MERGED: Should I stay kneeling?/Parish practices

[FNDRB58]

It would appear obvious at least to some, that there may be reasons for standing during the Agnus Dei and during Communion, given the fact that it is so wide spread.

I am not going to make a defense of the issue. Frankly, I don’t have a dog in the fight; either position is acceptable to me. I have been in parishes where all stood (for both) and in parishes where all knelt (for both).

There you go again. Why do you feel either position is acceptable when the GIRM states otherwise? You have made an exhausting defense of obeying the GIRM as it relates to not kneeling after the Agnes Dei yet you explicate no conviction as it relates to kneeling during the Consecration!

Prior to Vatican 2, the whole country was far more compliant to authority - religious or secular - than the 60’s with it’s explosion of rejection of authority. The issues of authority and rejection are far, far more complex than most people (especially some in these forae) would ever admit. However, it is also true that the priests know widely as the John Paul 2 priests do not have the issue of trying to set themselves up as the experts; the tide is turning, slowly to be sure, but turning; we are getting better bishops and those from the past still in charge are gradually being replaced. And we will be eventually more uniform as that becomes more of an issue. However, Rome itself has seen fit to say that absolute uniformity is not necessary nor necessarily what they want.

You don’t have to be an expert to read and know the GIRM. They owe it to us to be versed in both their protocol and ours and it is our duty to follow licit protocol.

Try to get to meet someone - a priest - with whom you can speak, and ask in a non-defensive way. What do I mean? Don’t give any indication to what you might prefer, or even to any frustration as to what is occurring. Example: “Father, I am curious: in some parishes, everyone kneels for the Agnus Dei, and in others, they stand. Did the bishop ever make a decision that all should have one posture or the other, or did he grant that decision to the individual parishes?” And then don’t add to the issue. Just listen to the answer. And if you are not sure you are getting the straight truth, go somewhere else and ask. And keep a smile on your face when you do.

In other words, just get into curiosity.

It may well be that the bishop indicated that he preferred standing, but would accept kneeling, but that all should do one or the other. It may be that he indicated standing, not optional, but some take the option. And it may be that he has not said anything, and lets the parishes decide. Or it may be that he has granted individual parishes the option of not standing. That would appear to be within his authority as chief liturgist within his diocese and the rule granted by the GIRM (and Rome).

Agreed as I have stated. They need however to let us know this information. Many stand. Are they doing so because the priest has said they must or because he prefers it, or what? They need to let us know.

Also, standing is a sign of honor but in our culture kneeling is a sign of adoration. I have stated this repeatedly.

 

[FNDRB58]

It is a problem. There are other problems too, some of them of far more significance than the issues of posture; if we could get some of those addressed, I would suspect that we would see different results in some of the issues at Mass.

You are incorrigible. If we can’t get people to obey something as simple as posture than to take on more complex issues seems futile. I think I am about done with this thread.

 

[otjm]

There you go again. Why do you feel either position is acceptable when the GIRM states otherwise? You have made an exhausting defense of obeying the GIRM as it relates to not kneeling after the Agnes Dei yet you explicate no conviction as it relates to kneeling during the Consecration!

The Girm says that standing is the norm and the bishop has the authority to choose otherwise. I am not saying anything the Church does not say.

Go back and read my posts. I have said that in a few instances, in a parish that does not follow the GIRM (and had no apparent reason to stand validly under the “other reasons” standard), that I stood for the reason that I wanted to address certain individuals, and did not want to contend with being “judged” to the point of not their not being willing to hear what I might have to say.

The GIMR in general does not rise to the moral level of mortal sins for the average parishoner. Ask a confessor; in fact, ask several. Re-read Arinze’s comment.

Other than a couple of rare instances, I follow the GIRM, because I go to parishes which follow it. If the Pope, tomorrow says “stand during the Eucharistic Prayer” then I will stand. I will feel awkward. I will not, however, feel moral angst. I have stood during Byzantine liturgies. It feels awkward. I did not feel moral angst. I do not suggest that those who feel such moral angst are wrong (9as in, morally), but rather that they have stronger feelings about it than I do.

You don’t have to be an expert to read and know the GIRM. They owe it to us to be versed in both their protocol and ours and it is our duty to follow licit protocol.

Yep. I agree. there are also issues that are far more important - which does not say this is unimportant; just not as important.

Agreed as I have stated. They need however to let us know this information. Many stand. Are they doing so because the priest has said they must or because he prefers it, or what? They need to let us know.

It may well be that they did when the decision was originally made. those things tend not to be repeated at all, let alone often.

Also, standing is a sign of honor but in our culture kneeling is a sign of adoration. I have stated this repeatedly.

And I do not disagree; but Rome has seen fit to include standing during the Agnus Dei; maybe you need to hear what Rome is saying.

 

[otjm]

You are incorrigible. If we can’t get people to obey something as simple as posture than to take on more complex issues seems futile. I think I am about done with this thread.

If we cannot get people to realize how absolutely horrible abortion is, and why we cannot continue to vote for so-called Catholic politicians who continue to support it, why do you think we can get them to even pay attention to the rubrics?

For that matter, what makes you think we can even get them to darken the door of a church?

No, I am not incorrigible. I believe what the Church teaches, profess it, and teach others.

I also know where to pick my fights.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

The bow is supposedly the preferred action when approaching the Eucharist. Many either were not well trained, or not trained at all, or are simply forgetful.

In addition, we have over the last 50 or so years lost our “manners”. Society as a whole is far less formal, and far less polite (or, if you will, far more rude) to one another. Our gestures used to be a lot more refined and over time they have become more coarse. It should not be surprising that people who never heard of Emily Post would not know, or care, what the proper thing is to do. And those attitudes of society spill over into the congregation. There is in general an attitude of “you can’t tell me what to do!”

Sadly, that infects those on the right, the left, and in the middle - in short, everyone.

See…that’s what I thought. I always bow…of course I’ve always heard from our priest on the proper respect for the Eucharist. I was suprised that they wouldn’t know that. I’ve been away for 20+ years…but my Grandma was a big stickler for things like that. I do think it was after communion that they stay standing. I myself prefer to kneel and everyone else in our parish kneels after communion.

 

[FNDRB58]

If we cannot get people to realize how absolutely horrible abortion is, and why we cannot continue to vote for so-called Catholic politicians who continue to support it, why do you think we can get them to even pay attention to the rubrics?

For that matter, what makes you think we can even get them to darken the door of a church?

No, I am not incorrigible. I believe what the Church teaches, profess it, and teach others.

I also know where to pick my fights.

Can’t I turn it around and say…If we cannot get people to pay attention to something as simple as a rubric then how can we get them to realize how horrible abortion is???

Should a city council say that the placement of a stop sign is not as important as ensuring the drinkability of the city’s water and therefore not deal with the problem? Despite the level of importance, shouldn’t both be addressed?

Jesus says that he who is faithful in little things can be trusted with much more (Mt 25:21; Lk 16:10). Scripture also tells us that Jesus is concerned with every iota and every dot of the law and that it’s not a good thing to relax even the least of the commandments (Mt 5:18-19).

So, even though it may be a “little thing,” should we not strive to be faithful in all things?

 

[otjm]

Can’t I turn it around and say…If we cannot get people to pay attention to something as simple as a rubric then how can we get them to realize how horrible abortion is???

Anyone who feels that abortion is ok, or just a necessary evil is not going to give any attention at all to an issue like rubrics.

Try it. You’ll see. Rubrics are not only not on their radar screen; they aren’t even going to show up on it.

Should a city council say that the placement of a stop sign is not as important as ensuring the drinkability of the city’s water and therefore not deal with the problem? Despite the level of importance, shouldn’t both be addressed?

Liberals wont’ have a problem with either issue. They simply are going to ignore you on the rubrics issue, but they will get their panties in a twist if you ;approach the abortion issue - if for no other reason, the fact that underlying that issue is the issue of sex outside of marriage. Sorry, the two issues done’t compare.

And note: I did not say that both issues should net be addressed. Go out there and get a bit of experience addressing them. Rubrics can change. Dead babies are not going to come back to life.

Jesus says that he who is faithful in little things can be trusted with much more (Mt 25:21; Lk 16:10). Scripture also tells us that Jesus is concerned with every iota and every dot of the law and that it’s not a good thing to relax even the least of the commandments (Mt 5:18-19).

Jesus said a lot of things. I am all for the rubrics being obeyed, that is in part how I chose my current parish. I have never said they should not be obeyed. But as in other issues, there can be other more important matters. You are free to disagree, but you are outweighed by good, holy priests who follow the Magisterium when it comes to the moral implications.

So, even though it may be a “little thing,” should we not strive to be faithful in all things?

Yes, we should strive. However, if your house is burning down, you don’t get out the lawn mower and trim the grass so it will look nice when the local newspaper takes a picture of the fire.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Anyone who feels that abortion is ok, or just a necessary evil is not going to give any attention at all to an issue like rubrics.

Try it. You’ll see. Rubrics are not only not on their radar screen; they aren’t even going to show up on it.

Liberals wont’ have a problem with either issue. They simply are going to ignore you on the rubrics issue, but they will get their panties in a twist if you ;approach the abortion issue - if for no other reason, the fact that underlying that issue is the issue of sex outside of marriage. Sorry, the two issues done’t compare.

And note: I did not say that both issues should net be addressed. Go out there and get a bit of experience addressing them. Rubrics can change. Dead babies are not going to come back to life.

Jesus said a lot of things. I am all for the rubrics being obeyed, that is in part how I chose my current parish. I have never said they should not be obeyed. But as in other issues, there can be other more important matters. You are free to disagree, but you are outweighed by good, holy priests who follow the Magisterium when it comes to the moral implications.

Yes, we should strive. However, if your house is burning down, you don’t get out the lawn mower and trim the grass so it will look nice when the local newspaper takes a picture of the fire.

I agree. The little things help train our minds and actions for the big things. Even in society its this way. The Broken Windows theory. People will push the limits little by little and unless you nip it at the bud, it will grow and grow until its hardly manageable. I always say, bank robbers never learned to steal by stealing banks. It was always some small, insignificant item. A pen, candy, fruit. Once they get away with it they then keep pushing the line until one day they’re stilling millions of dollars and willing to kill just to steal. Broken Windows apply the same thing. You fix the little things in the neighborhoods that encourage crime, you prevent bigger crimes. Things like grafitti left uncleaned and unpunished would signal to criminals that cops don’t care. They’ll be more daring to do worse things.

The rubrics at Mass isn’t just so we do something for the sake of doing something at Mass. The actions will eventually guide our minds and our hearts towards reverence. The same with repetitive, pre-scripted prayers. The familiarity with words eventually will resonate throughout our mind and our soul and our subconscious would respond to it as well.

 

[FNDRB58]

Anyone who feels that abortion is ok, or just a necessary evil is not going to give any attention at all to an issue like rubrics.

Try it. You’ll see. Rubrics are not only not on their radar screen; they aren’t even going to show up on it.

Liberals wont’ have a problem with either issue. They simply are going to ignore you on the rubrics issue, but they will get their panties in a twist if you ;approach the abortion issue - if for no other reason, the fact that underlying that issue is the issue of sex outside of marriage. Sorry, the two issues done’t compare.

Your point is not limited to your one example. If we could get everyone to obey simple rules and adore Christ as they should by performing proper posture then wouldn’t these same obedient parishioners be more inclined to be in line with more “complex” or “important” Catholic teaching? I am following the logic explicated in the bible. As the bible says, “If you obey on small matters then you can be trusted with larger ones.” It doesn’t say “If you obey on large matters then you can be trusted with *smaller *ones.”

And note: I did not say that both issues should net be addressed. Go out there and get a bit of experience addressing them. Rubrics can change. Dead babies are not going to come back to life.

So are you now saying that both issues “large” and “small” should be addressed? If yes, then what is your point. That is what I am trying to tell you, that it is important to also address the little issues as they predispose one to holiness. If we take a lapsed Catholic who is pro-abortion and we get him to kneel before the Lord then wouldn’t he be more likely to accept not killing a baby? That is why it is important.

What you have said is that YOU are not going to bother trying because of “more important matters”. You think both should be addressed but you would only address the bigger problem because you have “bigger fish to fry.”

Jesus said a lot of things. I am all for the rubrics being obeyed, that is in part how I chose my current parish. I have never said they should not be obeyed. But as in other issues, there can be other more important matters. You are free to disagree, but you are outweighed by good, holy priests who follow the Magisterium when it comes to the moral implications.

In terms of hierarchy of importance of course we can say there are matters of more importance. But your point has been to downplay my emphatic desire that all obey the rubrics and at least kneel for the Consecration per canon law solely on the basis that, “it is not important enough.” This is the wrong attitude. Many Bishops got together in conferences to hammer out the GIRM so why is it not of great enough importance to you to take a strong stance on the subject when clearly U.S. Bishops have?

“Jesus said a lot of things.” Yes He did. What is your point? Are you saying he has contradicted himself?

Yes, we should strive. However, if your house is burning down, you don’t get out the lawn mower and trim the grass so it will look nice when the local newspaper takes a picture of the fire.

What ever does this mean?

 

[FNDRB58]

I agree. The little things help train our minds and actions for the big things. Even in society its this way. The Broken Windows theory. People will push the limits little by little and unless you nip it at the bud, it will grow and grow until its hardly manageable. I always say, bank robbers never learned to steal by stealing banks. It was always some small, insignificant item. A pen, candy, fruit. Once they get away with it they then keep pushing the line until one day they’re stilling millions of dollars and willing to kill just to steal. Broken Windows apply the same thing. You fix the little things in the neighborhoods that encourage crime, you prevent bigger crimes. Things like grafitti left uncleaned and unpunished would signal to criminals that cops don’t care. They’ll be more daring to do worse things.

The rubrics at Mass isn’t just so we do something for the sake of doing something at Mass. The actions will eventually guide our minds and our hearts towards reverence. The same with repetitive, pre-scripted prayers. The familiarity with words eventually will resonate throughout our mind and our soul and our subconscious would respond to it as well.

Excellent examples of the need to do the “small” things.

 

[otjm]

Your point is not limited to your one example. If we could get everyone to obey simple rules and adore Christ as they should by performing proper posture then wouldn’t these same obedient parishioners be more inclined to be in line with more “complex” or “important” Catholic teaching? I am following the logic explicated in the bible. As the bible says, “If you obey on small matters then you can be trusted with larger ones.” It doesn’t say “If you obey on large matters then you can be trusted with *smaller *ones.” {/QUOTE]You speak of “if”. “If” is too much akin to “wishing and hoping”. I deal with reality. The reality is that you want the liberals to start obeying the rubrics, and seem to think that if they start doing it, then we will have an easier path to getting them to obey the serious matters of the Church.

I deal with people who can be termed “liberals”; not that often because most won’t even engage in dialogue. I have “put my feet on the street”. My experience ( and the experience of others I work with, or who have similar agendas - getting people back to the Magisterium) is that people who are seriously out of line with major Church teachings are not going to give the small matters the time of day.

So, in a perfect world, I would agree with you. In the real world, the evidence is to the contrary - you simply are not going to even get a rational discussion going, let alone convince them to change and follow the Church.
FNDRB58;7166015:

it is important to also address the little issues as they predispose one to holiness. If we take a lapsed Catholic who is pro-abortion and we get him to kneel before the Lord then wouldn’t he be more likely to accept not killing a baby?

You are talking to someone who has actual experience in the matter. You can try to tell me all you want; but until you actually succeed in your endeavor, I am not going to pay much attention to your philosophizing on the matter. Show me your plan works; I will adopt in a heartbeat.

How many fallen away Catholics have you actually worked with? I don’t mean how many you have talked to once in awhile; how many have you actually worked with for 5, 10, or more weeks in a row trying to deal with their issues? How many people who reject the rubrics have you spoken with, for more than one conversation? What have been the results?

I have. Sadly, not very many have turned around, but some have (I now can count more than I have fingers, but not a lot more - and that is over a 20+year period). None of them gave a fig about the rubrics. They had much bigger issues, and saw the rubrics as simply silliness coming out of a Rome they felt was totally out of touch with them.

What you have said is that YOU are not going to bother trying because of “more important matters”. You think both should be addressed but you would only address the bigger problem because you have “bigger fish to fry.”

I have bigger fish to fry because the people whom I deal with have other more important issues to deal with. I don’t set the agenda. They do. I found out long ago that if I went in with my agenda, I got nowhere. It took some serious thinking, soul-searching and observations to realize that what I thought important didn’t matter to them What they thought important mattered to them. When I got over trying to set the agenda, I found more (not a lot, but more) openness to what the Church is about. I

 

[otjm]

Many Bishops got together in conferences to hammer out the GIRM so why is it not of great enough importance to you to take a strong stance on the subject when clearly U.S. Bishops have?

The bishops have not taken as strong a stance as you want to say. They do little or nothing to change the behavior of priests who have their own agenda. As I have said, there is little enforcement which is obvious to the lay person (what goes on behind doors usually stays there) and the results speak for themselves. Gradually things are changing. That is good. And the changes are most often lead by the priest, not some lay person who chooses to go against the crowd. I welcome you to kneel where they stand (when their standing is contrary to legislated posture). I welcome you to kneel after returning from Communion (I do - but then, so does most of my parish, and no one stands after returning to the pew).

Yes, the bishops speak of what they want. The talk the talk. What is more convincing is when they walk the walk. If the bishops all did that, you and I would not be having this conversation. I really respect Chaput, and he is one of the more clear bishops on the rubrics (as well as a whole lot more issues) I’ll bet you a cookie I could find parishes in his archdiocese that take a laissez-faire approach to the rubrics.

Make it a soft gingersnap.

My issue is not “it is not important enough”.

My issue has been that it has not only no positive impact on the ones who wish to violate intentionally the rubrics (or outright reject them), but it goes further to confirm them in their own attitudes that they are the cognoscenti. It is like dealing with a rebellious teenager. There are some things that simply push them further into, or confirm their rebellion. Sometimes that is inevitable; sometimes it is not. And some people never get the difference.

“Jesus said a lot of things.” Yes He did. What is your point? Are you saying he has contradicted himself?

No, I think you misinterpret it slightly.

What ever does this mean?

If your house is burning down (people who are divorced and re-married without a decree of nullity, or those who actively support abortion - e.g. donate to Planned Parenthood are going to Communion) you don’t go out and mow the grass (you don’t start fussing about when people stand or kneel). You deal with the house burning down.

Is it important to trim the grass? Yes.

As important as dealing with the house burning down?

Do I really need to answer that?

Failure to follow the rubrics is a symptom. Dealing with symptoms, instead of the disease which causes them, is notoriously ineffective in life in general as well as medicine in particular.

Because I suggest that treating the symptom is ineffective does not mean I think the symptom should not be addressed: but one does that by addressing the disease, not the symptom.

 

[FNDRB58]

The bishops have not taken as strong a stance as you want to say. They do little or nothing to change the behavior of priests who have their own agenda. As I have said, there is little enforcement which is obvious to the lay person (what goes on behind doors usually stays there) and the results speak for themselves. Gradually things are changing. That is good. And the changes are most often lead by the priest, not some lay person who chooses to go against the crowd. I welcome you to kneel where they stand (when their standing is contrary to legislated posture). I welcome you to kneel after returning from Communion (I do - but then, so does most of my parish, and no one stands after returning to the pew).

Yes, the bishops speak of what they want. The talk the talk. What is more convincing is when they walk the walk. If the bishops all did that, you and I would not be having this conversation. I really respect Chaput, and he is one of the more clear bishops on the rubrics (as well as a whole lot more issues) I’ll bet you a cookie I could find parishes in his archdiocese that take a laissez-faire approach to the rubrics.

Make it a soft gingersnap.

My issue is not “it is not important enough”.

My issue has been that it has not only no positive impact on the ones who wish to violate intentionally the rubrics (or outright reject them), but it goes further to confirm them in their own attitudes that they are the cognoscenti. It is like dealing with a rebellious teenager. There are some things that simply push them further into, or confirm their rebellion. Sometimes that is inevitable; sometimes it is not. And some people never get the difference.

No, I think you misinterpret it slightly.

If your house is burning down (people who are divorced and re-married without a decree of nullity, or those who actively support abortion - e.g. donate to Planned Parenthood are going to Communion) you don’t go out and mow the grass (you don’t start fussing about when people stand or kneel). You deal with the house burning down.

Is it important to trim the grass? Yes.

As important as dealing with the house burning down?

Do I really need to answer that?

Failure to follow the rubrics is a symptom. Dealing with symptoms, instead of the disease which causes them, is notoriously ineffective in life in general as well as medicine in particular.

Because I suggest that treating the symptom is ineffective does not mean I think the symptom should not be addressed: but one does that by addressing the disease, not the symptom.

 

[FNDRB58]

The bishops have not taken as strong a stance as you want to say. They do little or nothing to change the behavior of priests who have their own agenda. As I have said, there is little enforcement which is obvious to the lay person (what goes on behind doors usually stays there) and the results speak for themselves. Gradually things are changing. That is good. And the changes are most often lead by the priest, not some lay person who chooses to go against the crowd. I welcome you to kneel where they stand (when their standing is contrary to legislated posture). I welcome you to kneel after returning from Communion (I do - but then, so does most of my parish, and no one stands after returning to the pew).

Bishops need to do more, yes. But the very fact that the rubrics exist makes them important.

Yes, the bishops speak of what they want. The talk the talk. What is more convincing is when they walk the walk. If the bishops all did that, you and I would not be having this conversation. I really respect Chaput, and he is one of the more clear bishops on the rubrics (as well as a whole lot more issues) I’ll bet you a cookie I could find parishes in his archdiocese that take a laissez-faire approach to the rubrics.

Of course. I have already illucidated that there is a variance in rubrics in my own diocese and it is obvious that this problem is church-wide.

My issue has been that it has not only no positive impact on the ones who wish to violate intentionally the rubrics (or outright reject them), but it goes further to confirm them in their own attitudes that they are the cognoscenti. It is like dealing with a rebellious teenager. There are some things that simply push them further into, or confirm their rebellion. Sometimes that is inevitable; sometimes it is not. And some people never get the difference.

And my issue has been to kneel before Christ during the Consecration, not because I am trying to change others but primarily because it is in obeyance to the Church and out of adoration of Jesus. You seem to make more of a practical issue of whether it is “worth the fight”. It is indeed worth the fight…in my own heart. And if my example can influence others then that is what God wants from me. You have suggested that being seen kneeling by others is showing vanity and that you should go to your room and pray. Did he not say to be a light upon darkness and to let our light be shone among men, that they may see what we do and give glory to God?

If your house is burning down (people who are divorced and re-married without a decree of nullity, or those who actively support abortion - e.g. donate to Planned Parenthood are going to Communion) you don’t go out and mow the grass (you don’t start fussing about when people stand or kneel). You deal with the house burning down.

Is it important to trim the grass? Yes.

As important as dealing with the house burning down?

Do I really need to answer that?

I don’t agree that the issue of obeying rubrics in light of other issues is “mowing the lawn in front of the house that’s on fire.” I would say that is is like a fire department putting out both the fire at the house and a smaller fire in an empty abandoned vehicle down the street. Both need to be taken care of.

And of whom are you speaking? Though some do, most Catholics do not fall into your category of supporting abortion and illicit marriage/divorce. I give more credit than that to my fellow parishioners.

Failure to follow the rubrics is a symptom. Dealing with symptoms, instead of the disease which causes them, is notoriously ineffective in life in general as well as medicine in particular. Because I suggest that treating the symptom is ineffective does not mean I think the symptom should not be addressed: but one does that by addressing the disease, not the symptom.

No. If someone has a disease which has symptoms and signs then if both can be treated then both are treated.

Since symptoms are subjective feelings or sensations then the symptom is callousness. The sign is not obeying rubrics since this is an objective manifestation of the symptom. And the disease is lack of faith in and obedience to the Church. We call these Catholics “cafeteria Catholics”…those who pick and choose what to believe and obey.

I disagree because it is not that simple. If law enforcement stopped the drug suppliers then that would stop the neighborhood drug dealers…yes. But until that happens should they not continue to stop the smaller drug dealers who are selling on the corners? Wouldn’t you agree that both need to be addressed; that both need to stringently enforced? Isn’t the drug supplier the burning house and the corner drug dealer the lawn?

By your logic one should never deal with anything other than the most important issue. All others fall by the wayside. This can be catastrophic to any society or entity or business…all important matters must be addressed.

This is how I feel about kneeling at the Consecration. Though not among the highest issues on the list of improvements needed in the Church, it certainly isn’t something to ignore and it has its place in their “to do list”. I am a parishioner who attends Mass so from my humble position and perspective this is important to me and why I addressed this issue in this simple forum. People need to be obedient to the rubrics and therefore the Church AND need involve themselves to help end abortion. Both can be done. We do not all have to focus our attentions on single issues. We can take on multiple issues. All leaders must prioritize but they still address all important issues on the table because different issues affect different people. And various Church issues usually affect the whole Church as we are the members of its body.

 

[FNDRB58]

You speak of “if”. “If” is too much akin to “wishing and hoping”. I deal with reality. The reality is that you want the liberals to start obeying the rubrics, and seem to think that if they start doing it, then we will have an easier path to getting them to obey the serious matters of the Church.

I deal with people who can be termed “liberals”; not that often because most won’t even engage in dialogue. I have “put my feet on the street”. My experience ( and the experience of others I work with, or who have similar agendas - getting people back to the Magisterium) is that people who are seriously out of line with major Church teachings are not going to give the small matters the time of day.

So, in a perfect world, I would agree with you. In the real world, the evidence is to the contrary - you simply are not going to even get a rational discussion going, let alone convince them to change and follow the Church.

You are talking to someone who has actual experience in the matter. You can try to tell me all you want; but until you actually succeed in your endeavor, I am not going to pay much attention to your philosophizing on the matter. Show me your plan works; I will adopt in a heartbeat.

How many fallen away Catholics have you actually worked with? I don’t mean how many you have talked to once in awhile; how many have you actually worked with for 5, 10, or more weeks in a row trying to deal with their issues? How many people who reject the rubrics have you spoken with, for more than one conversation? What have been the results?

I have. Sadly, not very many have turned around, but some have (I now can count more than I have fingers, but not a lot more - and that is over a 20+year period). None of them gave a fig about the rubrics. They had much bigger issues, and saw the rubrics as simply silliness coming out of a Rome they felt was totally out of touch with them.

I have bigger fish to fry because the people whom I deal with have other more important issues to deal with. I don’t set the agenda. They do. I found out long ago that if I went in with my agenda, I got nowhere. It took some serious thinking, soul-searching and observations to realize that what I thought important didn’t matter to them What they thought important mattered to them. When I got over trying to set the agenda, I found more (not a lot, but more) openness to what the Church is about. I

I am not denying that the subject of posture has not been “enforced” as it should and may never be. I agree with you on that point. I have said that I also experience this attitude with regards to posture in our parishes. I have no intention of effecting change save a comment I made to a local pastor and the hopes that maybe a few fellow parishioners around me will follow my example.

Why is it so important to you that I realize that my concerns in this thread will go unnoticed to Church authority? I did not post my opinions to start some crusade. The only people I am trying to pursuade in this thread is the people who find talking about our faith interesting and informative. You seem to think because I don’t have a “prayer” in effecting change in the Church the world over that my conviction is futile and I need to give it up. Why is that? If I was starting some huge campaign that will be noticed by the U.S. Bishops or even the Vatican then I would understand your advisement that it is futile. Alas, I am just a guy who loves his faith and loves the Real Presence and I came here to share my thoughts and solicit the thoughts of others on a very modest level about posture. You seem to want me to “give it up” as though I was on a crusade or something and I was soliciting donors in this endevour to “shake up” the world!

 

[otjm]

Bishops need to do more, yes. But the very fact that the rubrics exist makes them important.

And I never said they were not.

Of course. I have already illucidated that there is a variance in rubrics in my own diocese and it is obvious that this problem is church-wide.

It does? You ahve been, perhaps, church-wide? How many dicoceses have you been in? How Many parishes in other dioceses? Or are you simply extrapolating?

And my issue has been to kneel before Christ during the Consecration, not because I am trying to change others but primarily because it is in obeyance to the Church and out of adoration of Jesus. You seem to make more of a practical issue of whether it is “worth the fight”.

Actually, no, I don’t. you simply seem to read what you want to read, and give it the spin you want to give it. In a couple of instances I did. That does not make for a generalization that I make it a practical issue.

You have suggested that being seen kneeling by others is showing vanity

No, I have not, and I most defintitely have not used that word. I am more than capable of stating what I want to state; do not put words in my mouth. Nor have I implied it.

Did he not say to be a light upon darkness and to let our light be shone among men, that they may see what we do and give glory to God?

Did I not say that I chose my parish (in part) based on their observance of the rubrics? Or did you just choose to ignore that?

I don’t agree that the issue of obeying rubrics in light of other issues is “mowing the lawn in front of the house that’s on fire.”

Oh. OK. Killing babies is on the moral level of not kneeling during the Consecration. I got it.

I would say that is is like a fire department putting out both the fire at the house and a smaller fire in an empty abandoned vehicle down the street. Both need to be taken care of.

Nope. Ask any moral theologian who follows the Magisterium.

And of whom are you speaking? Though some do, most Catholics do not fall into your category of supporting abortion and illicit marriage/divorce. I give more credit than that to my fellow parishioners.

Then you are naive beyond belief, or don’t read what the Catholic press writes about regularly - as in, the National Catholic Register. Or both.

No. If someone has a disease which has symptoms and signs then if both can be treated then both are treated.

Um hmm. I see you have a lot of experience in the matters.

By your logic one should never deal with anything other than the most important issue. All others fall by the wayside. This can be catastrophic to any society or entity or business…all important matters must be addressed.

OK, I can’t help your naivety. You obiously have no experience, but hold your self out as educated about the matter.

This is how I feel about kneeling at the Consecration. Though not among the highest issues on the list of improvements needed in the Church, it certainly isn’t something to ignore and it has its place in their “to do list”.

Well, duh… of course it has. Never said it didn’t. Again, you speak so obviously from no experience in the matter.

 

[otjm]

The only people I am trying to pursuade in this thread is the people who find talking about our faith interesting and informative.

I seriously doubt that there are two people in these forae (other than a few non-Catholics) who need persuading. I follow the rubrics, with the few exceptions noted. And I have not seen anyone else chime in who thinks that rubrics should not be followed.

You seem to think because I don’t have a “prayer” in effecting change in the Church the world over that my conviction is futile and I need to give it up.

To quote Regan: There you go again. I did not only not use the word futile, but did not imply it in regards to people who are not already rejecting major tennets of the faith.

Alas, I am just a guy who loves his faith and loves the Real Presence and I came here to share my thoughts and solicit the thoughts of others on a very modest level about posture. You seem to want me to “give it up” as though I was on a crusade or something and I was soliciting donors in this endevour to “shake up” the world!

No, I want you to put things into perspective. There is a vast difference. But then, as often as I have spoken, you have either ignored what I have said, or attempted to spin it.

 

[jmcrae]

It does? You ahve been, perhaps, church-wide? How many dicoceses have you been in? How Many parishes in other dioceses? Or are you simply extrapolating?

This Forum attracts thousands of members from all over the world, and it seems as if every member of the Forum has personally experienced at least one parish in their diocese where the rubrics are not followed. This would seem to indicate a very widespread problem.

 

[FNDRB58]

I seriously doubt that there are two people in these forae (other than a few non-Catholics) who need persuading. I follow the rubrics, with the few exceptions noted. And I have not seen anyone else chime in who thinks that rubrics should not be followed.To quote Regan: There you go again. I did not only not use the word futile, but did not imply it in regards to people who are not already rejecting major tennets of the faith. No, I want you to put things into perspective. There is a vast difference. But then, as often as I have spoken, you have either ignored what I have said, or attempted to spin it.

Did we not have at least one Catholic who said that rubrics are only a general guide and need not be rigidly followed? So your first sentence is debunked!

Semantics are not an effective comeback. Futility is indeed what you are implying if your contention is that no one will listen to me or the “fight” is not worth having because no one takes the issue as seriously as I do. There WERE many threads until you obstinately continued to state with your long drawn out posts that it is not a very important issue and the hierarchy isn’t interested in enforcing the rubrics, and that there are bigger fish to fry. People had trouble following the thread as a few have even stated and that is the reason why the conversation has been reduced to two participants.

The proper perspective is this. The rubrics are there for a reason and therefore are indeed important. As important as stopping abortion? Of course a rubric and the potential death of a child are miles apart in terms of the importance of the desired outcome. They are completely different subjects and on a different level. And frankly the abortion comparison/analogy is a weak one as I have illucidated. Often people in debates will use an extreme to get a point across without considering the lesser extreme and more applicable examples.

I have spun nothing. One deals with all problems not just the major one as you contend. No spin there. It is you who don’t yet appear to see that dealing with various issues is necessary. One doesn’t focus on one problem at the expense of all the other problems. We face them all…yes, some are a higher priority than others. You take the position that we forego all others by focusing on the major problems…unproductive thinking IMO. A pastor has many issues to deal with and he prioritizes but he doesn’t ignore the lesser of the two important matters does he? You are thinking narrow-mindedly and don’t see the big picture. If you ran a business would you only deal with improving the product at the expense of the effectiveness of the salesmen? It suprises me how anyone can not comprehend this philosophy.

 

[FNDRB58]

And I never said they were not.

It does? You ahve been, perhaps, church-wide? How many dicoceses have you been in? How Many parishes in other dioceses? Or are you simply extrapolating?

Actually, no, I don’t. you simply seem to read what you want to read, and give it the spin you want to give it. In a couple of instances I did. That does not make for a generalization that I make it a practical issue. No, I have not, and I most defintitely have not used that word. I am more than capable of stating what I want to state; do not put words in my mouth. Nor have I implied it.Did I not say that I chose my parish (in part) based on their observance of the rubrics? Or did you just choose to ignore that?

Oh. OK. Killing babies is on the moral level of not kneeling during the Consecration. I got it.Nope. Ask any moral theologian who follows the Magisterium.

Then you are naive beyond belief, or don’t read what the Catholic press writes about regularly - as in, the National Catholic Register. Or both.

Um hmm. I see you have a lot of experience in the matters.

OK, I can’t help your naivety. You obiously have no experience, but hold your self out as educated about the matter.

Well, duh… of course it has. Never said it didn’t. Again, you speak so obviously from no experience in the matter.

Indeed I AM extrapolating based on experience in my own diocese. So do you presume that my diocese is unique to others in California or those in the whole country? Don’t priests and pastors for that matter move around to parishes in other states? Are you saying that it only happens in the diocese of San Jose? Are you extrapolating from unknown information or have you been to my diocese and a comprehensive assortment of parishes throughout the country? Are telling me that parishioners outside my diocese never stand during the Consecration??? Sounds to me like you just want to be argumentative and have put the kibosh on common sense.

Regarding kneeling after the Agnus Dei…I have acknoledged that you may be correct in your reading of the GIRM despite the obvious confusion Arinze’s answer took. We still don’t know if a parish stands at that moment whether the Bishop or the pastor have mandated or whether they prefer it. You can’t tell me what their instructions are. Until I find out more on this subject I will indeed change my posture after the Agnus Dei in parishes where standing is the norm.

So I am flexible and I am reasonable…how about you?. You remain defiant of the GIRM during the Consecration on the few occasions when the parish illicitly stands AND you still don’t get it that one can deal with more than one issue related to Church matters.

I never said that killing babies and kneeling are on the same moral level. Are you spinning or flat out lying. I think you are running out of arguments and they have now become diluted and irrational.