"The use of the term 'violation' is nearly tantamount to the outrageous statment by Father Martin Tran that Kneeling "is clearly rebellion, grave disobedience and mortal sin,"
But, NYer, it is most assuredly a violation of Canon XX of the 1st Ecumenical Council. How can it be anything else? Has the Latin Rite now discarded the canons of the Ecumenical Councils or only selected ones? If I recall correctly, every canon of the 1st Ecumenical Council was accepted by Rome.
By the way, nice picture of the consecration in a Maronite Church. I understand you will soon be doing away with that Vatican II facing the congregation stuff and going back to the ad orientam position as part of the "de-Romanizing" of the Maronite Church. Correct?
Do you have a source for this news?
Unlike the Orthodox, we've never held ourselves to be eternally bound by the disciplinary decrees of Councils, only by the doctrinal ones. And the question of whether or when one kneels is a matter of liturgical discipline, not dogma.
The custom (and the current law worldwide) in the Latin Rite for centuries has been to kneel at least for the consecration. American law requires kneeling throughout the anaphora. It's customary to return to the kneeling position after Communion.
Kolo,
Byzantine Catholic parishes with more young people in them tend to eschew kneeling from my experience more than those in the rust belt with more elderly folks.