Posted on 01/01/2003 5:13:54 AM PST by ninenot
"Catechesis" on Liturgy varies widely in US dioceses
Cardinal Jorge A. Medina Estévez's letter of October 25, 2001 to the USCCB, commenting on proposed American Adaptations to the IGMR, said the following:
"In cases where the Conference of Bishops is to legislate, such legislation should be truly specific, and the law intends precisely that any particular episcopal legislation on these matters be enacted in common by the Bishops of the Conference rather than being left to be determined variously in different dioceses".
At present, different interpretations of liturgical rules from one diocese to another -- a "balkanization" of the Church in the US -- is causing very serious and very widespread confusion. It is a source of grief for Catholics in dioceses where draconian measures are taken to eliminate kneeling or other traditional gestures of reverence. People are especially distressed (and perplexed) at the harshness of the directives of some bishops, and find themselves torn between their wish to obey the bishop (some bishops are invoking obedience to enforce their directives) and their profound desire to express bodily their reverence for the Blessed Sacrament.
As we have said elsewhere, this is a conflict no Catholic should be forced to encounter.
Below are a few samples from the past few months:
In Arlington there has been a crisis at Christendom College, where it has been customary to kneel at the altar rail to receive Communion. Bishop Paul Loverde objects, and has ordered the practice to cease, as he states in an article in the November 14 Arlington Catholic Herald: "...Although no one would be denied communion if he or she knelt, the proper norm is standing and any other posture is really an act of disobedience to what the liturgical discipline is providing".
(http://www.catholicherald.com/loverde/2002homilies/homily1114.htm)
Saint Cloud Bishop John F. Kinney wrote in June 2002 that people should stand during the Eucharistic Prayer ("a 'resurrection' posture"). He said "kneeling visibly expressed reverence in former ages and other places (for example, in the medieval courts of European monarchs). Now, in our culture, standing seems to more clearly express respect and honor".
The diocese produced a set of liturgical directives, bound for reproduction as parish resources for "catechesis", mostly written by liturgist Father Dennis Smolarski, SJ, or "based on" materials on the BCL web site. These publications freely interpret liturgical rules. (In his book Liturgical Literacy, Father Smolarski defines "liturgy" as referring "to any official form of public worship" [p.140]).
The priests of Wichita received a communique from Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted and the Office of Worship in June instructing all the faithful that they "must" kneel from the Sanctus to the Great Amen and they are "encouraged" to kneel after the Agnus Dei. There are many other good signs in the communique. Father Shawn McKnight, STD, is the Director of the Office of Worship and has put together and excellent overview of the principal changes in the new liturgical instructions.
Monterey Bishop Sylvester Ryan, in "The Sign of Unity" - a two part letter published in March on the diocesan web site, invoked his episcopal authority (saying that the GIRM "designates and empowers the diocesan bishop" to regulate the Liturgy). In the letter he forbids people to kneel after the Agnus Dei, and orders people to assume the "orans" posture ("extend the hands in the same way that the celebrant does") for the Our Father, "the opening prayer, the prayer over the gifts and the prayer after Communion". The bishop also expressly forbids genuflecting or kneeling to receive Communion.
Lafayette Bishop William Higi wrote in his columns in May that kneeling "dissents from the mind of the Church", and "rather than reverence, the emphasis will be refusal to embrace particular law approved by the Vatican for the United States".
He expressly forbids any gesture other than a bow of the head: "A person is not to genuflect before receiving nor are they to kneel to receive. Rather, standing before the Eucharistic Minister, they are to bow their head.... If a person chooses to kneel, Eucharistic Ministers of this Diocese will be instructed to say quietly to that individual: 'the proper posture is to stand, please'".
Lincoln Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz is more liberal. He issued a letter this summer permitting Catholics in the Lincoln diocese to either kneel or stand for Communion, and he does does not forbid genuflecting.
The Archdiocese of Boston responded to an inquiry in May, saying that communicants are free to choose their posture for receiving Holy Communion.
Archbishop Thomas Kelly, OP of Louisville issued a directive to parishes, "New Gesture of Reverence Before Receiving Holy Communion", effective the first Sunday in Advent 2002.
An accompanying flyer from a parish expands the "catechesis" on posture of the people during Mass:
"The posture for reception of Holy Communion is to be standing. There are some who prefer to kneel to receive Holy Communion. While no one will be denied Communion if they choose to kneel, for the sake of uniformity throughout the Archdiocese, all are called to 'humble obedience'.
"Remember that we are not 'pick and choose Catholics'. If some can choose to kneel to receive Holy Communion, then why can't others choose to stand for the Eucharistic Prayer?
"The 'gesture of reverence' is a simple bow of the head before receiving the Sacred Host, and also a simple bow of the head before receiving the Precious Blood from the chalice, if one chooses this option.
"There are some who prefer a more solemn sign of reverence, such as a profound bow or a genuflection. Again, for the sake of uniformity, all are called to 'humble obedience'. We are not 'pick and choose Catholics'.
"The communicant is reminded to respond 'Amen' to the words 'The Body of Christ ... the Blood of Christ'. No other response is appropriate, such as 'Thank you' or 'I believe"'.
The directive states that "The USCCB voted that the posture is to be standing and the gesture of reverence will be a bow of the head before receiving both the Body and the Blood of Christ. The Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship approved this decision.
The Louisville directive states that during the 10th century "people became so focused on the awesome reality of the presence of Christ in the consecrated Body and Blood that they believed themselves to be unworthy to receive. Awe and reverence dominated over the actual reception of Holy Communion", and it links this with other liturgical issues. "The emphasis on confession before Communion, the fast from midnight, and the age when a child could receive Holy Communion (adolescence), were just a few of the practices that supported this decline of the faithful's reception of Holy Communion".
Not so today. No longer feeling "unworthy", Catholics now "receive the Body of Christ to become the Body of Christ for the world", the directive says.
NOTES:
1 Flor y canto (Portland: Oregon Catholic Press, 1989), nos. 590-601.
2 "Gloria in excelsis", The New Harvard Dictionary of Music, ed. Don Michael Randel (Cambridge, 1986), 342.
3 Joseph Jungmann, SJ, The Mass of the Roman Rite, trans. Francis Brunner C.Ss.R., Rev. Charles Riepe (New York: Benziger Brothers Inc., 1959), 238.
<> This is lifted from the Adoremus site. They use him as an authoritative source in their polemics. Seeing as how this post is from Adormeus, it would appear they too use this "Liturgical Liar."
In fact, search their site. They appeal to Jungmann as an authority in these articles:
Rethinking the Responsorial Gloria
The Altar and the Direction of Liturgical Prayer
"In the Presence of Angels I Will Sing Your Praise"
Return to the East?
Worthy is the Lamb, Agnus Dei -- by Susan Benofy
From One Eucharistic Prayer to Many
<> The Catholic Encyclopedia also appeals to him as an authority. It appears this "Liturgical Liar" might be owed a posthumous apology<>
3. Sacramentality of the Roles (SC 26-32). The Church is the mystical Christ, Head and Body (1 Cor. 12). The ministerial priest is the sacramental sign of Christ the Head, who acts in persona Christi capitis (Catechism of the Catholic Church 875, 1348, 1548). The people, though baptism, also exercise an office (CCC 1188, 1273). It is not essential to the confecting of the Eucharist, but is essential to the sacramentality of the Eucharistic assembly. Together, priest and people, are a sacramental sign of Christ's continuing mystical presence in the world through the Church, which makes possible the perpetuation in time of the One Sacrifice of Calvary, Eucharistic Communion and the substantial Presence of the Lord in the Blessed Sacrament itself. The sacramentality of the Church as the Mystical Christ is clearer, therefore, when both priests and laity exercise their proper sacramental offices as Head and Members, respectively.
Answered by Colin B. Donovan, STL
<> EWTN also uses this Liturgical Liar.
I don't think additional examples are necessary<>
Let me see if I get this straight.
The citation states that "kneeling was the comon practice..." and, further down, that "[St.] Paul continued kneeling [during these times...]" and then Hoffman states that STANDING was the posture mandated by Nicea, but only during certain periods of the liturgical year [i.e., Easter Day and Pentecost Octave..]
From THIS mandere covering NINE DAYS, Hoffman/Jungmann postulate (and other current liturgy nuts agree) that standing is the "traditional" posture?
Please tell me how 9/365 equals "traditional."
How the blazes do we go from a Special Feast Day/Octave mandate to 365x24 mandate, other than a forced spin on the texts at hand??
Let's for the moment forget the citations making Jungmann a tin god of liturgy, and go to the evidence, which you have presented in good faith.
What you have proposed is analagous to saying that "while green is the preferred vestment color, white is mandated during Easter Week," (and thus) "white is now mandated for all days of the year."
Frankly, it simply does not follow.
Jungmann's work is GENERALLY ACCURATE, but also contains speculations and opinions which he cannot substantiate from the evidence.
The fact is that there IS no evidence for many of his conclusions.
IN THE CASES WHERE THERE IS DOCUMENTATION, I accept his work.
In many of the cases where there is NO documentation, I accept his work (as do others FAR more studied than I.)
BUT it seems that his work was "twisted" by Hofmann into an unrecognizable conclusion.
Perhaps the term "liar" is a stretch but could accurately be applied to Jungmann's "interpreters."
Therefore, I will apply the term "speculator."
Do you feel better??
That sets the Rule for The Liturgy.One must stand. One can presume there were folks angry at the change.
FR. Jungmann later cites where kneeling was imposed and that ended the traditional standing.This was 5 centuries later.
Either way, one is, it is obvious to me,free to support either standing or kneeling as a traditional posture. There is SO much in our Liturgy, as you well know, that was generated from the Court as well as from Church Saints.And a LOT of The Roman Liturgy is Gallican
What makes it, for me, authoritative is when the Church decides THIS, at least for this epoch, is the way we will adopt this or that posture at Mass.<>
<> If you desire to make me have positive feelings, continue arguing. The worst thing you could do is to agree with me :)
Yeah, I like "speculator" better, but, I much prefer faithful reasoning based upon his education, expertise and well-sourced research.
How dull would our Christian Family be if we all were in perfect agreement re Liturgy? IMO, a certain tension is needed for Liturgy to develop to fit the needs of the epoch. The Mass is ALWAYS the Mass but Liturgy, does, and should, change. However, one must be obedient to the competent authorities re the rules/rubrics ect curently in force.
What is shocking to some of us is that Litugy did change. But, what was even more shocking, imo, is that it remained so static over CENTURIES.
I appreciate your arguing and your recalcitrance. Arguing is my prefered way of acquiring knowledge and you are among the best-informed of my Christian Family. God Bless you<>
That fact remains that Tertullian says neither kneeling or fasting occurs on the Lord's Day. He does not limit what defines the Lord's day so it is reasonable, it seems to me, to conclude it does mean every Sunday.
Tertullian wrote LONG before Nicea, so we can see Nicea merely codified the Christsian practice of STANDING<>
Tertullian says "We regard it as unlawful to fast or worship on our knees on the Lord's Day. We rejoice in the same priviledge from the Paschal Day until Pentecost.
So, over 100 years prior to Nicea, folks were standing from Easter to Pentecost.<>
To repeat: this particular passage has to do with penitential practices, NOT posture at Mass.
IN effect, Tertullian wrote about a "holiday from penitential practices" which extended from Easter Day through the Octave of Pentecost, AS OPPOSED to other days of the year.
My recollection is that this passage may have even been directed to catechumens as well as penitents, but I can't swear to that.
I grant you that the Lit has changed, with many Gallican influences (e.g., the Agnus Dei) over the years, and that only ROME has the power to regulate the liturgy.
Unlike some others, I am also quite aware that major and minor 'tweaks' were done over the years---e.g., (major): Pius XII allowed symphonic instruments to accompany choirs with a letter dated Christmas, 1955?/6?; and (minor) John XXIII eliminated certain prayers from the Triduum celebrations in 1960?/1?.
But what is NOT addressed by your responses, and which seems to me to be a major point, is the following: several American Bishops have declared that those who do not stand for reception of Commuion are disobedient.
This is plainly a deliberate misinterpretation of the Vatican document on the topic, or at best, a bit 'over the top.'
Please remember that the 'sensus fidelium' has rarely been disturbed by Roman regulations. Thus, "while kneeling was the common practice" means exactly that--and I find it VERY significant that the apparent 'sensus fidelium' was to kneel. Although you chose not to fully address my analogies with regard "fealty and Kings" this, too, is an important piece of the puzzle.
What we have here, today, is a regulation (as interpreted by SOME Bishops) which goes directly AGAINST the 'sensus fidelium.' And in so doing, the regulation is not consonant with other, similar, regulations issued by Rome.
Hammond may spin Jungmann's research, and Jungmann may speculate where documents are not available---all of that is a given.
But Hammond' spin, in this case, is counter-intuitive--it goes against what Jungmann plainly stated, and against even the secular traditions of kneeling before Kings to express humility (and fealty.)
Why would the Church do that??
She would not, EXCEPT for one possible reason: Rome has been deceived.
If you don't believe me, look carefully at the history of the "stand for Communion" order as detailed by Adoremus Bulletin's last two issues.
The American Bishops' representatives simply deceived Rome in stating that 'the practice of standing for reception of Commuion is universal in the American Church.'
I can tell you from personal experience and observation that that 'universality' was MANUFACTURED by the liturgy wonks and, if you wish, I will detail the processes used, because I was subjected to them, step-by-step, over a 6 year period in a Milwaukee-area parish which was run by a Rembert Weakland clone.
I sent an email (and thousands of others did, too) to a contact at the Cong/DiviniCultus and told him the same story. WITHIN ONE YEAR, the mandate to stand was SEVERELY MODIFIED by the Prefect of DiviniCultus.
Besides 'cooking the books' by forcing people to stand (and then making it seem like it was damn near spontaneous--even you will admit that it was NOT so--) the representatives to Rome also LIED. Standing was NOT a 'universal practice,' even in the N.O parishes. I can show you at least one Parish in every major city in which the people KNEEL for commmunion (some stand, some kneel.)
The fact of the matter is that this change did NOT grow from a 'sensus fidelium;' it sprang from the minds of the liturgy wonks (I suspect Hammond is one) and is, therefore, suspect.
This is no different in its way than Wilton Gregory's idea that for children's Masses on Christmas the term "feedbox" should be substituted for "manger." It got nowhere, because even Rome understood the utter vapidity of this "thought" from the ICEL crowd.
Prediction: over time, the enlightened Bishops of this country will allow, as did Bruskewitz, either posture. And as communion rails are slowly but surely re-placed in churches, kneeling will once again prevail--but it will not be IMPOSED by a pointyheaded bedwetter under utterly false and subversive cover. It will not be "twisted" from the writings of Jungmann.
AND it will be, subconsciously, a recognition of the human instinct to KNEEL in the presence of a King, which IS the 'sensus fidelium.'
"When in Rome, do as the Romans"
What these early Councils determined pertaining to disciplines, as opposed to doctrine, of the early Church must be studied in union with the following developmental history of the Church and Her various Rites, which have developed in different parts of the world essentially independently.
This one, about kneeling, always tends to fluster me. If Latin Rite "liturgistas" want to follow the Eatern Rites, why not go all the way? Currently, due to the emphasis of Vatican II and the Holy Father's wish concerning the Eastern Rites rights and ability to maintain their own authentic traditions for the good of the whole Church, several changes are occurring in the Byzantine Rite here in America. The custom developed here in America for the Eastern Rites to kneel for Sunday Divine Liturgy, being a result of the Latin Rite's influence. The season of Holy Pascha (Easter) was standing only. Within the last couple of years, the Metropolitan Bishop of the Byzantine Rite instituted standing for prayer on Sundays following this Council since Sundays are considered part of the Pascha feast, and that had always been the ordinary discipline of the Byzantine Rite outside of America. Kneeling occurs on other days though.
The problem seems to be, the disciplines developed over time following the doctrines of the Church, and their power can only be seen and have maximal effect to teach the Faith, in an unwritten way, when taken as a whole. They are what makes the external Divine Liturgy - when seen threaded together to make the whole. The Latin Rite and Eastern Rites developed independently and contain their own internal logic which begins to break down when you start to mix and match.
So Latin Rite liturgy "experts" want to use the Eastern Rites to get rid of kneeling? What about the Great Fast (Lent)? The Eastern Rites see the Fast as including the Holy Eucharist, so that the Divine Liturgy is not offered daily during this time. It's corollary would be the Good Friday services of the Latin Rite, except for the Eastern Rite the custom lasts the whole season. There is prayer - and it very much includes kneeling. Where are the Liturgy "experts" on this one? The Eastern Rites use leavened bread for the Eucharistic Sacrifice while the Latin Rite uses unleavened bread. Should the Latin Rite change to leavened bread? Etc., etc., ad naseum.
"When in Rome, do as the Romans"
The question for Latin Rite Catholics is, what is the discipline for our Church - what do the rubrics in the Roman Missal, the Liturgy of the Latin Rite, state. 'Nuff said.
Thanks for your post and the information.
As to your question, the answer is "they DON'T want to"---nor do they wish to adhere to traditional Roman practice. In fact, my suspicion is that these characters want to make "a new man," and do it through a new liturgy. Without wishing to sound too much like our interlocutor UltimaRatio, (who blames the Pope for everything except the common cold) the fact is that these instructions (the stand/kneel controversy is current, but there are thousands of others) are simply imposed WITHOUT the rational development necessary as is the case with the EO traditions (and the RC, heretofore.)
Thus the "cut and paste." While they may SAY that the EO have this or that tradition, therefore it should apply in RC liturgy--it is only an excuse. The liturgistas have no more interest in the developmental aspect of EO liturgy than in the RC liturgy.
The core of it is that they care NOT A WHIT for tradition--and I suspect that this particular aspect of their personality has to do VERY MUCH with their sexual orientation.
It is quite hard to understand unless you've seen a few of those in action, as we have here in Milwaukee; but the all the pieces of the puzzle "fit" once you add "orientation" to the mix.
This is PRECISELY the difference between the reaction of Bishop Bruskewitz (who said 'let them stand OR kneel,' and Bishop Loverde, (or his liturgy wonk adviser) who said 'kneeling is disobedient.'
It's really foot-stamping "I want my way."
Review the 'evidence' and 'documentation' presented in good faith by CatholicGuy and determine for yourself whether it is sufficient. The Tertullian dicta ARE NOT EVEN GERMANE--they have to do with penitential practice. The quote from Jungmann PLAINLY states that 'kneeling was the common posture.'
Yet they twist these facts to create whole new cloth and impose it under pain of "disobedience."
The simpering dancers will by no means win this battle. They have not the required masculinity to do so.
I know you say Tertullian's passage isn't directed at posture at Mass, but, it occurs in a paragraph (I don't have it before me)that details what Christians do at Mass. I don't see how that can be explained away.
I was trying to get at the point the kneeling isn't necesarily the best posture. Eastern Rite Catholics don't kneel, at least they didn't in the Ruthenian D.L. I attended a few years ago. I was trying to get at the fact, and I think it is factual, that kneeling was prohibited during Mass, at least twixt Easter and Pentecost, and it seems to me that practice might have been extended further so that standing was the norm.
Jungmannn makes the case that was the practice in the 9th Century when kneeling was imposed and Church architecture was changed, for among some reasons, to reflect the rule of kneeling. I know you have a liturgist friend that is researching this and I look forward to hearing his thoughts on the matter.
I don't mean to give the impression I know one-half as much as you about these matters. However, the material I have read leads me to think either posture acceptable.
That you had to live under the suzerainty of Weakland and are still Catholic is testament to the power of the Holy Spirit :)
As regards the Fealty to Kings point, I agree and have had that exchange with you previously. We both know the Credo became part of the Roman Rite when a King (His name escapes me) requested it be included in his Coronation Mass. Prior to that, the Credo was not professed.
Now, I like the Credo at Mass and think it apt. But, imagine the sspx types back then howling about the traditional Mass being changed to satisfy the personal desires of some wealthy,politically powerful, Royalty?
I know presentism is an error, so , let's just imagine how we would have reacted had John Fitzgerald Kennedy successfully had the Mass altered to suit his desires<>
Turning now to the liturgical prayer of the Christian Church, it is very evident that standing, not kneeling, is the correct posture for those taking part in it. A glance at the attitude of a priest officiating at Mass or Vespers, or using the Roman Ritual, will be sufficient proof. The clergy in attendance also, and even the laity assisting, are, by the rubrics, assumed to be standing. The Canon of the Mass designates them as "circumstantes". The practice of kneeling during the Consecration was introduced during the Middle Ages, and is in relation with the Elevation which originated in the same period. The rubric directing that while the celebrant and his ministers recite the Psalm "Judica", and make the Confession, those present who are not prelates should kneel, is a mere reminiscence of the fact that these introductory devotions were originally private prayers of preparation, and therefore outside the liturgy properly so called. It must not, in this connexion escape attention that, in proportion as the faithful have ceased to follow the liturgy, replacing its formulæ by private devotions, the standing attitude has fallen more and more into disuse among them. In our own time it is quite usual for the congregation at a high Mass to stand for the Gospel and Creed; and, at all other times either to remain seated (when this is permitted) or to kneel. There are, nevertheless, certain liturgical prayers to kneel during which is obligatory, the reason being that kneeling is the posture especially appropriate to the supplications of penitents, and is a characteristic attitude of humble entreaty in general. Hence, litanies are chanted, kneeling, unless (which in ancient times was deemed even more fitting) they can be gone through by a procession of mourners. So, too, public penitents knelt during such portions of the liturgy as they were allowed to assist at. The modern practice of Solemn Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament for public adoration has naturally led to more frequent and more continuous kneeling in church than formerly. Thus, at a Benediction service it is obligatory to kneel from beginning to end of the function, except during the chant of the Te Deum and like hymns of Praise.
The Liberal Catholic Church seeks to give the world the best elements of Catholicism with the best of Protestantism. On the Catholic side are the seven Sacraments; but these have been hedged about with all kinds of man-made dogmatic encumbrances such as creeds, rigid beliefs, the confessional, penances, indulgences, etc. On the Protestant side we have an earnest attempt to promote religious freedom; but the reformers discarded the Sacraments, lost the Apostolic Succession and soon lost much of the intellectual emancipation they had previously gained, which development has led to the rise of innumerable sectarian movements.
They proudly state they operate unencumbered by papal strictures, no kidding. Actually, they sound UUish to me.
That said, all this liturgical back and forth has always brought to my mind a personnel office --- making rules and enforcing new and innovative structures/strictures to guarantee job security. In other words, it is all busywork (or bs, depending on how much charity you wish to have). I think most of us can see this crap small scale in our own parishes, particularly if you have a few of those grey haired militant nuns on board as "pastoral associates" or running the CCD or RCIA programs.
I don't care what anyone else does, but for me, I know when I see (God have mercy on me, a sinner) Him, I will fall to my knees and probably hide my face. I don't think I could approach Him standing erect.
Saw my friend the super-liturgy guy Sunday afternoon. He immediately recognized the Tertullian passage and also immediately (without prompting) exclaimed that the passage was being mis-used--that it pertained to penitential practices at the time. Thus, the passage is not conclusive. Hammond (and others) have simply blown the passage WAY out of proportion---as can be deduced by the total lack of other documentation regarding postures at Mass in the passage (and surrounding paragraphs.) Eastern Rite Catholics don't kneel,.... that kneeling was prohibited during Mass, at least twixt Easter and Pentecost,
See above post from TotusTuus. He has nailed a good part of this with his comment that the liturgy is ORGANICALLY developed. It is his contention that this "standing" is essentially pasted-over the RC liturgy development, and not consistent with the rest of the RC organic development---it's a very sophisticated point which could use more examination. Jungmannn makes the case that was the practice in the 9th Century when kneeling was imposed and Church architecture was changed, for among some reasons, to reflect the rule of kneeling.
You are going to force me to examine my own copy of Jungmann (yes, I have one...) because it will be interesting to see EXACTLY how J. phrases this "imposition." I tend to think that the kneeling posture pre-dated the decree (that is, that the majority of RC's were kneeling of their own volition) and Rome simply confirmed it for the minority who did not...
This is preposterous on its face. You and I both agree FIRMLY that the priest's office (alter Christus) is MUCH different that the office of the laity. To appropriate degrees, the offices occupied by deacon, sub-deacon, acolyte, etc., are ALSO different from that of laity.
This is a very blatant effort to either spin the evidence, OR to blur the difference in liturgical office between priests/ministers and laity. There are, nevertheless, certain liturgical prayers to kneel during which is obligatory, the reason being that kneeling is the posture especially appropriate to the supplications of penitents, and is a characteristic attitude of humble entreaty in general. Hence, litanies are chanted, kneeling, unless (which in ancient times was deemed even more fitting) they can be gone through by a procession of mourners. So, too, public penitents knelt during such portions of the liturgy as they were allowed to assist at.
I have bolded the passages worth noting. Frankly, the text is self-contradictory, recognizing human nature ("...characteristic attitude of humble entreaty...") The second bold section concerns the Tertulliam material you cited. Now some will argue that the Canon of the Mass is not a litany, which is most certainly is not; therefore, (following the logic in this passage) if it is not "entreaty," we should not kneel.
There's this problem, however, with the FIRST PARAGRAPH of Canon I (the Roman Canon:) "Te, igitur....Pater...supplices rogamus ac petimus...") Is this or is this not SUPPLICATION??
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.