Kneeling While Serving at the Altar?

[otjm]

I am going to say something that is probably not politically correct, and certainly not particularly theolgically pure. But what the heck:

1. we don’t live in a perfect world, and have not lived in one since the time the serpent interjected himself into the Garden and messed with its denizens. In a perfect world, Father runs the parish according to the desires and dicates of Rome; he is all knowing, all wise, perfectly saintly, and capable not only of parting the waters but also educating the uneducated, unstiffening the stiff-necked, charmingly disarming those with their own personal agenda, capable of walking on water even if it is not Friday but too humble to do so, and has the model parish.

The reality is somewhat different. Priests are not perfect. Neither are parishoners; that is why we have a Church; because together we seek salvation, and that, too often by a circuitous route.

1. you don’t wear your collar backward. Note: I mean that as no insult; it is simply that you are not responsible for the decisions that are made, nor the results of making decisions. The pastor is charged by the bishop with the care of the souls in that parish - the ones closer to sainthood, and those perhaps a bit farther away. That includes the screwballs we find in too many parishes, poorly if at all catechized in what the Church teaches, and all too often dipped in and coated with whatever BS started with Currin, or McBrien, or whatever psuedo theologian/liturgist/moralist has been popular among the ranks of those who are dismissve of Rome and anything it says, except perhaps what it might say about poverty, the poor, and social work. He can put his foot down, invoke the GIRM, dismiss the lturgy committee, and find that there are fewer people in the pews. Some would say, “good for him”, but they don’t have to face final judgement and answer why those souls were lost over a rule.

NOTE: I do not say rules are not important. The question is, how important is the rule when it may be the point of sundering the contact between the individual who disdains the rule, and Christ? We have not a few people who are a bit anal retentive when it comes to rules, and some of them are of the opinion of “good riddance”. And Christ had something to say to the Pharisees, too. In fact, he had quite a bit to say to them. It is easy to arm chair the issue when we are not answerable for the results; and it is even easy for some to make rules as absolutes when they are responsible for the results. Benedict 16 was called a pit bull; his real personality is much more one of cajoling and encouraging, and not one of autocratic authoritarianism. Perhaps there is a lesson there, to those who might listen.

The short answer is you are in a difficult parish in which at least a few key people have dictated that whatever rules are made by Rome are mere suggestions. That leaves you with few options. One is to follow their leadership, if the pastor is not willing to rule otherwise. Another is to buck it until they dismiss you. A third is to not get into a postion where you are challenged - in other words, quit serving. A fourth is to find another parish.

I would speak with the pastor. Then I would look at the four options and decide which is best for my spiritual growth.

I do not mean to make light of your concerns. But the reality is, to some extent, that we are going to endure stupidity for a period of time; long, if we meaasure by our lives and standards, short as the Church measures it. Some parishes are better than others; some by quite a bit; and some parishes are worse than others, some by quite a bit. It doesn’t help when you are at the wrong end of that spectrum, if you feel strongly about the matter. However, with the groups like Call to Action and their ilk, one thing should be noted; almost to a person they are not recruiting the youth, and they will simply die off and not be replaced. So also, stupid, stiff-necked autocratic liturgy committee members. Or it may occur sooner if the pastor over several years simply rotates out a few people and brings in a few others. Then again, he may decide he has other fish to fry. You don’t walk in his shoes, and do not face the issues he faces; it is all too simple to feel he is not doing what he should. He may well be doing what he should, just in a different way than you would have it.

The bottom line is you have to make some decisions that will bring you peace. Rome was not built in a day; and stupid liturgy practices will not be cleared up in a day. If you can no longer take the heat, don’t go in the kitchen.

 

[OhMalley]

I am going to say something that is probably not politically correct, and certainly not particularly theolgically pure. But what the heck:

1. we don’t live in a perfect world, and have not lived in one since the time the serpent interjected himself into the Garden and messed with its denizens. In a perfect world, Father runs the parish according to the desires and dicates of Rome; he is all knowing, all wise, perfectly saintly, and capable not only of parting the waters but also educating the uneducated, unstiffening the stiff-necked, charmingly disarming those with their own personal agenda, capable of walking on water even if it is not Friday but too humble to do so, and has the model parish.

The reality is somewhat different. Priests are not perfect. Neither are parishoners; that is why we have a Church; because together we seek salvation, and that, too often by a circuitous route.

1. you don’t wear your collar backward. Note: I mean that as no insult; it is simply that you are not responsible for the decisions that are made, nor the results of making decisions. The pastor is charged by the bishop with the care of the souls in that parish - the ones closer to sainthood, and those perhaps a bit farther away. That includes the screwballs we find in too many parishes, poorly if at all catechized in what the Church teaches, and all too often dipped in and coated with whatever BS started with Currin, or McBrien, or whatever psuedo theologian/liturgist/moralist has been popular among the ranks of those who are dismissve of Rome and anything it says, except perhaps what it might say about poverty, the poor, and social work. He can put his foot down, invoke the GIRM, dismiss the lturgy committee, and find that there are fewer people in the pews. Some would say, “good for him”, but they don’t have to face final judgement and answer why those souls were lost over a rule.

NOTE: I do not say rules are not important. The question is, how important is the rule when it may be the point of sundering the contact between the individual who disdains the rule, and Christ? We have not a few people who are a bit anal retentive when it comes to rules, and some of them are of the opinion of “good riddance”. And Christ had something to say to the Pharisees, too. In fact, he had quite a bit to say to them. It is easy to arm chair the issue when we are not answerable for the results; and it is even easy for some to make rules as absolutes when they are responsible for the results. Benedict 16 was called a pit bull; his real personality is much more one of cajoling and encouraging, and not one of autocratic authoritarianism. Perhaps there is a lesson there, to those who might listen.

The short answer is you are in a difficult parish in which at least a few key people have dictated that whatever rules are made by Rome are mere suggestions. That leaves you with few options. One is to follow their leadership, if the pastor is not willing to rule otherwise. Another is to buck it until they dismiss you. A third is to not get into a postion where you are challenged - in other words, quit serving. A fourth is to find another parish.

I would speak with the pastor. Then I would look at the four options and decide which is best for my spiritual growth.

I do not mean to make light of your concerns. But the reality is, to some extent, that we are going to endure stupidity for a period of time; long, if we meaasure by our lives and standards, short as the Church measures it. Some parishes are better than others; some by quite a bit; and some parishes are worse than others, some by quite a bit. It doesn’t help when you are at the wrong end of that spectrum, if you feel strongly about the matter. However, with the groups like Call to Action and their ilk, one thing should be noted; almost to a person they are not recruiting the youth, and they will simply die off and not be replaced. So also, stupid, stiff-necked autocratic liturgy committee members. Or it may occur sooner if the pastor over several years simply rotates out a few people and brings in a few others. Then again, he may decide he has other fish to fry. You don’t walk in his shoes, and do not face the issues he faces; it is all too simple to feel he is not doing what he should. He may well be doing what he should, just in a different way than you would have it.

The bottom line is you have to make some decisions that will bring you peace. Rome was not built in a day; and stupid liturgy practices will not be cleared up in a day. If you can no longer take the heat, don’t go in the kitchen.

I guess you didn’t read where I said I might have been wrong – that it may have indeed come from the bishop. My strong suspicion is that if any member of the liturgy committee tried to force this issue, he would have told them to back-off – as he likely did when he came 2.5 years ago.

I think you also need to keep in mind that the negative qualities you mention in your posting also extend to those who post on these forums – and just about everyone else thise side of the Blessed Mother.

Your comment about the four options looks fairly accurate. The one thing I won’t do at this time is quit. Most of my self-declared “traditionalist” friends have cut and run long ago making things worse for those of us who have stayed – and I am not about to add to other peoples’ problems.

 

[viper78912]

The goal of Life, like worship, is Self Realization.
Our response is based on our reply to Jesus’ Question:”Who do you say that I Am?” (Matthew16:15)
A case in point is the First Holy Communion/ The Last Supper. His disciples received the Eucharist, slept at Gethsemane, (Matthew26:26-46), and eventually betrayed Him. (Matthew26:25)
He Revealed Himself to His adversaries, and they “fell to the ground.”(John18:6).

 

[otjm]

I guess you didn’t read where I said I might have been wrong – that it may have indeed come from the bishop. My strong suspicion is that if any member of the liturgy committee tried to force this issue, he would have told them to back-off – as he likely did when he came 2.5 years ago.

I think you also need to keep in mind that the negative qualities you mention in your posting also extend to those who post on these forums – and just about everyone else thise side of the Blessed Mother.

Your comment about the four options looks fairly accurate. The one thing I won’t do at this time is quit. Most of my self-declared “traditionalist” friends have cut and run long ago making things worse for those of us who have stayed – and I am not about to add to other peoples’ problems.

You are right; I somewhat “cut to the chase” and did not read the whole series.

As to the bishop being the source: yeah, maybe. Part of me is suspicious whenever I hear that. Call me cynical if you wish; but some of the “from the bishop” means that someone in the chancery said it; and they may or may not have had the authority to answer for him (putting aside whether they had the authority to revise the GIRM). Or someone may have heard what they wanted to hear when someone in the chancery made some reply; that is, if you asked the one who allegedly said something, your answer would not appear to come from the same source as what someone in the parish told you they said.

And the same applies to the bishop himself.

I only suggest that quitting be considered if you find that continuing on is becoming damaging to your mental/moral health. Trying to do the right thing can get to the point that the focus becomes so intense on the specific that the “why we are here” gets lost. I was told long ago, there were three ways to do something: the right way, the wrong way, and the Army way. The GIRM sets the rules. It goes without saying we should follow them. Sometimes following is not possible due to the immediate circustances - that is, the character of the parish - and I see the battles sometimes raising to a level that it would appear that both sides have lost sight of the fact that 1) we are there to worship and 2) a failure to see that the rules are not the worship.

I don’t intend to be flippant. I have been in parishes that had a group cut out of the same cloth as yours, and I am currently in a parish that has no problem whatsoever following the rules. So it is easy to sit back and pontificate; that is not really my intent. I, too, want good liturgy; and over my lifetime I have seen both good and bad, including pre-Vatican 2 good and bad. And while good liturgy enhances our act of worship, our act of worship comes from within. It is harder to stay focused, to will that act, when things are out of kilter. And it is so simple to just follow the rules; one wonders sometimes what really drives those who balk at it.

 

[OhMalley]

I decided not to leave the sanctuary while serving Mass this morning. The celebrating priest moves along at a fast pace and I wasn’t about to put on a show by leaving and then re-entering the sanctuary. I also wasn’t going to ring the sanctus bells from the first row of pews.

The person who told me my pastor wants us to either stand or leave the sanctuary (a woman in charge of altar server “training”) was the cantor right next to the sanctuary so we’ll see if there are repercussions…