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.
<>It should be, while recognising at the same time such things as the Credo are not organic
Still, we do have Tertullian to deal with. No matter what reasons are adduced to explain or explain away the fact about standing, there is evidence that was a Rule.
We also have Canon 20 of Nicea for evidence. That is a Rule. The questions surrounding that Rule are legitimate. But, those questions, no matter whose polemical golden calf is being gored (to vaingloriously mix metaphors), do not render the standing rule nugatory.
We also have Jungmann saying that kneeling was imposed.
We have the Catholic Encyclopedia saying kneeling was imposed.
This conspiracy of facts is something some competent, professionally trained Liturgist ought to tease out so we can be better informed and form conclusions more dispassionately
Just speaking for myself, the more I learned about Liturgy, the less I was vexed about the Pauline Reform. In my flirtation with the schism, I was being influenced by tendentious morons. What they knew about the actual history of the Mass wouldn't fill a thimble. Once I started reading for myself- from many sources, Dom Gueranger, Gamber, Jungmann ect - the more easy it became to identify the ignorant polemical errors promoted by Davies et al.
I also admit I am Blessed. My Pastor is a brilliant man. Even were The Indult located close by, I would continue with the Missa Normitiva due to his preaching. He is incomparable and his sermons are enlightening, enspiriting, educational, funny, and startling. The Mass is reverent, we are adding back Latin Hymns (Agnus Dei always sung), the Tabernacle is back in the Sanctuary,we always say the Confetior... ect ect<>
LOL! I did a double take too. After reading the article again from the Adoremus website, I think the authors are using the term in it's original sense. Bishop Bruskewitz's answer for receivng Holy Communion is in line with what the GIRM has always stated. Communicants are free to choose between standing or kneeling. (If standing, they are supposed to make a reverential gesture - historically, at least, in the Latin Rite that has always meant a genuflection with the right knee).
From the GIRM of the Roman Missal, the controlling liturgical document for the Latin Rite of the Church, I think it is clear that people are to kneel during the Consecration, unless extenuating circumtances don't allow it (i.e. a Mass said in a stadium, etc.). As well as other places in the Liturgy. This all fits well in the organic development of the Latin Rite. It's all in the Roman Missal - which a new edition is coming out now, hence the overdrive in the agenda pushing business. To receive Holy Communion (the quote concerning Bishop Brukewitz), the Communicant (NOT the Priest) has the option of receiving either kneeling or standing. If standing, a sign of reverence is to be given. For the Latin Rite (tradition of the Western world), the sign of respect in front of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament has traditionally been a genuflection with the right knee. In the East, respect has traditionally been shown with a deep, profound bow - such that the head goes below the heart!
I agree with you whole-heartedly about the liturgistas not caring - they are too busy pushing agendas. Hopefully, it is the last gasp of the "Vatican II" generation, who are now bitter grey haired individuals who can't understand why young people are not joining them at their Call to Action conferences, but are either a) not practicing their Faith, or b) watching EWTN. You, of course, know better than me about how desperate the "last gasp" mentality can become. A certain Cathedral reconstructive wreckovation by a certain lame duck Archbishop ignoring the Vatican tells the whole story.
I dare not say this in person out in public, but I also agree that a certain perverted sexual orientation, namely the "gay" lifestyle, has a lot to do with it. I always wondered if that is why people who choose such a lifestyle are so prevalent in the fine arts. Think about it. You can abuse and "over do" the fine arts to the point where it becomes an escape from reality, indeed an attempt to redefine reality. Isn't their whole lifestyle an escape from the demands of reality - including the interior moral life directed to God?
Erudite psycologists have always noticed an arrested interior development of homosexuals, sort of a continual "adolencent" mentality. And aren't many of the problems we discuss concerning the Sacred Worship and Adoration of God, i.e. the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, apparent when you see these "experts" treat the Mass as merely a fine arts performance, or worse, for the really immature, who take the mickey mouse approach and turn it into disneyland? These liturgistas NEVER talk about the demands of 'Sacrifice', which the Mass IS. Holiness? The sense of Mission coming from an Eternal perspective?
Their mixing and matching games are an attempt to come up with means to justify their already chosen end. Redefine the Liturgy to recreate God in the image that they will accept from Him. And of course it is occurring big time at this point in time since the new Roman Missal is coming out and they are trying to force their agendas by changing it to the extent that they can. H#ll, there is STILL problems with "inclusive language" and other translating gimmicks occurring. Another way of saying they are trying to pervert it.
You have the same idea, differently expressed, that E Michael Jones and I share.
In a nutshell, there IS such a thing as 'right order,' which includes such things as the natural moral law, the higher things (beauty, truth, etc.,) and the natural laws of physics, chemistry, etc., etc.
Now the Vatican has described the homosexual inclination as "a grave dis-order.
I do not think that the Vatican's terminology is accidental in the least, and opens a window to both the Vatican's thought and the REAL concern about the homosexual tendency.
To be fair, there is a BIG difference between the repentant and UN-repentant sinner, and in the end, ANY sin darkens the intellect.
But it would seem that the homosexual sin 'starts' in a worse place than, say, the heterosexual sin...
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.