« Cui Bono? | Main | Happy Birthday, Gilbert! »
May 30, 2006
Totally Absolutely 100% Crazy
(Jimmy Akin)
A reader writes:
Would you please comment on the following article in yesterday's LA Times?
The story in question is about a parish in the Diocese of Orange where the new priest has--among other things--forbidden people to kneel following the Agnus Dei, and a huge controversy has errupted.
IT'S A STORY THAT I'VE COMMENTED ON BEFORE.
But I've only commented on certain aspects of it, and the L.A. Times piece gives me the confirmation I need to go further into the issue.
First, though, I'd mention that there are notable flaws in the L.A. Times piece. They don't get their history of recent liturgical law right, there is a bizarro attempt to link the kneeling issue to The Da Vinci Code (I'm not making that up), and they notably fail to document other aspects of the story that are important, such as the fact that the parishioners weren't just disinvited from attending Mass because they insisted on kneeling after the Agnus Dei. They are also accused of handing out literature making false allegations against the diocese and the priest, which is a much more serious and canonically actionable offense than refusing to stand at the Agnus Dei. See my prior commentary for more info on this.
They also talk to an expert at the Georgetown liturgy center who is off in liturgical la-la land, but I can't hold the stupid things he says against the Times. (At least not in a direct way.)
What I find particularly interesting here is a particular assertion that was made by the priest of the parish (he apparently hasn't been appointed its pastor, just its administrator) in a bulletin. I had seen this statement reported before in material from the distressed parishioners, but I didn't have confirmation of it. Now the L.A. Times confirms it:
Kneeling "is clearly rebellion, grave disobedience and mortal sin," Father Martin Tran, pastor at St. Mary's by the Sea, told his flock in a recent church bulletin. The Diocese of Orange backs Tran's anti-kneeling edict.
Actually, the L.A. Times again has it slightly wrong. You'll notice that the word "kneeling" isn't included in the quotation. Here's what Fr. Tran actually said in context:
As I said before, Liturgy is the "public worship" of the Church whose authority belongs only to Rome, the National Conference of the Catholic Bishops and the local Bishop, and not a private worship or business which belongs to any person(s) or group that can take it into their own hands by intentionally setting their own norms, disregarding the permission from the local Bishop or despising the authority of the local Bishop, the National Conference of one's country. That is clearly rebellion, grave disobedience and mortal sin, separating oneself from the Church.
The highlighted part is the apparent antecedent for "that," which is what Fr. Tran says is mortally sinful.
And there's an element of truth in what he says. There are things that one can do in violation of the Church's norms that would be mortally sinful--for example, if one decided that something other than wheat bread is to be used for confecting the host. That kind of violation of the Church's norms would be mortally sinful if done with adequate knowledge and intent.
But not all violations of the Church's norms are created equal. This is a fact that is expressly recognized in the instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, which recognizes at least three different levels of gravity in liturgical offenses, one of which is clearly non-grave matter.
This means that it is pastorally irresponsible in the extreme to wave the threat of mortal sin in parishioners' faces unless an actually grave offense is in question, and that does not appear to be the case here. Fr. Tran goes on--immediately after the paragraph quoted above--to state:
The reason for this is that all the current liturgical norms of the Diocese and of the U.S. are officially recognized and allowed by Rome. Furthermore, Fr. Johnson was allowed only to have the Tridentine Mass here at St. Mary's with its own norms: communion by tongue, with one species, no sign of peace, kneeling after "Agnus Det'l Lamb of God... that some parishioners here name that "traditions" of St. Mary's. Besides, Fr. Johnson allowed other liturgical practice/norms belonging to the Tridentine Mass to be applied to other Masses of Vatican II, including the Novus Ordo Mass: that is not correct. For it was out of line with the current liturgical norms of the Diocese. These have to be changed. Fr. Sy and I were appointed by the Bishop, working together with the Bishop to re-establish the liturgical norms at St. Mary's to be in line with the current liturgical norms of the Church in America and of the Diocese (allowed by Rome). And this binds all with total obedience.
As one family, all of us have the responsibility to correct our disobedient brothers and sisters. If they do not listen, that is their serious problem!
Now, it is apparent that Fr. Tran is not the clearest writer in the world. It is also clear that he is not the most pastoral priest in the world. In fact, he comes across as a Grade-A Jerk in this text (particularly toward the end), although allowance must be made for the previous history of the situation, which may have caused tempers to flare on both sides.
Still, it seems that the nut of the issue is that Fr. Tran is trying to bring the parish into line with the Diocese of Orange's liturgical norms for the current rite of Mass after his predecessor allowed practices from the Tridentine Mass to be applied to the current rite of Mass. What these are, Fr. Tran isn't clear on, but the most likely friction points are the ones he names as aspects of the Tridentine rite of Mass: Communion on the tongue, Communion under one species, not having an individual exchange of peace, and kneeling after the Agnus Dei.
Communion on the tongue is a protected right of the faithful, so he can't (validly) accuse parishioners of being disobedient to liturgical law if they want to receive on the tongue. Neither is there any requirement for people to receive under both species if both are being offered to the faithful, so there's no grounds for valid charges of disobedience there, either. If he's calling for an individual exchange of the sign of peace and parishioners are utterly refusing to do it (e.g., not even nodding and smiling at those around them) then he'd have some grounds for criticism, but that doesn't seem to be the big issue here. The L.A. Times--and those on the other side of the issue--seem to understand kneeling after the Agnus Dei to be what's causing all the ruckus.
So (in the absence of further evidence) let's go with that: Fr. Tran seems to be threatening people who are kneeling after the Lamb of God with mortal sin. That's certainly what they're understanding him to be doing, and--despite the lack of precision with which he writes--he's definitely waving charges of mortal sin in their faces over lack of compliance with the norms of the diocese, and kneeling seems to be what is at issue.
If that is what he's doing then he is totally, absolutely, 100% crazy . . . speaking from the point of view of liturgical law.
The Church simply has not invested the question of the posture of the laity with the gravity needed to result in mortal sin. Indeed, Rome has shown significant sympathy and indulgence toward those who wish to kneel at traditional moments.
Here's a nice test case: Kneeling for Communion. The current norms for the United States establish a posture of standing to receive Communion and--because of the gravity of the moment itself (you're receiving God Incarnate in Holy Communion) and because of the public nature of the moment (you're up in front of everybody where you can be easily seen)--kneeling at this moment would be more disruptive by way of example to others than at any other moment in the Mass. So if any moment of kneeling praeter legem would be a grave offense, this one would.
So what does liturgical law say regarding people who insist on kneeling for Communion?
Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm [GIRM (2002, U.S. ed.) 160].
Now, canon law requires ministers of the Eucharist to deny Communion to anyone who is "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin" (can. 915), so if a person insisted on kneeling in spite of admonitions then you'd have to deny him Holy Communion if this were a grave sin (since it's obviously manifest). Since the text says that Communicants are not to be denied Holy Communion, the only conclusion is that kneeling for Communion is not a grave sin and thus not capable of being a mortal sin.
And if kneeling for Communion is not a mortal sin then--a fortiori--kneeling after the Agnus Dei is not a mortal sin.
The claim that it would be is just crazy and shows a profound lack of awareness of the mechanics of liturgical law and the way Rome handles these things.
Indeed, the actions of Posture Nazis (of liberal or conservative bent--and there are conservative Posture Nazis) are simply not consonant with the attitude Rome takes toward the regulation of posture at Mass. That attitude is expressed in a recent Responsum issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments regarding kneeling after Communion:
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?
Responsum: Negative, et ad mensum [and for this reason]. The mens [reasoning] is that the prescription of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, no. 43 [i.e., the main section dealing with posture], 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 [June 5, 2003 (Prot. N. 855/03/L); printed in BCL Newsletter, July 2003].
So whether one would insist that it is mortally sinful to kneel or not to kneel at particular points in Mass, one would be misreading liturgical law. The Church simply has not invested the regulation of posture with grave matter and it intends only to establish "a certain uniformity" that has "broad limits" and it does not intend to "regulate posture rigidly."
This makes troubling a reported comment by a diocesan spokesman. According to the L.A. Times:
Father Joe Fenton, spokesman for the Diocese of Orange, said the diocese supports Tran's view that disobeying the anti-kneeling edict is a mortal sin. "That's Father Tran's interpretation, and he's the pastor," he said. "We stand behind Father Tran."
You'll note that once again the L.A. Times has not gotten the word "kneeling" into the quote, so we're not entirely sure what Fr. Fenton said (assuming he was even quoted accurately). Given the number of other sloppy, problematic points in the article, I can't be sure if he was quoted accurately or if the question he was responding to involved the issue the Times represents or, if he was and if it did, whether he was speaking after mature deliberation or just reflexively trying to support a diocesan priest in the face of criticism.
But I can tell you this: If this matter goes up to Rome the mortal sin interpretation of the parishioners' actions will not be sustained.
Instead, we're likely to get back something that sounds very much like the Responsum on the question of whether you can kneel after Communion.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Liturgy | Permalink
Comments
My wife and I once had a similar issue with a priest in the Los Angeles area, however, this one was resolved quite reasonably.
The priest had made it a point at several Masses to say that all must conform to the "norm" of standing before AND after Communion until all had received and returned to their places.
Finally, I politely emailed him a few of the relevant statements, stating that my wife and I felt compelled by our consciences to kneel after the Agnus Dei and upon returning to our pews and that, while it was the bishop's right to establish a norm, it was our right to kneel if so compelled. He actually listened and emailed back to the effect that our actions did not amount to disobedience. Thereafter, he stopped telling people that they must stand.
This priest was reasonable. Fr. Tran is clearly not.
Posted by: Jared Weber | May 30, 2006 12:33:27 AM
Jimmy,
Thanks for this clear-headed summary of the issues. I've been scandalized at how fast this single issue has devolved into a nasty fight with no clear goal in mind. I think there is a huge problem here with folks confusing Brown's legit authority to make liturgical decisions for his diocese and his otherwise less than prudent pastoral goverance. They don't seem to be able to distinguish btw "He supports gay marriage!" and "He allows standing at Mass!"
Fr. Philip
Posted by: Fr. Philip, OP | May 30, 2006 4:29:43 AM
Just a cultural comment.
Where did all of this "I stand behind so-and-so" language come from? Either Fr. Tran is correct in interpretin his bishop's liturgical norms or he isn't. Why must someone "stand behind" him? Why are the administrators adopting so much "corporate-ese"?
Posted by: momof6 | May 30, 2006 5:25:52 AM
Ahem. "interpretin-g". Fat, pregnant fingers.
Posted by: momof6 | May 30, 2006 5:27:31 AM
Jimmy,
As a side question, the church does mandate kneeling during the eucharistic prayer, does it not?
Posted by: Steve | May 30, 2006 5:59:34 AM
Thanks for commenting on this. I came across this-- http://www.getreligion.org/?p=1641 --which is more a critique of the journalism than of the issue itself (the actual point of Terry's blog is to consider religous reporting).
Posted by: Alyssa | May 30, 2006 6:19:00 AM
Those wacky priests ordained by those wacky bishops appointed by Pope John Paul II.
Posted by: BillyHW | May 30, 2006 6:29:21 AM
+J.M.J+
Though we don't believe in Sola Scriptura, it's interesting to look at kneeling as a prayer posture in the Bible:
When Solomon finished offering this entire prayer of petition to the LORD, he rose from before the altar of the LORD, where he had been kneeling with his hands outstretched toward heaven. - 1 Kings 8:54
He had made a bronze platform five cubits long, five cubits wide, and three cubits high, which he had placed in the middle of the courtyard. Having ascended it, Solomon knelt in the presence of the whole of Israel and stretched forth his hands toward heaven. - 2 Chronicles 6:13
Then, at the time of the evening sacrifice, I rose in my wretchedness, and with cloak and mantle torn I fell on my knees, stretching out my hands to the LORD, my God. - Ezra 9:5
Enter, let us bow down in worship; let us kneel before the LORD who made us. - Psalm 95:6
Even after Daniel heard that this law had been signed, he continued his custom of going home to kneel in prayer and give thanks to his God in the upper chamber three times a day, with the windows open toward Jerusalem. - Daniel 6:11
After withdrawing about a stone's throw from them and kneeling, (Jesus) prayed, saying, "Father, if you are willing, take this cup away from me; still, not my will but yours be done." - Luke 22:41-42
When (St. Paul) had finished speaking he knelt down and prayed with them all. - Acts 20:36
At the end of our stay we left and resumed our journey. All of them, women and children included, escorted us out of the city, and after kneeling on the beach to pray, we bade farewell to one another. - Acts 21:5-6
For this reason I kneel before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named - Ephesians 3:14-15
This is evidently a practice that goes right back to the ancient Jewish roots of our faith. Kings David and Solomon, the high priest Ezra, the Prophet Daniel, St. Paul and Our Lord Himself all knelt in prayer!
The verse from Psalm 95 is very interesting, since priests are required to pray that psalm every morning in the Liturgy of the Hours. Fr. Tran probably prays every day the words:
"Come then, let us bow down and worship,
bending the knee before the Lord our Maker.
For he is our God and we are his people,
the flock he shepherds."
Yet he is militantly opposed to his own flock doing what that passage commands, at least just before they receive Our Eucharistic Lord. Odd.
In Jesu et Maria,
Posted by: Rosemarie | May 30, 2006 6:45:32 AM
BillyHW-
So what do you do with all the faithful, orthodox priests and bishops appointed by JPII?
Or don't they count?
Posted by: Tim J. | May 30, 2006 7:14:24 AM
Tim J.
BillyHW is just being his wacky self.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Posted by: | May 30, 2006 7:37:03 AM
"As a side question, the church does mandate kneeling during the eucharistic prayer, does it not?"
From the G.I.R.M. 43 paragraph 3:
In the dioceses of the United States of America, they should kneel beginning after the singing or recitation of the Sanctus until after the Amen of the Eucharistic Prayer, except when prevented on occasion by reasons of health, lack of space, the large number of people present, or some other good reason. Those who do not kneel ought to make a profound bow when the priest genuflects after the consecration. The faithful kneel after the Agnus Dei unless the Diocesan Bishop determines otherwise.53
And if there are no kneelers?
NOTICES OF THE SACRED CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP AND THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SACRAMENTS states:
21. QUERY 3: In some places kneelers have been taken out of the churches. Thus, the people can only stand or sit and this detracts from the reverence and adoration due to the Eucharist.
REPLY: The appointments of a place of worship have some relationship to the customs of the particular locale. For example, in the East there are carpets; in the Roman basilicas, only since modern times, there are usually chairs without kneelers, so as to accommodate large crowds. There is nothing to prevent the faithful from kneeling on the floor to show their adoration, no matter how uncomfortable this may be. In cases where kneeling is not possible (see GIRM no. 21), a deep bow and a respectful bearing are signs of the reverence and adoration to be shown at the time of the consecration and communion: Not 14 (1978) 302-303, no. 4.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Posted by: Inocencio | May 30, 2006 7:59:53 AM
Fr. Philip wrote, "They don't seem to be able to distinguish btw "He supports gay marriage!" and "He allows standing at Mass!'"
But Fr. Philip, the bishop isn't "allowing" standing at Mass. He is mandating it. People are being asked to leave this parish and the diocese for not complying, according to the news reports.
And yes, parishoners do appear to be making the connection between the bishop's heterodox views and his focused determintation to eradicate all reverence and piety from the liturgical norms of his diocese. But hey, he's the bishop! So his people should pay, pray, and obey, right?
Posted by: Angry | May 30, 2006 8:39:43 AM
For a good reflection on kneeling from a faithful bishop and pastor, check out Bishop Thomas Olmsted's Knees to Love Christ at http://www.ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/KNEESLOV.HTM.
Posted by: InPhoenix | May 30, 2006 8:53:06 AM
momof6,
God bless your pregnant fingers!
Posted by: Kirk (father of 5) | May 30, 2006 9:18:29 AM
Fr. Philip:
If some seem unable to make the separation, it is because there seems to be a connection between heterodox views on issues of faith and morals on one hand, and liturgical abuses and/or legitimate variances from the national norms on the other.
In other words, it seems to me that those same bishops who order their flocks to, for example, stand at the points in question or any number of other things are the same bishops who, for example, defy the latest Church statements about denying ordination to those with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.
I haven't seen a study done on this but I think it'd be interesting, since the two things seem to go hand-in-hand.
Posted by: Jared Weber | May 30, 2006 9:33:37 AM
So, here we have a diocesan ("diocese" may sometimes be used as a euphamism for "bishop") spokesman backing a priest who threatens the faithful not to stand after the Agnus Dei under pain of mortal sin. What I'm wondering is when bishops will start getting on priests who change the words of the canon and presidential prayers (or allow presidential prayers to be said by the laity) - basically making up their own version of the Mass - who don't genuflact after the consecration, and don't elevate the host or the chalice, [here I invite you to add your own example of clerical disobedience with the liturgy!]
Fr. Tran gets on the faithful wanting to impose their private worship into the Mass, when this is done by priests all the time. What's ironic, too, is that when priests do this, they may do so with the intention of spicing up the Mass and/or facilitating more active participation among the faithful - but what really happens for those faithful who truly intend to unite their hearts to the prayers of the Mass, they CAN'T because, if the priest isn't even using the prayers of the Mass, the faithful cannot follow along because they don't really know what to expect, but rather have to basically sit back as the priest does his own thing.
By the way, Fr. Phillip, rather than the faithful confusing the issue of gay marriage with an unauthentic liturgy, what may be happening here is a pointing out of a pattern of heterodoxy and -praxy from their bishop. I am able to think of a clear goal for all of this - a new bishop. Not that that's up to the faithful to decide, but I am sure Rome wouldn't have to look too long and hard for its own reasons for this.
Posted by: Hicardo | May 30, 2006 10:00:57 AM
I don't see what the big stink is all about. It is important to follow the liturgical norms of your specific diocese. If this bishop has, as is his right, decided to proscribe standing after the Agnus Dei, then why are the people disobaying? Claiming it is a mortal sin when it is not is clearly wrong (or probably an honest mistake) but the people should still be following the diocesan rules. Who made these parishioners the final authority on liturgical norms?
I understand they want to show more reverence to Christ, but this act of rebellion against one's bishop at Mass is nothing but disrespect for Christ.
It makes me sad to see well meaning people falling into this trap. Probably it is the fault of the bishop and the paster that the situation arose in the first place and has not been calmed down, but the belligerent disobedience of the parishioners can not be excused.
Posted by: J.R. Stoodley | May 30, 2006 10:06:38 AM
Mr. Stoodley,
I think it's pretty easy to see why people are "disobeying." Because it's seen as an attempt to eradicate traditional worship, and the faith that undergirds it.
Take another possibility. What if communion on the tongue were forbidden, and communion on the hand were mandated?
Legalistically, it's within one's authority. Realistically, it would be seen as an attempt to stamp out reverence for, and faith in, the Blessed Sacrament.
Or take the example of the faithful fighting to preserve historic old churches against being destroyed or radically renovated. Technically such things are within diocesan authority, but if authority is being abused, to destroy the supports of the Catholic faith, can you be surprised people are resisting that?
People disobey because they see obedience as acquisecing with the hermeneutics of discontinuity which has been ravaging the Church for the last thirty years. There are grave scandals going on, and kneeling is the issue of controversy? What a sad statement on our times.
Posted by: Breier | May 30, 2006 10:23:39 AM
"Now, it is apparent that Fr. Tran is not the clearest writer in the world. It is also clear that he is not the most pastoral priest in the world. In fact, he comes across as a Grade-A Jerk in this text (particularly toward the end) ..." [J. Akin]
No Catholic (not even a genius convert like Mr. Akin) has the right to refer publicly to a priest as a "Grade-A Jerk."
Fr. Tran's English is sometimes so poor that it causes me to believe that he is an immigrant from Vietnam (as are many people with that surname). Yes, he is definitely wrong to refer to this kneeling as a mortal sin -- and ought to have known better -- but we have to cut him a bit of slack on his inability to communicate well.
I have found that many priests (and laity, for that matter) from Asia -- other than the Philippines -- are extremely authoritative and gruff in demeanor. I believe that this is customary, handed down from generation to generation, in their cultures.
I feel sure that it is related to the tremendous respect that small Asian children are taught to pay to their ancestors, elders, and superiors (e.g., teachers, clergy). This is also related to the great "work ethic" that helps Asian immigrants succeed all over the world in schools and in businesses.
Posted by: John | May 30, 2006 10:37:05 AM
John: Read Mr. Akin's post again. He didn't call Fr. Tran a jerk. He said he comes across as one. In other words, the words that Fr. Tran uses make him appear to be a jerk. There is a difference.
JRStoodley: I don't attend the Church in question but speaking for myself and my wife, when we did stand before and after Communion, as the norm in our new diocese said we should, neither of us felt properly prepared to receive Christ's Body. We did not feel as though we had been given a chance to discern the Body. This is a very serious matter, and I should think that if something as simple as posture can aid that discernment (and, I assure you, it does), why call those who do it disobedient? Especially in light of the fact that it's clearly NOT disobedience when one has taken into account the proper authorities.
The Church has granted us the right to kneel if our consciences compell us to do so and so we do. It's not at all about beligerence or thinking that we are the final authority. It's a matter of conscience wherein the proper authorities have given us the right to do something differently if we choose (as opposed to those areas where the Church does NOT do that).
Posted by: Jared Weber | May 30, 2006 10:59:40 AM
Jared,
I did not interpret the documents quoted above as ultimately saying you could disregard diocesan regulations on kneeling after the Agnus Dei if your conscience told you to. If I have misinterpreted the documants or if there is something else you know about not stated here then I stand corrected.
Breier,
As things stand no bishop other than the Pope could forbid receiving on the tongue. If this were changed or beautiful old churches were being destroyed I'm sure the laity would be within their rights to protest, but unless the Church has clearly made the instructions optional (as Jared suggests rules about kneeling are, and as Jimmy has demonstrated rules about not kneeling specifically after recieving Communion is) then we would have the reponsibility to comply with the instructions. This is the meaning of obedience, that we obay legitimate authority and not simply follow our own wills.
Posted by: J.R. Stoodley | May 30, 2006 11:31:34 AM
John,
Despite Fr. Tran's potential limitations in language, what he's attempting to convey to the faithful is clear.
And, no, we shouldn't have to cut him some slack for any limitations in language. With so grave a matter, it's his responsibility to make sure what he is writing carries with it proper syntax and grammar. Mortal sin separates us from God and makes our souls incapable of receiving the graces of heaven. This isn't a matter we could just cut him some slack about not being clear with.
Posted by: Hicardo | May 30, 2006 11:35:01 AM
What are we to make of Canon XX of the 1 Ecumenical Council of Nicaea:
CANON XX.
FORASMUCH as there are certain persons who kneel on the Lord's
Day and in the days of Pentecost, therefore, to the intent that all things
may be uniformly observed everywhere(in every parish), it seems good
to the holy Synod that prayer be made to God standing.
Posted by: Dr. Eric | May 30, 2006 11:38:12 AM
So if the bishop mandates that we hop up and down on one foot while flapping our arms to simulate our prayers rising to heaven we should do it?
Are we worshipping God, or playing Simon Says?
Posted by: Tony | May 30, 2006 11:44:29 AM
Dr. Eric,
That is so.....4th century.
Don't you know that the True Church and Faith is practiced by this little group in OC with their ideas about Tradition and criticism of their Bishop and Priest?
Here is a bit more about Canon XX of the Council for Nicea (A.D. 325).
--
HAMMOND.
Although kneeling was the common posture for prayer in the primitive Church, yet the custom had prevailed, even from the earliest times, of standing at prayer on the Lord's day, and during the fifty days between Easter and Pentecost.
Tertullian, in a passage in his treatise De Corona Militis, which is often quoted, mentions it amongst other ohservances which, though not expressly commanded in Scripture, yet were universally practised upon the authority of tradition. "We consider it unlawful," he says, "to fast, or to pray kneeling, upon the Lord's day; we enjoy the same liberty from Easter-day to that of Pentecost." De Cor. Mil. s. 3, 4. Many other of the Fathers notice the same practice, the reason of which, as given by Augustine; and others, was to commemorate the resurrection of our Lord, and to signify the rest and joy of our own resurrection, which that of our Lord assured.
This canon, as Beveridge observes, is a proof of the importance formerly attached to an uniformity of sacred rites throughout the Church, which made the Nicene Fathers thus sanction and enforce by their authority a practice which in itself is indifferent, and not commanded directly or indirectly in Scripture, and assign this as their reason for doing so: "In order that all things may be observed in like manner in every parish" or diocese.
---
Tradition!
Posted by: Old Zhou | May 30, 2006 11:49:31 AM
We stand for prayer and kneel for adoration.
Posted by: Inocencio | May 30, 2006 11:53:21 AM
Here is the Latin text of Tertullian referenced in the commentary on Canon XX of Nicea:
Die dominico ieiunium nefas ducimus,
uel de geniculis adorare.
Eadem immunitate a die Paschae in Pentecosten
usque gaudemus.
Another English translation:
We count fasting
or kneeling in worship
on the Lord's day
to be unlawful.
We rejoice in the same privilege
also from Easter to Whitsunday.
--
To me, silly person that I am, this seems perfectly reasonable. Sunday, the Lord's Day (Dominca for Latin Lovers) is the day of Resurrection (as well as the whole Easter Season).
Why can't they come to a compromise where they can kneel all they want on Monday to Saturday, outside of Easter Season?
Posted by: Old Zhou | May 30, 2006 11:55:12 AM
JRS: http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/kneeling_after_the_lamb_of_god.htm
Posted by: Jared Weber | May 30, 2006 12:04:55 PM
WOW...
J.R. Stoodley... I am sure the parishoners themselves are not claiming to be the "final authority" with liturgical norms. Who, after all, is claiming kneeling after the Agnus Dei to be a mortal sin? It doesn't seem to be the parishoners who are asserting themselves as the "final authority" here.
I would not necessarily label the parishoners' resistance to obeying such norms put forth by such priests and bishops as "belligerent disobedience". If you had a priest telling you taht these things were a mortal sin when it doesn't take much research to see he's wrong, wouldn't you be weary of following such direction?
Posted by: Richie | May 30, 2006 12:11:39 PM
Also here: http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/cdw2000.htm
Posted by: Jared Weber | May 30, 2006 12:11:44 PM
Tony,
Read the relevant passages of canon and liturgical law. The bishop has legitimate rights to select an option on this matter which does not include what you described.
As the quote by Eric, ?D. helps to illustrate, the postures used at liturgy have been changed over time by those with the authority to regulate liturgical worship.
The sin of rebellion against God through liturgical archaicism or rigidity in the face of those intrusted with the authority to regulate worship is very old and appears over and over again in Scripture. From the rebellion of Korah through the ages of prophetic critique to the conflicts of Jesus with the Pharisees, we can see this dynamic at work. Now the bishop in question is not God incarnate, but he does have the authority on this issue nonetheless. There are very likely faulty understandings of the theological, canonical, and liturgical principles on the many sides of this issue amd gross misinterpretations of the words of others in this case, but we must all work to correct that.
We must be very careful that our approach to this issue is not fueled by pride and concupiscence, whether "progressive" or "traditional."
Posted by: Jay E. Adrian | May 30, 2006 12:13:25 PM
Jay: The bishop is allowed certain options, but the faithful are allowed options as well. Read these:
http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/kneeling_after_the_lamb_of_god.htm
http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/cdw2000.htm
Posted by: Jared Weber | May 30, 2006 12:29:09 PM
It's clear that kneeling or standing have different meanings depending on cultural context, one's liturgical rite, and varied other circumstances. But all that is beside the point. That Catholics stand for prayer in 4th century Nicea, or stand for the consecration in the Byzantine Rite, says nothing about what's appropriate for the Latin Rite of Catholicism.
Context here is everything. And the context of our "liturgical renewal" is a modernist attack on traditional Catholic belief and worship.
Why are people dodging this question? All I hear here is legalism. What about the traditional faith?
Does the suppression of every sign of traditional express or sign of devotion for the Real Presence not trouble you? Why are people blind to the big picture here?
Forbidding kneeling, exiling the tabernacle, churches in the round, lay ministers of communion, communion in the hand; this is all of a piece. And where, pray tell, is it taking us?
We have a new pastor trying to dismantle a traditional parish, and stamp out all it's old reverence. I suppose you'd also defend tearing up the communion rails as well; after all it's a diocesan prerogative!
JR, I can understand the point. Yes bishops have authority to determine details. The problem is that people perceive the details today to be part of a war against the traditional belief of the Church. Particularly when "kneeling" is suddenly a real important issue that has to be squashed.
I've been at a parish where the first thing the new pastor did was rip out the kneelers. Within his rights? But is it right? Is it right?!
Posted by: Breier | May 30, 2006 12:32:55 PM
It is clear that bishops and pastors have authority in certain liturgical matters. The question here is not about that. It's about whether lay people can resist that authority when it is being abused to the detriment of the Catholic faith. Do lay people have to be forced to acquisence in the suppression of traditional worship and piety?
Example:
A new pastor comes in to a beautiful old immigrant parish, and his first decision is to order the sacristan to rip out the communion rail, remove all the kneelers, and remove the tabernacle to a hidden room.
Is the sacristan bound, by obedience, to follow out these destructive orders?
They may be legally made, but my friends, we all recognize the legalistic side of things. Everyone knows people have authority. The question is, if that authority is being misused, manifestly, can not the laity resist?
The sacristant refuses to acquiesce, the parish council snubs the priest's command. Mortal sin all around?
Posted by: Breier | May 30, 2006 12:40:54 PM
Cardinal George's question asked specifically about kneeling AFTER Communion, not after the Agnus Dei. The response of negative would seem to guarantee the right to kneel after reception, no question there at all.
However, the response said after that it was for certain reasons and that the rules were to be broad guidlines for various parts of the Mass and not to be so rigid as to prevent kneeling.
It seems that the initial response of Negative directly addresses kneeling after Communion. The reasoning given then could be interpreted to allow kneeling pretty much anywhere in the Mass if one chooses. That seems too broad an interpretation to be allowed. Surely it was not meant as carte blanche to kneel during the Gospel or the Our Father for instance.
If that is true then perhaps the proper interpretation of the response of Cardinal Arinze should be limited to the question submitted by Cardinal George.
That would leave us here... If the Bishop says to stand, we do so, presuming it is a proper thing per the GIRM. IOW he can't tell us to stand for the consecration but can for the sign of peace forward. That doesn't mean that we cannot kneel after reception when we return to our pew. It may have adverse effects on reverence, etc. or it may not, BUT the Vatican has said our Bishop can make this determination.
If we kneel where we haven't been given permission to, aren't we being disobedient presuming we know we shouldn't? Isn't that sinful in some way? We are flouting rightful authority it seems to do so.
Jimmy, am I wrong here? Or did Cdl. Arinze's response guarantee the right to kneel at the Agnus Dei? And why would the response be limited to just the Agnus Dei since it wasn't specifically mentioned?
Posted by: Tim Johnson | May 30, 2006 12:46:00 PM
*sigh*
From: http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/cdw2000.htm
On November 7, 2000, Cardinal Jorge Arturo Medina Estévez, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, sent a response to the questions of an American bishop about the new regulations for the celebration of Mass [Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani]. The questions [dubia] concerned the posture and gestures of the people at Mass, and placement of the tabernacle. A facsimile of the response, written in English, appears below.
CONGREGATIO DE CULTU DIVINO ET DISCIPLINA SACRAMENTORUM
Prot. n. 2372/00/L
Responses to Dubia
1. Is it the case that the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, by No. 43 of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, intends to prohibit the faithful from kneeling during any part of the Mass except during the Consecration, that is, to prohibit the faithful from kneeling after the Agnus Dei and following the reception of Holy Communion?
Response: Negative.
-----------
Emphasis added.
Posted by: Jared Weber | May 30, 2006 12:51:35 PM
I have a more basic question. Does anyone know orthodox pastors who get angry when people kneel down? Or more basically, does anyone here get angry if they see people kneeling at the consecration, when everyone else is standing up?
Why this huge emphasis on physicial liturgical uniformity, when spiritual uniformity is so lacking! I don't see people getting angry about old people sitting down, but pious people kneeling, what a damnable offense!
It seems clear from Rome that rubrics about posture are general guidelines, but not such that they bind any individual lay person under pain of sin. Motivation and intent seems to me very relevant here. The church law seems indulgent.
It seems to me that to get really angry by people kneeling is worrisome sign. Even if it is liturgically discontinuous, it's such a venial thing! Kneeling is a sign of reverence, and in today's world where there is so little reverence, to thunder about that issue is very, very telling.
Particuarly in this case where the pastor is trying to destroy a custom which ALREADY EXISTED.
Posted by: Breier | May 30, 2006 12:59:24 PM
Does the Pope have a juridical right to abolish the Eastern rites?
So it might seem. It might seem that he has the right to abolish the Roman Rite, too, if he liked. But let's remember that the present Pope--no slouch when it comes to ecclesiology and liturgiology--wrote an utterly uncritical preface to Msgr. Gamber's book which proposes that the Pope DOES NOT have any such right and even that he would have no right to abolish the Traditional form of the Roman rite, and therefore the Traditional Roman rite remains in force.
Cardinal Ratzinger proposes that the changes after Vatican Two created the FALSE impression that the Pope and the Bishops could simply do anything that they wanted with the liturgy. And it also created the impression that custom and tradition (small 't') are of little worth and that people have no right to them.
If I were a parishioner of Fr. Tran's, I would stand. But I would HOTLY defend the rights of those who refuse.
We have a right under custom to kneel at these times. We have the right to kneel when we receive communion. We have a right to pray the Rosary. Eastern Catholics have a right to their own liturgical traditions.
Suppose a Pope were to abolish the Eastern Rites and demand that all Eastern Catholics were to become Latin Rite for the sake of "unity". Even if he had the right to do that, he would not be obeyed. He would start a revolt and a massive schism in which most Eastern Catholics would live in refusal to acknowledge him or would even revert to other Churches. The sin of disobedience on the part of the recalcitrant Easterners would be venial compared with the overwhelming vastness of sin on the part of the Pope.
Bishops who act in the manner of Bishop Todd are creating a terrible dissension in the heart of the Church. They are forcing the faithful to choose between the manner of worship that has been handed down to them from their fathers and obedience to a successor of the Apostles who has authority over them. This petty, tyrannical behavior--at the service of what, precisely?--will inevitably and understandably be resisted.
To quote Cardinal Ratzinger again, "The man who learns to believe learns also to kneel, and a faith or a liturgy no longer familiar with kneeling would be sick at the core. Where it has been lost, kneeling must be rediscovered, so that, in our prayer, we remain in fellowship with the apostles and martyrs, in fellowship with the whole cosmos, indeed in union with Jesus Christ Himself." The Spirit of the Liturgy, p.194.
Work out the implications of that passage as it applies to people trying by FORCE to send us in the OTHER direction. "There are groups, of no small influence, who are trying to talk us out of kneeling," the Cardinal tells us (P. 184). We must not allow them to succeed; they want to take us away from "union with Jesus Christ Himself."
Posted by: Jeff | May 30, 2006 1:43:02 PM
I find all this talk about kneeling and not kneeling really interesting. This would seem like nonsense at my parish. My priest lets us dance in the aisles during and music, and when sometimes some of the people are kneeling, most of us just sit and talk. I was once talking on my cell phone and some lady told me to be quiet. Then a lot of other people gave her dirty looks my friend told her who was she to judge me? I don't know whether all this is really all right at church according to the vatican, but it makes me feel good to know I'm at a church where people get all mad about this kind of stuff.
Posted by: Balinda | May 30, 2006 2:13:51 PM
The dubium from Cdl. Estevez posted by Jared is interesting. It's the first time I have seen it anywhere and so far is the only reference I have seen to having the right to kneel for the Agnus Dei.
The only question I have is about the date... It's from 2000 and I thought the current GIRM is from 2002. Are we talking about the same thing for both? If so, then the CA case would definitely seem to be one of the Bishop trying to prevent lawful kneeling.
The next question would seem to be whether the response of those who were asked to leave went too far or whether this is a case of heterodox persecution of the orthodox. Sounds like plenty of blame to go around it seems. This kind of stuff is what drives me crazy. It distracts from the teaching and evangelization duties of the Church.
Personally, I would prefer to kneel as often as possible when Jesus Christ is on the altar or not behind the closed doors of the tabernacle.
Posted by: Tim Johnson | May 30, 2006 2:15:51 PM
Dear Balinda,
If the President of the United States (say it was one you voted for) invited you as his personal guest to be present at the White House for a State Banquet, with the best food and wine, and flowers and sparkling crystal, silver, and china, would you get up out of your seat during dinner and dancing around just because you felt like it? No, of course, not. If, while the president was speaking, your cell phone rang, and a Secret Service guy leaned over and whispered, "Miss, would you mind turning off your cell?" would you have a problem with that?
Traditional Catholic teaching is that we have Jesus Christ with us in a special way on the altar during Mass, and that we are His guests at His table. Many Catholics care deeply that at this special time, and this special place, there is a proper respect shown towards Jesus present with us . . . our God, our brother, who has done so much for us. We want to show much the same kind of respect you would want shown to the President of the United States if he were in the room and you were his guest.
If not, it makes you look kind of bad, doesn't it? Kind of disrespectful. That's why people care so much.
Posted by: Marion (Mael Muire) | May 30, 2006 2:29:51 PM
This touches on a question I had earlier regarding the use of the current English translation of the Mass.
What should a good Catholic do if the USCCB decides to ignore Rome and continues to use the current translation?
Would we not be participating in disobedience if we go along?
But then, we are disobedient if we refuse to obey our bishop. Right between a rock and a hard place.
Posted by: Tim J. | May 30, 2006 2:33:28 PM
Here is my concern with this whole issue, and I am one who prefers kneeling by the way. In what situations does a bishop have the right to set liturgical norms and if he has that right, should his decisions be respected?
I think part of the problem is that the Bishop has not done a good job of making his case. On the other hand, why is this dissent better than other forms of dissent that people complain about?
Posted by: | May 30, 2006 2:40:18 PM
"Suppose a Pope were to abolish the Eastern Rites and demand that all Eastern Catholics were to become Latin Rite for the sake of "unity". Even if he had the right to do that, he would not be obeyed. He would start a revolt and a massive schism in which most Eastern Catholics would live in refusal to acknowledge him or would even revert to other Churches. The sin of disobedience on the part of the recalcitrant Easterners would be venial compared with the overwhelming vastness of sin on the part of the Pope.
Bishops who act in the manner of Bishop Todd are creating a terrible dissension in the heart of the Church. They are forcing the faithful to choose between the manner of worship that has been handed down to them from their fathers and obedience to a successor of the Apostles who has authority over them. This petty, tyrannical behavior--at the service of what, precisely?--will inevitably and understandably be resisted."
This, I think, is the most insightful comment I've seen on this whole affair. The Bishop is well within his rights as bishop to mandate standing, but to do so over the customs of the people and force a decision between obedience to authority and obedience to traditional practice at this particular parish without (from what I've seen) a good reason does not seem to be prudent in the least. And the actions of both sides are less than charitable.
Posted by: Jake | May 30, 2006 2:54:06 PM
why is this dissent better than other forms of dissent that people complain about?
Well, if a bishop directed that everyone who comes to Mass on Sunday must sit in a certain spot in the pew so that they're perfectly lined up with the person sitting in the pew in front of him, so that the congregation is arranged in perfect neat rows at all times, and some parishoners said, "heck with that; I'm not doing that", would that be dissent?
Of course not. The bishop would have reached way . . . way beyond his authority.
Does the bishop get to walk into your house, and tell you what the amount of your life insurance policy needs to be?
Of course not.
There are areas in which bishops have authority, and areas in which they don't.
The question of kneeling or not kneeling during Holy Mass is not a matter of dissent. Dissent is the public and specific rejection of one or more of the points of faith and morals that the Catholic Church has basically always believed and taught.
Here's dissent: In 1968, when the bishop asked the pastors to read a letter to the faithful backing up the Pope's Humanae Vitae (basically saying artificial birth control is a no-go) - and this was during Mass, a number of my friends' moms and dads got up out of their pews, put their chins in the air, and walked out of Mass.
I was a kid, and I was stunned speechless. I found out what "I will not serve!" looked like, even back then.
What people are trying to do here today, is to figure out exactly to what degree does the bishop have the authority to tell faithful Catholics that their long-time, respectful, and reverent custom of kneeling before Jesus present in the Eucharist will no longer be tolerated.
Yeah, people are a little stunned. And they want to know what their options are.
Nothing wrong with that.
Posted by: Marion (Mael Muire) | May 30, 2006 3:06:16 PM
Dear Marion,
Thank you. No one has ever explained it to me that way. I wish people would talk more about God being with us at church. I think that's the problem. People get all edgy when you start talking about God, even at church.
Posted by: Balinda | May 30, 2006 4:00:16 PM
If you haven't seen the video of Bishop Brom pulling a woman kneeling for Communion, go here: http://closedcafeteria.blogspot.com/2006/05/first-things-on-oc.html
Posted by: Gerald Augustinus | May 30, 2006 4:55:52 PM
Dear Balinda,
Thank you! I appreciate your kindness in letting me know that something I wrote to you has made a difference.
It's all about Jesus. Jesus with us. Jesus loving us.
How may we best show Him how much we love Him and long for Him and want to be with Him?
Thanks again, Balinda, for giving me the opportunity to speak about Him.
Love,
Marion
Posted by: Marion (Mael Muire) | May 30, 2006 5:11:17 PM
"For every knee shall be bowed to Me" (Isaiah 45:24)
"Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Phil 2:9-11).
The Acts of the Apostles tells us how Saint Peter (9:40), Saint Paul (20:36), and the whole Christian community (21:5) pray on their knees.
"If anyone says that in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist the only-begotten Son of God is not to be adored even outwardly with the worship of latria (the act of adoration), ...and that the adorers of it are idolaters; let him be anathema." (Enchiridion Symbolorum, Denzinger, 30th edition, Number 888, p. 271).
”From the perspective of the Catholic doctrine involved, discouraging Catholics from kneeling at the Consecration at Mass is extremely evil. It was mentioned earlier that St. Augustine said: ‘It was in the flesh that Christ walked among us and it is His flesh that He has given us to eat for our salvation. But,’ he added: ‘no one eats of this flesh without having first adored it . . . and not only do we not sin in thus adoring it, but we would be sinning if we did not do so!’” (St. Augustine, On the Psalms, 98:9, in Paul VI, Mysterium Fidei , No. 55, p. 323)
Posted by: john chrysostom | May 30, 2006 5:14:56 PM
Pope Pius XII's encyclical on the Sacred Liturgy, Mediator Dei, tells us that:
"Outward acts of religion... serve to foster piety, to kindle the flame of charity, to increase our faith and deepen our devotion." "They make it possible to tell genuine Christians from their false or heretical counterparts." Furthermore, the holy Pope Pius XII states, "It is therefore the keen desire of the Church that all of the faithful kneel at the feet of the Redeemer to tell Him how much they venerate and love Him."
Pope Benedict XVI on kneeling:
"Here the bodily gesture attains the status of a confession of faith in Christ: words could not replace such a confession." (Pope Benedict XVI, The Feast of Faith, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1986, pp. 74-75).
“There are groups, of no small influence, who are trying to talk us out of kneeling" (Spirit of the Liturgy, p. 184).
In the same book, Pope Benedict XVI demonstrates thoroughly from Scripture and the example of Christ himself in the Garden of Gethsemane, that the absence of kneeling in worship is utterly alien to the Christian mind. The argument that this posture of humility is contrary to modern culture has no bearing.
"Kneeling does not come from any culture - it comes from the Bible and its knowledge of God" (p. 185).
More from the same work on kneeling:
There is much more that we might add. For example, there is the touching story told by Eusebius in his history of the Church as a tradition going back to Hegesippus in the second century. Apparently, Saint James, the "brother of the Lord", the first bishop of Jerusalem and "head" of the Jewish Christian Church, had a kind of callous on his knees, because he was always on his knees worshipping God and begging forgiveness for his people (2, 23, 6). Again, there is a story that comes from the sayings of the Desert Fathers, according to which the devil was compelled by God to show himself to a certain Abba Apollo. He looked black and ugly, with frighteningly thin limbs, but most strikingly, he had no knees. The inability to kneel is seen as the very essence of the diabolical.
Posted by: john chrysostom | May 30, 2006 5:17:09 PM
