Priest asked me to change or leave

[Oneofthewomen]

The chancery would only point you back to the leadership of the Newman Society. You may as well begin there. Bishops and Major Superiors of Religious appoint priests, brothers and sisters to Newman Centers, they don’t run them. Why do people not get this?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I am starting to believe dear Brother, that it’s because if they do, they will no longer have anyhting to complain about!

 

[Elizium23]

The chancery would only point you back to the leadership of the Newman Society. You may as well begin there. Bishops and Major Superiors of Religious appoint priests, brothers and sisters to Newman Centers, they don’t run them. Why do people not get this?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I have never heard that some “Newman Society” has liturgical jurisdiction over Newman Centers. From what I heard, it would typically be the religious superior of the order that runs the Center, although I also heard that the Ordinary of the diocese where the Center is located has ultimate liturgical jurisdiction, even in cases of an order running the Center.

Here are my experiences with a Newman Center where there were no kneelers and nobody knelt.

The liturgy there was illicit in numerous ways. “Vertical inclusive language” was used in all instances of the people’s responses. The assembly deftly avoided pinning any masculine labels on God and did not refer to Him as “Him.” The priests never wore a chasuble. Glass vessels were used to consecrate and distribute the Precious Blood. In daily Mass, the glass “chalice” was left on the altar to be picked up by the next communicant in line to self-communicate the Precious Blood with callous disregard for profanation. Music was happy-clappy OCP and CCM dreck. (And I say this after participating two years in the choir.)

That Newman Center was run by a religious order, one that had been at the college campus for many decades. I would often immediately begin loudly complaining about the liturgical abuses after the Mass. When I first arrived at this community, I was homeless, and I regularly took advantage of their comfortable lounge and patio to sleep in public. I came for every event that offered free food and mingled with students who were much younger than I was. I made enough of a nuisance of myself that I was eventually asked to leave, and formally trespassed from the premises, and forced to start attending my geographical parish church.

Despite all this trouble, I did not complain to anyone’s superior, but a couple years after I left, what happened to this Center? It was usurped by the diocesan bishop and the religious order was run out of town. I can honestly say that I had mixed feelings for this, as much as I had conflict with them, I had a certain fondness for the order and some of its friars, and sad to see them go. But even though I have not seen (am unable to see) a single liturgy celebrated there, I am convinced that the bishop and the priests in his care are doing a much better job at faithful liturgy than the order ever did.

In hindsight it was good that I was kicked out, because I still had some growing up to do, and I truly belonged in a parish church and not a college setting. I owe them my maturity.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

We have some Franciscans (brothers?, friers? they wear habits) in our area and have attended Mass a couple of times at our parish. At the consecration, they are standing while everyone else is kneeling. Bro. JR has seemingly not mentioned any Franciscan custom of standing at this moment of the Mass but I imagined that this was their way of doing things, locally or perhaps everywhere, and thus not a problem.

If they have this custom and if it is not a problem for the Church that they do it this way, then it may not be an abuse for this community, Newman or not, to also stand. It would then not be a conscience issue nor a demand of the priest to go against a liturgical necessity to kneel. If it is not wrong to stand, then not doing what the priest asks would be a problem.

If Bro. JR has not been run off, perhaps he could inform as to the standing Franciscans in my area and if it applies anything to this thread. Standing Franciscans, whut up wit dat?

 

[JReducation]

That Newman Center was run by a religious order, one that had been at the college campus for many decades. I would often immediately begin loudly complaining about the liturgical abuses after the Mass. When I first arrived at this community, I was homeless, and I regularly took advantage of their comfortable lounge and patio to sleep in public. I came for every event that offered free food and mingled with students who were much younger than I was. I made enough of a nuisance of myself that I was eventually asked to leave, and formally trespassed from the premises, and forced to start attending my geographical parish church.

Despite all this trouble, I did not complain to anyone’s superior, but a couple years after I left, what happened to this Center?** It was usurped by the diocesan bishop and the religious order was run out of town. I can honestly say that I had mixed feelings for this, as much as I had conflict with them, I had a certain fondness for the order and some of its friars, and sad to see them go. But even though I have not seen (am unable to see) a single liturgy celebrated there, I am convinced that the bishop and the priests in his care are doing a much better job at faithful liturgy than the order ever did.**

In hindsight it was good that I was kicked out, because I still had some growing up to do, and I truly belonged in a parish church and not a college setting. I owe them my maturity.

You may not want to repeat this until you check your sources and the wording, because there are canonical red flags all over the place here. Allow me . . .

1. Bishops may never run a religious order out of town. That’s called supression. Once a religious community receives permission to enter a diocese, only its major superior can pull it out. A bishop does not have the authority to ask it to leave.
2. You used the term friars. The Council of Trent ruled that monks, friars and Jesuits are exempt from the authority and interference of both bishops and laity. They enjoy this exemption as a community and as individuals. Therefore, no bishop can discipline monks, friars or Jesuits. He must apply to the appropriate authority. This begins with the major superior and can work its way all the way up to the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. The major superior or the Sacred Congregation have the authority to discipline and to supress, but not the bishop.
3. The Newman Society is a canonically established public association in the Catholic Church. Generally, its centers are owned either by the society or by the school. In either case, the local bishop approves the opening of the center. But the concerns of the center come under the jurisdiction of the association, except when the Blessed Sacrament is involved. It is always the job of the bishop to protect the Blessed Sacrament, even in religious houses. If there is danger to the Blessed Sacrament of any kind, the bishop can remove it. He can pull any of his own priests from the center, but not someone else’s priests. He can prohibit the celebration of the mass until the problem is resolved, which may or may never happen, depending on who he’s dealing with.
4. We must be careful not to confuse campus ministry with Newman Centers. Many dioceses do have an office for campus ministry. This department does regulate campus ministries that are not under Newman. I remember that in the Archdiocese of Washington, there was an office for campus ministry, because there are some 20 or so colleges and universities within the boundaries of the Archdiocese. These do come under the authority of the local bishop. They have offices of campus ministry on each campus, except those campuses that have already contracted with Newman.
5. Like any other Catholic organization, Newman needs the permission of the bishop to open shop in his diocese. Once they do so, they are on their own, with the exceptions that I noted.

I do not question that the bishop may have had to take action, but the wording here is contrary to law. If he had to take action, there must have been something involving the Blessed Sacrament.

In the case of what the OP is saying, there is no danger to the Blessed Sacrament. The priest should not have asked the person to leave or however he worded it. Therefore, this is not a canonical abuse or even a liturgical abuse. It sounds more like an abuse of power or simple a rude priest. That would not come under the authority of the bishop, because the bishop is not the employer. Newman is the employer.

Even in the case of danger to the Blessed Sacrament, there is the question of running the friars out of Dade City. No bishop can do that. At most, he can take the Blessed Sacrament away and he can prohibit the celebration of mass at the center. He then has to work with the Newman organization to work out the problem. His job is to protect the Blessed Sacrament, not to run Newman Centers or to oversee exempt religious.

Something is wrong here. The wording is not legal. The friars may have left town, but not because the bishop ran them out of town,. Maybe the superior pulled them. That’s happened many times. Bishops may never touch exempt religious.

If the religious works for the bishop, the bishop can fire him. But he cannot ask him to leave his diocese. The religious can remain in the diocese and function at any other ministry that is not run by the bishop. Something else happened here and it’s not being told to you exactly the way that it happened.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

We have some Franciscans (brothers?, friers? they wear habits) in our area and have attended Mass a couple of times at our parish. At the consecration, they are standing while everyone else is kneeling. Bro. JR has seemingly not mentioned any Franciscan custom of standing at this moment of the Mass but I imagined that this was their way of doing things, locally or perhaps everywhere, and thus not a problem.

If they have this custom and if it is not a problem for the Church that they do it this way, then it may not be an abuse for this community, Newman or not, to also stand. It would then not be a conscience issue nor a demand of the priest to go against a liturgical necessity to kneel. If it is not wrong to stand, then not doing what the priest asks would be a problem.

If Bro. JR has not been run off, perhaps he could inform as to the standing Franciscans in my area and if it applies anything to this thread. Standing Franciscans, whut up wit dat?

We have always stood. This was introduced by St. Francis to minimize the lines of distinction between the ordained friars and the non ordained friars. Put another way, to reinforce the concept of brotherhood. One has to remember that Franciscans were not founded as an order of priests. Francis admitted priests to the brotherhood. Essentially, every Franciscan is always a brother. That’s what “friar” means. It’s just a bad translation of the word “frater”.

In certain houses the friars do kneel. This is a local decision. Meaning, the house holds what is called a chapter at which rules are made. They vote on these things.

You’re going to see more and more of these separations disappear between the friars who are priests and those who are not. The Church has called upon the friars to return to the 13th century and recover the original charism, vision and mission of the Franciscan family. In many places, such as in my community, only the superior is called Father. In my community, he’s not a priest. Everyone else is called Brother. In some places they are using Friar and other places they use Frater. Little by little you’re going to see the titles Father and Brother disappear among Franciscans until you can’t tell who is and who is not a priest.

We’re not the only family going back. The Cistercians have also started their return. The also stand. They do not use the title Father for the monks who are priests. Everyone is Brother. They do not like being asked who is a priest and who is not. You only find out when it’s time for mass. Even there, it’s not alwasy too clear, because monks and friars have no obligation to celebrate daily mass. They can attend mass with the rest of the community. You may have a monk or friar in the congregation who is a priest.

This option has always been there for Franciscans and other orders too. Each house votes on which way to go, so as to keep it uniform. You’re not allowed to have some standing and some kneeling. Either all stand or all kneel. Whatever the majority rules. The distinctions must be kept to a minimum.

Unfortunately, many people get so focussed on the kneeling or standing that they miss the beauty of the brotherhood worshipping as one body. That’s what the friars are trying to do. They are a community of equals, who come together as brothers, to offer the sacrifice.

We never had that notion that the priest offers the sacrifice and the rest watch. That was a foreign concept to Francis. His focus was on the consecration. He would insist that any brother who was a priest do it right. The priest was the servant to his brothers. By celebrating the mass he was serving. For those friars who are priests, celebrating mass for their brothers and sisters is always an act of service. The community stands or kneels together as a brotherhood. It’s really a very beautiful concept.

We also had very few altars against the wall, except in diocesan parishes. Those are not our buildings. They belong to the bishop and they are always built to his specification. Our altars, in our chapels allowed you to stand around it. The priest faced east, but he was not with his back to his brothers.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ConstantineTG]

I am starting to believe dear Brother, that it’s because if they do, they will no longer have anyhting to complain about!

I nominate this post of the year

 

[fide]

Sit in the last row and kneel. I feel like I should kneel, as well ,and am usually one of a few who do so.

Does anyone know the( theological or liturgical) reasons we are supposed to stand rather than kneel?

EWTN site has a good discussion HERE. Click on “Kneeling at the Consecration.”

 

[JReducation]

EWTN site has a good discussion HERE. Click on “Kneeling at the Consecration.”

I copied this particular line

Whether one kneels or stands for the Eucharistic Prayer is a matter of ecclesiastical tradition.

because it helps to answer the question about the Franciscans. In the case of the Franciscans, obviously we’re not a sui iuris Church, but we are a religious family that is 800 years old. There are traditions that are part of our Franciscan culture, which may not be part of your culture. Therefore, they may look strange or even disrespectful. They’re really not. They’re just very old. For a while, we deviate from many Franciscan traditions, especially between Vatican I and Vatican II. It was Vatican II that demanded that we recover them. Finally, Bl. John Paul gave us our final thrust backward in time. That’s how you get the large Franciscan family start to break down into smaller communities. The smaller the community, the easier it is to preserve the old traditions. When you have, as we do, over 1.7 million men and women Franciscans, the only way to avoid chaos is to run it like a corporation. That’s what happened in the past.

The only way to make sure that we did it right was to tell the Franciscans, “just do what the rest of the Church does”

Bl. John Paul and Vatican II reminded us, “You’re not like the rest of the Catholic faithful. You’re the sons and daughters of the Seraphic Father. Go back and do it his way.”

Standing is part of this cultural tradition. This does not mean that a particular house or region cannot choose to kneel. In fact, to do it Francis’ way means to let the community decide. This was an area where he did allow the community the freedom to decide. Unlike St. Benedict, Francis deregulated liturgy. The only rule that he and Clare had was the avoidance of Gregorian Chant. When the Church required chant, the Franciscans improvised. We often soud like a group of mourners when we try to chant.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Mrs_Sally]

As an additional note he ended the conversation with, “And if you wish to report me my last name is Fallon.” (Just for clarity I’ve been going to this Parish for roughly six months so he knows that I know his name) So I don’t believe that the tone of this conversation was misunderstood - it was clear. I share your belief that Priests are often misunderstood, but in this circumstance it was all but unclear. Additionally, I was not instructed to stand in the capacity of a choir member. He did mention that as well but it was not the focus of the conversation.

Joey,

Have you had a further conversation with this priest? You should ask him to explain more about why he is asking the congregation to stand. Listen respectfully and try to see his point of view. It may be that he has a valid reason that you just haven’t understood.

Please speak to him before you take any other action. You can of course go back to your previous spot in the nave and kneel there rather than up front in the choir’s section.

 

[jps23430]

while I agree that I would prefer to kneel, the GIRM is clear

“20. The uniformity in standing, kneeling, or sitting to be observed by all taking part is a sign of the community and the unity of the assembly; it both expresses and fosters the spiritual attitude of those taking part.
21. For the sake of uniformity in movement and posture, the people should follow the directions given during the celebration by the deacon, the priest, or another minister.”

While I understand it also says,
“They should kneel at the consecration unless prevented by the lack of space, the number of people present, or some other good reason.”

this is a suggestion (should) and while I agree its a darn good suggestion I believe that the unity of the congregation all doing the same thing takes precedence.

All that aside, I find it very interesting that this priest would take it to the extreme of wanting you to leave the parish. If this was not a misunderstanding, I would agree that you should contact your bishop.

 

[Brendan]

while I agree that I would prefer to kneel, the GIRM is clear

“20. The uniformity in standing, kneeling, or sitting to be observed by all taking part is a sign of the community and the unity of the assembly; it both expresses and fosters the spiritual attitude of those taking part.
21. For the sake of uniformity in movement and posture, the people should follow the directions given during the celebration by the deacon, the priest, or another minister.”.

If you read the documents from Rome, there is a lot more leeway than you thing. For example. Cardinal George of Chicago requested a clarification from Rome in regards to if the desire for a common posture would prevent the faithful from choosing to kneel, stand or sit when they returned to the pew after recieving communion, the answer was that it did not

Cardinal Francis George, chairman of the BCL, to submit a dubium (doubt, question) to the Holy See’s Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (CDW) on May 26, 2003:

Dubium: 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 Missale Romanum, editio typica tertia, to forbid this practice?

Cardinal Francis Arinze, Prefect of the CDW, responded to the question on June 5, 2003 (Prot. N. 855/03/L):

Responsum: Negative, et ad mensum [No, for this reason]. The mens [reasoning] is that the prescription of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, 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.

Note that when the Vatican approved GIRM #43, it was not with the intent of restricting posture so tightly that those who wish to kneel or sit would not be free to do so. Rather, the intent was for broad limits and that posture would not be regulated rigidtly.

Also Note that Cardinal Arinze’s resonse did not restrict this interpretation to just after communion, but as to how to interpret the instruction as a whole.

SInce the CDWDS is the legislator of the GIRM ( bishops can only reqest changes, it the the CDSDS that introduces the GIRM as law), the CDWDS is the authority under Canon 16 and thus these interpretations carry the force of law.

 

[Corki]

while I agree that I would prefer to kneel, the GIRM is clear

“20. The uniformity in standing, kneeling, or sitting to be observed by all taking part is a sign of the community and the unity of the assembly; it both expresses and fosters the spiritual attitude of those taking part.
21. For the sake of uniformity in movement and posture, the people should follow the directions given during the celebration by the deacon, the priest, or another minister.”

While I understand it also says,
“They should kneel at the consecration unless prevented by the lack of space, the number of people present, or some other good reason.”

this is a suggestion (should) and while I agree its a darn good suggestion I believe that the unity of the congregation all doing the same thing takes precedence.

All that aside, I find it very interesting that this priest would take it to the extreme of wanting you to leave the parish. If this was not a misunderstanding, I would agree that you should contact your bishop.

I am not sure you have had a chance to read the whole thread. The GIRM was discussed on earlier pages, especially beginning with post #72

Paragraph 43 in the GIRM reads

With a view to a uniformity in gestures and postures during one and the same celebration, the faithful should follow the directions which the deacon, lay minister, or priest gives according to whatever is indicated in the Missal.

Surely, we should all follow the directions given when they are given according to the Missal. However, when the priest gives direction **contrary **to what is indicated in the Missal, that puts the parishioner in a different position altogether. He is forced to chose between following the instructions of the priest or following the Church. The unity of the parish does not take precedence when it would be unity in disobedience.

 

[jps23430]

I am not sure you have had a chance to read the whole thread. The GIRM was discussed on earlier pages, especially beginning with post #72

Paragraph 43 in the GIRM reads

Surely, we should all follow the directions given when they are given according to the Missal. However, when the priest gives direction **contrary **to what is indicated in the Missal, that puts the parishioner in a different position altogether. He is forced to chose between following the instructions of the priest or following the Church. The unity of the parish does not take precedence when it would be unity in disobedience.

He is not going against the missal. I am glad you’ve read the whole GIRM… now read the whole missal. I’ll save you the trip

“[The posture of the people during the Eucharistic Prayer is different in various countries and regions; in the United States, the people normally stand until the “Holy, Holy”, and then kneel until after the “Great Amen.”]”

There is nothing authoritative in this verbage. This in no way sounds like direction but rather guidance. Keep in mind I would kneel, even in his situation, because as it was pointed out… uniformity does not preclude one from kneeling if he chooses to do so.

But lets be clear, the priest having everybody stand is not in conflict with the Missal, it just fails to take the Missals suggestions.

 

[NOMINE_PATRIS]

I am going to a Newman Church and at this Church they do not kneel during consecration. I tried standing but I felt as though I was disrespecting the Eucharist, I felt very guilty. The Priest last weekend approached me and told me that when we spoke he told me I was guilty due to an ill informed conscience. When we were concluding our conversation he told me, “If you chose to kneel there are plenty of other parishes in the area where you are welcome, but you are not welcome here.” After this conversation I researched the issue and made the decision that I indeed have an informed conscience, I don’t think that I should ignore my conscience. My question is do you think I should abandon my conscience or simply switch parishes? Let me also say that I love the people at the Newman center, but want to make the right decision.

We have all heard of Protestantism haven’t we? Seen any kneelers in a Protestant Church? We are becoming more Protestant than the Prostestants. All due to the wrongly interpreted “freedom” of conscience and choice that originated with Vatican II. After Vatican II, things went wrongly awry due to the secular influence of secular Cardinals, Bishops and especially those who call and still cal themselves Catholic theologians etc.

In many instances we have been ill informed as to what was intended at Vatican II.

To answer your question, No. I would not compromise my conscience by standing during the Consecration. I have had a similar experience at a Catholic Church which had no kneelers. I knelt at the Consecration and received a dirty look from the priest. My decision is to go to that particular church no longer, nada. Mother Church has not changed, but most of her shepherds have, again leaning to the secular and relativism.

 

[Brendan]

But lets be clear, the priest having everybody stand is not in conflict with the Missal, it just fails to take the Missals suggestions.

You’ve got that backwards.

The instructions that the priest gives are to be in accord with what is in the Missal.

according to whatever is indicated in the Missal

If the Missal indicated that we are to kneel at that point, we are to kneel. The priest can give no instruction that is not in accord with what the missal states ( which are actually liturgical law, not ‘suggestions’)

The GIRM does allow freedom of posture at certain points ( such as the reception of communion), or does not specifically dictate a posture, (such as if one holds hands during the Our Father or not). I which case there is personal leeway.

But even then, a priest does not have the authority to mandate a posture, such as telling everyone to stand when the Missal instructs kneeling, or telling everyone to hold hands during the Our Father.

To take a posture other than the one listed in the Missal is an act of disobedience to the authority that issued the GIRM (Rome).

 

[TheMc]

But lets be clear, the priest having everybody stand is not in conflict with the Missal, it just fails to take the Missals suggestions.

You’re attitude is off. The missal contains more than instructions. The GIRM is an authoritative document that is to be followed. They are indeed in conflict with the Missal.

 

[jps23430]

We have all heard of Protestantism haven’t we? Seen any kneelers in a Protestant Church? We are becoming more Protestant than the Prostestants. All due to the wrongly interpreted “freedom” of conscience and choice that originated with Vatican II. After Vatican II, things went wrongly awry due to the secular influence of secular Cardinals, Bishops and especially those who call and still cal themselves Catholic theologians etc.

In many instances we have been ill informed as to what was intended at Vatican II.

To answer your question, No. I would not compromise my conscience by standing during the Consecration. I have had a similar experience at a Catholic Church which had no kneelers. I knelt at the Consecration and received a dirty look from the priest. My decision is to go to that particular church no longer, nada. Mother Church has not changed, but most of her shepherds have, again leaning to the secular and relativism.

I hear this so often about going away from what Vatican II intended, What makes you think you are so clear on its intentions. You know who were bishops during the time of vatican II?.. John Paul II and Benedict XVI. I think that they would have the best understanding of the intent of Vatican II and have led our Church accordingly.

 

[Brendan]

I hear this so often about going away from what Vatican II intended, What makes you think you are so clear on its intentions. You know who were bishops during the time of vatican II?.. John Paul II and Benedict XVI. I think that they would have the best understanding of the intent of Vatican II and have led our Church accordingly.

That is why it is important and to keep up with what the Congregation for Divine Worship has to say about the GIRM and the Mass in general.

That is the way we can understand the mind of the Church and avoid being disobedient to the Church when a priest gives a sugestion that is contrary to the instructions of the Church in general.

 

[JReducation]

I saw an interview of the President of Newman and I learned something that would help here. The centers at state schools are part of the diocesan campus life ministry. The local bishop does the hiring and overseeing.

He did not go into great detail, but he said, “The centers at non-Catholic schools are the responsibility of the local bishop.” He then moved on to talk about the Catholic schools.

My take from that sentence is that non-Catholic schools contract directly withe the diocese, not through Newman. Newman seems to be called in by the diocese, if the diocese wants to use Newman.

I thought that would be helpful.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

It would be a great mistake to make the “opposite of Protestantism” the norm for that which constitutes Catholic truth. Often the opposite of an error is just another error and the true answer is not the opposite but a higher truth above the lower level of the error.

It seems we could wrap this up with the facts presented, standing is not irreverent, kneeling is not mandated everywhere and at all times, and, I would guess, the priest has some sort of authority in the context as shepherd of the flock. The missal and GIRM issue is perhaps covered by the first two facts above, so, standing along with everyone else in acceptance of the priests request would be the appropriate action. And since ones conscience is not the final authority as to the objective truth of an action, kneeling in opposition to the priests request is perhaps unwise. The possibility of going elsewhere is another viable option if one feels the need to kneel.

Are we done here?