Kneeling

[Apotheoun]

Of course people should be charitable when pointing out liturgical abuses, but priests need to be charitable as well, and they need to recognize that the liturgy is the prayer of the whole Church.

As the CDW has indicated, "Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. [i]This is naturally to be done in truth and charity[/i]." [[u]Redemptionis Sacramentum[/u], no. 184]

[PedroX]

Apoth,

I am not denying that an abuse is occurring, nor am I denying that it should be dealt with. What I have a serious problem with is the way people were discussing their priests. It is no different than the way VOTF or other dissident groups on the left discuss the hierarchy. If we claim to be orthodox, it should be shown first in our love. Maybe its fashionable to bash priests right now, but don't be surprised when no one wants to be one.

peace...

[Apotheoun]

That's why I said charity should be shown by all concerned.

[morostheos]

Pedro, I'd like to apologize for generalizing about post vatican II seminaries. I did not mean for my comment to be degrading to priests or to seminaries, although in hindsight I can see that it was. I was mostly speaking from my personal experience with this priest, and in a way trying to defend him because he was never given solid formation, which I am pretty sure is true. His reasons for leaving our parish showed that he clearly was not given proper means of perseverance in the priesthood, or that he did not follow them. I shouldn't have made the generalization, and I will be careful to avoid doing so in the future. I have a great respect for priests, which is why I brought up this topic to begin with, because I felt weird going against his reccommendations, even if they are incorrect.

Edited June 27, 2005 by morostheos

[CatholicAndFanatical]

Well my two cents..

there are some Bishops and Priests that do things wrong because they want too.

How is a Preist going to go to Seminary all those years and still be ignorant of Church Teachings?? I hardly doubt it.

Problem is the laity hasnt stood up against junk like this and has allowed it to go on.

Sure, respect the Priest, they are servants of God.

But they are not above God, the Law, OR Rome.

Sometimes, were too gentle. I would be nice at first..but if nothing changes. Then go to the Bishop, then the ArchBishop, then the Curia..go until you cannot go anymore if thats what it takes to start doing things right.

Why is there a Priest shortage? Because nobody is taught the Real Presence, and they have little good examples to follow.

God Bless

[PedroX]

morostheos,

No sweat dude. I agree that some (many?) did not recieve enough (or proper) formation and that this is at the root of many of the problems we face. We must remember though that they are our fathers and we approach them out of love and respect. Keep fighting the good fight in love.

peace...

[Cam42]

Ok Pedro.....

Let's assume your seminary didn't allow kneeling. Everyone was to stand for the Canon. What would you do?

[morostheos]

actually pedro, i would be a dudette

[let_go_let_God]

As far as I understand, the use of the GIRM has been explained, but also doesn't the "normal posture" during mass also depend on whether or not your local Bishop has allowed for such posture to occur? The only reason that I ask this is because we are having a similar debate at my college.

God bless-
LGLG

[morostheos]

I actually have one more question....

What does this particular paragraph in the GIRM mean? I took it to mean that I should do what my pastor dictated for the celebration.

[quote]With a view to a uniformity in gestures and postures during one and the same celebration, the faithful should follow the directions which the deacon, lay minister, or priest gives according to whatever is indicated in the Missal.[/quote]

But does that not hold true if the priest gives directions contrary to what is indicated in the Missal?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='let_go_let_God' date='Jun 30 2005, 08:19 PM']As far as I understand, the use of the GIRM has been explained, but also doesn't the "normal posture" during mass also depend on whether or not your local Bishop has allowed for such posture to occur? The only reason that I ask this is because we are having a similar debate at my college.

God bless-
LGLG
[right][snapback]629108[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The bishop does not have the authority to change the norms established by the General Instruction without the prior [i]recognitio[/i] of the Holy See.

[Cam42]

[quote name='let_go_let_God' date='Jun 30 2005, 11:19 PM']As far as I understand, the use of the GIRM has been explained, but also doesn't the "normal posture" during mass also depend on whether or not your local Bishop has allowed for such posture to occur? The only reason that I ask this is because we are having a similar debate at my college.

God bless-
LGLG
[right][snapback]629108[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Remember, the bishop is still bound by this:
[quote name='Sacrosanctum Concilium #22']1. Regulation of the Sacred Liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.

2. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the Liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.

3. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the Liturgy on his own authority.[/quote]

Also, this comes into play:
[quote name='Sacrosanctum Concilium #23']That sound tradition may be retained, and yet the way remain open to legitimate progress, careful investigation is always to be made into each part of the Liturgy which is to be revised. This investigation should be theological, historical, and pastoral. Also the general laws governing the structure and meaning of the Liturgy must be studied in conjunction with the experience derived from recent liturgical reforms and from the indults conceded to various places. Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.

As far as possible, notable differences between the rites used in adjacent regions must be carefully avoided.[/quote]

So, based upon Vatican Council II, we see that no one may on his own authority change anything in the Liturgy, this edict includes a bishop. Why? Because of what #23 says. Kneeling for the Canon is legitimate progress. The norm is to kneel only for the consecration, however, an indult has been granted that has organically grown from that tradition. Is it for the good of the Church that the dioceses of the US kneel for the whole of the Canon? The USCCB thinks so and the Holy See agrees.

It would be turning back progress to stand for the Canon. That should infuriate progressives. If I were a progressive Catholic, I would be appalled that anyone would want to turn back the clock and do something so traditional as to only kneel for the consecration.

[let_go_let_God]

The situation at our college is that we are a Benidictine College and the sisters who reside in the monistary are gaining in years, and are basically unable to kneel and the fact that our chapel doesn't have kneelers in the pews deters most students from kneeling as well. This has been hightened by the campus preist and campus minister saying that because of that everyone should stand no question. The local Bishop has said that he has not given an exclusion to the school and therefore we must kneel unless our health prevents us. There are many students who still kneel, but those who are highly upset by this attend mass at a neighboring parish.

God bless-
LGLG

[inDEED]

Correct me if I'm wrong...

Can't a Bishop allow for the congregation to stand?

[dUSt]

[quote name='inDEED' date='Jul 1 2005, 03:54 PM']Correct me if I'm wrong...

Can't a Bishop allow for the congregation to stand?
[right][snapback]629524[/snapback][/right][/quote]
They need a permission slip from Rome.

[inDEED]

You're funny looking...not funny...

[Cam42]

[quote name='inDEED' date='Jul 1 2005, 04:54 PM']Correct me if I'm wrong...

Can't a Bishop allow for the congregation to stand?
[right][snapback]629524[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


No.

[Cam42]

[quote name='dUSt' date='Jul 1 2005, 07:17 PM']They need a permission slip from Rome.
[right][snapback]629598[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Even then, no.

[inDEED]

So a Bishop of a particular diocese CANNOT allow for a parish that does not have kneelers to stand during the Consecration?

[Cam42]

No. Every church should have kneelers. If a particular church does not have kneelers or has had them removed, it is an abuse. The bishop should, by virtue of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, require the pastor to return kneelers.

Removal of kneelers is complicit support of an abuse.