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

Father Anthony,

Correct, the LA times was the only source of the article. But the times did quote from another priest Father Joe Fenton, spokesman for the Diocese of Orange.

Father Joe was quoted as saying,
So, here we have two priest one stating it's a mortal sin and another supporting the former.

If this is all misreporting by the media then the issue is mute. With all the crazyness going on in the RCC it is not difficult to believe this story. Many clergy have lost all credibility within the Church to begin with (i.e. abuse scandal), so its not a stretch to want to believe the media before these clergy memebers.

Unfortunatley we only have the laity to recruit from for the clergy. So Ray what does that say about the state of play among the ranks of the laity.

Please, Ray. What is "it"? Father Fenton, like Father Tran, talked about the flagrant disobedience as sinful - as already clear from your own post on page one.

This disobedience was organized and persistent. It involved the circulation of as many as nineteen "flyers" that included allegedly false information against the new parish priest.

You have rightfully said that it would be absurd for someone to consider kneeling per se as mortal sin. Please stop trying to imply that others hold that absurd view - whatever it is that you "want to believe".

After having watched and taught and lived in the Church, Catholic, east and west, for many years I have come to the conclusion that the moment we look at a situation, concerning disciplines and doctrine, that is tearing the Church apart and polarize that situation into a binary set of arguments, or appeal to law that is of human origin, then we've thrown away the pastoral opportunity to place Christ and the Gospels and the Kingdom at the Center of our thinking at which point we are lost till we bring it back.

There are many kinds of issues involved here in this little tsimis over kneeling or standing. For example in parishes that are so large as to require multiple liturgies on a Sunday, each liturgy comes over time to constitute a micro-parish within a parish. Therefore it does not take a degree in rocket science or crow pathology to determine that in the parish in question there are a large number of Tridentine Catholics, for lack of a better word. They are not nascent, they are fully formed and in need of spiritual nourishment.

It should occur to somebody to ask why there was no provision in this parish for those people, when the Vatican, for decades, has plainly and loudly appealed to American bishops in the Latin rite to provide Latin masses for those who did not leave the Church when their traditional mass was ripped out from under them along with many other things that separated them from the expression of their faith, but who still wish to retain that tradition. That desire is clearly within the letter of the documents from the Second Vatican Council.

Rather, in this case, there seems to be a desire to rid the parish of that "element" and usher in a new era of enforcing local changes to the Novus Ordo.

Now that is interesting to me at several levels.

One I know that there are many people who are perfectly content to worship through the Novus Ordo but who would also greatly desire to see a return to the reverential and devotional life of the pre-Vatican II Church in the United States. So there is no great difference between those who wish the old Latin mass, and those content with the new English mass when it comes to devotion and reverence. They are perfectly happy to cooperate.

The other thing I think of here is that the Vatican is about to come down on the current translation of the mass, and to forbid the use of the widely used and forbidden Canadian Lectionary.

What better time for the American Church to ramp up her efforts to press heterodox teaching and to insist upon full liturgical control without any regard for the spiritual lives of the people in the pews?

Are these things a matter of law or are they a matter for pastoral sensitivity?

Should the law be used to promote heterodox teaching by first forcefully suppressing orthodox praxis and teaching?

Churchmen in the Latin rite would never have been able to exercise and promote their sexual sin and excess had they not first been allowed to use the law which offered bishops even more absolutly absolute power to further their sinful ends.

If you think these things are irrelevent to eastern Catholics or to the interaction between Orthodox Catholics and the west, then there's much more work to be done than I already feared, and we are working blind.

PS: I agree with the statement made elsewhere about Father Anthony's depth of charity and commitment to union, and I am grateful to him.

Eli

DEar Eli,

I still don't see the relevance of the significant things you have to say above for Eastern Catholics/Orthodox with respect to their liturgical praxis.

Perhaps you do not wish to admit that the Latin West is in a state of liturgical/faith crisis of its own making - perhaps I'm misreading you.

But it is precisely that mess that led me to move away from a "Latinized" form of Eastern Catholicism to embrace "Orthodoxy in communion with Rome."

Rome has the Petrine Primacy that truly has a place in a future reunited Church.

But Rome is its own worst enemy with respect to the issues touched upon in this unfortunate thread.

It is something that belongs squarely in the Latin Catholic court for the Latin Catholic Church to deal with - and anything we EC's or Orthodox can say from OUR spiritual/ecclesial vantage point on this matter will undoubtedly be interpreted, at worst, as "Latin-bashing."

And I've no wish to do that or otherwise offend my college, Davd the Byzantine Carmelite!

If anything, this thread has brought home to me how much Rome needs to return to the liturgical/faith praxis of the Church of the first millennium. There was nothing I learned about Western liturgical praxis here that made me think positive things about the Roman Catholic Church. And that is a shame.

(And I'll thank you, in responding, not to chastise me for how I approach issues, as if I were a child. That kind of response from you is not only unworthy of one so erudite, learned and experienced in matters religious/spiritual, but it is also disrespectful of me who has likewise spent many years studying these matters from the perspective of a post-graduate level).

Thank you!

Alex

My apologies to all in advance, but I fear that I must protest this publicly. I have no idea what this is in reference to, and I categorically deny the charge of disrespect for Dr. Roman.

I am sorry that I have engaged your messages directly at all now, and will not do so ever again after this final note.

I will engage your assertions if it seems necessary but will do my best to do so from here on out from a safe distance, if there is such a thing with you. We shall see.

I do not know you well enough to disrespect you Dr. Roman. And now I have no desire to get to know you. You are a dangerous oponent on the field of ideas, and I am not here to fight. I don't have that kind of time left in my life.

Eli

Ray, I dunno, this just sounds like kooky left coast stuff to me (giggle) - a priest saying kneeling is a sin does not make it a sin. Even being disobedient in kneeling would not make it a sin if the purpose of kneeling would be to show awe, respect, of God and the Eucharist. What is the real story, in digestible, distilled sound bites?

Disregard - I found the post with the rest of the story.

Part of the problem with discussing this story is that there is much more to it all than is reported in this one article. The problems in this parish are much deeper than just the issue of kneeling.

To truly comment upon this situation one needs more knowledge than what is stated in the article. There is blame enough for both sides of the issue and speculating on it in a forum in this manner is really nothing more than engaging in idle gossip.

Carole

Dear Eli,

Then I apologise to you and ask you to forgive me a sinner. In some of your earlier posts to me, I thought you were speaking down to me. Not that you don't have a right to . . .

Sorry about that, chief . . . I'm not having a good morning . . .

Alex

No need to apologize, though I accept all and harbor no ill will.

Please understand that I have already been accused on this Forum and been directly approached by the owner of the Forum and accused, with some severe verbal force, of uncharity, even though I said that I harbored no lack of charity to anyone.

I work in the real of ideas. I do not do well in the realm of personalities unless I am in prayer to my Lord and Savior and then I have no fear.

In that light I will not shun you, but will make a greater effort to keep a distance, as I said earlier, so as not to keep running up against your bad days and the wrath of the owner of the Forum.

Eli

Dear Eli,

No need to keep your distance, Brother, as it is all my fault!!

I sometimes read into things - the Administrator knows me best of all!

The Administrator and I got along famously, we still do I believe ( ), but at one point, I actually called him a name not worthy of a Christian and gave him grave offense.

And I'm overly sensitive. At my last place of work, I took a lot of nonsense from an employer whom I thought was my friend. He was trying to get rid of me so he could hire the son of a wealthy acquaintance . . .

I took as much as I could, then I exploded, resigned and haven't spoken to him since - and never will since he tried to harm me after ten years of loyal service on my part.

Perhaps I shouldn't have responded that way. I did write to him to ask his pardon for anything that was my fault.

BTW, that son of the wealthy fellow has just resigned and left my former employer. I understand he couldn't leave fast enough!

I like to think that that exonerates me as being a usually agreeable fellow!

Anyway, I ask for your pardon and if anyone ever gives you a hard time here again - let me know!!

Alex

Brother Eli understands the root of the problem...and many here don't...how long was this a Indult Tridentine Parish ? Why not compromise and have both ? It is well known that in So. Cal there is little compassion for those who prefer the older rite...they make it difficult and impossible to attend.

Ah yes the obedience to the Bishop...are they obedient to the guidelines and wishes stated/issued from Rome concerning liturgical practices and comform ?

My friends, respect is earned not given, it is clear that compassion and charity is limited to a certain few...

I have no more to say on this issue here...

PAX
james

here is a link to the Church from a parish member & pics


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

Carole,

You are most likely correct. There is probably a lot more to this story. But I still think if a priest said it is a mortal sin to kneel then that priest should be discipline.

_____________________________________

On a side note:

Here is a letter sent to the Vatican by Robert & Valeria Carmody both parishioners of the St. Mary by the Sea. These parishioners both claim that Father Tran told them it was a "Mortal Sin" to kneel after the Agnus Dei.

The letter then goes on to claim that Father Tran politely asked the parishioners to leave St. Mary's By The Sea.

I am not stating who has the correct version of the story but I would not rule out the possibility that this Priest said one thing and then changed his story later on.


Apostolic Nuncio - Regarding Kneeling [photos1.blogger.com]

Ray,

I'm not disputing that the priest may indeed have said that. Now whether he meant that the posture of kneeling itself is a mortal sin or that disobedience to the dictates of the Bishop (on an issue in which the GIRM clearly states he has the authority to determine the norm) is a mortal sin is debatable. And without the priest, the Bishop or any members of the parish (on either side of the argument) here to defend themselves what we are doing here is engaging in idle speculation and gossip based on the reports in the secular media (a source not known for its objectivity or keen understanding of Christianity in general and the Catholic Church specifically).

I have a close friend whose sister is a member of that parish (one of the "traditional Catholics" who feels disenfranchised by the loss of the TLM at this parish) and while I am not familiar with the whole of the situation I do know that it is far more involved than this overly simplistic article would lead people to believe.

I think the best thing we can do is pray for all involved as this is a very complicated, difficult and sad state of affairs for all concerned.

In Christ,

Carole