Not only that, but I have seen several fairly recent CDW responses to “dubia” that indicate that the Church’s mind is that “uniformity of posture” is to be interpreted more leniently toward the faithful who wish to adopt more traditional postures (see the responsum to kneeling for communion- a quick google search will suffice).
And I think you’re taking both me and the Vatican response out of context.
Nice.Maybe this will help
I know. We’re getting better, but there’s still a little part of the church that says, “and also with um spirit, uh” or just flat out gives the auto-response and then oops.It’s important not to say also. Because when you start with also you forget your spirit and end up with you.
It’s happened a couple of times and is so funny.
I was going to say what Father said above, but I’ll use a different example instead. The Capuchin Franciscan Friars have never had kneelers. There reason being that St. Francis banned kneelers in the 13th century. The friars always stood. The reason for all of the friars standing was an expression of unity among the brothers.
I don’t. I have encountered far too many who have taught error. Priests are not the magisterium. They can teach error. That is why it behooves the laity to study as well.
Exactly!!!
I don’t think there’s a rule against wearing knee pads if you find it difficult to kneel on a wooden or marble floor. Even at some communion rails, they don’t have padding so even kneeling for a few moments for communion can be very uncomfortable if not injury-causing on marble steps. It almost happened to me today. Just saying.
I mean no disrespect, but those are the traditions of the Franciscans. For the rest of the latin rite, kneeling is the norm, and as was restated by Rome, lack of kneelers is not an obstacle to kneeling for most congregations. Yes, if you are celebrating a Mass for older folks, many of them may not be able to kneel. But at general parish Masses, the congregation as a whole, even if there are individual exceptions, should be kneeling.I was going to say what Father said above, but I’ll use a different example instead. The Capuchin Franciscan Friars have never had kneelers. There reason being that St. Francis banned kneelers in the 13th century. The friars always stood. The reason for all of the friars standing was an expression of unity among the brothers.
I realize that this is a different context, because it’s a conventual mass. But the idea that Francis introduced into his religious family was not his. It actually came from the Benedictines who are considered the master liturgists in history. The idea is the same in an abbey, friary or parish.
The idea was to be of one mind and one body when offering the sacrifice. If the friars knelt, the priest who was celebrating the mass would be singled out, since he was standing. This was OK with Francis as long as the priest was not a brother. If the priest was a brother, he was to offer the sacrifice as a service to his brothers and his brothers were to pray the mass with him, not as subordinates, but as equals. You don’t need a house full of priests for the friars to be equal. That’s rarely the case. It made no difference whether the brothers were lay, religious or clerics. If they were friars, they were brothers. They maintained a common posture, in this case, they stood. This common posture reflected their unity as one people.
The idea of a shared posture came from the Benedictine abbey churches. If you attend mass at an abbey, everyone stands, sits, bows, kneels and genuflects with perfect synchronicity.
Today, the OFM Cap, still do not have kneelers. They have relaxed the rule, because in some cultures, when the men enter, kneeling is what they are used to doing. Since the community is international, they accommodate to the local culture. Those friars who are used to kneeling are not discouraged. That’s how this statement by the Vatican is applied. The absence of kneelers should not be a discouragement to kneeling. It is not interpreted as saying that one must kneel even when there are no kneelers. If this were the case, many communities of religious and many dioceses would be out of compliance.
When I was a missionary in the Amazon, the chapels were very simple. Some had dirt floors. People stood. A dirt floor is a very legitimate reason for standing. The Church is not a hard taskmaster that wants to force people to be uncomfortable and to suffer physical discomfort in order to comply with rules.
The GIRM is a set of GENERAL instructions. These instructions have degrees of absoluteness, if you will . . . for lack of a better term. As I said someplace else, if the priest decides to change from “God the Father” to “God” to avoid gender references, he’s pushing the envelop. If he changes it to “Mother”, the envelop has flown off the table. The fatherhood of God is an absolute. It cannot be tampered with.
Kneeling or standing are not absolutes. They are enforced according to custom and possibility. If it’s customary and it is possible, then it should be done. If it’s not customary or it’s an inconvenience, it need not be forced. “Need not be forced”, does not mean that it cannot be done. It means exactly what it says.
We have to be more gentle with ourselves and with our clergy. We tend to want to see every detail of the liturgy in writing to make sure that we’re getting it right. That can border or even spill into scrupulosity, which is not good. The Church gives us instructions for the liturgy in the different rites and the different forms within the rites. But she does not micro-manage.
Even in the EF, which has many more rules, they are flexible. If you attend an EF celebrated by the Franciscans of the Immaculate, a diocesan priest and the FSSP, you will observe some differences. The men celebrating it have a good understanding of what is possible and what is not. The same goes for the Ordinary Form. If you paid attention in class while in the seminary, you would have learned how to read Church law, liturgical instructions and the meaning and theology behind the different instructions. It’s very helpful to learn the mind of the people who wrote the instructions, because it helps us be more precise in how we do things while avoiding scrupulosity.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
I mean no disrespect, but those are the traditions of the Franciscans. For the rest of the latin rite, kneeling is the norm, and as was restated by Rome, lack of kneelers is not an obstacle to kneeling for most congregations. Yes, if you are celebrating a Mass for older folks, many of them may not be able to kneel. But at general parish Masses, the congregation as a whole, even if there are individual exceptions, should be kneeling.I was going to say what Father said above, but I’ll use a different example instead. The Capuchin Franciscan Friars have never had kneelers. There reason being that St. Francis banned kneelers in the 13th century. The friars always stood. The reason for all of the friars standing was an expression of unity among the brothers.
I realize that this is a different context, because it’s a conventual mass. But the idea that Francis introduced into his religious family was not his. It actually came from the Benedictines who are considered the master liturgists in history. The idea is the same in an abbey, friary or parish.
The idea was to be of one mind and one body when offering the sacrifice. If the friars knelt, the priest who was celebrating the mass would be singled out, since he was standing. This was OK with Francis as long as the priest was not a brother. If the priest was a brother, he was to offer the sacrifice as a service to his brothers and his brothers were to pray the mass with him, not as subordinates, but as equals. You don’t need a house full of priests for the friars to be equal. That’s rarely the case. It made no difference whether the brothers were lay, religious or clerics. If they were friars, they were brothers. They maintained a common posture, in this case, they stood. This common posture reflected their unity as one people.
The idea of a shared posture came from the Benedictine abbey churches. If you attend mass at an abbey, everyone stands, sits, bows, kneels and genuflects with perfect synchronicity.
Today, the OFM Cap, still do not have kneelers. They have relaxed the rule, because in some cultures, when the men enter, kneeling is what they are used to doing. Since the community is international, they accommodate to the local culture. Those friars who are used to kneeling are not discouraged. That’s how this statement by the Vatican is applied. The absence of kneelers should not be a discouragement to kneeling. It is not interpreted as saying that one must kneel even when there are no kneelers. If this were the case, many communities of religious and many dioceses would be out of compliance.
When I was a missionary in the Amazon, the chapels were very simple. Some had dirt floors. People stood. A dirt floor is a very legitimate reason for standing. The Church is not a hard taskmaster that wants to force people to be uncomfortable and to suffer physical discomfort in order to comply with rules.
The GIRM is a set of GENERAL instructions. These instructions have degrees of absoluteness, if you will . . . for lack of a better term. As I said someplace else, if the priest decides to change from “God the Father” to “God” to avoid gender references, he’s pushing the envelop. If he changes it to “Mother”, the envelop has flown off the table. The fatherhood of God is an absolute. It cannot be tampered with.
Kneeling or standing are not absolutes. They are enforced according to custom and possibility. If it’s customary and it is possible, then it should be done. If it’s not customary or it’s an inconvenience, it need not be forced. “Need not be forced”, does not mean that it cannot be done. It means exactly what it says.
We have to be more gentle with ourselves and with our clergy. We tend to want to see every detail of the liturgy in writing to make sure that we’re getting it right. That can border or even spill into scrupulosity, which is not good. The Church gives us instructions for the liturgy in the different rites and the different forms within the rites. But she does not micro-manage.
Even in the EF, which has many more rules, they are flexible. If you attend an EF celebrated by the Franciscans of the Immaculate, a diocesan priest and the FSSP, you will observe some differences. The men celebrating it have a good understanding of what is possible and what is not. The same goes for the Ordinary Form. If you paid attention in class while in the seminary, you would have learned how to read Church law, liturgical instructions and the meaning and theology behind the different instructions. It’s very helpful to learn the mind of the people who wrote the instructions, because it helps us be more precise in how we do things while avoiding scrupulosity.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
I used the Franciscan example to help explain what the Vatican is saying in this response, but I could have used any other. If you go back to my post, I clearly said that if it’s the custom and it’s possible, one should kneel.
That’s a great personal rule.I have a personal rule. I don’t question a priest who knows Latin.
But that’s me.
Knowing Latin does not exempt a priest from error. One may have studied Latin and then later on dallied with New Age and all other sorts of beliefs incompatible with Christianity.I have a personal rule. I don’t question a priest who knows Latin.
But that’s me.
You’re posts are very disquieting. What started out as a simple discussion about the experiences that people have had with the new translation of the missal seems to have turned into an entire thread about your jurisdiction over the clergy, how you evaluate the clergy, how you believe that the clergy must do things, what priests you trust and don’t trust, how priests should be handled if they fail or make mistakes, why others are wrong to trust or give a priest the benefit of the doubt. In other words, this entire thread has turned it one long blog about your authority to scrutinize and evaluate priests as if you were their bishop or their major superior.
That is not the Query to which the Vatican was responding. The Query, in its plain wording, was saying that all churches must have kneelers of some kind. The Vatican’s response was that the lack of kneelers do not prevent kneeling.
Unless there is a good reason or reasonable cause…
No. Br. and I have taken it at face value. It is you who has placed an interpretation upon it. “With all due respect” you have taken the answer and applied it to a question that was not asked.
Hey, I did not take this conversation into this territory. I am merely replying to what someone else is saying.You’re posts are very disquieting. What started out as a simple discussion about the experiences that people have had with the new translation of the missal seems to have turned into an entire thread about your jurisdiction over the clergy, how you evaluate the clergy, how you believe that the clergy must do things, what priests you trust and don’t trust, how priests should be handled if they fail or make mistakes, why others are wrong to trust or give a priest the benefit of the doubt. In other words, this entire thread has turned it one long blog about your authority to scrutinize and evaluate priests as if you were their bishop or their major superior.
That’s very unfortunate. Not only have you set yourself up as one with the wisdom and authority of bishops and major superiors, but you have been here pontificating for three days as if this were your blog and you’re going to teach everyone on this thread how the clergy should be handled. If a bishop or a religious superior enters the thread, he may as well sit down and take notes, because you’ve got the answers and you have the full understanding of liturgical law and how to discipline the clergy and keep the laity on track while you’re at it.
Give us a break. This is a simple chat about what happened in your church this weekend. It’s supposed to be a light thread, not your personal manual on how to evaluate, discipline and correct the clergy. If you want to write such a manual and submit it to a few bishops and religious superiors, I’ll give you some addresses to send it and you can tell those folks how to manage their men. If you’re not going to write a “How To Evaluate and Manage Priests For Dummies” book, then chill out.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
And please explain this comment.
The older phrase is such a reflex, said even in many Protestant denominations.