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...
<>It should be, while recognising at the same time such things as the Credo are not organic
Still, we do have Tertullian to deal with. No matter what reasons are adduced to explain or explain away the fact about standing, there is evidence that was a Rule.
We also have Canon 20 of Nicea for evidence. That is a Rule. The questions surrounding that Rule are legitimate. But, those questions, no matter whose polemical golden calf is being gored (to vaingloriously mix metaphors), do not render the standing rule nugatory.
We also have Jungmann saying that kneeling was imposed.
We have the Catholic Encyclopedia saying kneeling was imposed.
This conspiracy of facts is something some competent, professionally trained Liturgist ought to tease out so we can be better informed and form conclusions more dispassionately
Just speaking for myself, the more I learned about Liturgy, the less I was vexed about the Pauline Reform. In my flirtation with the schism, I was being influenced by tendentious morons. What they knew about the actual history of the Mass wouldn't fill a thimble. Once I started reading for myself- from many sources, Dom Gueranger, Gamber, Jungmann ect - the more easy it became to identify the ignorant polemical errors promoted by Davies et al.
I also admit I am Blessed. My Pastor is a brilliant man. Even were The Indult located close by, I would continue with the Missa Normitiva due to his preaching. He is incomparable and his sermons are enlightening, enspiriting, educational, funny, and startling. The Mass is reverent, we are adding back Latin Hymns (Agnus Dei always sung), the Tabernacle is back in the Sanctuary,we always say the Confetior... ect ect<>