As well as what many said, kneelers do not preclude the use of kneeling (and that is true as a universal fact; e.g. Armenian general absolution, Syriac Pentecost rite, etc.).Many of them don’t even have pews and never had. For centuries people stood during church services.
I am not sure if you are not understanding what the GIRM says, or just wish to argue with me. So I will try this again.
The GIRM states that for the following reasons, standing is permitted: “except when prevented on occasion by ill health, or for reasons of lack of space, of the large number of people present, or for another reasonable cause”
That gives four reasons: 1) ill health (does not apply to the OP); 2) lack of space (this may well apply, but we don’t really have enough information); 3) a large number of people present (would seem not to apply, from what the OP stated); 4) other reasonable cause.
I would give dollars to donuts this has been going on in that parish for several decades, if for no other reason than that where I have come across a similar situation, it was going on since at least the 80’s, if not the 70’s. For whatever reason, they (the parish in Oregon) do not have kneelers.
I will also give dollars to donuts this bishop knows the situation, and if it has been going on for decades, it is entirely possible that a goodly number of bishops have known about the parish and none of them have changed things.
To give an example; it occurs down valley in a parish I know in my Archdiocese. Since 1970, we have had a combination of archbishops (now on our 6th) and auxiliary bishops (now on our third) and I have no question that all nine of them have known about this parish, unless the first one, who retired in 1974, did not have this happen while he was on duty.
And not one of them has changed it.
I am trying to make three points: 1) it doesn’t really matter what the website says; what matters is that they have been doing it for X number of years, with how many bishops or archbishops aware of it? Bunches.
And just as a casual lay person observation, I may not like it in the least; but it is legitimately within the province of the bishop to decide. I don’t have to like his decision. But if I go to that parish, I will stand, along with everyone else as my posture kneeling can all too easily be seen as a message to the other parishioners of a number of things I do not wish to convey, including I am better than them, or holier than them, or some other qualification which has no business during the Consecration. Christ is being made present on the altar, and I have no business making a scene during that.
- It is not the norm but it is provided for in the GIRM, and there appear to be two possible exceptions the GIRM gives which could apply. And it does not matter which one.
- It does not matter in the least as to why the bishop permits it, as that is within his liturgical area of responsibility, expertise, and judgement. The last exception provides a range of possible reasons the bishop may choose to allow it, and it is not our responsibility, expertise, or state of being to challenge it, as it is permitted by Rome, the exceptions are laid out, and they do not require the bishop to answer to us, plead with us, bargain with us, apologize to us, or be told he is wrong.
And if I don’t like it, there are a number of other parishes I can attend for Mass. It is like not liking married deacons; I might possibly think all should be celibate, but that is frankly absolutely none of my business.
Neither I (who have no idea why a bishop allowed it, and why others have continued to allow it) nor anyone else has any need to know why it was allowed. All we need to know is that Rome has provided the bishop with the guidance he needs, and that ends the discussion.
I don’t know why the website says what it does. And it has absolutely no relevance, as to the permissability; the GIRM exceptions, and the choice of how many bishops is the determining factor. And that would not change if the website said nothing, or talked about the Church in the early centuries, or whatever.
Just to make an off-the-wall example,the pastor could say his sainted mother belonged to a Protestant church and they stood during the communion service, and in honor of his mother, this parish stands. That is totally irrelevant; what matters is that the bishop decides ultimately.
The only thing that matters is that this is a decision for the bishop. And the odds are, a bunch of bishops over time have all decided the same thing.
Except that it has nothing to do with the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. He doesn’t come or go depending on our posture.When a parish *is forced *to institute a practice contrary to the norm, in so grave an area as the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist…
Nor would he come and go contingent on irreverence or a host of other things, but just because it doesn’t have a direct causative effect doesn’t sanction it - it just means it doesn’t have a direct effect.He doesn’t come or go depending on our posture.
Except the very fact that we are flesh and spirit, and not spirit possessing flesh means that our physical comportment and disposition will always inform our interior disposition, and to think otherwise is little short of thinking we can transcend all physicality - it is an error down through the ages to think, however implicit, we are brains in a watchtower. St. Isaac of Nineveh heavily emphasizes the importance of prostrations because of the obvious configuration to self-subjection to God. Posture is most certainly not of little consequence, and it is silly to reject thousands of years of the wisdom of the Church and her teachers for simply following red that was penned in contradiction. If someone insists to stand during the EP at a Latin mass against the back wall they shouldn’t be lambasted, but there should not be silly bureaucratic attempts at standardizing the posture (it’s like absolutely legalism that one can only strike their once during the confiteor because the rubrics do not say otherwise, or a host of other issues with elevating bureaucratic implementation over the essence of a rite).Reverence is an interior disposition, not a posture.
The problem is we still don’t know the interior disposition of those standing. Many probably are just doing so to obey the pastor, and they express their reverence as best they can, and standing is a corporal gesture that is certainly more respectful than sitting. That it isn’t a 2000 y.o. gesture in the Latin Church doesn’t automatically mean it’s irreverent.Nor would he come and go contingent on irreverence or a host of other things, but just because it doesn’t have a direct causative effect doesn’t sanction it - it just means it doesn’t have a direct effect.
Except the very fact that we are flesh and spirit, and not spirit possessing flesh means that our physical comportment and disposition will always inform our interior disposition, and to think otherwise is little short of thinking we can transcend all physicality - it is an error down through the ages to think, however implicit, we are brains in a watchtower. St. Isaac of Nineveh heavily emphasizes the importance of prostrations because of the obvious configuration to self-subjection to God. Posture is most certainly not of little consequence, and it is silly to reject thousands of years of the wisdom of the Church and her teachers for simply following red that was penned in contradiction. If someone insists to stand during the EP at a Latin mass against the back wall they shouldn’t be lambasted, but there should not be silly bureaucratic attempts at standardizing the posture (it’s like absolutely legalism that one can only strike their once during the confiteor because the rubrics do not say otherwise, or a host of other issues with elevating bureaucratic implementation over the essence of a rite).
I also think the “culture contingency” argument of physical disposition needs nuances. Perhaps the appropriation of certain postures to certain times is different (and usually based on theology of the rite rather the symbolism of the posture), but the postures themselves are usually present in every culture, at least by analogy.
As used in the Code of Canon Law, “reasonable cause” is not a particularly high standard to have to meet.The problem is we still don’t know the interior disposition of those standing. Many probably are just doing so to obey the pastor, and they express their reverence as best they can, and standing is a corporal gesture that is certainly more respectful than sitting. That it isn’t a 2000 y.o. gesture in the Latin Church doesn’t automatically mean it’s irreverent.
The rubrics leave room for a “reasonable” cause to stand. I think it’s human nature that some clergy will take a narrow view of what’s reasonable, and others may take a wider view. Either can still be very holy men. I find life much less anxiety filled when we simply accept that life is like this, and go with the flow.
If EWTN can’t be trusted for reliable information, then who? Just an honest question.No, EWTN is not correct, and the implications that are (name removed by moderator)lied in said passage are actually quite disturbing.
The interior disposition of the congregants is irrelevant to what I am saying, which 1. does the bishop gave the authority to make this particular change for this particular reason? and 2. what is the parish teaching when it gives this particular reason for standing during the Consecration?The problem is we still don’t know the interior disposition of those standing. Many probably are just doing so to obey the pastor, and they express their reverence as best they can, and standing is a corporal gesture that is certainly more respectful than sitting. That it isn’t a 2000 y.o. gesture in the Latin Church doesn’t automatically mean it’s irreverent.
The rubrics leave room for a “reasonable” cause to stand. I think it’s human nature that some clergy will take a narrow view of what’s reasonable, and others may take a wider view. Either can still be very holy men. I find life much less anxiety filled when we simply accept that life is like this, and go with the flow.
Obviously individuals may decide not to kneel for individual reasons from bad knees to holding babies. The situation is not like that described in the OP.As used in the Code of Canon Law, “reasonable cause” is not a particularly high standard to have to meet.
At Masses at Saint Peter’s …either inside the basilica or in the piazza…a portion of the congregation will kneel and a portion will stand; particular law is much different there than in the United States regarding when and for how long to kneel during the Eucharistic Prayer.
Virtually everyone who chooses not to kneel at Saint Peter’s (or elsewhere with similar circumstances yielding similar outcomes, for that matter) does so, I would venture to assume, for “a reasonable cause” even though they may vary widely and may rest on a more or less serious premises. It is a prudential judgment in making the application.
I guess I’m saying why should it matter to us? As Fr. Ruggero points out, the bar for “reasonable” is set low.The interior disposition of the congregants is irrelevant to what I am saying, which 1. does the bishop gave the authority to make this particular change for this particular reason? and 2. what is the parish teaching when it gives this particular reason for standing during the Consecration?
I have never heard anything like this happen, and I have been to Mass under some difficult circumstances. Mostly the priest does nothing, and the people either kneel, or if they can’t, they do what they can.I guess I’m saying why should it matter to us? As Fr. Ruggero points out, the bar for “reasonable” is set low.
It’s in the missal, so I would expect the pastor has some latitude to say what “reasonable” is. He could for instance say “Mrs Jones has had knee surgery and can’t kneel so in solidarity with her, we’ll all stand”. Or, “it’s winter, there are no kneelers and the floor is wet and dirty, please don’t ruin your clothes, so please stand”. In either case he’d be showing some kindness to his parishioners.
The problem is that you are making assumptions: there is no evidence at all that what you suggest is what is happening. For all we know, this is a deliberate ploy to undermine the faith of the people in the parish! There is as much evidence for that as for what you speculate. (And just to be clear, I am not proposing that is what they are doing, just pointing out the lack of evidence for whatever the unspoken reason, if it exists, is.)In this specific case, I would say he is “teaching” that kindness dictates that since there are no kneelers, he will mandate standing, as there are probably some elderly parishioners. He perhaps doesn’t want one to be stubborn and risk one kneeling and injuring him or her self. That sounds like a pretty charitable reason, and charity dictates that I assume he has the best of intentions, and is not doing it to thumb his nose at Rome. He probably isn’t even responsible for the church not having kneelers.
That’s the point. We don’t know. The Christian thing to do is assume honourable reasons…I have never heard anything like this happen, and I have been to Mass under some difficult circumstances. Mostly the priest does nothing, and the people either kneel, or if they can’t, they do what they can.
And what you suggest, were it to happen, would be far from what was described.
The problem is that you are making assumptions: there is no evidence at all that what you suggest is what is happening. For all we know, this is a deliberate ploy to undermine the faith of the people in the parish! There is as much evidence for that as for what you speculate. (And just to be clear, I am not proposing that is what they are doing, just pointing out the lack of evidence for whatever the unspoken reason, if it exists, is.)
Given the number of sciatica and other back problems, I would bet most elderly parishioners would either opt for sitting or half-sit, half-kneel. But that’s my opinion.In this specific case, I would say he is “teaching” that kindness dictates that since there are no kneelers, he will mandate standing, as there are probably some elderly parishioners.
The parameters which were mentioned - the GIRM - is what gives the bishop the authority to make a decision that standing is allowed.I see what you are saying. My problem is with the idea that the bishop has authority to allow this outside the parameters mentioned.
Last I checked, EWTN does not have more authority over liturgical matters than Rome does. And Rome wrote the GIRM, which specifically says the bishop has the authority; the section has already been cited. Any text having to do with the US kneeling for a longer time does not overrule the GIRM allowing standing. The two matters are distinct, and one does not overrule the other.Notice that in the documents cited in the EWTN link, the US kneels for more than just the Consecration as in most of the rest of the world, *with the approval of Rome. *To me, this indicates that kneeling at the Consecration is not something over which a bishop has more authority than that which is granted under the list of exceptions.
You can certainly disagree as much as you wish. I seriously doubt that this parish started doing this 2, or 5, or even 10 years ago; it is likely that it has been going on for 30 or 40 years or more. As to why it has been going on, unless you get the diocese to review any archived documents, you are not going to be given the why - and they don’t owe you an answer. It is further likely that this pastor inherited a parish which was doing this long before he got there. Thus it is entirely possible that he himself does not know what the original reason was, but from what little we have been told, it is a parish without kneelers. That decision most likely was made at the time the parish came into existence, or was remodeled, at which point it is highly likely the bishop was aware that there were no kneelers.As to your contention that what they write or say about the practice is irrelevant: I must vehemently disagree!!!
And your insistence that the parish teach that all must kneel goes in contravention to the GIRM, which specifically states there are times/places/parishes in which standing will be done instead of kneeling. And that means, you do not want to hear about differences; only your opinion of how it should be. It is like arguing that because the universal norm is communion on the tongue, any parish which has communion in the hand is not teaching “what the Church teaches” in spite of the fact that the Church has specifically provided - and thus taught - that receiving in the hand is an allowed alternative.Our Church is to be a teaching Church as Christ commanded: Go and teach all nations. And teaching occurs in many ways, not just by words delivered in a classroom.
[/QUOTE]When a parish *is forced *to institute a practice contrary to the norm, in so grave an area as the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, then a reason ought to be given or available, and a reason sufficient for the effect. Saying: because of lack of space for all to kneel, all are asked to stand during the Consecration is so much better than some obvious malarkey about standing allowing us to worship with our whole bodies./
You are incorrect about the history of liturgy. In the early church and for a significant time, people stood during the consecration. And subsequently, people knelt, but over time, different reasons were given as to why. It is nowhere near as uniform as you propose, and saints comments are just that - comments, often speaking to specific times and attitudes, not some universal and continuous theory or practice. The matter - standing or kneeling - ultimately is disciplinary, and the GIRM by allowing for differences, makes that crystal clear.Which does not make the latter statement invalid; only one that you don’t like. In either case, unity of posture is preferred, and clearly so.
And nobody said that kneeling precludes involvement of the body, so let’s not start with red herrings.
The bottom line is that 1) the GIRM allows standing, including for “another reasonable cause”; 2) whatever the parish states in the bulletin may or may not be the “other reasonable cause”; 3) there is no showing that this priest instituted the practice, and it is far, far more likely it has been around for decades in that parish; and 4) not only does the bishop have the authority, under the GIRM to permit standing, but charity also presumes that the bishop has done so.
You don’t like standing. I get it.
I don’t like it either, but it is not my choice; it is the bishop’s choice. In charity, we both have to assume that the bishop has made that choice, and in good faith.
And as the posture has been determined - either for the reason that the bulletin states or for other reasons (lack of kneelers being at the top of the list), and is within the legitimate authority of the bishop to decide, then in charity, if you go to such a parish and the vast majority are standing, then in charity, you stand, instead of imposing your own personal opinion on the matter. -
And you can do like I do - go to other parishes rather than going back there, if it causes you so much angst.
Excellent post. Back about 10 years ago when I was converting I had all kinds of questions for my priest. He would always ask me how does this affect your salvation. Most of the time the answer was it doesn’t. If that’s the case you are wasting your time by focusing on the question.Except that it has nothing to do with the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. He doesn’t come or go depending on our posture.
How one shows reverence is largely cultural. I believe some Eastern Catholics stand at the consecration. French Canadians kneel at the consecration only, Americans through the entire EP. That doesn’t make Christ less present in the Eucharist for us, nor does it make us less reverent. Reverence is an interior disposition, not a posture.
I wonder why some Catholics have to make themselves miserable over this? Let go and let God!