Corrupting Altar Servers?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AltarMan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
AltarMan:
You don’t seem to understand the logistics. In order to even serve, I am CERTAIN she will ask if I plan to kneel. If I say yes, I simply won’t be scheduled any longer. They’ll be no chance to ask any priest anything prior to serving. That will be the end.
Click to expand...
This means the only access to the priest-celebrant is as an altar server?

And, are you dealing with mainly one priest (it sounded like it above). If it is mainly one priest, call him and talk to him. Or, this coming week don’t get into the schedule and talk to the priest following Mass.

Also, there is the issue with the Episcopal Vicar. A Bishop who has had his resignation accepted is no longer in the picture so there is no sense talking to him or about him. Who is handling affairs for the bishops office? If you aren’t sure, certainly there is a phone number for the diocese - informational.

I still didn’t catch if the congregation stands or kneels during the consecration.
 
Maybe this will work.

Next time you are scheduled, if she asks you if you will stand during the consecration tell her yes. By all means, stand for a minute or two, but just before the priest gets to the words of Jesus, go down to your knees. Bottom line is that you stood for part of the consecration. You did not promise to stand for the entire consecration.

When you get in the sacristy, pull the priest aside prior to Mass and ask if you may contact him over something personal and that you want to keep it discrete. Or, slip him a note with your phone number on it and tell him you could really use to talk to him about a parish issue.

When you finally do get to talk to him, make sure he is aware how this issue is affecting the altar servers and how it feels to be asked prior to Mass if you will stand or kneel. Tell him what you had to do in order to serve that day so you could have access to him. Let him know that you probably lost your role in obeying the GIRM and going to your knees during consecration. And use the kind of diplomacy I spoke of in the example.

Hopefully, he is not a progressive pawn who is indifferent to all things GIRM. Hopefully, he has an ounce of compassion. If it backfires, then you may be out of a job, but you did your part to attempt to stop the sinful coersion and disobedience to the GIRM. THEN, I would send letters, co-authored by anyone else who is willing to write. I would go so far as to write The Wanderer or other publication if you don’t get any satisfaction at some point and explain how you lost your server role for refusing to stand when you are obliged to kneel. That WILL prompt attention quickly.

In fact, at some point I would take a pocket recorder with me to Mass and when she asks if you will stand during Consecration, be sure to pull it out and show it to her, then push record. Ask her if she can please repeat what she just asked that you would like to get all of this recorded so that when you send your letter to the episcopal vicar (after getting his name from the diocese), you can send it to him along with that letter.

And, ask for a copy of the letter supposedly sent by the previous, now gone, bishop claiming he wanted people to stand (if she claimed she had a letter). Tell her you want to include it in your material.

Of course, its all up to you the approach you want to take. I don’t see the use in complaining about it here on a forum without taking as many actions as necessary to get it stopped. It is plain wrong. She does not have the authority to force anyone to do something against the rubrics. In my book, that is called an abuse, especially where coersion is used.
 
Traditional Ang:
AltarMan:

I don’t know if I could tolerate that situation. I can’t believe not doing the Lavabo and standing during the Canon of the Mass! These people know that you’re an orthodox influence, and then they’re trying to alienate and separate you from the rest of the Acolytes. That way, they can contain or even negate the influence.

If the pastor tolerates and supports this, I think you and your friend need a new parish. It’s very hard to bring any sort of orthodoxy if the parish priest doesn’t support it.

I know of only one instance where a reservsal was effected, and it involved a certain parish in Northorn California which had its liturgical abuses posted on a major Website by a poster named “Traditional Anglican” and then republished here by another poster - Some 20,000 people saw the story. Because of the scandal, it got to the Archbishop who decided he’d had enough and ordered the parish to stop the abuses.

“Traditional Anglican” had been a “Guest” at the parish and didn’t have to worry about working with the offenders in the sanctuary.

If you don’t want to do that, you can look for an orthodox parish in the area or for one of the ones doing Indult masses in your area:

starharbor.com/fr_martin/masslist.html for a list

Someone needs to remind your pastor and your Bishop that their jobs are to be shepherds of souls and that they’re failing badly and letting the wolves devour whom they will. It’s hard to do that charitably, but someone has to do that.

If you decide to leave and find a new home,I think you should shake the dust from my feet as soon as I found myself a new home. Just make sure you take your friend with you - There’s no reason he should suffer through that anymore.

My prayers are with you.

In Christ, Michael
Click to expand...
Thank you for your comments and your prayers…

The very worst part of all of this is how they attacked the new altar server that I had just trained. Not only are they abusive, they are also cowards.

My only conclusion is that I will never stand during the consecration while serving at the altar. It’s just not going to happen in this context. I would stand if, for example, I had to serve Mass in a nursing home and there truly wasn’t place to kneel, but that’s not the case at my parish.

My family has made this parish their spiritual home for many, many generations and I’m not going anywhere (although I already do attend another parish into addition to this one when I am feeling spritually hungry.)

Once our new pastor is in place I am going to send him a formal report on the “state of the Mass” at my parish, along with a cover letter. I’ll give him 30 days to respond. If he dosen’t, I’ll re-send it to the Bishop with a new cover letter. If that dosen’t work I’ll send the whole she-bang to the Holy See, with a new cover letter. My best guess is that at the very least a new bishop will pick-up the phone and say “fix this” to the new pastor. That’s when the abusers will become truly desperate and combative and that’s afight I would actually relish.

While I still need to pray a great deal more on this, my perception of the people pushing the abuses is changing. At first I simply considered them to be rather ignorant, insecure and arrogant. More and more the word “evil” seems to apply and that has me even more determined to change things to comply with what the Church directs.
 
40.png
Lux_et_veritas:
This means the only access to the priest-celebrant is as an altar server?

And, are you dealing with mainly one priest (it sounded like it above). If it is mainly one priest, call him and talk to him. Or, this coming week don’t get into the schedule and talk to the priest following Mass.

Also, there is the issue with the Episcopal Vicar. A Bishop who has had his resignation accepted is no longer in the picture so there is no sense talking to him or about him. Who is handling affairs for the bishops office? If you aren’t sure, certainly there is a phone number for the diocese - informational.

I still didn’t catch if the congregation stands or kneels during the consecration.
Click to expand...
Currently we have a parochial vicar and several “journeyman” priests. While all are wonderful, not one would get involved with the politics of this issue. (Actually the PV might, but he is brand-new and young and he dosen’t need to be thrown into combat this soon – there is already enough chaos at my parish without this.)

The people in the pews all kneel, just as they should.
 
40.png
Lux_et_veritas:
Maybe this will work.

Next time you are scheduled, if she asks you if you will stand during the consecration tell her yes. By all means, stand for a minute or two, but just before the priest gets to the words of Jesus, go down to your knees…
Click to expand...
Maybe I could tell her that I have a physical disability that requires me to kneel? LOL!! Dang, I should have a lawyer telephone her with “my client’s concerns about his treatment.” I’m sure she would freak-out and that alone would be worth paying a billable hour…

But to be honest, your comment has some technical merit. I suppose I could kneel like a deacon does – beginning with the Epiclesis and not the Sanctus. That way I wouldn’t be lying about agreeing to stand – for at least part of the Eucharistic Prayer.
 
40.png
Altarman:
Once our new pastor is in place I am going to send him a formal report on the “state of the Mass” at my parish, along with a cover letter. I’ll give him 30 days to respond. If he dosen’t, I’ll re-send it to the Bishop with a new cover letter. If that dosen’t work I’ll send the whole she-bang to the Holy See, with a new cover letter. My best guess is that at the very least a new bishop will pick-up the phone and say “fix this” to the new pastor. That’s when the abusers will become truly desperate and combative and that’s afight I would actually relish.
Click to expand...
This sounds like a reasonable idea.

However, it may be more warm to give him time to settle in, then call him up and ask for a 15 minute meeting to discuss some things. Let him know how this stuff makes you feel. A letter may seem less personable for a man that will be your pastor.

I was raised in one of the most progressive parishes in Southeast Michigan. When the previous monsignor (highly progressive) was reassigned, we finally got ourselves an orthodox pastor. You would not have believed it to see it. Very quickly, like in a years time some things started to change:
  1. The crucifix - a real one was hung and i don’t mean one of those feel good crucifixes with the risen Lord on it.
  2. Statues entered the building for the first time in its 40 year existence - the old fashioned variety.
  3. The stations of the cross reappeared.
  4. Adoration became available once monthly
  5. The pastor wears a cassock around the parish, and can be seen often reading his Divine Office or doing other prayers.
  6. We got a statue of the BVM - a real one that was not some piece of modern junk-art that you need to stare at for 5 hours to determine it is the Blessed Mother. He put up a small shrine in one area to her and a beautiful stone statue is there with some benches so one could pray.
  7. The progressive-pack all left to follow the progressive monsignor to the next parish, where he was unceremoniously shown the door after trying some of his spin there. :rotfl:
  8. The church was smaller, but of those who remained, it was not as progressive. There were still elements left.
I’m sorry to say that not all liturgical abuses were fully corrected and I think the parish council bullies the pastor, who is a holy, meek, and gentle man. Some priests just don’t know how to deal with these councils.

I left that parish when I found Grotto, which is light years ahead, by appearing behind the times. The parish priest there does not allow women in the Sanctuary (fully his option). His council does not make decisions. He allows them to make recommendations, but then he makes the final call. It is not a democracy, as it is in many parishes. This is where the problems begin because people do not have the educational background to make the calls that they do.

AltarMan - I hope my 8 points give you reason to hope you will get a solid pastor. My observations are that when a parish is out of control in a progressive manner, it is not unusual to see it followed up by a more orthodox choice, especially if someone was unceremoniously removed.
 
AltarMan said:
UPDATE:

Now the woman in charge of altar servers has supposidly “contacted the bishop” (who has tendered his resignation and is a lame duck) to ensure her mandate of altar servers standing throughout the Eucharistic Prayer is followed (we currently have no pastor.)

The bishop supposidly said something like " I would prefer they stand", but only God knows how she couched the question. She likely suggested there were space issues, safety issues, old-age issues etc. (which there are not) connected with servers actually kneeling during the consecration. In all the other parishes in our deanery the servers kneel.

I have two questions.

1.) What would make someone act the way the way this woman does? Extreme insecurity? Pride? Could it be that she is actually evil? This is turning out to be an obsession with her – she can’t “lose” it seems.

2.) Should I pack it in, or try to survive until we have a new pastor (and bishop) so that I could actually complain to someone if I am directed to do something that goes again the Church’s directives?

Thank you all. This is most troublesome – for me, but especially for the young man I trained to serve at the altar.
Click to expand...

Alter Man:

In the absence of WRITTEN Permission from the Bishop, the instruction in the GIRM have to hold. Why don’t you call her bluff and as her for the letter from the Bishop where he says that the “Alter Servers” can stand during the Consecration?

I bet she doesn’t have it and that she never contacted the Bishop.

Then decide what you want to do at this stage…

If you want to stay and fight, I’d recomment contacting Karl Keating, the President of Catholic Answers, and The Rock and The World Over at EWTN. This woman is a bully, and she won’t like it when her deeds are brought to the light:

And this is the verdict, that the light came into the world, but people preferred darkness to light, because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come toward the light, so that his works might not be exposed. John 3:19-20. NAB

I can promise you that, If you embark on this, you’ll be about as popular in that parish as bubonic plague. She’ll go to every “Friend” you have in the parish and poison him against you.

Her ego’s involved in this now, and she’ll lose “face” if she loses this battle. She’ll esp. hate it when she heears her name on EWTN. But I think that’s the only way you can win going head to head against her.

I think my original advice of finding an orthodox parish for yourself and your friend and then praying for that parish is probably the best course.

I’m now involved in a situation that’s tearing apart a parish. I’ll probably have to leave in spite of the fact that I haven’t met a Bishop in the TAC (including Archbishop Hepworth) who hasn’t liked me. It’s a bad time to leave, because the whole LA Archdiocese is like your parish.

In Christ, Michael
 
I can promise you that, If you embark on this, you’ll be about as popular in that parish as bubonic plague. She’ll go to every “Friend” you have in the parish and poison him against you.
Click to expand...
And, such scenarios are so Christ-like to have to endure.

When we try to do right, the furry of hell will try to derail it. We carry all kinds of crosses in life and being persecuted for doing the right thing is one of the most difficult crosses.

Its human nature to want to be well-liked or even simply accepted. But sometimes we are tested. Will we detach ourselves from human comfort in order to try to do a larger good.

Seek comfort in Him and in Him alone.

The woman needs our prayers - that, if she has resorted to lying and ends up in detraction, if she hasn’t already, she turns from such sinfulness.
 
I took Diane’s advice and searched google for “posture during consecration.”

http://www.op.org/DomCentral/library/posture.htm
When the new Order of Mass was promulgated in 1969, the General Instruction of the Roman Missa
Click to expand...
l that accompanied it treated the posture of the congregation from the eucharistic prayer until the end of the mass as follows:

Unless other provision is made, at every Mass the people should stand . . . from the prayer over the gifts until the end of the Mass, except at the places indicated later in this paragraph . . . They should sit, . . . if this seems helpful, during the period of silence after communion. They should kneel at the consecration unless prevented by the lack of space, the number of people present, or some other good reason.

Further precision was provided by the journal Notitiae. The phrase “kneel at the consecration,” was interpreted as follows:

They also stand throughout the eucharistic prayer, except the consecration. The practice is for the faithful to remain kneeling from the epiclesis before the consecration until the memorial acclamation after it (emphasis added).

Thus, in the rubrics of the editio typica of the Roman missal the general posture throughout the major portion of the liturgy of the eucharist, including the eucharistic prayer, was standing. Three exceptions were made: the assembly was to sit during the preparation of the gifts, kneel from the first epiclesis through the anamnesis of the eucharistic prayer, and if opportune, sit after the entire congregation had received communion.

In their November, 1969 meeting the American bishops voted on the provisions of GIRM. They made one change in terms of posture during the eucharistic prayer:
. . . no. 21 of the General Instruction should be adapted so that the people kneel beginning after the singing or recitation [sic] of the Sanctus until the Amen of the eucharistic prayer, that is before the Lord’s Prayer.

Since 1969 then the rubric on kneeling during the eucharistic prayer has differed from the Roman rubric. Parochial assemblies in the United States continued in effect to do what they had been doing. These same assemblies ignored (and continue to ignore) the rubric on standing during the communion rite: most congregations kneel following the Lamb of God and continue to kneel while communion is being distributed. As with standing/kneeling during the eucharistic prayer standing/kneeling during communion speaks rather clearly of a eucharistic piety more devotional than liturgical.

The American bishops were asked to re-confirm the 1969 kneeling rubric in 1995. In the “Adaptations” a slight variation on the 1969 rubric was proposed. It reads:
Number 21 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal should be adapted so that the people should kneel beginning after the singing or recitation [sic] of the Sanctus until after the Amen of the eucharistic prayer “unless prevented by lack of space, the number of people present, or for some other good reason (GIRM, no. 21).” In these cases, the people should remain standing and bow as a sign of reverence when the priest genuflects after the words of institution for the consecration of the bread and for the consecration of the wine.

But this slight change was withdrawn.

Why did the American bishops change the Roman rubric in the first place.

There is a lot of theology about devotional vs. liturgical that is limited to typing here, due to space and forum rules. If anyone is interested, the article gives the background so we can educate ourselves regarding the differences with worship in our American culture. But folks, we are the exception, not the rule, as I now understand it.

In the next post is an excerpt from the second interesting article from google.

Carole
 
This discussions concerning AltarMan’s difficulty has not brought out the fact that we are not dealing with sinful or grave matter, only preference with devotional matter. The lack of charity evident in the labeling of a consecrated Bishop (lame duck) and the subsequent detraction calling an administrator “evil” and (whacko), tells me the focus on sinful matter is misplaced. YingYangMom offered a very good comment that one should obey lawful superiors for the present. Our own apologist, Jimmy Akin, had some good things to say below.

jimmyakin.org/2004/05/genuflecting_be.html
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 GIRM 43].

Here again we have a passage dealing with the posture of the faithful in America. The way Americans read law, it would be interpreted strictly. But that interpretation is misleading. The law has to be understood in the sense in which it is intended by Rome (which approved the law and whose interpretation of the law is definitive), and Romans do not read law the same way Americans do. Americans tend to take a much stricter interpretation of law that admits of no exceptions unless they are stated in the text itself. Vatican officials, however, often understand laws in a more permissive way that allows for unwritten exceptions.

The latter appears to be what is going on here. In the Roman Curia, and in Europe in general, they take a much more relaxed view of posture than we do. Frankly, curial officials don’t understand why Americans are such posture Nazis. In their view, the basic posture is spelled out in the law, but if some individuals choose to assume a different posture, it’s no big deal (as long as the person isn’t being disruptive of others, e.g., by doing backflips down the central aisle while going to Communion).
Click to expand...
Carole
 
Altarman you are not in the midwest are you. Not a state that starts with an I and ends with an a. I am not talking about Indiana here. The person that runs our altar servers is a pleasant older gentleman. but your indicating to me that you may be in my diocese
 
40.png
Joysong:
This discussions concerning AltarMan’s difficulty has not brought out the fact that we are not dealing with sinful or grave matter, only preference with devotional matter. The lack of charity evident in the labeling of a consecrated Bishop (lame duck) and the subsequent detraction calling an administrator “evil” and (whacko), tells me the focus on sinful matter is misplaced. YingYangMom offered a very good comment that one should obey lawful superiors for the present. Our own apologist, Jimmy Akin, had some good things to say below.

jimmyakin.org/2004/05/genuflecting_be.html

Carole
Click to expand...
Edit: On the one link found in your quote above, please note the date of the letter - 1997. This was much to early to comprehend a rubric change that took place here in the early 2000’s. I meant to warn you about this as there are things on the web going back to the early '90s when you do those searches. Always hunt for a date. If you get something written 2003 or after on liturgy (regarding abuses) it would fully comprehend not only the latest GIRM but Redemptionis Sacramentum and any letters of clarification. Also, the Jimmy Akin article refers to Genuflecting before receiving.

What I am calling sinful, is coercive use of force to get someone to comply with disobedience in regards to the GIRM. You don’t tell someone to “stand, or else” in blatant disregard of the rubrics without exercising a great deal of pride. Pride in itself is a sin and the root of many other sins. Disobedience is a sin of pride because it says, “I will do this my way no matter what the rubrics state”.

No one is bound to obey even a bishop or cardinal if the bishop’s directive is not in sync with the Holy See. Obedience is only required when the authority figure is in full communion with Rome. That is why I state that Charity doesn’t trump Obedience as so many people would have us believe. Christ angered a good many people in scripture by telling them how it was. He did not run after them to say, “lets have some dialogue” nor did he bend the rules to accomodate them or their self-esteem (relativism). He simply let the choose to walk away.

Standing during the Consecration is NOT a prefeerence by any means. This has clearly been stated in the GIRM and in followup letters from the Holy See. The Holy See does not issue letters of clarification for us to entertain doing something other than what they state. They have stated that we must kneel during Consecration unless, on occassion, a bishop dispenses this for practical reasons. In other words, for the occasional outdoor Mass he can prevent people from having to kneel in the mud. Or, for an overwhelming crowd which has caused limited space due to volume. These are examples of occasional, not regular.

I do not feel that particular article pertains to this issue. He may be referring to Oran’s posture, or genuflecting prior to communion, which fits the article well. However, I believe Jimmy Akin would agree that it is very wrong for any person, attempting to use force by means of threatening a person’s future as an altar server, in an effort to get them to stand - an act that clearly defies the GIRM and followup letters from the Holy See on the issue.

I do agree with you, however, about the use of names such as “lame duck” and other similar words. This woman deserves our prayers.

If someone has taught the woman that the GIRM is only a guideline and she innocently believes this (because of the authority the person had who taught her this), then her desire to apply the standing rule is likely venial. But, in using intimidating, threatening practices to force compliance on what she may believe to be a “preferential” issue, in my book, sure borders on a sinful application of pride.
 
Carole, be sure to see my edit above if we are online the same time again :). I have a habit of editing quite a bit after posting. Check the body of the letter again, if your timestamp is close to mine.
 
40.png
Joysong:
I took Diane’s advice and searched google for “posture during consecration.”

http://www.op.org/DomCentral/library/posture.htm

There is a lot of theology about devotional vs. liturgical that is limited to typing here, due to space and forum rules. If anyone is interested, the article gives the background so we can educate ourselves regarding the differences with worship in our American culture. But folks, we are the exception, not the rule, as I now understand it.

In the next post is an excerpt from the second interesting article from google.

Carole
Click to expand...
Just to be clear, this is the article from 1997. I have fallen into this same trap. More often than not, dates are found at the bottom of any web page.
 
The problem I believe is that we only hear one side of the story, and have no proof of what the Bishop actually said, nor his reasons for it. And naturally, it will contain personal bias, if human nature is still alive and well. http://forum.catholic.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif Many who read the poster’s interpretation jumps in and continues the division in the church by believing severe abuse exists — yet again. :crying:

You wrote (in blue type, throughout this post):
On the one link found in your quote above, please note the date of the letter - 1997. This was much too early to comprehend a rubric change that took place here in the early 2000’s.
No matter the date … we need to look at the theology, which still stands. Did you read the *liturgical *background for the different Eucharistic prayers? It was clear to me that Rome permitted us to kneel rather than stand as a concession to US Bishops. In their view, it is a liturgical posture; whereas, our Bishops contended that Americans are a culture which focuses on devotional preferences.

Also, the Jimmy Akin article refers to Genuflecting before receiving.
Primarily, yes, but it also alluded to our topic.

What I am calling sinful, is coercive use of force to get someone to comply with disobedience in regards to the GIRM. You don’t tell someone to “stand, or else” in blatant disregard of the rubrics without exercising a great deal of pride.

You are attributing sin and pride to her motives without knowing her intent. If I read Jimmy’s words, “With a view to a uniformity in gestures and postures during one and the same celebration,” it suggests to me that lack of uniformity on the altar (one standing, one kneeling) gives evidence to the community of underlying conflict and is a bad witness. This could have been her motive, and it could also have been pride. Who really knows?

IMO, until this is resolved with clear instruction from someone who knows the Bishop’s reasons, or from someone higher than the Bishop, it is not sinful matter to obey and stop the divisiveness from continuing. There is no sin, especially due to the theology being practiced elsewhere in the world, rather than with the adaptations permitted in our US version of the GIRM. Are all these people committing sin because they stand? Certainly not.

No one is bound to obey even a bishop or cardinal if the bishop’s directive is not in sync with the Holy See. Obedience is only required when the authority figure is in full communion with Rome.
And who says this Bishop is not in communion with Rome? We have only one side of the story, and it contains personal bias.

Bottom line, I believe the mind of the Church abhors division. St. Paul was firm in his instruction to Timothy: (Ch. 5:17-19) Let the presbyters who rule be held worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and in teaching. Do not listen to an accusation against a presbyter unless it is supported by two or three witnesses.

Carole
 
40.png
paramedicgirl:
To me, there is a simple solution on how to remain on the list. Just tell her you are unavailable to serve for a while, and coincide that date with the arrival of the new pastor. Then take Lux_et_veritas advice and speak to the priest in the manner she outlined:
Father, may I talk to you for a moment? I cannot in good conscience, follow a directive given to me by Mrs. Pridefully Disobedient, whom I’m sure intends well, but may be misinformed. She is ordering the altar servers to stand during the Consecration, when we are very capable of kneeling and there is plenty of space to kneel. She claims to have permission from bishop so-and-so, but my understanding of the GIRM is that permission is only granted on an occassional basis. I would like to kneel with the congregation out of respect for the Eucharst and in obedience to the GIRM. Will you please help clear up this issue between the altar servers and Mrs. Pridefully Disobedient".
Click to expand...
I think this is good advice. I would add one little comment. I think that division is the root of so many problems. Sometimes the bigger picture is served if us small fry would show respect and submit to appropriate authority, especially when we are trying to advocate proper change within the GIRM. When changes are made, we have been a witness to those who advocated the old way. From this, unity is more possible and that is IMHO the big picture goal of all of us, including Christ.
 
40.png
Joysong:
The problem I believe is that we only hear one
Click to expand...
side of the story, and have no proof of what the Bishop actually said, nor his reasons for it.

All the more reason to obey the GIRM.
And naturally, it will contain personal bias, if human nature is still alive and well. http://forum.catholic.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif
Click to expand...
Many who read the poster’s interpretation jumps in and continues the division in the church by believing severe abuse exists — yet again. :crying:

Bottom line, I believe the mind of the Church abhors division. St. Paul was firm in his instruction to Timothy: (Ch. 5:17-19) Let the presbyters who rule be held worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and in teaching. Do not listen to an accusation against a presbyter unless it is supported by two or three witnesses.

If we use your logic, then there should be no discussions taking place in any forums because of the fact that we have no proof of what anyone is saying. In fact, I have no proof that Altar Man is even a real person sitting beind the computer. The reality is that all of these things are being looked at on a “case” basis. The poster has not revealed the name of the woman, the parish, nor the state - which I respect so there cannot be calumny nor detraction taking place in these discussions. Rather, the poster is using this as a means to “think out loud” and consider his options, and quite frankly, to vent, which I do not blame him.

Maybeno one should talk about stuff like this to expose it:

thewandererpress.com/c11-18-2004.htm

There is a common misconception that if a topic causes some people to get upset, then we shouldn’t discuss it because it is not charitable in some way (by virute of bring out the discourse) and causes division. In reality, the division is already there, it is simply being brought into the spotlight. When any person, not necessarily this “woman” who may not even exist, chooses to blatantly disregard the GIRM and subsequent letters, then it is not the Altar Servers who cause the division. I’m looking at this from a “what if” scenario and talking about someone without giving away identity and so is everyone else . Calumny and detraction would require revealing identity.

You are attributing sin and pride to her motives without knowing her intent. If I read Jimmy’s words, “With a view to a uniformity in gestures and postures during one and the same celebration,” it suggests to me that lack of uniformity on the altar (one standing, one kneeling) gives evidence to the community of underlying conflict and is a bad witness. This could have been her motive, and it could also have been pride. Who really knows?

Uniformity? Yes, lets talk uniformity. The GIRM is written to aid with uniformity. In this case it prescribes kneeling for those capable and on a regular basis, with “occasions” being the exception as determined by a bishop on a case by case basis. When any person, even aside from this case, but in a ficticious case for talking purposes, circumvents the GIRM and directs the altar servers to stand, who is breaking with uniformity? In this parish, you’ll note the poster states the people kneel as required during the consecration. Such a person (not talking about this woman now, just our ficticious individual) is the cause of the lack of uniformity and you would support the altar servers remaining uniform against the uniformity of the congregation and in violation of the GIRM?

Please wait until I make my second post, which is a continuation of this post. I could not paste your words and comment without breaking it up.
 
Continued from my post above…

I’m sorry, but that is one of the weakest excuses that is emplioyed today on the part of those who would like to do, as Cardinal Arinze says in this document just released about a week or so ago. Notice that he uses the word “problems” as opposed to “abuses”. His comment is not limited to that which invalidates the Mass.

“So there are problems. However, some of the problems were not caused by Vatican II, but they were caused by children of the Church after Vatican II. Some of them talking of Vatican II push their own agenda. We have to watch that. People pushing their own agenda, justifying it as the 'spirit of Vatican II.’”

The Vatican prefect continued: "So, if only people would be more faithful to what has been laid down, not by people who just like to make laws for other people, but what follows from what we believe. ‘Lex orandi, Lex credendi.’ It is our faith that directs our prayer life, and if we genuflect in front of the tabernacle it is because we believe that Jesus is there, and is God."
Lux_et_Veritas: Also, the Jimmy Akin article refers to Genuflecting before receiving.
Click to expand...
Joysong: Primarily, yes, but it also alluded to our topic.

Oh, he brings it up. So, Jimmy Akin now has the right to say that the Holy See does not mean what it says when it tell us to kneel during the consecration.

I’m sorry, but I do not agree that one can take liberties with this posture in light of the Holy See’s followups.

Here is a “proposed adaption” submitted by American Bishops:

Eucharistic Prayer
The people kneel beginning after the singing or recitation of the Sanctus until the Amen of the Eucharistic Prayer except when prevented by reasons of health, lack of space, the number of people present, or some other good reason as specified by the diocesan bishop.

Here is the final version approved by the Holy See and currently in the GIRM. Keep in mind, the USCCB may not make changes without approval from the Holy See, but the Holy See does not need approval from the USCCB to make changes. Note what I have underlined below.

“In the dioceses of the United States of America, [the faithful] 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” (43).

One final comment on the scriptural reference above. We cannot look at scripture in isolation. To “sola scriptura” approach, without consideration of the GIRM and other directives from the See of Peter just doesn’t work.
 
Dear Diane,
If we use your logic, then there should be no discussions taking place in any forums because of the fact that we have no proof of what anyone is saying.
Click to expand...
Did I write that? Or did you assume this is my feeling …http://forum.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/ehh.gif

Maybe I was not too explicit, so I’ll try to reword my meaning. I believe that we need to uphold the directions which come from the Bishop until we know clearly that they are in violation of our conscience and are sinful matter. In this case, since there is a prescription allowing the Bishop to dispense with the norm of kneeling, we have no right to challenge his decision and advise the person to go against it, as the poster has instructed his new server. And, as some of are doing here with their advice. It promotes division.

There is no problem with asking advice on the forum that I can see, provided we use respectful terms in speaking about God’s ministers.

As for the uniformity issue, I would prefer to see that both kneel, or both stand, but in this matter, it depicts an underlying problem to the congregation, when everyone does what seems best, and that may be the reason the woman was insistent on it. The poster did not give evidence of her explanation, only his personal reaction.

I agree with Orion’s post advising submission to authority, while simultaneously attempting to bring about change, especially when it is not grave matter or a sin to submit. There is no matter of sin in this incidence, and to suggest that one sins by “disobeying” GIRM directives, which have specified leaways, without knowing the Bishop’s reasons for them, is divisive, IMO.

I have not read your Wanderer article, since I have the feeling it contains some shock and awe similar to the link containing clowns.

Diane, this is not my idea of constructive dialog, and I think I have posted enough links for interested persons to explore the theology of the practice. In fact there are ten pages of google links, if anyone really wants to learn. I am typing this before reading your next post, so if I do not respond, it is because I do not believe I can add anything further to what I already posted.

Carole
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top