From: bdboyle@erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle)
Subject: Re: kneeling...
Organization: ER&E NJ
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 13:21:55 GMT

In article <edjans01.717436301@starbase.spd.louisville.edu> edjans01@orion.spd.louisville.edu (David Jansing) writes:
>In <1992Sep24.175153.27210@news.nd.edu> jvanderw@darwin.helios.nd.edu (jeff vanderwilt) writes:
>
>>FYI: The Council of Nicea FORBIDS kneeling on Sundays and during
>>Paschaltide. This was cited in the mutual excommunications of 1054
>>between the Eastern and Western churches.
>
>I did not know this!  We all learn something everyday!
>

Let's all be consistent here in what we choose, people.  If you are 
going to use the example of Nicea, for instance, as being binding on
us (or at least having relevance to our practice of our faith...), then,
how can you reject the documents of Trent, or Constantinople, or 
Vatican I?  This ain't a cafeteria line-

>>. 
(lots of stuff deleted....)
>
>>However . . . posture should not divide a community. For that reason
>>Cardinal O'Connor was *wrong* to interrupt the Mass for the convenience
>>of his piety.

As the senior church official in this country, he is ultimately
responsible to Rome for the conduct of celebrations of which he is a 
part.  As the ranking Cardinal, he also has to set the example.  If 
the ceremony he was participating in was deficient in some way, he
was absolutely within his power as a priest, bishop, and prince of the
church to demand rectification.  And I applaud him for standing up to 
the self-important revisionists that seem to think that the norms
demanded by the Holy Father are just "suggestions" they can ignore 
at will.

>>If he was so concerned he should have arranged for a
>>kneeler prior to Mass. Who else would have been so bold as to 
>>interrupt a community's prayer for their own benefit?

I guess you aren't a fan of Cardinal O'Connor.  Too bad.  Perhaps
orthodoxy isn't popular, but it is the only defense against rampant 
modernism, situational ethics, and wishy-washy moralistic diatribes.  
His job is to teach, lead, and defend the Church against the gates of
Hell (as is all of our jobs, ultimately).  Bold?  Yes, and damn glad
that he continues to tick off the people that would have us diluting our
faith for the convenience and warm-and-fuzzy feelings of vocal minority
groups who don't have any basis other than a person-centered, rather
than God-centered theology to guide them.

>>All in all, I am led to agree with Aidan Kavanaugh, who in his marvelous
>>little book, _Elements of Rite_ (Pueblo Pubns), wrote that 
>>Pews are the single most intrusive element in modern church design.
>>They limit the freedom of movement of the Christian assembly to
>>such an extent as to almost render true liturgical participation
>>impossible. (He suggests benches for the infirm. I agree.)
>
>ANOTHER excellent point!
>-- 
Pueblo is also a leading proponent for modeling our churches as
auditoriums rather than places of worship: removing the corpus,
tabernacle outside of the interior of the church, reducing the altar
to a side table, etc., etc., ad nauseam.  I have seen some churches
designed around his "enlightened" theories-bland, uninspiring, theaters
in the round...


Bryan Boyle
Jesuit-trained but still a Roman Catholic.

Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic