Hypocrisy in the Pews

[Lux_et_veritas]

AltarMan:

You just hit the nail on the head – the abject arrogance of those who feel they know “better” than what the Church actually instructs.

Just because your pastor supports a communal posture that does match what the Church instructs in no way makes it correct or “better.”

Once again, the condescending tone of your messages highlights your own arrogance.

Not only that, you completely ignored the arguments I presented, including the attack you made on the Holy See documentations.

You act as if the GIRM is all there is and has the final word. Then please tell me why the Vatican would bother to address issues that come up if they did not intend for them to be used? You are essentially saying, by virtue of no response, that Redemptionis Sacramentum means nothing, nor do the two letters from the CDW on the issue.

But first, please talk about specifics rather than taking jabs at who you feel is arrogant. All I see is a lot of hot air and no substance.

 

[Orionthehunter]

msproule:

All should read the USCCB document that describes why they prefer standing. Efficiency is not a listed reason. If that were the case, why not take the next step and request drive-thru service?

Very good point. I guess sometimes my math/science logical mind gets intermingled with the spiritual. But at the same time, we do have to ask whether one change will have a unintended consequence someplace else. I should have had greater focus there. Thanks for the correction.

But to the relevant point made by msproule, the following is from the document she sited:

"The new edition of the General Instruction asks the Conference of Bishops in each country to determine the posture to be used for the reception of Communion and the act of reverence to be made by each person as he or she receives Communion. The Conference of Bishops of the United States has determined that in this country Communion will be received standing and that a bow will be the act of reverence made by those receiving. These norms may require some adjustment on the part of those who have been used to other practices, however the significance of unity in posture and gesture as a symbol of our unity as members of the one body of Christ should be the governing factor in our own actions. " (I bolded the most relevant section)

 

[SnorterLuster]

Orionthehunter:

We have three Masses on Sunday (8:00 a.m., 9:30, and 11:00 a.m. with only 30 minutes between them) and one Saturday night. Physically, there is absolutely no way we could only have two Masses on Sunday. To do so, would not only magnify the parking problem but you now have a worship space problem.

I wasn’t suggesting cutting the number of masses, just adding time between them. For instance, your masses could be at 8:00, 10:00 and 12:00 and of course on Saturday. That way there wouldn’t be the rush to finish up mass and get out of the parking lot.

Regarding two Priests distributing both species in the same amount of time as a dozen EMHC’s, I’d love to see them do it reverantly.

I posted in another thread that my old parish use to give communion at the rail, on the tongue. Two priests were able to give the communion in no more time than it takes now using at least a half dozen stations with a dozen EMHCs and everyone standing.

** (note my qualifier in the first sentence. They gave Communion on the tongue–only one species–and it was quite reverent.

**

 

[Orionthehunter]

SnorterLuster:

I wasn’t suggesting cutting the number of masses, just adding time between them. For instance, your masses could be at 8:00, 10:00 and 12:00 and of course on Saturday. That way there wouldn’t be the rush to finish up mass and get out of the parking lot.

** (note my qualifier in the first sentence. They gave Communion on the tongue–only one species–and it was quite reverent.

**

We tried that exact schedule for six months. It wasn’t well rec’d. The late Mass attendees are mostly those w/ young families. Whatever their objections, it was nearly universally agreed it wasn’t in the best interest of those people (as I don’t go to that Mass anyway, I didn’t really pay much attention).

And in the above situation and the issue of one or both species being available, that is a pastoral decision left to the discretion of the Pastor. If the Pastor decides that both species vs. kneeling best meets the needs of the collective parish, we need to respect that decision. If your Pastor decides otherwise, it makes accommodation of kneeling easier. But again, it is the Pastor’s decision.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Orionthehunter:

Very good point. I guess sometimes my math/science logical mind gets intermingled with the spiritual. But at the same time, we do have to ask whether one change will have a unintended consequence someplace else. I should have had greater focus there. Thanks for the correction.

But to the relevant point made by msproule, the following is from the document she sited:

"The new edition of the General Instruction asks the Conference of Bishops in each country to determine the posture to be used for the reception of Communion and the act of reverence to be made by each person as he or she receives Communion. The Conference of Bishops of the United States has determined that in this country Communion will be received standing and that a bow will be the act of reverence made by those receiving. These norms may require some adjustment on the part of those who have been used to other practices, however the significance of unity in posture and gesture as a symbol of our unity as members of the one body of Christ should be the governing factor in our own actions. " (I bolded the most relevant section)

So,the USCCB wants people to stand so that the line looks pretty? If that is the explanation of the USCCB, then no wonder people are ignoring the “catechesis” they get and continue to kneel.

It’s amazing what a big deal some people make out of Catholics wanting to receive the Body of Christ on their knees, as if they have committed a crime. That’s just plain persecution.

Furthermore, this particular norm came about as a result of violations. The norm for reception of Holy Communion was to kneel and it was universal. Priests and bishops in the west took it upon themselves to start forcing people to stand until the entire west was doing it. Only then was the norm written.

How convenient is that?

Next time I hear: “The Lord be weith you”

I think we should simply start responding: “et cum spiritu tuo”.

 

[fix]

Lux_et_veritas:

So,the USCCB wants people to stand so that the line looks pretty? If that is the explanation of the USCCB, then no wonder people are ignoring the “catechesis” they get and continue to kneel.

It’s amazing what a big deal some people make out of Catholics wanting to receive the Body of Christ on their knees, as if they have committed a crime. That’s just plain persecution.

Furthermore, this particular norm came about as a result of violations. The norm for reception of Holy Communion was to kneel and it was universal. Priests and bishops in the west took it upon themselves to start forcing people to stand until the entire west was doing it. Only then was the norm written.

How convenient is that?

Next time I hear: “The Lord be weith you”

I think we should simply start responding: “et cum spiritu tuo”.

Yes, I want to mention it should not be about “disobeying” the local authority because one has a trump card from Rome. Kneeling has always been a sign of reverence and has not been abolished. For some, either laity or clergy, to focus on this very small issue when so much else needs to be rectified just seems to me to be part of a agenda that is not about reverence, obedience or focus on Christ.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

SnorterLuster:

I understand what you are saying, but just a couple of points.

I have heard the parking argument for years, yet my childhood parish scheduled masses 90-120 minutes apart. I don’t think there is any rule that says masses have to be scheduled 60 minutes apart. Schedule masses 2 hours apart and the parking problem is solved. And you don’t have to rush the Mass.

I posted in another thread that my old parish use to give communion at the rail, on the tongue. Two priests were able to give the communion in no more time than it takes now using at least a half dozen stations with a dozen EMHCs and everyone standing. If time is a prime consideration, the problem is not people kneeling, the problem is people standing.

A) But the problem would still remain for my parish, where we don’t have 3 Sunday masses, we have 6 (one is in the evening, of course). They are scheduled 1 and 1/2 hours apart, yet there is still congestion (people show up for early devotions, visit the shrines, go to gift shop…I always thought that would be an idea time for one of the priests to be in the confessional, instead of 1 hour scheduled on Saturday for a parish of somthing like 8,000 families ). It was particularly accute when we had an extremely evangelical, for want of a better term, parochial vicar from Africa, where they are accustomed to long homilies and long sessions of singing. He gave long homilies (which no one understood, God love him, his accent was so thick) and he periodically broke into song in the middle of it (he really DID love our Lord and Richard McBrien should be ashamed to appear in the same kind of collar as he wore) and then people would be swearing at each other in the parking lot jam afterwards…so much for the Sanctifying Grace of Holy Communion!

B) I always am suspicious of this: if we dispensed with EMHC’s at MY parish, then there would be no one to distribute the Most Precious Blood under Its seperate Species. Most of the congregants avail themselves of the opportunity to receive. We either have to have EMHCs or both priests would have to attend upon the same Mass (and we have the vigil Mass on Saturday as well) which makes for a long day for them) or we would have to dispense with the reception from the Chalice. I wouldn’t want that nor do I think most people would.

 

[AltarMan]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

Like that one cannot be called Disobedient nor denied the Eucharist because he/she kneels as the Vatican stated?

Sorta like the special people who the GIRM does not apply to…

 

[AltarMan]

slewi:

I don’t know Ham. Whenever Rome issues something like the GIRM, it seems that the USCCB always applies for and is granted special changes. So, what I am thinking, is maybe it’s better if we just followed Rome. Maybe we wouldn’t have all these questions. Their seem to be too many chiefs.

S

Amen!

 

[AltarMan]

Orionthehunter:

We have three Masses on Sunday (8:00 a.m., 9:30, and 11:00 a.m. with only 30 minutes between them) and one Saturday night. Physically, there is absolutely no way we could only have two Masses on Sunday. To do so, would not only magnify the parking problem but you now have a worship space problem.

Regarding two Priests distributing both species in the same amount of time as a dozen EMHC’s, I’d love to see them do it reverantly.

OK. Make them 07:00, 09:00 and 11:00. That gives you a full hour between Masses. Or 8, 10 and noon.

07:00 is now our earliest daily Mass now that the 06:00 Mass is no longer celebrated.

 

[fix]

AltarMan:

Sorta like the special people who the GIRM does not apply to…

The GIRM applies to all as does the interpretation by Rome applies to all.

 

[AltarMan]

fix:

The GIRM applies to all as does the interpretation by Rome applies to all.

Except to those who label themselves as “traditonalists” (sic) apparently…

 

[fix]

AltarMan:

Except to those who label themselves as “traditonalists” (sic) apparently…

Huh?

 

[msproule]

Orionthehunter:

I guess sometimes my math/science logical mind gets intermingled with the spiritual. But at the same time, we do have to ask whether one change will have a unintended consequence someplace else. I should have had greater focus there. Thanks for the correction.

Don’t get me wrong, I think you make some practical points. Although the “speed/efficiency” factor is not explicit in the USCCB reasoning, there is little doubt in my mind that this is an intended consequence of the USCCB’s published theology pitting standing against kneeling. (After all, the U.S. is the historical home of fast food and assembly lines!) I almost wish they would just come out and say it, though. The theology supporting standing in the document seems to say “we know better than Rome”, in my opinion.

Now that you have brought up the topic of “unity of posture”, let me rejoice in the fact that we may finally be talking some hypocrisy here!

 

[Orionthehunter]

Lux_et_veritas:

So,the USCCB wants people to stand so that the line looks pretty? If that is the explanation of the USCCB, then no wonder people are ignoring the “catechesis” they get and continue to kneel.

It’s amazing what a big deal some people make out of Catholics wanting to receive the Body of Christ on their knees, as if they have committed a crime. That’s just plain persecution.

Furthermore, this particular norm came about as a result of violations. The norm for reception of Holy Communion was to kneel and it was universal. Priests and bishops in the west took it upon themselves to start forcing people to stand until the entire west was doing it. Only then was the norm written.

How convenient is that?

Next time I hear: “The Lord be weith you”

I think we should simply start responding: “et cum spiritu tuo”.

In my family, not matter what is said, if someone asks for a “do over”, we have to let them start anew adn we have to forget they said what they did. I’ll give you a do over if you want.

 

[AltarMan]

Orionthehunter:

In my family, not matter what is said, if someone asks for a “do over”, we have to let them start anew adn we have to forget they said what they did. I’ll give you a do over if you want.

Around here we call it a “mulligan.”

 

[AltarMan]

Lux_et_veritas:

So,the USCCB wants people to stand so that the line looks pretty? If that is the explanation of the USCCB, then no wonder people are ignoring the “catechesis” they get and continue to kneel.

It’s amazing what a big deal some people make out of Catholics wanting to receive the Body of Christ on their knees, as if they have committed a crime. That’s just plain persecution…

I would be would be willing to wager that those who hold hands during the Lord’s Prayer or assume the orans position also feel “persecuted” from time to time.

No, it’s not OK to condome kneeling while condemning hand holding/orans…

 

[msproule]

AltarMan:

I would be would be willing to wager that those who hold hands during the Lord’s Prayer or assume the orans position also feel “persecuted” from time to time.

In our region, quite the opposite is true. That is, those who choose not to hold hands are often glared at unapprovingly.

 

[netmilsmom]

Orionthehunter:

I am all for people trying to find the best way for them to worship with the greatest flexibility possible to accommodate as many expressions as possible. If your parish is such that an occassional kneeler wouldn’t be disruptive (causing undue attention or people tripping over you, or creating problems by extending Mass too much) and your Pastor doesn’t ask you to quit, I’m all for it. But if your Pastor asks you to quit for the reasons I articulated or other good reasons within the constraints of the USCCB instruction, I just hope that you will be open to his request and consider it seriously. You are obviously a good, devout Catholic and a good witness to others. I would hate to see a decision contrary to a request from your Pastor diminish your ability to be a good witness and example of support for your Pastor. Furthermore, just keep in mind that people who are having trouble submitting to Church Authority might misinterpret your affinity of kneeling as a sign that they too can pick and choose which instructions they accept. I think those of us who understand and appreciate what the Church means have a greater burden to make sure what we do isn’t misinterpreted.

Regarding, having more Masses into the afternoon, we only have one Priest. He is already maxed out physically with all of his responsibilities beyond just giving Mass. Our Pastor not only celebrates a great Mass but he has a special gift and charism with people hurting. Sunday afternoons are often spent with people like that (elderly, marriage or family problems, etc.) and we have RCIA on Sunday nights. Last year he performed over 40 weddings (sometimes two on a weekend) and of course a inner city parish w/ alsmost 1,000 families also has alot of funerals.

Here are a couple of questions.
If people kneeling is a problem, why not add a kneeler? Kneeling is the norm at our church, those who want to stand are not hindered, nor if they want to receive in the hand (not a norm in our NO church). Instead of fighting those who want to kneel to receive, make it safer. If we all cooperate, everyone is happy. One EMHC could be the kneeling line or for those who would like to go to the Priest, make it his line. Add an Intinction Cup and he can distribute on the tongue. We can all work together on this. No one would have to take it either way as an absolute and the fighting stops.

Why not put more space between the Masses?
People would have time to kneel and get out of the parking lot before the next mass. How about a noon mass? This could work.

My heart goes out to your priest. God Bless him for handling it all.

 

[netmilsmom]

msproule:

In our region, quite the opposite is true. That is, those who choose not to hold hands are often glared at unapprovingly.

Amen!!!