Not Kneeling At Mass

[BLAZEr]

The main thing regarding most of these kind of issues is that there are different "camps" within the Church. Within the laity, among Theologians and even in the Church's hierarchy itself. You have those who explicitly want to abolish kneeling and those who promote it. You have the famous Cardinal Ratzinger vs. Cardinal Kaspers debate on ecclesiology and all of that. You have those who promote women priests, those who oppose it, those who want to make the Mass into an ecumenical service, and those who want to restore it to it's authentic majesty. On these kind of issues I tend to go in the direction of people such as Cardinal Ratzinger who seem to be more faithful in their arguments to the authentic teachings of the Church. This is another example of that. It's not a question of obedience of disobedience, it's a question of which agenda do you support? Do you think kneeling is a medieval expression of fear and obesience that should be removed from the Church's festive communal gathering? Or do you think it is a beautiful, biblical expression of reverence that encapsulates the heart of our participation in the Sacrifice of the Mass? Is it a sublime expression of the Church's Theology of the Liturgy and a valuable part of the Latin Rites' traditions, or is merely an archaic medieval invention that is "irrelevant" to modern man?

part of the problem is that you go around putting people into camps.

You assume that because someone does X, then they must belong to the "X" camp.

This is not a Catholic way of understanding the Church.

You need to read some of what Cardinal George has written on this subject.

Even Cardinal Ratzinger would surprise you some, I bet.

[cmotherofpirl]

Be nice gentlemen

We all come from difierent places in our approach to the Church.

[BLAZEr]

C-mom, you gotta be realistic, I was just accused of being a liberal . . . a liberal!

Might as well call me a communist, or a protestant.

[Laudate_Dominum]

First of all, insinuations and insults are common from you laudate. If someone does not agree with you 100% you become beligerent. You really need to reevalute your ability to take part in a civil conversation.

Your response is not only rude, it borders on the uncharitable. I'm sure you'll fail to see this as well, but I'm poiniting it out because it needs to be pointed out. You did it in the thread on the Monks and the SSPX and I've noticed it in other places as well. This obviously just my opinion, and you can take it as you like. But I would dare say God wants you to hear this, either for correction for you, or evidence of my irrationality. You choose.

Now, in response to your statements. You are most likely using the sentence where "laudably retained" is found from the Adoremus website. If you are looking at the Actual Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, please post the link or type the whole paragraph. I have not been able to find the IGMR in English anywhere on the internet wihtout the US adaptations, including the one from Adoremus.

2nd, I am not arguing against kneeling, but I am ensuring that we do not overstep our bounds. Just so you know, standing is also a posture of reverence. Yes, I know it's a different type of reverence and one that, I agree, should not be the norm during the Eucharistic prayer, but standing is still a posture of reverence. That is why we stand during the Gospels and other times when we pray during the liturgy.

I do not want to hear it implied that those who do not stand, for whatever reason, are being irreverent. Quite frankly, your comments border on such things. You cannot judge a person's heart. I know that some who do not kneel do so for bad reasons. Some do it out of a liberal agenda

I am not a liberal, I have a degree in Theology, and I am in fact Orthodox. I find your insinuation insulting.

My major study of liturgy has been through the eyes of the Early Church Fathers, Romano Guardini, Dom Garanger and Cardinal Ratzinger. I am in full agreement with his points in "The Spirit of the Liturgy."

My interpreation of laudably retained, is specifically this: It is in fact a response to a dubium, its a response to many dubiums. That it was included in the IGRM is because there were, in fact, many dubiums sent to the CWDS during the early stages of the revision of the IGRM.

Don't come to me with your quick reading of the Documents. You need to understand how these documents were formed as well.

It seems you are taking things a bit too personally BLAZEr.

I do not want to hear it implied that those who do not stand, for whatever reason, are being irreverent. Quite frankly, your comments border on such things. You cannot judge a person's heart. I know that some who do not kneel do so for bad reasons. Some do it out of a liberal agenda

This discussion has not been about who is more reverent. That issue has already been discussed and I've explained my stance quite clearly. The issue is about the place of kneeling in the Roman Liturgy. Certainly there are other signs of reverence besides kneeling. But kneeling during the consecration is a singular sign of reverence that indicates that the consecration is the high point of the Mass. You stand for the priest as a sign of reverence, you stand at the Gospel reading as a sign of reverence, but in the Roman rite, you kneel at the foot of the Cross. This is our tradition. My question is still unanswered. What is wrong with this tradition? Why do some people in the Church seek to do away with it? Why do others in the Church seek to preserve this tradition? Which side of the fence are you on and why?

And I do not see the question of how the documents were formed to be of central importance. The questions are more theological than based on authority. It's more a question of the meaning of kneeling in the Mass then it is the current legislation on the matter (although this is certainly a big part of it).

And doesn't the fact remain that the word "laudable" can only be understood in so many ways. I don't see how one could interpret this in any sense other than commendable and praiseworthy. Another sense of this word is "to promotes healing". I'm not suggesting that this is necessarily the sense the Church had in mind, but I like it.

And if you're going to reprimand someone for being uncharitable you can at least try to do so in a charitable way. Your posts aren't always that pleasant either you know.

[Laudate_Dominum]

part of the problem is that you go around putting people into camps.

You assume that because someone does X, then they must belong to the "X" camp.

This is not a Catholic way of understanding the Church.

You need to read some of what Cardinal George has written on this subject.

Even Cardinal Ratzinger would surprise you some, I bet.

My "problem"? Oh please. Obviously I was being a bit simplistic for the sake of making a point. I can clarify my point if you really like.

Perhaps you can stop being so snide and actually talk about the issues. Is this a thread for you to personally attack me and show me how uncharitable I am or is this a discussion about kneeling?

And I don't think uncharitable is the right word. I'm actually a raving lunatic!!!!

[cmotherofpirl]

CHILL!

This is NOT a testosterone party. :wacko:

[Laudate_Dominum]

C-mom, you gotta be realistic, I was just accused of being a liberal . . . a liberal!

Might as well call me a communist, or a protestant.

Oh my.. Well, honestly that's not what I was trying to say. I don't think you are a liberal. I think the no kneeling thing is often a part of a liberal agenda, but I don't think that just because someone is in favor of standing they are automatically a liberal. That wasn't the point of my thing about "camps".

Actually I think a lot of people who defend it are just trying to be faithful, loyal Catholics. But I also believe, based on things I've read (both liberal and orthodox), that the liturgical reform would have a much different face if it hadn't been for the influence of liberal agendas. So in issues like this I often ask the question of why? What is the logic and what are the origins of this particular issue. Often times the reasoning and origins are bound up with agendas that I cannot agree with. There has been a rebellion against Catholic traditions in the last 40 years. And while Vatican II does call us to be open to legitimate changes to the Liturgy it also calls us first and foremost to be faithful to the traditions. Many issues are in the grey area, but I believe that the kneeling thing is not justified as a legitimate change and has been largely motivated by attitudes that are not faithful to the traditions. Obviously I don't know everything about everything, and I defer to mother Church, but I also find this opinion of mine to be confirmed by statements from the Vatican so I am most comfortable with it.

[Laudate_Dominum]

CHILL!

This is NOT a testosterone party.

great idea! party!!!!!

:band: :dance:

[IcePrincessKRS]

Definately NOT a testosterone party.

C'mon boys, take a deep breath. No more mud-slinging. ;)

[Katt1227]

I'm not going to pretend to know Theology... I haven't studied it. But here's what I know.

Laudable... you said that a liturgy without outward signs of reverence (referring to kneeling during the consecration) was impoverished.

I can't say that I have ever been at a liturgy that I felt was impoverished. The building may be ugly, the music may be lacking, the sermon may be downright terrible, but yet despite all these things, Christ is Present, in the flesh, in the body and blood at that liturgy. And my recognition of this presence has very little to do with whether I am standing or kneeling.

I have nothing against kneeling... I enjoy it, and think it is a beautiful gesture in reverence for the consecration. However, if I am in a place where it is not practical to kneel or that chooses not to, I find that standing is just as respectful and reverent for the act of Christ coming among us in the Body and Blood.

[jasJis]

Amen, Katt & BLAZEr!

It's wasn't a testosterone party. It had nothing to do with empty posturing. BLAZEr was making legitmate and serious points in a discussion with LD. It was deameaning to both of their intellects to call their disagreement a 'testosterone party'.

Continue on. And if people got complaints, push the [report!] button and have a Mediator of Meh move it to the Alley.

Edited February 20, 2004 by jasJis

[Laudate_Dominum]

I'm not going to pretend to know Theology... I haven't studied it. But here's what I know.

Laudable... you said that a liturgy without outward signs of reverence (referring to kneeling during the consecration) was impoverished.

I can't say that I have ever been at a liturgy that I felt was impoverished. The building may be ugly, the music may be lacking, the sermon may be downright terrible, but yet despite all these things, Christ is Present, in the flesh, in the body and blood at that liturgy. And my recognition of this presence has very little to do with whether I am standing or kneeling.

I have nothing against kneeling... I enjoy it, and think it is a beautiful gesture in reverence for the consecration. However, if I am in a place where it is not practical to kneel or that chooses not to, I find that standing is just as respectful and reverent for the act of Christ coming among us in the Body and Blood.

Yes, every Mass is a great miracle. Whether it's a solemn Tridentine High Mass in a great basillica, or a simple novus ordo with no music or anything celebrated in a remote chapel in some poor mission territory. Christ comes to both and receives the worship of His people without discrimination. Some of the most profound liturgical experiences I've had were on missions to third world countries. A simple group of people in a very plain room, a simple wooden altar, no music, the most humble of liturgies. Christ's first coming among us was in the humble stable of Bethlehem.

He is there in the midst of the poverty and simplicity just as He is in the resplendent grandeur of the magnificent basillica. There is a way in which this poverty and lowliness accentuates the mystery of Christ's coming among us in a unique way.

But even in this setting outward signs of reverence are called for. The shepherds and wise men showed Him reverence and honor. The Scriptures time and time again show examples of people kneeling in reverent awe before the Lord.

And as I've said before, signs of reverence are a part of the symbolism of the Liturgy. The Liturgy speaks a language and part of that language is these symbols and signs. They indicate the transcendence and holiness of the event. Without indication of the sacred the Liturgy would be profane and it can rightly be said that this is not an appropriate context in which to offer Christ's Holy Sacrifice.

And to say this external element is not important is on the one hand to break from the tradition of the Catholic faith and to deny the Church's Theology of the Liturgy. But it is also to deny the unity of the human person and the communal aspect of Liturgy. The externals are a part of what unites us communally. Otherwise we could worship like the quakers or something. And the external, communal manifestations are part of the incarnational principle of Catholic worship. I do not deny the primacy of the interior disposition, especially from the individual perspective. But it is not wise to seperate this from the external dimension which is at the heart of Liturgical worship as such. Otherwise you seperate body and soul on the level of the individual as well as the corporate unity of the Liturgical act.

And the external signs of reverence call for a corresponding interior reverence. The externals should be a kind of guide to call us on to active participation and a unity of heart. Once the importance of the Liturgical symbolism and signs of reverence is established one can begin to approach the question of kneeling for the consecration.

One point I would make along these lines is that standing does not automatically communicate the sense of the sacred. When you walk into a Church service and see a bunch of people standing you don't automatically think "God is on that altar". Whereas when people stand for the Gospel reading you know something special is happening because people were sitting for the other readings. But when people kneel for the consecration it is saying that something particularly sacred and holy is taking place. This is the high point of the Mass, the immolation of Jesus Christ. There are many other reasons, but this is one basic reason why the act of kneeling during the consecration is encouraged by the Church. It sets apart the moment of the consecration and indicates the singular transcendence and holiness of the event, it also calls the laity on to an interior disposition of reverence. The posture of standing does not indicate to a person the dispositions proper to the offering of the Sacrifice as does kneeling. These dispositions include, reverence, humility, adoration, thanksgiving, etc.. I'm not saying that this is not possible or that one who kneels is automatically more reverent. I'm not speaking in individualistic terms at all. It's more a analysis of the symbolic value of the different acts on the basis of the Theology of the Liturgy.

Also the liturgical reform according to Vatican II intended to bring about more active participation by the laity. The primary dimension of active participation is precisely the interior dispositions proper to the mass (not external things in themselves). I think it is reasonable to suggest that the kneeling posture is most conducive to the proper interior dispositions associated with participation in the Eucharistic Mystery.

Another point I think is valid is the fact that experientially a person who is accustomed to kneeling generally perceives the change toward standing as a blatant act of irreverence. This is certainly my experience (and others I've talked to). This accounts, I think, for much of the traditionalist reactionism toward liturgical developments of late. Things are removed and things are introduced that maybe are not theologically unsound but are nontheless perceived as irreverent. And there is often a mystery as to why these changes are necessary at all.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Laudable... you said that a liturgy without outward signs of reverence (referring to kneeling during the consecration) was impoverished.

And yes, I do hold that a liturgy lacking outward signs of reverence is impoverished. Absolutely! Reverence is an essential part of the Liturgy and in Liturgical forms of worship you cannot reduce the worship to the interior elements alone. The definition of Liturgy is "a prescribed form or set of forms for public religious worship." The form is not arbitrary but is an expression of the meaning of the Liturgy. Since it is an act of worship toward God, and reverence is an essential part of worshipping God, it is also an essential part of the form of the Liturgy.

This is not a judgement of the interior dispositions of the participants. For example some protestant services have no prescribed signs of reverence and yet the participants may have profound reverence and devotion to God in their hearts. That's not the issue here. Maybe if I phrase it a different way. A liturgy which lacks prescribed outward signs of reverence is impoverished and lacking in it's external form. I think this is quite clear in fact.

"Liturgy and Personality" by Dietrich Von Hildebrand is a great text for understanding these aspects of Liturgical worship. Also "Evangelical is not Enough" by Thomas Howard is a very insightful book.

[Laudate_Dominum]

And BLAZEr, I've reread this thread and think your assessment of my posts is completely false.

First of all, insinuations and insults are common from you laudate. If someone does not agree with you 100% you become beligerent. You really need to reevalute your ability to take part in a civil conversation.

Your response is not only rude, it borders on the uncharitable. I'm sure you'll fail to see this as well, but I'm poiniting it out because it needs to be pointed out. You did it in the thread on the Monks and the SSPX and I've noticed it in other places as well. This obviously just my opinion, and you can take it as you like. But I would dare say God wants you to hear this, either for correction for you, or evidence of my irrationality. You choose.

I think you are accusing me of doing what you do. I don't see anything uncharitable about my posts. And I have no idea what that slanderous statement about the SSPX thread is all about. I don't recall writing anything even remotely rude in that thread. I don't appreciate you calling me rude, beligerent and uncharitable. That was quite rude, beligerent and uncharitable of you.

I thought we were having a half way decent discussion until you had to resort to personal attacks (very nasty ones at that). If you would like me to be rude and beligerent you are certainly on the right track.

Edited February 20, 2004 by Laudate_Dominum

[jasJis]

Another point I think is valid is the fact that experientially a person who is accustomed to kneeling generally perceives the change toward standing as a blatant act of irreverence. This is certainly my experience (and others I've talked to). This accounts, I think, for much of the traditionalist reactionism toward liturgical developments of late. Things are removed and things are introduced that maybe are not theologically unsound but are nontheless perceived as irreverent. And there is often a mystery as to why these changes are necessary at all.

And you (and Traditionalists) are the summation of all perception of what is Sacrad and a reverent posture. Just because a MINORITY percieve a posture as a 'blatant act of irreverence', doesn't make it so.

You talk out of both sides of you mouth. Cut people slack and assume they are being interiorly reverent, unless they tell you otherwise. A few may have the opinion that some things may be 'theologically unsound' or 'percieved as irreverent', but opinion does not consitute Fact, especially when considering the interior dispostion of others.

I percieve your posts as being judgemental, legalistic, and condemning of others, with unwarrented arrogant self-pride in your own opinion. That doesn't make me right. I very well can have misperception of who you are and you could be correct and I may just be overly sensitive and arrogantly proud of my own opinion. We can agree to disagree, but I take umbrage when accepted Orthodox practice, within the Holy Mother Church, is denigrated, people are condemened, and the Authority of the Clergy is underminded with wholesale accusations against the judgement of preists and bishops. That only destroys people's Faith. Even God wisely allows the weeds to grow among the wheat in order that the wheat may eventually grow strong and not be uprooted with the removal of the weeds. In God's good time, things will be sorted out.

Nurture the wheat, and stop picking at the weeds, or you'll unwittingly uproot everything.