of the board of directors.
Posted by: Father Wilson at Mar 23, 2004 7:49:08 AM
I can't find anything in GIRM that says you cannot bless yourself after receiving communion.
This is one-of-the-things-we-used-to-do that Angelicaists find so blissful.
The question I have is: Why do you want to do it? Isn't this gilding the lily?
Posted by: RP Burke at Mar 23, 2004 7:49:39 AM
This example proves that the Novus Ordo is irreformable. The Liturgical Nazis (or Commies - Abrv.: the LitNaz or LitComs) will prevail!
Posted by: John at Mar 23, 2004 7:57:52 AM
RP
I suspect the atrocity is the manner in which this new command is being browbeaten and shamed into people in the pews. And Rome has made abundantly clear that such an approach to enforcement is not to be tolerated. The USCCB itself tried to make this clear, but obviously some tyrants are intent on having their way. Both Rome and the USCCB have basically said there can be no enforcement approach whatsoever, because the people are not to be molested, as it were, in their decisions here.
The actions of the priest in question in Barbara Nicolosi's recounting are, in a word, obscene.
Posted by: Liam at Mar 23, 2004 8:09:02 AM
Except...
The US bishops have said clearly and directly, for example, that the posture for receiving communion here is standing.
Now let's take an obstinate communion-kneeler. No amount of catechesis, even from a mitred head of diocese, has persuaded her or him to stand.
Now what?
Posted by: RP Burke at Mar 23, 2004 8:29:09 AM
I'd stand outside the church with BIG signs.."Do Not Talk to God Inside" "Private Praying Forbidden" "Prayer Control Police Will Punish those Caught Praying in Private" "No Private Devotions or Donations Allowed" "Enter this Church for Private Prayer at Your Own Risk" "No Rosary Zone" "No Private Thoughts to God Zone" "Mind Control Zone" "Reinterpret the Mass and GIRM as you Want Zone" "Personal Relationship with God Forbidden" "We would hate for you to Love God Personally" "You can only talk to God if others are talking to Him too"
Stupidities like this make me want to drive the point home, and stand up and face the rear of the Church or do something equally noticeable..have the "presider" who is breaking communion with the Church universal single me out..and say "Hey if you can interpret things the way you like why not me? If you can go against the Church's instructions, then I can go against yours!" Monkey see, monkey do.
Posted by: Therese at Mar 23, 2004 8:35:45 AM
PS ..as the weather is nice in LA why not go outside after mass with signs that say" Pryaing outside because we are not allowed to pray inside!"
Posted by: Therese at Mar 23, 2004 8:39:58 AM
RP Burke, Fr. Wilson,
If you examine the correspondence (available at Adoremus) regarding the kneeling situation in Arlington (admittedly regarding kneeling for reception rather than post-Communion) the secretary for the Congregation informs that continuing to practice kneeling is not a manifestation of disobedience. What implication do you think this has for the "application" of the GIRM in specific dioceses (this exchange was in response to a number of letters from Virginia which asked if those who availed themselves of the CDW's description of the latitude to be afforded for personal expressions of devotion could be thought to be manifesting a disobedience to their superior the Bishop.)?
Posted by: al at Mar 23, 2004 8:46:33 AM
Maureen: (You know, that may be the entire explanation for all post-VII problems right there. Catholics got too proud of themselves, and were sent the annoying stuff as a penance. In which case we're really in trouble, as both laity and clergy seem to keep getting collectively angrier and prouder and more sinful.)
I just don't understand this attitude, Maureen. This makes it seem like Catholics who simply want the Church to be what it professes to be, and who want a decent mass, and decent preaching, and who want their parish to be a safe harbor instead of another front in the culture wars, are somehow to blame for wanting these things. Why is it "prideful" to expect these things from our clergy? Why is it a virtue to endure these things without protest, meekly "offering it up" like passive victims? Ultimately, one may have no choice but to "offer it up," but sheesh, shouldn't we at least put up a fight?
Posted by: Rod Dreher at Mar 23, 2004 8:52:53 AM
RP
Rome and the USCCB have made clear that the faithful *cannot* be disciplined or intimidated in any way over this issue. The erstwhile norm is merely that, and cannot be enforced in any way. That is by design, in fact, and is rather unusual in that regard. The bishops tried to foreclose the unedifying spectacle such as we discussed. Obviously, that did not stop a would-be-liturgical tyrant.
The most that appears to be licit would be to articulate the norm in general terms, outside the setting of the Communion rite. I.e., in the homily, by announcements after Communion or before or after Mass, in the bulletin, in workshops. But absolutely nothing can be done when the communicant presents him/her-self, and that person cannot be made the object of coercion or other browbeating at any time whatsoever.
The bishops and Rome in fact expressed more concern over priests such as those described in this situation than with the communicants. Hence, if there is to be any discipline, it ought first be directed at the priest in question. And if it is his bishop that is to blame here, then his bishop.
So the sticks can only come down on the clerics' and liturgists' heads, as it were.
Thus, a number of dioceses have seen the wisdom of treading very, very lightly on this point.
Posted by: Liam at Mar 23, 2004 8:54:56 AM
FWIW: I asked my pastor about this after Mass this morning (we are in the Archdiocese of Washington). He said: "It [the requirement to stand after Communion] is not in the GIRM. If it were in the GIRM we would be doing it." I said, "I've heard that Mahoney..."
He just rolled his eyes. "Well, Mahoney!"
Posted by: Karen H. at Mar 23, 2004 9:01:15 AM
I can't help but think that a lot of these new liturgists are people who have elevated feeling into a virtue. There is something scary about being commanded to stand there with a big grin on your face and joy in your heart OR ELSE...
I heard a great sermon on the Prodigal Son story: the younger son FEELS, the older one DOES, and that these are two sides of what it means to be a Christian. There is an emotional component which must be sustained by ACTS, and the ACTS have to be illuminated by JOY and LOVE. Either one on their own is not complete.
There is an important need for order and ritual in our lives and in our worship of God; there is also a need for joy.
Having said that I am glad to kneel after Communion. It is one of the rare quiet times of my week when I can close my eyes, pray and be at peace. It feels private and yet communal - all of us offering up our prayers and thanksgiving in our own way. I experience many of these new liturgies are so intrusive and harassing; can't you be left in peace even for a moment?
Posted by: Anastasia at Mar 23, 2004 9:02:10 AM
I am not advocating this necessarily - just offering it up as an example of someone who had enough and couldn't take it anymore.
My late, very devout, immigrant Irish grandfather was a police sargeant (I know, I know). In the early seventies, during some rough times in our city there were clashes between the police and protestors. The new priest at the parish was giving a very politicized sermon about the brutality of the police. My grandfather, a quiet man, endured it for as long as he could and finally stood up and said (not yelled)in his heavy brogue Dat's a lot of bull----!" The church broke into applause and the priest beat a hasty retreat. Grandfather was not proud of it, but felt he had to do it.
What say you?
Posted by: Annie at Mar 23, 2004 9:10:48 AM
A tale from the pews:
Several weeks ago, a 70-year-old or so priest was pinch hitting in our church for a vacationing associate pastor.
After Mass ended, the priest said we had committed liturgical crimes: 1, some of us were reading the Gospel when, he admonished us, we are supposed to sit there and hear the Gospel proclaimed, and 2, he complained that one woman was singing noticeably louder than the rest of the congregation. I inferred that he thought she was guilty of the sin of pride.
In both instances, he boomed, "It's a scandal!"
I was stunned by this outburst. As you might imagine, we didn't muster much enthusiasm for the recessional hymn. That poor woman with the loud voice, well, I didn't hear a peep out of her. I think she slinked out the side door when the music ended.
Okay, this is only one small anecdote. Maybe I make too much of it; priests have bad days too. Maybe this priest was troubled about something in his life that I'm not aware of.
But I thought to myself, father, if this is truly your idea of "scandal," then may God help us.
Posted by: Whitcomb at Mar 23, 2004 10:02:28 AM
My office mate has an hilarious sticker on his wall that reads, "The beatings will continue until morale improves." This appears to be the liturgical equivalent of that mindset, as Anastasia alluded to, and it has absolutely no place in our liturgy.
I'm relieved to know that "Both Rome and the USCCB have basically said there can be no enforcement approach whatsoever, because the people are not to be molested, as it were, in their decisions here." (thanks, Liam), now we just need to make sure the word gets to those in charge.
For my part, I will be praying for those of you who must experience these silly outrages firsthand, and offering prayers of thanksgiving for my wonderful pastor, who, as an extraordinarily prayerful man, understands that we come to liturgy to offer praise to God, and all else flows from that. I have never been subjected to any liturgical silliness in my many years in this parish.
Posted by: Cathleen at Mar 23, 2004 10:25:47 AM
Good heavens, at our parish we seem to be moving in exactly the opposite direction: starting at the first of the year, the Gloria and Sanctus are now chanted in Latin (as is the Sanctus). Also, we've been instructed to bow during the Creed (from "By the power of the Holy Spirt..." until "...became man") , to bow before receiving Communion, strike our breasts during the Penitential Rite and yes, we still kneel during all of Communion, sitting back in the pews when the Priest sits down.
I love every blessed second of it.
Come to Atlanta - St. Catherine of Siena!
Posted by: jquinby at Mar 23, 2004 10:39:29 AM
Fr. Wilson asks, "What is it in these people that is impelled to knock down every sign of piety..."
To me the answer is easy -- the devil. One of the many pious things I remember being taught is that Satan likes nothing more than to corrupt priests, since that's the closest he can come to attacking Christ himself. I really do believe that the sexual scandals are a manifestation of this fact, and I think that these assaults on the prayer life of the faithful --which are aimed directly at preventing people from experiencing personal unity with Christ -- are as well. To paraphrase: "The devil can quote the GIRM to his own purpose."
Posted by: David Kubiak at Mar 23, 2004 10:42:59 AM
"everyone in our HUGE crowded parish must now stand for the fifteen minutes of Communion time, bobbing and weaving and looking around before and after receiving the Eucharist"
"The choir always runs out of songs after two or three and then we all just stand around people-watching"
------
Well, why is that ? Just because you're standing up you can't pray ? Tell that to your Byzantine Catholic cousins up the street. They stand up to pray during the whole 2 hour Divine Liturgy. So do the Eastern Orthodox. Nothing dictates that just because you are standing up instead of sitting or kneeling that you have to "bob and weave, looking around" .
Either close your eyes or else fix them on a focal point such as an icon or a statue in the sanctuary and say your post-communion prayers .
Posted by: David at Mar 23, 2004 10:59:10 AM
I have the suspicion that a single person standing up during a heretical or abusive homily and yelling, "Bullshit, Father, bullshit!" and walking out would do more good for the morale of a parish than a thousand blog postings of fed-up laity venting in private.
Posted by: Rod Dreher at Mar 23, 2004 11:00:59 AM
WHAT IS IT IN THESE PEOPLE that is impelled to knock down every sign of piety, remove from the churches every object of devotion, discourage every expression of love on the part of Christ's People? They aren't happy until the 'worship space' looks as sterile as a bank or the inside of a refrigerator, and the liturgy itself has been streamlined til it is the liturgical equivalent of a lecture or meeting of the board of directors.
Yes, Fr. Wilson, what indeed? In some places it seems to be predictable. Abuse the norms by laxity all you want and nothing happens. Abuse the norms piously, and all h--- breaks loose. And I mean that literally.
Perhaps we should be looking for a deeper meaning here. The reaction is looking like a "footprint" or a marker. When actions are not serving worship of God, perhaps they are serving worship of ? ? ?
I did a little reading about church architecture. Specifically Fr. Richard Vosko's THROUGH THE EYE OF A ROSE WINDOW.
In order to understand Vosko better, I read ARCHITECTURE FOR WORSHIP by. E. A. Sovik, who influenced Vosko. Neither book is long.
Sovik is not Catholic. One major focus of his theory is that worship space must be multi-purpose. It must not be dedicated to worship. He recommends we "stop bulding cultic buildings" on pg. 9, and on pg. 10 tells us "Worship involves persons, not places. Persons are the temples. They are the holy things. It is in them that the kingdom is present. The encounter with God is any place. And the life in God--the truly religious life--is not a matter of special places, times, or esoteric rituals, but of spirit and truth. And the evidence of this life in God is not the performance of ceremonial sacrifice and the other elaborate ritual observances; the evidence is in teaching, healing, cleansing, feeding, and other good works."
He claims that "the Gospels contain no record of his [Jesus] actual participation in the temple ritual." (p. 10)
He tells us, "Jewish religious rites are "esoteric"; that is, their forms fall into a category which is foreign to the remainder of life, and their symbols (whatever their origins may have been) seem arbitrary, useless, or even antisocial. They limit life rather than enlarge it. They use energies and goods in ways which do not serve man. They separate religion and the common life of man." (p. 11)
This may be the spirit of the age, so to speak, that is governing our worship in all the places where piety is anathema.
Fr. Vosko has been responsible for many church renovations, all of them sterile, as Sovik recommends.
Sovik's views on Eucharist also give some insight. He says, "It is not the table that makes a sacrament; it is the people and what they do. The things are adjuncts, conveniences, symbols, utensils. The presence of God is not assured by things or by symbols or by buildings, but by Christian people.
If this is so, and if we recognize the relative unimportance and consciously try to keep this order of importance clear, the early Christian use of borrowed spaces and portable equipment and the attempt to achieve domestic rather than monumental character in architecture will not disturb but rather attract us." (p. 33)
He also speaks of kneeling, saying: "More and more the practice of kneeling, which as a bodily posture can scarcely be associated either with any sort of domestic meal or with the interpersonal awareness appropriate to a common experience, is being abandoned." (p. 32)
He says: "The place which is ultimately faithful to the Christian vision will be one in which the room is devoid of any explicitly cultic images or furnishings." (p. 37)
He believes: "The traditional building forms of establishment churches support the criticism that the church has neglected social needs." (p. 38)
He says: "The social changes seem to suggest that a change in the attitude of Christians toward building must come...For if the building of 'houses of God' is inconsistent with the essential Christian faith, its results are also damaging to society at large. This kind of activity is simply not the way a 'servant church' demonstrates its 'servanthood'." (p. 41)
"The issue is not whether congregations own structures; it is how they conceive their structures, and how they use them. They cannot be conceived as 'houses of God'...they must not be used exclusively for worship." (p. 42)
"...if we are to suppose that people are more important than things and their activities are what make a place significant, then the void which provides for them is the starting point." (p. 50)
Over and over again Sovik expounds upon what is much closer to Masonic philosophy than Christian theology, and Richard Vosko follows his lead. Hence Vosko's churches look more like Masonic lodges than Catholic places for worship.
Vosko even gives us a picture of the rose window in his book THROUGH THE EYE OF A ROSE WINDOW. It isn't a religious symbol in his rose window. Rather it is the spiral, common to Pagan religions. Here are some of Vosko's designs.
Posted by: Carrie at Mar 23, 2004 11:03:11 AM
David, I agree completely, and would suggest to those who live in LA, head south for Mass. I understand Orange County has a good bishop. Take your money with you.
Posted by: Christine R. at Mar 23, 2004 11:21:46 AM
I liked Rod's comment about standing up in Church and exclaiming, but Fr. Rob's idea about pursuing a "dubium" sounds like a better approach. One always hates to go over the heads of people, but sometimes it's necessary. Fr. Rob, can you tell us a little more about what a "dubium" is and how to do it?
Posted by: Michael Benz at Mar 23, 2004 11:31:13 AM
R.B.--you're wrong. I did a piece on the GIRM rules for Beliefnet, and there's nothing in there about standing before or after communion being required, and there's a specific statement that kneeling after communion is permissible. Bishops apparently have leeway to change these rules--but I personally have no intention of not kneeling after communion unless the church is too crowded to permit kneeling. So I intend to keep on kneeling after communion, and if any busybody church ladies wearing Eucharistic Minister buttons (yuck!) chides me, I plan to smile sweetly, say nothing, and keep on kneeling. What are they going to do--carry me out of the church?
In my parish we have a contingent of weirdos (or we did, until it dwindled down to about 10, and then this last Sunday, just one) who stand all through the communion and block everybody else's view (we're kneelers). My position is: If they can stand in my church, I can kneel in anyone's church. And my advice to fellow Catholics is just that: don't be cowed. Be brave, and some people in the church--trads like you, members of religiously conservative ethnic groups like Vietnamese and Filipinos--will join you, and you'll eventually have some company. Your group will grow. That's my advice to Barbara Nicolosi, too. You can't do anything about the rude priest (except avoid his Masses and pray for his transfer), but you can, in a nice, quiet, nonconfrontational, Rosa Parks-ish way, fight off officious eucharistic ministers. Remember: you've got Cardinal Arinze on your side, and the eucharistic orcs can't be everywhere in the church at once. Even the rude priest can't say every single Mass.
Posted by: Charlotte Allen at Mar 23, 2004 11:35:12 AM
Standing after Communion has been harshly mandated in the diocese of Lafayette-in-Indiana and it annoys me no end. The bishop has actually forbidden mental prayer after reception--we're supposed to gobble and sing, sing, sing. I grumpily stand on my arthritic feet with my eyes closed defiantly praying and not singing.
I ashould mention that my parish is very orthodox and Mass is celebrated reverently--with a little Latin chant even!
What part of Cardinal Arinze's answer don't American bishops understand?
Posted by: Sandra Miesel at Mar 23, 2004 11:46:21 AM
"Gather Faithfully Together. Or Else."
Posted by: Dale Price at Mar 23, 2004 11:55:48 AM
"Gather Fretfully Together."
A legacy. Or something.
Posted by: ottanbrus at Mar 23, 2004 12:03:17 PM
Proscribing "mental" prayer. . . Its like something out of Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron
Posted by: al at Mar 23, 2004 12:08:59 PM
We, in the Richmond diocese, have endured all kinds of crazy liturgical innovations from the get go. Bp. Sullivan finally retired last June but the Pope put Cardinal Keeler in charge until we get a new bishop.
You guessed it, Cardinal Keeler put Sullivan back in charge. The crazyness continues. We have people jumping out of the communion lines just to say "Hey!" to their buddies and other silliness abounds. Some Churches have no confessionals and scheduled confessions only once a month, if then.
The bishops who brought us the sex scandal also brought us the liturgical reform and imposed over us liturgical overseers.
No matter what form it takes lack of faith in Christ is the common source of all this mess.
Posted by: John at Mar 23, 2004 12:33:36 PM
I'm new to the Catholic Church -- I'll be confirmed this Easter -- but already I've become as stressed out as most of y'all over liturgical details.
Last Sunday my wife and I attended a Tridentine Mass over at Old St. Mary's in D.C. There was a lot I enjoyed about the rite, but I can see why it would leave some people a little cold. For those who didn't have a well-developed understanding about what was going on, I can imagine the whole thing might be a total mystery. The priest mumbles to himself with his back turned, and all responses are provided by the choir. The people just sit there and watch.
I can therefore understand some of the changes instituted by VII, and the interest in making sure the congregation knows what is going on and has some role in the rite. However, some of the Novus Ordo rites I have attended go way past what I think VII was supposed to be about.
The main theological sticking point seems to turn on what "full participation" was intended to mean. Full participation as understood in a historical context? Or absolute full participation across the board? Most of the liturgical innovators seem to favor the second interpretation, and aren't going to be happy until the congregation is holding hands and singing through the whole Mass, administering the eucharist to each other. That of course, naturally, would require total architectural and liturgical change. That would be a disaster.
My own experience has been that the more I'm expected to do, the less I pay attention to what is going on. I'm rather self-conscious, and every time we're expected to sing or shake hands, I'm only thinking about myself and whether I'm looking foolish or not. I get much more out of the quieter, reflective moments in the Mass.
I've really come to enjoy the sung Latin Novus Ordo Mass celebrated at St. Matt's in D.C. every Sunday. It has the reverence and beauty of the Tridentine Mass, but I actually know what's going on. I think the Latin Novus Ordo should be the standard Mass, but I don't think it's offered in too many places.
Posted by: Tom C at Mar 23, 2004 12:35:31 PM
You guessed it, Cardinal Keeler put Sullivan back in charge.
Because standard operating procedure for an American bishop is to be more faithful to the club than to the Truth.
Posted by: Rod Dreher at Mar 23, 2004 1:00:24 PM
David,
While standing (on Sundays) is part of the Byzantine tradition, Latins, until their Church diluted/abandoned their own tradition in the 1960's, has always worshiped on their knees. Besides, if one reads Carrie's post below yours there are no icons or statutes (nor even a defined sanctuary) on which to medititate anyway.
I think that the problem with the argument that "standing is okay because the Orhtodox do it" is that very often, such an argument is rather selective in the bits of other traditions that it takes. Would those bishops who require standing also require a prostration (both knees and head touch the ground) at the moment of consecration and as one is going to receive, would they be in favour prostrations before the cross while saying "Lord, have mercy" four hundred times, of kissing icons, of kissing the Chalice, of reception only in the mouth by means of a golden spoon, of kissing the priest's hand everytime one gives or takes something from him, of drawing the curtain across the Royal Doors such that nobody sees into the sanctuary past the iconostasis during the Anaphora, of the priest and the people all facing East to pray during liturgy, of having no altar girls or extraordinary EMs?
Posted by: Han Ng at Mar 23, 2004 1:16:01 PM
Any thoughts on this?
About a year ago, when I was visiting the Cathedral parish, the choir began to sing "The Star-Spangled Banner" before Commumion was over. I continued to kneel: I have always understood that when the Eucharist is out of the Tabernacle, you kneel out of respect. A few people stood in deference to patriotism.
my confusion to the pastor and was told that of course we should all have stood up for the National Anthem.
I later found information that supported kneeling, and the pastor (formerly a friend)? became angry and said he wasn't going to ask his parish to do this.....
I still think the proper stance in the presence of the Eucharist is kneeling. I sometimes wonder if everyone at the Mass knows what the Eucharist is...surely more worthy of reverence than a national song.
Posted by: Lynn at Mar 23, 2004 1:40:57 PM
That should be "After Mass I mentioned my confusion to the pastor...."
Posted by: Lynn at Mar 23, 2004 1:45:24 PM
"I still think the proper stance in the presence of the Eucharist is kneeling."
No pun intended right Lyn? :)
Oh man, I cannot STAND it!
Posted by: kevin at Mar 23, 2004 1:50:30 PM
Whoops....sorry, Kevin...
No pun intended....to rephrase:
I think that the appropriate position in the presence of the Eucharist is kneeling...
Posted by: Lynn at Mar 23, 2004 2:08:43 PM
Kneel, guys, kneel! What are they going to do to you? Don't even bother to discuss it with your pastor! Just kneel!
Posted by: Charlotte Allen at Mar 23, 2004 2:34:14 PM
Oh Most Holy Trinity,
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,
I adore Thee profoundly.
I offer Thee the most precious Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity
of Jesus Christ, present in all the tabernacles of the world,
in reparation for the outrages, sacrileges and
indifferences by which He is offended.
By the infinite merits of the Sacred Heart of Jesus
and the Immaculate Heart of Mary,
I beg the conversion of poor sinners.
Amen.
With the Blessed Sacrament suspended in the air, the Angel of Peace prostrated himself and recited this prayer during the third apparition to the children in 1916.
And you know what the children did - they imitated the example sent to them from heaven.
Posted by: chris k at Mar 23, 2004 2:40:35 PM
I hope I'm wrong, but I think this one, like standing for communion, altar girls, and communion in the hand, is a losing battle. If bishops push this agenda, I would expect parishes to start removing kneelers in order to make kneeling more difficult and most Catholics will, as they have in the past, acclimate themselves to the new dispensation. I think only a very strong and public rebuke from Rome (which I would rate as unlikely) or a change of heart by the US bishops can avert this latest innovation.
Posted by: Bill at Mar 23, 2004 2:49:55 PM
I agree with Charlotte...just kneel, if you want to. Error has no rights.
Posted by: Cathleen at Mar 23, 2004 3:32:56 PM
a thought about Holy Communion.....When I was in Italy a few years back, we had a meeting with a very holy "Nun" I was very confused about the role of Eucharistic Ministers, especially when there seemed to be enough people for the priest to give Communion. She gave us an answer I will never forget. "It is your right and priveledge as a Catholic to receive Jesus from the hands of the priest." When I went back and told our Rosary group, one of our members recounted her story as a Lebanese Catholic living here in America. They attended A regional Church where the Mass was in their language. People travelled very far. She told us of a particular Sunday when a woman proceeded to the altar to be a Eucharistic Minister. She stood there for some time until she realized no one was coming to her. The woman explained to us. They were a persecuted people in their country and they did not take for granted the reverance of their Holy Communion and the priveledge of the priest. She said our people would remain in that Church for as long as it would take to receive Jesus at the hands of the priest.
How about this one? It was revealed to a mystic (which one? I can not remember)that one Mass attended piously on earth shall be like 1,000 Masses said for a soul in Purgatory!
What would Our Lady do, if she were in the temple before of the Altar of Sacrifice, Sanctum Sancturum, the Holy of Holies?!
How did the saints behave physically in the presence of the Living Lord? I recall two Irish 'saints' Edel Quinn and Matt Talbot who each remained and "served" for as many masses as they could on a Sunday morning.
Every knee shall bend at the sound of His name.
Posted by: Geraldine at Mar 23, 2004 3:44:15 PM
Recently we had a blog discussion about submitting to spiritual direction. I was lectured for my wariness about submission and enlightened about saints who advanced in holiness even as they submitted to tyrannical and foolish directors. Are not these priests who tell us to stand or whatever our spiritual directors and ought we not to submit?
Posted by: caroline at Mar 23, 2004 4:37:44 PM
Re the minister of communion.
Regardless of the licitness of other approaches, I believe the iconography of Holy Communion is strongest when all receive from the principal celebrant and deacon (assuming the Precious Blood is also being offered to the faithful). There is something quite beautiful about this arrangement compared to multiple ministers (cleric or lay) and stations.
Posted by: Liam at Mar 23, 2004 4:39:30 PM
Post adjusted and comments closed because original, referring post was removed.
Posted by: amy at Mar 23, 2004 5:09:31 PM
