Do parishes have to have kneelers?

[Ziggamafu]

I only ask because [i]most[/i] of the parishes I've been to (other than my own and two others) have chairs instead of pews and they're tight together, making kneeling practically impossible. and nobody kneels. they stand in reverence for the eucharist, but no kneeling. there was one or two that i went to where they just sat down the whole time!

is that something they can do with special permission?

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='Oct 15 2005, 06:27 AM']is that something they can do with special permission?
[right][snapback]759259[/snapback][/right][/quote]
NO!!! it is the product of a prideful and audacous liturgical movement in the Church which views kneeling as an inferior act that we shouldn't have to do. we are somehow "above it" now that we are "saved" by God. either that, or its too solemn and sad. we should be jumping and singing and dancing and playing our bongos!!!! pssht! whatever......

now, they may justify this by turning to section 43 in the GIRM, which contains the following paragraph:[list]In the dioceses of the United States of America, they should kneel beginning after the singing or recitation of the Sanctus until after the Amen of the Eucharistic Prayer, [i][b]except when prevented on occasion by reasons of health, lack of space, the large number of people present, or some other good reason[/b][/i]. Those who do not kneel ought to make a profound bow when the priest genuflects after the consecration. The faithful kneel after the Agnus Dei unless the Diocesan Bishop determines otherwise.53
[/list]however, these are [i][b]concessions[/b][/i] meant to accomodate people who are celebrating mass in a space that was not originally intended for it. the norm is to kneel. this is what we "should" do. this in no way gives church architects the right to build obstacles to kneeling [i][b]into[/b][/i] the construction of the church, or for liturgists to rip the kneelers out of it.

you may wish to pm Cam as well. he is more knowledgeable of the liturgy than i am.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[Ziggamafu]

there are so many parishes that I've been too that are like that...the bishop HAS to know about them...if it's such a gross violation (which is indeed the feeling my gut give me), then why is it ignored? kind of like how there's a law somewhere that says you can't have a processional with a crucifix (it has to be a risen christ) if there already is a crucifix above the altar. I see that "violation" all the time.

i would feel compelled to write the bishop about it if i thought he didn't already know...

[Cam42]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='Oct 15 2005, 11:19 AM']there are so many parishes that I've been too that are like that...the bishop HAS to know about them...if it's such a gross violation (which is indeed the feeling my gut give me), then why is it ignored? kind of like how there's a law somewhere that says you can't have a processional with a crucifix (it has to be a risen christ) if there already is a crucifix above the altar. I see that "violation" all the time.

i would feel compelled to write the bishop about it if i thought he didn't already know...
[right][snapback]759318[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

One word......

[b]ABUSE[/b].

Follow the mandate from Redemptionis Sacramentum:

[quote name='Redemptioinis Sacramentum #184']Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity.[/quote]

Nick's answer is correct.

[shortnun]

[i]I respectfully post an alternative opinion: [/i]

[b]Should we stand or kneel for the Eucharistic Prayer? [/b]

Postures are full of meaning. Our postures are acts of prayer, prayers of the heart and body. What does it mean to stand or to kneel in prayer?

People stand up for what they believe. We stand in the presence of dignitaries. We leap to our feet to greet a loved one. Servants stand to wait upon superiors, especially the guest of honor. People kneel in the presence of overpowering mystery. We kneel to adore. We kneel when we are sorry, seeking mercy.

What are we doing when we enter into the Eucharistic Prayer at Mass? Although the priest alone speaks the words, all of us who are baptized are offering ourselves-body and soul, individuals united in community-to God, along with the gifts of bread and wine.

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal states that the faithful stand for the Eucharistic Prayer, kneeling at the words "Take this all of you and eat..." until "Do this in memory of me" unless health, lack of space, or some other good reason suggests remaining standing. The U.S. bishops asked Rome to allow U.S. Catholics to kneel after the "Holy, Holy" until the end of the prayer. Rome granted this exception. This is the current law.

Beginning 30 years ago, some pastors began asking the people to stand for the whole prayer and to bow at the words of Jesus. They did so because the Second Vatican Council taught that "the full conscious and active participation of all the faithful [in the Mass] was the aim to be considered before all else." Some sensed that while kneeling down, people were watching, adoring Jesus, but not always offering themselves. Until the 12th century, everyone stood and held both hands in the prayer position like the priest does today--the posture of offering one's self.

Eager to help everyone enter deeply into this mystery where God not only changes the bread and wine but also changes us, some pastors encouraged the people to stand for the whole prayer. Such full participation in the sacrifice can count as the "some other good reason" to stand of which the law speaks.

~~~~~~~~
By DAVID PHILIPPART, who studied liturgy at the University of Notre Dame. He lives in Chicago.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright of U.S. Catholic is the property of Claretian Publications and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
Source: U.S. Catholic, Apr2004, Vol. 69 Issue 4, p36, 1/2p.

[i]If, Ziggamafu (et al), you find yourself with time to do a little more reading, I suggest [url="http://www.op.org/DomCentral/library/posture.htm"]this article[/url]. It provides an appropriate history of the connection between posture and prayer, taking into consideration the changes made in light of Vatican II.

Lastly, Ziggamafu, I encourage you to find a community where you feel comfortable worshiping. It is of the utmost importance that our liturgical celebrations stem from our very own human experience, as well as reflect a sacramental worldview. Prayers for you in your search, for your bishop, and for churches worldwide struggling to reconcile posture and prayer differences.
[/i]

[Cam42]

[quote name='shortnun' date='Oct 15 2005, 06:35 PM'][i]I respectfully post an alternative opinion: [/i]

[b]Should we stand or kneel for the Eucharistic Prayer?  [/b]

Postures are full of meaning. Our postures are acts of prayer, prayers of the heart and body. What does it mean to stand or to kneel in prayer?

People stand up for what they believe. We stand in the presence of dignitaries. We leap to our feet to greet a loved one. Servants stand to wait upon superiors, especially the guest of honor. People kneel in the presence of overpowering mystery. We kneel to adore. We kneel when we are sorry, seeking mercy.

What are we doing when we enter into the Eucharistic Prayer at Mass? Although the priest alone speaks the words, all of us who are baptized are offering ourselves-body and soul, individuals united in community-to God, along with the gifts of bread and wine.

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal states that the faithful stand for the Eucharistic Prayer, kneeling at the words "Take this all of you and eat..." until "Do this in memory of me" unless health, lack of space, or some other good reason suggests remaining standing. The U.S. bishops asked Rome to allow U.S. Catholics to kneel after the "Holy, Holy" until the end of the prayer. Rome granted this exception. This is the current law.

Beginning 30 years ago, some pastors began asking the people to stand for the whole prayer and to bow at the words of Jesus. They did so because the Second Vatican Council taught that "the full conscious and active participation of all the faithful [in the Mass] was the aim to be considered before all else." Some sensed that while kneeling down, people were watching, adoring Jesus, but not always offering themselves. Until the 12th century, everyone stood and held both hands in the prayer position like the priest does today--the posture of offering one's self.

Eager to help everyone enter deeply into this mystery where God not only changes the bread and wine but also changes us, some pastors encouraged the people to stand for the whole prayer. Such full participation in the sacrifice can count as the "some other good reason" to stand of which the law speaks.

~~~~~~~~
By DAVID PHILIPPART, who studied liturgy at the University of Notre Dame. He lives in Chicago.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright of U.S. Catholic is the property of Claretian Publications and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
Source: U.S. Catholic, Apr2004, Vol. 69 Issue 4, p36, 1/2p.

[i]If, Ziggamafu (et al), you find yourself with time to do a little more reading, I suggest [url="http://www.op.org/DomCentral/library/posture.htm"]this article[/url]. It provides an appropriate history of the connection between posture and prayer, taking into consideration the changes made in light of Vatican II.

Lastly, Ziggamafu, I encourage you to find a community where you feel comfortable worshiping. It is of the utmost importance that our liturgical celebrations stem from our very own human experience, as well as reflect a sacramental worldview. Prayers for you in your search, for your bishop, and for churches worldwide struggling to reconcile posture and prayer differences.
[/i]
[right][snapback]759597[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Shortnun,

That article is incorrect not only in its Liturgical function, but also in it's understanding of participatio actuosa. Full conscious and active participation is not a license for abuse. While you do offer an alternative, it is contrary to the Catholic norm here in the US.

The norm is to kneel. That much is clear, all one has to do is look to the GIRM and also to the documents of Vatican Council II.

As for full, concious, and active participation, here is an article from one of the foremost liturgists of our day.

[quote name='Mons. Richard Schuler']With the constitution on the liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, issued in 1965 by the Second Vatican Council, everyone became very conscious of personal participation in the sacred liturgy, particularly in the Mass.

But active participation in in the liturgy was not a concept created by the Second Vatican Council. Indeed, even the very words actuosa participatio can be found in the writings of the popes for the past one hundred years. Pope Pius X called for it in his motu proprio, Tra le sollecitudini, published in 1903, when he said that "the faithful assemble to draw that spirit from its primary and indispensable source, that is, from active participation in the sacred mysteries and in the public and solemn prayer of the Church."

Pope Pius XI in his apostolic constitution, Divini cultus, wrote in 1928, that the restoration of Gregorian chant for the use of the people would provide the means whereby "the faithful may participate in divine worship more actively." Such participation was to be achieved both by singing and by an appreciation of the beauty of the liturgy which stirs the heart of the worshiper, who thereby enters into the sacred mysteries.

In his encyclicals, Mystici corporus in 1943, and Mediator Dei in 1947, Pope Pius XII used the term but carefully insisted that true participation was not merely external but consisted in a baptismal union with Christ in His Mystical Body, the Church.

In 1958, the Sacred Congregation of Rites issued the instruction, De musica sacra, which distinguished several qualities of participation:

The Mass of its nature requires that all those present participate in it, in the fashion proper to each.

This participation must primarily be interior (i.e., union with Christ the Priest; offering with and through Him).

b) But the participation of those present becomes fuller (plenior) if to internal attention is joined external participation, expressed, that is to say, by external actions such as the position of the body (genuflecting, standing, sitting), ceremonial gestures, or, in particular, the responses, prayers and singing . . .

It is this harmonious form of participation that is referred to in pontifical documents when they speak of active participation (participatio actuosa), the principal example of which is found in the celebrating priest and his ministers who, with due interior devotion and exact observance of the rubrics and ceremonies, minister at the altar.

c) Perfect participatio actuosa of the faithful, finally, is obtained when there is added sacramental participation (by communion).

d) Deliberate participatio actuosa of the faithful is not possible without their adequate instruction.

It is made clear that it is baptismal character that forms the foundation of active participation.

Vatican II introduced no radical alteration in the concept of participatio actuosa as fostered by the popes for the past decades. The general principle is contained in Article 14 of the constitution on the sacred liturgy:

Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that full, conscious and active participation in the ceremonies which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy.

Such participation by the Christian people as a "chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people" (I Pet. 2:9; 2:4-5) is their right and duty by reason of their baptism.

In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else; for it is the primary and indispensable source from which the faithful are to derive the true spirit of Christ . . .

The word "full" (plena) refers to the integrally human fashion in which the baptized faithful take part in the liturgy, i.e., internally and externally. The word "conscious" (conscia) demands a knowledge of what one is doing on the part of the faithful, excluding any superstition or false piety. But the word "active" (actuosa) requires some greater examination.

A true grasp of the meaning of participation in the liturgy demands a clear understanding of the nature of the Church and above all of Christ Himself. At the basis of so much of today's problems in liturgy lies a false notion of Christology and ecclesiology. Christ, the incarnate Word of God, true God and true Man, lives on in this world now. "I will be with you all days until the end of the world." Even though He has arisen and ascended into heaven, He lives with us. The Church is His mystical Body, indeed His mystical Person. We are the members of that Body. Its activity, the activity of the Church, is the activity of Christ, its Head. The hierarchical priesthood functions in the very person of Christ, doing His work of teaching, ruling and sanctifying. Thus the Mass and the sacraments are Christ's actions bringing to all the members of His Body, the Church, the very life that is in its Head. Participation in that life demands that every member of the Body take part in that action, which is primarily the liturgical activity of the Church. The liturgy is the primary source of that divine life, and thus all must be joined to it in an active way. Baptism is the key that opens the door and permits one to become part of the living Body of Christ. The baptized Christian has not only a right to participation in the Church's life but a duty as well. It is only the baptized person who can participate.

The difference between participation in the liturgy that can be called activa and participation that can be lablled actuosa rests in the presence in the soul of the baptismal character, the seal that grants one the right to participate. Without the baptismal mark, all the actions of singing, walking, kneeling or anything else can be termed "active," but they do not constitute participatio actuosa. Only the baptismal character can make any actions truly participatory. Let us use an example. LEt us say that a pious Hindu attends Mass, takes part in the singing and even walks in a procession with great piety. In the same church is also a Catholic who is blind and deaf and who is unable to leave his chair; he can neither sing nor hear the readings nor walk in the procession. Which one has truly participated, the one who is very active, or the one who has confined himself solely to his thoughts of adoration? Obviously, it is the baptized Catholic who has exercised participatio actuosa despite his lack of external, physical movement. The Hindu even with his many actions has not been capable of it, since he lacks the baptismal character.

Granting then the absolute necessity of baptism, it still is imperative for the Christian to take part in the liturgy actively by a variety of actions. This means that the internal actuosa participatio, which the baptismal mark empowers, must be aided by those external actions that he is capable of. He should do those things that the Church sets out for him according to his role in the liturgy and the various conditions that age, social position and cultural background dictate. He must join participatio activa to his participatio actuosa which he exercises as a baptismal person.

What are those actions that make for true active participation in the liturgy? These must be both internal and external in quality, since man is a rational creature with body and soul. The external actions must be intelligent and understood, sincere and pious internally. The Church proposes many bodily positions: kneeling, standing, walking, sitting, etc. It likewise proposes many human actions: singing, speaking, listening and above all else, the reception of the Holy Eucharist. They demand internal attention as well as external execution.

One of the most active and demanding of human actions is that of listening. It requires strict attention and summons up in a person his total concentrative effort. It is possible, for example, to walk without really knowing that one is walking or advert to where one is going. It is possible even to sing, especially a very familiar tune, and not be conscious of actually singing. But one cannot truly listen without attention. Especially in our day of constant radio and TV broadcasting, we are able to tune out almost every sound we wish. To listen attentively demands full human concentration. Listening can be the most active form of participation, demanding effort and attention. Truly, as the scriptures tell us, faith demands hearing, fides ex auditu.

With that in mind, surely the baptized Christian who listens with care to the proclamation of the gospel or the singing of the preface at Mass truly has achieved participation, both activa and actuosa.

The Church does not have the entire congregation proclaim the gospel text, but rather the deacon or the priest does it. It is the duty of all to listen. The cannon of the Mass is not to be recited by everyone but all are to hear it. Listening is a most important form of active participation.

There is a variety of roles to be observed in the public celebration of the liturgy. There is the role of the priest, deacon, reader, cantor, choir and congregation, among many others. Because each office has its own purpose and its own manner of acting we have the basic reason for a distinction of roles. If the reader or the cantor is to read and sing, certainly the role of the others is to listen. If the choir is to sing, someone must listen and in so-doing participate actively in the liturgy, even if during the period of listening he is relatively inactive in a physical way.

Every age has participated in the liturgy through baptism, as members of the Church and part of the mystical body of Christ. All ages have shared in the right and duty of actuosa participatio. If, as Pius X insists, the liturgy is the primary source of the Christian life, everyone must take part in it to achieve salvation. Active participation is not an invention of our day; the Church throughout the ages constantly shared the life of Christ with its members in the Mass and the sacraments, the very actions of Christ Himself working through His Church and His priesthood. For each age the activities deemed by it to be useful in promoting that participation have varied according to the needs and ideas of the period. One cannot say that because the medieval period developed a chant that was largely the possession of monastic choirs, the congregations who listened were not actively participating. Perhaps not according to post-Vatican II standards, but one must carefully avoid the error of judging the past by the present and applying to former times criteria that seem valuable in our own times. Because Palestrina's polyphonic Masses require the singing of trained choirs, can one assume that non-choir members in the renaissance period were deprived of an active participation in the liturgy? No age could permit such a thing to happen and thus be deprived of the primary source of the spiritual life. The sixteenth-century baptized Roman did participate through listening along with other activites, as no doubt an eighteenth-century Austrian did when he heard a Mozart Mass performed by a choir and orchestra.

We must then carefully consider the roles of each individual, and we must consider the cultural and personal conditions of each one who must find in the liturgy the primary source of his spiritual life. A variety of opportunities for liturgical activity is needed, and good pastoral direction will supply the need. The Church herself does so by the very rubrics of the liturgical books, directing what is to be done. The Vatican Council taught the need of various functions and various roles to carry out completely the liturgical actions.

Surely the spoken and sung responses and acclamations in the liturgy are the right and the duty of all present. But the practice of calling the Sanctus an acclamation is without foundation; it is a hymn, found in the Old Testament and sung by the angels. It is not the exclusive perogative of the congregation as it might be thought to be if it is labelled an acclamation. As a hymn it can be given to a trained group and sung in a more elaborate setting. The same is true of the parts called the ordinary of the Mass, including the Credo, which may be listened to and consented to with great faith without having to be spoken by the congregation. The proper parts of the Mass, because of the great variety of texts and settings, fall of necessity to trained and practiced groups. One may, of course, never exclude the congregation totally from participation by singing, but the variety of methods allows for many possiblities for participation by singing or by listening to singing. The possibilities of participation are almost infinite.

Important too for any participation in the liturgy is the elevation of the spirit of the worshipper. Ultimately, liturgy is prayer, the supreme prayer of adoration, thanksgiving, petition and reparation. Prayer is the raising of the heart and the mind to God as Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier. The means to achieve such elevation of the spirit in prayer onvolve all the activities of the human person, both spirit and body. Such means produce true actuosa participatio. Thus beauty, whether it appeals to the sight, the ear, the imagination or any of the senses, is an important element in achieving participation. The architectural splendor of a great church or the sound of great music, or the solemnity of ceremonial movement by ministers clothed in precious vestments, or the beauty of the proclaimed word - all can effect a true and salutary participation in one who himself has not sung a note or taken a step. But he is not a mere spectator as some would say; he is actively participating because of his baptismal character and the grace stirred up in him by what he is seeing and hearing, thinking and praying.

The Church has always promoted Gregorian chant. Especially during this past century, the popes have fostered the music of the renaissance polyphonists. Pope John Paul II celebrated Mass in St. Peter's Basilica with the Vienna orchestra and singers doing Mozart's Coronation Mass. Anyone who was present on that memorable occasion in that great church experienced true participation.

Thus to limit participation to singing impoverishes seriously the opportunity of the Christian to take part in the most essential means for his salvation. One does not have to sing to save his soul. But one must be active (actuosa participatio) in the liturgy, through baptism and other actions according to his ability, state, culture and disposition, in order to enter into the mystery of the redemption wrought by Christ, outside of which there is no salvation.

We can conclude with this definition of participatio actuosa:

(It is) that form of devout involvement in the liturgical action which, in the present conditions of the Church, best promotes the exercise of the common priesthood of the baptized: that is, their power to offer the sacrifice of the Mass with Christ and to receive the sacraments. It is clear that, concretely, this requires that the faithful understand the liturgical ceremonial; that they take part in it by bodily movements, standing, kneeling or sitting as the occasion may demand; that they join vocally in the parts which are intended for them. It also requires that they listen to, and understand, the liturgy of the word. It requires, too, that there be moments of silence when the import of the whole ceremonial may be absorbed and deeply personalized. (Colman E. O'Neill, "The Theological Meaning of Actuosa Participatio in the Liturgy," in Sacred Music and Liturgy Reform after Vatican II. Consociatio Internationalis Musicae Sacrae, Rome, 1969. p. 105.)[/quote]

The confusion is one that is obvious and has been discussed before. This is not a debate forum, if you would like to take this up, please move the topic there and we can debate this.....the article is a matter of clarification on what partipatio actuosa is as opposed to participatio activa. The quoted article from shortnun has flaws in the understanding of Vatican II.

[Cam42]

Some more information from a post that I posted in July:

[quote name='Cam42 @ Kneeling; Jul 1 2005' date=' 07:23 AM']The bishop is still bound by this:
[quote name='Sacrosanctum Concilium #22']1. Regulation of the Sacred Liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.

2. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the Liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.

3. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the Liturgy on his own authority.[/quote]

Also, this comes into play:
[quote name='Sacrosanctum Concilium #23']That sound tradition may be retained, and yet the way remain open to legitimate progress, careful investigation is always to be made into each part of the Liturgy which is to be revised. This investigation should be theological, historical, and pastoral. Also the general laws governing the structure and meaning of the Liturgy must be studied in conjunction with the experience derived from recent liturgical reforms and from the indults conceded to various places. Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.

As far as possible, notable differences between the rites used in adjacent regions must be carefully avoided.[/quote]

So, based upon Vatican Council II, we see that no one may on his own authority change anything in the Liturgy, this edict includes a bishop. Why? Because of what #23 says. Kneeling for the Canon is legitimate progress. The norm is to kneel only for the consecration, however, an indult has been granted that has organically grown from that tradition. Is it for the good of the Church that the dioceses of the US kneel for the whole of the Canon? The USCCB thinks so and the Holy See agrees.

It would be turning back progress to stand for the Canon. That should infuriate progressives. If I were a progressive Catholic, I would be appalled that anyone would want to turn back the clock and do something so traditional as to only kneel for the consecration. [/quote]

Here is what the GIRM states:

[quote name='GIRM #43']The faithful should stand from the beginning of the Entrance chant, or while the priest approaches the altar, until the end of the Collect; for the Alleluia chant before the Gospel; while the Gospel itself is proclaimed; during the Profession of Faith and the Prayer of the Faithful; from the invitation, Orate, fraters (Pray, brethren), before the prayer over the offerings until the end of Mass, except at the places indicated below.

They should, however, sit while the readings before the Gospel and the responsorial Psalm are proclaimed and for the homily and while the Preparation of the Gifts at the Offertory is taking place; and, as circumstances allow, they may sit or kneel while the period of sacred silence after Communion is observed.

[b]In the dioceses of the United States of America, they should kneel beginning after the singing or recitation of the Sanctus until after the Amen of the Eucharistic Prayer, except when prevented on occasion by reasons of health, lack of space, the large number of people present, or some other good reason. Those who do not kneel ought to make a profound bow when the priest genuflects after the consecration. The faithful kneel after the Agnus Dei unless the Diocesan Bishop determines otherwise.[/b]

With a view to a uniformity in gestures and postures during one and the same celebration, the faithful should follow the directions which the deacon, lay minister, or priest gives according to whatever is indicated in the Missal.[/quote]

[journeyman]

Equally respectully submitted

Cardinal Ratzinger identifies three closely related forms of posture in his book The Spirit of the Liturgy, Part Four - Liturgical Form, Chapter Two - The Body and the Liturgy, pages 185 and following.

1. [i]Prostratio[/i]
lying with one's face to the ground before the overwhelming power of God
he points to Joshua 5:15 as an Old Testament example
and the Mount of Olives (Matthew 22:39 and Mark 14:35) as New Testament examples

in modern liturgy - appears at Good Friday - as a fitting expression of our sense of shock at the fact that we by our sins share in the responsibility for the death of Christ - we acknowledge we are fallen creatures . . . and at ordination - from the awareness of the priest/bishop candidate's absolute incapacity, by his own powers, to take on the priestly mission of Christ, to speak with his "I"

2. falling to one's knees before another
After noting earlier that the Greeks and Romans rejected kneeling as unworthy of a freeman, a superstition, barbaric - he notes that Luke in both the Gospel and in Acts tells us Jesus prayed on his knees
he points to Mark 1:40; Mark 10:17, Matthew 17:14 and Matthew 27:29 as New Testament examples by means of the word [i]gonypetein[/i].
Analyzing Mark 1:40, the Cardinal says this was not a proper act of adoration, but rather a supplication expressed fervently in bodily form - different from the classical word for adoration on one's knees [i]proskynein[/i].
He points to Matthew 14:33 (small boat in storm after the multiplication of the loaves) where the translations run the gamut from "falling at his feet" saying 'Thou art indeed the Son of God' or the disciples worshipped Jesus saying . . . He notes the first translation brings out the bodily expression, while the second shows what is happening interiorly.Same duality in translation appears in John 9:35-38. He notes that [i]proskynein[/i] appears 11 times in John's Gospel, 9 of them during the conversation with the Samaritan woman at Jacob's well.

3. kneeling
in Hebrew, the verb [i]barak[/i] (to kneel) is cognate with the word [i]berek[/i] (knee) . . . the Hebrews regarded the knees as a symbol of strength, to bend the knee is, therefore, to bend our strength before the living God, an acknowledgment of the fact that all that we are we receive from him.
Examples - Solomon, dedication of the Temple 2 Chronicles 6:13
Ezra 9:15; Psalm 22:29;
Prayer in the New Testament (Peter - Acts 9:40; Paul - Acts 20:36; the community - Acts 21:5)(he reminds us again that Luke, unlike Matthew and Mark, has Jesus praying on his knees, rather than prostrate)

He notes the spiritual and bodily meanings of [i]proskynein[/i] are really inseperable. The bodily gesture is the bearer of the spiritual meaning. Without the worship, the bodily gesture would be meaningless, while the spiritual act must of its very nature, because of the psychosomatic unity of man, express itself in the bodily gesture. The two aspects are united in the one word, because they belong together. When kneeling becomes merely external, a merely physical act, it becomes meaningless.

He notes that the phrase Luke used to describe the kneeling of Christians ([i]theis ta gonata[/i]) is unknown in classical Greek . . . it is a specifically Christian word

The man who learns to believe learns also to kneel, and a faith or a liturgy no longer familiar with kneeling would be sick at the core. Where it has been lost, kneeling must be rediscovered, so that, in our prayer, we remain in fellowship with the apostles and martyrs, in fellowship with the whole cosmos, indeed in union with Jesus Christ Himself.

Standing and Sitting "considerably more brief" because they are not very controversial these days, and the importance that each has is not hard to see.

In the Old Testament - standing is a classic posture for prayer. - example Hannah, mother of Samuel (1 Sam 1:26); New Testament examples of Jewish prayer: Matthew 6:5; Mark 11:25; Luke 18:11ff - but he distinguishes that for Christians, standing was primarily the Easter form of prayer (20th Canon, Nicaea) Standing is the posture of a victor (Acts 7:55); an expression of readiness. When we stand, we know that we are united to the victory of Christ, and when we stand to listen to the Gospel, it is an expression of reverence. When this Word is heard, we cannot remain sitting, it pulls us up. It demands both reverence and courage, when he calls us to set off in some new direction, to do his will and to carry it into our lives and into the world.

the [i]orans[/i] - female figure standing and praying with outstretched hands (painting in the catacombs) - more recent research indicates she represents not the praying Church - but the soul that has entered into heavenly glory and stands in adoration before the face of God. . . . this is not the earthly liturgy, the liturgy of pilgrimage, but prayer in the state of glory . . . and thus anticipates the future, the glory to come

kneeling remains indispensable to liturgical prayer in the here and now . . . the "between" time in which we live

pardon the less than organized summary . . . my theology skills aren't up to the task of summarizing decades of study and thought

[journeyman]

Cam, two posts, twice as long, in the time it took me to try and make sense of my little one

You really do type 90 wpm

[journeyman]

In the first part of the same chapter, the Cardinal spoke of the "active participation" called for at Vatican II

[quote]1. “Active Participation”

To express one of its main ideas for the shaping of the liturgy, the Second Vatican Council gave us the phrase [i]participatio actuosa[/i], the “active participation” of everyone in the [i]opus Dei[/i], in what happens in the worship of God.  It was quite right to do so.  The [i]Catechism of the Catholic Church[/i] points out that the word “liturgy” speaks to us of a communion service and thus as a reference to the whole holy People of God (cf. CCC 1069).  But what does this active participation come down to?  What does it mean that we have to do?  Unfortunately, the word was very quickly misunderstood to mean something external, entailing a need for general activity, as if as many people as possible, as often as possible, should be visibly engaged in action.  However, the word “part-icipation” refers to a principal action in which everyone has a “part.”  And so if we want to discover the kind of doing that active participation involves, we need, first of all, to determine what this central [i]actio [/i]is in which all the members of the community are supposed to participate.  The study of the liturgical sources provides an answer that at first may surprise us, though, in the light of the biblical foundations considered in the first part, it is quite self-evident.  By the [i]actio [/i]of the liturgy the sources mean the Eucharistic Prayer.  The real liturgical action, the true liturgical act, is the [i]oratio[/i], the great prayer that forms the core of the Eucharistic celebration, the whole of which was, therefore, called [i]oratio [/i]by the Fathers.  At first, simply in terms of the form of the liturgy, this was quite correct, because the essence of the Christian liturgy is to be found in the [i]oratio[/i]; this is its center and fundamental form.  Calling the Eucharist [i]oratio [/i]was, then, a quite standard response to the pagans and to questioning intellectuals in general.  What the Fathers were saying was this:  The sacrificial animals and all those things that you had and have, and which ultimately satisfy no one, are now abolished.  In their place has come the Sacrifice of the Word.  We are the spiritual religion, in which in truth a Word-based worship takes place.  Goats and cattle are no longer slaughtered.  Instead, the Word, summing up our existence, is address to God and identified with the Word, the Word of God, who draws us into true worship.  Perhaps it would be useful to note here that the word [i]oratio [/i]originally means, not “prayer” (for which the word is [i]prex[/i], but solemn public speech.  Such speech now attains its supreme dignity through its being addressed to God in full awareness that it comes from him and is made possible by him.

But this is only just a hint of the central issue.  This [i]oratio [/i]– the Eucharistic Prayer, the “Canon” – is really more than speech; it is [i]actio [/i]in the highest sense of the word.  For what happens in it is that the human [i]actio [/i](as performed hitherto by the priests in the various religions of the world) steps back and makes way for the [i]actio divina[/i], the action of God.  In this [i]oratio [/i]the priest speaks with the I of the Lord – “This is my Body,” “This is my Blood.”  He knows that he is not now speaking from his own resources but in virtue of the Sacrament that he has received, he has become the voice of Someone Else, who is now speaking and acting.  This action of God, which takes place through human speech, is the real “action” for which all of creation is in expectation.  The elements of the earth are transubstantiated, pulled, so to speak, from their creaturely anchorage, grasped at the deepest ground of their being, and changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord.  The New Heaven and the New Earth are anticipated.  The real “action” in the liturgy in which we are all supposed to participate is the action of God himself.  This is what is new and distinctive about the Christian liturgy:  God himself acts and does what is essential.  He inaugurates the new creation, makes himself accessible to us, so that, through the things of the earth, through our gifts, we can communicate with him in a personal way.  But how can we part-icipate, have a part, in this action?  Are not God and man completely incommensurable?  Can man, the finite and sinful one, cooperate with God, the Infinite and Holy One?  Yes, he can, precisely because God himself has become man, become body, and here, again and again, he comes through his body to us who live in the body.  The whole event of the Incarnation, Cross, Resurrection and Second Coming is present as the way by which God draws man into cooperation with himself.  As we have seen, this is expressed in the liturgy in the fact that the petition for acceptance is part of the [i]oratio[/i].  True, the Sacrifice of the Logos is accepted already and forever.  But we must still pray for it to become our sacrifice, that we ourselves, as we said, may be transformed into the Logos ([i]logisiert[/i]), conformed to the Logs, and so be made the true Body of Christ.  That is the issue, and that is what we have to pray for.  This petition itself is a way into the Incarnation and the Resurrection, the path that we take in the wayfaring state of our existence.  In this real “action,” in this prayerful approach to participation, there is no difference between priests and laity.  True, addressing the [i]oratio [/i]to the Lord in the name of the Church and, at its core, speaking the very “I” of Jesus Christ – that is something that can be done only through sacramental empowerment.  But participation in that which no human being does, that which the Lord himself and only he can do – that is equally for everyone.  In the words of St. Paul, it is a question of being “united to the Lord” and thus becoming “one spirit with him” (1 Cor 6:17).  The point is that, ultimately, the difference between the [i]actio Christi[/i] and our own action is done away with.  There is only one action, which is at the same time his and ours – ours because we have become “one body and one spirit” with him.  The uniqueness of the Eucharistic liturgy lies precisely in the fact that God himself is acting and that we are drawn into that action of God.  Everything else is, therefore, secondary.

Of course, external actions – reading, singing, the bringing up of the gifts – can be distributed in a sensible way.  By the same token, participation in the Liturgy of the Word (reading, singing) is to be distinguished from the sacramental celebration proper.  We should be clearly aware that external actions are quite secondary here.  Doing really must stop when we come to the heart of the matter: the [i]oratio[/i].  It must be plainly evident that the [i]oratio [/i]is the heart of the matter, but that it is important precisely because it provides a space for the [i]actio [/i]of God.  Anyone who grasps this will easily see that it is not now a matter of looking at or toward the priest, but of looking together toward the Lord and going out to meet him.  The almost theatrical entrance of different players into the liturgy, which is so common today, especially during the Preparation of the Gifts, quite simply misses the point.  If the various external actions (as a matter of fact, there are not very many of them, though they are being artificially multiplied) become the essential in the liturgy, if the liturgy degenerates into general activity, then we have radically misunderstood the “theo-drama” of the liturgy and lapsed almost into parody.  True liturgical education cannot consist in learning and experimenting with external activities.  Instead one must be led toward the essential [i]actio [/i]that makes the liturgy what it is, toward the transforming power of God, who wants, through what happens in the liturgy, to transform us and the world.  In this respect, liturgical education today, of both priests and laity, is deficient to a deplorable extent.  Much remains to be done here.

At this point the reader will perhaps ask:  “What about the body?  With this idea of a word-based sacrifice ([i]oratio[/i]), have you not shifted everything over to the spiritual side?”  That charge might have applied to the pre-Christian idea of [i]logos[/i]-liturgy, but it cannot be true of the liturgy of the Word incarnate, who offers himself to us in his Body and Blood, and thus in a corporeal way.  It is, of course, the new corporeality of the risen Lord, but it remains true corporeality, and it is this that we are given in the material signs of bread and wine.  This means that we are laid hold of by the Logos and for the Logos in our very bodies, in the bodily existence of our everyday life.  The true liturgical action is the deed of God, and for that very reason the liturgy of faith always reaches beyond the cultic act into everyday life, which must itself become “liturgical,” a service for the transformation of the world.  Much more is required of the body than carrying objects around and other such activities.  A demand is made on the body in all its involvement in the circumstances of everyday life.  The body is required to become “capable of resurrection,” to orient itself toward the resurrection, toward the Kingdom of God, in a word:  “Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven.”  Where God’s will is done, there is heaven, there earth becomes heaven.  Surrendering ourselves to the action of God, so that we in our turn may cooperate with him – that is what begins in the liturgy and is meant to unfold further beyond it.  Incarnation must always lead through Cross (the transforming of our wills in a communion of will with God) to Resurrection – to that rule of love which is the Kingdom of God.  The body must be trained, so to speak, for the resurrection.  Let us remember incidentally that the unfashionable word [i]askēsis [/i]can be simply translated in English as “training.”  Nowadays we train with enthusiasm, perseverance, and great renunciation for many different purposes – why do we not train ourselves for God and his Kingdom?  “I train my body,” says St. Paul, “and subdue it” (1 Cor 9:27, RSV adapted).  He also uses the discipline of athletes as an image for training in one’s own life.  This training is an essential part of everyday life, but it has to find its inner support in the liturgy, in the liturgy’s “orientation” toward the risen Christ.  Let me say once again: it is a way of learning to accept the other in his otherness, a training for love, a training to help us accept the Wholly Other, God, to be shaped and used by him.  The body has a place within the divine worship of the Word made flesh, and it is expressed liturgically in a certain discipline of the body, in gestures that have developed out of the liturgy’s inner demands and that make the essence of the liturgy, as it were, bodily visible.  These gestures may vary in their details from culture to culture, but in their essential forms they are part of that culture of faith which has grown out of Christian cult.  They form, therefore, a common language that crosses the borders of the different cultures.
[/quote]

[cmotherofpirl]

In the Pittsburgh diocese if your church doesn't have kneelers you kneel on the floor. So much for inferior planning.

[journeyman]

is it permitted to bring knee cushions to church with you? especially if the floor is hard cold stone?

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='journeyman' date='Oct 15 2005, 11:38 PM']is it permitted to bring knee cushions to church with you? especially if the floor is hard cold stone?
[right][snapback]759959[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
i don't see why u wouldn't be able to do that, altho kneeling on the cold stone would be a glorious act of penance.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Oct 15 2005, 09:53 AM']now, they may justify this by turning to section 43 in the GIRM, which contains the following paragraph:[list]In the dioceses of the United States of America, they should kneel beginning after the singing or recitation of the Sanctus until after the Amen of the Eucharistic Prayer, [i][b]except when prevented on occasion by reasons of health, lack of space, the large number of people present, or some other good reason[/b][/i]. Those who do not kneel ought to make a profound bow when the priest genuflects after the consecration. The faithful kneel after the Agnus Dei unless the Diocesan Bishop determines otherwise.
[right][snapback]759283[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The abbot at my old seminary used to tell us whenever it was like a parents' weekend or anything to remain standing...even if the Church wasn't full...

...it drove me nuts...

[homeschoolmom]

I hate it when there are no kneelers. The floors are so hard... why wouldn't you want 'em?