www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Kneeling Is A Mortal Sin!

Apparently you won't. But you should work on your powers of imagination.

Imagine a BC parish in which a priest is working to restore the practice of standing for Sunday liturgy. Suppose a group - who just wants things kept they way they were when their grandparents were worshipping - organizes to defy, openly, the restoration. How badly would things have to deteriorate for the dispute to reach the local, secular paper? Or some Latin internet forum?

I don't see such rebellion as laudable - and certainly not inherently laudable.

ohhh, just trying to have a little fun...

Good example. I would say, though, that that Byzantine priest has a more legitimate claim than the Bishop of Orange, since he (like the kneelers in the Latin rite) is trying to restore what is traditional to his church and "rite". (And not just what was done 30 or 40 or 100 years ago!).

Again, I don't advocate for kneeling as a principle of adoration within every jurisdiction. Standing is just fine for me as a Byzantine.

On that note, I need to hit the hay (not the kneelers).

good night!

Gordo

What level of legitmacy is grounds for open defiance at the liturgy?

Actually if someone defies some spiritual authority with a spirit of rebellion, even things which are not sinful in themselves can be an act of sinfullness.
You should read your OT where two were condemned for burning incense, a thing which is not sinful in itself, but these two took upon themselves something which was forbidden them.
Stephanos I

Unofficial website for 'St. Mary's by the Sea' - the RC Church in question:

http://home.earthlink.net/~piobair/

-and-

http://home.earthlink.net/~piobair/id1.html

And an article about the current situation from the 'Los Angeles Lay Catholic Mission' website:

http://www.losangelesmission.com/ed/articles/2006/0605rk.htm


~Isaac

Dear All

I love the Byzantine Forum because issues are discussed with such insight, intelligence and charity.
This thread has been a regrettable exception, characterised instead by hobbyhorsing, schadenfreude and protolithoballistics.

May I humbly suggest that the key issues are the following:
Does the local Ordinary have the authority to specify Liturgical Posture or not?
a). If he does then the Laity should follow his instructions in filial piety. If they are unhappy about his decision they can appeal to him to review it. They should do so with respect and charity. If he maintains his position they should follow his instructions in filial piety, remembering their duty of obedience to the head of the local church.
b). If he does not have the authority in this matter his brother bishops can offer fraternal correction and remind him of the limits of his powers.

Does the Parish Priest have a duty to implement the norms established by the Bishop?
Well, clearly there is no point in having norms which are not implemented, whether we are talking about Liturgy or traffic laws.

As to whether all this has been done charitably and wisely, it seems not. But then the �kneeling is a mortal sin� remark attributed to Fr Tran comes from a newspaper. It is safe to assume that it is quoted out of context and that a good headline is not to be spoiled by considerations of fairness or factual accuracy, much less an interest in defusing an unholy row.

Having read the report, I tentatively reconstruct events along these lines:
This refusal to accept the pastoral instruction on standing/kneeling is a symptom of a general rebellion on the part of some individuals and groups. I have no direct knowledge of the situation in the United States, but even here in Scotland there are groups who reject the authority of their priests, their bishops, the Pope and the Second Vatican Council, having the infernal gall to claim simultaneously that they are better or more �traditional� catholics than everybody else.
These quasi-schismatic groups are generally characterised by the use of the �tridentine� form of the mass as a sort of shibboleth. It seems from the report as if Fr Tran, presumably with the approval of his bishop, took away from such a group in his parish their tridentine mass. If my reconstruction is correct, the kneeling is more of a protest than a devotion.

It is extremely sad that matters have deteriorated to such an extent in this unfortunate parish, and the appropriate reaction would surely be to pray the Holy Spirit for healing and enlightenment, rather than taking sides and adding our own prejudices to an inflamed situation.


God bless you all

Father Stephanos,

Christ is Risen!

I believe that you are referring to the rebellion of Korah, Dathan and Abiram in Numbers 16. This is one of my favorite stories in the Old Testament. The issue is that some of the Israelites have not acccepted the fact that, since the "defrocking" of all the tribes execept for Levi after the Golden Calf incident (with the slaying of the firstborn sons), the priesthood is now no longer a function of every tribe. These three leaders of a rebellion contest the Lord's will in this regard and presume to take upon themselves a priestly function (the burning of incense). The consequences are, of course, fatal for 250 Israelites and their households.

Surely the act of the Israelites in question here is one of rebellion. But the rebellion is one in which they presume to take upon themselves the priestly activities not intrinsic their ordo. (Sound familiar? I think some of the liturgical committees in the West would see Korah and his crew in a much more sympathetic light!)

The laos - the people - have specific roles to play in worship, including (but not limited to) the "Amen" and praise and adoration. Traditionally, adoration in the Latin tradition is expressed while kneeling. Kneeling is an act proper to the ordo of the laity at specific points as outlined by the GIRM. Based on the facts that we know, the Bishop and the pastor have authorized something that is:

a. Contrary to the directives of their Patriarch who is the one chiefly responsible for the governance of the rite.

b. Contrary to the ethos of a parish that at one point in the recent past offered the Tridentine liturgy

To chalk this up to a rebellion of the people against the Bishop and the priest is to miss the true rebellion going on. The laity are acting in a way that is in keeping with their ordo as defined by the Latin tradition. In their mind (and according to tradition), they are being asked to assume a priestly posture during the Words of Institution, which would be wrong. In the East, that is appropriate. In the West, it contravenes tradition.

Are we then to assume that the Bishop has mandated standing for his whole diocese?

Doubtful...perhaps a better reconstruction is that the new priest who was assigned to St. Mary's has a new vision he wants dogmatically imposed without question, so he refuses to celebrate the Traditional Mass despite the parish's history and the attachment of many within his community to it so that these trads will "Rome" elsewhere. But maybe people don't want to be forced to leave their parish home because Father Tran isn't comfortable with traditional worship? So they express their worship in full conformity to the GIRM, even though Father Tran apparently - don't want to be rash here and assume that the reporter got it wrong...maybe he said it was a venial sin? - has his hangups and wants to monkey with the rite. So the Bishop stands by his appointee and his demands for "obedience to disobedience".

So, to highlanders point (whether he thinks this is intelligent conversation or not), the question is around the exact nature of a bishop's authority in these matters. I think Pavel has demonstrated that, if all the facts are as portrayed, the Bishop of Orange has exceeded his authority as has the pastor. The pastor all the more so since he is trying to shame certain members of his flock into compliance.

What if an Orthodox priest demanded that his flock face the West end (liturgically speaking) of the nave during Divine Liturgy, characterized all who face the East towards the altar as "rebellious" and "in danger of being excluded from the Chalice" and the Bishop backed him? Would there be any question as to the direction of this conversation?

So why are we so willing to accept the intransigence and rebellion of a Latin ordinary and his priest to a holy tradition in the West? And so that there is no doubt as to the importance of kneeling in the Latin tradition, even the DEACON is directed to kneel at the Words of Institution! I personally think that is excessive, but then again, I am Byzantine!

Gordo

I think a major issue in reforming the liturgy is the pastoral care of the faithful.

Reforming liturgy is, obviously, an emotional and potentially divisive undertaking. That is because liturgy so important to people, because it so important in defining the core of their relationship to God and their own religious identity.

To make any changes in what is most important to people requires patience and charity -- as well as firmness. That is so because people need time to grow in accepting and appreciating the changes that are being made and to prepare them for further changes. This can be seen in any area of reform -- reform of personal habits, reform of morals, reform of politics or customs, and (especially) in reform of religion. Total change of core behaviors rarely happens overnight; and if it is attempted, there is usually resistance. It's natural to human psychology. So, the key to inducing change with co-operation (and not coercion) is to take time and patience and gentleness, as well as firmness, in order to allow people to grow into these changes.

So if reforming the liturgy is deemed necessary, then it must be undertaken firmly but gently: as pastors who are leading their flock closer to Christ.

The Eastern Catholic Churches have faced this challenge in seeking to implement the call of Vatican II and subsequent popes to return to Orthodox praxis. The most successful examples are not necessarily the ones that meet the change overnight but, instead, who take steps in a gradual and encouraging way. They lead the people step by step: keeping one foot in the known and familiar, and the other foot in the unknown and unfamiliar, giving people time to grow into that new step before taking the next step.

In contrast, one of the major problems in the Latin Church is that so many changes to the liturgy were implemented after Vatican II without adequate catechesis and without adequate time to allow the people to absorb and integrate those changes.

This case, from Orange, California, seems to be an example of a lack of pastoral care in implementing changes to the Divine Liturgy. Did the bishop have the authority to make this change? Yes: the Vatican said that Latin Rite bishops could decide if their people would stand or kneel during the Eucharistic portion of the Mass. Did the bishop make the right decision ? I don't know; I'm not the bishop, but I have to give him the benefit of the doubt because he is the bishop. But, was this the right way to implement this decision? At a parish which, heretofore, had still been celebrating Mass in Latin ? I think a more gradual and permissive attitude, to ease this change into acceptance and practice, would probably have been wiser. Now, the situation has polarized and hardened into "us versus them," "liberal versus heretic," "authority versus rebellion" and so on. It's now going to take humility and repentance on both sides to clean up this mess, let alone to implement the change in the liturgy that was originally ordained.

-- John

Agreed. But a change in the posture from kneeling to standing is not a "reform"...it is a contravention according to the Latin rite.

I agree wholeheartedly, but would add that some of the changes that were (are being) made are contrary to the spirit and form of the ritual tradition of the Latin West. It is not just always a matter being pastoral about the changes: sometimes it is an issue of the essence of the changes themselves. Postures and practices have meaning, and it is not always just sentimentality or psychological imprinting that creates attachment to them on the part of the faithful. Rather, it is the fact that these signs are integral to the spiritual "worldview" of the whole tradition.

This contradicts Pavel's assessment. Do you have a text that supports this? I'll agree if you can direct me to a citation. And if so, then I think the bishop should keep it consistent throught his entire local church - not just the a few parishes here and there. If the Bishop has the authorization from Rome to do so, he should make the change and catechize the faithful.

I agree, except who "ordained" the change? And were they really authorized to do so? The Bishop is the steward of the worship of the faithful, not the "owner". He has an obligation to hand on faithfully that which was passed on to him in his temporary role as pastor to the local church...in this case, the local church of Orange. The adoption of outside forms or the adaptations of existing forms of worship or postures within worship which are contrary to the Latin tradtions are suspect at best. (Certain missionary accomodations are exceptions...unless they are contrary to the faith.) It reminds me of a priest I saw in the Maronite church who made his congregation start saying 'Lord, I am not worthy to recieve you, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed." before communion. It is no doubt a beautiful prayer, but it is a prayer of a different tradition. If the priest wants to add it to his own private prayers, that is fine. (I know some Latin clergy who use the Maronite prayer to the altar concluding the liturgy...) But to demand compliance on the part of the faithful in this regard is out of line.

That is the crux of the issue.

God bless,

Gordo

So you decided to drop a bomb of your own :p Good thing we do not demand consistency of ourselves and others.

The difficulty with taking the particular high road that you take in your note, saying that the people must be obedient to legitimate authority, is the fact that the people know that the bishops in the United States are not obedient to legitimate authority and are not particularly good shepherds at the moment. So many are taking an active stand against those bishops who would thumb their noses at Rome and go about continuing to tear down the old and replace it with the new.

Now in the universal Church the collective priesthood of the people not only have a right to that action, they have a duty when they are striving to retain a real piety and reverence in their worship according to the historical lights of their rite.

Eli

I really would like to see something from the Diocese on this. So far nothing has been presented from thier side. We are really getting wound up over just one side's presentation.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Highlander,

Great question!

Here is the crux, ISTM. The Pavlovian response to these disputes: the Bishops are bad. While, on page four of the thread, the question of the Bishop's proper authority is still looming as a "great question". :rolleyes:

I don't think the question is about obedience. Clearly these people are disobedient to their Priest and Bishop. The question is whether or not disobedience to the Priest/Bishop on liturgical posture constitutes a mortal sin.

I think the answer is very clear NO !

The local ordinary according to canon law codes, east and west, has so much authority and the power to exercise it that it would take human perfection to exercise it justly and for the best interests of the people and the greater honor and glory of God. I am not the one who has suggested this. Canonists of the western Church have.

There are literally no enforceable constraints against a bishop that can be exercised without that bishops expressed permission.

Do you realize that if you write to a so-called higher authority in the Church about a bishop either because they are in direct disobedience to legitimate authority, or are engaging in objectively sinful behavior, that letter will immediately be sent to the bishop in question and he will be ordered to take action? What sort of action do you think he will take?

All of these discussions are ignoring vital contextual and juridical concerns.

The diocese of Orange is known to be under the hand of one of the most heterodox bishops in the United States.

The discipline for standing on Sunday, for example, is predicated on the fact that every Sunday is a celebration of the Resurrection and therefore kneeling, as a penetential act, is not good symbolism.

This is an old idea predicated on the presumption of an ecclisiastical reality where people actually were penitent at other times of the week an in the liturgical year. That is no longer so in the Latin rite in the United States. So I believe that is a strong consideration in whether or not to enforce a symbolism that has no meaning in the first place for there is no praxis that currently distinguishes penetence from exaultation.

Furthermore most of the contested liturgical changes in the Novus Ordo were never mandated in council at all and so to suggest that resistance is open disobedience to the authority of the council or the universal mind of the Church is false.

So if a body of people in the Body of Christ wish to show reverence in Eucharistic adoration on their knees, particularly if they can demonstrate to themselves and others that they know the difference between reverence and penance, then perhaps it would not be such a bad thing after all in light of the entire picture and not just some juridical approach of obedience or disobedience.

If the case can be made that the people are sinning, it surely can be made that heterodox bishops are sinning.

Eli