On the Kneeling Beat

The LA Times picks up the story about the kneeling wars in an Orange County parish

This has been extensively discussed on many Catholic blogs, and the LATimes story gets most of it right, although it is a little light on background and context. There is more to the kneeling "side" than simply kneeling  - you can read more here at the LA Catholic Mission and by scanning what the blogs have to say via this search. They have a lengthier list of complaints. The complexity of the issue is rather daunting: some complain about the lack of liturgical unity within and through Catholic Masses, but when an ordinary wants to enforce unity in an area in which they disagree, they're all for going to another source of authority (here, "parish" tradition and/or, broader historical considerations).  Advising altar servers, for example, to disobey diocesan directives on this score, doesn't give complainers much credibility:

The reprisals extend to the altar servers. In a letter dated December 14, 2005, Father Martin dismissed Damian Garcia as altar servers coordinator because "three times you did not follow these norms during Sunday Masses ... you knelt down after the Lamb of God right in front of the people." Father Tran noted, "for our first meeting, I said very clear that you would be the Altar Servers Coordinator with the condition that you should follow the liturgical norms of the diocese. And you promised that. Now, you broke it."

Garcia says that this was the last of three letters he received during Advent. "He wanted me to train altar girls -- I thought it wouldn't be a problem, but my conscience got the better of me, and I decided not to, although I didn't talk about it. He also wanted me to obey the norms of the diocese. When I told him we knelt after the Lamb of God, he said, 'we don't do that here.' I told him, 'we have a precedent here of local custom.' We did dispute that idea, and his interpretation was to conform to the diocese, and my interpretation was that we could follow the custom of the parish. So the First Sunday of Advent he wanted to institute these changes, and I knelt down, and all the altar boys knelt down -- I had been the director of altar boys for about 15 years. He sent a letter later that week, hinting that he did not want me to kneel. The following Sunday I knelt again, and some of the altar boys did too, but not all of them. Again, he warned me not to kneel. On the Third Sunday of Advent, I knelt at the Lamb of God, and later that week, I got the letter dismissing me.

Well, yeah.

On the other hand, liturgical "progressives" are all for diversity, except when it comes to a pet issue or two - like this one. And we're all pretty tired of it, and we all see through it.

Unity and conformity (not the same thing) are matters that are not as easy to tease out in Catholic tradition as we sometimes think. It is my generally less-than-expert sense that the weight of demands for unity and conformity in the Catholic liturgical tradition has been on what the priests and other liturgical ministers were supposed to do, rather than the congregation. Now, then, this is also the consequence of the congregation' s gradual, but definite loss of any "active" role in the Mass (I put "active" in quotes for the sake of trying to avoid discussions about what "active" means. Yes, I know that praying is "active participation.) In this context, I simply mean...if the congregation really didn't have to or wasn't supposed to verbalize, then their conformity was not an issue. My limited experience in Orthodox and Eastern Rite churches reveals an echo of this sensibility (although the congregations in those contexts are permitted more of an externally participatory role than in the Tridentine Rite, I believe, if they choose.)  - as people are kneeling, sitting, standing or even milling around during various parts of the liturgies. At the parish Mass we attended in Rome (I'm not counting St. Peter's, because that's a special case, and isn't normative for parish life, considering its tourist-weighty congregation), after Communion, some knelt, some sat, a few stood in the back. It was all fairly relaxed and seemed understood that here, there might not be a need to demand that the congregational stance physically reflect someone's idea of what unity would mean.

This "no kneeling" story is, in the end, not about kneeling. It's about about a broader base of complaints that this group has and about the bishop and pastor's stance toward this particular group and its complaints, and whatever fears and potential problems those complaints give rise to in the clerics' hearts.  It's about power, and in a sense, it's even about those "thinking," "well-informed" Catholics that we've been hankering for since the end of Vatican II. What happens when the "thinking" "well-informed" Catholics can give back as much as you can when it comes to quoting liturgical experts, past and present, and are arguing against your views? Not exactly what we expected, is it?

It is just insane, in a way. The whole "stand from the Lord's Prayer to the end of Communion" thing is lame, artificial and manipulative. It is anything but organic and just has a feel of puppetry about it. (I've been in two parishes in the past two months in two different dioceses where this directive is in force.) To tell people it's a mortal sin - the first time the phrase  "mortal sin" has probably been mentioned in the Diocese of Orange since 1962, I imagine - strikes me as, well, sinful. 

Comments

[JB Kuang]

What about this?

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/060526/ids_photos_wl/r215067290.jpg

[chicagoan]

You're right Amy - this is all about power. When you think of the heavy-handed way this issue is being addressed compared to the velvet gloves used to address crimes against children, it's actually breath-taking.

With all the problems in the church and temporal world, it's been decided we must stamp out with invective, resolute persistence, and a lack of sensitivity the terrible abuse of ... kneeling?

I'm guessing alot of these people are older and have been through a couple of generations of these insane reforms and have finally said "enough is enough, I'm kneeling to my Lord and you can like it or lump it."

Why can't they leave these old people alone? Haven't they suffered enough?

Reminds me of the old joke -- What's the difference between a liturgist and a hostage-taker?

You can negotiate with hostage-takers.

[Elaine]

Or the old people just can't keep themselves standing for that long a period. My aunt in her last year of life was one of them. She just didn't have the energy to stand, so she knelt after Communion and then sat.

I'm much younger, but I've gone back to kneeling, because I want to pray.

When I finish my post-Communion prayer, I may stand up and sing.

[Patrick Rothwell]

An aside.

In those places where one is required to stand through communion (???) what happens if one neither stands nor kneels, but simply sits? What happens if, one has the misfortune to find oneself in a Robert Hovda-inspired travesty of a church, one decides to make a trek to the "eucharistic chapel" located down the hall next door to the Coke machine to make one's thanksgiving?

On a more serious note, the kneeling war really has escalated to bizarrely absurd levels. Pox on the bishop for heavy-handed references to mortal sin and pox on the kneelers for kneeling that is motivated less by devotion and more out of defiance. Cranky despotic liberal bishop + cranky lay reactionaries = pastoral toxic waste dump masquerading as a parish. Quick, send in the clowns, don't bother, they're here.

[reluctant penitent]

I think the kneelers are right on this one. They are not, as far as I can tell, requiring that everyone kneel. They are merely asking for the right to kneel. What is the harm? It's not disruptive and it's a perfectly acceptable pious act after the Agnus Dei. What's next-- excommunication for those who refuse to hold hands during the Our Father?

[PNP, OP]

I think it is important to see these apparently picayune liturgical matters as ciphers for much larger, much more important issues. The equivalent discussion among religious men and women is the Habit Cipher: to wear or not to wear, etc. These discussions are never really just about wearing a habit or when to kneel or how to consume the Host. They are discussions, fights, dramas about how we are going to be Catholic, about how we understand what it means to be Catholic in a culture that pretends to place equal value on all truth claims. That the left-liberal liturgists are just as oppressive, authoritarian, and ideologicaly unyielding as the right-conservative ideologues of 1950's Traditionalism shouldn't surprise any of us. Ideology and Ego are convenient but petulant gods.

What both the left and the right on all these issues fail to do--over and over and over again--is OBEY. Not merely listen with charity but comply with graciousness as well. The refusal to obey legit authority in the Church is an act of pride.

My question to Fr. Tran: do you, Father, obey the liturgical regulations? Have you been a good example of obedience for your parish? If you can't obey, then don't expect to be obeyed.

Fr. Philip, OP

[Quiet Soul]

Where did the LA Times get this idea that kneeling after the Agnus Dei was "introduced" in the 7th century? The Agnus Dei was itself only introduced at that time. In fact, the clergy have been after the people trying to make them stand since at least the Council of Nicaea (A.D. 312), see canon 20, which can be found on the internet. In the middle ages, the clergy were still trying to get lay people to stand instead of kneel, but finally (as can be seen in art) the popes came around and sided with the people. Starting with Pope Gregory IX (1227-1241) the popes finally adopt the lay posture and have themselves pictured kneeling at prayer instead of standing in sculture and painting. (On the kneeling wars of the middle ages, see A. Thompson, _Cities of God_ (Penn State Press, 2005), pp. 237-39. Why can't modern bishops listen to the sensus fidelium, the "consensus of the faithful"? After all, Christians have been praying kneeling to pray since the time of St. Paul and the Apostles (see Acts 21:5).

[Clayton]

The worst of clerical culture shows its ugly head: stiff necks, stiff knees and stiff penalties.

Pastors can have legitimate concerns about the disobedient behavior of parishioners, but they need to start modelling the behavior they would like their flock to emulate. If you're going to serve as the spiritual father of a parish, you have to give up certain infantile behaviors...

[Christopher Sarsfield]

If Fr. Tran really believed this was a mortal sin, then he should have the courage to refuse communion to those that kneel, because they are public sinners. Of course if he did this, they would then be able to appeal to Rome, and I am pretty sure that Rome would back up the kneelers. So Fr. Tran is happy making a statement he knows can not be true, and also knowing that because he takes no action, Rome will not step in. Finally, I think this shows the desperation of the liberals in the Church. They know that their time is limited. Everything that has been coming from Rome in the last decade and everything that will likely come from Rome in the future is against their agenda. They are desperately trying to hold on, but they are getting older and their agenda has produced no vocations. They have no future and they know it. Just shows that the “crisis” in vocations of the past thirty years was really just a weeding out.

[Bill]

It is neither important to kneel or stand. So each community should come to a consensus as to what to do. Aren't there bigger problems like why most Catholic churches did not make Mexicans welcome in the US so that most became Pentecostals? In a different way the evangelization of blacks was very tepid by leaders in the church. Now we find ourselves presided over by Black and Indian Ministers as the US becomes a "mission" country.

[midwestmom]

Here's a letter you'll never see coming out of Bishop Brown's chancery:

He sent a letter later that week, hinting that he did not want me to hold hands. The following Sunday I held hands again, and some of the altar boys did too, but not all of them. Again, he warned me not to hold hands. On the Third Sunday of Advent, I held hands at the Lord's Prayer, and later that week, I got the letter dismissing me.

[chris K]

Again, where is the logic when it comes to the fundamental sacred of our Faith? Rome tells all priests/bishops that the faithful should not be persecuted in any way if they kneel while receiving the Holy Eucharist. Is this a different Eucharist when it comes to another most sacred moment within the holy mass where the same persons are then forced to a lesser standard of reverence for the same holy Eucharist? I certainly would use that instruction from Rome with Fr. Tran. Better forget the example given by the angel of Portugal as to how we are to reverence the holy Eucharist.

Looks like Mother A. has a job before her to collect all of those EWTN kneeling mats made just for those where, if you disagree with the obvious position advertised by the architecture of a "sacred space", and wish to kneel, you may. She's placing many in the occasion of mortal sin!

[Kevin Jones]

An odd thing happened at my suburban "liberal" parish a few years back:

The parish had been using movable plastic chairs since the seventies. The kids who went to LifeTeen and migrating Stubenville events started sitting up at the front of the church nearest the altar, and kneeled at the times when the congregation traditionally stood, but when every other parish knelt. A few months later, most everybody was kneeling at the daily masses, and the new church building plans suddenly included kneelers. Having adopted the regular kneeling practices even on Sundays, the mass now seems far more reverent than before. It's a subtle change, but one for the better. All because of a few pious teenagers.

[Kathleen Lundquist]

When I was confirmed in my Portland, OR parish in 1999, we were instructed not to kneel _during the Consecration_, nor to bow to the altar when we walked by, nor to genuflect when we sat down in the pew. (I learned to kneel during the Consecration by visiting other parishes.) Last fall, we finally implemented the norms set forth by the bishops re: liturgy, including kneeling. Some long-time parishioners still resist kneeling at all (or pop up as quickly as they can at the Great Amen), and one of our associate pastors resists it as well (he doesn't enforce or encourage it).

Though I'm dismayed by the kneelers' bad attitude on this, I've got to say that I understand their frustration and my heart is with them.

[Donald R. McClarey]

"And we're all pretty tired of it, and we all see through it."

That pretty well sums it up on the liturgy wars Amy. We have seen so much of this type of nonsense over the past four decades. It is all of a piece with attempting to ram down the throats of congregations unsingable, goofball hymns, priest's neutering the readings, wretched English translations of the Mass, turning splendid churches into ugly vacant "worship spaces", and, in general, an unending war on the traditional, the beautiful and the reverent in the Mass. God forgive all the damage to the faith of ordinary Catholics that these clerical wreckers have done on behalf of the latest fad to seize their ever-wandering attention.

[Little Gidding]

Penances, like kneeling or fasting? We don't need no steenking penances! Or statues or stained glass or incense or rosaries or public acts of devotion. We're resurrection people! We're already perfect! Break out the felt banners and sing a new song!

[Manny]

In those places where one is required to stand through communion (???) what happens if one neither stands nor kneels, but simply sits?

If enough people do this, one priest I know will make an announcement at the end of Mass, welcoming any visitors but then explaining that the parish stands during communion following instructions of the bishop. I've seen him do this at Sunday and weekday Masses. Even so there are still a few holdouts during weekday Mass, usually kneeling in the back.

The same priest, however, will add extra words to the "Behold the Lamb of God...", among other things. See, that's the kind of thing I find really annoying.

[Colleen]

Boy, with all the 'optional' prayers for the Mass (where's the uniformity in that) why is the kneeling thing the 'problem' that throws some right over the edge?

In my (former) parish, the priest all of a sudden forbade kneeling during the Consecration and at Communion time. There were a few holdouts... we ended up in the back pews so we wouldn't draw attention or make it like it was a protest. Contrary to what some think, kneeling isn't a false or pretentious piety at all, it really is painful to stand at the most intimate moments of the Mass - and hear 'every knee shall bend' in your mind - plus I always think that (please God) when I meet Jesus, I doubt I'll be standing.

Anyhow, this priest explained that if we met a head of state or a royal king or queen, we approach them and shake hands, so we can do no less for Jesus himself (no kneeling). He's an older priest, convinced that American Catholics need to pull away from a Rome that doesn't understand us. He did not allow Latin in the parish - even in song (according to the choir director). Funny thing is, he just got transferred to be pastor or the only Indult in the Archdiocese. God works in mysterious ways sometimes!

A bit off track but why is a Catholic 'kneeler' treated worse than a Catholic who wears a rainbow sash and proudly declares him/herself a practicing homosexual? (could be any sin, it's just that gays seem to be vocal and physical about proclaiming it) --- how come no tolerance for those of us who must kneel?

[John Lilburne]

It is interesting to note that making the decision by the diocesan bishop is an approved USA adaptation to the Roman Missal.

The approved translation of the 2002 General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) part of n. 43 for England and Wales has:

"Nevertheless, it is up to the Conference of Bishops to adapt the gestures and postures described in the Order of Mass to the culture and reasonable traditions of the people. [Footnote 53: Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy,Sacrosanctum Concilium, no.40; Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Instruction Varietates legitimae,25 January 1994, no. 41: AAS 87 (1995), p. 304.] The Conference, however, must make sure that such adaptations correspond to the meaning and character of each part of the celebration. Where it is the practice for the people to remain after the Sanctus until the end of the Eucharistic Prayer and before Communion when the priest says Ecce Agnus Dei
(This is the Lamb of God), this practice is laudably retained."

(It can be downloaded from http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/liturgy/Resources/GIRM/Documents/index.html . It seems to me to follow the Latin text, except it leaves out the word "kneeling" that should be after "remain" for the Latin "genuflexum").

The USA "translation"/adaptation of 2002 GIRM n. 43:

"In the dioceses of the United States of America, they should kneel beginning after the singing or recitation of the Sanctus until after the Amen of the Eucharistic Prayer, except when prevented on occasion by reasons of health, lack of space, the large number of people present, or some other good reason. Those who do not kneel ought to make a profound bow when the priest genuflects after the consecration. The faithful kneel after the Agnus Dei unless the Diocesan Bishop determines otherwise. [Footntoe 53 ...]. "

The USA bishops chose, and got approved from the Vatican, the bishop's decision. This is despite 2002 GIRM USA translation also having:
"390. It is up to the Conferences of Bishops to decide on the adaptations indicated in this General Instruction and in the Order of Mass and, once their decisions have been accorded the recognitio of the Apostolic See, to introduce them into the Missal itself. These adaptations include
• The gestures and posture of the faithful (cf. no. 43 above); ..."

[Colleen]

Sorry to post twice but I just read a couple of Fr. Tran's dismissal letters to parishioners of his parish (invited to leave or asked to step down from pastoral responsibilities due to kneeling during the Mass). It flashed in my mind (and I am not a Traditionalist by any means) that this case is a good case to bring back 'ad orientem' --- that way the priest would not be distracted by the posture of the people, as this priest obviously is.

[Elaine N.]

I prefer kneeling but I continue to stand as requested. Every day we receive both the Body and Blood of Christ.

[Anonymous]

I'm afraid these kinds of stories make me very, very angry. Granted that the bishops have the power to stamp out every act of simple piety on the part of the faithful in their flocks, and granted that many of them here in the U.S. have far more zeal to eradicate kneeling and Latin and anything that smacks of reverence then they show toward the eradication of sin in their dioceses, the question remains, why? Do they really think God is insulted when people kneel?

Yes, we must obey the lawful authority of our bishops, no matter how hurtful it is to us. Ascension on Sunday? Fine. No Monday holydays (except Christmas, the big moneymaker)? Fine. No kneeling after the Agnus Dei? Fine, too. But if I were forced by some tragic geographical circumstance to reside in this diocese and attend this parish, I'd probably invest in some hats or chapel veils, so that at least some small gesture of respect to our Lord would remain available to me.

[Zippy]

If there is any justice, one minute of standing after the Agnus Dei translates into a thousand years of kneeling in Purgatory.

[mark j]

Can a priest really 'invite' someone to 'leave the diocese'? I don't know what that means, but doesn't it sound kind of like excommunication? Doesn't there have to be some kind of canonical process?

[Adam]

The totalitarian mindset is ever with us.

[Patrick Rothwell]

The only way that the invitation to leave the diocese bit makes sense if the invitees actually reside in the LA Archdiocese. That would be an interesting fact to know.

[Eric G.]

Gang:

What no one seems to be asking is: Isn't the bishop ultimately right in this situation?

If the GIRM, approved, by the Vicar of Christ, says that the bishop may determine that the faithful may not kneel at the Agnus Dei, isn't it in fact a sin to do so if one knows that his bishop refuses to?

Look, I'm a die-heard traditionalist who serves the Tridentine Mass every week. But I know that you cannot base issues of morality on raw emotion. We have to go by principle. It may be untraditional, and even imprudent, for the bishop of Orange County to rule as he has; if so, then that sin is his. On our part, we are obliged to obey our bishop in all things but sin. Now that this section of the GIRM has been brought to our attention, then, it is no longer our right to kneel at the Agnus Dei in that diocese. Aren't we then morally obliged to obey our bishop, who is als ovicar of Christ in this matter?

[Bill]

If your parish kneels, kneel. If it stands, stand. It is not crucial. Why don't we make peace instead of war. Both liberals and concervatives are stupid on this. It is not like war or murder. We should come together on a non issue. Unless we like trouble.

[Anonymous]

Eric G.,

Objectively speaking, of course the bishop is right. He can do just about whatever he wants to destroy the faith of his people, and even if he oversteps his authority they have little recourse. The message is clear: in the Diocese of Orange, people who want to kneel reverently at Mass are "bad Catholics" who should leave the diocese, while pro-abortion politicians are more than welcome. Frankly, I agree with Fr. Tran on at least one point: if you are a Catholic in this diocese who actually has enough reverence for the blessed Sacrament to desire to kneel at Mass, then you need to get out of this diocese as quickly as possible. How many more ways can the bishop convey the message that you're not welcome?

[Bender]

Must we go through this again??? At this point, this has precious little to do with kneeling and everything to do with rejecting the lawful authority of the bishop. Fr. Tran did not say that "kneeling during the Mass is a mortal sin." What he said, according to the LA Times was that "Kneeling 'is clearly rebellion, grave disobedience and mortal sin,' Father Martin Tran, pastor at St. Mary's by the Sea, told his flock in a recent church bulletin."

Let us be clear here -- clear rebellion and grave disobedience to the bishop's lawful authority in liturgical matters is a mortal sin, and it was Bishop Brown, not Fr. Tran, that imposed the rule of standing after the Agnus Dei. To reject the bishop is to reject Christ Himself.

Now, personally, I believe that it is regretable that Bishop Brown implemented that rule; kneeling is just and proper. However, it is his prerogative to make the rule regarding standing. And it is the duty and obligation of the so-called "faithful," to act with humility, charity, and obedience. It is the duty of these folks to stop their obstinent defiance, contumacy, and scandal -- especially in public. They are not in charge. They are not, and cannot be, judges in their own cause. If they don't like it, or if they disagree with the bishop, then appeal to Rome. Until then, the bishop is entitled to a presumption of correctness and is to be obeyed. If they don't like it, then appeal to Rome and until Rome rules, they need to keep their mouths shut.

Do I like everything that my bishop and/or priest does? No. But it is my obligation to remain their humble and faithful servant. It is my obligation to salute sharply and say "yes sir." All that these defiant protesters are doing is causing discord and division in the Church. Hardly what a "faithful" Catholic would do. If you want to protest and do-your-own-thing, then have the intellectual honesty to admit that you are not a protester, you are a protestant.

[Bender]

By the way, praying your own personal prayers while everyone else is doing something else in the Mass is not "active participation."

First, it is not "active," it is passive conduct. Secondly, it is not participating in the Mass, it is doing your own thing. Participation, by definition, means acting in concert with others. Participation in the Mass means being in communion with everyone else; it means saying what they say, when they say it, as prescribed in the Order of the Mass. It means all the faithful acting as One Church. Doing something else, like reading the bulletin or flipping ahead to see which hymns are next or praying the rosary or some other prayer is neither "active" nor "participation" in the Mass.

[Margaret]

My diocese has implemented the same standing rules. It makes my heart ache because I am truly more distracted and less able to pray when I am preparing to receive and making my thanksigiving standing rather than kneeling. Now that I'm pregnant again for the first time since this directive came around, I'm missing kneeling for a whole 'nother reason-- it's really easier for me, as a matter of posture as well as piety.

All I can do for now is offer it up and remind myself that I need to set a good example of obedience for my kids. And hope that we get a new bishop sometime...

[Susan T.]

Disobedience called to the people who kneel to God in the Mass. These layfaithful Catholics are being talked about by people in here, as showing some sort of false piety. Iam sick of it! Who are you to judge people who kneel to God at Mass. Do you know their hearts? The Holy See says the layfaithful can kneel and the Church is not to be ridged on this matter. Finally some layfaithful with courage to say no more to the spiritual abuse! Look! the LA Times put it on the front page! I bought the news paper today and couldn't believe my eyes! A secular news paper reporting on something so unimportant to the world, Reverence and Adoration to God! Front Page! Perhaps God is speaking to us through this secular newspaper. These layfaithful Catholics have the courage to "stand up" for Reverence and Adoration to God, against the ones who are trying to destroy the faith. Yeah! you heard me destroying the faith! That is what their agenda is. Some in here better get their heads out sand. Yeah! it lot easier in the sand , you will be liked by the majority. My husband and I stood up personally against and still are against the agenda of this same Bishop of Orange, who has allowed the destruction of the faith in my husbands family and the dioceseof Orange, Calif. We did an intervue for the Los Angeles Lay Catholic Mission newspaper in the July2004 issue called "All The Preception Stuff" by Robert Krumple. If you read this article then you may know why Iam so ticked off about (excuse me for that language ) and at some in here for their responses to this article in the LA Times newspaper. After what my husband and I have been through with Bishop Brown , we don't trust many Bishops, priests, nuns, or in fact many " so called professing Catholics" My husband and I Love The Catholic Church because she is the Bride of Christ and we will give up our lives to defend her! even if we lose relationships with father, mother, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, cousin, child, friend, neighbor,or any of you in here in fact. I weep for the Churchs children! I truely mean it! May God Have Mercy on me, a sinner. Susan T.

[rizard]

"The faithful kneel after the Agnus Dei unless the Diocesan Bishop determines otherwise."

As with any law or instruction, in this case it is must be an instruction, there should be a good reason to depart from the norm. The norm in the Church in the west is that we kneel. I can certainly image that standing would be a understandable in places where there were a large number of oriental rite catholics unable to get to there own rite.
Bishop Brown et al need to have an eye to the future, it would seem that the next bishop will encourage kneeling. One would hope that his successor would not go around saying that those who stand are excommunicated.

By the way how old is Bp Brown?

[Mark Andrews]

So far not one poster has shed the tiniest bit of light on WHY Bishop Todd Brown, Ordinary of the Diocese of Orange, told people to stop kneeling during the Eucharistic prayer, from the Sanctus to the Amen.

WHY? I mean, is this just a whim? Unwanted innovation from L.A. or from the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley or St. John´s Seminary. Its about this time somebody trots out the canard about the posture of the early or some other contemporary church at prayer, no kneelers in Europe (just because there are no kneelers doesn´t mean people didn´t or don´t kneel).

The bishops of this country have done a pretty good job, for more than 100 years, of socializing and training Catholic people to kneel. Now this posture is not so uniform. Well, why? Is there some legitimate reason for this variation in posture during worship or not.

Everybody here ought to put their journalists hat on and look for the deeper reasons for this change. And don´t start by reading articles in the L.A. Times or the Los Angeles Lay Catholic Mission.

A final note: the bishop is the chief liturgist of the diocese. Whether the bishop is Todd Brown or Fabian Bruskewitz (sic). If people don´t like that part of Catholcism, and the prayerful obedience it requires, other forms of rebellion are probably not to far off.

There are a bazillion churches in Orange County, most liturgically worse than any Catholic parish. Go try one out before you complain. Geez, to to an Eastern Orthodox service and see what its like to sing standing in Greek or Old Church Slavonic for 3 hours straight. I recommend a parish of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia - they are the liturgical equivalent of the Navy SEALS - tough, tough, tough.

[Donald R. McClarey]

"A final note: the bishop is the chief liturgist of the diocese. Whether the bishop is Todd Brown or Fabian Bruskewitz (sic). If people don´t like that part of Catholcism, and the prayerful obedience it requires, other forms of rebellion are probably not to far off."

Rubbish! Some bishops are complete idiots who spend their careers making bad decision after bad decsion with disastrous consequences for their dioceses. To point this out is not "rebellion", but a simple recognition of fact. For Bishops who delight in uprighting Catholic rituals and traditions to then demand traditional obedience is farcial in the extreme.

[Donald R. McClarey]

Too early in the morning. "uprighting" should be "uprooting".

[RP Burke]

So the story is, authoritarian bishop enters a diocese, issues rulings fully within his authority that upset years of behavior and a number of people who "have always done it this way."

Sounds at least as much like, say, Bishop Finn in KC, doesn't it?

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, folks.

[Marion (Mael Muire)]

Dear Susan T.

What you have written is so sad. Although I live in a good, orthodox diocese on the East Coast, I have attended Mass in the diocese of Orange during visits to relatives out West, and. . . it is almost always pretty uncomfortable. Kneeling not allowed . . . but last time I visited, there were lots of hymns and sung responses, and throughout the entire Mass there was a female cantor on the altar, literally bouncing around and wearing a headset like she was Britney Spears. I felt like I was on another planet. It seemed so irreverent, so inappropriate. Of course, we were told not to kneel. I kept reminding myself that no matter what I might hear or see, this is a valid, licit Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, just grit your teeth, and focus on that. But it was an awful experience. Afterwards, I spent lots of time in the little chapel of the Blessed Sacrament making reparation to Jesus for my participation in a Mass that wasn't what it should be.

Kneeling when they've been commanded not to kneel is the congregants' way of letting the hierarchy know that they aren't happy with the lack of reverence at Mass. Good for them. The hierarchy needs to hear that message - hear it loud, and hear it often. It is a form of protest, a noble message. Of course, the hierarchy doesn't want to hear it, so they pull out the "obedience" card. Don't fall for that. But maybe another form of protest that doesn't distract the participants from what is after all (one can only hope) a valid, licit Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, would be to protest and picket outside the Church before and after Mass, and have the protesters with big signs clearly stating their message, kneeling and praying the Rosary (the way we do outside abortion clinics - ironic, huh?), write letters to the bishops . . . Watch and support EWTN, and tell others about it! Hand out their leaflets and fliers. Maybe even move!

I told my husband I would move with him anywhere, but please don't ever ask me to move to a diocese like Orange.

[Mark Andrews]

Don, its a simple assertion to say there are ¨Bishops who delight in uprooting Catholic rituals and traditions." What, is there some sinister cabal in the Chancery that ¨delights¨ in applying the crozier, or the authority it symbolizes, to us uneducated, overly pious lay Catholic malcontents (of which there is an abundant supply - look what happens every time a church is built or rennovated).

What is farcical is why the lay people don´t demand the bishops run every Catholic institution under their control through a CPA firm annually and publish the results. Misbehavior is not limited to just one form; if people are accountable about money, other ills - behavioral, liturgical, managerial and yes, sexual - will be cured as well.

But to call a bishop an ¨idiot¨ (and by the way, I resemble that remark, both in the calling and as an experienced idiot myself) leads one to wonder where these ¨idiots¨ come from. Its a common-place that the U.S. has had soft-timber for the episcopate for some time. Now whose fault is that? Bishops are born before they are made, aren´t they? And they are baptized before they are ordained? If we want better bishops we have to start IN OUR OWN HOMES, WHERE CHRISTIAN FORMATION BEGINS. This is where the true power of the laity is exercised. You want better bishops? Then lets us be better Catholics and better parents. The entire org chart has to be re-seeded from the ground up - don´t you think this is why the so-called ¨progessives¨ have been successful the last 40 years? Well, lets beat them at their own game. Faxing the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship everytime somebody dances in tights at Mass isn´t where the battle needs to be joined.

How did conservatives push the Republican party to the right? They did galling amounts of hard work on the rubber chicken circuit for 30 years, controlling local party committees. Perhaps the same approach could be supplied to parish liturgy committees and diocesan offices of divine worship. Then when Rome appoints a guy like Bishop Finn in KC/St. Joe to a diocese, he´ll have somebody to help him push the liturgical rock up hill.

[Donald R. McClarey]

"Don, its a simple assertion to say there are ¨Bishops who delight in uprooting Catholic rituals and traditions.""

It is a simple assertion to make Mark, and it is also manifestly true. Anyone who has been a Catholic in America since '65 knows that it is true.

As for some bishops being idiots, that is also manifestly true. As to how the situation can be remedied, I believe part of the solution is for Catholics to call an episcopal idiot an episcopal idiot and to highlight the idiocy. Suffering in silence has not proven an effective strategy for the orthodox Catholics in this country.

"How did conservatives push the Republican party to the right? They did galling amounts of hard work on the rubber chicken circuit for 30 years, controlling local party committees. Perhaps the same approach could be supplied to parish liturgy committees and diocesan offices of divine worship."

We are in complete agreement on this point. Orthodox Catholics will often find themselves as welcome as a chastity advocate at a Planned Parenthood convention but the attempt should be made.

[Momma K]

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

[Todd]

Amy, you pretty much lost me with your blanket comment about liturgical progressives. For people on both sides, such issues are all about power. And every person has their own unique take on such things.

I agree that the notion of standing from the Lord's Prayer to after Communion is lame. Does that mean I'm not a liturgical progressive? On the other hand, what's in the book is in the book. If some progressives are flouting adherence to the letter of the law, why does it hurt the MaChurchers so much?

[chris K]

When Rome gave "permission" for a bishop to step out of the ordinary tradition of kneeling I don't think it was as a blank check. There were certain assumptions or guidelines under which his reasoning could be held responsible for such orders. If the faithful understand this "spirit" under which a bishop is obliged to act and they know that the permission is granted by his higher authority, then if their understanding is that the bishop is neglectful of this spirit, they are then in obedience to the higher authority and being more obedient than the bishop himself. The conscience of the faithful, based on what they have been taught first about their duty to the sacred, must be honored.

[Adam]

Donald, I very seldom agree with you so heartily as I do on this issue.

[Colleen]

Honestly, look around at your own baptized Catholic family, friends, co-workers, social groups and then think about a bishop focusing on what this particular bishop and priest is focusing on - to the point of 'disinviting' active parishioners from the parish/diocese and saying that not obeying the 'standing' norm is: "totally wrong and a serious matter/sin: intentional disobedience not simply to the local Bishop, but also to Rome, and ultimately to God."

C'mon! This is like killing a fly with an anvil!

While I think perhaps Bishop Brown should focus on tending to the lost sheep (as should we) rather than lasering in on non-issues until he makes them serious issues (forced standing for Communion, not kneeling during the Mass, liturgical dance, abolishing the Indult Mass), I would council these parishioners, with heavy heart, to find a parish where they won't be wrestling with their consciences during the Mass. That's what some faithful have done for the last 40 years in order to save their souls.

There will always be good bishops and bad bishops.

[Marion (Mael Muire)]

Momma K, after I read your comment about Abba Apollo, I wanted to learn more about him. One thing I found was an article published in 2002 in Adoremus Bulletin, called "The Theology of Kneeling". It was written by the then Cardinal Ratzinger. Excerpts follow below"

"The Name above all Names
For me, the most important passage for the theology of kneeling will always be the great hymn of Christ in Philippians 2:6-11. In this pre-Pauline hymn, we hear and see the prayer of the apostolic Church and can discern within it her confession of faith in Christ. However, we also hear the voice of the Apostle, who enters into this prayer and hands it on to us, and, ultimately, we perceive here both the profound inner unity of the Old and New Testaments and the cosmic breadth of Christian faith.

"The hymn presents Christ as the antitype of the First Adam. While the latter high-handedly grasped at likeness to God, Christ does not count equality with God, which is His by nature, 'a thing to be grasped', but humbles Himself unto death, even death on the Cross. It is precisely this humility, which comes from love, that is the truly divine reality and procures for Him the 'name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth' (Phil 2:5-10).

"Here the hymn of the apostolic Church takes up the words of promise in Isaiah 45:23: 'By myself I have sworn, from my mouth has gone forth in righteousness a word that shall not return: "To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear"'. In the interweaving of Old and New Testaments, it becomes clear that, even as crucified, Jesus bears that 'name above every name' -- the name of the Most High -- and is Himself God by nature. Through Him, through the Crucified, the bold promise of the Old Testament is now fulfilled: all bend the knee before Jesus, the One who descended, and bow to Him precisely as the one true God above all gods. The Cross has become the world-embracing sign of God's presence, and all that we have previously heard about the historic and cosmic Christ should now, in this passage, come back into our minds.

"The Christian Liturgy is a cosmic Liturgy precisely because it bends the knee before the crucified and exalted Lord. Here is the center of authentic culture - the culture of truth. The humble gesture by which we fall at the feet of the Lord inserts us into the true path of life of the cosmos.

"There is much more that we might add. For example, there is the touching story told by Eusebius in his history of the Church as a tradition going back to Hegesippus in the second century. Apparently, Saint James, the 'brother of the Lord', the first bishop of Jerusalem and 'head' of the Jewish Christian Church, had a kind of callous on his knees, because he was always on his knees worshipping God and begging forgiveness for his people (2, 23, 6). Again, there is a story that comes from the sayings of the Desert Fathers, according to which the devil was compelled by God to show himself to a certain Abba Apollo. He looked black and ugly, with frighteningly thin limbs, but most strikingly, he had no knees. The inability to kneel is seen as the very essence of the diabolical.

"But I do not want to go into more detail. I should like to make just one more remark. The expression used by Saint Luke to describe the kneeling of Christians (theis ta gonata) is unknown in classical Greek. We are dealing here with a specifically Christian word. With that remark, our reflections turn full circle to where they began. It may well be that kneeling is alien to modern culture -- insofar as it is a culture, for this culture has turned away from the faith and no longer knows the one before whom kneeling is the right, indeed the intrinsically necessary gesture. The man who learns to believe learns also to kneel, and a faith or a liturgy no longer familiar with kneeling would be sick at the core. Where it has been lost, kneeling must be rediscovered, so that, in our prayer, we remain in fellowship with the apostles and martyrs, in fellowship with the whole cosmos, indeed in union with Jesus Christ Himself."

*******

All of which suggests to my mind the question: If a bishop is disobeying the pope in a particular matter, to whom do the people of that bishop's diocese owe obedience in that matter - to the pope or the bishop?

[Chris]

Rizard,

According to Catholic Hierarchy, Bp. Brown is 69.

www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bbrown.html

Colleen,

My understanding is that the rest of the parishes in Orange County are worse.

[ohevin]

All,

Some wanted the new christians to be circumcised, others not. New wine into old wineskins? "Better to obey God than man." And Mary Magdalene was on her knees washing His feet with her hair. Biblical history all. To kneel or not to kneel. I truly believe that when Peter offered the first Holy Eucharist after Pentecost, our Blessed Mother Mary was kneeling as were many of the those "Apostles" in attendance who were marked (and filled ) with the Holy Spirit.

For the Bishops in America to insist that the folks in the pews "stand" is again reflective of their own lack of spiritual development. (After all, they are products of the deformed seminariries of the 70's and 80's.)I propose that many of them do not believe in the Eucharist as the Apostle St. Thomas did, i.e., when he was faced with the truth about Christ, after our Beloved Lord forced Thomas to place his finger into the holes of Christ bodily wounds, do you think this man remained standing when he then exclaimed for all of us down through the ages, "My Lord and My God!" Brothers and sisters, therein lies the problem, many of our Bishops do not believe that it is Our Lord and our God who is now in our presence. "Chtist has died. Christ has risen. Christ HAS come again!! Ponder this: do you think that instead of our Lord's humble presence under the appearance of bread and wine, He instead chose to appear to us in His Heavenly Glory, do you think we would (could) be standing in His Heavenly Splendor? Or course not. Even Moses was asked to take off his shoes near the "Burning Bush." I choose to believe in our Lord's humble presence in His Holy Eucharist, not as Thomas the man, but as St. Thomas, on my knees exclaiming with heartfelt faith, "My Lord and My God!" Next time you're privileged to attend Holy Mass, remember this: Christ has died. Christ is Risen. Christ HAS come again!!

Ohevin

[Jason Cone]

Personally, I prefer kneeling as a gesture of profound reverence. Nevertheless, I believe that the bishop possesses the authority to dictate standing, in this situation.

I may not agree with his decision. I may think the bishop exercised poor judgment by using his authority in this manner. But I can't deny his authority, and he's not asking for anything immoral or wrong. I wouldn't like it, but I would obey.

[Leo Wong]

Actually, the bishop does not have the power, since the last word of Canon Law is:

. . . the salvation of souls, which must always be the supreme law in the Church, is to be kept before one’s eyes.
— Code of Canon Law, Can. 1752

The supreme law overrrides all other laws. In addition, a bishop's authority can never be arbitrary. The Church itself cannot change some things.

Leo Wong

[Rich Leonardi]

Amy, you pretty much lost me with your blanket comment about liturgical progressives. For people on both sides, such issues are all about power. And every person has their own unique take on such things.

As common experience tells us, liturgical "progressives" flout the missal, horizontalize worship, spit upon tradition, and defy legitimate authority. Examples are legion. With rare exceptions pertaining to the edicts of "progressive," aging bishops, believing Catholics do none of these things.

[Tim Johnson]

In the Archdiocese of Louisville, our Arcbbishop has required the standing from the sign of peace until all have received Communion. That is his perogative per the current GIRM.

However, I point to the dubium (doubt) that was sent to Cdl. Arinze by Cdl. George about it. He asked for clarification on the practice of kneeling after Communion and whether it was to be categorically prohibited by a bishop's decision to implement standing as the posture for all until all have received.

Cdl. Arinze replied "Negative." and explained that the bishop could not require those who were moved to kneel after Communion for private prayer/thanksgiving from doing so.

In other words, the bishop may make it the norm in his diocese, but cannot require or punish those who wish to kneel to receive or kneel after returning to their pews.

My read of the GIRM and the exchange between Cdls. Arinze and George says that your bishop can require you to remain standing at least until you get to the point of reception. At that point you can remain standing in deference to the bishop's wishes/directive, or you can kneel if you choose to. But I don't think you can return to kneeling BEFORE reception and returning to your seat. Again, IF the bishop has said to stand in his diocese.

So those who kneel always in accordance with the old practices (during the Agnus Dei on) when the bishop says to stand there ARE being disobedient to legitimate authority. It may be imprudent to require standing because it may lessen reverence for the Real Presence, but it is legitimate.

Now if a bishop says to stand during the consecration, he is acting outside of his authority to do so. In that case, I do not believe we would be required to obey. We have to remember that we must obey legitimate authority. Where it asks us to do what the Vatican says we must not, we should not obey. Where the bishop has the authority to require something, we must obey. Where we have the option, we can act within those guidlines,

I think Fr. Tran was within his right to dismiss those who remained kneeling during the Agnus Dei if that bishop said to stand there. Local custom doesn't trump the GIRM on that. You might make a case for trumping it after reception only when we can choose our own posture.

Personally I prefer to kneel for the Agnus Dei, but stand since that is my bishop's directive. I kneel when I return to my seat.

[WRiley]

Perhaps the best approach would be for an individual to honor the instruction of the bishop, while at the same time informing him and the pastor that no further contributions would be made to the parish or the diocese. Instead the money could be directed to more worthwile groups (Opus Dei would drive them mad). A third of the parish not giving would have an impact.

[Mark Andrews]

Hmmm...support of the temporal needs of the Church is a precept of the Church. Perhaps it is legitimate to support other groups and NOT support one´s own parish, but that seems disingenuous.

[Loudon is a Fool]

American Bishops and pastors and/or administrators are a riot. We need some extra time kneeling because we can't be like the universal Church because, well, Americans are just so different from all other Catholics. Of course, individual Bishops don't want to do things like their fellow Bishops because their Catholics are just so different from all other Catholics in America. What I would like to see is an option for each and every element of the Mass where the norm is an innovation, but an "innovation" is offered in the discretion of the Bishop (or, better yet, the Pastor) that is really the norm. Then the liturgy in America would mirror the liturgy in the universal Church, but James Dean American Bishop and/Pastor and/or Administrator could feel like the innovative bad-ass that he is.

Also, Bender, you don't know what active means, although you have a point about participation.

And I'm not sure Romans and their idiosyncratic Mass postures should be the gold standard for anything. Italian leaders (secular or religious) don't try to control Italians because 2500 plus years of history has shown it is not possible. Americans, on the other hand, are generally fans of order and without it would probably be dangerous.

[joe]

"Kneeling 'is clearly rebellion'."

As far as I can see, no Bishop, anywhere, nor even the Pope, has the right to tell me not to kneel before The Lord. Reverence is due first and foremost to him. Any Bishop who forbids such is forfeiting his right to authority, just as if He instructed me NOT to pray in Jesus' name. Some clerical decisions must be bucked.

[Little Gidding]

I think the fundamental issue is not kneeling at this or that time of the Mass. It is the faithful's intuitive grasp of what many of the U.S. bishops have wished to convey to them through a constellation of liturgical changes that appear to be linked. It is true that the Orthodox stand for long periods during their liturgy and that this is not easy to do. But they also do full prostrations, and this fact demonstrates that the practice of standing, in Orthodox liturgy, is not a way of discounting or discouraging the mortification of the flesh, and the submission of the whole person, body and mind, to God's presence. The Orthodox also retain a very rigorous regimen of fasting. But in the West, the change in posture established in some dioceses, from kneeling to standing, is evidently targeted at making Catholic practice less penitential, less "Papist," and more like Protestantism, with the attitude that penance and worship has little or nothing to do with outward form and is only an internal change of the individual's heart, and that outword forms of penance are "Pharasaic." It is part of a package of liturgical innovations that includes the discouragement of the stations of the Cross, the limiting of the adoration of the Eucharist, and the rearrangement of the "worship space" in order to elevate the idea of fellowship and community per se and suppress the idea of worship and sacrifice. To this sensibility, God's sovereignty and fatherhood are incomprehensible and stimulate little response. Instead, Jesus is a buddy and fellow traveler, a good guy and a moral teacher and activist for social justice and reallly not so concerned with individuals' personal sins or virtues. Other parts of the package of liturgical reforms that were evidently meant to initiate a new theological program that diminishes the importance of penitential practices have included the various concessions to convenience in what the U.S. bishops mandated for the faithful--moving holydays of obligation to the nearest Sundays and reducing drastically the fast and abstinence regimen. I do not think it is too difficult to understand why the number of people going to Confession fell way off as a result of the changes. The faithful are smart enough to know which way the wind blows. They can understand that they are being told in so many words that the essence of the practice of religion has little or nothing to do with penance. Some of the faithful, both old and young, are convinced otherwise. Although Bishop Brown does not seem to agree with them, the "old ladies" in the pews who wish to continue kneeling do know better than that. They are far more canny than all the frenetic liturgical dancers and "Christian yogins" in Southern California are about the need to allow the body and not just the mind to engage in worship and to express one's relationship to God. Despite all this, I can see no alternative for them except to follow their bishop's direction in matters that are not sinful, such as his specific instructions on the liturgy, and to offer up their resulting mortification of the spirit to God, perhaps for the intention of the conversion of their bishop. Really, the irony here is terrific. Over on the Titusonenine blogsite, where many traditionalist *Protestant* Episcopalians gather, the commenters were generally stunned to learn from the LA Times article that, to put it bluntly, Papist bishops would be discouraging kneeling and even calling it a mortal sin. More than one of the commenters there remarked that this is the sort of evidence that would keep them from following any inclination they had--given the chaos in ECUSA now--to become Catholics. Congratulations to us--We've out-Protestantized the Protestants.

[reluctant penitent]

I agree entirely with Little Gilding's reading of the symbolism behind the standing requirement, which is precisely why I cannot agree with LG's suggestion--no matter how well-intentioned--that the parishioners obey the bishop's requirement and 'offer up their resulting mortification of the spirit to God.' If LG is right about the motives behind the standing requirement, then those who obey that requirement are complicit in the sins of a Bishop and a pastor who hold the eucharistic theology of the Church in contempt. At some point lighting another candle and praying for a pastor's or bishop's conversion for a thousandth time is no longer the morally right thing to do. Orthodox Catholics have stressed obedience far too much, in my view. What is important is not obedience but fidelity to the teachings of the Church. If a bishop or pastor requires something of me during mass that is not consistent with what Church teaching requires then I will not comply. Let them call the police and have me thrown out if they like.

[Chris Sullivan]

In our parish we all kneel, except 2 Eastern Rite Catholics at the front who always stand. Their standing is OK with everyone and as far as I know noone has tried to stop them standing.

At our neighbouring, wealthier, parish, they almost all stand, but we always kneel. I pretty much kneel whereever I am, despite what everyone else does and no one's ever called me on it.

If I was ordered to stand, I think I'd pray and study and reflect on it but at the end of the day I think I'd probably continue to kneel becaue I think it's important to create the space for people to follow their own liturgical traditions, as our parish does with our Eastern Rite standers.

I think Marion's exactly right that the lay faithful ought to take action to preserve the liturgical traditions we find valuable. Too often we just kowtow to current litugical trends and dictates when we ought to stand up for what our conscience tells us is right and proper.

And when we went to our neighbouring parish of standers last Sunday we had a homily there about the Eastern Rite liturgy and how it had great advantages of reverence and making the sacred feel real and present whereas our litugical tradition of late has been too much "what we want" in the liturgy. Which was amazing coming from a relatively "modernist" priest in a Church where they moved the tabernacle off to a side chapel.

Down here in New Zealand they've also changed the Our Father but the Bishop allows the use of the old form (the one in the Roman Missal and Divine Office) so sometimes I pray one and sometimes the other (mostly the old). And you know what ? When the bishops conference decided to change to the new, on the basis that it was more ecumenical (although many protestants stick with the old Our Father) they found when they went back to their dioceses that the lay faithfull weren't having a bar of it. So, in the North Island of New Zealand we have the new Our Father and in the South Island we have the old. How crazy is that ? But it's a good example of how the sensus fidei works - when the lay faithful in the South Island stuck to their guns, these types of changes were sucessfully resisted.

God Bless

[Little Gidding]

Reluctant Penitent,

I am just a razor's edge away from your position. When this controversy was first reported last month, I remember Fr. Tran's "reason" for forbidding the people not to stand. It was that "Now we're resurrection people." I was so taken by the willful blindness and naivete of that statement that I have adopted it as my shorthand ironic reaction for all the variety of liturgical messes we're in. Somewhere in the comments about the latest article in the Times, I remember someone being quoted that they were forbidden to kneel because it was the same as when they went to meet a king or an important politician--that they would go up to him, remain standing and shake his hand. That, frankly, is absurd. When the trumpets sound and the mountains and hills are made low and the heavens roll off overhead, I will not be sidling up to my Lord and shaking his hand. I will be prostrated upon the trembling ground.

[Little Gidding]

Sorry: "forbidding the people to stand."

[Marion (Mael Muire)]

Chris wrote, "when the lay faithful in the South Island stuck to their guns, these types of changes were sucessfully resisted."

That's just what these bishops fear - the lay faithful successfully resisting these objectionable changes. Good for the New Zealanders who managed to prevent these disturbances taking root.

Well, I'm not a resident of Orange County. But the next time I visit there, and have to attend Holy Mass at "Saint Britney's", I'll try kneeling after Holy Communion.

[Chris Sullivan]

Marion,

It was also interesting that our local North Island Bishop (in whose diocese the new Our Father is the norm) wrote in response to an enquiry from someone in our Legion of Mary that it's OK to keep saying the old Our Father at mass. He himself does both and has explicitly allowed his diocese to do both.

I think there are parts of the mass where we all ought to do the same thing and there are parts where some variation ought to be allowed.

God Bless

[WRiley]

Now the question is will the National Catholic Reporter run a front page story on this outrage? Any takers for a side wager on the journalistic bona fides of the kingdom volk?

[McO]

For as long as I can remember, the bishops of the U.S. have argued/fought/battled the Vatican over issues large and small (the latest example being the translation of the Roman Missal). Can they really be surprised if the laity follows their example?

[anon]

I'm a hemi-demi-semi-traditinalist (with far left leanings on a few points,) and I kneel after the Lamb of God, (which puts me in a minority in my diocese,) and I would have fired the guys a***. ('Course, if I were the pope, I might fire the Bishop's a***.)

[Zippy]

If I were a liturgical "we are a resurrection people" type I might be less worried about what Christ thinks of the shenanigans - after all, we've got Him nailed up there right where we want Him - than of what all sorts of powerful created beings think of it: created beings yes, but far more terrifying than all of us put together.

"...the angel cried out in a loud voice, 'Penance, Penance, Penance!'..."

[Marion (Mael Muire)]

Now, see, Zippy, you've got me thinking . . . are you referring to the fallen angels?

Yes, they are scary to think about.

Is a bishop able to say "doing "x" during Mass is a mortal sin because I say so? "

That doesn't sound right to me.

[chris K]

In the Archdiocese of Louisville, our Arcbbishop has required the standing from the sign of peace until all have received Communion. That is his perogative per the current GIRM.

Tim, do you know if they comply at St. Martin of Tours? Somehow I just can't picture that!

Those I know who feel awkward and irreverent and even hypocritical standing after the Agnus Dei feel that way because they are standing when the Eucharist is elevated for the ecce agnus dei....where they reply "Lord I am not worthy to receive You (possibly will be the old "Lord I am not worthy that You come under my roof" soon) and yet here they are standing as if they are quite worthy and on the same level. There has to be some sign of humility at that point...just as the humility it took for the Roman officer to speak in that way to Jesus in his belief.

[Adam]

Is a bishop able to say "doing "x" during Mass is a mortal sin because I say so? "

That doesn't sound right to me.

Marion is right. Nothing will persuade me that this is correct.

[Chris Sullivan]

Is a bishop able to say "doing "x" during Mass is a mortal sin because I say so?"

No. Grave Matter in the liturgy is determined by the Vatican, not the local Bishop.

One can read the official position here :-

"Numerous inquiries" received by the BCL (Bishops Committe on the Liturgy) led Cardinal Francis George, chairman of the BCL, to submit a dubium (doubt, question) to the Holy See's Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (CDW) on May 26, 2003:

Dubium: In many places, the faithful are accustomed to kneeling or sitting in personal prayer upon returning to their places after having individually received Holy Communion during Mass. Is it the intention of the Missale Romanum, editio typica tertia, to forbid this practice?

Cardinal Francis Arinze, Prefect of the CDW, responded to the question on June 5, 2003 (Prot. N. 855/03/L):

Responsum: Negative, et ad mensum [No, for this reason]. The mens [reasoning] is that the prescription of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, no. 43, is intended, on the one hand, to ensure within broad limits a certain uniformity of posture within the congregation for the various parts of the celebration of Holy Mass, and on the other, to not regulate posture rigidly in such a way that those who wish to kneel or sit would no longer be free.

The BCL Newsletter continues: "In the implementation of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, therefore, posture should not be regulated so rigidly as to forbid individual communicants from kneeling or sitting when returning from having received Holy Communion".

Earlier, the CDW had reaffirmed kneeling after the Ecce Agnus Dei [Behold, the Lamb of God] when it amended the relevant paragraph (no. 43) of the GIRM for the universal Church by adding the following clarifying sentence:

Where it is the custom that the people remain kneeling from the end of the Sanctus until the end of the Eucharistic Prayer, and before Communion when the priest says Ecce Agnus Dei, this is laudably retained.

This sentence does not appear in the GIRM as adapted for the United States, however, since this period of kneeling is explicitly affirmed in the US version of no. 43, that is, "unless the Diocesan Bishop determines otherwise".

God Bless

[FrMichael]

Quite frankly, Bishop Brown is like a minor-league Mahoney: not quite as smart, not quite as vindictive, not quite as competent in doing evil. The most profound thing I've heard out of his mouth was at one priesthood ordination when he read verbatim from the ordination homily found in the ritual. One of the better ordination homilies I've heard.

I've met Fr. Tran before, too. My advice to the recalcitrant parishioners: leave and take your money with you. Head into Long Beach and find a decent parish (I won't name it here as I wouldn't want to "out" an orthodox parish in the Archdiocese of LA) and wait this guy out. He's not going to change.

[Surprisingly Relieved]

This whole discussion re-confirms my decision a few years ago to leave the Catholic Church. To say that this kind of power trip in the clergy is...unedifying... is to throw roses at it.

I found a wonderful small group of Christians to worship with. Many of them are refugees from this kind of thing, as I am.

May God bless you all, and may God bless the Catholic Church.

[Marion (Mael Muire)]

Lord!

In some of these West Coast dioceses, it's orthodox parishes that better keep a low-profile and watch their backs, or else the diocese will come down hard on them?

(Like, schism, dude?)

[Chris Sullivan]

According to the USCCB Committe on the Liturgy, a 2002 change to the Roman missal included a change to the wording in the earlier 2000 draft (presumably in response to concern about kneeling) :-

"Where it is the custom that the people remain kneeling from the end of the Sanctus until the end of the Eucharistic Prayer and before Communion when the priest says Ecce Agnus Dei, this is laudably retained."

Dubiums from Cardinal Jorge Arturo Medina Estévez, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments make the reasoning clear :-

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.

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.

The possibility of kneeling is backed up by the USCCB liturgy committe and by the Vatican.

God Bless

[Marion (Mael Muire)]

Thank you, Chris.

But I want to know, does the bishop or any priest for that matter have the power to require, under pain of mortal sin, that the laity cease and desist to do 'X' during Mass, even though 'X' was formerly the legitimate accepted custom throughout that very diocese, and continues as the legitimate accepted custom in other dioceses throughout the land, and in Rome, and in the Vatican, and in St. Peter's itself . . .

. . . for the one simple reason of because it's my diocese and I said so?

That's the question I have.

[Chris Sullivan]

Marion,

To test if it's a mortal sin, simply submit a dubium to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments in Rome asking if it is a mortal sin and await their decision.

But I'm not actually sure the Bishop is requiring this under pain of mortal sin.

But I don't think the bishop is doing it because it's my diocese and I said so but because he honestly thinks there is some liturgical merit in remaining standing. According to the U.S. version of the GIRM :-

The faithful kneel after the Agnus Dei unless the Diocesan Bishop determines otherwise.

So it's specifically allowed in the U.S. for the bishop to require standing.

It goes on to add the uniformity is good :-

With a view to a uniformity in gestures and postures during one and the same celebration, the faithful should follow the directions which the deacon, lay minister, or priest gives according to whatever is indicated in the Missal.

I'm told they do seem to remain standing in Rome, you know. And I'm told the reason we kneel is some sort of old Irish tradition. It's a cultural thing, you know. And we're all so respectfull of other peoples' cultural traditions.

God Bless

[reluctant penitent]

'This whole discussion re-confirms my decision a few years ago to leave the Catholic Church.'

I would leave too if I did not believe that fidelity to Christ required me to stay. The average suburban parish offers nothing beautiful, reverent, profound in its music, architecture, art, homily. Absolutely nothing. Quite the contrary. It flees from everything reverent and beautiful like a b-movie vampire from a crucifix. That may be a good thing--it forces so many to revisit daily the reasons for staying Catholic and for affirming the teachings of the Church. But it is good only accidentally. There is nothing good about the intentions of those who brought our parishes to their present sorry state.

[reluctant penitent]

Marion,

If the standing requirement is motivated by a false eucharistic theology, then it is a sin to comply with the requirement. If it is a sin to comply with the requirement, then it cannot be a sin to refuse to comply with the requirement.

Mother Angelica on Cardinal Mahony:

On Nov. 12, Mother Angelica spoke during her live broadcast about Mahony's pastoral of Oct. 10, "Gather Faithfully Together: A Guide for the Sunday Mass," which has been hailed by liturgists and bishops (NCR, Oct. 24). She said, "The cardinal of California is teaching that it is bread and wine before the Eucharist and after the Eucharist." She added, "I am afraid my obedience in that diocese would be absolutely zero. And I hope everybody else's in that diocese would be zero."

(http://www.highbeam.com/library/docfree.asp?DOCID=1G1:20067461&ctrlInfo=Round20%3AMode20b%3ADocG%3AResult&ao=)

Was Mother Angelica guilty of mortal sin for saying that she hopes that everyone's obedience in the LA archdiocese is 'zero'? On the contrary. The people who comply with Mahony's prescriptions about the liturgy are the ones jeopardising their souls.

Imagine that a pastor tells you before a mass that you should stand at such and such point in the liturgy because this posture shows that you believe that Christ is not really present in the Eucharist--that he is present only symbolically. Should you stand? By itself, standing is a neutral gesture, but in some contexts it becomes an act of heresy.

[Robert]

It's a matter of conscience verses higher law.
What does your conscience tell one to do --
isn't that the Iris Murdock philosophy of the
day?
There are some who aspire to the law of nature,
or the law of Moses, and yet others who bring
their conscience into obedience to the law of
Christ. I, personally, know of a parish in
which the priests have a large icon directly
in front of the tabernacle. However, some
people gained a piece of paper, rather than
an informed, applied Faith.

[Robert]

It's a matter of conscience verses higher law.
What does your conscience tell one to do --
isn't that the Iris Murdock philosophy of the
day?
There are some who aspire to the law of nature,
or the law of Moses, and yet others who bring
their conscience into obedience to the law of
Christ. I, personally, know of a parish in
which the priests have a large icon directly
in front of the tabernacle. However, some
people gained a piece of paper, rather than
an informed, applied Faith.

[Kate]

I agree with Surprisingly Relieved. A church where bishops and priests and people argue endlessly over standing or kneeling--and that's just one of the arguments--is just too exhausting and stressful for me. There are more than enough stresses in life already; who needs church to be just one more stress?

[MichaelT.]

Stressful Kate, Try being forced to sign a secret oath by Bishop Tod Brown, to keep secret evil actons of my cousin a priest in the diocese of Orange living with his male lover. Watching your entire family being misled and told lies about the faith by my cousin the priest and Bishop Tod Brown doing nothing to stop it! In fact encourages the behavior and false teachings. Stressful Kate, my wife and I know stressful. Bishop Tod Brown is out to destroy the Catholic Faith in the Diocese of Orange, he already accomplished it with my family. Please faithful Catholics Wake up! Read Los Angeles Lay Catholic Mission newspaper article July 2004 issue "All that Perception Stuff" by Robert Krumpel it is a brief story of what my wife and I are going through.

[MichaelT.]

Oh ! Kate by the way we will never leave Jesus Christ and his Church. We wil give up our lives to defend her. It is very sad you chose to leave The Church . Please come back and to The Sacraments.

[Charlotte Allen]

Here's a conundrum: Is it a "mortal sin" to kneel after the Agnus Dei in Orange County, Calif., if you're an out-of-town visitor? Or does the supreme penalty apply only to Orange County residents? This is a very real problem for me, as my own bishop is Theodore McCarrick of Washington, D.C., and he lets us kneel.

But my father-in-law lives in Orange County, and my husband and I occasionally attend Sunday Mass there. What kind of trouble are we in? Will I go straight to hell if I die on the way out of the church should I follow my customary Washington, D.C., practice of kneeling? What about my husband? He's not even a Catholic. Can Bishop Brown send him to hell?

And here's another question: If Fr. Tran or some other Orange County priest kicks me out of the church for kneeling after the Agnus Dei, have I fulfilled my Sunday Mass obligation? Or do I have to start all over again at another church?

[Marion (Mael Muire)]

Well, this has been an interesting discussion.

As the remarks of "Surprisingly Relieved" and Kate have suggested, it may not be healthy for one's soul to become too involved in this sort of wrangling.

I have one more reason to be thankful that I already live in a faithful diocese.

There must be Eastern rite churches in the diocese of Orange. For me, it is just a question of finding one in time for our next visit West.