This summer's issue of Adoremus Bulletin gives a little glimpse of the g.i.r.m.'s rules on posture of the faithful during Mass. The dialogues of the bishops and the questions they pose, the responses and the changes, the amendments, clarifications,inquiries and dubiums still leave me a little confused, but maybe someone can make some sense of it all.. that is.. if their bishop and pastor give their take on it.

It looks like #43 was amended to say we may sit or kneel while the period of silence after Communion is observed.

You can see for yourself at www.adoremus.org or you can read the instruction of the new Roman missal itself at www.usccb.org/liturgy/current/revmissalisromanien.htm

-- Theresa Huether (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), September 02, 2003

Answers

-- (top@top.top), September 02, 2003.

"The faithful kneel after the Agnus Dei unless the Diocesan Bishop determines otherwise.53"

Interesting. I don't know what my bishop says yet--guess I should find out.

"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."

This is very, very unclear about whether the faithful need to obey the priest even if the priest is incorrect. I know that, intuitively, the answer would be "no", but I don't think it's quite so obvious. Obedience to priests is always an exalted principle, and personal appeal to higher authorities can't always work, especially if its done in a self-righteous and scandalous way.

"as circumstances allow, they may sit or kneel while the period of sacred silence after Communion is observed."

Interesting, especially since by strict order in the Archdiocese of L.A., the faithful are (or were) asked to stand after Communion until everyone has received. I know that Cardinal Mahoney has much confidence in his own authority to adapt liturgy (despite the fact that the GIRM is now very clear that posture adaptations are reserved to the *Council* of Bishops).

---------------------

I have a big complaint against the way our Catholic system of authority works: there is never a clear, morally confident option when our pastors of faith and discipline disagree with themselves. Oh sure, it's hierarchical, so we can always appeal to the 'higher guy' all the way up to the Pope, right? In my experience, not always, because all of those sticky principles of local unity and obedience to local pastors. I guess, (hearkening to the Gospel) whatever one does, one must do so with humility and meekness, keeping in mind that of all the virtues, love is greatest.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), September 02, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Skoobouy.

You began your message by quoting these words from article 43 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal [GIRM]:
"The faithful kneel after the Agnus Dei [Lamb of God] unless the Diocesan Bishop determines otherwise."
Later you added another sentence from the same article:
"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."

I think that, for the purposes of answering some of your comments and helping everyone who reads this thread, it would be good for us all carefully to read the entire article #43, instead of looking at specific sentences outside their context:

"43. The faithful should stand
[a.] from the beginning of the Entrance chant, or while the priest approaches the altar, until the end of the Collect [Opening Prayer];
[b.] for the Alleluia chant before the Gospel;
[c.] while the Gospel itself is proclaimed;
[d.] during the Profession of Faith and the Prayer of the Faithful;
[e.] from the invitation, 'Orate, fratres (Pray, brethren),' before the Prayer over the Offerings until the end of Mass, except at the places indicated below.
"They should, however, sit
while the readings before the Gospel and the responsorial Psalm are proclaimed
and for the homily
and while the Preparation of the Gifts at the Offertory is taking place;
and, as circumstances allow, they may sit or kneel while the period of sacred silence after Communion is observed.
"In the dioceses of the United States of America, they should kneel beginning after the singing or recitation of the Sanctus until after the Amen of the Eucharistic Prayer, except when prevented on occasion by reasons of health, lack of space, the large number of people present, or some other good reason. Those who do not kneel ought to make a profound bow when the priest genuflects after the consecration. The faithful kneel after the Agnus Dei unless the Diocesan Bishop determines otherwise.
"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."

I realize that my "hints" (bold type) have not made clear what I want to communicate, so I'll try to explain ...

(1) Past editions of the GIRM, going back to the first (around 1970) mentioned the "ordinary" posture for universal (Latin) Church during the Eucharistic Prayer -- i.e., standing, except for a minute or two of kneeling during the consecrations. Whenever a bishops' conference agreed to an adaptation (as the U.S. bishops did in 1969), that was noted in an appendix to the GIRM.

(2) In the new (2000) GIRM, though, the local bishops' conferences adaptations are now incorporated into the body of the text, which is very good indeed. Now no one can pretend (as, I have heard, has happened in some dioceses), that it is OK to make an ordinary practice of standing during the Eucharistic Prayer in the U.S.. Article #43 clearly states otherwise now.

(3) The words of #43 make it clear that, "while the period of sacred silence after Communion is observed," standing is the ordinary posture, but that the people "may sit or kneel" instead. This is not something new. The Vatican Congregation overseeing sacred worship had already clarified this in its publication, "Notitiae," in the 1970s, in reply to a question from someone. It is therefore an act of ignorance or disobedience for a bishop to command that all the people stand after they have received Jesus (while others are still waiting to receive).

[I can think of only one situation in which a required standing after reception would make sense. Suppose the people of a parish do not follow the nearly universal custom of going forward one row at a time, but they instead approach the Sacrament in a more haphazard fashion. In such a case, a person who has just received may return to a pew from which not all who wish to receive have yet gone forward. Therefore, such an "early bird" would have to stand (rather than kneel) to allow for the easy egress of those who still need to go forward.]

(4) From the above, it follows that the reference to the "faithful kneel[ing] after the Agnus Dei (unless the Diocesan Bishop determines otherwise)" pertains only to a very brief period of time -- namely, between the end of the "Lamb of God" and the beginning of the faithful's reception of Holy Communion. This statement (new in the 2000 edition of the GIRM) was not included in order to give the bishop control over the faithful's POST-reception posture, but only their PRE-reception posture. Most people don't realize that the prior editions of the GIRM actually told us to remain standing after the "Lamb of God," contrary to the decades-old custom of kneeling until one rose to go forward for Communion. The new GIRM edition now makes it clear that, in the U.S., the normal posture is kneeling, though the local bishop may decide otherwise.

(5) We should not be troubled by the reference to our obligation to "follow the directions which the deacon, lay minister, or priest gives," because those directions must be "according to whatever is indicated in the Missal" (i.e., in agreement with the GIRM or rubrics). [The "rubrics" are fine-print notations, in red ink, interspersed among the Mass prayers being read by the priest. The rubrics supplement (or reiterate bits of) the GIRM, which is published as a complete document in the front of the Sacramentary on the altar.] In keeping with the principle that one has the duty to disobey an improper order, I believe that the faithful must ignore any certainly erroneous order -- for example, to sit during the reading of the Gospel. Instead, I think that we have a right and duty respectfully to point out the leader's mistake.

However, to avoid a potentially unjust disruption of the Mass, perhaps I would obey an apparently erroneous instruction the first time it is given. Then I would do the necessary research to be able to approach the person in error (usually a priest) privately, with printed documentation to support my contention (e.g., a quotation from the GIRM). If I were rejected anyway, I would state that, unless the person can show me his written (Vatican) dispensation from liturgical law, I would have to begin ignoring his erroneous command immediately and would consider notifying the bishop or papal nuncio if he persisted. It's time for people to stop tolerating the mistakes and mischief that has been happening for over 30 years.

The Church's documents make it clear that a bishop's powers are not unlimited -- particularly in the area of the liturgy. With rare exceptions, the legislator is (1) the pope or (2) the bishop's conference (with subsequent Vatican approval). It is wrong for any bishop to "ha[ve] much confidence in his own authority to adapt liturgy". In such a bishop, power has "gone to his head."

I don't make a habit, at this forum, of criticizing specific bishops by name, but if there were ever a bishop needing to be criticized publicly it is Cardinal Roger Mahoney of Los Angeles. Older Catholics know that Pope Paul VI (1963-1978) was poorly advised, in many cases, in his selection of U.S. bishops. I believe that he made a big mistake in naming Fr. Mahoney to be an auxiliary bishop of Fresno in 1975, when the latter was only 38, a priest for only 12 years -- and then bishop of Stockton just five years later. Fr. Mahoney was either not properly educated theologically or not spiritually prepared for so much power, because it seems that he has done nothing but cause trouble since he was elevated to the archepiscopacy of Los Angeles just five years later (1985, at age 49). His presence and antics in Los Angeles have greatly harmed the Church in the U.S. for almost twenty years. I'd say that his greatest failure has been a constant sin of omission -- avoidance of taking those actions that could have educated Californians to vote only for pro-life candidates. But that would be just the top item on a long list of improprieties. And I know of no notably good thing that he has ever done in Los Angeles. If I were pope, I would either require Cardinal Mahoney's resignation or "kick him upstairs" (calling him to the Vatican to do something innocuous for the rest of his life).

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 02, 2003.

JFG,

Thank you for your response, and I do indeed find your approach to resolving a liturgical issue not only right but courageous. Part of the issue with me, I suppose, is that seminarians must tread lightly nowadays. ·_· Power to the lay people.

However, I do believe some moderation should be exercised re: criticizing Cardinal Mahoney. Simply speaking, we don't know what he has done or does. Remember that many apostolic duties are also handled by the regional bishops under Mahoney, and also that much of his work is conducted privately. I mean, hey, we're discovering letters written by Pope Pious XII that noone's seen for six decades; we don't know what's in Mahoney's heart or even what's in his file. Fact is several times he has defended the faith against synchretists (sp?) and curbed the efforts of powerful politically driven quasi-Catholic forces there.

He's written this excellent article against abortion and against pro- abort politicians:

http://www.geocities.com/seapadre_1999/cardinalmahoney.html

As well as this statement:

http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/mahonyelectionltr.htm

He ticked off the democrats by praying for the unborn at their convention:

http://www.geocities.com/seapadre_1999/democrat.html

I know you have a propensity for research; you might find yourself actually impressed with some of the things Mahoney has done for the Church if you bothered to look around on Google. In any case, I consider it wholly unjust to speak of Cardinal Mahoney as if he were a blight on the country. Highly ironic as it is, I think some of the things said about Mahoney come from the same sorts bad publicity that Pious XII received.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), September 02, 2003.

Hi John,

You addressed the following line: >and, as circumstances allow, they may sit or kneel while the period >of sacred silence after Communion is observed. and interpreted it to mean that it's clear that after we (personally) receive the Eucharist we may sit or kneel. While I'm not outright disagreeing with you, I do think the wording as given does not NECESSARILY make that clear. The questions that I've never seen "official" answers to are 1) exactly what constitutes the period of "sacred silence"? and 2) when precisely is "after Communion"?

I've heard it argued that Communion rightly refers not just to each individual receiving the Eucharist, but also the act of the congregation receiving the Eucharist. The argument here is that "after Communion" doesn't happen until the last Communicant has received. In our parish, we are asked to remain standing (reception posture) until all Communicants have received (hence "after Communion"). After all have received the Eucharist, we begin a distinct "period of sacred silence" - during which of course, we are free to sit or kneel.

This practice actually strengthens the "uniformity in gestures and postures" that the GIRM considers praiseworthy.

While I was at first somewhat reluctant to embrace our pastor's (and our bishop's) guidance regarding this standing after I personally had received the Eucharist, I must say that the uniformity of posture *is* a strong symbol of this broader understanding of Communion - without diminishing the more personal implications of receiving the Eucharist. In much the way that identifying myself as part of my family does not diminish my individuality.

As a side note I'll point out that our bishop has since given those who feel strongly about the issue what amounts to permission to kneel immediately after receiving Communion. He did this as a direct result of the Vatican's answer to a query on the subject. The Vatican answer clearly indicated that the GIRM is not intended to prohibit that practice of the faithful. Myself, I wish the Vatican could make it more clear when "during Communion" commences, when "the period of sacred silence" begins.

Any thoughts or clarifications?

-- Greg Adas (gadas@nc.rr.com), September 02, 2003.

I thought the "period of silence" began after the priest sat down, although I think people should respect those who are lost in prayer and still kneeling--to me that is just good manners.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), September 03, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Skoobouy.

Last time, I wrote (concerning Cardinal Mahoney):
"I know of no notably good thing that he has ever done in Los Angeles."

You responded by giving me the URLs of pages showing ... (1) an "excellent article [by the Cardinal] against abortion and against pro-abort politicians" ... (2) a "statement" by the Cardinal about the just-concluded 1998 election ... and (3) an article about how the Cardinal "ticked off the democrats by praying for the unborn at their convention" in 2000.

Thanks for making me aware of these things, Skoobouy. I will no longer be able to say that "I know of no notably good thing that he has ever done in Los Angeles." Nevertheless, I must stand by the criticism I voiced last time, because your three linked Internet pages do not succeed in undoing it. What I said was this:
"I'd say that his greatest failure has been a constant sin of omission -- avoidance of taking those actions that could have educated Californians to vote only for pro-life candidates."
Although the three pages to which you directed me were good actions on the Cardinal's part, in taking those actions he failed to take these courageous steps:
(1) telling his people that they must vote only for pro-lifers (unless forced not to by their total absence),
(2) telling the convention that he would not vote for any pro-death Democrat, and
(3) telling his people that they should join him is leaving the party of abortion on demand.
I don't believe that he has asked Californians to vote ONLY for a pro-life candidate in the coming recall election. These are the reasons for the comment I made last time ("constant sin of omission"). He does only what is "safe" to do, not risky/heroic things that the pope or some martyr-saint would do. (Even what he prayed at the convention was "safe," though unpopular.)

You began your criticism of my comments by saying: "I do believe some moderation should be exercised re: criticizing Cardinal Mahoney. Simply speaking, we don't know what he has done or does."

First, I did exercise "moderation" in my criticism -- despite how strong it was.
Second, if one has been paying sufficient attention to Cardinal Mahoney and for a long enough time, one would know a lot of "what he has done" and failed to do.
Let me elaborate.

On "moderation ..."
I said that I was unaware of his having done anything good in Los Angeles. I didn't say that his whole life was a waste. And I refrained from listing all his public sins (of commission and omission). Thus, I moderated my criticism.
It so happens that I became a big supporter of his in the 1980s, after reading that he had done something very good (pro-life, I think) while Bishop of Stockton. And so, I was very happy when he was appointed to Los Angeles in 1985. But, during the course of several ensuing years, he lost my support by doing (and permitting) one improper thing after another and by failing to do much of the good he could have done.

On "what he has done" and failed to do ...
I can only guess that it is because you are not a native of Los Angeles and because you are very young [22?] -- and thus unaware of many historical facts -- that you were able to say that "we don't know what he has done or does." You are simply wrong about this, and therefore unjust in your criticism. Even since before you were in grade school, I have been reading about the improper things Cardinal Mahoney has done and has permitted others to do. It was not hard to find out about them, because he did them publicly, and they were reported widely. I even witnessed some of them, because he did them on live TV (e.g., at the bishops' conference meetings).

You stated: "Highly ironic as it is, I think some of the things said about Mahoney come from the same sorts of bad publicity that Pius XII received."

This is definitely incorrect. The two men cannot be mentioned in the same sentence. Pope Pius was innocent of all wrongdoing, but has been defamed. The Cardinal is not at all innocent, and he has been (at least the majority of the time) justly criticized. I realize that you may never be convinced of this unless/until you come across a record of the bad things he has done since 1985. As I said, I don't want to publish such a list here. I would rather let you find the information if God allows it to come to your attention elsewhere. I will only ask you to keep an open mind. I realize that you received some of your higher education in or near Los Angeles, so you probably saw the cardinal do some good things (and you may have even met him in person and liked him). Please don't let those facts keep you from evaluating his past actions objectively, if you ever learn about them.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 03, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Greg.

You expressed concern that I may have misinterpreted a part of (new) GIRM article 43 when I stated "that it's clear that after we (personally) receive the Eucharist, we may sit or kneel." You believe that the GIRM text ["they may sit or kneel while the period of sacred silence after Communion is observed"] may allow a bishop to require everyone to stand until all have received.

I agree with you that this is something that could use more official clarification, without which we are left to try to persuade each other. My interpretation was based partly on what I consider common sense and partly on what the Vatican wrote about this subject once in the past.

Concerning common sense, two points:

(a) The distribution of Communion can take five to ten minutes (or more) at heavily attended Masses. I believe that the Church, in writing GIRM 43, had no intention of requiring people who were the first to receive to remain standing (in the front pews -- which often includes the elderly) for five to ten minutes while all others receive. What, I wonder, would people do while standing for five to ten minutes? Stare at everyone else coming up to receive, thus being distracted from the Lord who is within themselves? Or close their eyes and pray? -- in which case they might as well be sitting or kneeling? It just seems to me that there is an absence of common sense in what was implemented at your parish.

(b) The minutes after receiving Jesus are a most sacred moment for people who have genuine faith in the Real Presence. I believe that, for most people, standing (besides being contrary to a lifetime of customary kneeling or sitting) is the least comfortable and spiritually helpful thing to do. I believe that, for most, standing is the posture least conducive to contemplating the mystery in which one is partaking, to adoring and thanking the Lord who is within. I believe that the Church, in writing GIRM 43, had no intention of imposing such discomfort on many people and taking away from them an enhanced opportunity to take part in contemplative prayer.

Concerning what the Vatican wrote in the past ...
The following is taken from the "Notitiae" of the Congregation for Divine Worship, writing in response to a question in 1974. (Note: new GIRM #43 is based on old GIRM #21) ... "[Article] 21. Query 1: After Communion should the faithful be seated or not? Reply: After Communion they may either kneel, stand, or sit. ..."
I believe that the words, "after Communion," are short for "after each has received Communion." Likewise, I have no trouble understanding "the period of sacred silence" to refer to each communicant's time of private, silent prayer and thanksgiving, rather than a time of common silent prayer.

You stated that the alternative interpretation to mine, the practice used at your parish, "... actually strengthens the 'uniformity in gestures and postures' that the GIRM considers praiseworthy." I have always been very pleased that the GIRM encourages "uniformity in gestures and postures" during Mass, because I believe that this is usually something very good for symbolizing our unity of faith. However, it is clear that the Church makes an exception to this "uniformity" after the reception of Communion. If uniformity were always the ideal, the Church would not have allowed people to choose from among standing, sitting, and kneeling -- whichever was personally most beneficial -- during the time of thanksgiving after Communion. The Mass is both a communal and personal act of sacrifice, faith, and worship -- not just a communal one.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 04, 2003.

John,

I apologize if I was harsh. You know what a softy I am. I'm not used to such venom had for anyone (justified or not). I know Cardinal Mahoney has done some pretty, well, stupid stuff. I know he has pretensions to allow liturgical dance in his diocese, which he can't do unless he has some sort of dispensation I don't know about--but I suspect he doesn't. He even had it at an Ordination Mass (I found it ridiculous). I think the then-operating explanation was that one of the new priests was from Africa, where it's allowed. Somehow I don't think that counts. Blah. :)

But your couple of posts have made me, in the words of Alice, "curiouser and curiouser." Nevertheless, as you said, God will inform me about Mahoney as he sees fit--at present it's no business of mine that I know of.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), September 05, 2003.