I cringe at the thought that this might come off like some of the nitpicking, but it is something I noticed and wanted to ask about. I am not trying to attack, but to understand.

Throughout the RDL book, the liturgical posture is placed in a box with an explanation sentence around it.


However, the communion posture after the One is Holy (where several parishes kneel) is not worded or styled in the same way.


The intention seems to be an explanation but not a directive. I am wondering what the intention was in the choice of wording and formatting. Was it intended to have them stand, or to explain to them why we stand while allowing for pastoral choice in whether or not to stand? Any guidance from those who might know, such as Fr. David?

Dear Wondering,

I would defer to any of our clergy who care to comment of course, but your explanation is how it was explained to use at the workshops on the new Liturgy text. Our old books directed kneeling at verious points - a practice which was seem as VERY traditionally "Greek Catholic." The bishops seem to want to raise awareness of the issue, without forcing any particular parish to chance its practice right away. As our administrator has pointed out, prudence sometimes calls for slow changes on customs such as this.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Agreed. Dispose of one pew every week.

But sweeping mandated changes when it comes to inclusive language.

One thing we always seem to tell visitors is that the Eastern parishes are more understanding of personal rubrics during a liturgy. By that it isn't, "did I forget to kneel, or stand at the right time?" It is seemingly that we should sit if we have to, kneel if we want, prostrate fully if we can...." The rubric hit squad isn't going to descend down upon your parish if you forget to kneel when the pew book tells you so.

How very true. We do what we are able. It is the same with fasting. We fast as we are able--an elderly sick individual or a pregnant woman is not going to observe a strict fast.

But I believe the original poster is asking something else here--something that I have noticed also. Why are there areas where we are being instructed to be in a certain posture, but other places where it is a sort of statement or observation. I know this was answered by Jeff, but I would love to see it addressed by someone from the Liturgical committee. I see it as a cause for even more confusion than we already have. Our pastor instructed the parish to continue to kneel as we have always done--for the sake of community--so that some people are not kneeling while others are standing (I would prefer to stand). It is yet one more example where I believe this "new translation" has divided the Ruthenian Catholic Church.

R

Snicker-snicker. I would be pleased indeed. One reason I love Great Lent is that we remove all the chairs for all the services except Divine Liturgy on Sunday. For all the other services -- Akathist, Vespers, Presanctified, Saturday Divine Liturgy, Great Compline -- only a handful of chairs remain and the space is wide open to allow parishioners to follow (and participate in) the action of the service.

At any rate, I tell guests to our parish that "it's always correct to stand, but there are some times when you are allowed to sit."

I like that wording!

Thank you Jeff and everyone else for the explanation and the real-life example of its implementation.