The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionPapal liturgist endorses 'reform of the reform'
Cites 'the necessity of a new liturgical renewal'
Jan. 07, 2010
Msgr. Guido Marini, papal master of ceremonies, places a zucchetto on Pope Benedict XVI's head during a Mass at the Vatican last year. (CNS/Reuters)
VATICAN CITY -- The pope's chief liturgist, Msgr. Guido Marini, endorsed calls in the church for a "reform of the reform" of Catholic liturgy.
"For some years now, several voices have been heard within church circles talking about the necessity of a new liturgical renewal," Marini said.
A fresh renewal movement would be "capable of operating a reform of the reform, or rather, move one more step ahead in understanding the authentic spirit of the liturgy and its celebration," he said.
Marini, who has served as master of papal liturgical ceremonies since late 2007, spoke Jan. 6 to a conference of priests from English-speaking countries gathered in Rome to mark the Year for Priests. The conference was sponsored by the Australian Confraternity of Catholic Clergy and the U.S.- based Confraternity of Catholic Clergy.
The papal liturgist said the goal of the new reform movement "would be to carry on that providential reform of the liturgy that the conciliar fathers had launched" but which has "not always, in its practical implementation, found a timely and happy fulfillment."
Marini stressed that the liturgy celebrated by the church should be marked by historical continuity.
"I purposefully use the word continuity, a word very dear to our present Holy Father," Marini said. "He has made it the only authoritative criterion whereby one can correctly interpret the life of the church."
Marini said that an appreciation of continuity would help bring together divergent schools of thought regarding the liturgy.
"The liturgy cannot and must not be an opportunity for conflict between those who find good only in that which came before us, and those who, on the contrary, almost always find wrong in what came before," he said.
The way forward for any liturgical renewal is "to regard both the present and the past liturgy of the church as one patrimony in continuous development," he said.
He offered suggestions for showing continuity in the liturgy and gave examples from current papal liturgical celebrations.
The tradition of praying while facing East, and so symbolically facing the Lord, is now seen in the placement of a crucifix on the altar of St. Peter's Basilica, he said. "Hence the reason for the proposal made by then-Cardinal Ratzinger and presently reaffirmed during the course of his pontificate, to place the crucifix on the center of the altar, in order that all, during the celebration of the liturgy, may concretely face and look upon the Lord, in such a way as to orient also their prayer and hearts," he said.
Preview NCR's Family Life Issue
Watch this video from NCR Editor Dennis Coday for highlights from our annual Family Life special section.
You won't find these articles on our website. Subscribe now to receive all the content from each biweekly issue.
A renewed emphasis on "adoration," explained by Marini as "union with God," also will foster continuity with the past and should be a criterion for future liturgical practices, he said. Everything in the liturgy must be conducive to adoration, Marini said, including the music, the singing, the periods of silence, the way of proclaiming the Scriptures as well as the liturgical vestments and the sacred vessels.
He said it was this same desire to renew a sense of adoration that prompted Pope Benedict to make it the norm in papal liturgies for the pope to distribute Communion on the tongue to people kneeling.
"By the example of this action, the Holy Father invites us to render visible the proper attitude of adoration before the greatness of the mystery of the eucharistic presence of our Lord," Marini said. He said the same attitude of adoration "must be fostered all the more when approaching the most holy Eucharist in the other forms permitted today."
Throughout his talk Marini quoted extensively from the writings of Pope Benedict concerning the liturgy.
"I have learned to deepen my knowledge these past two years in service to our Holy Father, Benedict XVI. He is an authentic master of the spirit of the liturgy, whether by his teaching or by the example he gives in the celebration of the sacred rites," Marini said.
Please can we have a Vatican
Please can we have a Vatican 2 Ordinariate?
Or even just be left in peace? I wish to continue the liturgy of the past 40 years.
Simmary: I'm with you - If
Simmary: I'm with you - If the Church sees fit to accommodate those not in the Church by allowing them to have their own liturgy, then the Church should accommodate the likes of us who want to continue the reforms of Vatican II.
Because those in power see themselves as the Church and possessing intimate knowledge of God's will and because those in power see the rest of us as the great unwashed, ignorant and needing to be told what to do, those in power have already decided what shall be. It's simply a question of when.
At this point it seems to me the only direction left is to vote with our money.
the most powerful way to
the most powerful way to present a meaningful liturgical celebration would be for the celebrant to turn to the people and simply state: "what do you want to do here today"?
The how is least important - only our desire to be community for each other is.
Call it a coincidence but
Call it a coincidence but several days after posting my initial response to this article Fr. Richard Rohr reported to following reflection on his daily on-line website: cac@cacradicalgrace.org
THE GIFT OF CONTEMPLATIVE PRAYER
Question of the Day:
What helps me know that I am already in union with God?
Objectively we are already in union with God, but it is very hard for people to believe and experience this when they have no positive sense of identity, no courage yet, no boundaries, and no authentic religious experience. They have no container for such an awesome content, no wineskins that are prepared to hold such utterly new wine.
So early stage religion is largely preparing you for the immense gift, like creating a proper stable into which the Christ can be born. Unfortunately, most people get preoccupied with their stable and never get to the birth happening inside.
Only later can we begin to comprehend who we fully are, as Paul says, “hidden with Christ in God” (Colossians 3:3). Then the humble stable, the little manger filled with straw, finds itself holding the Eternal Mystery. Pretty awesome, isn’t it?
If that is the case ,by all
If that is the case ,by all means please move yourself to any Protestant Churches but not with the Roman Catholic -Mother of all Churches. thanks
"...the Roman Catholic -
"...the Roman Catholic - Mother of all Churches..."
History and JPII would disagree with your assessment.
I suspect the Orthodox would, too.
We do have a Vatican II
We do have a Vatican II ordinariate - Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI.
JP11, B16 and Vatican 11:
JP11, B16 and Vatican 11: oxymoron!
Fran, I have not yet met one
Fran, I have not yet met one person who was able to find one thing that these two men have done that goes against Vatican II. Not one single thing.
In this year of the priest
In this year of the priest such alterations to the liturgy seem to promote the priesthood as a cult. God comes to us through them, and we are to be the obedient children of these fathers, kneeling, facing the East, and mumbling Latin responses. This is an insult to us as adult Catholics, and it should be resisted.
Let's face the truth about
Let's face the truth about the "reform of the reform" and the "organic development" arguments: these are both ideological platforms used in an internal power-struggle within the Catholic Church that uses the liturgy to promote its own ends and refers to Jesus, God and salvation in subordinate clauses. The nonsense of the position outlined by the pope's liturgist is that both groups ( pre-Vatican II and post-Vatican II)appeal to elements that existed before the mythical moment of Vatican II as critical elements that underscore their positions. The pope's justification for good or bad liturgical development based on what he understands to be organic development is, however, deeply flawed. If the pope were in fact a student of the liturgical history of the Church he would know that liturgical evolution in the Western Church is so complex that one cannot draw a straight line from Jesus and the apostles in the upperroom to the period before the mythical moment of Vatican II and say that everything contained in this historical evolution is without rupture and therefore "organic". By the same token, the pope cannot not draw a line between Jesus in the upperroom and the liturgical reform of the Vatican Council and not declare this to be "organic". "Organic development is too simplistically dealt with, even by eminent Church historian. The historical evolution of liturgical practice in Western Christianity shows moments of critical rupture and moments of easy transition - both of which are in fact organic to the nature of christianity. Remember for a moment the critical rupture of the incarnation into the story of human history and the ease with which Christ goes to the cross in John's account.
The liturgical reforms of the of the 19th and 20th centuries appeal to the foundational elements and spirit of Christian worship that predate the Germanisch/Frankisch invention of the "Roman liturgy". Those who appeal to the Missale Romanum of Bl. John XXIII, with its addition of St Joseph to the Roman Canon, an element that shows the development of liturgical practice and that liturgical texts are not deified texts also appeal not only to an organic development but also to a history of dispute and rupture that created the so called Trientine Missal in the first place.
Naturally, for North Americans all of this misses the point that the world is no longer Euro-centric or even USA-centric, because this Church is fractured by division. The theological empire of Europe gave way to North America with during the interwar years of the last century and now the theological empire of the USA is under attack and in decline, dying under the weight of its own internal power struggles. The new world of theological leadership will be Asiatic, and at some stage African, again, but before that the argument over organic development will have taken another turn to face that ideology's ultimate threat, indigenous spirituality and worship.
In 1959 a group of bishops of missionary churches in East Asia, India, the Pacific and Africa met in Holland to discuss the nature of liturgy in a rapidly changing world where the right and authority of foreign colonalising powers to determine "truth" was being questioned and increasingly overthrown. They, at least, possessed the insight to see that the world of the 19th century had given way to the reality of a world immersed in war and with this came the necessity to build strong local churches capable of responding in leitourgia or service to their own context, as member churches of the Universal Church. To do this, the local churches needed to be given back their languages, their cultures and their indigenous spiritualities. If the pope is trying to give this back to Europe, then his at least 100 years too late; if he is trying to give it to the US Church to form it as a eccelsia culture, he has missed the fact that "USA culture" is so lacking in introspection that such freedom will only confuse what is a "nation of cultures" and; if he is trying to stop development in the worlds of Asia and India, the Pacific and Africa he has already failed. Ultimately, what reveals the twin ideologies of the "reform of the reform" and "organic development" to be empty ideological attempts to retake by power that which has been given away by the Spirit, is an enculturisation of worship and spirituality that restores the indigenous voice of subjugated peoples.
This is a well written
This is a well written commentary. But I still have problems with understanding the reform of the reform and so on. I have always been a close student of the liturgy of the moment. For anyone who thinks there is uniformity, think of the total number of priests celebrating, and one will have the number of different ways Mass is celebrated. From the viewpoint of the congregation, most probably would not recognize the individual differences but watching closely discovers them. Frankly, I don't think these subtle differences make a wit of difference.
On the other hand, if reform of the reform means the placement of various actions, then, yes, there have been some but none are so out of place as to require replacement. I have noticed in the 25 1/2 years since my ordination, a continual centering of the celebration on the priest presider and no real effort to insure the People of God will have the Sacraments only the Prysbyters can confer. It's as if two horses are pulling the wagon but those two are not hitched together.
Ditto, and in addition to
Ditto, and in addition to everything else that's crazy about this,and in the age of more and more resistant germs and means to fight them, I want no one's hands in or near my mouth.....
Your Comment about hygiene
Your Comment about hygiene makes NO SENSE! Will the Host float in to your mouth? Someone will have to touch the host depositing germs on it as they place it in to your hands and would you not have just shaken hands and swapped germs with everybody around at the sign of peace?
No to all, mouth and hands
No to all, mouth and hands are the dirtiest part of the body...check the research..
Anonymous on Jan. 11,
Anonymous on Jan. 11, 2010.
You stated:
"No to all, mouth and hands are the dirtiest part of the body...check the research.."
-------------------------------
Unless one is a dog, the mouth is not clean.
However, in many places, the celebrant and the Eucharistic Ministers use hand sanitizer before distributing Communion---can actually see them pumping it into their hands.
According to health professionals, the hair is the filthiest part of the human anatomy. Fortunately (and hopefully) nobody touches their own hair before distributing Communion to others. :)
Would this VII ordinariate
Would this VII ordinariate follow the documents of Vatican II and retain use of the Latin language and give Gregorian chant pride of place in the liturgy?
Yea! We're on our way back to
Yea! We're on our way back to the 14th century! The train has already left the station. What a joke this is!
Communion on the tongue while kneeling ... let's put those laity back in a submissive posture and show 'em who's boss.
Yes! God forbid we kneel when
Yes! God forbid we kneel when we, well, receive Almighty God's Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity!
Sure, we don't have a problem of bowing or bending the knee in respect to secular royalty, but we shouldn't do it for GOD! We'll show Him who's boss!
The apostles did not kneel
The apostles did not kneel during their last meal with Jesus. They stood or sat, by custom, and shared a meal with the Christ. The form of human reception should not, and never will, trump the substance of our openness to the transformative power of His Body and Blood. The Magisterium is completely in the weeds on this one.
Regarding kneeling, you're
Regarding kneeling, you're forgetting that the Apostles at the Last Supper were also bishops of the Church. They weren't laity.
Certainly, this is a pastoral issue (whether to kneel, stand, receive in the hand or the mouth etc). But with the amount of people doubting the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, I completely support the Vatican's trajectory on this matter. These days, we don't exactly have an issue with Catholics being too afraid to receive. Instead, it seems that we have many Catholics who believe they never sin and that the Holy Eucharist is just a nice remembrance of Jesus Christ.
we already bow before
we already bow before receiving if you haven't heard and I don't take the knee or bow before any secular potentate.
Were the apostles kneeling
Were the apostles kneeling during the first Eucharistic celebration WITH Jesus when he shared to them his body and blood? Were the early Christians kneeling in house churches when they shared his body and blood? Did heaven mandate that when we receive Christ we must always kneel?
I so agree. It seems our
I so agree. It seems our clergy don't have enough to do when they can spend all their time on the trappings of our faith. Why don't they spend time attempting to 're-member' those who have been disillusioned with priests who are more interested in prescriptions, counting and how far apart to hold their hands during the canon.
Every knee shall bend in
Every knee shall bend in Heaven and Earth at the name of Jesus, correct me if I'm wrong but thats in the Bible somewere is it not?
DB on Jan. 09, 2010. You
DB on Jan. 09, 2010.
You stated:
"Every knee shall bend in Heaven and Earth at the name of Jesus, correct me if I'm wrong but thats in the Bible somewere is it not?"
----------------------------------------------
Translated from Greek to Latin to German to English----The Jews did not kneel.
Bowed----that's different. And we did not begin to kneel to receive the Eucharist until after the 10th Century.
SO...You bend your knee EVERY
SO...You bend your knee EVERY time you hear the name of Jesus?
Yeah- and how about that
Yeah- and how about that example of him choosing only men. Problably need to follow that example, too.
AND they were married men.
AND they were married men.
I am well aware of God's
I am well aware of God's place in my life. However, i have opted for an adult relationship with Christ, not that of an infant.
"I tell you the truth, unless
"I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." - Jesus Christ, (Matthew 18:3)
But NOT act like children!
But NOT act like children!
Agreed. Christ said
Agreed. Christ said childlike, not childish.
pete the Greek on Jan. 07,
pete the Greek on Jan. 07, 2010.
Yes! God forbid we kneel when we, well, receive Almighty God's Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity!
Sure, we don't have a problem of bowing or bending the knee in respect to secular royalty, but we shouldn't do it for GOD! We'll show Him who's boss!
-----------------------------
Americans do not kneel to any secular royality---have not done so since the Declaration of Independence. The Apostles did not kneel at the Last Supper and the early Christians did not kneel either. And they did not have Communion placed in their mouths, like infants having a pacifier stuck in their mouths. God does not reduce the people to a stage of infancy. Just leave it to the Popes to do that!
When the Popes began seeing themselves as both secular leaders as well as leaders in the Church---the kneeling became commonplace. It wasn't because this is the appropriate posture to receive Communion. It grew out of the concept of kneeling to earthly kings, therefore, the popes taught that people should equate God with earthly kings and assume the same posture before God as with earthly kings, as though God demanded that.
Kneeling is a sign of deep
Kneeling is a sign of deep reverence. Every kneel shall bow before the Lord. Our Creator, our Lord, Our God, Our Savior, is fully present in the Eucharist. It is right, just and moral for people to kneel before God.
Ah LittleBear... History -
Ah LittleBear... History - you fail at it.
Kneeling to receive the Eucharist did not arise out of a papal powertrip, nor is receiving the Eucharist on the tongue a symbol of being an infant.
Seriously, do you read history at all, or just project your worldview on it?
Every knee, including yours
Every knee, including yours (even if you do not believe) shall kneel to the Lord. Fact.
Pete the greek on Jan. 08,
Pete the greek on Jan. 08, 2010.
You stated:
"Ah LittleBear... History - you fail at it.
Kneeling to receive the Eucharist did not arise out of a papal powertrip, nor is receiving the Eucharist on the tongue a symbol of being an infant.
Seriously, do you read history at all, or just project your worldview on it?"
---------------------------------
Ah, my dear Pete----when it comes to Church History---most things are 'Greek to you." You have a very simplistic understanding of Church and its history.
Things are either dark or light to you---never mind that there are many twists and turns in formulation of the understanding of the Sacraments, the papacy, canons governing actions in both.
You seem to fail to understand that history is made up of not only events, but the people who bring them about and the peoples' motives.
Since you mentioned "do I read history?" (yes, I teach it), I would suggest that you read:
(I'll make this the easy one)
"The Cadaver Trial of Pope Formosus in 897" wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope Formosus Reference 1
For more scholarly references:
Brusher, Joseph: "The Lives of the Popes from the time of our Savior Jesus Christ to the Accession of Gregory VII, 1, London: Griffith Farran & Co.
Tickle, Phyllis: "The Great Emergence: How Christianity is Changing and Why"
Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI
De Rosa, P., "Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy," New York, NY, Crown Publishers
McBrien, R.P., "The Pocket Guide to the Popes", San Francisco Ca: Harper.
Rahner, K., J. Ratzinger, "The Episcopy and Primacy" London: Burns & Oates.
Walsh, M.J., "The Popes: 50 Celebrated Occupants of the Throne of St. Peter", London: Quercus Publishing Pic.
A little reading and studying never hurt anyone!
The customs of Heaven are not
The customs of Heaven are not the customs of Earth. We must approach the sacred mysteries with humility, and not decry that they are old fashioned, for the centuries that came before us were more spiritually advanced than we.
Anonymous on Jan. 08,
Anonymous on Jan. 08, 2010.
You stated:
"The customs of Heaven are not the customs of Earth. We must approach the sacred mysteries with humility, and not decry that they are old fashioned, for the centuries that came before us were more spiritually advanced than we."
------------------------------------------
"The earlier centuries were more spiritually advanced than we." Slavery was more advanced? Really? The treatment of women (85% of all women in the Middle Ages never saw a marriage ceremony---that was just for the nobility), that was advanced? Burning people at the stake was more advanced? Destroying cultures of people was more advanced?
And these are NOT the customs of Heaven. These are the cruelities that we THINK are dictated by Heaven---but are perpetrated by ignorant, sinful, power-hungy men. There is nothing of God in them.
First, may I direct your
First, may I direct your attention to Psalm 95, verse 6: "Enter, let us bow down in worship; let us kneel before the Lord who made us.' People have been bowing and kneeling in adoration before God for thousands of years. This is nothing new.
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, what God expects of us is somewhat irrelevant. We are capable of doing so much more that just what God expects from us. What God expects of us only represents the minimum. Our focus should be on what God deserves, and not on what God expects.
Let’s consider a scenario from our own lives. During the Christmas season, we exchange gifts with those we care about. Perhaps you yourself have given someone a gift, and the recipient responded with “Oh, you shouldn’t have!” Do you apologize and take the gift back, and make a vow to never give that person a gift again since they don't expect one? No, you graciously explain that you gave the gift, not because “had to” out of same sense of obligation. You explain that you gave the gift because you wanted to, to show your appreciation for the person. The fact that the gift was not expected may make is all the more special for the recipient.
And so it is with our Lord. Perhaps he doesn’t expect our adoration (I don’t know for sure; I haven’t found the passage in the bible where Jesus tells us to not adore him), but isn’t it nice that we can go beyond the minimum that is expected of us? I don’t think God is any way offended when we honor him by our actions, which can include our posture before him.
You can stand or sit or slouch or lay down if you’d like. Me, I’m going to kneel in adoration. And when God tells me “Oh, you shouldn’t have”, I’ll respond by saying, “I know, but I did it because I love you, and you deserve it.”
For interesting background,
For interesting background, see "Shall We Sit, Stand, or Kneel to Pray" at http://www.kencollins.com/pray-20.htm
David Hegedusich on Jan. 08,
David Hegedusich on Jan. 08, 2010.
You stated:
"...Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, what God expects of us is somewhat irrelevant. We are capable of doing so much more that just what God expects from us. What God expects of us only represents the minimum. Our focus should be on what God deserves, and not on what God expects...."
------------------------------------------
What God expects of us is somewhat irrelevant? Really?
I'd like to tell you a little story. An ancient philosopher, dead for many centuries, was told that his teachings were being misrepresented by his representatives. Being a compassionate and truth-loving individual, he managed, after much effort, to get the grace to come back to earth for a few days.
It took him several days to convince his successors of his identity. Once that was extablished, they promptly lost all interest in what he had to say and begged him to disclose them the secret of coming back to life from the grave.
It was only after considerable exertion that he finally convinced them that there was no way he could impart this secret to them, and told them that it was infinitely more important for the good of humanity that they restore his teaching to its original purity.
A futile task! What they said to him was: "Don't you see that what is important is not what you taught but our interpretation of what you taught? After all, you are only a bird of passage, whereas we reside here permanently."
Nowhere in the New Testament, do we find Jesus asking us to adore him. But we do find him telling us how to please our Abba.
But from what you have written who cares what Jesus asked us to do? Who cares that Jesus taught us to be perfect as our Heavenly Father is perfect? Who cares that Jesus stated "Love one another as I have loved you?" That's the minimum, right----to give of ourselves to others as Jesus did?
But instead of listening to what Jesus taught---we're going to improve upon it. We think that our 'empty rituals' are better than what God expects/wants/desires us to do/to be. We think that our ideas of perfection is better than what God asks us to be.
David, unfortunately, people do not want to see the truth that God asks of them. They want their own made-up reassurances.
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my comments, and for that I apologize. I did not mean to imply that we can neglect that which Jesus expects us to do. You are correct, we are to love our neighbor. We are to feed the hungry. That is the minimum, and we must do it. But there's nothing saying that we need to stop there. Jesus commands us to forgive "70 times 7 times." Wouldn't it be OK for me to forgive 80 times 8 times? Jesus commands us to feed the hungry. Isn't it OK for me to also feed those that aren't hungry? We are commanded to keep holy the Sabbath. Would I be wrong to keep every day holy? Would I be wrong to honot my grandmother and grandfather, aunt and uncle, in addition to my mother and father?
Regarding New Testament instruction regarding how we are to worship and adore God: have you read the book of Revelation? It's quite clear that the worhsip and adoration of God described there is not intended to be limited to heaven only. Heaven and earth are united in one church (you do know about the communion of saints, right?) so why would our earthly worship be anything less?
But let me turn the tables on you. Can you provide the scriptural evidence that God does not want our adoration?
David Hegedusich on Jan. 12,
David Hegedusich on Jan. 12, 2010.
You stated:
"Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my comments, and for that I apologize. I did not mean to imply that we can neglect that which Jesus expects us to do. You are correct, we are to love our neighbor. We are to feed the hungry. That is the minimum, and we must do it. But there's nothing saying that we need to stop there. Jesus commands us to forgive "70 times 7 times." Wouldn't it be OK for me to forgive 80 times 8 times? Jesus commands us to feed the hungry. Isn't it OK for me to also feed those that aren't hungry? We are commanded to keep holy the Sabbath. Would I be wrong to keep every day holy? Would I be wrong to honot my grandmother and grandfather, aunt and uncle, in addition to my mother and father?"
Regarding New Testament instruction regarding how we are to worship and adore God: have you read the book of Revelation? It's quite clear that the worhsip and adoration of God described there is not intended to be limited to heaven only. Heaven and earth are united in one church (you do know about the communion of saints, right?) so why would our earthly worship be anything less?
But let me turn the tables on you. Can you provide the scriptural evidence that God does not want our adoration?
-------------------------------------
David, first of all with God----it is not quantity, but Quality that matters.
How I do things---and what motivates me to act are much more important than how many times I do something. From your response---it seems that you are a bit of a literalist. Jesus did not mean just to worry about how many times we forgive others. We are to live our lives gratefully for all the times God has forgiven us---and continues to do so each day. And in doing so, we must be equally open to forgive others.
But it seems to me---that you look upon service to people as something'minimal'. Jesus did not teach that way. If we want to truly please God, than we must imitate Christ (who by the way, never asked for adoration for himself). In imitating Christ, we must give our full participation. Jesus taught us to love God with our whole mind, heart, soul and body---there is nothing minimal here.
How can we love God, whom we cannot see, if we do not love our fellow man/woman whom we can see? When we allow ourselves to follow Christ's example, we allow ourselves to be grasped by God completely. We then follow the Gospel living completely. Our hearts centered in God (as Jesus teaches us) cannot help but see God incarnate in every person, and every creature. As we see, so we begin to love differently.
If we dare to follow Christ, we see that we, and every person on the planet, belongs to Christ. Are we able to realized that we live in the mystery of Christ; that all things are in Christ and Christ is in all things? That loving our brothers and sisters in Christ is the path to unity with God?
Trying to do this is far from doing the minimal. It requires all the energy of our heart, mind, body and soul. It is TOTAL giving of ourselves to respond to the fullness of God's life within us. We do this so that there is nothing to hinder us, nothing to come between us and the love of Christ, nothing is worth our energies than to allow Christ to live and love in us. It is in following Jesus in this way (not a minimalist task) that the Good News of God among us, becomes visible and alive, resounding into the vast corners of the universe.
It is this Good News that every single person, creature, star and element has been loved by God into being and is destined for eternal life with God, a life of communion in Love. In doing this and bringing this love to our worship of God---we cause God to rejoice in us as dearly beloved sons and daughters.
Jesus apparently was fond of
Jesus apparently was fond of kneeling... check out Luke 22:40-41.
A prayer of supplication,
A prayer of supplication, being a humble request should expect a prostrate or kneeling posture… however the gift of the last supper was one of a relaxed joyful celebration of a Passover meal!
Jesus FOND of kneeling? I
Jesus FOND of kneeling? I don't see him doing that during the first Eucharistic celebration with his apostles. He's certainly fond of criticizing those concerned with the smallest details of the law and fond of proclaiming the good news to the poor, proclaiming liberty to the captives,restoring sight to the blind, setting at liberty those who are oppressed.
But I suppose they all held
But I suppose they all held hands when Jesus taught them the Lord's Prayer? Hardly, because prayer, posture, and rituals developed over time.
Right david, and rules coming
Right david, and rules coming from the Vatican governing prayer, posture and rituals must seriously take into account diversity since historical developments aren't uniform and linear. The 'kneeling' that i had in mind in my earlier post is the danger of imposing the posture by the Vatican for all Catholics to follow when receiving Christ in the eucharist regardless of cultural customs and traditions.
It's evident that the church
It's evident that the church does take into account cultural diversity. There's not a "one size fits all" approach to liturgy, which is exactly why a lot of practices and rituals are left to the episcopal conferences to define. For example, the liturgical celebrations in African countries will look and feel very different than those in the U.S., while at the ssme time retaining their universal sameness.
What specific information do you have that the Vatican will be mandating kneeling for all Catholics when receiving communion? I've not seen that mentioned anywhere, so I can only assume that perhaps it's an unjustified fear on your part.
David Hegedusich on Jan. 11,
David Hegedusich on Jan. 11, 2010.
You stated:
"But I suppose they all held hands when Jesus taught them the Lord's Prayer? Hardly, because prayer, posture, and rituals developed over time."
------------------------------------
But David, Jesus and his Apostles were Jewish! And there were scripted parts for the Passover---standing, the questions the young people asked, the hiding of the matzo, and at the Passover Meal (which lasted a couple of hours), there is a part where all hold hands and dance around the table.
Remember, the Jewish people had a ritual as well, much older than the Catholic Church.
Wow. You totally missed the
Wow. You totally missed the point.
A major distraction in the
A major distraction in the Church of Rome today is the imperial pomp, ceremony, dress, ad nauseum that can be traced to Constantine's legalization of Christianity and bestowal of imperial trappings and prerogatives on the bishops. These cultural artifacts both reflect and reinforce the hierarchical mindset that Pope Benedict and "JPII" bishops display today. Indeed, this historical background undergirds contemporary ecclesial dysfunction, one manifestation of which has been revelations of widespread clerical sexual abuse of children as well as episcopal coverups, denials, threats to victims, etc., not to mention the papal indifference to all the aforementioned.
Our current pope and likeminded lackeys are doing their level best to preserve this (unhealthy) hierarchical model of church. In recent times, we've certainly seen the "fruits" of this sick and sinful institutional understanding and arrangement.
In historical terms, the Church of Rome veered from the Christian model of corporate behavior fairly early in its development. Hence, the need for renewal --- to make new again --- endorsed by the world's bishops at Vatican II.
Wow, Joseph, I "ditto"
Wow, Joseph, I "ditto" everything you stated! Jesus wanted nothing to do with pomp and hierarchical clericalism! What he really wants is for us to reform our lives through the power of His love: to feed the hungry, clothe the naked; to see Him in the "least" of our sisters and brothers. The hierarchy and their petty Pharisaic rules are getting their reward here. I truly believe they will be surprised to see with whom Jesus chooses to dine at His Eternal Banquet!
Well said. Thank you.
Well said. Thank you.
Thank you!! The process of
Thank you!! The process of renewal is our only hope.
What is this renewal you
What is this renewal you speak of? The Church has been rotting since VCII.
Liars can figure, but firgures dont lie... The Church has certainly taken a beating since VCII and all of its updates... 50 years and counting... By their fruits you will know them... The Renewal has started with Benedict XVI!
Look up the meaning of the
Look up the meaning of the word 'renewal'.
This is nonsense. The
This is nonsense. The Orthodox Church makes no apologies for its so called liturgical pomp. In fact, most people comment on the beauty of the Eastern liturgy. Orthodoxy has attracted many converts--former evangleical Protestants and even Roman Catholics. Modernists who wish to strip the Church of its liturgical heritage want a "bare bones" Church on the order of Baptist/Quaker "liturgy," which is really no liturgy at all. Catholics who resent the liturgical legacy of the Church should opt to become evangelical Protestants. Christ instituted the hierachical model of the Church--he appointed Peter, which indicates he wanted a "leader." The Church can never be a politically correct social justuce style democracy a la Liberation Theology. The sexual abuse of children came into full flower around the time of Vatican II and after Vatican II--the free wheeling 1960s and 1970s, when Catholic priests were making up their own style of Masses and throwing out traditions.
Interesting, as a
Interesting, as a transitional Western Rite Catholic to the Byzantine Rite Church, I have to say, attending a Roman Mass is like going to a town hall meeting. Attending Byzantine Divine Liturgy, you feel and KNOW something sacred is taking place. Who cares if you stand or kneel for Eucharist, who cares if you receive it in the hand or it is placed on your mouth. Isn't it grace we seek? Do what you gotta do to get it. Got it?
"Americans do not kneel to
"Americans do not kneel to any secular royalty" - Don't be silly. Every time an American man proposes the marriage to a lady, he does it on his knees. Some times the aforementioned ladies don't exactly match the majesty and holiness of God, and even the goodness and virtues of the Holy Father.
Not every male drops to his
Not every male drops to his knee to propose. I didn't. Nor was my wife presented to me by her father like a piece of property, like a virgin ripe for bearing my children. No, we both processed in from the same door, in the same procession, with our parents (both of mine, her mother - father already deceased) already in their pews.
So many are scared of Vatican II reforms because they lose perceived power. One has only to study history past a few generations to see that Vatican II IS THE REFORM!! It's trying to take us back to our early roots, not back to our post-Trent oblivion.
Father Francisco on Jan. 08,
Father Francisco on Jan. 08, 2010.
You stated:
"Americans do not kneel to any secular royalty" - Don't be silly. Every time an American man proposes the marriage to a lady, he does it on his knees. Some times the aforementioned ladies don't exactly match the majesty and holiness of God, and even the goodness and virtues of the Holy Father."
---------------------------------------------
Oh, baloney, Father! You're not married and you did not propose to any woman.
As far as the "goodness and virtues of the Holy Father." P-L-E-E-Z-E!
Benedict didn't get elected Pope because of his 'goodness and virtues." He got elected because he had a close association to JP II---and because of his work as head of the "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith." The electors thought that he was best suited for the job.
Pete you must know Little
Pete you must know Little Bear does not kneel to anyone, although we must kneel to her ideology. Of course, her ideology is bathed in ignorance, especially regarding kneeling.
For instance, the U.S. bishops have been given the option by Rome to kneel or stand at the Eucharistic Prayer. However, the U.S. bishops have chosen for the faithful to kneel during the Eucharistic Prayer. So what's the problem to receive communion kneeling? After all the kneeling posture for the Eucharistic Prayer has been in effect since 1975, immediately post-Vatican II. When the USCCB proposed standing for communion Rome insisted the faithful who kneel cannot be denied communion! So kneeling is allowed throughout the world.
As for the apostles, actually they were "reclining at table." So Little Bear should bring a lounging chair to follow in the foot steps of the apostles. Also, Little Bear, like most liberals, wants to ignore all the years from the apostolic church to Vatican II. Although, this is what happened with the rather inorganic development of liturgy courtesy of Archbishop Annibale Bugnini. At least the 1960 liberals are consistent.
"It was more or less around
"It was more or less around the time when unleavened bread was introduced [see below] that the custom also began of receiving Communion on the tongue, a custom already followed in exceptional cases, in particular in dealing with the sick. The new practice was sanctioned by a Council of Rouen in the reign of Louis the Pious: 'The Eucharist is not to be placed in the hands of any layman or laywoman but only in their mouths.' This was certainly understood at the time as a mark of respect [contrary to what Catholics generally regard as a sign of respect today]. The new practice probably led in turn to the custom of the faithful kneeling to receive Communion, since this made it easier for the priest to put the host in their mouths. The new posture only gradually made its way, however, since contrary practices are found down to the end of the Middle Ages" (pp. 135-36).
"The use of unleavened bread, already practiced by the Armedians, became general in the West in the eleventh century; this presupposes that it had been introduced here and there a little earlier [f.n. 13 states in relevant part that "Rhabanus Maurus (+ 856)...speaks of 'unleavened bread'..."]. The faithful received Communion only infrequently, and the donation of a liturgical gift from their own tables had lost its meaning. Practical reasons, having to do especially with the reservation of the species, must have played a part, but were joined to considerations from the gospel (the Last Supper took place in the Jewish week of unleavened bread). From this time on, the Latin theologians condemned the use of leavened bread; the result was bitter disputes with the Eastern Churches" (pp. 132-33).
Above from Robert Cabie, THE CHURCH AT PRAYER, Vol. II, The Eucharist, The Liturgical Press, 1986.
I suspect most folks would agree that "reclining at table" in the Lord's day would be equivalent to "sitting at table" today. Jesus and his disciples would have stood at prayer since they were Jews.
CORRECTION: "...already
CORRECTION:
"...already practiced by the Armenians..."
As our population continues
As our population continues to age, there will be less and less kneeling...unless there is a new ministry of someone at each Mass who will go 'round to help everyone off the floor!!
Our custom is to STAND when someone of import enters the room...kneeling went out with the age of the aristocracy & divine right kings. Kneeling signifies subordination...Jesus is our BROTHER, not our subordinate.
Fr James Holland (not
Fr James Holland (not verified) on Jan. 08, 2010.
Pete you must know Little Bear does not kneel to anyone, although we must kneel to her ideology. Of course, her ideology is bathed in ignorance, especially regarding kneeling.
For instance, the U.S. bishops have been given the option by Rome to kneel or stand at the Eucharistic Prayer. However, the U.S. bishops have chosen for the faithful to kneel during the Eucharistic Prayer. So what's the problem to receive communion kneeling? After all the kneeling posture for the Eucharistic Prayer has been in effect since 1975, immediately post-Vatican II. When the USCCB proposed standing for communion Rome insisted the faithful who kneel cannot be denied communion! So kneeling is allowed throughout the world.
As for the apostles, actually they were "reclining at table." So Little Bear should bring a lounging chair to follow in the foot steps of the apostles. Also, Little Bear, like most liberals, wants to ignore all the years from the apostolic church to Vatican II. Although, this is what happened with the rather inorganic development of liturgy courtesy of Archbishop Annibale Bugnini. At least the 1960 liberals are consistent.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kneeling is allowed throughout the world---yes. But the question is---must people kneel to receive Holy Communion? Have you or any others believing that people should be kneeling while receiving Communion, bothered to wonder, what JESUS would want the people to do? Or doesn't it matter what Jesus would wish? After all, we are just receiving his body and blood. Why would man-made rituals, aged with time over the centuries---like cheese---have more weight, be considered more sacred, than the original postures of the early Christians?
Secondly, Fr. Holland, terms such as "liberal" and "conservative" invariably refer to a rather useless polarity thinking, and thus they are not a very helpful distinction and lens for truth. But if you know only dualistic thinking, you are trapped inside that small frame of reference.
Although successful corporations thrive on outside consultants, feedback, suggestions, and brainstorming, by changing constantly and rewarding self-criticism, in religious circles it is considered a sign of disobedience, rebellion, heresy, or even disbelief to question, think about, or change ideas or authorities. Words are to be repeated and memorized, rituals are not to be changed, and behaviors are judged externally and almost mechanically.
Adhearing to past practices, (no matter how many centuries these practices were in existence), just because they are from the past---is not a manifestation of reverence, awe or devotion---it is only a sign of inertia---a resistance to change, to conversion.
There we go again, people
There we go again, people talking at each other without understanding the article and/or each other.
The speaker did not say everybody has to kneel!! In fact he said there are different (hence equally acceptable) forms and/or postures. He was referring to kneeling only to illustrate the (what he calls) proper inner attitude during liturgy and at communion, which is an attitude of prayer, in which we express our dependence on God alone. Please stop this nonsensical political wrangling!
Post new comment