Posted on 01/01/2003 5:13:54 AM PST by ninenot
"Catechesis" on Liturgy varies widely in US dioceses
Cardinal Jorge A. Medina Estévez's letter of October 25, 2001 to the USCCB, commenting on proposed American Adaptations to the IGMR, said the following:
"In cases where the Conference of Bishops is to legislate, such legislation should be truly specific, and the law intends precisely that any particular episcopal legislation on these matters be enacted in common by the Bishops of the Conference rather than being left to be determined variously in different dioceses".
At present, different interpretations of liturgical rules from one diocese to another -- a "balkanization" of the Church in the US -- is causing very serious and very widespread confusion. It is a source of grief for Catholics in dioceses where draconian measures are taken to eliminate kneeling or other traditional gestures of reverence. People are especially distressed (and perplexed) at the harshness of the directives of some bishops, and find themselves torn between their wish to obey the bishop (some bishops are invoking obedience to enforce their directives) and their profound desire to express bodily their reverence for the Blessed Sacrament.
As we have said elsewhere, this is a conflict no Catholic should be forced to encounter.
Below are a few samples from the past few months:
In Arlington there has been a crisis at Christendom College, where it has been customary to kneel at the altar rail to receive Communion. Bishop Paul Loverde objects, and has ordered the practice to cease, as he states in an article in the November 14 Arlington Catholic Herald: "...Although no one would be denied communion if he or she knelt, the proper norm is standing and any other posture is really an act of disobedience to what the liturgical discipline is providing".
(http://www.catholicherald.com/loverde/2002homilies/homily1114.htm)
Saint Cloud Bishop John F. Kinney wrote in June 2002 that people should stand during the Eucharistic Prayer ("a 'resurrection' posture"). He said "kneeling visibly expressed reverence in former ages and other places (for example, in the medieval courts of European monarchs). Now, in our culture, standing seems to more clearly express respect and honor".
The diocese produced a set of liturgical directives, bound for reproduction as parish resources for "catechesis", mostly written by liturgist Father Dennis Smolarski, SJ, or "based on" materials on the BCL web site. These publications freely interpret liturgical rules. (In his book Liturgical Literacy, Father Smolarski defines "liturgy" as referring "to any official form of public worship" [p.140]).
The priests of Wichita received a communique from Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted and the Office of Worship in June instructing all the faithful that they "must" kneel from the Sanctus to the Great Amen and they are "encouraged" to kneel after the Agnus Dei. There are many other good signs in the communique. Father Shawn McKnight, STD, is the Director of the Office of Worship and has put together and excellent overview of the principal changes in the new liturgical instructions.
Monterey Bishop Sylvester Ryan, in "The Sign of Unity" - a two part letter published in March on the diocesan web site, invoked his episcopal authority (saying that the GIRM "designates and empowers the diocesan bishop" to regulate the Liturgy). In the letter he forbids people to kneel after the Agnus Dei, and orders people to assume the "orans" posture ("extend the hands in the same way that the celebrant does") for the Our Father, "the opening prayer, the prayer over the gifts and the prayer after Communion". The bishop also expressly forbids genuflecting or kneeling to receive Communion.
Lafayette Bishop William Higi wrote in his columns in May that kneeling "dissents from the mind of the Church", and "rather than reverence, the emphasis will be refusal to embrace particular law approved by the Vatican for the United States".
He expressly forbids any gesture other than a bow of the head: "A person is not to genuflect before receiving nor are they to kneel to receive. Rather, standing before the Eucharistic Minister, they are to bow their head.... If a person chooses to kneel, Eucharistic Ministers of this Diocese will be instructed to say quietly to that individual: 'the proper posture is to stand, please'".
Lincoln Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz is more liberal. He issued a letter this summer permitting Catholics in the Lincoln diocese to either kneel or stand for Communion, and he does does not forbid genuflecting.
The Archdiocese of Boston responded to an inquiry in May, saying that communicants are free to choose their posture for receiving Holy Communion.
Archbishop Thomas Kelly, OP of Louisville issued a directive to parishes, "New Gesture of Reverence Before Receiving Holy Communion", effective the first Sunday in Advent 2002.
An accompanying flyer from a parish expands the "catechesis" on posture of the people during Mass:
"The posture for reception of Holy Communion is to be standing. There are some who prefer to kneel to receive Holy Communion. While no one will be denied Communion if they choose to kneel, for the sake of uniformity throughout the Archdiocese, all are called to 'humble obedience'.
"Remember that we are not 'pick and choose Catholics'. If some can choose to kneel to receive Holy Communion, then why can't others choose to stand for the Eucharistic Prayer?
"The 'gesture of reverence' is a simple bow of the head before receiving the Sacred Host, and also a simple bow of the head before receiving the Precious Blood from the chalice, if one chooses this option.
"There are some who prefer a more solemn sign of reverence, such as a profound bow or a genuflection. Again, for the sake of uniformity, all are called to 'humble obedience'. We are not 'pick and choose Catholics'.
"The communicant is reminded to respond 'Amen' to the words 'The Body of Christ ... the Blood of Christ'. No other response is appropriate, such as 'Thank you' or 'I believe"'.
The directive states that "The USCCB voted that the posture is to be standing and the gesture of reverence will be a bow of the head before receiving both the Body and the Blood of Christ. The Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship approved this decision.
The Louisville directive states that during the 10th century "people became so focused on the awesome reality of the presence of Christ in the consecrated Body and Blood that they believed themselves to be unworthy to receive. Awe and reverence dominated over the actual reception of Holy Communion", and it links this with other liturgical issues. "The emphasis on confession before Communion, the fast from midnight, and the age when a child could receive Holy Communion (adolescence), were just a few of the practices that supported this decline of the faithful's reception of Holy Communion".
Not so today. No longer feeling "unworthy", Catholics now "receive the Body of Christ to become the Body of Christ for the world", the directive says.
The staff singer and I bracket the altos to keep them in tune. I don't have much of a voice from a performance standpoint, but I can hold pitch no matter what and sight read anything . . . both qualities probably more valuable to a choir than a golden voice . . . (/sour grapes ;-) )
No complaints about Latin from our congregation . . . our anthems run about half traditional Latin and half modern English and other languages (including Slavonic and Greek when the choirmaster gets a wild hair. He brought in a Russian clarinetist to coach us on the Slavonic anthem.) Translations are provided.
Another refugee from merry old England, eh wot?
You KNOW you can straight-tone. Pretend you are in a boy-choir. Then buy the guy some CDs from the Los Angeles MasterSingers (they are the professional chorus for the LAPhil.) and hint around that if mild vibrato is good enough for THEM, perhaps it's good enough for the Cathedral in StLouis....
. . . . oops . . . so do I.
That English sound, you know . . . :-D
We did the Saint-Saens "Ave Maria" two Sundays ago and the Fearless Leader did permit vibrato in that one, within reason (that is to say barely audible). The rest of the time, he glowers and holds his index finger up sideways like he's going to shoot somebody . . .
But, seriously, when you have a choir that's composed of non-professionals other than staff singers (like ours), a straight tone really is better overall. Otherwise some folks (they're over in the soprano section mostly) get completely out of hand and are fluctuating a half tone or more either side of the pitch and never get back to dead center . . . . ;-) (OUR section's problem of course is that we roar in the fortissimo passages when we get to use our middle and low registers . . . choirmaster rolls his eyes around and muses, "hmmmm, fog rolling in.")
But our music is excellent. The Fearless Leader really is a genius for selecting text-appropriate anthems with good (but difficult) settings, and he digs up remarkable music both old and new. (I can mostly leave the new stuff, but that's just me.)
The paten, because of the bread, was down-sized from platter-sized to the ones we are now familiar with. "The particles are now no longer handed to the faithful...but are laid at once upon the tongue....The next step - which, however, took quite a long time - was for the faithful to receive kneeling. And this, in turn, had a final effect on the church building: the low communion rail was introduced, a feature of which ancient church architecture knew nothing.",P> So, long after the Christan Church has achieved its freedom from persecution, and nearly one millenium after the Life, Death and Resurrection of Jesus, we see the Church undergo massive changes. The bread used changes, the posture at Mass changes, people who have stood for centuries are now told they must kneel,prayers in the mass change, church architecture changes. None of this was at the behest of the pew denizens like me and thee
So, the question I have is - Was it right to force folks to kneel after they and their Fathers, and Grandfathers, and their Great Grandfathers ect ect had stood? What about all the other changes? There were massive changes, that is undeniable.
There is no need to register your dislike of Jungmann. That is well known, and immaterial. He is well and heavily sourced re the facts.<>
Fortunately, I don't have to criticize Jungmann--you already made clear the basis of the following text.
More seriously, I seem to recall a recent article discussing Church architecture, laying out the differing styles over time (perhaps Latin Mass magazine?). The article indicated that the Communion rail was a later installation, as Jungmann indicates.
HOWEVER, the question that neither Jungmann nor you have answered is whether this kneeling was "forced upon" the laity or whether this is something that was spontaneous.
It is also possible (from the text you cite) that the Communion rails were installed as a response to the laity's already-existing practice of kneeling for Communion. (My own theory is that they were installed more as a line of demarcation for the 'holy of holies,' similar to the gates found in the Eastern rites, and to the layout of the Temple.
Pending further info (for which I have sent off and should have response in a couple of days) it will remain an open question, I suppose.
Summarily: your citation leaves open TWO possibilities: one, that the laity were "ordered" to kneel; the other, that the laity were kneeling in the first place, and that rails were installed as an accomodation.
Be that as it may, forcibly changing an otherwise harmless practice is absurd and reeks of authoritarianism--the "I'm the boss, do it my way, regardless..." sort of crap that engenders resentment. If the laity were "forced" to kneel, that was wrong, EVEN THOUGH I, personally, prefer the kneeling posture for its implicit self-subordination. Standing, regardless of the propaganda being circulated, is simply less so, viz., the practice of nobility to kneel in the presence of the Kings as a mark of fealty.
One might also remark that in the American culture one stands for judges and Presidents--as opposed to the European culture's kneeling, still practiced to this day before the Monarch of England.
Why do I bring this up? Because "Americanism" is the specific topic of a monitum from Pope Leo XIII (??) and may actually be the underlying thesis in this controversy.
There are those, of course, who have a wildly fluctuating vibrato which has to do with gross ignorance OR (in most cases,) flaccid vocal cords--either from superannuation or simply not enough singing.
Having said that, there are two distinct schools. The English like the straight tone, and the others (Roger Wagner, Bob Shaw) prefer the well-disciplined vibrato.
They both work.
He is unable to find or recall any documents which indicate that there was a 'forcible' aspect to the kneeling apparently arising in the 8th/9th centuries.
Part of the larger problem is that there is simply little (or no) documentation to support the "factual" statements of liturgical reformers. They simply propound that "XYZ is fact" and we are supposed to accept it as so. When research demonstrates that either it is NOT fact, or that it is merely speculation, the credibility of the reformers is eroded.
You may recall that 15 years ago, "reformers" postulated (as fact) that not only were priests married until some draconian disciplinarian stopped the practice--but that there were "deaconesses," which were ladies who were ordained.
Five years later a scholar refuted every single "fact" that the reformers had postulated--and he did it with documentary and irrefutable evidence. While it was a fact that some priests were married, they gave up relations with their wives. There were 'deaconesses,' but the title did NOT indicate ordination--rather, a vocation (in this case, health-care.)
But in this discussion, you have made the statement, thus you still have the obligation to prove: that the laity were "forced" to kneel against their tradition.
Ball's in your court.
My voice is like a bank account - I have a limited number of Gs just above the staff in my account (3 maybe 4) and once I have sung those I am overdrawn. :-D I have a love-hate relationship with John Rutter's music because I love it but he writes all his alto parts TOO HIGH. Handel was kinder to altos - I've often wondered if he may have been married to one. All the women in our family are mezzo to alto - I have subbed in as a tenor in emergencies and can reach a solid D in the bass staff or maybe a C #. It's really more of a male voice, when I sing with the men's section it doesn't stick out, and when I'm up near (not IN) your territory I'm really in a falsetto.
ninenot, of course you're right, and I think we have some of both -- unpractised singers and older folks. I don't THINK there's any gross ignorance over on that side -- Fearless Leader wouldn't stand for it. (He throws pencils at offenders, which is better than the choirmaster in my LAST choir, who had a voodoo doll dressed in a choir robe perched on the music rack of the organ. Anybody made a mistake, he would jab a finger at them, grab a pin, and SHOVE it in the doll!) I'm not superannuated yet, but altos seem to last better than sopranos anyway. My mom is almost 80 and is still singing in her little church choir down in south GA, oddly enough her range has shifted upwards with age and she is now really a soprano. She was an alto in the St. Philip's Cathedral choir in Atlanta for 25 years or so. My dad won't sing any more - he was a bass soloist at St. Philip's and with Emory University, and a great perfectionist. He's lost about 1/3 of his range and simply quit. We keep pointing out to him that his current range is still better than any guy's in their little choir down home and they desperately need men . . . but so far no luck convincing him to suit up for the team.
Ecumenical Council supresses tradition. Prolly there was the SSPM (Societ of Pope St. Melchaides) formed to protest the supression of traditon; who knows?
Our friend Fr. Jungmann cites Geilmann, "Die Abenmahlslehre" 21-36, infra, Vol 11, Chap. 1,3 and Vol. 11, Chap 3,13 re the imposition of kneeling
The ball has been back-handed down the line and it kicked-up some chalk :)<>
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.