Duh,
Well, duh! (couldn't resist, mate) Only an arse would be obessed with arses!

The two posts seem to contradict one another, at least as far as the praise/then no praise "Gollum moment" over Papa Ben goes.

"you are Peter, and upon this Rock I will build My Church, and the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it."

Wow! What a fine example of Christian Charity!

ADDENDUM---- EXACTLY WHY DO YOU THING MILLIONS HAVE LEFT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH OVER THE LAST 40 YEARS BEGINNING WITH THE PONTIFICATE OF PAUL 6 AKA MONTINI. TO START WITH THE ANCIENT MASS WAS STOLEN FROM THE CATHOLIC PEOPLE ALL 1.5 BILLION OF THEM AND REPLACE WITH A PROTESTANTIZED VENACULAR & MASONIC SERVICE CALL THE NOVUS ORDO MISSAE OF PAUL 6TH. THE NOVUS ORDO RELIGIOUS (NUNS & MONKS ALIKE) WERE TOO BUSY GETTING THEIR HAIR DONE OR TRAVELLING TO HAWAII TO WORRY ABOUT STUFF LIKE RELIGIOUS VOWS, MONASTIC HABITS, DIVINE OFFICE, AND THE DAYS WHEN WANTING TO BE A PRIEST USUALLY MEANT LOVIN YOU ALTER BOYS (A LOT) WAS FAST COMING UPON US. ROME (THE VATICAN) NEEDS TO GET OFF IT'S ASS AND FIND OUT EXACTLY WHY MILLIONS HAVE LEFT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SINCE THE UN-NECESSARY COUNCIL REFERRED TO AS VATICAN 2.

AS A RESIDENT IN THE DIOCESE OF THE CHIEF PRESBYTER TOD BROWN OF ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA NEIGHBOUR TO THE GRAND AYATOLLAH IN L.A. ROGER MAHONEY, I WONDER HOW THESE TWO RAINBOW CLERICS ARE DEALING WITH THE MOTU PROPRIO SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM AND THE LACK OF NECESITY IN THE CHURCH TODAY TO KISS THE ASSES (ARSES) OF LIBERAL NEO MARXIST-RAINBOW BISHOPS FOR PERMISSION TO HAVE A LATIN (TRIDENTINE) MASS IN SOME OBSCURE CEMETARY IN THEIR BLOODY CORRUPT DIOCESE & ARCHDIOCESE ???????? I GUESS THESE BOY-LOVIN PRELATES ARE HOPING FOR OR WAITING FOR THE HOLY FATHER TO DIE IN HOPE THAT THEY WILL HAVE A NEW AND IMPROVED SECULAR-HUMANIST PONTIFF. SORRY "GOOD OLE BOYS, BROWN, MAHONEY, O'CONNOR AND HIS GANG IN THE U.K. AND THE DISOBEDIENT REVISIONIST NOVUS ORDO BISHOPS OF FRANCE, CANADA, HOLLAND AND GERMANY IT IS MORE LIKELY THE LAW IN THESE VARIOUS COUNTRIES WILL GET TO THESE CHILD MOLESTING PRELATES AND PRIESTS FIRST AND PUT THEM BEHIND BARS FOR THE DAMAGE THEY HAVE INFLICTED ON INNOCENT CHILDREN. REPROBATES LIKE TOD BROWN OF ORANGE COUNTY AND ROGER MAHONEY OF LOS ANGELES NEED TO WAKE UP TO THE FACT THAT THE POST VAT 2 DAYS OF DO YOUR OWN THING, CUMBYYA PROTESTANTIZING BULLSHIT IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ARE OVER, PHONEY ECUMENICISM IS OVER AND THE POPE RUNS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH NOT "NATIONAL BISHOPS CONFERENCES. THE HALLOWEEN MASS IS OVER MAHONEY, THE DANCING, HAND HOLD DORRITO MASSES ARE OVER BROWN. ALL WE NEED FROM YOU PERVERTS IS JUST GO AWAY OR BETTER YET JOIN THE EPISCOPALIANS.

This is disgusting? How in the hell a priest can say that his parishioners (those who dont stand for communion) have committed a mortal sin? I bet he is the Bishop's friend. Shame on the bishop who is protecting a priest like that. He probably should'nt be a priest at first place. sick and disgusting..yak

Hello, OZ,
I hope the meeting with Bishop Brown will be a meeting of hearts and minds.
With your spirit.

Hi Leo,
Thanks for putting up that letter.
I believe the "church with no kneelers" is Ss. Simon & Jude in Huntington Beach, which is intimately related, historically, with St. Mary's by the Sea.
I'm glad Mary found the Franciscans that staff the parish so hospitable.
It may be a very good thing for those who have so much enjoyed the special, particular enviorment at St. Mary's by the Sea during the term of the last pastor to consider that, perhaps, "there is a time for all things," and now is the time to disperse back into the general parish life in the Diocese, rather than going to a particular place for a particular environment, especially since that particular environment no longer exists.
"Your local parish" is really a good place to be, in general.

For those interested:
A Letter from Mary Tripoli

Dear Old Zhou,
I just meant to show that what St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote does not apply.
At the moment, we (I) don't know what Fr. Tran and Bishop Brown are ordering. Their condemnation was very clear, their clarification not. Until Bishop Brown makes a more definite statement, I think that one may kneel in his diocese without being accused of disobedience.
Marriage is not so poor an analogy. Everyone might benefit from reading St. Paul. Didn't the Vatican advise that this be settled in the family?
I think I said previously that I don't believe in spiritual direction in blogs, much less in blog comments. Based on what I know of Church law, including the American GIRM, and statements from the Holy See, kneeling after the Agnus Dei is permitted whether or not standing is the norm in a diocese. Except for Fr. Tran's unfortunate statement and the equally unfortunate initial support of that statement by a diocesan spokesman, both now withdrawn, nothing that I have seen from the Diocese of Orange forbids kneeling. I hope that the meeting of the St. Mary's kneelers and Bishop Brown will reach an understanding satisfactory to both sides. I hope that the kneelers and Fr. Tran have already come to some sort of agreement, even if only an agreement to disagree. As "spouses" they do have to live together. I hope that john chrysostom will give more information on what is happening at St. Mary's by the Sea.
Have you read the transcripts that Inocencio was interested in? Very interesting, no matter what one thinks the norms should be.
Enjoy your trip to Rome. Maybe you could report on how the norms are obeyed there.

Dear Leo,
The issue is not whether or not the American bishops are unified. Or the bishops of Africa.
The issue is the real, practical, local obedience and unity of these folks with their real, actual, local, legal, proper ecclesial authorities of (1) the pastoral administrator, Fr. Tran, (2) their bishop, Tod Brown of the Diocse of Orange.
Until these folks work through the issues, with a right attitude of humility, obedience and love with these particular real, breathing people who are the legitimate ecclesial authorities over them (Fr. Tran and Bp. Brown), there will be no peace.
Poor analogy: you can read, and even write, all the books you want on how to have a successful marriage. Quote outstanding authorities. But all that is pretty pointless if you spend all your time at home fighting with your spouse.
We need to be real, incarnational, sacramental people who live in the real world with the real people God has placed over us. That is the way to peace.

Dear john chrysostom,
What is happening at St. Mary's by the Sea now? Has Father Tran said anything? When are you meeting with Bishop Brown? Has he said anything? If you would, write here after tomorrow's Mass to tell us how it went.

But from the earliest days of the Church (such as St. Ignatius of Antioch) until today, it is clear that if you separate yourself from your bishop, you separate yourself from the Church.
In his Epistle to the Ephesians, St. Ignatius of Antioch praised unity. As Jesus Christ is the will of the Father, so the bishops are the will of Jesus Christ, the priests “fitted as exactly to the bishop as the strings are to the harp,” and the people a choir,“a perfect unity with God.”
But the American bishops are not unified:

The American prelates appear divided on the revisions. A poll taken last summer found that 52 percent of bishops favored the changes, while 47 percent judged them “fair or poor.”
— Daniel Burke, Familiar words of Catholic Mass face changes, Religion News Service. For the bishops’ discussion about kneeling, see “Unless the diocesan bishop determines otherwise”

I was therefore struck by today’s first reading, in which Paul writes:

For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to myths.
— 2 Timothy 4:3–4

And in today’s Gospel reading, who are they who:

go around in long robes and accept greetings in the marketplaces, seats of honor in cathedrals, and places of honor at conventions.
— Mark 12:38–39

And are not the poor kneelers of St. Mary’s by the Sea more like the poor widow who:

put in more than all the other contributors to the treasury. For . . . she, from her poverty, has contributed all she had.
— Mark 12:43–44

Dear Inocencio,
Please tell us what you get from it.
God bless you,
Leo Wong

Leo Wong,
Thank you for the link.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

It was not intended to prevent kneeling in churches, as a review of the transcripts of the NCCB meetings on June 15, 2001 and November 14, 2001 will reveal."
Can anyone provide a link for these transcripts?
http://www.adoremus.org/0303BishopRules.html
Nothing that I have read so far has stated that the bishops adopted these "EXCLUSIVELY for Masses celebrated in venues where it would be difficult to kneel, such as Masses in stadiums, outdoors in fields, or in crowded auditoriums."
No, they did not. The adaptation of GIRM 43 presented a number of issues, and as is clear from transcripts, the bishops were confused by it all, as well as ignorant of what Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani actually said.

Bill912,
See what I mean?
Old Zhou,
Following your bishop doesn't insure salvation. Mahoney is disobeying the GIRM, which states that either a priest or a deacon, NOT a WOMAN, must give the homily. Furthermore, native music replacing tradtional hymns would only be allowed in the nation of origin and only to make the Mass more understandable. Being unfaithful to the GIRM, even in the company of all the bishops of your state, is still a sin (I'm not saying you are commiting a sin, since I can't read souls). When I said your were an unfaithful catholic, it was true. But it was not a judgement on your conscience.

But from the earliest days of the Church (such as St. Ignatius of Antioch) until today, it is clear that if you separate yourself from your bishop, you separate yourself from the Church.
So, are you saying that people shouldn't have separated themselves from Bishop Lefevre?
And you haven't defended your statement on the gay priest. But I guess that statement would place one "at home in fellowship" with Mahony and Brown.

Dear Folks,
I have not been paying attention to this since it dropped off of the "recent" activity. I don't have any particular fixation on this discussion.
If I'm insane, then at least I know that I'm insane in good company--all of the Roman Catholic bishops of California. We seem to get along quite well, whether Tod Brown in Orange, or Cardinal Mahony in Los Angeles, or Vigneron in Oakland, etc. Nothing like being in a room with six or so of our state's bishops and being perfectly at rest and at home in fellowship with them. And if that makes me "not faithful" in your opinion, well, so be it.
But from the earliest days of the Church (such as St. Ignatius of Antioch) until today, it is clear that if you separate yourself from your bishop, you separate yourself from the Church.
Jesus did not call the disciples because they were already right or holy. He just called them because those are the ones he chose. I'll stick with the one's Jesus calls, even if they are still, like me, in the word of St. Leo the Great in today's reading on Job, a mixture of light and darkness. (I trust all you holy, faithful Catholics regularly pray the Office of Readings in the Liturgy of the Hours).
Take care!

"It was not intended to prevent kneeling in churches, as a review of the transcripts of the NCCB meetings on June 15, 2001 and November 14, 2001 will reveal."
Can anyone provide a link for these transcripts? I ask because I cannot find them online and §43 of the GIRM states"The faithful kneel after the Agnus Dei unless the Diocesan Bishop determines otherwise."53
The footnote quotes:
53. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 40; Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Instruction Varietates legitimae, 25 January 1994, no. 41: AAS 87 (1995), p. 304.
The GIRM was canonically approved.
The Decree of Publication of the GIRM
The General Instruction of the Roman Missal was canonically approved for use by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops on November 12, 2002, and was subsequently confirmed by the Holy See by decree of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments on March 17, 2003 (Prot. N. 2235/02/L).
And §390 states: "It is up to the Conferences of Bishops to decide on the adaptations indicated in this General Instruction and in the Order of Mass and, once their decisions have been accorded the recognitio of the Apostolic See, to introduce them into the Missal itself. These adaptations include
The gestures and posture of the faithful (cf. no. 43 above);
If someone could point out where I could see the transcripts I would be very grateful. Nothing that I have read so far has stated that the bishops adopted these "EXCLUSIVELY for
Masses celebrated in venues where it would be difficult to kneel, such as Masses in stadiums, outdoors in fields, or in crowded auditoriums".
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Old Zhou may not read old posts like this. He may not have read it since it droped of the recent posts list.

Bill,
It was too personnal to call Old Zhou insane, because it distracted people like you from my valid point, that Old Zhou is incorrect. So I apologized to you, Old Zhou, but continue to strongly oppose your view.

bill,
As a faithful catholic (for so I presume you to be) souldn't you be a little angered by a fellow catholic saying he 'enjoys' hearing the liturgy said by the likes of Mahoney? Think girly men dancing around the altar with incense for 15 minutes, followed by women reading the Gospel.

by my second comment I was calling on Old Zhou to throw in the towel.

Bill,
you can't say I'm immature when Old Zhou is attacking a catholic for contacting her bishop about her ACTIVELY homosexual cousin. you should be more careful when you come into the conversation late.

"Are you joking or are you insane?"
"...you are doubly insane."
"It is plain that Old Zhou can't defend his position, or he would've responded by now." Translation: "Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah!"
Old Zhou, I don't blame you for declining to respond to such immaturity.

BTW, Old Zhou,
Since when did the liturgy exist to please us?

It is plain that Old Zhou can't defend his position, or he would've responded by now.

The confusion about kneeling after the Ecce Agnus Dei stems from six words inserted into §43 of the GIRM which reads "The faithful kneel after the Agnus Dei UNLESS THE DIOCESAN BISHOP DETERMINES OPTHERWISE." What Bishop Brown is not letting on is that these words were adopted by the bishops EXCLUSIVELY for
Masses celebrated in venues where it would be difficult to kneel, such as Masses in stadiums, outdoors in fields, or in crowded auditoriums. It was not intended to prevent kneeling in churches, as a review of the transcripts of the NCCB meetings on June 15, 2001 and November 14, 2001 will reveal.

Here are two threads about Bishop Brown's agreement to meet with St. Mary's by the Sea parishioners:
Bishop Tod Brown Agrees To Meet With Restore The Sacred
and
Meeting of Minds?
I quote one important post from another member of Restore The Sacred that is significant, because it gives one something to consider:
I would give much credit to Bishop Brown if he had come to apologize instead of congratulating Fr. Martin Tran for doing a “good job” at St. Mary’s:
1. For the Liturgical violations in our parish and throughout the Diocese of Orange. (Bishop Brown favors changing the Rubrics yesterday he changed to “happy are all of us who are invited to this meal” Fr. Martin Tran is also known for changing the rubrics)
2. For sending into exile 55 families “with the permission of Bishop Brown you are officially invited to leave the parish and the Diocese” (I got a letter like that)
3. For Saying that kneeling after the Agnus Dei was a “mortal Sin”. (Even though they are trying to backpedal on this one. At the end is the same if you kneel in the Diocese of Orange after the Lamb of God is a mortal sin!)
4. For having suspended the altar boys' coordinator and altar boys for the newly discovered “sin of kneeling”
5. For having prohibited the “Sanctus bells” to be rung at the Sanctus and after the Lamb of God. (Of course that would invite people to kneel!)
6. For getting rid of the Crucifix on the altar.
7. For having extra ordinary ministers of Holy Communion against directives of Redemptionis Sacramentum 102. (No more than 10-15% of parishioners approach the cups with the Precious Blood)
8. For not allowing parishioners to use the Communion rail with the exception of 12 noon Novus Ordo Latin Mass and daily Masses (later on they will get rid of the Communion rail when no one uses it!)
9. For Fr. Martin Tran public statement that women should be priests! (I was present when he made that statement!)
10. Mass attendance has dropped to approximately 50% along with donations.
11. For forcing the shaking of hands after the sign of peace.
12. For forcing on to us the “musical” hymnals from Oregon Press. (With ugly & deceiving covers and full of horrible songs) and more.......
I wander which of the above “accomplishments” of Fr. Martin Tran made Bishop Brown the happiest.

The St. Joseph Foundation has been working with Restore The Sacred. We sought their help right away.
I don't want people to get the wrong ideas about Restore The Sacred. They aren't radical traditionalists. If they were, they wouldn't be at St. Mary's by the Sea anymore because the bishop took the Tridentine Mass away from St. Mary's by the Sea.
The members of Restore The Sacred attend the normative Mass of the Roman Rite, without difficulty, although they sympathize with those who wish to restore the Tridentine Mass to St. Mary's by the Sea.
The traditional Catholics at St. Mary's by the Sea weren't hurting anybody in the diocese. Neither were the Tridentine Mass traditionalists. I make that distinction because there was only one Tridentine Mass at St. Mary's, which was, admittedly, the most crowded, but there are three other Sunday Masses and one Saturday vigil which were not Tridentine and were not in Latin. They were just done reverently and in conformity with an authentic interpretation of Church norms. There weren't altar girls, but nobody wanted them and no one had a problem with their absence (within the parish). The sign of Peace was offered by the priest to the people, but the option of inviting the congregation to share the sign of peace was not utilized because it was optional. It increased reverence and it had the added bonus of not wasting a lot of time as some neighboring parishes do (with a five minute sign of peace where people literally runs up and down the aisles hugging and waving).
Anyway, the Catholics at St. Mary's weren't running around making problems for everyone in other parishes. They had been ghettoized because they were of a more reverent mindset and found a haven at St. Mary's. The same people were equally comfortable with Mass at St. Michael's Abbey with the Norbertines (but that Mass is also packed, and it is about a 45 minute drive from St. Mary's by the Sea).
When Fr. Johnson retired and there was no longer the protection of a pastor with canonical rights, Bishop Brown sought to update the parish in a way that shows that he feels the parish is backwards. Some would have been thrilled if the Norbertines could have taken over St. Mary's, but Bishop Brown was not willing to allow that because that would have only encouraged the continuation of traditional Catholic devotions.
He is clearly trying to break the parish.
Saturday evening when Bishop Brown was at St. Mary's for Mass, when one woman begged him to restore the Tridentine Mass to St. Mary's by the Sea, Bishop Brown answered, emphatically, "No. We must move forward."
That's his outlook. He's a progressive. He thinks traditional Catholics are backwards people. He's using his power to force his personal liturgical preferences and sensibilities on others without consideration for these people or reflection on the fact that their requests are for things that are licit and which have value.
Whereas, Pope Benedict XVI, had this to say about the allowing the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass:
"I am of the opinion that the old rite should be granted much more generously to all those who desire it. It is impossible to see what could be dangerous or unacceptable about that. A community is calling its very being into question when it declares that what was its holiest and highest possession is strictly forbidden and when it makes the longing for it seem downright indecent." — Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, (From his book) "Salt Of The Earth", Ignatius Press, 1997

Pope Benedict XVI's views on kneeling: The Theology of Kneeling

Apart from the specific question of kneeling, Catholics in Orange do have a right to a true and reverent liturgy, one in which liturgical abuses and bewildering innovations are not present. This is the right of the faithful.
This is not about kneeling per se, but about the larger question of liturgical abuses that may or may not exist in Orange, or anywhere else, for that matter.
I just found out today about an organization called the St. Joseph Foundation. From their website: (again not about kneeling, but about proper Catholic liturgy):
"Catholics have rights in their Church just as they have rights under the federal and state constitutions here in the United States. Some of their rights in the Church, including the right of assembly, the right of petition, the right of free association, the right to privacy and reputation and the right to due process correspond to their civil rights. Other rights, especially the right to know the truth about God and His Church, the right to the spiritual goods of the Church and the right to worship according to the norms established by lawful authority have no counterparts in civil law.
The Saint Joseph Foundation serves
Catholics who seek to know and vindicate their rights within the Church - rights that the Church herself recognizes and protects. Whenever individuals or groups believe their rights are threatened or have been violated, the Foundation assists them in using the means established by the Church to obtain remedies."
http://www.st-joseph-foundation.org/index.php
Might be a good group to know about.

J.R. wrote, Why should they listen to your complaints about their breaking liturgical rules when you break the ones you don't like?
J.R., Many people don't realize that the Catholic faithful always and everywhere have a right to a true Liturgy, "the Liturgy desired and laid down by the whole Church" and that "undue experimentation, changes and creativity bewilder the faithful."*
Whereas there has been much in the way of undue experimentation and creativity in the Mass in recent years (i.e., clown Masses, etc.) it should come as no surprise to anyone that many faithful Catholics are upset and concerned as a result. They have every reason to be.
A response to these peoples' concerns that consists of "you will obey; you will obey" indicates a lack of appreciation of the position into which they have been placed.
Whatever these folks decide to do is between them, their pastor, their bishop, and God. I wouldn't dream of telling other people what to do. That's way above my pay grade!
My earlier post was simply my way of expressing the fact that, as a fellow Catholic onlooker, I totally respect and sympathize with these peoples' legitimate concerns. I agree that if they are upset, they have had reason to be.
_________________________________
*INAESTIMABILE DONUM
Instruction Concerning Worship Of The Eucharistic Mystery
Approved and Confirmed by His Holiness Pope John Paul II, 17 April 1980

Marion,
Kneeling when the norm is to stand? I'll grant people should be allowed to do it, but it still sounds like disobedience to me, and in some places will look like it to others. Why should they listen to your complaints about their breaking liturgical rules when you break the ones you don't like?
I don't see how the existence of extravagant liberal disobedience automatically excuses mild conservitive disobedience.
I am rather concerned about these lines of unreason that keep popping up in this discussion, that other people are worse so my actions must be fine or that if you criticize me you must be a liberal priest. Where is this coming from? Maybe from an overly "us versus them" feeling, where if "we" do it, it must be ok and if you criticize "us" then you must be one of "them"?

I wouldn't want to cause scandal by being apparently disobedient or even rebellious at Mass.
Let's see . . .
Clown masses.
Hootenany masses.
Mariachi Masses.
Puppet Masses.
Masses with gals in leotards gallavanting (liturgical dancing) up the main aisle (which is forbidden by the Vatican, but, so what? it is done anyway)
Masses where nuns preach the homily (also forbidden, but so what? it's done anyway) . . .
Remind me again? Precisely who or what it is that we're not supposed to be "rebelling" against?
I think I sort of forgot.
Oh! Right! Kneeling. Kneeling is what is now seriously taboo in church, and God help you if they catch you at it.
Surreal. Totally surreal.

In talking about "the guidelines" in posture, Father said that it was up to the priest to handle each situation as it arose. Given the situation discussed, he said that he would have handled the situation differently.
My take is that there is no intent "to regulate posture rigidly" within the Diocese. As I stated earlier, this is a squabble between a few of St Mary's parishioners and Fr Tran that has spiralled out of control.

Thank you, Mr. Day. I am certain that the Diocese will never forbid kneeling after the Agnus Dei.
Bishop Brown has agreed to meet with the parishioners, and if the kneelers don't ask for an apology and don't bring up other issues, they should be able to kneel in peace. This is now spiritually a more dangerous time for them than for Bishop Brown; may God be with them.

From a couple of days ago:
The question whether the norm of the Diocese of Orange is intended "to regulate posture rigidly" or "to ensure within broad limits a certain uniformity of posture" has still, so far as I know, not been answered. Mr. Brian Day, what has been the catechesis on this norm in the Diocese of Orange?
I cannot answer the question at the moment. The topic of posture has not been addressed diocese-wide since the norm change a couple of years ago. I'll try to talk to some of our priests this weekend to get a read on how rigidly the norms are to be applied.
I was able to chat with my pastor for a few minutes today. I asked him about the situation at St Mary's. He characterized the LA Times article as a gross mischaracterization. Understandably he was very reluctant to criticize his Bishop or a fellow priest.
In talking about "the guidelines" in posture, Father said that it was up to the priest to handle each situation as it arose. Given the situation discussed, he said that he would have handled the situation differently.
My take is that there is no intent "to regulate posture rigidly" within the Diocese. As I stated earlier, this is a squabble between a few of St Mary's parishioners and Fr Tran that has spiralled out of control.

Anon,
In the Dioceses of Syracuse and Albany (right nest to Vermont) I have encountered parishes where the people kneel for the consecratin, after the Agnus Dei, and after recieving communion, and parishes where they do not kneel at all. Never for one part of the mass but not after the Agnus Dei. Therefore, if I were in your place, I would have assumed standing for the Agnus Dei was the diocesan norm and would have complied. I tryed to find what the norms are in Vermont with a Google search but to no avail, but I would find the answer if you plan on going there again.
If you've read this and the other post on the subject, you know that Cardinal Arinze is sympathetic to those who would rather kneel as an act of devotion even where the norm is to stand. I personally would examine my conscience and consider whether my staning out among all the other people made it worth it, and if possible would ask the pastor what his and the parishioners reaction would be to your kneeling. I wouldn't want to cause scandal by being apparently disobedient or even rebellious at Mass.
This is all aside from whether there is an actual "right to kneel" in the Latin rite, which I still am not convinced of.

Inocencio, I reitterate my comment of 2 days ago.
Life is good. Hope U 2.

Could you cite your references or if possible include a link.
No. You Google, I go Mass. Maranatha.
Caritas.

I'm so confused. I do want to kneel after the Agnus Dei. Here in the arch diocese of Seattle, I've been to parishes that don't kneel afterwards. It seems very awkward for me to stand during that time. Why are liturgical practices different? We are a univeral church, not a regional church. I moved here from NYC and I keep finding huge differences in liturgical practices on the west coast. I don't want to be in dissident, but we do need some unity on this topic as a whole church not as regions. It's just too confusing. Why do US Bishops choose to inteprete things their own way? Why did Vatican II leave so much room for the Bishops to clearly misinteprete the documents.
confused!

Leo Wong,
Could you cite your references or if possible include a link.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

We are talking about kneeling after the Agnus Dei.
Ubi mos est, populum ab acclamatione Sanctus expleta usque ad finem Precis eucharisticae et ante Communionem quando sacerdos dicit Ecce Agnus Dei genuflexum manere, hic laudabiliter retinetur.
Where it is the practice for the people to remain kneeling after the Sanctus until the end of the Eucharistic Prayer and before Communion when the priest says Ecce Agnus Dei (This is the Lamb of God), this practice is laudably retained.

Why are we being persecuted by orthodox Catholics?
I would hate to think that I am "persecuting" anyone just by suggesting they follow their diocesan liturgical regulations. So far I have seen nothing definitive concerning a "right" to kneel when you want to even if the priest or bishop forbids it, including in the letters from Cardinal Arinze. As Inocencio would say, where is the documentation of the "right"? While there is some doubt on the matter, it seems to me that the best position would be for pastors to be very liberal, using the word properly, in their application of diocesan regulations on this matter, but that parishioners should, at least if thier pastors are being ridged, follow the norm.
Also, am I mistaken, or is standing during the Agnus Dei the standard norm for the Latin right? I thought it was, and the United States had gotten special permission from Rome to do things differently (to kneel), while still allowing bishops within the US to follow the more universial norm (to stand) if they wished. If this is correct it may shed a different light on the subject for some.

Thanks, Nemo. Having just picked up on this conversation, I was wondering if anyone would pick up on those statements. A priest in that condition (sexually active with anyone) is directly causing scandal to the faithful. Additionally, the liturgical innovations of the bishops in question are in violation of Liturgical standards set forth by the Magisterium ... and are, therefore, DISOBEDIENT. Another scandal.

Old Zhou,
Awhile back in this debate you said Susan shouldn't concern herself with the ACTIVE same-sex 'lifestyle' of her cousin, the priest. You are most wrong. A catholic is obliged to admonish the sinner, especially when the sinner is the shepard of hundreds! Are you joking, or are you insane?
P.S. if you are also serious about enjoying african drums as liturgical music, and hearing mass said by Mahoney, you are doubly insane!
If you are joking, disregard these comments, but if you are not joking, you aren't a faithful catholic.

Why are we being persecuted by orthodox Catholics?
First, let's not use the word persecuted. The comment section in blogs is such an explosive medium that one should always try to tone things down (I am learning this now and must continually remind myself). These Catholics are interested in your souls.
The kneelers are being asked to obey legitimate authority. That is the point of referring to the fourth commandment. In this case, one is expected to honor one's pastor, even a poor pastor, which includes obeying him.
If the kneelers kneel to disobey the pastor, they sin. But, of course, they do not kneel to disobey the pastor; they kneel to obey their conscience and the Church, which says that one is free to kneel and which desires that the liturgy nourish, strengthen, and protect their faith. They kneel not to "go above" anyone but to be with the Church. They do not "set their own norms", "indulge in private worship," or make the Mass their own "business", but obey the Latin norm, which is a (not the) norm of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church. This is true whether or not they have thought through it even in this summary fashion.
So I think that those who criticize the kneelers see disobedience where there is obedience. This being so, they rightly call the kneelers to obedience.
I do not think the kneelers are close to disobeying the bishop. He has set (I am not ready to say "determined") a norm, which does not regulate posture rigidly (as Inocencio would ask, where is the documentation?). Are the kneelers disobeying the parish administrator? Peace. Let us hear what the parish administrator says now. Let bygones be bygones.
Don't take to heart or even to mind anything said to you in a forum such as this. The Internet lacks tact, which is essential to any good spiritual guidance.
God bless you and fill you with the Holy Spirit.

Leo,
I agree with you when you say:
It is no sin at all to kneel after the Agnus Dei in those places where standing is the norm.

It seems to me, that if there is no sin at all in kneeling, it would logically follow that people are free to kneel.
Why, then, are good Catholics browbeating the people who kneel at St. Mary's by the Sea?
I can understand why "progressive" Catholics would demand the kneeling, and even why they would ironically harp on demanding obedience from these kneeling parishioners, while ignoring their own acts of disobedience (though their disobedience is admittedly not to their local ordinary).
It's always been easier to take being bashed by the liberals (although it is always a cross when people are against you).
What is more painful, though, is being bashed by those with whom we otherwise completely agree. It is very hard to have those you would otherwise consider friends berate you publicly and privately with very righteous mantras about obedience, as though we know nothing about Catholicism or the proper respect due to those with authority.
My position has always been that the bishop and Fr. Tran are to be respected for their office. Despite Fr. Tran's heretical position on women's ordination and the fact that he preaches social justice, almost exclusively, in a way that makes me uncomfortable, not because he is preaching "hard sayings", but rather because his preaching is clearly from a liberal mindset. I also wholeheartedly respect the office held by Bishop Brown despite the things enumerated in the Open Letter To Bishop Brown.
I will admit, though, that I believe there is strong, objective evidence that Bishop Brown is deeply confused about the Catholic faith. I know that people will say, he's the bishop, and Pope John Paul II appointed him, etc. I understand that people believe that since the Holy See is not correcting him, or Cardinals Mahony, Martini, etc., then that means that the actions and positions held by these progressive cardinals and bishops have the approval of the Holy See.
However, I know that is not the truth. We have encountered someone in the course of this controversy who has shared with us an insight into how Rome views these matters. This man, a former priest who was laicized, but is in good standing with the Church, had the privilege of driving Cardinal Arinze around when he came to this man's diocese. I will not mention the diocese, but it isn't in California. Anyway, Cardinal Arinze told the man that the Holy See was well aware that his own bishop was "very bad". However, he said that the canonical steps and difficulties that could possibly arise in removing him would take longer (and perhaps create more problems) than simply waiting for him to retire in five years or so.
I think the Holy see has been so afraid of schism, of another situation like that with Archbishop Lefebvre, only this time with liberals, that they have just quietly waited for these progressives to retire.
I don't agree with that outlook, but I understand full well the danger of a renegade bishop (or even a few renegades) running around validly ordaining renegade priests and validly consecrating renegade bishops.
Anyway, back to my original point: Why are we being persecuted by orthodox Catholics?

"From the most dangerous man in England in 1959 (not Charles Darwin)."
1859: I daily earn the right to be humble.
John Henry Newman, "On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine," July 1859
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/newman-faithful...
Newman was called "the most dangerous man in England" in a letter from Msgr. George Talbot to Cardinal Manning -- in 1867 I think. In the same letter Msgr. Talbot wrote: "What is the province of the laity? To hunt, to shoot, to entertain. These matters they understand, but to meddle with ecclesiastical matters they have no right at all." This goes along with Bishop Ullathorne's earlier statement that it was "absolutely unnecessary that the reasons for our own actions should be explained and that the Catholic community should be informed of the grounds of our proceedings."
I don't judge either the monsignor or the bishop, though I disagree with the quoted statements.
My apologies for any typos. The "preview" feature does not work with my browser.
God bless.