Posted on 02/16/2009 12:41:27 PM PST by annalex
Standing was never considered less pious in the Church. To the contrary. As Mark said, we stand up for people of a lesser authority than God, so it is only proper to stand in the presence of God, and both Catholics and Orthodox believe that God is very much present in the church. Kneeling, as Mark mentioned, was considered a posture of penance rather than respect.
The reason one can (and should) receive Eucharist standing is because one has confessed and has been absolved, and is no longer approaching the Chalice in penance. As I said, the TLM manner of receiving the Eucharist kneeling is very reverential and beautiful, and it is not canonically wrong, but it is not exactly appropriate either, considering that the recipients are not approaching in penance but as cleansed and healed, resurrected if you will, Christians.
I chanted the entire Matins for Holy Tuesday, which we sang by anticipation Monday evening, standing. By the end my back was killing me! Last evening I stayed with the congregation and let one of the other old coots get the back ache! :)
Last night, as Kosta knows, the psaltis chanted one of the most famous hymns in Orthodoxy, the Hymn of Kassiani. Its is about a harlot who washes Christ’s feet and wipes them with her hair. Her seeking of forgiveness is contrasted to the actions of Judas. We actually look forward to this every year. Here are links in English and Greek which you might enjoy:
http://www.holy-trinity.org/multimedia/holyweek/04-hymn-cassia.mp3
I never said that the Orthodox are wrong to stand throughout liturgy. They are within the canon and we in the US are within the canon. The canon does not forbid all kneeling; it merely mandates that public prayer be done while standing. There are many ways to satisfy the canon.
You discourse generally follows the Catholic Encyclopedia article; I don’t have a dispute with either. What I do have an objection to is the attitude of the Orthodox to presume that whatever it is that they do is the only norm.
***Let us see what the Diocese of Spokane says (marginal on this issue): http://www.dioceseofspokane.org/liturgy/GIRM_text.htm
That is a well-written and objective piece. ***
I certainly thought so.
***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.***
It certainly seems that way.
***I chanted the entire Matins for Holy Tuesday, which we sang by anticipation Monday evening, standing. By the end my back was killing me! Last evening I stayed with the congregation and let one of the other old coots get the back ache! :)***
I got off easy. I read the First Reading on Holy Thursday (which was the description of Passover), and the Voice on Good Friday (which included St. Peter and Pontius Pilate). I put as much apprehension, political correctness, and irritation into Pontius Pilate as I could. Apparently it worked!!!
***I never said that the Orthodox are wrong to stand throughout liturgy. They are within the canon and we in the US are within the canon.***
They are correct and technically, unless an authoritative pronouncement has been issued, we are not.
***The canon does not forbid all kneeling; it merely mandates that public prayer be done while standing. ***
That includes the Eucharistic prayer.
***You discourse generally follows the Catholic Encyclopedia article; I don’t have a dispute with either. What I do have an objection to is the attitude of the Orthodox to presume that whatever it is that they do is the only norm.***
It is only by examining the pronouncements of the Councils that we can judge. This is not about who is right; it is about what is right.
Well said.
Of course. Monday evening is a Tuesday morning according to the liturgical time keeping (i.e. the next day starts after sundown, not after midnight). That's why Shabbat (Sabbath) starts Friday after sundown.
Technically the canon is satisfied during the Eucharistic prayer also, because the preist is standing, and the congregation is not offering a prayer ot their own.
Then, according to your interpretation, the congregation should stand only during common prayers (The Creed, Our Father, etc.). Nothing in the wording of the Council suggests such a narrow interpretation.
Certainly, back in 4th century, the Church did not interpret it that way when the Council pronouncements were made official.
Even today, the kneeling during the Eucharistic Prayer is a North American phenomenon which is contrary to the canonical practice in Catholic churches throughout the world.
The liturgy is a participatory activity, Alex, not a spectator sport.
It is not "narrow", it is, if anything, wide, because it is less restrictive. Your interpretation is narrow as it assumes a restriction not stated in the Canon. Mine, and also that of the Church, obeys the canon as written. Yes, the canon only says that when a prayer is offered, the person offering it should stand; it doesn't even say "should always stand". The natural interpretation is that during vocal prayer, whoever voices it should stand. It is fine also to do what the Orthodox do and stand all the time, but when you do so, it is not strictly speaking mandated by the text of the Canon. You chose an unnecessarily restrictive interpetation. You are not wrong.
Let us see what the Archdiocese of Chicago says on http://www.srocco.org/Liturgies/NiceaStanding.dsp
20
About not needing (may de-een) kneeling, on Sundays and in the 50 days of Eastertime:
There are some people who kneel down on Sunday and during the Easter season, the fifty days from Easter Sunday to Pentecost Sunday. Therefore, it has pleased the holy Council to decree that people should offer their prayers to the Lord, standing. This is required so that in each diocese (en pase paroikia) everything will be done in harmony (omoiohs).
(Canon 20 of the Council of Nicea, 325 A.D., binding on the whole Church)
We consider it unlawful to fast or to pray kneeling, on the Lord’s Day. We enjoy the same liberty from Easter Sunday to Pentecost Sunday.
(Tertullian, De Corona Militis, s. 3, 4.)
Augustine and others give the reason for this tradition. They say that we commemorate the Resurrection of Christ. Standing on Sunday and in Eastertime signifies the rest and joy of our own resurrection, assured by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
The reasons behind this are obvious: to promote unity of posture during prayers. Otherwise you’ll wind up with a hodgepodge of people standing, kneeling, jumping, rolling and acting like they were in James Brown’s Baptist service as acted in the Blues Brothers.
I’m sure that this is going to be one of the loose ends that will be tied up at the end of schism. By itself, it is not that important, any more than signing one’s self to the right first rather than the left. But it does show that in the little things (which can often wreck human relationships) one must have harmony and when one changes ritual or rite, one must have the authority and the agreement.
I have no particular preference; I am used to kneeeling, but when a congregation stands during the Eucharistic prayer, I stand as well. I never have seen a liturgy when some routinely stand and some routinely kneel, and I agree that would be improper if the Church were to encourage such disunity.
If one day my bishop instructs us to stand and not kneel I’ll be just as happy with the Roman Catholic Liturgy as I am now.
My point is, solely, that what most American parishes have, kneeling, during the Eucharistic prayer, is not a formal violation of the Canon, so long as the priest is standing at that time.
Standing or kneeling is a non issue. What matters is that we receive our Blessed Lord in the Eucharist in a conscious state of extreme humility and awe of His love,thus denying everything of OURSELVES so that Christ may use our human nature
You are right, but it is not right to downplay infallible Ecumenical decisions either. They are binding. The current practice in the west is not what the practice was in the 4th and the 5th centuries AD. By the end of the 6th century, someone had decided that a different interpretation and understanding is in order. That is wrong, and that type of individualism, if not egotism, has been very hurtful to the unity of Christendom.
Precisely, very well put, Mark. Unity is not achieved by everyone interpreting things his or her way. The Protestants do that and we have 33,000 "denominations" as a result of that mindset.
***But it does show that in the little things (which can often wreck human relationships) one must have harmony and when one changes ritual or rite, one must have the authority and the agreement.
Precisely, very well put, Mark. Unity is not achieved by everyone interpreting things his or her way. The Protestants do that and we have 33,000 “denominations” as a result of that mindset.***
There are far more than 33,000 if one considers the mall churches and the storefront churches that litter the cities like yesterday’s newspapers. What is very important here is that the Church is obeyed, and not the whims of some individual who has an individual spin on the Gospels and hangs up a shingle and passes a collection plate in the name of God.
No one here -- certainly not I -- argued that the canon is not binding. The canon is binding the way it is written, and therefore we obey it in the West, as written, your calumnies notwithstanding.
Alex, this is really not difficult. I am not sure why you try to make this my "calumnies" when you know very well that the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Eastern Catholic Churches, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, and the Latin Church (in most of the world) interpret the First Ecumenical Council in a way that does not fit your notion of canonicity. How does that make it my "calumnies?" LOL.
I am beginning to believe it goes beyond the issue. Is there are personal problem? Why else would you insist this is somehow "my" doing? I was not around for the past 1,600 years to tell the Church how to pray.
But no one in the West ever suggested that either East or West were violating the canon 20. So, while they are not your personal calumnies, the are an instance of the East manufacturing a putative canon out of their peculiar interpretation, — a calumny.
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.