i too will be disheartened if a bishop would break the rules. but clearly in the context of this discussion, the bishop has not done anything wrong.I intend to just that but contrary to these liberal elders you are so fond of, I intend to return to the truth, the elders who have remained faithful through the Latin Mass.
I’ve had enough of this discussion, it’s going nowhere so I’ll simply leave the modern rite to you and I’ll move on to the TLM, it’s been fun.i too will be disheartened if a bishop would break the rules. but clearly in the context of this discussion, the bishop has not done anything wrong.
you really have to look at yourself and see if its fair to start labeling people negatively for doing something that you personally don’t agree on. again, the bishop has done nothing wrong and exercised his authority within the limits given to him.
what must happen for the conversation to progress and have a happy ending? for me to say the bishops are wrong for doing what the Church allows them to do because Traditionalists like yourself don’t agree with what they’ve done even if they’ve done nothing wrong?I’ve had enough of this discussion, it’s going nowhere so I’ll simply leave the modern rite to you and I’ll move on to the TLM, it’s been fun.
That’s perfectly legitimate. And many have already done that.I’ve had enough of this discussion, it’s going nowhere so I’ll simply leave the modern rite to you and I’ll move on to the TLM, it’s been fun.
Certainly not a “mandate” from Rome in any sort of meaningful use of the word. Permitted by Rome, yes. And, yes, Rome is sensitive to cultural issues and does allow the Bishop to respond to that. But, for a Bishop to unilaterally hijack the Mass in this manner in the USA remains, I submit, an arrogant clericalism unless Erie, Alaska and Seattle have experienced something the rest of us have missed. The Bishop, contrary to the implication in your post, is not the lord of the Mass, rather he is it’s protector.there is a mandate from Rome. it says that they can change the posture if they so decide.
instead of trying to analyze the attitudes of the Bishops, why not analyze your attitude on why you cannot be obedient to your elders on such matters that they have the authority to decide on, and in fact on matters that they are authorized to change.
Maybe explaining what cultural change has hit Erie, Seattle and Alaska to cause the Bishops there to change such longstanding posture would be enlightening. Simply saying the Bishop has the power to make such change rather misses the point. Here a significant change which has NOT arisen from the congregation nor demanded by Rome or even the USCCB has been imposed. Why? As to nothing wrong - simply changing the Mass to suit the whims of the local Bishop seems to clearly be wrong in all but the most legalistic interpretation of the power of the Ordinary.what must happen for the conversation to progress and have a happy ending? for me to say the bishops are wrong for doing what the Church allows them to do because Traditionalists like yourself don’t agree with what they’ve done even if they’ve done nothing wrong?
the problem i see is many people resist change for the sake of resistingMaybe explaining what cultural change has hit Erie, Seattle and Alaska to cause the Bishops there to change such longstanding posture would be enlightening. Simply saying the Bishop has the power to make such change rather misses the point. Here a significant change which has NOT arisen from the congregation nor demanded by Rome or even the USCCB has been imposed. Why? As to nothing wrong - simply changing the Mass to suit the whims of the local Bishop seems to clearly be wrong in all but the most legalistic interpretation of the power of the Ordinary.
Frankly, your arguments all boil down to the fact that the Bishop has the power to do something it must be right. My experience in life - civil and in the Church - is that what is allowed and what is right are not often the same thing. Pity you don’t seem to appreciate the difference.
Where? I’ve yet to see what diocese this is - so presumably the priest is in fact off base unless the Bishop has directed otherwise.at this point we have already established that what the priest is asking is neither an abuse nor a disrespect. and in fact it is the norm in the Church.
Not so, the Norm in the USA unless the local Bishop decides otherwise is to kneel after the Agnus Dei. Last time I checked a priest is not the Bishop.you are arguing beyond the context of this discussion. of course if the preist (sic) asks you to take out a gun and start shooting people, you don’t do that. but what the priest has asked is not only allowed and good, but the norm of the Church.
Unless you show the Bishop has decreed otherwise, that priest should not be followed since he is acting well outside his authority.and yet you insist on not following him because you have your own way.
On the contrary in the USA kneeling is the posture. So that’s what you do. With your sort of argument why use unleavened bread since leavened bread is allowed in the eastern rites? Why have rubrics at all? Your argument leads to disunity and chaos - as we have seen for 45 years.given that your own way is allowed also, so which do you do? follow the priest or follow yourself?
No follow what is allowedunless its doctrine that can never be changed, then follow what is today.
and when changed follow that - not the whim of the local priest who has aggregated to himself unauthorized powers.the Church has to adjust to where the people are today. what may be reverent 500 years ago may not be today. what may be a sign of respect 500 years ago may be not today.
an inapt argument. Change in language is not the issueif you called someone “gay” 100 years ago, thats a good thing. if you call someone “gay” today and they’re not what “gay” is today, then prepare yourself for a fight.
Well, the Church - those with the authority to do so - may do so. What authority does this priest have except his own arrogance?the Church has to adapt to where the culture of the times are. isn’t this biblical? Jesus abolished some Jewish traditions because people already lost sense why they have those traditions in the first place. and kept those that still made sense.
the standing is DURING communion. you are supposed to kneel after the Agnus Dei until the distribution of communion begins. this is a time you start standingNot so, the Norm in the USA unless the local Bishop decides otherwise is to kneel after the Agnus Dei.
You have shown nothing that indicates that standing is the posture in this diocese. True there is nothing wrong per se with standing. there is quite a bit wrong with standing and telling a congregation to stand when the rubrics call for kneeling.we must analyze why
if the President of the United States walk into a room, do you kneel? no, you stand. in the North American culture, standing for someone is a sign of respect. moreover, standing is the norm for most, if not all, Eastern Catholics. so there is nothing disrespectful to God if we stand for Him. the point here is, there is nothing disrespectful nor wrong in standing.
There is a lot wrong with a priest aggregating to himself the authority to change the Mass. that’s the point.now, given that fact, why should one be insistent on what one wants over what the priest asks us to do? since there is nothing wrong being asked, we should humbly submit to the authority of the priest presiding over the celebration of Mass
standing is the universal norm as pointed out by Phemie in this postYou have shown nothing that indicates that standing is the posture in this diocese. True there is nothing wrong per se with standing. there is quite a bit wrong with standing and telling a congregation to stand when the rubrics call for kneeling.
i didn’t have to repeat it in every post i madeStanding during Communion has been the universal norm for 35 years, since the publication of the 1975 GIRM. In the 1975 GIRM there was a proviso that bishops’ conferences could adapt other postures.
At that time, the only adaptation that the National Bishops’ Conference made to the universal norms on posture was that during the Eucharistic Prayer the faithful were to kneel from after the Sanctus until after the Amen of the Eucharistic prayer. At the time it was to apply to all the US dioceses (in Canada this was delegated to each bishop who pretty much left it up to each pastor). In the late 90s the USCCB decided to do the same as Canada had always done (although I doubt that that was the reason for the decision) and allow each bishop to decide on posture for his diocese.
With the new edition of the GIRM, the US went back to a posture for the Eucharistic Prayer that applied to the entire country. They still didn’t change the norm for the posture during Communion.
no, there is nothing wrong for a priest changing something that he has the authority to change. since he is following what is the norm, there is nothing wrong with that. its not like he’s doing something that only a Bishop can decide on.There is a lot wrong with a priest aggregating to himself the authority to change the Mass. that’s the point.
Show where this priest is in a Diocese where the Ordinary has prescribed standing. I’ve seen nothing to that effect. If not, then kneeling is the posture and the priest is acting outside the scope of his authority.you cannot dismiss everything in the name of relativism. if what you’re saying is true, then there should be only one Rite in the Church, one sui juris Church. why do the Byzantines have different traditions than the Latins, than the Coptics, than the Chaldeans? they adopted to the culture of those places, the same way the Church would adopt to the culture of the world today
The Church can - the local pastor CANNOT! Do not confuse the two as it seems this misguided priest has (unless his Ordinary has decreed the change).there are things that you cannot change. the moral teachings of the Church, the Deposit of Faith, the doctrines and the dogmas. but the Church surely can integrate the culture of the people into its practices. it has been done in the past, why can’t it be done today?
Keep in mind, the 1st ecumenical council banned kneeling on sundays and from easter to pentecost…Certainly not a “mandate” from Rome in any sort of meaningful use of the word. Permitted by Rome, yes. And, yes, Rome is sensitive to cultural issues and does allow the Bishop to respond to that. But, for a Bishop to unilaterally hijack the Mass in this manner in the USA remains, I submit, an arrogant clericalism unless Erie, Alaska and Seattle have experienced something the rest of us have missed. The Bishop, contrary to the implication in your post, is not the lord of the Mass, rather he is it’s protector.
As to the call to obedience, I have seen nothing to indicate that the local priest is acting in accordance with the directive of his Bishop. The priest is NOT the Bishop. It’s true if his Bishop has in fact made the directive to change posture, we should all submit until it is changed otherwise. I may have missed the post that indicated that the Bishop in this particular Diocese has made such a change. Even then, questioning what cultural change has occurred to cause the Bishop to change longstanding postures is neither disobedient nor inappropriate. Bishops too can be wrong, arrogant, misguided and even heretical - and under such circumstances, I’m sure you’d agree, must be questioned and corrected.
i suggest you read the entire thread first before making such claims. it has already been established that standing is the norm DURING communionShow where this priest is in a Diocese where the Ordinary has prescribed standing. I’ve seen nothing to that effect. If not, then kneeling is the posture and the priest is acting outside the scope of his authority.
The Church can - the local pastor CANNOT! Do not confuse the two as it seems this misguided priest has (unless his Ordinary has decreed the change).
Or will He ask, “You did what you knew was wrong in a false sense of humility? Why?” Maybe he will ask, why no one corrected this priest who has gone off the rails in a surfeit of hubris, hijacking Holy Mass for his own agenda? Maybe, he will ask why did you not correct a brother who has gone awry?i rest my case
seriously, do you think God will ask you why you didn’t kneel? or will He ask you why you didn’t follow what a Priest told you to do during Mass?
But only if the priest is acting within the scope of his authority. here the poor priest (unless his Bishop has decreed otherwise) is acting outside the scope of his authority. I say correct him as a misguided brother who threatens the integrity of the Mass.a priest is given authority and following what the priest prescribes even if it is against our personal desires is a sign of humility. on the other hand, insisting of doing what you want to do is a sign of pride. sorry, but i have to call it what it is
I did and it was wrongly posited by editing the GIRM as adapted. You might want to reread yourself. The directive is to kneel after the Agnus Dei. The directive to stand for Communion deals with receiving - a special act of the individual - not a congregational mandate. The directive for the Congregation is to kneel after the Agnus Dei - Perhaps with the argument put forth for uniformity of posture calls for the congregation to walk during Communion since some are walking?i suggest you read the entire thread first before making such claims. it has already been established that standing is the norm DURING communion
again, the argument is not about the posture during the Eucharistic Prayer. we are discussing posture during Communion.I did and it was wrongly posited by editing the GIRM as adapted. You might want to reread yourself. The directive is to kneel after the Agnus Dei. The directive to stand for Communion deals with receiving - a special act of the individual - not a congregational mandate. The directive for the Congregation is to kneel after the Agnus Dei - Perhaps with the argument put forth for uniformity of posture calls for the congregation to walk during Communion since some are walking?
The argument is absurd.
[BIBLEDRB]Ephesians 6:5[/BIBLEDRB]Or will He ask, “You did what you knew was wrong in a false sense of humility? Why?” Maybe he will ask, why no one corrected this priest who has gone off the rails in a surfeit of hubris, hijacking Holy Mass for his own agenda? Maybe, he will ask why did you not correct a brother who has gone awry?
he is asking the people to follow the norm. that is within his authorityBut only if the priest is acting within the scope of his authority. here the poor priest (unless his Bishop has decreed otherwise) is acting outside the scope of his authority. I say correct him as a misguided brother who threatens the integrity of the Mass.