The kneeling saga continues

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

You were told incorrectly. One is required to obey the correct legistlating authority on the matter.

In some cases, the priest or the bishop is the legislator, but in many, if not most, cases, the Holy See is the legislator.

And my Priest said that you are incorrect. It is far more serious to disrupt a mass, and obiedience to the Pastor is more important than a minor liturgical norm.

And in this case, what about the exceptions? It is not up to you to decide what is an “other good reason”.

You do admit [In some cases, the priest or the bishop is the legislator]

Lux

 

[Walking_Home]

And my Priest said that you are incorrect. It is far more serious to disrupt a mass, and obiedience to the Pastor is more important than a minor liturgical norm.

And in this case, what about the exceptions? It is not up to you to decide what is an “other good reason”.

You do admit [In some cases, the priest or the bishop is the legislator]

Lux

---

The ones responsible for disrupting-- would be those who make a fuss over someone exercising a right which Rome has allowed.

Saying that that it is not up to us to decide what is “other good reason” is just a cop-out. If the conditions are favorable to kneeling ---- there really is no “other good reason” other than the Shepards determination to squash are traditions.

Even in cases when the priests and/or bishops are legislator–they are still responsible to Rome. No priest or bishop stands on his own.

 

[Annc]

and obiedience to the Pastor is more important than a minor liturgical norm.

I think by the length of this thread and the intense discussion that it is debatable as to whether this is a “minor” liturgical norm. I am referring to standing during the consecration here. I don’t know what defines “minor” but for me it is not minor. It is not minor to be in the Presence of Our Lord. When you have experienced Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament as I have, it is not minor to feel that taken away by being expected to stand when your soul pushes you to your knees. This is a serious spiritual and pastoral concern for many people that has not been addressed in my diocese in the time that I have been here. It is dismissed as “minor” and legalistic. It is neither. By dismissing this as minor, priests, bishops and others leave many of the faithful sorrowful and anguished. Hardly the loving response Christ would ask of us.

Peace

 

[Brendan]

And my Priest said that you are incorrect.

And my Canon Law professors say your priest is wrong. I’ll take their advice first.

It is far more serious to disrupt a mass, and obiedience to the Pastor is more important than a minor liturgical norm.

I didn’t say anything about distruping a Mass, just that we do not have to follow unauthorized additions.

For example, if the priest ( or bishop) say that we are to stand at a certain point in the Mass that the GIRM mandates kneeling, you kneel. Simple. There is no disruption to the Mass.

And in this case, what about the exceptions? It is not up to you to decide what is an “other good reason”.

Actually, in the case of kneeling, there is. A person may be elderly, to kneel would be painful for them. They may make a person decision to sit. That is well within the rubrics.

One person may deciced that there is insuffenct room to kneel, while another person may feel there is. One person may sit (or stand), the other may kneel. That too is well within the promuglated rubrics. Cardinal Arinze, who IS the delgagated Papal Authority made that quite clear.

You do admit [In some cases, the priest or the bishop is the legislator]

Lux

Of course, the Bishop, for example, CAN mandate standing from the Agnus Dei until personal reception of Communion. The Holy See gave him the right to legislate that.

The Holy See did NOT give the bishop to mandate standing AFTER personal reception of the Eucharist or to mandate standing during the Consecration. We would be under no obligation to follow the bishop’s desire in that matter.

We would be free to kneel ( in a non-disruptive way of course )

 

[Brendan]

and obiedience to the Pastor is more important than a minor liturgical norm.

It really doesn’t matter if the issue is ‘minor’ or not.

Pastor Aeturnus - Vatican I

Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. **Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power **by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world

If Rome sets up a rule, we are bound to submit to it. We cannot use, as an excuse, that another person, clergy or lay, told us not to.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Yesterday we went to St Vincent’s in Latrobe, PA. We had a homeschool day for Catholic families and it included Mass in the crypt . There were no kneelers and yet all the adults and children knelt on the floor. There was no hesitation we all just did it. The young children came forward with their families and were blessed and the rest of us received communion if we felt we were in a State of Grace.

So even though hard on these old knees I still kneeled on the floor.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

and obiedience to the Pastor is more important than a minor liturgical norm.

I think by the length of this thread and the intense discussion that it is debatable as to whether this is a “minor” liturgical norm. I am referring to standing during the consecration here. I don’t know what defines “minor” but for me it is not minor. It is not minor to be in the Presence of Our Lord. When you have experienced Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament as I have, it is not minor to feel that taken away by being expected to stand when your soul pushes you to your knees. This is a serious spiritual and pastoral concern for many people that has not been addressed in my diocese in the time that I have been here. It is dismissed as “minor” and legalistic. It is neither. By dismissing this as minor, priests, bishops and others leave many of the faithful sorrowful and anguished. Hardly the loving response Christ would ask of us.

Peace

Hi,

I certainly do not intend to minimize your feelings, but RS did define grave abuses, and this was not mentioned.

This discussion carried on so long because some feel that it is more important to respect our priest and bishop than to insist on a liturgical norm.

Others feel differently.

As I said, my priest, who is very liturgically correct, advised me to follow the instruction of the celebrant, unless it is a serious matter. He did mention that unity is an very important aspect of the Mass.

Lux

 

[Brendan]

Hi,

I certainly do not intend to minimize your feelings, but RS did define grave abuses, and this was not mentioned.

Where exactly in RS does it say that the issues mentioned are the ONLY grave abuses being committed.

This discussion carried on so long because some feel that it is more important to respect our priest and bishop than to insist on a liturgical norm.

Others feel differently.

As I said, my priest, who is very liturgically correct, advised me to follow the instruction of the celebrant, unless it is a serious matter. He did mention that unity is an very important aspect of the Mass.

Lux

Ah, yes, those darn old folks, not showing unity by standing.

Your priest is placing a more of an emphasis on unity than Rome does. They encourage unity in posture, but not to the extent that people should not be free to kneel if they so wish.

And here we have this priest saying that we should not obey Rome on this matter.

 

[Walking_Home]

Hi,

I certainly do not intend to minimize your feelings, but RS did define grave abuses, and this was not mentioned.

This discussion carried on so long because some feel that it is more important to respect our priest and bishop than to insist on a liturgical norm.

Others feel differently.

As I said, my priest, who is very liturgically correct, advised me to follow the instruction of the celebrant, unless it is a serious matter. He did mention that unity is an very important aspect of the Mass.

Lux

---

You are mis-representing RS-2004, but I believe you know that. RS dwelt with all abuses --not ONLY grave ones.

It also seems to be a contradiction in defining priest who considers it to be of minor importance to undermine the Mass and the authority of the Church —as being conservative and liturgically correct.

 

[PaixGioiaAmor]

Again -

What part of the plain english “should not be enforced SO RIGIDLY” do people not understand?

What part of the GIRM that I pointed out that makes no mention of the time right after reception of Communion do people not understand?

People with an agenda WILL NOT understand; Folks, don’t get your liturgy information from Adoramus.

 

[Walking_Home]

Again -

What part of the plain english “should not be enforced SO RIGIDLY” do people not understand?

What part of the GIRM that I pointed out that makes no mention of the time right after reception of Communion do people not understand?

People with an agenda WILL NOT understand; Folks, don’t get your liturgy information from Adoramus.

Quote=PaixGioiaAmor
This is just not true.

NOT TRUE.

This is a common mistake - please read very carefully. The GIRM states this:

“The faithful kneel after the Agnus Dei unless the diocesan Bishop determines otherwise.” (paragraph 43)

The next chronological mention made states “… they may sit or kneel while the period of sacred silence after Communion is observed.” (paragraph 43)

The period of sacred silence beings only after the last person has received. It is NOT immediately after one receives.

Therefore, as you can see, the bishop may mandate a posture after the Agnus Dei until the period of sacred silence, the next choronological moment the GIRM mentions, where the GIRM says the faithful can choose a posture.​

To begin with—before you ask the question —You need the correct interpretation of that section of the GIRM.

ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_posture.htm

While the desirability of everyone in the congregation making the common gestures and postures throughout the Mass is clear (a sign of unity), recent interpretations of these norms by the Holy See provides some insight into the mind of the Church. **It should be noted that the Holy See alone can authentically interpret legislation it has initiated or approved. **The following was issued in response to a dubium of Cardinal George of Chicago. The reference is to the general posture norm, GIRM 43, and whether communicants can kneel down for their thanksgiving after Communion when everyone else is standing, however, it is clear that the mind (mens) of the Holy See on the role of posture is expressed. The general principle enunciated in the response would therefore also apply to GIRM 160, and the issues of kneeling to receive and genuflecting before receiving.

Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments

5 June 2003

Prot. n. 855/03/L

Dubium: In many places, the faithful are accustomed to kneeling or sitting in personal prayer upon returning to their places after individually received Holy Communion during Mass. Is it the intention of the Missale Romanum, editio typica tertia, to forbid this practice?

Responsum: Negative, et ad mentem. The mens is that that the prescription of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, no. 43, is intended, on one hand, to ensure within broad limits a certain uniformity of posture within the congregation for the various parts of the celebration of the 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.

Francis Cardinal Arinze
Prefect

 

[Brendan]

Again -

What part of the plain english “should not be enforced SO RIGIDLY” do people not understand?

What part of the GIRM that I pointed out that makes no mention of the time right after reception of Communion do people not understand?

And,as I pointed out in the Responsum from the CDWDS, that part of the GIRM is not to be inforced in such a way that the faithful do not feel free to kneel.

What part of ‘not feel free’ don’t YOU understand.

People with an agenda WILL NOT understand; Folks, don’t get your liturgy information from Adoramus.

Fine, I read that same Responsum in the copy of Notatie I checked out from the Seminary libary, it is published by the Vatican.

Am we supposed to discount Vatican documents just because Adoramus posts them online?

 

[Like]

Folks, don’t get your liturgy information from Adoramus.

BY who’s authority, do you command this?!?!

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

---

You are mis-representing RS-2004, but I believe you know that. RS dwelt with all abuses --not ONLY grave ones.

It also seems to be a contradiction in defining priest who considers it to be of minor importance to undermine the Mass and the authority of the Church —as being conservative and liturgically correct.

Well, you believe wrong.

Posture of the laity isn’t even mentioned.

Lux

 

[Walking_Home]

Originally Posted by Walking_Home​

You are mis-representing RS-2004, but I believe you know that. RS dwelt with all abuses --not ONLY grave ones.

It also seems to be a contradiction in defining priest who considers it to be of minor importance to undermine the Mass and the authority of the Church —as being conservative and liturgically correct.

Well, you believe wrong.

Posture of the laity isn’t even mentioned.

Lux

Quote=Lux et Tenebrae
Hi,

I certainly do not intend to minimize your feelings, but RS did define grave abuses, and this was not mentioned.

---

The posture for the laity is also clarified-- not only in the GIRM–but also thru responses to dubiums submitted to the Apostolic See—. That is where you are going wrong. If Rome has authorized certain postures for the laity—it is not for your priest/bishop, any priest/bishop to deny this right to the laity. Anyone who does is indeed abusing his authority and this so no minimal abuse.

Now-- how about an answer to Brendan’s question. You did say RS define the grave abuses and this was not mentioned. Post the section that says RS is geared at only grave abuses.

Quote=Brendan
Where exactly in RS does it say that the issues mentioned are the ONLY grave abuses being committed.

 

[Brendan]

Well, you believe wrong.

Posture of the laity isn’t even mentioned.

Lux

It’s specifically mentioned in the Responsum from the Vatican to the USCCB’s request for clarification on GIRM 43

Numerous inquiries" received by the BCL led 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.

The next higher authority on the matter would be the Pope himself.

And since it was requested by the the President of the USCCB in the name of the USCCB, it constitutes an instruction to the US Bishops on their implementation of GIRM 43.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

You are twisting my words. I said,

Posture of the laity isn’t even mentioned.

(in RS)

I suppose I could have said “posture of the congregation” to be more clear, but my point is that it was not even important enough to be mentioned in the document itself.

So I am saying that I would stand during the Eucharistic Prayer, if the celebrant felt there was a good reason to do so, not report this request, and certainly not badmouth a priest or bishop over this issue.

If you feel called to kneel or report, you are certainly free to do so, but I never feel it is appropriate to badmouth a priest or bishop, or show the disrespect that was shown in this thread.

Lux

 

[Annc]

I.

, and certainly not badmouth a priest or bishop over this issue.

or show the disrespect that was shown in this thread.

Lux

Just to clarify…

I am not sure what you are referring to here. I don’t recall anyone “badmouthing” a priest or bishop. And what disrespect in this thread?

Thanks.

 

[Brendan]

If you feel called to kneel or report, you are certainly free to do so, but I never feel it is appropriate to badmouth a priest or bishop, or show the disrespect that was shown in this thread.

Lux

Letting someone know that they are wrong is not being ‘disrepectful’, and letting their superiors know of the error so that they might provide correction is an act of Charity.

It must be done in a Charitable way, but it still must be done.

Letting someone continue in ignorance when education is availble is never a good thing. I’m surprized you would even consider it.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Letting someone continue in ignorance when education is availble is never a good thing. I’m surprized you would even consider it.

And I am surprised that so many would question the celebrant’s reason for requesting the congregation to stand. You don’t even know that there is a need for education—perhaps you might want to respectfully discuss this, rather than thinking you can instruct the celebrant.

Lux