Our new priest makes everyone stand till after Communion is done

[Brendan]

And sometimes they do not “feel free to kneel or sit” because they worry about what others think. And if someone says , “I stand out of obedience…” then another assumes that must mean that they think I’m being disobedient. ** But I don’t have to worry about it because my knees tell me I have to sit **

Both smiles and my sympathy extended to you …

 

[Evan]

This particular issue is one that the local bishop is competent to decide.

It is one of a very few examples where the local bishop has specific competence to decide on the posture. It does not apply to other examples of posture in other placed in the Mass.

The bishop can decide for his own diocese. He can likewise enforce it. However he cannot enforce it “too rigidly.”

So here’s the deal as I see it. The bishop has the authority to regulate the sacraments, he also has the responsibility to verify that any act on his part is allowed by the Church. BUT it is not my responsibility to check up on him. I trust him and assume he is using his authority properly, so it is necessary for me to give him my obedience.

 

[FrDavid96]

So here’s the deal as I see it. The bishop has the authority to regulate the sacraments, he also has the responsibility to verify that any act on his part is allowed by the Church. BUT it is not my responsibility to check up on him. I trust him and assume he is using his authority properly, so it is necessary for me to give him my obedience.

Is there a point to that?

Since you posted it as a quote of what I wrote, it appears you’re addressing what I wrote.

Do you have a question for me? Do you have something to say about what I wrote?

I’ll break it down for you:

So here’s the deal as I see it. The bishop has the authority to regulate the sacraments

Both yes and no. He has the authority to regulate them. He has the authority and the responsibility to enforce the Church’s norms. He is not competent to make any changes beyond what authority the Church has specifically given him to do so.

he also has the responsibility to verify that any act on his part is allowed by the Church.

Yes. That’s true.

BUT it is not my responsibility to check up on him.

This is where you stop making sense. I don’t see how or when the question of “who checks up on the bishop?” has ever been a part of this conversation.
Yes, the fact that the Congregation for Divine Worship has that responsibility is an element of the conversation; but the question of whether or not it is the responsibility of any particular person in a parish has not been part of the conversation.

However, as a direct answer to your implied question, no it is not your responsibility. It is the responsibility of the archbishop (c. 436). It is the responsibility of the Papal Nuncio. It is the responsibility of the various Congregations in Rome (depending on the particular issue). It is not your “responsibility” unless you happen to be in one of the above categories.

If you are not one of those people “may you” verify what the bishop is doing? Of course, yes, you may. But no, you are not (to use your own word) responsible for doing so.

I trust him and assume he is using his authority properly, so it is necessary for me to give him my obedience.

That statement makes no sense.
The fact that one person trusts another and assumes that the other is using his authority properly does not mean that it is “necessary” for that person to be obedient to the other.

If you want to know “why” it is necessary to obey the bishop, that’s a different topic, but the answer is not (as you put it) because “[you] trust him and assume he is using his authority properly.”

 

[Phemie]

I’m a bit confused here. The GIRM states which articles in particular can be changed by the CONFERENCE of Catholic Bishops. Once the Conference gets its adaptations, how can the Bishops/Archbishops change anything unless the Conference gives them permission? In 1975 the USCCB mandated that all kneel for the entire EP and, as I recall, after the Agnus Dei. It didn’t give any Bishop the liberty to change that posture until 1999-early 2000s.

Then, with the new GIRM it once again mandated kneeling from after the Sanctus to after the AMEN of the EP. Bishops aren’t free to change that to kneeling only at the Consecration.

 

[Brendan]

Then, with the new GIRM it once again mandated kneeling from after the Sanctus to after the AMEN of the EP. Bishops aren’t free to change that to kneeling only at the Consecration.

The US Adaptions of GIRM 43 indicate that a local ordinary may mandate standing after the Agnus Dei.

If the local bishop does that, he is well within his realm of competency to mandate that.

The question arose, both during deliberations within the USCCB and afterward, as to when that competency ended. The USCCB looked to the CDWDS, as the legislator of the GIRM, to make a judgement.

It was clear from the minutes from the USCCB meetings on the GIRM, that the requested adaption was not intended to preclude the faithful from kneeling after they received Holy Communion,

Archbishop Chaput: And what Bishop Clark is suggesting is that nobody sit or kneel until everybody receives; and then they can. So they’re not really the same issue it seems.

Archbishop Lipscomb: Well, again, if that was the bishop’s intention I don’t think we would accept that as practice for the United States - until everybody goes to Communion then you either sit or kneel, that everybody remains standing until then. I just don’t think that follows the practice of most of our churches in the United States.

Archbishop Chaput: See, I agree with you, but I thought this was confusing so I was just asking for a clarification. So the period of silence can begin as soon as you receive, if you want to go back and sit down, or kneel.

Archbishop Lipscomb: You can sit down, or you can kneel - or you can stand. That’s included previously.

Archbishop Chaput: Okay, thank you…

And likewise, it is clear from the CDWDS’ responsum, that when the CDWDS granted the recognition, it did not do so with the intent that the faithful should not feel free to kneel, sit or stand.

 

[Phemie]

The US Adaptions of GIRM 43 indicate that a local ordinary may mandate standing after the Agnus Dei.

If the local bishop does that, he is well within his realm of competency to mandate that.

Yes, because the USCCB, in its adaptations, gave him that competency. OTOH, they didn’t allow him to decide on posture doing the Eucharistic Prayers. That’s why I’m wondering how they can impose the posture after Communion. Their competency is from after the Agnus Dei to Communion.

Cardinal Arinze, at a July 2003 conference of the Apostolate for Family Consecration, answered questions on the Liturgy. This question was asked and answered: Does everybody have to stand until the last person has received Holy Communion?
There is no rule from Rome that everybody must stand during Holy Communion. There is no such rule from Rome. So, after people have received Communion, they can stand, they can kneel, they can sit. But a bishop in his diocese or bishops in a country could say that they recommend standing or kneeling. They could. It is not a law from Rome. They could – but not impose it. Perhaps they could propose. But those who want to sit or kneel or stand should be left reasonable freedom.

 

[zab]

Yes, because the USCCB, in its adaptations, gave him that competency. OTOH, they didn’t allow him to decide on posture doing the Eucharistic Prayers. That’s why I’m wondering how they can impose the posture after Communion. Their competency is from after the Agnus Dei to Communion.

Cardinal Arinze, at a July 2003 conference of the Apostolate for Family Consecration, answered questions on the Liturgy. This question was asked and answered: Does everybody have to stand until the last person has received Holy Communion?
There is no rule from Rome that everybody must stand during Holy Communion. There is no such rule from Rome. So, after people have received Communion, they can stand, they can kneel, they can sit. But a bishop in his diocese or bishops in a country could say that they recommend standing or kneeling. They could. It is not a law from Rome. They could – but not impose it. Perhaps they could propose. But those who want to sit or kneel or stand should be left reasonable freedom.

As far as I know, it is not being “imposed” in our Archdiocese. Like Cardinal Arinze said, they (the bishops) can recommend or “propose” that people remain standing after Communion. This information was made known before the changes began. Perhaps that is why our pastor and previous pastor never even recommended it because it is rather confusing to most people- the bishops says to remain standing and the Sacred Congregation says that the bishop can recommend this but cannot impose it. I think many people want to do what they are supposed to do but most do not know when they have an option for posture and when they do not. It gets confusing when you have a parish where several people kneel and the rest stand. There is no option for posture after the Agnus Dei. In our Archdiocese we stand. But coming back from Communion we do have more of an option.

 

[Evan]

So, out of obedience, I would do what my bishop ‘proposes’. He is my local authority. I should want to do what my bishop proposes. “He who hears you, hears me”.

And Augustine said something like “If we cannot abstain from what is good when asked, we will not be able to abstain from evil when needed”. I think this was in reference to fasting from meat (which is good).

Although I may have the ability to ignore my bishop or priest, I would always prefer to hear them. (the root of the word obedience is “to hear”) His proposals are made to help the church grow in unity and love.

 

[FrDavid96]

I’m a bit confused here. The GIRM states which articles in particular can be changed by the CONFERENCE of Catholic Bishops. Once the Conference gets its adaptations, how can the Bishops/Archbishops change anything unless the Conference gives them permission? In 1975 the USCCB mandated that all kneel for the entire EP and, as I recall, after the Agnus Dei. It didn’t give any Bishop the liberty to change that posture until 1999-early 2000s.

Then, with the new GIRM it once again mandated kneeling from after the Sanctus to after the AMEN of the EP. Bishops aren’t free to change that to kneeling only at the Consecration.

The topic here is not about “other” times during the Mass.

I don’t exactly remember what the GIRM said 15+ years ago. Yes, I could look it up, but there’s always the possibility that there might have been some adaptation that was not printed in the Sacramentary. But again, those “other times” are not the topic here.

For the topic at hand, the local bishop is competent to make a decision (or he may simply do nothing, because he is not required to make any such decision, he is only permitted). For this particular topic, the US Conference of bishops specifically delegates that decision to the individual diocesan bishop.

It’s not the typical way of doing things, and with good reason because if we have too many instances of this (the local bishop decides) we would have no uniformity at all.

Once he decides, (or the default posture remains), then that is the norm for that particular diocese. The norm exists. It is not to be enforced too rigidly, but it still exists.

 

[ffg]

I’ve never heard of this, interesting that it is a directive for unity.

Seems like the opposite is happening.

 

[Brendan]

Although I may have the ability to ignore my bishop or priest, I would always prefer to hear them. (the root of the word obedience is “to hear”) His proposals are made to help the church grow in unity and love.

The definition ( as noted by Aquinas) of obedience is the conformation of one’s will to the will of the one in authority.

The bishop does have the authority to propose, but not to mandate. So it is not a matter of obedience or disobedience.

And yes, his proposals are meant to have the Church grow in unity, but the same is true for Rome. When the CDWDS created GIRM 43 with the intent that the faithful be free to kneel, it did so to help Church grow in unity and love. And thus, anytime the faithful do not consider themselves to have that freedom, it defeats the means that Rome has chosen to help the faithful grow in unity and love.

 

[FrDavid96]

The bishop does have the authority to propose, but not to mandate. So it is not a matter of obedience or disobedience.

.

Yes. He does have that authority to regulate. Obedience does not apply only to “mandates.”

He cannot regulate too rigidly. One more time, the prohibition against regulating “too rigidly” simply does NOT mean that no such regulation or norm exists.

This is still a matter of obedience. The obligation of obedience varies according to the magnitude of the issue*; and this issue is fairly low on the ladder (in fact, very low).

The bishop cannot regulate this issue too rigidly, still means that he can indeed regulate it. Words actually do have definitions.

 

[Corki]

As far as I know, it is not being “imposed” in our Archdiocese. Like Cardinal Arinze said, they (the bishops) can recommend or “propose” that people remain standing after Communion. This information was made known before the changes began. Perhaps that is why our pastor and previous pastor never even recommended it because it is rather confusing to most people- the bishops says to remain standing and the Sacred Congregation says that the bishop can recommend this but cannot impose it. I think many people want to do what they are supposed to do but most do not know when they have an option for posture and when they do not. It gets confusing when you have a parish where several people kneel and the rest stand. There is no option for posture after the Agnus Dei. In our Archdiocese we stand. But coming back from Communion we do have more of an option.

And I think that that’s where the difference lies. In the OP’s case, the pastor “chastised” people publicly who knelt after Communion. It one thing to remind or recommend but another to try to embarrass parishioners into compliance. That would seem to be crossing the line into “imposing”.

 

[FrDavid96]

And I think that that’s where the difference lies. In the OP’s case, the pastor “chastised” people publicly who knelt after Communion. It one thing to remind or recommend but another to try to embarrass parishioners into compliance. That would seem to be crossing the line into “imposing”.

I agree. At least, I agree that what was described goes too far. I wasn’t there to see it.

 

[Brendan]

Yes. He does have that authority to regulate. Obedience does not apply only to “mandates.”

He cannot regulate too rigidly. One more time, the prohibition against regulating “too rigidly” simply does NOT mean that no such regulation or norm exists.

This is still a matter of obedience. The obligation of obedience varies according to the magnitude of the issue*; and this issue is fairly low on the ladder (in fact, very low).

The bishop cannot regulate this issue too rigidly, still means that he can indeed regulate it. Words actually do have definitions.

Would you concur with how Cardinal Arinze described it, during his tenure as Prefect

There is no rule from Rome that everybody must stand during Holy Communion. There is no such rule from Rome. So, after people have received Communion, they can stand, they can kneel, they can sit. But a bishop in his diocese or bishops in a country could say that they recommend standing or kneeling. They could. It is not a law from Rome. They could – but not impose it. Perhaps they could propose. But those who want to sit or kneel or stand should be left reasonable freedom.

 

[FrDavid96]

Would you concur with how Cardinal Arinze described it, during his tenure as Prefect

I would concur with what is written in the GIRM, as I’m sure would the good Cardinal.

The Cardinal was speaking universally. He was not addressing the very specific situation where the U.S. has an adaptation which enjoys the official recognition of the Holy See. That much is clear because he speaks of “the bishops in a country” rather than specifically the USCCB.

I don’t know why you keep insisting that there is no norm. Plainly one exists. It is written in the GIRM.

I do not disagree, in fact I’ve repeatedly agreed, that the norm is not to be imposed too rigidly.

What I do not see is what point you are trying to make by denying that a norm exists.

**Would you please tell me: what is the purpose of the Holy See approving a document that says “unless the diocesan bishop determines otherwise” if the diocesan bishop is not competent to determine otherwise? **

Does the Holy See engage in deception when approving suggestions from a bishop’s conference? Are such adaptations given written approval but with the intention that they should exist only on paper and not in reality?

The norm is not to be enforced too rigidly.

 

[zab]

The definition ( as noted by Aquinas) of obedience is the conformation of one’s will to the will of the one in authority.

The bishop does have the authority to propose, but not to mandate. So it is not a matter of obedience or disobedience.

And yes, his proposals are meant to have the Church grow in unity, but the same is true for Rome. When the CDWDS created GIRM 43 with the intent that the faithful be free to kneel, it did so to help Church grow in unity and love. And thus, anytime the faithful do not consider themselves to have that freedom, it defeats the means that Rome has chosen to help the faithful grow in unity and love.

It is an act of humility to submit to the will of those in authority whether or not it is something that can be imposed. And that is not something to be look down upon or treated with any less respect than those who out of devotion choose to kneel.

 

[zab]

And I think that that’s where the difference lies. In the OP’s case, the pastor “chastised” people publicly who knelt after Communion. It one thing to remind or recommend but another to try to embarrass parishioners into compliance. That would seem to be crossing the line into “imposing”.

“Chastised” was not the word the OP used. Yes, the OP’s statement does come across as that the pastor was strongly suggesting that the people remain standing. Sometimes one needs to be strong in their suggestion in order to get the people to understand that their is a recommendation of posture in the Archdiosese of Seattle. If he were to tell them that they all may stand sit or kneel, do you think that many would understand that there is a recommendation by the Archbishop for the posture to be standing and this recommendation is in the policies of the Archdiocese? Now if he is refusing to listen to individuals who may want to sit or kneel, that is a different story. And I might add, sometimes it is how you talk to people that helps whether or not you can get your point across. And that goes both ways, with the priest as well as with the one trying to approach the priest with a question and the the timing of when it is appropriate to raise the concern. It is best to make an appointment.

 

[Brendan]

I would concur with what is written in the GIRM, as I’m sure would the good Cardinal.

The Cardinal was speaking universally. He was not addressing the very specific situation where the U.S. has an adaptation which enjoys the official recognition of the Holy See. That much is clear because he speaks of “the bishops in a country” rather than specifically the USCCB.

One thing to note, he gave that response in the United States, at the Apostolate for Family Consecration at Steubenville., in response to a question posed by a US priest.

I don’t know why you keep insisting that there is no norm. Plainly one exists. It is written in the GIRM.

I do not disagree, in fact I’ve repeatedly agreed, that the norm is not to be imposed too rigidly.

What I do not see is what point you are trying to make by denying that a norm exists.

I would state that there is a norm, much like the one for the reception of Holy Communion. That norm, per the Holy See, which is the legislator of the GIRM, includes the freedom to stand, sit or kneel, when returning to the pew

**Would you please tell me: what is the purpose of the Holy See approving a document that says “unless the diocesan bishop determines otherwise” if the diocesan bishop is not competent to determine otherwise? **

The diocesan bishop is competent to make such a mandate from the time of Angus Dei until the time the person receives Holy Communion.

Does the Holy See engage in deception when approving suggestions from a bishop’s conference? Are such adaptations given written approval but with the intention that they should exist only on paper and not in reality?

The norm is not to be enforced too rigidly.

Did the Holy See engage in deception when it permitted the US Bishops to establish a norm of standing for reception of Holy Communion, but at the same time, allowing the faithful the freedom to kneel?

There were quite a number of cases of bishops attempting to regulate the posture of reception of Holy Communion outside of the intent of the recognition given by the Holy See. In fact, quite a number continued the practice even after the CDWDS ruled that the norm specified was not granted with the intent of excluding those who knelt for Holy Communion.

Why do you feel that Cardinal George felt obligated to write to the CDWDS is such was within the competency of the local bishops to decide for themselves? And to do so on behalf of the whole Conference. Cardinal George was certainly well aware of the rights and authority of an Ordinary, was he not?

And the response back was quite clear, that the local bishop did have that authority, but it did not include regulation in such a way as to freedom to sit or kneel

 

[Georgia]

Within the last few years, I was at a parish when a priest made very strong remarks about people sitting after receiving. He said it was disrespectful to the exposed Blessed Sacrament to sit while it was outside the tabernacle. I have never heard that said before or since.

As I understand from this discussion and from others on this topic, the GIRM allows people to take the posture they wish once they have returned to the pews. Most people at my parish kneel until the priest sits when a few then sit. Most kneel until the altar is cleared.