MERGED: Should I stay kneeling?/Parish practices

[cjforJesus]

MY brain is hurting from trying to follow this long drawn out debate.

I cannot figure out what you are actually debating now.

Is it Ok for someone to kneel when everyone else is standing after communion? Of course! I dont need a book to tell me that. No one cares what another parishioners personal devotion is.The unity is supposed to be in the heart,celebrating the Eucharistic mystery and God’s love for us.

 

[FNDRB58]

MY brain is hurting from trying to follow this long drawn out debate.

I cannot figure out what you are actually debating now.

Is it Ok for someone to kneel when everyone else is standing after communion? Of course! I dont need a book to tell me that. No one cares what another parishioners personal devotion is.The unity is supposed to be in the heart,celebrating the Eucharistic mystery and God’s love for us.

Unfortunately your view is inconsistent with Catholic teaching. Actually, we do need the GIRM to tell us what is allowed but most Catholics never even heard of it. You can’t just do whatever you want because it sounds right. We have rules and they are there for a reason.

Yes, the GIRM allows any posture during the communion service. We are not debating that. We are currently debating whether the local Bishop can mandate that we kneel after the Agnes Dei or if there is a provision that allows one to kneel despite what the Bishop prefers.

The original debate was whether kneeling after the Agnes Dei was proper. Otjm made the comment that though he prefers to kneel he stands even for the Consecration in a parish where everyone stands. I had to address this as the GRIM states that everyone must kneel for the Consecration. I questioned why he chooses to acquiesce to those parishes that illicitly stand. He stated that it is “not worth the fight” and “there are more important issues in the church than a rubric”. I say all matters are important and who cares what others think or say and continue kneeling before God even when others around you don’t. He says he doesn’t care what others think but yet doesn’t want people to see him conspicuously kneel. Apparently he has experienced dissent among others because he knelt and doesn’t want to deal with it.

Now we are discussing Cardinal George’s query to the U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference. He asked a specific questioned about the posture during and after communion. Otjm says that the answer to the query was specific to the question. I say that although the answer addressed the specific question it spoke to GIRM #43 in a general way. The GIRM speaks posture in general, not a posture taken at a specific time in the Mass. And it states that it is not to be taken so rigidly that one is prohibited form kneeling if one wishes to do so. Of course we are mandated to kneel during the Consecration so that is not what #43 is speaking about but rather prohibiting kneeling. Otjm doesn’t agree with what I believe is a literal and correct interpretation of the phrase. He says that he has never met anyone who has taken it like that. I am saying that it says what it says and I need more commentary from credible sources other than accepting his infallible interpretation.

 

[FNDRB58]

We agree that the query by Cardinal George was specific to communion. We agree that the answer to that query stated that “#43] should not be taken to prohibit anyone from kneeling if they choose to do so.” What we disagree is that #43 is general. You think it speaks just to communion only because it was the answer given to Cardinal George’s specific question, which is an erroneous presumption. Nowhere in the short paragraph #43 does it state a specific moment during the liturgy. You have to admit that the paragraph itself is general. It was only used to answer the specific question but #43 speaks generally. That is if someone wants to kneel (anytime) then one is free to do so.

This is a very logical reading of #43 and a logical interpretation of the answer given to the Cardinal. I find it hard to believe that no one has questioned whether #43 was specific to one moment or a more general application to more than one moment.

Surely, you can see why I or anyone would question this? As someone who appears to be knowledgable and very articulate on the matter, I would think you would understand that my literal interpretation has merit which deserves consideration.

Until I get more credible information interpreting this then we appear to be at a stalemate.

 

[cjforJesus]

It is called the General Intructions of the Roman Missal.It is a guide NOT a RULE book.We are talking about Worship,not a courtroom case.

 

[FNDRB58]

It is called the General Intructions of the Roman Missal.It is a guide NOT a RULE book.We are talking about Worship,not a courtroom case.

It is indeed a “rulebook”. We are bound by the GIRM which is put forth by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops who have authority on such matters. It mandates what the congregants and the priest and deacons can and cannot do during the Mass.

usccb.org/liturgy/current/preamble.shtml

 

[otjm]

It is called the General Intructions of the Roman Missal.It is a guide NOT a RULE book.We are talking about Worship,not a courtroom case.

No, a guide makes suggestions. The GIRM is the compilation of the rubrics - from “red” in Latin, which refers to the rules liturgically. And yes, we are talking about worship, and yes, worship has rules.

Section 21: “This instruction aims both to offer general guidelines for properly arranging the Celebration of the Eucharist and to set forth rules for ordering the various forms of celebration.” (Emphasis mine).

 

[cjforJesus]

it is a general guide as the priests already know how to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice. the word is GENERAL. Rules are for football games and the legal system. We are speaking about the Holy Sacrifice of the mass where the people are not there to bet or debate but to praise God.

If someone decides to kneel are they going to throw a penalty flag? The unity is in the spirit.We all come together to celebrate, and worship our loving Creator.

 

[FNDRB58]

We agree that the query by Cardinal George was specific to communion. We agree that the answer to that query stated that “#43] should not be taken to prohibit anyone from kneeling if they choose to do so.” What we disagree is that #43 is general. You think it speaks just to communion only because it was the answer given to Cardinal George’s specific question, which is an erroneous presumption. Nowhere in the short paragraph #43 does it state a specific moment during the liturgy. You have to admit that the paragraph itself is general. It was only used to answer the specific question but #43 speaks generally. That is if someone wants to kneel (anytime) then one is free to do so.

This is a very logical reading of #43 and a logical interpretation of the answer given to the Cardinal. I find it hard to believe that no one has questioned whether #43 was specific to one moment or a more general application to more than one moment.

Surely, you can see why I or anyone would question this? As someone who appears to be knowledgable and very articulate on the matter, I would think you would understand that my literal interpretation has merit which deserves consideration.

Until I get more credible information interpreting this then we appear to be at a stalemate.

Correction. I mispoke - #43 does indeed state what posture to take for moments during the Mass but not to one specific moment but several. And this includes the phrase “the Bishop may make the determination to kneel or stand after the Agnes Dei.”
The answer to the Cardinal’s query stated that nothing in #43 should be taken to prohibit one from kneeling if one so chooses to do so. So this would logically then apply to the above quote.

 

[FNDRB58]

it is a general guide as the priests already know how to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice. the word is GENERAL. Rules are for football games and the legal system. We are speaking about the Holy Sacrifice of the mass where the people are not there to bet or debate but to praise God.

If someone decides to kneel are they going to throw a penalty flag? The unity is in the spirit.We all come together to celebrate, and worship our loving Creator.

Sorry my friend. You have a progressive view of the Church. Jesus told the apostles, who hears you hears me. Priests and deacons have rules for presiding over the Eucharist at Mass and they indeed have rules to follow. We as laypeople also have rules to follow. In fact, you obey many rules at Mass don’t you? You pray when the priest or missal says to pray certain prayers. You stand, sit, and kneel when you are asked to do so. All of these rubrics are set forth by church law. You even come to Mass every Sunday because a rule told you to.

 

[otjm]

We agree that the query by Cardinal George was specific to communion. We agree that the answer to that query stated that “#43] should not be taken to prohibit anyone from kneeling if they choose to do so.” What we disagree is that #43 is general. You think it speaks just to communion only because it was the answer given to Cardinal George’s specific question, which is an erroneous presumption. Nowhere in the short paragraph #43 does it state a specific moment during the liturgy. You have to admit that the paragraph itself is general. It was only used to answer the specific question but #43 speaks generally. That is if someone wants to kneel (anytime) then one is free to do so.

This is a very logical reading of #43 and a logical interpretation of the answer given to the Cardinal. I find it hard to believe that no one has questioned whether #43 was specific to one moment or a more general application to more than one moment.

Surely, you can see why I or anyone would question this? As someone who appears to be knowledgable and very articulate on the matter, I would think you would understand that my literal interpretation has merit which deserves consideration.

Until I get more credible information interpreting this then we appear to be at a stalemate.

We are not at a stalemate; you simply appear to have no experience with how Rome answers questions. You wnat me to prive a negative. That is an impossibility. Rome has not elucidated on the issue because neither Cardinal George nor any of the other bishops - liberal, conservative, or moderate, have taken it to mean anything else but an answer to a specific question. No one to my knowledge is applying it any other way.

I am not saying that a person who is not familiar with dubiums and responses could not take what Arinze said and try to apply it as something other than what it was intended to do. That can be one of the problems we have with so-called liturgists on a parish level. Most of them, lacking any training in liturgy, can come to conclusions on their own that don’t mirror the Church in its intent, procedural processes, and structure.

If you don’t want to take my answer, and you don’t want to contact the Cardinal’s office, feel free to ask the diocesan liturgist in your diocese.

Or Google Cardinal Arinze & dubium; that should take you to an Adoremus bulletin concerning the matter. The issue of the Agnus Dei had been taken up elsewhere. The complete story is noted in the Adoremus Bulletin, July/August, 2003.

www.adoremus.org/0703Kneel.html

 

[cjforJesus]

*Therefore, attention should be paid to what is determined by this General Instruction and the traditional practice of the Roman Rite and to what serves the common spiritual good of the People of God, rather than private inclination or arbitrary choice.

So we have various postures in Many churches.Some kneel some stand.It is even very popular now for the faithful to hold hands during the Our Father.Many dont do this ,and there is nothing in the rubrics which prohibit it but it is NOT uniform but arbitrary choice. Is this disobedience? NO It is a personal devotion.

I believe the GIRM which was first published in 1969 was to create a uniform celebration to honor God and to try to prevent luturgical abuses by progressive modern priests. The mass was celebrated for many years before the Bishops conference created an instruction manual.

 

[FNDRB58]

I have read the adoremus article and it speaks to kneeling after communion only. Where it confirms that kneeling is laudible after the Anges Dei, it reiterates “unless determined otherwise by the Bishop.” I will concede that this phrase might be the smoking gun but when you read the answer to the Cardinal’s query, it certainly makes one wonder if indeed #43 “nowhere intends to prohibit one from kneeling if one chooses to do so” should be taken to mean a broader allowance than just after communion.

 

[FNDRB58]

*Therefore, attention should be paid to what is determined by this General Instruction and the traditional practice of the Roman Rite and to what serves the common spiritual good of the People of God, rather than private inclination or arbitrary choice.

So we have various postures in Many churches.Some kneel some stand.It is even very popular now for the faithful to hold hands during the Our Father.Many dont do this ,and there is nothing in the rubrics which prohibit it but it is NOT uniform but arbitrary choice. Is this disobedience? NO It is a personal devotion.

I believe the GIRM which was first published in 1969 was to create a uniform celebration to honor God and to try to prevent luturgical abuses by progressive modern priests. The mass was celebrated for many years before the Bishops conference created an instruction manual.

Where it is not mentioned as a rubric in the GIRM then we are not bound. Those in the GIRM are rubrics which indeed require our obedience.

 

[cjforJesus]

Sorry my friend. You have a progressive view of the Church. Jesus told the apostles, who hears you hears me. Priests and deacons have rules for presiding over the Eucharist at Mass and they indeed have rules to follow. We as laypeople also have rules to follow. In fact, you obey many rules at Mass don’t you? You pray when the priest or missal says to pray certain prayers. You stand, sit, and kneel when you are asked to do so. All of these rubrics are set forth by church law. You even come to Mass every Sunday because a rule told you to.

I go to Mass every day because I love Jesus , and I hope he shows mercy on me,my family,and the whole world.

 

[FNDRB58]

I go to Mass every day because I love Jesus , and I hope he shows mercy on me,my family,and the whole world.

God’s commandment to keep the Lord’s Day holy is a rule. Jesus said, “Whoever hears you hears me.” Rules are good. They are used for our own development in holiness. You follow rules throughout the Mass. You go to confession at least once a year because it is a rule set forth by the Church. You don’t grab the Host with your fingertips because a rule says not to. All of these rules are set forth out of love for God and the Church. The GIRM is another set of rules. Do some research you will see that the GIRM is required of all faithful to abide by. Unfortunately, most have never even heard of it and so do what everyone else does at Mass. That is the priests fault for not properly instructing the faithful. At the very least one must kneel during the Consecration. That is indeed a rule and is required of everyone to follow. And it is a rule that we gladly do because it is one where we show love and adoration to the Real Presence.

The word “general” in no way connotes a meaning of “at your discretion” or “suggestion”. It is defined as 1) Applicable to or affecting the whole or every member of a category. 2)Widespread, prevalent. 3) Being usually the case 4) Not limited in scope or category.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Where it is not mentioned as a rubric in the GIRM then we are not bound. Those in the GIRM are rubrics which indeed require our obedience.

Agreed. When a priest breaks the rubrics, we cry foul, come to CAF and complain here, and threaten to tell on the priest to the Bishop or CDWDS. But when it comes for us to follow the rubrics, there’s 1001 reasons why we can do whatever we want. I wonder why people think the rubrics apply to the priest only and not to them?

Speaking of which, this past Sunday I was surprised. After the consecration everyone behind me stood up. This was before the Final Doxology… I looked around, the Readers and the EMHCs to the right of the altar are kneeling, the choir to the left of the altar are kneeling. The first 5 rows in front are kneeling (I’m on the 5th row), why is everyone behind me standing? I guess someone made the mistake of standing up and people just followed. I know in the past everyone kneels through until the Great Amen.

 

[otjm]

I have read the adoremus article and it speaks to kneeling after communion only. Where it confirms that kneeling is laudible after the Anges Dei, it reiterates “unless determined otherwise by the Bishop.” I will concede that this phrase might be the smoking gun but when you read the answer to the Cardinal’s query, it certainly makes one wonder if indeed #43 “nowhere intends to prohibit one from kneeling if one chooses to do so” should be taken to mean a broader allowance than just after communion.

I can understand how you get to your question/conclusion. Again, I would say that being familiar with how Rome answers questions solves the problem, and if one is not familiar with it, how questions arise. Remember, while the answer is not a private missive (that is, the public has access to it easily), it is not an answer to the public; it is an answer to those who have been trained far, far beyond the average person in the pew. And they certainly understand how Rome operates.

I will most gladly concede that Arinze could have been more precise. I hate to say it this way, but it is a little like being inside a club or organization; those inside understand the protocol; those outside do not necessarily understand it, and upon viewing an exchange, can take the answer for more (or less) than was intended by the parties. Cardinal George (and Archbishop Chaput, who was bringing up the question in another meeting) both understood how Rome responds; neither of them have taken the answer to be anything except a response specifically to the question asked (posture at Communion); neither have applied the answer as some sort of “personal choice” to other areas of #43. They are professionals and have dealt with Rome for decades. Arinze gave an answer to professionals which they understood. It is people outside the professional circle who sometimes do not understand the protocols and assumptions at work. They both understand (and so does Arinze) that if Rome intended to modify all of #43, Rome (Arinze) would have said so. They intended a specific question; he intended a specific answer. To an outsider, the appearance is that the answer was much broader.

They knew that he intended to answer their specific question. It would be extremely unusual for Rome to get into other issues without specifically delineating them, and Arinze did not say, “Oh, by the way, this applies not just to Communion posture, but also re-writes the specifics of the Agnus Dei.”

He could have done better, we can all concede. But he wasn’t speaking to the laity, he was speaking to (for lack of a better term) professionals who understood how answers from Rome work.

 

[FNDRB58]

Interesting story…

Last month I had the urge to go to several different parishes in my diocese just as a change of pace. The first one I hadn’t been to in almost 15 years. Everyone stood during he Consecration! I was astonished. I knelt of course. After Mass, I asked the pastor why everyone stood during the Consecration. He said that kneeling is a sign of penance. I said it was also a sign of humility and adoration. He shrugged his shoulders then said that it says in the bible to “stand before the Lord in praise and worship.” I said it also says to “kneel before the Lord.” He said the Bishop has allowed them to do this in the diocese. I said that is not what the GIRM states. He rolled his eyes and said that was the way he wanted it at his parish and he has permission. I said, “the Pope disagrees with that.” He said, “Well, let the Pope do what he wants.” I was shocked at that response!

I went to two other parishes and they stood during the Consecration. I don’t know what is going on but either pastors are freelancing or there is a serious misinterpretation of the GIRM. What can you do? I sent an email to the Bishop’s office and did not receive a reply.

 

[FNDRB58]

I can understand how you get to your question/conclusion. Again, I would say that being familiar with how Rome answers questions solves the problem, and if one is not familiar with it, how questions arise. Remember, while the answer is not a private missive (that is, the public has access to it easily), it is not an answer to the public; it is an answer to those who have been trained far, far beyond the average person in the pew. And they certainly understand how Rome operates.

I will most gladly concede that Arinze could have been more precise. I hate to say it this way, but it is a little like being inside a club or organization; those inside understand the protocol; those outside do not necessarily understand it, and upon viewing an exchange, can take the answer for more (or less) than was intended by the parties. Cardinal George (and Archbishop Chaput, who was bringing up the question in another meeting) both understood how Rome responds; neither of them have taken the answer to be anything except a response specifically to the question asked (posture at Communion); neither have applied the answer as some sort of “personal choice” to other areas of #43. They are professionals and have dealt with Rome for decades. Arinze gave an answer to professionals which they understood. It is people outside the professional circle who sometimes do not understand the protocols and assumptions at work. They both understand (and so does Arinze) that if Rome intended to modify all of #43, Rome (Arinze) would have said so. They intended a specific question; he intended a specific answer. To an outsider, the appearance is that the answer was much broader.

They knew that he intended to answer their specific question. It would be extremely unusual for Rome to get into other issues without specifically delineating them, and Arinze did not say, “Oh, by the way, this applies not just to Communion posture, but also re-writes the specifics of the Agnus Dei.”

He could have done better, we can all concede. But he wasn’t speaking to the laity, he was speaking to (for lack of a better term) professionals who understood how answers from Rome work.

So you say. I think we have come to a dead end here.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Interesting story…

Last month I had the urge to go to several different parishes in my diocese just as a change of pace. The first one I hadn’t been to in almost 15 years. Everyone stood during he Consecration! I was astonished. I knelt of course. After Mass, I asked the pastor why everyone stood during the Consecration. He said that kneeling is a sign of penance. I said it was also a sign of humility and adoration. He shrugged his shoulders then said that it says in the bible to “stand before the Lord in praise and worship.” I said it also says to “kneel before the Lord.” He said the Bishop has allowed them to do this in the diocese. I said that is not what the GIRM states. He rolled his eyes and said that was they way he wanted it at his parish and he has permission. I said, “the Pope disagrees with that.” He said, “Well, let the Pope do what he wants.” I was shocked at that response!

I went to two other parishes and they stood during the Consecration. I don’t know what is going on but either pastors are freelancing or there is a serious misinterpretation of the GIRM. What can you do? I sent an email to the Bishop’s office and did not receive a reply.

The argument he has for standing is actually the reasoning Eastern Churches use for standing during Sunday Liturgy. Most if not all Eastern Churches hardly kneel, if at all on Sundays. Its a good reason but one that is not consistent with the traditions of the Roman Church.