Cardinal Cupich, Pope' Francis' point man in the USA who has become a cartoonish caricature of the "Catholic Progressive" (note the substantive here!), recently sent out a carefully worded message: he hates kneeling at Holy Communion. In my own parish a retired boomer priest also strongly condemned the practice. The Church's teaching is that standing is the normal, default posture but kneeling is explicitly permitted. Refusing communion to the kneeler is prohibited. And so the question arises: Why this animus against kneeling?
Cleverly, Cupich conjures a mystique around the communion "procession" as the community's sacred approach to the sacrament. By his logic, genuflecting or kneeling disrupts the process and is thereby self-centered, distracting, precarious and irreverent. This is quite novel. I have been receiving for over 70 years and have read/heard thousands of talks/writings on the sacrament. I do not remember reference to such a "procession." It is not a procession; it is the communion line. We do not fantasize the line waiting outside of the confessional, all of us silent, a little apprehensive, arms folded, as a "vigil." As we wait for communion or confession, we are not in a public, communal ritual. We are quietly waiting to receive or confess. Our focus is on the anticipated encounter; not on some communal event.
In a meticulously researched piece of historical/investigative journalism, Nico Fassino ("'Stand Up Like Free Men': The Modern History of Standing for Communion" Pillar, 1/14/25) details how the Church shifted from kneeling to standing. The change came during the implementation of Vatican II but significantly the documents make zero mention of standing as preferred over sitting. This is very important because Cupich makes a lot of fuss about the Council's profound changes. In fact, the Church fathers do not mention the topic. Here again we see a fabrication of the "spirit of Vatican II" mind, a perspective that does not need the documents as it follows its own intuitions.
While kneeling has been normal since Trent, if we go back through the centuries there has been abundant practice of both postures. So recourse to history does not resolve the issue in favor of one or the other. Mother Church in accepting both positions is true to Tradition.
Where did this change come from if not from the Council Fathers? Just prior to, during and after the Council a small cadre of progressive liturgical activists zealously advocated for the change. Initially they framed it in practical terms: as preferable in large gatherings and conferences for safety, efficiency and such. Clearly, however, this pragmatic argument camouflaged a deeper intention. In the fever of change and novelty after the Council, this view spread widely among bishops and priests. It seemed to blend in with everything else: vernacular, contemporary music, emphasis on community and disparagement of an alleged individualism.
Significantly, it was vigorously opposed by the laity. Polls consistently showed that this was the most unpopular of the liturgical changes. With some exceptions, bishops/clergy disparaged such resistance as ignorant reaction and pushed confidently forward. Eventually, of course, they prevailed and standing became the default posture. And yet, the Vatican never caved to the pressure and preserved the option for both postures. This has been reiterated by the American bishops.
Personally, regarding the liturgy, I view compliance with Apostolic directives as absolute. Within that framework, I am "live and let live." "Let a thousand flowers blossom." I relish charismatic, NeoCatechumenal, Latin, and above all the prosaic half hour daily parish mass. I am happy to stand or kneel. In a nearby parish, Holy Innocents in Neptune NJ, both are offered. The priest distributes to standers but to his left and right are lines of kneelers for those who so choose. I normally kneel. But I like the "choice."
But we are left with this question: Why do the progressives hate to kneel?
In today's "Ethicist" in the Sunday NY Times (1/19/25), an atheist asks if he can still go to mass despite his lack of belief. He loves the music, the ritual, and specifically the kneeling which gives him a sense of humility and gratitude. Happily, the Ethicist welcomed the (cognitive) non-believer to join the community. It is striking that even as a non-believer he appreciates the spiritual dimension of the posture.
The posture of kneeling, within worship, has two dimensions. First, it is adoration, recognition of the presence of that which is vastly Holy, Good, True, Beautiful. Before such a reality, the person needs to bodily pay homage, often in the posture of kneeling or even prostrating. Secondly, in regard to the self, it expresses a humility or a poverty, in relation to the Holy. This can be a gesture of contrition for sin, petition for pardon, or request for mercy in ones poverty, need, and suffering. It is a fitting and appropriate expression of adoration of the Powerful, Good, Merciful, True, Beautiful, Infinite, Absolute by one who is awestruck, admiring, fascinated, poor, sinful, unfaithful, finite, mortal, fallible, contrite and desperately in need. What's not to like about that?
In the title of his Pillar piece, Nico Fassino subtly suggests an explanation, without explicating it. He cites an article in Nov. 1965, by a lay liturgical leader, Mary Perkins Ryan, who exhorts us to "Stand Up Like Free Men." She sees that many lay people view standing as disrespectful, but she insists that standing is appropriate as it demonstrates our dignity and freedom from sin, that we are free men and not slaves. On the positive side, she is correct: standing is a posture of dignity, not of disrespect. But she herself seems to imply that kneeling itself is lacking in dignity, the position of a slave.
This may be the underlying motive for the antipathy to kneeling. That it lacks dignity, freedom, self-esteem. That it is vaguely demeaning. In this it reflects the positive, but implicitly secular humanism that swept the culture, and the Church, in the late 1960s. There was a pronounced emphasis on the dignity of the person, as a distinct individual. Unfortunately, this was accompanied by a pervasive loss of the sense of the holy, the transcendent, the supernatural as well as a denial of sin (actual, mortal, original, etc.) and evil (the demonic, the weakness of the flesh, the "world.)
There is an irony here. The liturgical progressive is infatuated with "community" as it reconfigures "communion" with a focus on the community (singing, processing, kiss of peace) that displaces the Eucharistic Christ in his explicit, concrete, specific presence, body and soul, humanity and divinity. Additionally, the humanist, infatuated with self-esteem, cannot tolerate talk of unworthiness, guilt, contrition. But the communicant, now detached in practice from a sense of poverty and of adoration, can in fact be left with a sterile individualism and a superficial camaraderie.
The Novus Ordo is the true Eucharist of the Church. It is the privileged presence of Christ. It is also a human activity and as such is vulnerable to loss of reverence, silence, solemnity, contrition, and adoration. The Church does very well to maintain and cherish practices of kneeling, receiving on the tongue, silence, chant, incense, use of Latin and other practices. It is unfortunate that Pope Francis and his lieutenants like Cardinal Cupich so despise these salutary, ancient, honorable practices.
Our age resembles the Arian crisis of the 4th century when a majority of the hierarchy embraced that heresy and orthodoxy was largely maintained by the laity (as well as bishop heroes like Athanasius.) And so today it is incumbent upon us all to maintain these reverent practices as we await a renewal of our hierarchy.
No comments:
Post a Comment