MERGED: Should I stay kneeling?/Parish practices

[FNDRB58]

And we kneel to scrub behind the toilet. Flippant non-sequiturs like that are never very helpful.

Good comeback.

I would ask you and those who are rolling on the floor laughing. to follow this logic.

From your comments then one must come to the conclusion that posture, at least the differences between standing and kneeling is not important to you. This is clearly implied by your above response. Yet, the Pope and the bishops tell us to kneel during the consecration. Also, the Pope wants people to kneel when receiving the Eucharist from him in an attempt to get the faithful to truly adore the Real Presence. Therefore, posture IS important. Clearly they believe that standing does not equate with kneeling and that kneeling is a proper sign of adoration and humility before our Lord. How would you respond to this?

 

[otjm]

Not a very charitable attitude my friend.

It was humor; however, given that humor often requires one to hear the tone of voice, it does not translate very well through the net.

I see you are not reading all of my posts. In post #69 I acknowledge that I indeed was confusing myself and was not completely accurate. So we are indeed on the same page now.

And again, as the GIRM states, we are to kneel after the Agnus Dei, UNLESS the bishop states otherwise. So I guess the only way to know that is to follow the crowd.

Or one can ask the priest of the parish (after one writes down the question and lets it percolate a few days - to insure that it is asked in a way that does not come across as a challenge - our priests get beat up enough as it is); or one can follow along in the diocesan newspaper, where something such as that would normally have been noted - e.g. the bishop’s column; or one can inquire of the Chancery (again, writing it down, letting it percolate, etc), or one can attend other nearby parishes and observe (if a number of them are doing the same, likelyhood is the bishop as the source), or one can park it all on a shelf, realizing that liturgy has had its problems for some 40+ years now, numberous individuals have written to the bishop and others to Rome, most of them with little or no success.

But then again, there are many priests out there who do not follow the bishops requests.

No kidding? I hadn’t noticed… (that’s humor, ok?)

But you are saying now that the bishop can trum the GIRM which was developed by bishops as the standard?

This isn’t bridge or some other form of a card game. When a bishop is legitimately given the authority for a different option, he doesn’t trump anything. He exercises his legitimate option.

So the bishop can have the wine in pitcher with handles and the cups may be of glass? The bishop can contradict or change anything in the GIRM as he sees fit?

Did anyone in this thread suggest that? I will assume this is your attempt at humor, because the alternative would be less than that…

I would be interested to read where it says that the bishop can trump the GIRM which is developed…by the bishops. You may be right but I am curious how you know this to be a fact. I am willing to learn as I stated.

I have read the GIRM numerous times but a) I don’t have it memorized, b) it is not immediately handy and c) you are welcome to read it yourself. I assure you Rome gave the bishop the option we were discussing (not the side issues you dragged in).

standing after the Agnus Dei instead of just giving the pastor the option?Mine does. No clue about yours.

Just because someone can adore and be humble while standing and just because one believes it is does not make standing an outward sign of adoration and humility. If that was the case then Kings and Queens would have allowed people to stand before them. If an Eastern Rite Catholic was visited by the Lord and he knelt, how would you describe that action. Wouldn’t you say that he was humbling himself before the Lord and adoring the Lord? Certainly one would not say that one posture equates with the other.

You were the one who talked about the whole planet. Try to stick to my example, which was specific to your “whole planet” comment. There is a difference between Eastern and Western rites. There are cultural differences. You seemed unaware of them. I am not making any case for everyone to stand after receiving Communion, nor am I suggesting that others should stand; however, I believe it was Cardinal Arinze who responded to the dubium concerning posture after receiveing Communion, and if my memory serves me, he responded that Rome did not intend to be so rigid (that is, requiring everyone to stand after receiving until all had received).

And if my memory of that comment serves me correctly, he impliedly approved of standing after receiving.

And if he did, since he gets trotted out as an expert in other comments he makes, it should fit. Seems though, that it doesn’t fit some.

All of which is fine.

I kneel. QED.

[/QUOTE]

 

[otjm]

Good comeback.

I would ask you and those who are rolling on the floor laughing. to follow this logic.

From your comments then one must come to the conclusion that posture, at least the differences between standing and kneeling is not important to you. This is clearly implied by your above response. Yet, the Pope and the bishops tell us to kneel during the consecration. Also, the Pope wants people to kneel when receiving the Eucharist from him in an attempt to get the faithful to truly adore the Real Presence. Therefore, posture IS important. Clearly they believe that standing does not equate with kneeling and that kneeling is a proper sign of adoration and humility before our Lord. How would you respond to this?

First, I don’t think anyone in this string is suggesting that we should not kneel during the Consecration: that goes back to the time the mind of man rememberth not. However, in the Byzantine rite, which also goes back centuries, they stand during the Consecration. That is their rule; kneeling is our rule, and both are culturally conditioned.

As to the Pope requiring kneeling and reception on the tongue, that is the universal norm in the Roiman rite and it would be - perhaps not bizzare, but most certainly unusual, were he to require the indult. One would expect him to follow the norm, not the indult, and in following the norm, it does nothave the implication that the indult is somehow “less holy”, or impliedly sooon to be done away with.

I would also lay dollars to donuts he has them all stand sooner after the Consecration than we do in the US; that also is not a statement concerning the length of time one is to kneel, but is simply following the universal norm (it is by indult we remain kneeling).

 

[jmcrae]

I
Well, maybe this is the issue after all - you and I are form different planets! It is most certainly a sign of adoration - it is just that you seem to be totally ignorant of Eastern rites and culture.

We are Westerners - we shouldn’t follow Eastern culture. In the West, kneeling is a sign of adoration, and standing is a sign of respectful equality.

We should follow our own culture; we should not make ourselves guilty of cultural appropriation by mimicking the customs of the East. This would be very wrong.

 

[ConstantineTG]

We are Westerners - we shouldn’t follow Eastern culture. In the West, kneeling is a sign of adoration, and standing is a sign of respectful equality.

We should follow our own culture; we should not make ourselves guilty of cultural appropriation by mimicking the customs of the East. This would be very wrong.

If you’re that specific about it, kneeling came from Roman/Latin culture, not North American. Romans would kneel at their emperor’s feet. How do Americans give honor to the President? Don’t they stand when the President walks in the room? Does that mean you’re equal with the President?

 

[jmcrae]

If you’re that specific about it, kneeling came from Roman/Latin culture, not North American. Romans would kneel at their emperor’s feet. How do Americans give honor to the President? Don’t they stand when the President walks in the room? Does that mean you’re equal with the President?

The ancient Romans believed that Caesar was a god, the son of Zeus. It is right and fitting to kneel to gods.

I hope nobody alive today believes that the President is a god. He is a human being, equal with us - therefore, we stand out of respect for his office, and as a reminder to him that he is not a god.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The ancient Romans believed that Caesar was a god, the son of Zeus. It is right and fitting to kneel to gods.

I hope nobody alive today believes that the President is a god. He is a human being, equal with us - therefore, we stand out of respect for his office, and as a reminder to him that he is not a god.

But we’re still not standing because we believe we are equal with him. We know we’re not. Even me who’s not an American knows that I’m not equal with him in terms of rank. For one thing, I do not have the authority to rain nukes.

 

[jmcrae]

But we’re still not standing because we believe we are equal with him. We know we’re not. Even me who’s not an American knows that I’m not equal with him in terms of rank. For one thing, I do not have the authority to rain nukes.

Right. But in the sense that, under the right circumstance, you could some day be President, you are, in fact, equal with him. Whereas, you will never be God the Creator, no matter what happens. Also, it’s not the man himself that you are showing respect for (you might think he’s a dunce, but you would still stand when he enters a room) but rather, the office that he holds.

So, we kneel for God, whom we can never be like, but we stand out of respect for the office of those who are equal to us in every way except for the office that they happen to hold.

 

[Apollos]

I am not a frivolous person so I opted to return to what I understand, what has a long tradition and in which I am comfortable, the TLM.

Nor am I, and although I am too young to remember the earlier ritual, I am relieved to have a Form in which I am not constantly assaulted by banality.

 

[ljubim]

Nor am I, and although I am too young to remember the earlier ritual, I am relieved to have a Form in which I am not constantly assaulted by banality.

Me too! The TLM is so beautiful, the younger Catholics see it without preconceptions and fall in love with God once more

 

[KephasAugustine]

I insist that’s beside the point. If we all did as we pleased, we would lose the value of orderliness and decorum in public worship. What’s wrong with wanting to kneel, but skipping it out of respect for the customs of the place?

I didn’t mean to imply that we should all do as we please. We should follow the guidelines for the Mass as laid out in liturgical rubrics. As it has been stated above, in the West we kneel…as that is the case, and as it better disposes his soul to receive the Eucharist, he should by all means kneel.

 

[otjm]

We are Westerners - we shouldn’t follow Eastern culture. In the West, kneeling is a sign of adoration, and standing is a sign of respectful equality.

We should follow our own culture; we should not make ourselves guilty of cultural appropriation by mimicking the customs of the East. This would be very wrong.

Nothing I said should be taken as a suggestion that we should run out and modify our cultural norms just because someone else does something else.

On the other hand, we tend to have a lot of absolutists. They appear to think that the Roman rite is the only rite, and if they acknowledge that there are others, well, the Roman rite is superior, and its processes much more holy, much more capable of reflecting what God wants - you get the drift.

On occasion it has value to acknowledge that what we do is not the end all and be all definition of the issue.

“The Roman rite does it, I believe it, that ends it” too often seems to be behind some of the absolutist statements. An element of superiority, or what certainly looks like it, has been prevalent in the Roman rite for far too long. A bit of education would seem in order.

And by the way, I am old enough to have been taught that standing is a sign of respect to one’s elders and superiors.

 

[otjm]

But we’re still not standing because we believe we are equal with him. We know we’re not. Even me who’s not an American knows that I’m not equal with him in terms of rank. For one thing, I do not have the authority to rain nukes.

Well, hopefully you also do not have the authority to sign a bill that will send us into spending oblivion. One of them is capable of enough damage for all of us!

 

[Bob_Aliano]

Nor am I, and although I am too young to remember the earlier ritual, I am relieved to have a Form in which I am not constantly assaulted by banality.

banality? To which liturgical form are you applying the term? To me it means that one or the other form has become insignificant for some reason. I chose the TLM for very personal reasons but I do not doubt of the validity of the VII Mass, the consecrated Host is the Body and Blood of Jesus in either form.

 

[Apollos]

banality? To which liturgical form are you applying the term?

To the OF as implemented by almost all of the parishes I’ve ever visited. Some are worse than others.

 

[Brendan]

If you’re that specific about it, kneeling came from Roman/Latin culture, not North American. Romans would kneel at their emperor’s feet.

It predated Roman culture in Church history. Psalm 95:6 for example.

Come, let us bow down in worship,
let us kneel before the LORD our Maker;

It would be a stretch to say that David was a Roman

 

[zab]

All my life, I have knelt w/ the congregation after the Agnus Dei until receiving Communion. I have recently moved and at parishes here everybody remains standing during this time. On the one hand, I feel that I should kneel as this is general practice at Mass (also it feels more reverent and more readily disposes my heart to receive Jesus). On the other hand, I remember the quote from St Ambrose which says: “When I am at Rome, I fast on a Saturday: when I am at Milan I do not. Do the same. Follow the custom of the church where you are.”

I’m relatively sure this isn’t a vitally important part of Mass, but I would like some advice on what to do in this situation.

Thanks.

I believe it is best to follow the directive of the the Church by following the directive of your bishop. This rule may change from diocese to diocese. Our diocese was one that made that change. While this was awkward to get used to at first, most of us did get used to it. But there are a few who continue to kneel.

Its also important to follow the directives of the Church. The GIRM calls for kneeling. The only time I wouldn’t kneel is if I’m in an Eastern Church. I’ve attended a Chaldean Qurbono (Mass) and like most Eastern Churches, they do not kneel. So I stood up for consecration and before and after Communion. Everyone else is standing. I think thats the appropriate time to apply the “When in Rome…” rule. When its a Latin Rite Mass, kneel, when its Eastern, stand.

The G.I.R.M. states: The faithful kneel after the Agnus Dei unless the Diocesan Bishop determines otherwise.53http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/current/chapter2.shtml#sect2

I’m not sure I agree. If it better disposes the OP’s soul to receive Jesus, it might be dangerous to him if he didn’t kneel. Who cares what the rest of the congregation thinks? We’re at Mass to worship God, not judge other people.

Not judging other people goes both ways- Do not judge other people because they are correctly following a valid directive of the bishop.

I say kneel. If other people are disobedient to the church, that’s their problem. Don’t just go with the flow.
As for the St. Ambrose quote, I think he is referring to practices that are allowed either way. In Rome, the church allows people to fast on a Sat… In milan, it is not required to fast on Sat. He is talking about following local traditions that are allowed by the church. Standing at this time in the mass is not allowed, so don’t do it.

Seriously? There is obiedence to the church to be gained!! Who cares what disobedient liberals label us as if they do it because we are obedient to the church?

You are mistaken if you think that people who are following a valid directive of their bishop are being disobedient to the Church. See G.I.R.M. #43

 

[FNDRB58]

Nothing I said should be taken as a suggestion that we should run out and modify our cultural norms just because someone else does something else.

On the other hand, we tend to have a lot of absolutists. They appear to think that the Roman rite is the only rite, and if they acknowledge that there are others, well, the Roman rite is superior, and its processes much more holy, much more capable of reflecting what God wants - you get the drift.

On occasion it has value to acknowledge that what we do is not the end all and be all definition of the issue.

“The Roman rite does it, I believe it, that ends it” too often seems to be behind some of the absolutist statements. An element of superiority, or what certainly looks like it, has been prevalent in the Roman rite for far too long. A bit of education would seem in order.

And by the way, I am old enough to have been taught that standing is a sign of respect to one’s elders and superiors.

I never said anything about the Eastern Rite Catholics HAVING to kneel or that their kneeling is wrong. If I were in their church I would do as they do out of respect. What I did say and what you took out of context is that kneeling is a sign of adoration and humility on this planet. That is a very different statement and not an absolutist one as you seem to be implying. Using your example of Eastern Rite Catholics…if one these was standing out of adoration and then knelt, then that too would be a sign of adoration and humility would it not? Yes, it would. So you are twisting what I am saying around which is bit annoying I must say. And don’t stress about the use of the word trump. Its a tricky word but can be used outside of card games and still apply. You know what I meant by use of the word.

If you took the time to discuss instead of chastising my every statement and understood the spirit in which I make them then we might get somewhere in this thread. Unfortunately, your dialogue etiquette among fellow Catholics needs some improvement.

I will give this one more shot as this thread has become convoluted beyond words…

Let us speak now only of the Roman Rite and in the United States of America. I am not concerned about other cutures and other rites. I am concerned about my diocese and in my country. I will take on the world another time…

We can agree with the following:

1. The GIRM states that we must kneel at the Consecration.

Many churches in my parish do not therefore that is opposed to what is stated in the GIRM.

The very fact that kneeling is mandated during the consecration speaks directly to the importance and uniqueness of adoration and humility in this posture versus standing. If you deny this then you are being irrational.

1. **The GIRM states that we must kneel after the Agnus Dei unless the local bishop states otherwise. **

Some bishops feel as I do, that kneeling is most appropriate, and some apparently feel that standing is more appropriate. So even among the bishops there is this “disunity” if I may use that jargon. They expect us to be in union yet they are not…choice.

The question is whether the local Bishop may follow his own rules instead of those set forth by the GIRM. This I will have to investigate.

1. **The GIRM states that the faithful may use any posture they choose after returning to their seats from communion. **

The question again arises whether the bishop can mandate that someone indeed does one or the other. Again, this needs to be investigated but I do not believe he can.

If the bishop can overrule (so-to-speak) these rules in the GIRM then what is the purpose of the GIRM? If he can overrule one then he can theoretically overrule all of them which would be absurd to think he can do that!

So I will research this and if this thread is still active I will represent myself with the information.

I HAVE SPOKEN.

 

[otjm]

I will give this one more shot as this thread has become convoluted beyond words…

Let us speak now only of the Roman Rite and in the United States of America. I am not concerned about other cutures and other rites. I am concerned about my diocese and in my country. I will take on the world another time…

We can agree with the following:

1. The GIRM states that we must kneel at the Consecration.

Many churches in my parish do not therefore that is opposed to what is stated in the GIRM.

The very fact that kneeling is mandated during the consecration speaks directly to the importance and uniqueness of adoration and humility in this posture versus standing. If you deny this then you are being irrational.

See my post - I am neither irrational nor denying anything. My discussion was limited to two areas - Agnus Dei to Communion, and during communion after receiving.

1. The GIRM states that we must kneel after the Agnus Dei unless the local bishop states otherwise.

Some bishops feel as I do, that kneeling is most appropriate, and some apparently feel that standing is more appropriate. So even among the bishops there is this “disunity” if I may use that jargon. They expect us to be in union yet they are not…choice.

You are confusing Unit with Uniformity. The Church - which includes the Romen rite but is not exclusive to it - requires unity. It does not require uniformity, and never has. There is no “disunity” between bishops where options are made available - as they are on the issue of standing/kneeling during the Agnus Dei period. There may not be uniformity, but it is a misunderstanding of what the Church requires or doesn’t require. Most people, prior to the start of the OF, were only familiar with the EF which from their understanding and experience, was uniform. Given that there were (and still are) several small rites within the jurisdiction of the Roman rite, and some minor issues (primarily elsewhere in the world) in the EF, that (uniformity) was not factual (and in face, given the eastern rites, was not factual, given their different liturgies). But most people were entirely unaware of this, and as a result assumed that unity meant uniformity. It didn’t; it doesn’t, and it causes some people consternation. Why, I don’t know. When I first learned of such issues, my reaction was “Oh. That’s interesting.” Others seem to be somewhere between confused and horrified that the Church does not require, and in fact seems comfortable with, a lack of complete uniformity.

The question is whether the local Bishop may follow his own rules instead of those set forth by the GIRM. This I will have to investigate.

the bishop does not have carte blanche authority to determine how the liturgy will be celebrated; he is to follow the GIRM with the exceptions as to where there are alternates and/or options.

The fact that a few bishops do not follow the GIRM, or at least do not require their pastors to follow it is well known. By now, one can reasonably assume that Rome also knows it, and Rome has not made any public effort to correct some of the more notorious ones.

1. **The GIRM states that the faithful may use any posture they choose after returning to their seats from communion. **

Actually, the GIRM was written in such a way that it appeared that all were to remain standing after receiving until the last had received; this was the source of the dubium to which (I believe it was) Arinze responded that Rome did not intend to be that rigid about posture (and there is another example of Rome not demanding uniformity in all things).

The question again arises whether the bishop can mandate that someone indeed does one or the other. Again, this needs to be investigated but I do not believe he can.

If the bishop can overrule (so-to-speak) these rules in the GIRM then what is the purpose of the GIRM? If he can overrule one then he can theoretically overrule all of them which would be absurd to think he can do that!

This has been asked and answered throughout the thread, with quotes to the GIRM by others. The bishop is not overruling anything. The GIRM specifically gives the bishop and option; exercising an option is not overruling the GIRM, not even “so to speak”.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Right. But in the sense that, under the right circumstance, you could some day be President, you are, in fact, equal with him. Whereas, you will never be God the Creator, no matter what happens. Also, it’s not the man himself that you are showing respect for (you might think he’s a dunce, but you would still stand when he enters a room) but rather, the office that he holds.

So, we kneel for God, whom we can never be like, but we stand out of respect for the office of those who are equal to us in every way except for the office that they happen to hold.

So Jesus was asking the impossible?

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 5:48[/BIBLEDRB]