News from Adoremus Bulletin 12/02

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.

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".

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.

Guess this would be a bad time to complain about the absence of bell ringing at the Consecration?

Why do you need bells? Are you not paying attention?

Bells were needed at the Tridentine Liturgy to let the congregation know something important was happening.

If you're attending a Novus Ordo Mass, you ought to be able to tell what's going on.

Why do you need bells? Are you not paying attention?

Because some of us choose not to watch the elevation and put our faces in our hands. Or vision is impeded due to being several inches shorter than the general population. Believe me this is a problem.

It also adds another, more mystical dimention.

Aside from that, the people like it. At least everyone I know.

Perhaps Sink's theory is correct, but it sounds an awful lot like the typical snide remarks most often made by people like Gabe Huck (FIRED!!!), Bert Weakland (HUMILIATED AND FIRED!!) and that pestilence/priest from North Dakota.

As usual, that crowd doesn't really know too much.

JSBach wrote lots of music WHICH USED GREGORIAN CHANT THEMES. The themes, of course, prompted the listeners to recall the Latin text of the Chant. Thus, one can conclude that JSBach KNEW that the "dummies" in the pew KNEW the Latin AND THE TRANSLATION.

Of course, no one is as intellectually gifted as that bunch of queers in the Liturgical Establishment--at least, not by their telling the story.

There are lots of myths out there about how stupid people were in the 10th century. Most of the myths are self-serving and utterly devoid of basis in fact.

Because some of us choose not to watch the elevation and put our faces in our hands.

Why? If Jesus actually appeared at the consecration, would you look away?

It also adds another, more mystical dimention.

Not for me. The bells themselves would be a distraction.

But, hey, to each his own. Bells are a liturgical innovation to the Novus Ordo, so don't complain when somebody introduces an inculturation novelty into the Mass.

There are lots of myths out there about how stupid people were in the 10th century.

People weren't stupid; they just didn't know very much.

Thus, one can conclude that JSBach KNEW that the "dummies" in the pew KNEW the Latin AND THE TRANSLATION.

How much of Bach's music was actually played during Mass?

**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.**

I believe these peoples hearts will lead them to stick with the Lord and the reverence for the Holy Eucharist, and to bring the abhorations of non-reverence to their Bishop's attention. When that won't work, for in some cases it won't, then I believe these individuals will go another step up -- whether it is a regional representative Bishop or the USCCB or even to the Pope.

The people of Boston are an example of this in the letters they sent to Rome about Law.

I don't need the bells!
Anymore than I need somebody to read 3 verses of the Bible to me.
For that matter why don't they just e-mail the sermon and have drive through Communion?

I object to the constant errosion of tradition.
The Consecration is the focal point of the Mass.
I also object to the trend to move the Tabernacle off to the side, or completely out of view.

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'.

I resolve this year to render unto the bishops the same humble obedience that they render unto their betters.

The General Instruction was revised in response to out-and-out outrage towards what had previously been published. It is a sop to the faithful, a pretense that something is there that isn't, an addition of language that suggests the New Mass is not the bizarre break from Tradition that it is, a lie that the reenactment of the Sacrifice on the Cross is the aim of the Novus Ordo whereas anyone who reads the text and follows the rubrics can see it is a Memorial Meal celebrating the assembly, suppressing any acknowledgement of the Real Presence, and reducing the priest to his role as minister-presider, all made to resemble closely the Protestant Lord's Supper worship service--in open defiance of Trent.

Many of the bishops lack faith. But this Pope is no prize either. He often opposes Tradition, forcing the faithful to choose between the old faith and himself. His elevation of Escriva to sainthood was a hideous scandal. So was his awarding the red hat to Kasper, a public apostate. So were his prayer-sessions at Assisi and elsewhere. So are his attacks on traditional orders such as FSSP while he tolerates the worst liberal excesses. So has been his corresponding unwillingness to reform the seminaries or discipline dissenting theologians. So has been his reluctance to fire corrupt bishops. The list goes on and on. Only the willfully blind would call John Paul II a good pope. He is directly involved in much of what is going on. He does not order the bishops to reverse their decree on prohibiting kneeling for communion; he only issues a weak reprimand regarding not giving communion to those who continue to kneel--not the same thing. The bishops know he will not lift the burden from the people and puts no force behind his empty words. He will not fire or excommunicate them the way he has fired and excommunicated traditionalists, no matter what they do. This is because he is himself a humanist-modernist who rejects the Traditional Church.

As a matter of fact, the Bach stuff was performed during the latter part of Sundays. The cantatas were Vespers-time, and the Oratorios were after lunch.

Your disdain for 10th century people is STILL not grounded in some sort of fact, and your presumption of ignorance is astounding.

Perhaps you forget the Jews knew their Scripture (in Hebrew, not Aramaiac) at the time of Christ.

You must be assuming that intelligence and devotion both went to 20th-century standards after Christ died.

Illuminati. What a crowd.

"If you attend the Novus Ordo you would know something important was going on."

Baloney. Everything is done to hide the fact. The priest even proclaims "Christ will come again," at the moment He's right there on the altar. It's a deliberate sleight-of-hand, to deflect our attention from the Real Presence. Before you know it, we're talking about how wonderful the assembly is all over again. This is not worship of God, it's self-worship of the most sacrilegious kind.

I resolve this year to render unto the bishops the same humble obedience that they render unto their betters.

ANd I resolve to treat the Bishops with the same charitable inclusion with which they treat traditionalists.

It is the essense of modernism to believe no other people were as smart or as pious or as wonderful or as wise as this living generation. The truth is these bozos have been disasters walking, less wise, less pious, less wonderful in every way. Look at the last forty years. Pretty it's not. The Church is in shambles everywhere.

Your disdain for 10th century people is STILL not grounded in some sort of fact, and your presumption of ignorance is astounding.

Where did I show disdain for 10th century people? They just didn't know as much as we know now, but they knew more than 9th century people did. Gosh, why are you so upset about this?

I don't believe that you can cite the suppression of bells in ANY document emanating from the Vatican post-V.II.

If they're not mentioned in the rubrics (or GIRM)--and they are not mentioned--then who would know to use them, or when to use them? Or, should they be used whenever we feel like using them?

Have a good night, ninenot, and a Happy New Year.

You're off into some very byzantine subjects on this thread, and I'm not going to argue with you about them. Use bells and Bach all you want.

Of course, Adoremus is tweaking the "liberal" bishops--who are, as usual, revealing themselves to be the real authoritarians.

Bishops who are faithful to tradition don't NEED to be authoritarian. It is the vandals like Weakland, Mahoney, and Bernardin who use their "authority" to destroy the Church.

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.