Genuflecting

Genuflecting is important. Why? Well as Father Hardon once said:

“If you cannot bend the knee to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, you cannot bend your will to God's will.” 

•Source: Badger Catholic

º•][•º

Want to know more about genuflecting, read: New Advent - Genuflecting

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. 

Cardinal Arinze on Kneeling, Communion, and Reverence

If you want a quick little lesson on such things... head over to Cleansing Fire.

The Cardinal explains what is appropriate regarding such topics...a CARDINAL.

No Blessings at Communion - Abp. Chaput

This is done at my parish, and I have seen it done at others. Archbishop Chaput, who is usually dead-on accurate with his take on... oh just about everything explains why the idea of "blessings" at Communion time are improper because of both context and Catechetical reasons.

Taken from Beliefnet.com:

"As members of the community move forward to receive holy Communion during Mass, parents will often bring their small children along. Over the years, it has become a custom in many parishes for these children to receive a blessing. I don't really know where this practice began, but it's worth some reflection.


"Usually the children in line will look up expectantly at the person distributing holy Communion. The minister then responds by doing one of several things: He or she may pat the child's head, or touch the head in a sign of blessing, or mark the child's forehead with a sign of the cross. As warm and well intentioned as the gesture may be, in the context of the liturgy, the Communion procession really isn't the time for a blessing of children or adults who are unable to receive Communion.


"There are times in the liturgical year when the laity assist in specific acts of blessing, such as the blessing of throats or the distribution of ashes. These are clearly indicated in the Book of Blessings. But extraordinary ministers of holy Communion do not ordinarily have a commission to bless in the name of the Church, as priests and deacons do. At this point in the liturgy, they have a very specific function: to collaborate with the clergy in the distribution of holy Communion.


"As we'll explore in a later column, the blessing of the assembly properly occurs at the end of the Mass. As the body of Christ, the assembly is blessed together before we depart to live the fruits of the liturgy.


"What would be appropriate for children to do who accompany their parents in the Communion procession, and adults who do not receive Communion?


"The Communion procession is an opportunity for parents to begin to teach their children about the great gift of the Eucharist. First of all, children could learn to give reverence to the Lord hidden under the forms of bread and wine. Children can already learn from their parents, and others receiving holy Communion, to give honor to the Lord by bowing reverently.


"Parents and catechists should start teaching the mystery of the Eucharist at an early age. Children will soon begin to desire to receive holy Communion. This earnest desire to receive our Lord sacramentally is traditionally called a 'spiritual communion.' Regrettably, we don't talk about spiritual communion as we once did. But Thomas Aquinas, Alphonsus Liguori and many other great saints strongly encouraged spiritual communion as a practice.


"Both children and adults can make a spiritual communion. They may come forward with their arms crossed and bow before the Eucharist. Then the priest, deacon or extraordinary minister could say to them kindly, 'Receive the Lord Jesus in your heart.' This is not a blessing, but an invitation to worship, so no gestures are made.


"This spiritual communion would more authentically carry out the spirit of the liturgy. Being faithful to the truths of the sacramental celebration allows all of us, young and old, to enter more deeply into worship."

This was taken from EWTN.com: Blessings for Non-Communicants. The full piece has much more as to why this isn't a proper practice, nor the proper time. As I have been discussing in my: "We must seek the Sacred" posts, children are very perceptive. They are sponges and soak up everything. Not only are children this way but so are adults. When we do something consistently we create a way of being, and people will begin to construct in their head, even subconsciously, an explanation as to why things are done a certain way.

Here are some snippets from the full piece, which are written by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University:

"My most serious hesitations, however, stem from a fear that, over time, the practice of giving blessings to non-communicants could create a new perception or mentality regarding Communion itself that makes it somehow equivalent to a blessing, thus weakening the special value that Communion should have for Catholics. This danger could be especially present in a school environment with a high proportion of non-Catholics who receive only a blessing. On the other hand, some priests have mentioned that it can lower the danger of sacrilegious communions in predominantly Catholic schools as children and adolescents find it easier to ask for a blessing than to stay (alone) in their pews."

"From what has been said above I would suggest that you avoid ritual gestures that might cause confusion, especially to the Catholics present. However, the formulas provided for the extraordinary ministers of Communion in the ritual for Communion outside of Mass could also be used in the presence of non-Catholics. They usually have a third person plural formula such as "May the Lord bless us, keep us from all evil and bring us to everlasting life."


If you wish to offer some spiritual activity to all present beyond the Communion service, then, with the permission of the parish priest, you could offer some acceptable common prayer once the Communion service has been finished — for example, praying an hour of the Divine Office, which is almost totally scriptural, would be one possibility."

"I also see no pastoral advantage in using it for children before their first Communion. A child who observes parents and siblings approaching the altar should have a greater sense of hope and desire to be able to participate just as they do.


As we mentioned before, a blessing in this case could even weaken the awareness of the greatness and uniqueness of holy Communion. It can also cause pastoral problems insofar as it is an easy custom to introduce but, once in, very difficult to renege upon, due to parental sensitivity."

Obviously this isn't the worst thing to alter the Mass that has been seen, but we need to create continuity and purpose of action. Otherwise we are changing our faith and changing the meaning of the external and physical symbols of the Mass, the summit and pinnacle form of Worship that we have. We wouldn't allow this in our sports, why do we allow it in our religion.

Rubrics Were Great

Let me start by saying that this post reflects nothing more than my opinion as a working full-time classroom teacher. This is not a piece of educational theory, it isn't some policy report, and it certainly isn't some measure that I expect teachers to adopt immediately.

It's just the way I see things.

And the way I see things is like this: a rubric is an insult both to the intelligence and creativity of a student.

Last night, way too late perhaps, I got sucked into a Twitter discussion about rubrics. Arguments for and against were put forth and examples were given. This morning, the Twitter chatter continued as I heard about individual teachers' feelings for and against rubrics as well as situations where state education boards demand rubrics. And something that keeps coming up is the idea that rubrics are a) transparent and b) objective.

And I would argue that neither is true. (Add: 10:59AM EST -- Or rather, the former isn't true and the latter is of questionable relation to reality let alone the purposes of education).

First of all on the issue of transparency. Most rubrics come in one of two varieties. Either they are extremely didactic in a step-by-step hold-your-hand IKEA instruction manual sort of way or they are touchy-feely rubbish where you get a '1' for 'not demonstrating significant understanding' but a '5' for 'demonstrating unique depth and content mastery'. Rubrics of the latter variety are meant to satisfy the political needs of institutionalized learning, while rubrics of the former are theoretical expressions of teaching to the lowest common denominator.

What does any of this have to do with 'transparency'? Looks to me like it has everything to do with a dog-and-pony show. In these situations, the rubrics come off as more an insurance policy so the teacher scores well in an observation than anything else. And the argument may be made that this sort of rubric helps the student understand what it is that the teacher wants... which brings us to my next criticism.

Objectivity.

I don't want students to do 'what I want'. I don't want students to follow 'objective' rules. In fact, that's entirely the type of behavior I'm trying to break my students out of.

For twelve years, we condition students to follow rules. We teach them that if you do A, B, C, and D, then you will make the grade. We give them rubrics so that they can check off that they did A, B, C, and D and we assign grades and we call this education.

Who are we fooling?

I should step back a moment to give some context. I'm not some guy talking out the side of his mouth about this stuff. I understand exactly how rubrics work. I've twice worked on committees designing rubrics. I understand that on the surface, it appears -- and even seems to make some sense -- that rubrics would be the best option. After all, what's the alternative? Just telling the student you want a project done and not giving any guidance?

And I think that actually is the red herring.

The red herring is that rubrics are helping the student learn. I'd argue that rubrics -- if anything -- are teaching the students that education is just a matter of completing tasks on a checklist. I'd argue that rubrics are teaching students that if they complete the tasks as stated, they should expect success.

Except life doesn't work like that.

Life is more complicated. Could you imagine Socrates handing Euthyphro a rubric? I think it's far more likely that rubrics would have been the butt of Aristophanes' jokes: another example of how sophists con folks into thinking they understand things.

To the Greeks, the rubric would have been a device used by a teacher to demonstrate to others that the teacher's students 'got it'. Unfortunately, it wouldn't have had anything to do with whether or not the students actually 'got it'.

Poor Phidippides.

And so we raise a generation of kids who don't have the ability to deal with ambiguity. We raise a generation of kids who expect success for pleasing the teacher. We raise a generation of kids who don't want to take creative risks because those risks aren't going to improve their 'grade'.

I write this post at risk of sounding polemical. In fact, that's not my purpose, but I understand how my tone could trigger that response. What I'd really like to come out of this is a challenge to teachers to find more authentic ways to assess your students. Ways to connect, not via a mass-produced one-size-fits-all rubric, but by individualized 1 to 1 attention. Ways to share in the learning process in a communal and ongoing way, rather than by having students demonstrate 'understanding' by jumping through hoops and checking off items on a checklist. Ways to express to students that life is more complicated than a rubric and that success in life is not so easily defined.

Otherwise, I think we do our students a disservice. We set them up to engage with a world where more and more as this century progresses we are turning away from the old models of rubrics and other forms of so-called 'objectivity'.

Consider NASCAR.

There are numerous checklists that must be filled out before any given race. The cars themselves must meet dozens of requirements. On paper, everything has to be A+. Yet only one race car is going to cross that finish line first.

In other words, meeting the requirements of the rubric doesn't in any way ensure success. Yet, our students are conditioned to think otherwise.

So, what to do?

Well... let your students play in class. Give them open-ended assignments with no possible correct answer and no single conceivable way to get the assignment done. Don't explain things to your students, rather talk to them and allow what they say to teach them how they think. Teach your content through conversation whether f2f or online. Teach your content through trust. And don't give your students a list of things that suggests what you want, rather allow your students to figure out what it is that they want.

Because, in the end, this is about them learning. It's not about us proving why we gave a particular grade.