The GIRM, Diocesan Norms and Kneeling at Mass: Archdiocese of Anchorage

All postures at Mass are purposeful. They bring us closer to the Sacred through their purpose and proper place in the Mass. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) is the controlling document on all actions and functions of the Mass. There are in fact specific sections that concern the gestures and postures that the faithful should adhere to:

Movements and Posture
42. The gestures and posture of the priest, the deacon, and the ministers, as well as those of the people, ought to contribute to making the entire celebration resplendent with beauty and noble simplicity, so that the true and full meaning of the different parts of the celebration is evident and that the participation of all is fostered. Therefore, attention should be paid to what is determined by this General Instruction and the traditional practice of the Roman Rite and to what serves the common spiritual good of the People of God, rather than private inclination or arbitrary choice.

A common posture, to be observed by all participants, is a sign of the unity of the members of the Christian community gathered for the Sacred Liturgy: it both expresses and fosters the intention and spiritual attitude of the participants.

One of the most discussed and misapplied postures is that of kneeling. The confusion usually occurs after the Agnus Dei because there is a Diocesan option available, that when used, is often misused and even abused. The GIRM states:

43(c) : 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 final clause in this section is where confusion and abuse generally set in. Bishops do have the ability to  change the posture for this period, so we have to look to what the Bishop directs in this instance. In Anchorage, the Bishop has opted to diverge from the GIRM:

• Upon completion of the Holy Holy until after the Great Amen: KNEEL
• From the beginning of the Lord's Prayer and continuing as each receives Holy Communion (may bow head to venerate the Holy Sacrament) STAND
• Upon return to pew following reception of Communion: STAND
• After all ahve [sic] received Communion during sacred silence following Holy Communion: SIT or KNEEL

What is confusing is that in most Parishes that I have been to in Alaska, no one actually kneels during the Sacred Silence, if in fact there is a Sacred Silence. So the question becomes whether a person should adhere to the GIRM, which isn't the norm for the Archdiocese and therefore against the norms; or should the faithful adhere to the Diocesan Norms which aren't adhered to by the faithful? 

I personally find myself conflicted. After coming from an Archdiocese where the GIRM was adhered to strictly, I find myself in discontinuity with the rest of the faithful in my Parish. After researching the Archdiocesan norms, I find that in fact, if I were to unify myself with my Parish, I would be out of step not only with the GIRM, but the Diocesan Norms, which although valid and licit, are not adhered to. So what am I, and other faithful to do? This is only one example of discontinuity.

Hopefully, with the introduction of the New Missal, as Parishes will necessarily undergo the need to provide Liturgical Catechesis, these problems will be addressed and rectified. Although I am under no illusion that unification of posture and gestures at Mass will themselves create an authentic Catholic community, it is in fact impossible to have such a community without continuity and unification as to the GIRM. 

More on the Hermeneutic of Continuity...

The other day I posted about a statement that the Pope made about hermeneutics and Vatican II. You can read that post here:
The Pope and the Hermeneutic of Continuity

More statements have come out that further expound on the the Pope's ideas concerning Vatican II and hermeneutics. For those that don't know what hermeneutics are, or why it is important, let me explain:

Hermeneutics are essentially the theory or interpretation of theory - how something is interpreted. When we discuss hermeneutics regarding Vatican II, we are talking about the direction of the Church after the council. There are generally two side theories:

• The Hermeneutic of Continuity: Where the Church remained the same after Vatican II, with changes to secure a more full and deep meaning towards the heart of the Church. That the past was one with the present and future to create a seamless faith and belief structure. [This is VERY simplistic, but I want to keep this base level for those that have never read about this before.]
• &
• The Hermeneutic of Rupture: That the Church broke with the past after Vatican II, and that the council represented a drastic change and evolution that essentially broke ties with the past to create a type of new existence, which moving forward would continue to grow and be organic OUTSIDE of the tradition and teachings of the past. 

Pope Benedict, who was actually one of the young "progressive" writers during Vatican II, has consistently called for there to be a hermeneutic of CONTINUITY. As I stated in the previous post, the Pope was quite clear recently regarding this issue. Again, statements have come out which solidify the fact that he stresses to the faithful how we must view the council of Vatican II as a hermeneutic of continuity:

"Just as the hermeneutic of continuity is revealing itself to be ever more important for an adequate understanding of the texts of Vatican Council II", he added, "in the same way we see the need for a hermeneutic we could describe as 'of priestly continuity', one which, starting from Jesus of Nazareth, Lord and Christ, and over the two thousand years of history, greatness, sanctity, culture and piety which the Priesthood has given the world, comes down to our own day".

To read more see:
Pope continues discourse on hermeneutic of continuity (From: New Liturgical Movement)


-Posted by: Joe

Pope Benedict XVI - The Hermeneutic of Continuity

Recently the Pope made a pretty clear statement about Vatican II:

“Following Vatican Council II some people were convinced that all was new, that a new Church existed, that the pre-conciliar Church had come to an end and that there would be another, completely different Church, an anarchic utopia. Yet thanks to God the wise helmsmen of the ship of Christ, Paul VI and John Paul II, defended on the one hand the novelty of the Church and, at the same time, the uniqueness and continuity of the Church, which is always a Church of sinners, and always a place of grace”.

The rest can be read here:
The Church - Post Vatican II


-Posted by: Joe