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

Dear Ray,

Our faithful are indeed obedient to the universal Church and the hierarchy.

They are against "Orthodoxizations" of their traditions precisely because, historically, the stripping away of their "Latin" devotions by the Russian Orthodox and the "Easternized" clergy that served as their agents was always a prelude to an imposed "return to Orthodoxy" and severing of the ties with Rome.

That is my point precisely and I thank you for helping me make myself clearer, as I trust.

Your servant, kind sir,

Alex

I think that one of the key questions raised by this thread is just what is it that one can justly do, as a layperson, if there are actions taken by the clergy or the bishop in a diocese where the spiritual lives of the people become secondary to the imposition of a discipline whose very rationale makes no sense in light of immediate circumstances: where the best spiritual interests of the people take a back seat to a disciplinary rule.

Eli

Almost. I think that one of the key questions raised by this thread is just what is it that one can justly do, as a layperson, if there are actions taken by the clergy or the bishop that are viewed as inhibiting the spiritual enrichment of certain groups within the laity. This is an interesting question worth pursuing. I think it is also interesting to think about the value of unity and treasure of diversity. On both issues reasonable people may disagree; perhaps they can also agree to disagree reasonably. But this:

is argumentative and asserts facts not in evidence. Maybe it's true, but the onus is on those making such charges to prove them.

Alex, it's very nice, among so much unrooted private judgment, to come across a fellow EC who shows a bit of what it means to belong to a church.

How does one "prove" a spiritual good or lack or loss thereof? That's all part of the set of situational questions.

Of course we also need to examine, in light of the particulars in this thread, whether or not opposition, and in particular, opposition to legitimate authority, or as you say "argument", is inherently evil?

What is the eccliastical nature of episcopal authority? What is the spiritual nature of episcopal authority?

What are the practical and pastoral implications of authority and responsibility for a bishop?

What happens when a bishop or pastor refuse to listen or hear people when they say that a discipline is starving them spiritually?: going back to the question of how do you "prove" a spiritual lack or loss?

Eli

There are difficulties in these questions beyond my misspelling of ecclisiastical. It would probably be better to ask about the disciplinary nature of episcopal authority, rather than using ecclisiastical to mean "administrative" as it does in my use of it above.

So allow me to ask instead about the disciplinary nature of episcopal authority if it is drawn, by circumstance, into opposition with pastoral responsibility.

Eli

Eli, You have asserted, pertinent to this thread, that "the spiritual lives of the people become secondary to the imposition of a discipline" and that "the best spiritual interests of the people take a back seat to a disciplinary rule." This is a serious charge to make; you should endeavor to support it seriously before making it.

Not really. I have already stipulated that acts of opposition are not
inherently evil and that what is in the heart is important. There are some clues about this in what has been linked.

Certainly it is very difficult to differentiate, remotely, real loss and spiritual hardship from hard-hearted self-indulgence. Perhaps, I think of the hardships faced by my immigrant ancestors and by those who stayed behind as my barometers of hardship. Maybe everything else seems self-indulgent in comparison.

In case you've missed it, I am speaking without direct reference to any particular circumstance at the moment. I am offering hypotheticals for consideration.

Certainly there are any number of circumstances one can think of east and west over the past fifty years where the disciplinary authority of a bishop collided with the spiritual needs or desires of laity. Pick one. Any one. And then apply some of my questions.

You don't even really need to discuss any particulars if you choose not to. Or you may if you choose to do so.

I do not propose an exercise in accusations. I was only making an effort to stimulate thinking, not argument and accusation.

Perhaps some of the others will engage the question. Perhaps not. I had better wait for that don't you think. You and I aren't doing very well here to advance the discussion.

Eli

I have to agree with EliToft's last statement. It seems that the discussion is getting bogged down on this one point with little break through in sight. Perhaps we can leave this point for another question thread in either East-N-West or in Faith and Worship and revisit it again.

I also think it would not be wise to bring in other specific circumstances at the moment.

I would like to see if this thread can advance on a little.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator/Moderator

Dear All,
you may be interested in the following reply (from Zenit) to a query on a different but similar event:

Code: ZE05071921

Date: 2005-07-19

Obedience to a Priest

ROME, JULY 19, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.

Q: In a certain church in New York state a priest told parishioners they could not kneel during the consecration. He also told them they could not say the rosary in front of the Blessed Sacrament. The question we have concerns obedience. Are the laity obligated to obey a priest when it comes to liturgical practices or devotional practices? Is it a sin not to obey the orders of the priest? -- M.A.E., Rochester, New York

A: There are several questions here and several levels of obedience.

First of all, both priest and faithful owe obedience to Christ and his Church in matters of faith, morals and liturgical discipline.

Neither the priest nor the faithful are lords and masters of the liturgy but must receive it as a gift through which, by actively and consciously participating, they enter into communion with Christ and the Church, and benefit from an increase of grace.

This fundamental obedience of the assembly to Christ and the Church is the basis for the other forms of mutual obedience within the assembly. In a way, the priest owes obedience to the faithful in that he has a solemn mission to lead them in prayer and worship according to the mind of the Church. And the faithful have a corresponding right and duty to pray and worship in communion with the universal Church.

This also leads to a proper understanding of the faithful's obedience to their pastors. They should be docile in accepting his guidance in all that touches on the mind of the Church.

Thus, with respect to the liturgy, the priest is called to direct the faithful in the Church's liturgical worship. The faithful, in turn, have an obligation to obey him insofar as his direction corresponds to Church's mind as expressed in the liturgical books or in the dispositions of legitimate Church authority.

With respect to acts of private devotion, the priest, as teacher, is called to guide the faithful to a solid spiritual life. In this he may sometimes be required to warn them against certain devotional practices that deviate from sound doctrine or that are prone to confuse his flock regarding the priority of the sacramental life.

In some grave cases the priest might even have to forbid the use of the church as a venue for public manifestations of problematic devotions. In carrying out these actions he must always be guided by sound Church doctrine and not his personal spiritual preferences.

As said, the obedience of the faithful to the priest is in virtue of communion with the Church and consequently they have no obligation to obey a priest who directs them to perform or omit acts contrary to Church norms, because in doing so he fails to fulfill his mission of leading in communion.

The faithful are also free to practice any devotional exercise that is in conformity with sound doctrine and Church norms.

However, the faithful should always have a presumption in favor of the correctness of the priest's directives in liturgical or spiritual matters and should avoid the danger of allowing suspicion to reign in their spiritual lives. If they have a positive doubt regarding any specific issue, the initial attitude should always be one of a charitable dialogue in search of mutual understanding.

Certainly, and not only in the developed world, the days are past when a priest was the exclusive source of doctrinal information. Today, most educated Catholics can find out for themselves what the Church teaches or regulates on any topic.

Yet this extra knowledge should be an aid to mutual understanding rather than a weapon of discordance and the attitude should always be one of construction rather than confrontation.

Sometimes an apparently erroneous directive may be justified by contextual circumstances not readily perceivable and in an attitude of mutual charity the priest should be willing to explain the motivations behind his actions and the faithful be disposed to weigh carefully what he has to say.

If necessary, all should be willing to ask the bishop clarify the situation. To some this might seem overly optimistic, but as the ancient hymn reminds us, "Ubi caritas est vera, Deus ibi est" -- Where true charity and love are found, there is God.

Now, alas, we have to come to the nitty-gritty of the first part of the question.
The directive issued by the priest not to kneel during the consecration is erroneous if taken as a general rule. The norms for kneeling in the United States are stated in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, No. 43:

"In the dioceses of the United States of America, they (The faithful) 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."

The debate in the bishops' conference leading up to the formulation of this adaptation, especially with the insertion of the expression "on occasion," made it clear that the bishops desired to prevent the exception from becoming a blanket permission to abolish kneeling.

Thus, unless some particular good reason led the priest to indicate to the people that they not kneel on that occasion, and especially if he indicated a stable norm for the parish, then he was going beyond his authority.

Similarly, there is no law forbidding the rosary before the Blessed Sacrament. Indeed, the Holy See specifically permitted it in an official response to a doubt, published Jan. 15, 1997.

The document did state that the Blessed Sacrament should not be exposed just to pray the rosary. But it allowed the rosary to be among the prayers carried out during adoration.

While there is no prohibition in principle, one could surmise that specific circumstances might arise that would induce a pastor not to allow public recitation of the rosary before the Blessed Sacrament. In such (supposedly rare) occurrences he would be acting within his rights and duties as spiritual guide.

He would have no authority, however, to forbid the faithful from praying the rosary privately before the Blessed Sacrament.

* * *

Good thinking Highlander!

I am surprised that this Q.& A. service on Zenit has not been used by the RC Americans here who are affected by this first hand. It would help clear up things possibly once and for all for them.

Do you mind if I ask whether you find all vernacular liturgies "problematic", or is this something specific to the English language?
(Just curious)

This is precisely what I was hoping to see discussed here yesterday. What Father says here concerning the pastor or parish priest's duties and responsibilities, as well as his authority to command obedience, is equally true in the episcopal context. In fact the responsibility increases with the greater grace of episcopal elevation.
________________________

Also it seems to me that in the particular context of the parish with the Tridentine population there is a clear mandate of understanding from Rome to the bishops of the world which recognizes the needs of the faithful of the Latin rite who are better fed with older practices and disciplines and liturgies than they are with the new. As I said before this memo of understanding encourages local ordinaries to make the Latin mass,available to the people.

That seems to fit rather nicely with Father's circumspect response to questions of obedience, duty and responsibility referenced above.

Eli

It seems to me that the people of the parish in question seem to know the mind of the Church very well with respect to their own circumstance. They don't need an academic response. They need a plan of action and a way to address the bishop so that they can get for their spiritual well being that which the Church has promised to them.

Eli

I dont agree or we would not be on page 12 of postings. Matters would have been all cleared up by page 2 and this thread would be closed off and people would have moved on to other topics.

The RCs judging from the postings are not clear about the original issue. The Zenit service would serve to do two things, one inform others in the Catholic world of the issue and also to give a clear response on just what is ok or not in terms of standing etc.