Bishop wants us to stand after agnus dei?

[JC_Nixon]

Gregory24:

I attended a different church than I normally do this weekend. I nothiced that everyone reamained standing after the Agnus Dei? I call the priest and he said that’s how the Bishiop (Diocese of Orlando) wants it to be done. So are all the other churches in the area ignoring him. Why would he want us to stand? I have to churches all over the country and this has never been done. I know the bishop has the power to ask us to do this, but why do you think he wants us to stand?

Actually, I live in the Orlando Diocese and Bishop Wenski has in fact said that we are to kneel following the Agnus Dei. The former Bishop Dorsey had instituted standing after the Agnus Dei, in a spirit of community (give me a break!) but once Bishop Wenski took the helm he rescinded that edict, I expect for a number of reasons, one I am sure, due to the outcry of the people. So the priest you spoke to is wrong.

 

[muledog]

mosher:

Remeber, the universal norm is standing at this point. Please don’t put yourself above the judgment of Rome in what is proper and what is not in the Liturgy.

Remember, also, that the current “universal norm” (not the abridged version approved for use in the United States) also has this to say about posture after the Agnus Dei:
GIRM:

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.

Our bishop requires standing at this point as well, but many people ignore his decision, especially in light of the continuous custom in our parish to kneel after the Agnus Dei, since the current Roman Missal was approved in 1969.

[T]
he 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.

I think it’s very narrow-minded of bishops to implement norms which aren’t required by current legislation, yet cause great discomfort to many practicing catholics. Our bishop is well-known for this.

 

[muledog]

flamingsword:

Chalice, I hate to say it but you are wrong. The bishop does have final say over how the liturgy is to be celebrated in his diocese.

Only within the limits of his authority. These limits are defined in current canon law and liturgical law (GIRM). I can quote the pertinent articles if you wish.

 

[Anna_Elizabeth]

Only within the limits of his authority. These limits are defined in current canon law and liturgical law (GIRM). I can quote the pertinent articles if you wish.

Mike, "Would you please quote those articles for me (from both Canon Law and liturgical law). I have just joined the liturgy committeee at my parish, and would like to start off as knowledgeable as possible.

Also: Can you suggest how I might get a summary of what my own (Arch) bishop has defined in exercising these options?

Many thanks, and God bless,

Anna

 

[epr1993]

Thanks for the link FF.

I stand after communion not because I like it but because the Bishop has asked that we do so. This decision has caused disunity at the very moment when we should all be in communion. The Cardinal says that we can do either one. Half the congregation standing and the other half kneeling does not lead to “a certain uniformity of posture within the congregation”. Mind you, I don’t think that standing after the consecration is disrespectful. We stand to pray the Our Father and at the Kiss of Peace with Jesus there on the altar. Someone needs to make a command decion here. This disunity must be troubling to our Lord.

 

[flamingsword]

Only within the limits of his authority. These limits are defined in current canon law and liturgical law (GIRM). I can quote the pertinent articles if you wish.

Muledog. Canon LAw has little if anything about Liturgical law. The 1983 code is very light when it comes to this, basically if you look at canon 2 you will see. As for the GIRM it is only one of many other sources for Liturigcal law, the Bishop however is the sole authority over the liturgy in his diocese. What he says carries the weight of law unless the Vatican directs him otherwise.

Grotto, ditto to what I said here. I have nothing against kneeling. I do think that a newfound fidelity to our own bishops is required, however.

 

[muledog]

flamingsword:

Muledog. Canon LAw has little if anything about Liturgical law. The 1983 code is very light when it comes to this, basically if you look at canon 2 you will see. As for the GIRM it is only one of many other sources for Liturigcal law, the Bishop however is the sole authority over the liturgy in his diocese. What he says carries the weight of law unless the Vatican directs him otherwise.

I understand that Canon Law is pretty weak on liturgical matters. That’s not what the CIC is for.

That being said, Canon Law does state the following in relation to the bishop and the liturgy:
Canon Law:

§4. Within the limits of his competence, it pertains to the diocesan bishop in the Church entrusted to him to issue liturgical norms which bind everyone.

Redemptionis Sacramentum quotes Sacrosanctum Concilium regarding the authority to regulate the liturgy, and has this to say:
RS:

“The regulation of the Sacred Liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, which rests specifically with the Apostolic See and, according to the norms of law, with the Bishop.The Roman Pontiff, “the Vicar of Christ and the Pastor of the universal Church on earth, by virtue of his supreme office enjoys full, immediate and universal ordinary power, which he may always freely exercise”, also by means of communication with the pastors and with the members of the flock. It pertains to the Apostolic See to regulate the Sacred Liturgy of the universal Church, to publish the liturgical books and to grant the recognitio for their translation into vernacular languages, as well as to ensure that the liturgical regulations, especially those governing the celebration of the most exalted celebration of the Sacrifice of the Mass, are everywhere faithfully observed”.

RS:

It pertains to the diocesan Bishop, then, “within the limits of his competence, to set forth liturgical norms in his Diocese, by which all are bound”.

The General Instruction for the Roman Missal says this:

[T]
he priest must remember that he is the servant of the Sacred Liturgy and that **he himself is not permitted, on his own initiative, to add, to remove, or to change anything in the celebration of Mass. **In addition, certain adaptations are indicated in the proper place in the Missal and pertain respectively to the diocesan Bishop or to the Conference of Bishops, in accord with the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.

The authority for this statement comes from Sacrosanctum Concilium, which says this, in part:
SC:

Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.

In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.
Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.

Sacrosanctum Concilium also says that “there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.” I don’t see this happening in a lot of dioceses.

SC also says that:
SC:

Within the limits set by the typical editions of the liturgical books, it shall be for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to specify adaptations, especially in the case of the administration of the sacraments, the sacramentals, processions, liturgical language, sacred music, and the arts, but according to the fundamental norms laid down in this Constitution.

If you scroll down to the end of the GIRM, there is an entire section titled, “ADAPTATIONS WITHIN THE COMPETENCE OF BISHOPS AND THE BISHOPS’ CONFERENCE.”

I’ll just quote a portion of the first paragraph:
GIRM:

In order, however, to enable such a celebration to correspond all the more fully to the norms and the spirit of the Sacred Liturgy, certain further adaptations are set forth in this Instruction and in the Order of Mass and entrusted to the judgment either of the Diocesan Bishop or of the Bishops’ Conferences.

There is a great overview on the bishops’ authority to regulate the liturgy found at the USCCB website (usccb.org/liturgy/q&a/rsbishop.shtml).

 

[mosher]

EddieArent:

Please don’t put yourself above the infallibilty documents of Vatican I. Seesh. BTW, there were several contraversial “additions” to liturgies to say the least, in the past few years in Rome (and other parts of the world). Does that make it acceptable just because “Rome did it?” No!

Yes, in the words of St. Augustine “Rome has spoken, the matter is closed.”

On a side note - what document of VI are you referencing?

 

[mosher]

epr1993:

Really??? Do have a link? I’d love to see this.

adoremus.org/Kneeling-CDW-response03.html

 

[mosher]

muledog:

Remember, also, that the current “universal norm” (not the abridged version approved for use in the United States) also has this to say about posture after the Agnus Dei:

Our bishop requires standing at this point as well, but many people ignore his decision, especially in light of the continuous custom in our parish to kneel after the Agnus Dei, since the current Roman Missal was approved in 1969.

I think it’s very narrow-minded of bishops to implement norms which aren’t required by current legislation, yet cause great discomfort to many practicing catholics. Our bishop is well-known for this.

I don’t think that you understand the difference between a universal norm and a particular norm. No particular norm is required to be followed by a Bishop in his diocese unless otherwise stated in Canon Law or direct instruction by the Holy See. In the case of kneeling for the “Ecce” the universal norm is standing but the particular norm in most english speaking countries is to kneel at this point. A Local Ordinary may decide to follow the particular norm if he chooses or he may follow the universal norm. On the contrary he may not develop something on his own to supplement either the universal or particular norm.

 

[muledog]

mosher:

I don’t think that you understand the difference between a universal norm and a particular norm. No particular norm is required to be followed by a Bishop in his diocese unless otherwise stated in Canon Law or direct instruction by the Holy See. In the case of kneeling for the “Ecce” the universal norm is standing but the particular norm in most english speaking countries is to kneel at this point. A Local Ordinary may decide to follow the particular norm if he chooses or he may follow the universal norm. On the contrary he may not develop something on his own to supplement either the universal or particular norm.

If a bishop wises to deviate from a particular norm that has been approved by 2/3 of the USCCB and had received a recognitio from Rome, he must obtain an indult first.

The current GIRM was, in fact, approved by a 2/3 majority of U.S. bishops, and also received a recognitio from the Holy See. Therefore, the GIRM (and any other document approved by the same process) is binding on an individual bishop, unless he receives an indult from Rome.

A case in point is in Lincoln, Nebraska, where the bishop requested - and received - an indult from the Holy See to continue allowing communicants to kneel for the reception of the Eucharist.

As I stated before, the “universal law” also states that, in places where the custom is to kneel after the Agnus Dei, this practice “is laudably retained.”

How can mandating someone to stand at this point be a good thing, when the universal law states that kneeling “is laudably retained” where it is the custom, and that Vatican II stated that “there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them”?

I’m not saying that a bishop doesn’t have the “authority” to require standing. I’m just asking if it really is a prudent thing to do.

 

[bear06]

EddieArent:

Please don’t put yourself above the infallibilty documents of Vatican I. Seesh. BTW, there were several contraversial “additions” to liturgies to say the least, in the past few years in Rome (and other parts of the world). Does that make it acceptable just because “Rome did it?” No!

Holy smokes! You might want to read those infallible documents before you try and use them!

Pastor Aeternus:

1. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52] , and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53] . The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon[54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.

 

[gusano]

What I would like to know is;
Does one belong to God more if he stands, or if he kneels, how about if he sits, ir lays down ?

Is a person who kneels more holy than a person who stands ?
or vice-versa ?

The Important thing is
Do you belong to God ?

When did you** give yourself** to Him?

That is more important than kneeling or standing.

gusano

 

[ramblingrosey]

Sorry, I want to speak my peace, it’s a long one. Ever since my Bishop gave us the new norm in seattle of standing after the Great Amen until the last person returns from communion (or something like that), I have felt cheated of a sense of united worship. In the past and currently, I choose to frequent the parishes who’s leadership seeks to be in union with Catholic teaching (ie. where they kneel during the Eucharistic prayer). Then the stand ruling came out it seemed I had lost my refuge. The dissenters had followed me to my parish to stand in front of me as I gaze at the back of them rather than Jesus Only these weren’t dissenters, but my fellow parishoners who really felt awkward or disappointed with the new ruling, but went along out of obedience. And the sad thing is, it seems that certain people the Bishop was trying to bring closer, still don’t kneel at all. So the rest of us have given in it seems, to pacify those who have not moved an inch. I feel like an Indian in a fake treaty! So here it stands, people all around me looking restless, tired standing, distracted, confused, talking, laughing, billing and cooing with eachother. A friend put it so true, Communion now looks like people getting ready to leave a movie rather than sharing (at least in posture) communal prayer/worship. Well, the Bishop soon after had compassion on the kneeler people like me … and informed us that we can kneel if we want, like we used to. Only not many know they can kneel, or like me, don’t want to stand out as a self-righteous separatist. It feels like showing off, when I am one of few who kneel. But sometimes it hits me and I just kneel in solitary, at that sublime moment when the priest says “this is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world…” I do it not because I want to make everyone else feel like irreverent slobs, but because that is how I have been honoring Jesus since I was a child and it just feels right.

• Indian Squaw who wants treaty canceled.

 

[Melanie01]

In the Tridentine Mass the congregation kneels before during and after the Agnus Dei as a rule but I recently attended a Solemn High Mass where we stood to sing the Agnus Dei…

 

[Brendan]

James0235:

You should refer to it by it’s proper name:

The Taj Mahony!

James

I thought it was “Our Lady, Queen of Concrete” or was it “Our Lady, Hope of Inmates”

 

[Joe_Dunelm]

James0235:

You should refer to it by it’s proper name:

The Taj Mahony!

James

Hasn’t it also got an alternative name;

The Rog Mahal?

BTW We kneel here in the UK and elswhere in Europe - including St Mary Major’s and St Peter’s in Rome itself.

 

[MrS]

ramblingrosey:

Sorry, I want to speak my peace, it’s a long one. Ever since my Bishop gave us the new norm in seattle of standing after the Great Amen until the last person returns from communion (or something like that), I have felt cheated of a sense of united worship. In the past and currently, I choose to frequent the parishes who’s leadership seeks to be in union with Catholic teaching (ie. where they kneel during the Eucharistic prayer). Then the stand ruling came out it seemed I had lost my refuge. The dissenters had followed me to my parish to stand in front of me as I gaze at the back of them rather than Jesus Only these weren’t dissenters, but my fellow parishoners who really felt awkward or disappointed with the new ruling, but went along out of obedience. And the sad thing is, it seems that certain people the Bishop was trying to bring closer, still don’t kneel at all. So the rest of us have given in it seems, to pacify those who have not moved an inch. I feel like an Indian in a fake treaty! So here it stands, people all around me looking restless, tired standing, distracted, confused, talking, laughing, billing and cooing with eachother. A friend put it so true, Communion now looks like people getting ready to leave a movie rather than sharing (at least in posture) communal prayer/worship. Well, the Bishop soon after had compassion on the kneeler people like me … and informed us that we can kneel if we want, like we used to. Only not many know they can kneel, or like me, don’t want to stand out as a self-righteous separatist. It feels like showing off, when I am one of few who kneel. But sometimes it hits me and I just kneel in solitary, at that sublime moment when the priest says “this is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world…” I do it not because I want to make everyone else feel like irreverent slobs, but because that is how I have been honoring Jesus since I was a child and it just feels right.

• Indian Squaw who wants treaty canceled.

God Bless you

 

[mosher]

muledog:

If a bishop wises to deviate from a particular norm that has been approved by 2/3 of the USCCB and had received a recognitio from Rome, he must obtain an indult first.

The current GIRM was, in fact, approved by a 2/3 majority of U.S. bishops, and also received a recognitio from the Holy See. Therefore, the GIRM (and any other document approved by the same process) is binding on an individual bishop, unless he receives an indult from Rome.

A case in point is in Lincoln, Nebraska, where the bishop requested - and received - an indult from the Holy See to continue allowing communicants to kneel for the reception of the Eucharist.

As I stated before, the “universal law” also states that, in places where the custom is to kneel after the Agnus Dei, this practice “is laudably retained.”

How can mandating someone to stand at this point be a good thing, when the universal law states that kneeling “is laudably retained” where it is the custom, and that Vatican II stated that “there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them”?

I’m not saying that a bishop doesn’t have the “authority” to require standing. I’m just asking if it really is a prudent thing to do.

No I agree that it is imprudent and is usually followed by some sort of agenda.

It is not a relavent point concerning the ratification of anything by the USCCB as they have no binding jurisdiction on any particular bishop unless otherwise stipulated by law. True, if something is made “particular law” by Rome then it is binding and ot opt out would require an indult. However, I am not so certain that all of the particular norms for the USA have been given the status of particular law. I do know that the GIRM is particular law and I also know that there are some questions as to whether RS revoked even the local practices that have the force of particular law (this is being argued in the ecclesial courts now). Thus, for the liturgist it is murky water at this moment concerning particular norms or particual law (liturgical).

 

[gusano]

This thread reminds me of when I first returned to The Church.
My wife and I joined CFM, where we had a long discussion about kneeling.
The thrust of the debate was ;
"If one kneels w/ the Rt. knee, does it gain more Grace than if one kneels w/ the Lt. knee? "

I was barely struggling to read the bible when I found " …straining the gnat but swallowing the camel."

I thought it was right on the money then, as I do now.

my question is:
At what point does defiance of The Bishop crossover
from “personal piety” to become …“despise authority”
as included by St. Peter in 2 Ptr. 2: 10

and I liked what a priest in EWTN said (about one who felt denied) the priveledge of “showing reverence” or “personal piety”

The Priest said:
“Why not show up to Liturgy 10 minutes early… as an act of reverence.”

BTW, Jesus and the Disciples Reclined during the Last Supper… John 13: 23.

Aren’t you glad the Bishops have not asked us to “RECLINE” during the Agnus Dei ?

gusano