Philippines: On the QUESTION of Kneeling or Standing After the Consecration

[choliks]

On the QUESTION of Kneeling or Standing After the Consecration

“Kneeling is part of our Christian culture. We cannot abandon or set aside the culture of kneeling in favor of the culture that says as freemen we must face God on our feet. Bending the knee before the tabernacle in genuflection, kneeling down at the celebration of the Eucharist, kneeling down to adore the exposed Blessed Sacrament—these are little but sublime acts of adoration that we must preserve and protect.”

cbcpnews.com/cbcpnews/?p=74706

 

[Casilda]

The article linked shows the problems of tinkering with set traditions by making so many changes that no one really knows or cares what one must do.

That said, there are other traditions of Catholic practice where standing throughout the entire Mass/Divine Liturgy is the norm. Maronite Catholics stand after receiving the Holy Eucharist and only kneel during Pentacost.

 

[otjm]

I don’t know who Socrates B Villegas is, but for anyone who professes to be a loyal Catholic, it should come as no surprise that bishops are the liturgical authority in their diocese, and Rome has seen fit to empower them in limited circumstances to make decisions on liturgical matters in their jurisdiction.

It would therefore seem that loyal Catholics should, out of obedience, follow the decisions which their bishop make. Those decisions are made for the entire diocese, and undoubtedly (as any brief review of recent history will show) will not be to the liking of some of the faithful.

But the bishops do not ask for the faithful to “like”, or “approve” of the changes. They ask for compliance.

It can be well understood if a bishop does not accompany a change with an explanation as to why it is being made, that it can be more difficult to understand why a change is being requested. Normally, however, such explanation accompanies the change.

And as history shows, some object.

 

[choliks]

I don’t know who Socrates B Villegas is,

Just to answer this particular question.

+Socrates Villegas is the archbishop of lingayen-dagupan, in the Philippines. He is the current president of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines.

 

[otjm]

Just to answer this particular question.

+Socrates Villegas is the archbishop of lingayen-dagupan, in the Philippines. He is the current president of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines.

That would have been obvious, had I read a bit slower.

I am neither a Canon lawyer nor a liturgist. This is not an area I ahve wandered around in, but my recollection (hazy, admittedly) is that a universal norm (was/is) that the laity stand shortly after the Concecration. In the US (well, at least in my archdiocese) we stand after the great Amen; howwever, the deacon stands much earlier - and kneels later.

Perhaps that is only a matter for a deacon. No clue as to why it would be different than the laity, as his standing suits no particular need such as any assist.

What I find interesting (and again, I am not a Canon lawyer) is that the section quoted by the archbishop (# 43) states “…it is laudable to be retained”. That, coupled with the lack of response would seem to indicate that a) it is not mandatory (language could say “it is to be retained”; and b) the lack of response would seem to be different than a response of “No, it is not approved”. It certainly could convey that it is not the wish of the dicastery to approve of the change; but if I am correct that “laudable” represents a preference rather than a requirement, then it would seem that no answer is not necessarily a “no” answer.

There has recently been discussions on another matter for which approval has not been formally given, although the dicastery has been repeatedly asked for a response, and some bishops have taken that as a “no”; others have not required the matter to not be done, while not approving it; and still others have approved it.

Certainly, a more conservative approach is to not vary; but it appears that those who don’t may not have standing to question/disapprove others who take silence as simply that - not approval, and not specific disapproval.

In any event, the archbishop does not appear to be making a decision which is egregious.

However, no matter what the decision, I suspect there will be those who will be unhappy about it and express their displeasure.

As has been said: What is the difference between a liturgist and a terrorist?

You can negotiate with a terrorist…

And FWIW, I believe that quiet acceptance of a bishop’s decision can change the focus from whatever is requested (that is, not making it into an issue), to what is more important: following Christ.

 

[choliks]

What I found fascinating, is that when it was announced at Mass, I didn’t hear a single groan, at least in my immediate vicinity.

Everybody followed the directive silently.

I for one, welcome the reversion.