Corrupting Altar Servers?

[Orionthehunter]

Sometimes what is said is over-shadowed by how it is said. Casting aspersions on another person’s motives for misrepresenting Church teachings potentially encroaches on “bearing false witness” and is a grave matter. I’m especially concerned w/ a characterization that one is evil. Somebody can be wrong via poor catechesis or even a manifistation of their personal views grounded in stubbornness (a consequence of the sin Pride) but evil is a very serious charge and requires intimate knowledge of the person’s heart.

Secondly, I don’t condone poor catechesis or poor adherence to the GIRM. However, sometimes change is more likely to be accomplished w/ honey and not vinegar. If Altar Man is correct (and I believe he is), with proper catechesis and using honey, it is likely that he can prevail. But by approaching it w/ vinegar or abstaining from being involved, he has virtually no chance of prevailing.

Third, I’m always struck by the irony of those criticizing people for not submitting to authority proposing the solution is not submitting to authority.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

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.

Carole, where is permission give for a bishop to altar the posture on a regular basis. What I posted above clearly shows that the Holy See wanted standing to be an exception.

However, I do note that you may not have gotten to it just yet.

I’m sorry if I misunderstood your position on discussing the issue.

My position is that we cannot simply ignore discussion of topics on the basis that “it causes division”.

For talking purposes, lets assume different parish and that a man is attempting to force altar servers to stand during the consecration when the GIRM calls for kneeling. Lets also assume in this ficticious parish that there is no pastor, but visiting priests.

Once again, for talking purposes, the man heading up the altar servers can’t simply tell them that from here on out they will stand during consecration on the basis that the “Bishop said” that it was “ok”. It could not be clearer that the Holy See reserves deviations from the norm for “occasional” times.

For some reason, I can’t seem to get any acknowledgment on the “occasional” versus “regular basis” here.

Would it not be better for this “man” in this fictional “parish” to err on the side of compliance, especially if the altar servers feel so strongly about it? Would it not be more prudent, more charitable to all involved, and likely more respectful and obedient to the rubrics?

But, the point is that a single person wants to modify the show to suit their liking. If there is adequate room to kneel and if all congregants are kneeling, and if all are healthy to kneel, and there is nothing in the sanctuary prohibitive to kneeling, then what possible reasons could anyone in charge of altar servers have to force this issue, if not personal pride?

This was not a directive coming from the bishop. It was a person supposedly asking a bishop if it was ok, then supposedly he gave a general blanket thumbs up, unconditionally, for an unspecified amount of time. He does not have the liberty to do this based on the word “occasion”. So, it causes serious doubt as to the credibility of the notion that anyone got such blanket, indefinite permission.

Remember, I’m not necessarily talking about the woman, I’m using an example. Assuming that that all that I say in the preceding paragraph is true about the environment and health of the servers, then this whole activity is just one more example of someone spinning the rubrics in the name of the “spirit of V2” as Cardinal Arinze says needs to stop.

It gets stopped when people stop tolerating it and reporting it.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Lux_et_veritas:

Carole, where is permission give for a bishop to altar the posture on a regular basis. What I posted above clearly shows that the Holy See wanted standing to be an exception.

However, I do note that you may not have gotten to it just yet.

I’m sorry if I misunderstood your position on discussing the issue.

My position is that we cannot simply ignore discussion of topics on the basis that “it causes division”.

For talking purposes, lets assume different parish and that a man is attempting to force altar servers to stand during the consecration when the GIRM calls for kneeling. Lets also assume in this ficticious parish that there is no pastor, but visiting priests.

Once again, for talking purposes, the man heading up the altar servers can’t simply tell them that from here on out they will stand during consecration on the basis that the “Bishop said” that it was “ok”. It could not be clearer that the Holy See reserves deviations from the norm for “occasional” times.

For some reason, I can’t seem to get any acknowledgment on the “occasional” versus “regular basis” here.

Would it not be better for this “man” in this fictional “parish” to err on the side of compliance, especially if the altar servers feel so strongly about it? Would it not be more prudent, more charitable to all involved, and likely more respectful and obedient to the rubrics?

But, the point is that a single person wants to modify the show to suit their liking. If there is adequate room to kneel and if all congregants are kneeling, and if all are healthy to kneel, and there is nothing in the sanctuary prohibitive to kneeling, then what possible reasons could anyone in charge of altar servers have to force this issue, if not personal pride?

This was not a directive coming from the bishop. It was a person supposedly asking a bishop if it was ok, then supposedly he gave a general blanket thumbs up, unconditionally, for an unspecified amount of time. He does not have the liberty to do this based on the word “occasion”. So, it causes serious doubt as to the credibility of the notion that anyone got such blanket, indefinite permission.

Remember, I’m not necessarily talking about the woman, I’m using an example. Assuming that that all that I say in the preceding paragraph is true about the environment and health of the servers, then this whole activity is just one more example of someone spinning the rubrics in the name of the “spirit of V2” as Cardinal Arinze says needs to stop.

It gets stopped when people stop tolerating it and reporting it.

This is basically an addendum to my post immediately prior to Lux’s post.

It appears to me that this person believe she has rec’d proper and legitimate instruction from the Bishop. Even in being incorrect, it is positive that she is advocating conformance to this instruction. Part of our current problem is that people are quick to defy authority when they personally have a different interpretation.

She might have unintentionally miscommunicated the situation to the Bishop, he misunderstood the subject and thus innocently there is a faulty instruction. Even in this case, I don’t believe that answer is a defiant disobedience of this person in authority.

For the sake of brevity, I refer you know to my previous post.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Orionthehunter:

Sometimes what is said is over-shadowed by how it is said. Casting aspersions on another person’s motives for misrepresenting Church teachings potentially encroaches on “bearing false witness” and is a grave matter. I’m especially concerned w/ a characterization that one is evil. Somebody can be wrong via poor catechesis or even a manifistation of their personal views grounded in stubbornness (a consequence of the sin Pride) but evil is a very serious charge and requires intimate knowledge of the person’s heart.

It has potential to be rooted in evil, if the actions are not prompted by goodness. That is why I suggest it be approached that the woman is well-intended because it gives her that benefit of the doubt. Where i truly have a problem with this scenario is the secondary action of using coercion to force compliance to a clear non-compliance. I say this because even the bishop cannot give broad sweeping permission for the altar servers to stand indefinitely. The vatican did not add the word “occasional” to mean blanket dispensation from kneeling at the bishop’s whims. Now, if the church floor were made of ice, for example, it might make sense because kneeling for them could cause harm in the form of arthritis. I take it there is no situation like this in this parish.

Secondly, I don’t condone poor catechesis or poor adherence to the GIRM. However, sometimes change is more likely to be accomplished w/ honey and not vinegar. If Altar Man is correct (and I believe he is), with proper catechesis and using honey, it is likely that he can prevail. But by approaching it w/ vinegar or abstaining from being involved, he has virtually no chance of prevailing.

Agreed here too. This thread itself was confrontational from the get-go (and I don’t mean what occured between myself and altar man). I mean, the tone is rough and if this is the approach used in trying to resolve it, then it will cause defenses to go up.

It’s truly an art form to be able to maintain one’s cool on an emotional issue. It is actually more of a virtue and prudent. It takes prayer, much prayer.

Third, I’m always struck by the irony of those criticizing people for not submitting to authority proposing the solution is not submitting to authority.

That gets me every time. But do you mean not submitting to the authority of the Holy See through the GIRM or to a layperson covering the altar servers? Or, to a Bishop to whom we truly don’t know was ever really contacted?

A person needs to obey on matters of faith and morals. Liturgical norms are a part of that faith. Obeying a person out of some kind of charity to keep peace when it is clearly against the rubrics to stand during consecration for an indefinite period of time, in a sanctuary that lends itself well to kneeling, and the health of the servers is well enough to kneel (and they are asking to be left to kneel with the congregation).

There is a broad attempt on the part of the progressive end of the church to eliminate reverent gestures. This whole issue is an extension of that and it is this that makes me angry about the affair. It’s bad enough that reverent people have to fear genuflecting before the tabernacle in some parishes, but we don’t need lay people, or priests, forcing altar servers to abandon a sign of reverence as prescribed. What purpose does it serve?

The rubrics do not give parish lay leaders permission to change this norm. Only the bishop has the authority to do that, and I’ll reiterate again that based on the fact that this is not an occasional thing, it is highly unlikely that the Bishop gave this blanket permission unless it was misrepresented to him. I trust what altar man is saying about the conditions of the church and servers, fully eliminating any possible reason for the indefinite exception to the norm.

 

[Orionthehunter]

This is the portion of the post causing Lux to laugh:

I’m always struck by the irony of those criticizing people for not submitting to authority proposing the solution is not submitting to authority.

That gets me every time. But do you mean not submitting to the authority of the Holy See through the GIRM or to a layperson covering the altar servers? Or, to a Bishop to whom we truly don’t know was ever really contacted?

A person needs to obey on matters of faith and morals. Liturgical norms are a part of that faith. Obeying a person out of some kind of charity to keep peace when it is clearly against the rubrics to stand during consecration for an indefinite period of time, in a sanctuary that lends itself well to kneeling, and the health of the servers is well enough to kneel (and they are asking to be left to kneel with the congregation).

There is a broad attempt on the part of the progressive end of the church to eliminate reverent gestures. This whole issue is an extension of that and it is this that makes me angry about the affair. It’s bad enough that reverent people have to fear genuflecting before the tabernacle in some parishes, but we don’t need lay people, or priests, forcing altar servers to abandon a sign of reverence as prescribed. What purpose does it serve?

The rubrics do not give parish lay leaders permission to change this norm. Only the bishop has the authority to do that, and I’ll reiterate again that based on the fact that this is not an occasional thing, it is highly unlikely that the Bishop gave this blanket permission unless it was misrepresented to him. I trust what altar man is saying about the conditions of the church and servers, fully eliminating any possible reason for the indefinite exception to the norm.
[/quote]

I was taught to respect my elders and always respect those in authority in the Church. I still adhere to that “lesson” and don’t believe that it is proper to defy authority (except in extreme grave matters) with an in-the-face attitude.

The GIRM and so many matters in the Church are complex and sometimes confusing to anyone who isn’t an expert. That is why we are called to submit and obey those in authority. The “offending party” believes she is protecting a legitimate instruction.

Let me repeat myself. I don’t condone intentional or unintentional violations of the GIRM or other Church Teaching. However, effecting change is difficult (if it was easy, it would be done). It is all in attitude and approach. Personally, I see that an approach that begins w/ “defiance” (as opposed to catechesis and “honey”) as the vehicle as part of the problem and absolutely bound to fail. I don’t think this is what Alter Man desires.

 

[AltarMan]

Traditional Ang:

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 too doubt that she contacted the bishop. If she did it was a hallway buttonhole meeting where she gave him some sort of song-and-dance like suggesting there is a “safety issue” with kneeling here locally and he said “ok, stand.”

This will never make it to EWTN/CA

Her ego is most certainly involved and he HAS last face, hence here “meeting with the bishop.” If she keeps this up, she’ll turn into a sad joke.

I’m not leaving.

I’m not in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles (thanks be to God)

 

[AltarMan]

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

This thread has been remarkably civil. Please don’t muck rake.

Lame Duck is a political term given to someone in office whose timely replacement is immanent. It’s not a disparaging term and it does accurately describe my bishop.

This woman IS (using my best Andy Sipowicz voice) an evil whack-job. Or at least she acts as if she is.

As someone else pointed out, no one has given me any proof that the bishop gave any direction whatsoever in this matter.

So go ahead and deal with your own problems, but please don’t pollute this thread. Thanks in advance.

 

[AltarMan]

Joysong:

You are attributing sin and pride to her motives without knowing her intent. If I read Jimmy’s words, 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?

The above made my skin crawl even to read it, but it’s percisely her reasoning. That is, she feels she can ignore a clear directive from the Church (in this case GIRM #43) because she feels there is a “lack of unity” when servers kneel.

That’s the epitome of arrogance coupled with profound ignorance – discount what the Church clearly specifies in favor of one’s own personal beliefs. This very sort of reasoning has taken a heavy toll on the Mass and therefore the Church – at least in the USA.

I am certain this woman is living in a world where she believes the “pew-sitters” should only speak when spoken to, and that we don’t have the God-given grace, resources and intellect to understand when someone is trying to contravene what the Church instructs.

I gotta go wash my hands. You hit the sleaze right on the head.

 

[Joysong]

Hello, Orion,

The GIRM and so many matters in the Church are complex and sometimes confusing to anyone who isn’t an expert. That is why we are called to submit and obey those in authority.

I admire your approach, that when a lay person is in doubt, we look to those in authority to help us to understand. What is so dangerous to unity is that many lay persons are able to get hold of the GIRM document on an internet website, and run with copy in hand and a spirit of indignation, to set all abusers right.

If all a priest had to learn in the seminary was how to read the GIRM, their training would be over in a day or so. But they get the theology, background, letters and documents that support the decisions, and a whole lot more that we internet readers do not see.

Here is another iffy example. Suppose a person like me did the background reading to learn that Rome prefers standing — and I grasped the theology of liturgical posture with regard to the various Eucharistic Prayers, supporting why it is preferred to kneeling. Suppose further, that I would prefer to align my obedience with Rome and the more universal practice throughout the Church than the one adopted by my own country.

In my logical super-spirituality, I would override the USA’s GIRM and disobey, rightfully, since I have a higher authority than the local one. So I set about to teach others that they must not kneel, but stand. In AltarMan’s parish, if the parish leader was forcing me to kneel, I would disobey and stand, because my way was more perfect, and I could cite the Holy See’s theology as my rationale.

Wouldn’t that be a righteous dissent that obscures and fractures unity? Is there nothing at all we can learn from Jesus when He admonished the pharisees for their constant obsession with the letter of the law, rather than the heart of charity? I think this was one of His most painful sufferings, and one that He seemed powerless to stop. I’m thinking about how upset the pharisees were that Jesus and his disciples did not wash their hands according to the law. Really? Was this a matter of sin?

I spoke earlier about a parish in Florida that has no kneelers, and is on a concrete floor with chairs for seating. The people stand for the Eucharistic Prayer. Can I possibly believe well of that diocese, that perhaps their catechesis has been updated to come in line with Rome? That there are reasons for it which are not attempts to disobey rules? Or perhaps the parish has grown so large that, rather than build a new church, they removed pews and kneelers to accomodate seating for the huge influx of people?

I can hear the GIRM proponents clicking their tongues, that these older people should kneel on the floor, disrupting the chairs, doing their penance – after all, they are not showing reverence. Nonsense. Reverence is an interior disposition and can be expressed beautifully in a way that others, who have eyes to see, can quickly observe.

Some might believe of me that I promote disobedience to the GIRM, whereas I promote a heart of charity that is not fixated on the letter of the law in opposition to its spirit. I uphold AltarMan’s beautiful ministry to his servers, and I support his right to comply with regulations, but I disagree somewhat with the approach to remedy it. I believe he has received some wise advice to reach a peaceful conclusion.

Carole

 

[AltarMan]

In reality, this sorta garbage won’t continue under our new bishop and pastor. I think people like this woman are beginning to understand this.

Our next bishop will likely be a product of a far a more orthodox formation, gained during a far less septic time in history. He also won’t have “legacy issues” with delicts/abuses that he has allowed for years and years.

Pragmatically I should be focused right now on "living to fight another day (as a server.) Once the new pastor and bishop are in place I think I can do a decent job of communicating my concerns – along with others I’m sure.

A day of reckoning is coming for those who push liturgical delicts/abuses in my diocese and I realize I need to do everything I can (beginning with prayer) to accelerate this process and to ensure it’s as thurough as possible.

 

[AltarMan]

Joysong:

Hello, Orion,

I admire your approach, that when a lay person is in doubt, we look to those in authority to help us to understand. What is so dangerous to unity is that many lay persons are able to get hold of the GIRM document on an internet website, and run with copy in hand and a spirit of indignation, to set all abusers right.

If all a priest had to learn in the seminary was how to read the GIRM, their training would be over in a day or so. But they get the theology, background, letters and documents that support the decisions, and a whole lot more that we internet readers do not see.

Here is another iffy example. Suppose a person like me did the background reading to learn that Rome prefers standing — and I grasped the theology of liturgical posture with regard to the various Eucharistic Prayers, supporting why it is preferred to kneeling. Suppose further, that I would prefer to align my obedience with Rome and the more universal practice throughout the Church than the one adopted by my own country.

In my logical super-spirituality, I would override the USA’s GIRM and disobey, rightfully, since I have a higher authority than the local one. So I set about to teach others that they must not kneel, but stand. In AltarMan’s parish, if the parish leader was forcing me to kneel, I would disobey and stand, because my way was more perfect, and I could cite the Holy See’s theology as my rationale.

Wouldn’t that be a righteous dissent that obscures and fractures unity? Is there nothing at all we can learn from Jesus when He admonished the pharisees for their constant obsession with the letter of the law, rather than the heart of charity? I think this was one of His most painful sufferings, and one that He seemed powerless to stop. I’m thinking about how upset the pharisees were that Jesus and his disciples did not wash their hands according to the law. Really? Was this a matter of sin?

I spoke earlier about a parish in Florida that has no kneelers, and is on a concrete floor with chairs for seating. The people stand for the Eucharistic Prayer. Can I possibly believe well of that diocese, that perhaps their catechesis has been updated to come in line with Rome? That there are reasons for it which are not attempts to disobey rules? Or perhaps the parish has grown so large that, rather than build a new church, they removed pews and kneelers to accomodate seating for the huge influx of people?

I can hear the GIRM proponents clicking their tongues, that these older people should kneel on the floor, disrupting the chairs, doing their penance – after all, they are not showing reverence. Nonsense. Reverence is an interior disposition and can be expressed beautifully in a way that others, who have eyes to see, can quickly observe.

Some might believe of me that I promote disobedience to the GIRM, whereas I promote a heart of charity that is not fixated on the letter of the law in opposition to its spirit. I uphold AltarMan’s beautiful ministry to his servers, and I support his right to comply with regulations, but I disagree somewhat with the approach to remedy it. I believe he has received some wise advice to reach a peaceful conclusion.

Carole

My apologies, but that’s nothing but a huge song-and-dance. Catholics are bone-tired of this sort of thing from individuals who are supposed to be our spritual shepards.

The best example I can cite is the fractioning of the Precious Blood into chalices following the consecration.

The Holy See was extremely clear that this practice was to cease in the instruction given in RS. Instead of pius compliance the directive was met with sleazy legalize and manuvering by the US Bishops. That’s the last thing we expect (or want) from our leaders.

As a body, the US Bishop’s practical authority and influence is all but exhausted.

 

[Orionthehunter]

AltarMan:

The above made my skin crawl even to read it, but it’s percisely her reasoning. That is, she feels she can ignore a clear directive from the Church (in this case GIRM #43) because she feels there is a “lack of unity” when servers kneel.

That’s the epitome of arrogance coupled with profound ignorance – discount what the Church clearly specifies in favor of one’s own personal beliefs. This very sort of reasoning has taken a heavy toll on the Mass and therefore the Church – at least in the USA.

I am certain this woman is living in a world where she believes the “pew-sitters” should only speak when spoken to, and that we don’t have the God-given grace, resources and intellect to understand when someone is trying to contravene what the Church instructs.

I gotta go wash my hands. You hit the sleaze right on the head.

Sometimes what is said is over-shadowed by how it is said. Casting aspersions on another person’s motives for misrepresenting Church teachings potentially encroaches on “bearing false witness” and is a grave matter. I’m especially concerned w/ a characterization that one is evil or sleaze. Somebody can be wrong via poor catechesis or even a manifistation of their personal views grounded in stubbornness (a consequence of the sin Pride) but evil is a very serious charge and requires intimate knowledge of the person’s heart.

 

[netmilsmom]

AltarMan:

A day of reckoning is coming for those who push liturgical delicts/abuses in my diocese and I realize I need to do everything I can (beginning with prayer) to accelerate this process and to ensure it’s as thurough as possible.

I pray to St. Monica for intercession on behalf of those I left behind at my old “Catholic Community”.

So far, they have not changed their minds about the innovations and are still bleeding parishioners. Pity.

 

[Joysong]

Dear AltarMan,

The best example I can cite is the fractioning of the Precious Blood into chalices following the consecration.

You are confusing a* real* abuse, if I understand it as such (not knowing how you mean it), with one that is simply a matter of posture, and not intrinsically sinful or grave matter.

The Holy See was extremely clear that this practice was to cease in the instruction given in RS. Instead of pius compliance the directive was met with sleazy legalize and manuvering by the US Bishops. That’s the last thing we expect (or want) from our leaders.

As a body, the US Bishop’s practical authority and influence is all but exhausted.

Really? I see that my previous words concerning respect towards God’s ministers have born no fruit. Good day, AltarMan.

Carole

 

[AltarMan]

Orionthehunter:

Sometimes what is said is over-shadowed by how it is said. Casting aspersions on another person’s motives for misrepresenting Church teachings potentially encroaches on “bearing false witness” and is a grave matter. I’m especially concerned w/ a characterization that one is evil or sleaze. Somebody can be wrong via poor catechesis or even a manifistation of their personal views grounded in stubbornness (a consequence of the sin Pride) but evil is a very serious charge and requires intimate knowledge of the person’s heart.

Discounting what the Church clearly instructs is also a grave matter. What would cause someone to do this? Certainly abject ignorance but I don’t believe that’s the reason in this case. If her position is indeed a product of poor catechesis, that should no longer be an issue because myself and others have provided the germaine documentation to her at this point.

That leaves “personal views grounded in stubbornness (a consequence of the sin Pride)” as you suggest. “Sleazy” is defined as “dishonest or corrupt; disreputable.” I would submit that a “personal views grounded in stubbornness” may indeed be considered “sleazy.”

Furthermore, “evil” can be defined as “causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful.” Again I would submit that a “personal views grounded in stubbornness” may indeed be considered “evil.”

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Orionthehunter:

I was taught to respect my elders and always respect those in authority in the Church. I still adhere to that “lesson” and don’t believe that it is proper to defy authority (except in extreme grave matters) with an in-the-face attitude.

That is a really good approach when one is in a religious order and has taken a vow of obedience. Even in those cases, we are not obliged to obey if, in our conscience, and I take in the case of Altar Man’s conscience, something is being violated is being violated. Only altar man can tell us if standing, in contradiction to the GIRM, violates his conscience.

A police officer is an authority and if I see the posted speed is 45, get stopped and “instructed” to do 35 in a 45 mph zone because the officer wants me to do so (wants = personal preference), I am not obligated to comply (assuming it is not a construction zone, there isn’t bad weather, accidents or other visible reason). Similarly, if a parent (an authority figure) tells a child he should stand during his math class, in spite of the fact that everyone else is sitting, and the teacher tells him to sit down, and he has a chair, does no thave a blistered bottom, which competing authority figure is obligated to obey? We really don’t know what the parent’s intentions were so if I follow your line of thought the child would be wrongly following the teacher’s directive if he were to sit.

There are competing authority figures here. One is the Holy See and one is the woman in charge of the altar servers. The bishop, to my mind, is not in the picture. If the woman had said, that she had asked for permission for the altar servers to stand for a particular Mass where there was a good reason to make such a request, I would find it far more believable and would say, just do it.

I’ll repeat again that I believe he has just cause to suspect this bishop was not even contacted on the basis that “permission” has been given in a Church where there is no visible reason other than, 'I want you to".

The GIRM and so many matters in the Church are complex and sometimes confusing to anyone who isn’t an expert. That is why we are called to submit and obey those in authority. The “offending party” believes she is protecting a legitimate instruction.

Which is why when the GIRM states VERY clearly that the faithful are to kneel at a given point of the Mass, they should not be instructed to do otherwise unless an obvious justifiable reason exists (on occasion) for even posing the question to the bishop in the first place.

The easiest path for the woman is to not try to “spin” the GIRM. Altar Man has already indicated he spoke to her about the GIRM and she stated that it was nothing more than a guideline. This is simply not true. That is why the Vatican has issued these clarifications. The GIRM is easily read and understood by any reasonable adult.

Here’s GIRM #43. Lets see how difficult this is to interpret and I will ask Altar Man to copy and paste the following questions and provide responses (in another color). I have put numbers in to correspond with my questions. This does not require a PhD to decipher. Even my 13 y.o. nephew can understand it, as it should be.

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 (1) reasons of health, (2) lack of space, (3) the large number of people present, or (4) some other good reason. Those who do not kneel ought to make a profound bow when the priest genuflects after the consecration.ALTAR MAN:

1. Are any of the altar servers of ill health so as not to be able to kneel?
2. Is there adequate space in the sanctuary for all altar servers to kneel?
3. Are there too many people so as to prevent kneeling?
4. Is there any potentially obvious “good reason”? What answer have you been given by her as to why she wants to force standing?

Let me repeat myself. I don’t condone intentional or unintentional violations of the GIRM or other Church Teaching. However, effecting change is difficult (if it was easy, it would be done). It is all in attitude and approach. Personally, I see that an approach that begins w/ “defiance” (as opposed to catechesis and “honey”) as the vehicle as part of the problem and absolutely bound to fail. I don’t think this is what Alter Man desires.

Defiance is already in play by the person telling the altar servers to do something that contradicts plain English.

 

[Orionthehunter]

AltarMan:

Discounting what the Church clearly instructs is also a grave matter. What would cause someone to do this? Certainly abject ignorance but I don’t believe that’s the reason in this case. If her position is indeed a product of poor catechesis, that should no longer be an issue because myself and others have provided the germaine documentation to her at this point.

That leaves “personal views grounded in stubbornness (a consequence of the sin Pride)” as you suggest. “Sleazy” is defined as “dishonest or corrupt; disreputable.” I would submit that a “personal views grounded in stubbornness” may indeed be considered “sleazy.”

Furthermore, “evil” can be defined as “causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful.” Again I would submit that a “personal views grounded in stubbornness” may indeed be considered “evil.”

Wow. The burdens one must have to be able to see into someone’s heart and then feel it is their Christian obligation to be so judgmental by the use of adjectives that are meant to be harshly pejorative defined as “derogatory, uncomplimentary, negative, depreciatory, critical, sneering, sniping.”

You didn’t use the word “evil” to describe her act or position but her person (you also added the pejorative term wacko) which is defined as “wicked, malevolent, malicious, criminal, immoral, foul, vile, nasty, horrible, revolting, disgusting, obnoxious.”

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Joysong:

Hello, Orion,

If all a priest had to learn in the seminary was how to read the GIRM, their training would be over in a day or so. But they get the theology, background, letters and documents that support the decisions, and a whole lot more that we internet readers do not see.

Here is another iffy example. Suppose a person like me did the background reading to learn that Rome prefers standing — and I grasped the theology of liturgical posture with regard to the various Eucharistic Prayers, supporting why it is preferred to kneeling. Suppose further, that I would prefer to align my obedience with Rome and the more universal practice throughout the Church than the one adopted by my own country.

Your example is very much like the “kneeling to receive communinon” issue. The US norm is to stand, the Holy See has kneeling as the norm. It approved the US norm, but added clauses stating that a person may not be refused communion on the basis that they are kneeling or standing. Further documents revealed the Vatican threatened disciplinary action against any priest refusing on either basis.

Holy Mother Church clarifies these things. In that case, it was easy to see that some could misunderstand and read it as if all are obligated to stand. In this case, there is no doubt that all should kneel unless dispensed by one of the above reasons otherwise. And, it further limits the bishop’s ability to change this rubric to those things stated. Lets review something:

1. I’m confident when altar man answers the questions there is simply no evidence of 1, 2 or 3 above.
2. You could say that “maybe” it falls under 4 “other good reasons”. However, it simple logic to conclude that a “good” reason is likly something clearly visible. In this case, if I recall from earlier posts, the woman did not provide a “good” reason other than that of unity.
3. There would be uniformity if all altar servers were to kneel with the congregation. There is disuniformity when altar servers are instructed to stand. Yes, there is further disuniformity when one altar server stands and another kneels. Who is creating disuniformity? Not the altar servers who want to kneel.
4. There is no disunity issue when the GIRM is followed in all simplicity. This is not complexity to simply kneel. It is complexity to spin the GIRM to gain favor for standing (and under a very suspicious cloud as to whether the Bishop has ever given permission and if he did, was he well informed as to why and for how long the deviation would be needed). Who initiated disunity? Not the altar servers who want to kneel.

And, I don’t buy that this woman would be “following her conscience” in forcing the altar servers to stand. SHE asked the bishop for permission, the bishop didn’t walk into St. Controversy here and say, “Mrs. X - please tell your servers to stand.”

I spoke earlier about a parish in Florida that has no kneelers, and is on a concrete floor with chairs for seating. The people stand for the Eucharistic Prayer. Can I possibly believe…(had to cut for space)

I can hear the GIRM proponents clicking their tongues, that these older people should kneel on the floor, disrupting the chairs, doing their penance – after all, they are not showing reverence. Nonsense. Reverence is an interior disposition and can be expressed beautifully in a way that others, who have eyes to see, can quickly observe.

It appears to me that you are judging those who wish to have compliance with the GIRM of being over zealous. Over zealous is when someone shouts “violation” when someone doesn’t bow profoundly enough to someone else’s liking, or doesn’t genuflect to someone’s liking.

I’ve already addressed it when you mentioned it the first time. But I’ll add, you give a perfect example of a visible, obvious reason why a bishop might give dispensation to stand.

To not have an “obvious” reason in the “other good reason’s” category provides ample opportunity to create scandal, much like we see in this case. There’s nothing obvious so it “appears” to be a matter of personal preference which is a big no-no.

Some might believe of me that I promote disobedience to the GIRM, whereas I promote a heart of charity that is not fixated on the letter of the law in opposition to its spirit.

And, you sum up the great chasm between those who want to follow the GIRM in all simplicity out of due respect for the proper authority and those who want to do things “in the spirit” of “fill-in-the-blank”.

Cardinal Arinze’s words are ever so fitting. Here they are again (full comment and link in one of my previous posts).

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.’"

 

[AltarMan]

Orionthehunter:

Wow. The burdens one must have to be able to see into someone’s heart and then feel it is their Christian obligation to be so judgmental by the use of adjectives that are meant to be harshly pejorative defined as “derogatory, uncomplimentary, negative, depreciatory, critical, sneering, sniping.”

You didn’t use the word “evil” to describe her act or position but her person (you also added the pejorative term wacko) which is defined as “wicked, malevolent, malicious, criminal, immoral, foul, vile, nasty, horrible, revolting, disgusting, obnoxious.”

And?

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

AltarMan,

If you are not doing so now, can you please answer my questions in read a few posts up. So many posts were coming in around the same time and I don’t know that people are noticing further up the chain there were more.