A
Annabelle_Marie
Guest
Same here! But we have the same archdiocese…I’m in Keizer…
- Status
A
Annabelle_Marie
Guest
I don’t think he said that he didn’t kneel during the Consecration. I’m in the same dioceses and we kneel during the Consecration.
F
FNDRB58
Guest
He has stated that he prefers to kneel during the Consecration but only if the parish kneels. If they stand then he stands.
A
Annabelle_Marie
Guest
at a Byzantine rite Mass…would that not be different?
O
otjm
Guest
From the GIRM, English translation, 2002, paragraph 43 in Section II: “In the dioceses of the United States of America, they should kneel beginning after the singing or recitation of the Sanctus until after the Amen of the Eucharistic Prayer, except when prevented on occasion by reasons of health, lack of space, the large number of people present, or some other good reason. Those who do not kneel ought to make a profound bow when the priest genuflects after the consecration. The faithful kneel after the Agnus Dei unless the diocesan Bishop determines otherwise.” (underlining and bold mine).
That is not “authority to request”. That is a rule which he expressly has the power to invoke, and that rule has the same weight as the rule before it concerning kneeling during the consecration.
Your comment about Communion time was a specific question (because the GIRM’s language indicated that all should stand until the last had received) which was put forth by, if I recall correctly, Cardinal George. The question he sent to the Vatican was not about during the Agnus Dei, but was specific to Communion time. Rome’s answer was specific also to Communion time. No permission was given to vary the posture during the Agnus Dei, any more than permission to vary during the consecration except for the the reasons given in the text and “other good reason” which has not been interpreted by Rome to mean “because you feel like it” or “because you want to be different” or whatever specious reasoning has accompanied the parishes which insist on doing it outside the above-given reasons. Sorry, you are wrong on that issue, but correct about posture upon returning to the bench after receiving.
I do, with the extremely rare occasion which I have described. It has occurred less than 4 times in the last 30 years. If I recall correctly, less than three.
Key words: “a sign”. It is not unity. It points to another reality. the two are distinct.
O
otjm
Guest
That is a tad bit inaccurate. In general, I avoid parishes that insist for no good reason on standing during the consecration. On a couple of occasions, when I was in such a parish, I stood, for reasons given above. I never said simply that if they stand, I stand.
O
otjm
Guest
I am in the southwestern area of Portland suburbs, where we have 24 hour Perpetual Adoration.Same here! But we have the same archdiocese…I’m in Keizer…
O
otjm
Guest
Have you ever gone to St Irene’s (toward University of Portland, in North Portland - a bit hard to find), or St Sharbel’s in southeast Portland? Father Decker is awesome!
And yes, at a Byzantine rite Mass it would be different.
A
Annabelle_Marie
Guest
so do we! Our priest brought it to our parish:thumbsup:
O
otjm
Guest
Welcome back!
F
FNDRB58
Guest
F
FNDRB58
Guest
My calling it a request is not accurate.The 2003 GIRM does end with “unless the diocesan Bishop determines otherwise.” However, read below and tell me if their isn’t still the allowance for one to kneel despite what their Bishop determines:
*A controversy ensued, in which Francis Cardinal George, chairman of the Bishops’ Committee on Liturgy, queried the CDWDS: “In many places, the faithful are accustomed to kneeling or sitting in personal prayer upon returning to their places after having individually received Holy Communion during Mass. Is it the intention of the [new Roman Missal] to forbid this practice?”
The response was as follows: “Negative, et ad mentem [No, and for this reason]. The mens [reason] is that the prescription of [GIRM] no. 43 is intended, on the one hand, to ensure within broad limits a certain uniformity of posture within the congregation for the various parts of the celebration of Holy Mass, and on the other,** to not regulate posture rigidly in such a way that those who wish to kneel or sit would no longer be free**” (responsum of Francis Cardinal Arinze, June 5, 2003 [Prot. 855/03/L], as published in the July 2003 BCL newsletter).*
I would say that the last bold statement above certainly does not infer that the Bishop mandates one form of posture, does it? No. I would indeed be free to kneel after the Agnes Dei if I wish.
Though Caridinal George’s query above addresses the posture after communion, read the answer. The answer to his query is applicable to #43 which also includes kneeling after the Agnes Dei. It does not specify PART of #43. It speaks to all of #43.
Where did you read that I said it was unity? I never said that it was unity…that doesn’t even make sense to say that.
What I did say is that it shows, creates, or is a sign of unity, which essentially mean the same thing. Perhaps you are trying to split hairs. I state again from the GIRM - “A common posture, to be observed by all participants, is a sign of the unity of the members of the Christian community gathered for the Sacred Liturgy: it both expresses and fosters the intention and spiritual attitude of the participants.” It is no clearer that this. I agree with the premise on one hand but disagree that if some kneel after Communion, that it therefore either disunifies or is a sign of disunity.
A
Annabelle_Marie
Guest
Nope…to newly returned. And truth be told…I don’t want to miss a Sunday at our parish…our priest is wonderful…although sometimes the homilies can be a little challenging personally…it’s like a direct hit!
A
Aramis
Guest
The GIRM has authority ONLY over the Roman Missal.
The Byzantine DL has no kneeling on Sundays, and in many traditions, none at all. Prostrations and bows, yes, but not kneeling. And further, the option to receive kneeling is not present in the DLs of St. John and St. Basil, which specify the posture in the rubrics. Step forward, tilt your head back, open your mouth, do not extend your tongue, do not say amen. (the priest says a prayer over you while you are communed.)
Traditionally, also, there is no sitting during the Byzantine DL. Stand throughout, tho’ some sit on the floor during the epistle and homily. Seats, especially pews, are an innovation. Those who sit are either aged, infirm, or injured. Even where seats are used, one does not sit down until after the benediction with the Cup, and the hymn “May our mouths be filled…” During the words of institution, a deep bow or full prostration is the norm…
The Armenian, Alexandrian, West Syrian and East Syrian Rites also stand during and following communion.
O
otjm
Guest
while Rome may take a bit of a laissez faire approach to enforcing rules after promulgating them, their approach to answering a dubium is quite specific: they answer the question asked, and are not answering a question not asked.
The question they were asked was very specific, and was to the confusion caused by the way the GIRM addressed posture at Communion. It was specifically to a GIRM issue at c
communion, not a question about the rule making authortiy granted to the bishop about posture elsewhere during the Mass. If one were to take their answer about what they meant about the specific posture at Communion and attempt to apply it to the posture during the Agnus Dei, or for that matter, during the consecration, one would be going places they did not address, were not asked about, and it would be taking the answer there (communion) to issues that were specifically spelled out.
What I mean is, the issue at Communion was vaguely written. That was why there was a dubium about it. The issue about the Agnus Dei was not vague - the bishop had the authority to determine otherwise than kneeling. Nor was the issue about kneeling during the Eucharistic Prayer vague, in spite of the fact that liturgists who want to do otherwise at the Eucharistic prayer have taken “other good reason” to mean “any reason we can come up with, or no reason at all”.
If you are going to attempt to apply it to the Agnus Dei, which is clear and not vague, then you are going to have to apply it to the Eucharistic Prayer also. If Rome could be considered vague on either issue, it would be the Eucharistic Prayer “other good reason”, not the issue of the legitimacy of the bishop’s authority to impose a different posture.
And I don’t think either you or I want to go there.
Nope. See above. The answer was specific to a specific question, and the scope of the question only had to do with choice of posture at the time of Communion (actually, time of an individual who had just received and returned to their bench).
George was specific about posture upon receiving Communion, and there is nothing in the question that would take it anywhere else. He did not ask an open-ended question about 43; he asked about posture upon returning to the bench after reception of Communion. And Rome does not make sloppy answers; if they intended to answer anything but the specific question, they are trained well enough that they would state that the answer applied elsewhere.
I see where you are going with the response from them; but their comment was to a point in 43 that was confusing (because of its vagueness). The rest of the postures (Agnus Dei) are not vague, and they are not saying that within the GIRM, when they speak of postures and are specific, that they do not mean to be specific.
The Agnus Dei section of 43 is specific - kneel. If the bishop decides other wise (do as the bishop says). If anything, that section is more specific than the setion on the Eucharistic Prayer posture - which includes the “other good reason” phrase - and which you specifically don’t want to go elsewhere with. And on that point, we agree.
O
otjm
Guest
Well, the Jesuits have been accused of such, usually not correctly. And forgive me, I was Jesuit trained (how many times did I hear the charge, sometimes a bit vehemently: "Define your terms!).They are not essentially the same; uniformity may lead to unity, but it is not the same as unity, as unity may be acheived where there is no uniformity: to wit: the Eastern Churches are in unity with the Pope, but there most definitely is not uniformity of practice (the Mass and the Holy ;Mysteries) nor is there uniformity of theological explanations of doctrinal issues.Where did you read that I said it was unity? I never said that it was unity…that doesn’t even make sense to say that.
It is a sign, not the only sign. Therefore it cannot be “essentially the same”. The essence of the two are not identical, but similar in some aspects.
Uniformity may be a sign of unity; however, there may be unity where there is no uniformity (or little, or maybe a lot but not all).
Uniformity may also be had where there is no unity; thus it would be a mistake to presume that uniformity means unity. I went to a “high church” Lutheran wedding (my secretary was getting married), in the late 70’s and was absolutely amazed at how their service (which, if I recall correctly, they called a Mass) looked Catholic. There was a great deal of uniformity of their service to our Mass, but there sure wasn’t unity.
People’s posture after receiving Communion may not be uniform, but unity does not necessarily require uniformity (although it may help emotionally for some). What I find particularly jarring visually is to see someone return to their seat and remain standing when most are kneeling and a few are seated. However, according to Arinze, I will not be one to try to correct them. I sometimes wonder how much of their standing has to do with a truly heartfelt posture of adoration, and how much is a statement… I can visually deal with being seated if for no other reason than I saw people doing that in the 1950’s.
Sorry, not trying to bust your chops about the issue of uniformity and unity, but I picked up on the “essentially the same” part. We too often get caught in thinking things are “essentially the same” when in fact, they may well differ, and it is easy to get caught in that difference.
F
FNDRB58
Guest
Unfortunately it wasn’t these two words that I was referring to. I stated “It [uniformity] shows, creates, or is a sign of unity, which essentially mean the same thing.” I was not saying that uniformity and unity are the same but “shows”, “creates”, and “is a sign of” essentially mean the same thing…that is if you don’t get too technical. The important thing is that uniformity precedes unity with regards to posture, at least according to the GIRM - uniformity is a sign of unity and it fosters unity.
Is your assessment of the answer to Cardinal George’s query your opinion or is there some documentation that answers that question?
His query was indeed specific as I have stated, however the answer contained non-specific language. They stated that the prescription of [GIRM] no. 43 is intended, on the one hand, to ensure within broad limits a certain uniformity of posture within the congregation for the various parts of the celebration of Holy Mass, and on the other, to not regulate posture rigidly in such a way that those who wish to kneel or sit would no longer be free” Where in this quote is it specific to after communion only? It addresses the question, but the answer includes the broad application of no.43. It is more logical to presume all postures within 43 instead of choosing only one posture…unless you have some evidence that what was meant was not all of 43 and instead only one posture within 43.
O
otjm
Guest
Your comment is the first I have seen anywhere that suggests that the answer is to anything (concerning posture) other than the posture after receiving Communion. No one that I know of, and no one that I have heard has proposed that this has anything to do whatsoever with posture during the Agnus Dei, or that in any way the bishop does not have authority to determine (as opposed to “suggest” or “ask”) that posture be different: that is kneeling if the GIRM is followed, or standing if that is the posture the bishop decides. And it has been a number of years since the question was asked and answered.
As noted (and I think you can take the response format back to well, long before Vatican 2, so this is not some sort of “Vatican 2 issue”), Rome asks questions that are answered, and does not answer questions that are not asked, unless they so note that the answer applies elsewhere. The essence of what you are proposing is an effective dismantling of the GIRM, because what you propose - that the answer applies to other postures under #43 because it refers to #43 instead of only saying “after reception of Communion” (or its equivalent) would logically extend to other postures. And then we get right back to an area that is vague (the Agnus Dei issue is not vague at all), and that is the issue of what constitutes “other good reason”.
Rome is very specific. They referred to #43 because the issue starts in the first paragraph of the section: The faithful should stand… from the invitation, Orate, fratres (Pray, brethren), before the prayer over the offerings until the end of Mass, except at the places indicated below. (Emphasis mine). The confusion came with the issue that was implied. Kneeling during the Agnus Dei (with its explicit exception that the bishop could legislate otherwise - standing) was not unclear; it was specific with a specific exception.
Note that this period, from the Orate fratres to the end of Mass includes the Eucharistic Prayer.
If Arinze was saying anything about allowing alternatives, and it applied to all of #43, then one needs to keep in mind that #43 includes the Eucharistic Prayer (as it comes after the Orate fratres). He did not say anything about that. He referred to #43, but the only question about #43 was specific, and his answer, to a section of #43 by saying"#43" does not therewith include all postures as being less that uniform The only time there was a question about it was the time of a person returning from reception of Communion until all had received and the period of silence was over (which concludes with final prayer).
Again, what you are proposing is a complete re-write of 43 from its specifics - the Agnus Dei - to what was alluded to but not specifically set out - whether one has to stand after receiving, until all have received.
There was a seminar put on (by whom I don’t recall) in our archdiocese when the GIRM came out and as it was being implemented. I pulled out my notes last night. In there, I noted that there was confusion among liturgists (and I am speaking of those on a higher level than the local parish, or for that matter, the local diocese) that this was a question: did everyone have to stand after one has received, until all had received. Cardinal George sent the dubium; it was answered, and I don’t know of anyone who has interpreted it as answering anything except the question asked. No one was asking about the specifics where posture was set forth explicitly. What was being asked about was what was not specifically set forth, but seemed to be by logical application - #43 says “stand” and provides exceptions, does not speak about the specific period of Communion, and by implication, that was being required. the implication was questioned. No one assumed that Arinze was making are-write of the whole section.
As a passing note: the liturgist who came out and lectured was there because a) there were changes and b) his duty was to go over and explain what changed, what stayed the same, and “what the red was” - in other words, he was simply there to assist all of us in following Rome’s direction. He was not some avante guarde liturgist with his own spin on the Mass.
F
FNDRB58
Guest
Perhaps you are correct, but it is incumbent upon you to show evidence in writing from a credible source that refutes my interpretation regarding #43. I am interpreting the answer to Card. George’s query just as it is written. It says what it says. Anyone reading that would understand it to mean what it says, that nothing in 43 is meant to so rigidly restrict those from kneeling if they prefer to do so - with no specifics mentioned. If I am to believe something different than that literal interpretation then I need some more meat on the bones.
Frankly, my brain is hurting from reading your long posts. If you can shorten them a bit and include some evidence to back up your interpretation then that would be grand.
Frankly, my brain is hurting from reading your long posts. If you can shorten them a bit and include some evidence to back up your interpretation then that would be grand.
O
otjm
Guest
Not to make too short of it, but my comment that no one else has seen what you see should stand.Perhaps you are correct, but it is incumbent upon you to show evidence in writing from a credible source that refutes my interpretation regarding #43. I am interpreting the answer to Card. George’s query just as it is written. It says what it says. Anyone reading that would understand it to mean what it says, that nothing in 43 is meant to so rigidly restrict those from kneeling if they prefer to do so - with no specifics mentioned. If I am to believe something different than that literal interpretation then I need some more meat on the bones.
Frankly, my brain is hurting from reading your long posts. If you can shorten them a bit and include some evidence to back up your interpretation then that would be grand.
Note: I am not a Canon lawyer nor am I a liturgist. I would guess if you asked either one of them, they would tell you much the same. I don’t track liturgical discussions on the professional level; I can tell you the question was afoot in the training that was being given officially (not my prior post - I attended one of those) in which the specific question came up. Neither Cardinal George, nor anyone else I have heard of has ever come to the conclusion you have come to. And as a matter of fact, I have yet to find a parish which does as you suggest - that people choose the stance they will take as to the Agnus Dei based on your interpretation of the Response, that it changes the plain text of the GIRM as to the Agnus Dei as well as explaining what Rome intended as to the posture after receiving Communion. The essence of your question is asking me to prove a negative and that is philosophically and practically impossible.
And I can say that if anyone actually involved in liturgy professionally had interpreted the Response as you suggest, it would have made the rounds like wild fire.
I have been to Mass in North Dakota, Montana, California, Oregon and Utah. I have attended some goofy Masses on a rare occsion; the vast majority have followed the GIRM. Where people knelt for the Agnus Dei, everyone knelt. Where the bishops have replaced that rule (as permitted by the GIRM) with standing, everyone stands. There simply is no mixed posture - with the very rare exception of an individual or two. And I don’t take one person at a Mass as someone who has read either the GIRM or the Response, let alone both, and come to the conclusion you wish to make. And as an aside, the only instance I think I recall is where all stood, with the exception of someone who decided to kneel. tht is far more esily attributed to someone who is used to kneeling then, than to someone who had read the two mentioned rule bases.
As practical matter, everyone I have ever come across who has knowledge of the dubium and response all, to a person, consider the response to be an answer to the dubium, not some commentary by Rome that all of #43 is simply hortatory, and that Rome did not intend #43 to say what it says. In short, everyone takes the response to only be applied to the posture at Communion.
If you want other proof, send the Cardinal your question. I won’t because I, like everyone I have come across (with the exception of you) understands the answer to apply only to post Communion posture.
- Status