Kneel? Stand? What would you do?

[Dai]

Unfortunately, the parishes where standing after Agnus Dei is vigorously encouraged is on the road to other things.

I once attended a mass presided by a Cardinal who shall remain nameless. It was the first time my family witnessed teenage girls in leotards dancing in the processional. We found ourselves staring at a row of buttocks after Agnus Dei. I recall choking on what looked like whole wheat twinkies shoved down my throat by a eucharistic minister.

We need to put our foot down somewhere.

 

[mtr01]

Dai:

Unfortunately, the parishes where standing after Agnus Dei is vigorously encouraged is on the road to other things.

I once attended a mass presided by a Cardinal who shall remain nameless. It was the first time my family witnessed teenage girls in leotards dancing in the processional. We found ourselves staring at a row of buttocks after Agnus Dei. I recall choking on what looked like whole wheat twinkies shoved down my throat by a eucharistic minister.

We need to put our foot down somewhere.

Very true words indeed. Frankly I don’t see what the discussion is all about. The GIRM says kneel. This norm was accepted by the USCCB and approved by the Vatican. Hence we are to kneel. If a pastor or bishop says we are to stand, he will have to show me a document from the Vatican approving it, or he is being disobedient…plain and simple.

As for a good reason to remain standing, the appendix to the GIRM rules out no kneelers as a reason, so I would have to say only health or lack of room would qualify (for instance at my parish’s mission church, Mass is celebrated in an auditorium, and the chairs are so close together that it is physically impossible to kneel).

 

[Mysty101]

Asimis:

Tell me Mysty101, what do you know about what I know about The Church?

what you are posting

How does the simple fact that I am currently doing RCIA (only because it is the only option I have to join) makes me ignorant of The Church and her teachings?

It doesn’t, your words do

Great. You rebuke my preference of the TM over the NO and now tell me that you feel

that it would be much better if we deferred to our shepherds. That is, it is you preference that everyone should summit to the Bishop no matter what. No, Mysty101, that is called blind and unrestrained obedience. You are aware I imagine of the abuses that many Bishops, whom you say we should summit entirely to, are now doing in the “spirit of Vatican II”? That is, the things they do IN SPITE of what The Church and Vatican II teach. Should we obey those things? No. We should obey The Church and it is from obedience to The Church that Bishops gain their authority. If the bishops differe from the teachings of The Church (and they can and do) then they become heretics, but not because you or I say so, but because The Church, by her own teachings declares them as such.

Have you read the Girm or RS?–the diocesean Bishop is your leader, and do not be so quick to interpret his authority. And you are obliged to follow the US approved norms in the US, or do you also question the instructions of the USCCB?

Don’t you get it??? What I am saying is–you have no right to tell anyone they SHOULD follow your preference, in any optional situation, especially when the other option is the approved norm,

 

[Dai]

There is a great misconception that the practice of standing after Agnus Dei is being promoted by Bishops who prefers this innovation.

As I have been informed by my confessor/spiritual director, the practice was first proposed in this country by Cardinal Mahony during a UCCB conference. Cardinal Mahony also stated that whichever method the UCCB voted to approve that day should be the norm for the entire country in order to avoid confusion.

UCCB as it turned out, overwhelmingly rejected the innovation.

Upon returning from the conference, Cardinal Mahony immediately began promoting the practice through his Religeous Education Congress. Catechists and liturgists were instructed that this method was the new norm for the US and it’s use was encouraged by the Vatican. The mis-informed catechists and liturgists from across the country returned to their respective parishes and quickly spread the practice.

By the time the Bishops realized what was happening it was too late. Cardinal Mahony overruled the UCCB.

Several months later in an informal luncheon with his parish priests, Cardial Mahony asked casually how the parishners were accepting the new method. When some priest expressed concern that there is widespread confusion, his response was, “Well, they’ll get used to it”

 

[Asimis]

Dai:

There is a great misconception that the practice of standing after Agnus Dei is being promoted by Bishops who prefers this innovation.

As I have been informed by my confessor/spiritual director, the practice was first proposed in this country by Cardinal Mahony during a UCCB conference. Cardinal Mahony also stated that whichever method the UCCB voted to approve that day should be the norm for the entire country in order to avoid confusion.

UCCB as it turned out, overwhelmingly rejected the innovation.

Upon returning from the conference, Cardinal Mahony immediately began promoting the practice through his Religeous Education Congress. Catechists and liturgists were instructed that this method was the new norm for the US and it’s use was encouraged by the Vatican. The mis-informed catechists and liturgists from across the country returned to their respective parishes and quickly spread the practice.

By the time the Bishops realized what was happening it was too late. Cardinal Mahony overruled the UCCB.

Several months later in an informal luncheon with his parish priests, Cardial Mahony asked casually how the parishners were accepting the new method. When some priest expressed concern that there is widespread confusion, his response was, “Well, they’ll get used to it”

Yeah, but don’t worry Dai… you must obey the bishop…no matter what.

 

[Asimis]

Mysty101:

Have you read the Girm or RS?–the diocesean Bishop is your leader, and do not be so quick to interpret his authority. And you are obliged to follow the US approved norms in the US, or do you also question the instructions of the USCCB?

I test everything and hold on to the good Thess 5:21

I have told you several times already, that I am attending a TM, in a Church in communion with Rome, so…what is the problem?

Please show me where the Traditional Mass is forbiden by the USCCB, RS, GIRM or whatever else you wish to name.

Don’t you get it??? What I am saying is–you have no right to tell anyone they SHOULD follow your preference, in any optional situation, especially when the other option is the approved norm,

I do get it, it seems however that you do not. What you seem to be implying here is that depite it’s aproved status and validity, I should not speak out about the Traditional Mass. Why?

I will say it again, the TM is valid, the Pope allowed people to have it, the TM has never been abrogated. If the TM is allowed as an option, I have every right to attend it, I am not violating any rules.

 

[Mysty101]

Asimis:

I test everything and hold on to the good Thess 5:21

I have told you several times already, that I am attending a TM, in a Church in communion with Rome, so…what is the problem?

Please show me where the Traditional Mass is forbiden by the USCCB, RS, GIRM or whatever else you wish to name.

I do get it, it seems however that you do not. What you seem to be implying here is that depite it’s aproved status and validity, I should not speak out about the Traditional Mass. Why?

I will say it again, the TM is valid, the Pope allowed people to have it, the TM has never been abrogated. If the TM is allowed as an option, I have every right to attend it, I am not violating any rules.

No you don’t get it. Where did I say anything against the TLM???

What did I say?

I have a problem with you coming here and saying Kneeling & tongue is the way it SHOULD be. It should be the way it is, and just because you are allowed to do something different, that does NOT indicate that is the way it SHOULD be.

I object to you using the word should, which would indicate this was the rule, rather than merely allowed.

 

[Asimis]

Mysty101:

No you don’t get it. Where did I say anything against the TLM???

What did I say?

I have a problem with you coming here and saying Kneeling & tongue is the way it SHOULD be. It should be the way it is, and just because you are allowed to do something different, that does NOT indicate that is the way it SHOULD be.

I object to you using the word should, which would indicate this was the rule, rather than merely allowed.

You should stop complaining about such a meaningless issue. It is getting annoying, if you don’t like it, ignore it. I didn’t come here to be lectured.

This is an free discussion forum, you should be ready to encounter both, things that you like and things that you don’t. Not everyone should adjust themselves to what you want.

 

[Mysty101]

Asimis:

You should stop complaining about such a meaningless issue. It is getting annoying, if you don’t like it, ignore it. I didn’t come here to be lectured.

This is an free discussion forum, you should be ready to encounter both, things that you like and things that you don’t. Not everyone should adjust themselves to what you want.

I see—immaturity, as well as arrogance. It is not meaningless --you do not have the authority or the knowledge to tell people what to do.

 

[MeaCulpa]

Even though kneeling for communion is no longer considered the normative in the U.S., despite what some posters have said in the past, it is not to be considered disobedient to do so.

This Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has received through official channels your letter dated 1 December 2002, related to the application of the norms approved by the Conference of Bishops of the United States of America, with the subsequent recognitio of this Congregation, as regards the question of the posture for receiving Holy Communion.

As the authority by virtue of whose recognitio the norm in question has attained the force of law, this Dicastery is competent to specify the manner in which the norm is to be understood for the sake of a proper application. Having received more than a few letters regarding this matter from different locations in the United States of America, the Congregation wishes to ensure that its position on the matter is clear.

To this end, it is perhaps useful to respond to your inquiry by repeating the content of a letter that the Congregation recently addressed to a Bishop in the United States of America from whose Diocese a number of pertinent letters had been received. The letter states: “… while this Congregation gave the recognitio to the norm desired by the Bishops’ Conference of your country that people stand for Holy Communion, this was done on the condition that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds. **Indeed, the faithful should not be imposed upon nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly when they kneel to receive Holy Communion”. **

This Dicastery hopes that the citation given here will provide an adequate answer to your letter. At the same time, please be assured that the Congregation remains ready to be of assistance if you should need to contact it again.

With every prayerful good wish, I am

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Mons. Mario Marini
Undersecretary

 

[fix]

I have posted that about 15 times on all these threads. It only makes sense if we have the mind to obey. Unfortunately, clericalism is alive and well on the left.

 

[maggiec]

kneel, kneel, kneel. We have lost the sense of reverence. We have lost some of the beauty (and a little of the mystery of years ago when the priest stood with his back to us). I miss singing the Lamb of God in latin. I miss mia culpa. I’m 57, I still love the old mass. Not all change is progress.
maggiec

 

[Asimis]

Mysty101:

I see—immaturity, as well as arrogance. It is not meaningless --you do not have the authority or the knowledge to tell people what to do.

Amazingly, neither do you.

 

[Mysty101]

I never told anyone what to do. I repeat the legitimate rules. I never said what you should do (except follow the rules, rather than your own preference)

You, however think you can tell people what they should do, and I do see that as a constant in your posts

In the Church of the parish that I am doing the RCIA in, there are NO kneelers and also virtually everyone takes communion in the hand. Because of this I am going now to a Tridentine Mass in Latine and there, everyone kneels and takes communion in the mouth as it should be.

You have no right to say it should be a way which does not follow US norms in the US—this is allowable option. The norm is the NO Mass.

This, however really shows your attitude
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=504500#post504500

I followed the advice of a friend and decided to teach myself. am only following the RCIA because it is mandatory to join the Church.

As someone entering the church, the advice of a friend is what you follow rather than the USCCB.

 

[Asimis]

Mysty101:

I never told anyone what to do. I repeat the legitimate rules. I never said what you should do (except follow the rules, rather than your own preference)

But the rules say that I can follow the allowed option of attending the TM and of kneeling and taking communion in the tongue. And…

You, however think you can tell people what they should do, and I do see that as a constant in your posts

…I have every right to recommend the TM and tell people what I think about it and that includes telling them that it is the way it should be. And…

You have no right to say it should be a way which does not follow US norms in the US—this is allowable option. The norm is the NO Mass.

…Much more when one is taking into consideration the theological aspects of the Mass which take precedence over sympathetic “rules” in the Mass which only serve in fact, to hinder and invalidate the NO.

This, however really shows your attitude

As someone entering the church, the advice of a friend is what you follow rather than the USCCB.

Isn’t the rule of the USCCB that one should atten RCIA? I am doing that. But I am not relying on the instructors of RCIA because what they teach in a single hour of classes every saturday is bland, they don’t get deep into the material, so…I am educating myself by other means, that is The Catechism and other Catholic books. How is this wrong or violating the rules?

But of course this won’t stop you since you seem to be obsessed with following the rules in spite of how contrary to the theological content of the faith they may be.

 

[Mysty101]

Isn’t the rule of the USCCB that one should atten RCIA?

Attend, without following the instruction? I hardly think this is the Spirit of the law.

I am truly sorry that you do not accept what I am saying about attitude, and I sincerely hope you have good authentic Spiritual Direction, other than your friend. You do use so much private interpretation, which is only valid with legitimate Spiritual direction.

 

[Kelly]

Mysty101:

Attend, without following the instruction? I hardly think this is the Spirit of the law.

I am truly sorry that you do not accept what I am saying about attitude, and I sincerely hope you have good authentic Spiritual Direction, other than your friend. You do use so much private interpretation, which is only valid with legitimate Spiritual direction.

Mysty,

In defense of Asimis most of the converts that I know who have been involved with RCIA have had to study on their own in order to learn authentic Church teaching, and then just go through the motions with the parish RCIA group in order to be received into the Church. I’m sure you must be aware of the abysmal situation in so many parishes across this country in regards to catechesis. It is no wonder that many of these newcomers are turned off and attend the TLM. Who can blame them?

By the way, I am a cradle Catholic who was subjected to the ridiculous catechesis of the 1970’s. I’ve had to do a lot of studying on my own too! :irish1:

 

[Mysty101]

I sincerely hope that there is some benefit to the program.

Independent study is OK, I guess, but Private interpretation without authentic Spiritual Direction is better than RCIA?

I pray you are wrong about that one. I am glad I trust my Pastor. I would really hate to have only books and no pastoral guidance.

 

[Asimis]

Oh no, I don’t rely on privet interpretation. Everything I read and the sources from which I learn Catholic Dogma are authoritative. The Catechism, The Bible(Douay-Rheims), the councils, the papal encyclicals, among other highly orthodox Catholic books like Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Dr. Ott.

I am very clear about everything. The problem Mysty, is that in the RCIA I am goin go, we barely read The Bible, we use NO Catcheism, they don’t talk about Mary, the saints, angels, purgatory, Hell, Heaven, etc. There is no talk about the nature of God, the Trinity, etc. And the topics that we do cover, we so in such a superficial manner as to render their meaning meaningless.

It is VERY watered down, the teaching is also very politicaly correct and considering the fact that it is supposed to be for adults, the material that is given there is childish.

This is not that I am arrogant or anything, it is just how it is on The Church I am going to. It is no wonder why so many no longer believe in transurbanization or the real presence, the instruction is very poor and only those who are really interested in joining keep up for the whole course, others just give up. There is no fire in it, it is as if the instructors don’t believe in it, I don’t like to judge them but it is just how it feels to me.

 

[turboEDvo]

Kneel, thank you very much. Hmmm, come to think of it, I wonder what kinds of looks my parents would give me if I did that. It might be comical if I weren’t concentrating on other things at that moment.

Eamon