Posted on 02/16/2009 12:41:27 PM PST by annalex
In 491 I described when Catholics do what during liturgy, from which it would have been clear to you that indeed we kneel several times, but we do not violate the canon.
Are you saying Catholics do not pray while kneeling at any time during the Mass?
Individually, I am sure people pray also while kneeling; I know I do. Is it your opinion that the canon prohibits any prayer while kneeling?
I think the text of the Council is unambiguous that, on Sundays (the Lord's Day), all prayer should be done standing (whether communal or private).
Now, are you saying that the 1,300 year-old Traditional Catholic Mass does not have prayers while kneeling? You claim the Novus Ordo doesn't. That's not the impression I have.
In fact, I submit that (unlike in other places), in America it is a long-standing tradition to kneel during the Eucharistic Prayer, specifically during Epiclesis.
So much for canonicity...Alex. I guess the idea is the rules are meant to be broken, hey?
In fact the Catholic Encyclopedia you like to quote from states (my emphases):
While making a cursory mention of the First Ecumenical Council, the Encyclopedia states
However, we know that the Latin Church violated that supposedly infallible and binding canon and that, according ot the Encyclopedia, the
So, now we know where deviant traditions come from, don't we, Alex? Just as the Latins used to make the sign of the cross as the Orthodox do to this day, they saw to it to invent something new in the 11th century, changing directions and eventually using the whole hand.
The Encyclopedia reminds that the Missal stipulates that
My point is that the canon does not prohibit prayer when kneeling; it only mandates that when prayers are offered the congregation should stand. But when the priest offers his prayers, he is standing, and when the congregation offers prayers on their own, e.g. Our Father, Lord have mercy, and prayer “of the faithful”, the congregation is indeed standing. The canon never prohibited private prayer of any kind, did it?
It is entirely possible that the Catholic Church simply found the canon in its entirety not binding because it is a matter of liturgical practice in response to some particular habit, perhaps, of kneeling throughout liturgy. However, whatever the position taken by the author of the Catholic Encyclopedia article, I do not see where the violation is. It would be, I agree, a violation of the Canon if all or even most vocal prayers were said while kneeling, but that isn’t the case.
The priest is leading the flock in prayer. If he is standing, there is no reason for the congregation to be kneeling in prayer.
In 493 I posted the exact words of the First Ecumenical Council:
"Forasmuch as there are certain persons who kneel on the Lord's Day and in the days of Pentecost, therefore, to the intent that all things may be uniformly observed everywhere (in every parish), it seems good to the holy Synod that prayer be made to God standing."
That means ANY prayer on Sunday, Alex. Regardless if it is the priest leading or someone tucked away in a corner.
I also quoted Tertullian, in De Corona Militis, s. 3) that says it is
I can see the Church ignoring Tertullian, but not an Ecumenical Council.
It is entirely possible that the Catholic Church simply found the canon in its entirety not binding because it is a matter of liturgical practice in response to some particular habit, perhaps, of kneeling throughout liturgy
The Ecumenical Council is the Church gathered to proclaim infallibly what the entire Church agreed is the way it should be. That's why the quote above states "to the intent that all things may be uniformly observed everywhere..." because in some parishes people prayed kneeling and in others standing. It was not up to Rome to change what the Ecumenical Council decreed. But that's precisely what Rome did right form the get go.
That is merely your interpretation of the canon. The reference to the Lord’s day is not a part of the requirement, itr describes reasons for the requirement to be made. The requirement is simply “that prayer be made to God standing”. During Catholic Mass, a prayer is made to God standing.
Further, your interpretation is absurd and legalistic: it would prohibit any kneeling with a praeyrful intent whatsoever on Sunday and during the Easter season, in other words, it would prohibit the most natural expression of Christian piety.
That is the interpretation of the Eastern Churches, based on their praxis. You are suggesting that the very Church that instituted this canon didn't understand what it was instituting!
The reference to the Lord’s day is not a part of the requirement
It is the key requirement: no kneeling during prayers on Sundays.
itr describes reasons for the requirement to be made. The requirement is simply “that prayer be made to God standing”
Sunday and the 40 days after Paschal Sunday are days of Resurrection and resurrected bodies stand.
During Catholic Mass, a prayer is made to God standing
The priest may be standing, but the people are said to be kneeling (according to Catholic Encyclopedia), especially during the Epiclesis. So are you suggesting the people are not participating in prayer? A spectator church?
Further, your interpretation is absurd and legalistic
It's not my interpretation, Alex. I have nothing to do with how the Eastern Churches go about their business. There is no kneeling in Orthodox Churches on Sundays (except in Greek American churches in the US, and that has a Catholic root they haven't plucked out yet). But to call Eastern Churches "absurd" and "legalistic" is definitely absurd. There is nothing less legalistic then Orthodoxy, and Orthodox praxis is as old as the Church canons, unchanged to this day, just as the 1,600 years old divine liturgy.
Perhaps the reason Rome shed all that tradition was because people like you believed the canons of the Church were absurd and needed to be Latinized, using reason, of course. The unravelling of tradition never stopped since then.
it would prohibit any kneeling with a praeyrful intent whatsoever on Sunday and during the Easter season, in other words, it would prohibit the most natural expression of Christian piety.
"Natural?" Hmmmm. Maybe you wanted to say reverential. Be it as it may, the most "natural" way to address God is face down on the ground. At least the Church seems to think so. However, in Orthodox churches, while one is always free to fall on his knees and put his face to the ground in reverence and awe of being in God's presence, during prayers everyone stands. I guess that makes Orthodox Churches inherently "unnatural" by your standards.
I am saying that on this issue and most others, the interpretation of the canons by the Eastern Churches is consistently anti-Catholic regardless of principle. If there is an opportunity to interpret the canon in a way that purports a violation of the canon by the Latin Church, that particular interpretation prevails, regardless how silly, mechanical and legalistic the interpretation is.
“I am saying that on this issue and most others, the interpretation of the canons by the Eastern Churches is consistently anti-Catholic regardless of principle.”
Alex, its not anti-Catholic anymore than its anti-Greek Orthodox in No. America. Rather than argue Kosta’s perfectly correct point, it would be more honest to simply admit that the canon is being violated. Should we violate canons? No. Are they violated? Yes. Its a fallen world, Alex.
BTW, I’ve never seen, until you presented it, an interpretation of the canon which excuses kneeling on Sundays nor, for that matter, have I ever seen the canon discussed in terms of Latin liturgical praxis, until this thread...but I’ve heard the canon discussed many, many times.
There is nothing inherently "anti-Catholic" (read: anti-Latin) in any Eastern interpretation of the canons. The Eastern Church follows the praxis of the Church as they were practiced when the canons were instituted.
The east hasn't changed. The divine liturgy is the same mass it used 1,600 years ago. It is the Latin side that drifted away from how the Church was back then (just think about it: how many times has the liturgy been changed since the First Council of Nicaea even when the popes specifically forbade any changes?).
If anything the Latin interpretations are not only inherently anti-Eastern, but in effect anti-Church because it was the undivided Church that implemented them as infallible dogmatic decisions, which the Latin side consistently violated with its innovations and rebellious attitude.
I don’t think the Canon has been violated. I agree that interpretations exist that may allege so, but they are not evident from the reading of the canon, and so, I suspect, are tainted by the general desire on the part of the Eastern Chruches to put up as many walls between East and West as can be found.
That the West treats the canons with less legalistic formality, especially on the issue of praxis, is of course also true, and so it is not surprising that no one in the Latin Church even attempts to approach this matter as a legal one. But if you wish to treat it, the text is plain: “prayer be made to God standing” and we make prayers to God standing every day.
“That the West treats the canons with less legalistic formality, especially on the issue of praxis, is of course also true, and so it is not surprising that no one in the Latin Church even attempts to approach this matter as a legal one.”
Of course the Latin Church is dismissive of the canons, Alex. Rome’s history is replete with examples. And given the “infallibility of the Vicar of Christ on Earth”, how could it be otherwise? :)
It is true that one of the benefits of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome is a degree of flexibility unavalable in the East, and also that reasonable people can fault the Latin Church along these lines, but on this specific issue of kneeling, I don’t see where the violation is, other than in the minds of the accusers.
I have been unable to find an ecumenical council that reverses the standing versus kneeling. Now, the intention appears to be that Nicea simply wants uniformity in worship (because of the distractions) and chose standing because, well, they chose standing. By the same token they chose the NT because, well, they chose the Canon.
Same thing as the Reformers and Judaizers wave around; one really should follow Church edicts and not pick and choose. Now, with that said, there may be some justifiable pronouncement that I am unaware of that makes this all good. If you could assist in uncovering it, I would be grateful.
Naturally, there is nothing in subsequent councils because there is anything to reverse in the first place. When a prayer is said vocally, we stand, or whoever vocalizes the prayer stands. That is reasonable reading of the text of the Canon. The Orthodox interpretation, that kneeling is prohibited at all on Sundays and Easter is not in the text and if it were really the intent, private prayer while kneeling would be prohibited as well on these days. It is like on Sunday and at Easter, LESS piety should be expressed than on ordinary days. Makes no sense. It is a wedge issue for the latter-day Orthodox, nothing more.
***Naturally, there is nothing in subsequent councils because there is anything to reverse in the first place. When a prayer is said vocally, we stand, or whoever vocalizes the prayer stands.***
That is not the point.
***The Orthodox interpretation, that kneeling is prohibited at all on Sundays and Easter is not in the text and if it were really the intent, private prayer while kneeling would be prohibited as well on these days. It is like on Sunday and at Easter, LESS piety should be expressed than on ordinary days. Makes no sense. It is a wedge issue for the latter-day Orthodox, nothing more.***
Let us see what the Diocese of Spokane says (marginal on this issue): http://www.dioceseofspokane.org/liturgy/GIRM_text.htm
A common early posture for Christian prayer was standing. Standing was seen as a mark of respect, honor, and Easter joy, and it is still customary for people to stand in non-religious situations as a sign of respect for an honored guest. The Council of Nicea (c.325) prescribed that, on Sundays and during the Easter Season, prayers should always be standing, rather than while kneeling (canon 20), a custom also mentioned by the early Christian authors Tertullian (2nd-3rd Centuries). It is still customary for many Eastern Catholic and Easter Orthodox communities to stand rather than kneel during the Eucharist on Sundays and especially during the Easter Season. This custom of standing is also followed in the Roman Rite when the Litany of the Saints is sung during the Easter Season.
Although bowing and kneeling also are traditional postures during prayer, in earlier centuries kneeling was considered more as a symbol of penance for sin rather than a sign of respect during prayer. Thus, in early Christianity, kneeling was appropriate during Lent or at other times of penance, but not on days of joy. Nevertheless, prior to the Second Vatican Council, kneeling (rather than standing) was usually considered the most appropriate gesture for prayer no matter what the occasion.
As a result, prior to the introduction of vernacular liturgies near the end of the Second Vatican Council, on weekdays people generally knelt throughout the Mass, except for standing during the Gospel and Creed, and then sitting until the Sanctus. Occasionally, parishes adopted a modified posture during a solemn or “high” Mass on Sundays, in which the faithful stood or sat at other parts of the Mass (e.g., sitting during the singing of a long Gloria, standing while being incensed).
The GIRM, first published in 1969 and revised in 2002, sees external posture as a “sign of unity” and thus posture is related to the “common spiritual good of the people of God” (GIRM n. 42). It also states that postures should not be based on “private inclination or arbitrary choice.”
The GIRM includes explicit general norms for posture during the revised Mass. Thus, as a general rule, ministers and people stand throughout the liturgy, particularly during the presidential prayers including the Eucharistic Prayer, following the ancient tradition. They may sit, however, after the opening rites during the pre-gospel readings and psalm, during the homily and preparation of the gifts, and, according to circumstances, during the period of silence after communion. But the GIRM also specifies kneeling, but only at the consecration during the Eucharistic Prayer. Yet it makes an exception for “reasons of health, lack of space, the large number of people present, or some other good reason.” If people do not kneel during the Eucharistic Prayer, the GIRM says that they should make a profound bow (as do concelebrating priests) while the principal celebrant genuflects after each consecration.
When the 1969 Order of Mass became commonly used in the early 1970s, many countries of the world adopted these general norms of the GIRM without any adaptations. Thus, in many European countries, it is common for people to stand through most of the Eucharistic Prayer and only kneel for the institution narrative (if kneelers are available in the church), standing immediately afterwards to sing the memorial acclamation. The U.S. Bishops, however, adapted the general norm to permit people to remain kneeling from the Sanctus to the concluding Amen of the Eucharistic Prayer, since the posture of kneeling was such an ingrained practice in the U.S. at that time.
In 2000, the U.S. Bishops decided to continue the general norms regarding posture that had been customary. Thus, the official U.S. practice is that the assembly kneels during the Eucharistic prayer after the Sanctus until the conclusion of the Amen at the end of the Eucharistic Prayer. But we must also realize that this is not the general practice of the Church. In fact, in some multi-ethnic parishes, when Mass is not celebrated in English, the posture of the assembly (often including many recent immigrants) sometimes follows the customs of other countries.
The general practice of the Church is for people to stand throughout the Eucharistic Prayer, except for the consecration. The U.S. practice is to kneel for a longer period of time (from the Sanctus to the Amen) unless there are extenuating circumstances. If there are questions as to what may constitute “good reasons” that justify alternative practices, it is for the local Bishop, as moderator of the liturgical life of his diocese (2002 GIRM 22), to make a determination.
Now, this kinda waffles around but does state that Nicea prescribed standing during prayers. Local bishops don’t have the authority to get around a Council of the Church.
So, what we have is an explanation of a millennia-old practice and why it is valuable. I agree, by the way; I prefer to kneel during the Eucharistic Prayer because I find that I can concentrate more. I detest the modern churches without kneelers. However, the Orthodox are correct in Church law as far as I can see. If you could assist in proving them wrong, I’d be grateful.
You keep repeating that, contrary to the Catholic Encyclopedia and the Catholic liturgical texts.
That is a well-written and objective piece. Much obliged for posting it. I would like to say also that during consecration (in the Divine Liturgy the moment when the deacon says "Amen, Amen, Amen"), depending on the tradition of a particular Church, the parishioners fall on their knees and face down on the ground (prostration), or, make a deep bow (usually while crossing).
In Greek and Antiochan churches with pews in No. America, the congregation will kneel for the consecration, a habit that has snuck into these churches for a reason too complex to go into right now, but is stirctly an American phenomenon.
In Slavonic Churches, which follow Mt. Athos' typikon, the prayers of the priest are said in silence (while the choir is singing) and behind a curtain, so the congregation doesn't know the exact moment of consecration and therefore makes no gestures of adoration.
Likewise, in Eastern Churches, the Eucharist was always received standing. The Vatican II recognized that ancient Christian custom and implemented the reception of the Eucharist standing, which is a good thing, but then allowed the host to be placed into the hands!
I agree that the TLM reception of the Eucharist kneeling is very reverential and appropriate, and I don't really see any canonical problems with it since it does not involve a prayer.
But your source only confirms what I have posted earlier, namely that in No. America Catholics kneel during the Eucharistic Prayer, while the Catholics around the world maintain the canonical posture of standing until the last Amen. It seems to me that the American bishops subjected Ecumenical decisions to local customs and that such a decision is a violation of the Church canon.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.