Not Kneeling At Mass

[bluengold]

Okay, here is the deal on this topic.

I called Catholic Answers a few months ago and asked, on the air, what is the Universal Law for the Latin rite on the posture of the faithful during the consecration (I totally trust them, as well as Catholics United for the Faith, who told me the same thing).

It is to kneel.

Since the adaptations of the GIRM in our parish last year, there were some things coming from the rectory which were erroneous. Such as this sentence which appeared in our bulletin trying to explain why the USCCB has decided to kneel during the consecration, thus implementing something "different" from Rome: "The Universal Law for the Church during the consecration is to stand."

That sentence, as you all know, is incorrect.

Now then, the term I have not seen in this thread for a particular body of bishops to have "allowance" during the Eucharistic Prayer is "particular law". With the authority given to a body of bishops (like the USCCB) by Our Lord in Mt. 18:18, they can ask Rome for an allowance from the "Universal Law". Many bodies of bishops across the globe have done so (but HAVE to get permission from Rome.....a "particular law").

In the U.S., we kneel LONGER, than the Universal Law of the Latin Rite during the Eucharistic Prayer (notice I did NOT say consecration....which we are supposed to kneel at that tine anyway).

Yes, standing can be a proper form of prayerful reverence. No problem with that.

However, given the callousness towards the Eucharistic Species in the past 40-50 years (see Paul VI's Eucharistic encyclical Mysterium Fidei, 1965), I believe Rome is trying to rein in the abuses and the blatant indifference towards Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.

I listened to Fr. Benedict Groeschel in a homily once describe going to the then Soviet Union in 1978 to pray the rosary in front of the Kremlin on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. He went to the Russian Orthodox Cathedral and it was open. He went in and he was surprised to see Holy Mass was being celebrated. He said it was wall-to-wall filled to capacity (no pews or kneelers in this Cathedral).

At the consecration, he said he watched in utter amazement as EVERY perrson in the Cathedral was not only on their knees (on the hard marble floor), they had their faces to the ground as well!

That's proper reverence and respect for Our Lord.

[Laudate_Dominum]

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.

This particular part captures a trend that I have already clarified a number of times.

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'll say it again. This is not in the slightest bit about individual people's interior state. I think you fundamentally misunderstand where I am coming from. Please read my posts and keep in mind what I am actually talk about and don't read into it something else.

I'm talking about the objective, exterior form of the Liturgy (which is what liturgy is, an exterior form). I'm not talking about the dispositions of persons nor am I equating the exterior form directly with the interior disposition.

You don't seem to understand where I am coming from and your post is basically irrelevant to what I've been saying.

And what is your position Jas? You are quick to try and write off the things I've been saying with accusations that are based on a total misperception of my views. I find it difficult to discuss the issues with you when you have not made your own views clear. You've made your emotional reaction to my posts clear, but nothing substantive regarding kneeling during the consecration.

And what am I saying that is so scandalous? That kneeling in the Eucharistic Presence is an important part of our tradition and that those who oppose kneeling, from what I've seen, have dubious arguments at best. What is so scandalous about this? When have I condemned people who stand? In fact I've defended the rightness of the practice when it conforms with the Church's documents! Why are you so scandalized?

And I don't recall saying that standing is a 'blatant act of irreverence'. I recall indicating that it can be perceived this way by people who have never experienced it before. Do you deny this? Considering I have elsewhere indicated it's legitimacy in appropriate circumstances I don't see how you could have interpretted that as meaning I consider standing during the consecration to be irreverent. Especially since I am a frequenter of Eastern Liturgies where this is the tradition.

My point has been that in the Latin Rite kneeling has a specific meaning and integral connection with our Liturgical tradition which is important. This is not just my opinion. You can find good discussions on kneeling in many books about the Liturgy. Ratzinger's book "The Spirit of the Liturgy" which has been mentioned here discusses it.

And how are my posts "judgemental"? Who have I judged specifically? Is it judgemental to say there are liberal liturgical movements? This is simply a fact. I honestly believe I have said nothing that it particularly out of bounds or not in conformity with Catholic teaching. If you have perceived a judgemental or condenming attitude I assure you this is not actually the case.

And how have I been legalistic? I don't follow you there at all. Because I have an appreciation of the dignity and inviolability of the Divine Liturgy? I would ask forgiveness but I do not think this is a crime.

And the accusation of "unwarranted arrogant self-pride" is simply a foul piece of slander. You are the one who is being judgemental and condemning of others my friend. How can you read my interior disposition through some posted text that you have fundamentally misinterpretted?

And I agree with you about the weeds and the wheat, and that in God's time things will be sorted out. But this does not mean that I am not entitled to participate in a discussion about the status of kneeling in the Holy Mass.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Okay, here is the deal on this topic.

I called Catholic Answers a few months ago and asked, on the air, what is the Universal Law for the Latin rite on the posture of the faithful during the consecration (I totally trust them, as well as Catholics United for the Faith, who told me the same thing).

It is to kneel.

Since the adaptations of the GIRM in our parish last year, there were some things coming from the rectory which were erroneous. Such as this sentence which appeared in our bulletin trying to explain why the USCCB has decided to kneel during the consecration, thus implementing something "different" from Rome: "The Universal Law for the Church during the consecration is to stand."

That sentence, as you all know, is incorrect.

Now then, the term I have not seen in this thread for a particular body of bishops to have "allowance" during the Eucharistic Prayer is "particular law". With the authority given to a body of bishops (like the USCCB) by Our Lord in Mt. 18:18, they can ask Rome for an allowance from the "Universal Law". Many bodies of bishops across the globe have done so (but HAVE to get permission from Rome.....a "particular law").

In the U.S., we kneel LONGER, than the Universal Law of the Latin Rite during the Eucharistic Prayer (notice I did NOT say consecration....which we are supposed to kneel at that tine anyway).

Yes, standing can be a proper form of prayerful reverence. No problem with that.

However, given the callousness towards the Eucharistic Species in the past 40-50 years (see Paul VI's Eucharistic encyclical Mysterium Fidei, 1965), I believe Rome is trying to rein in the abuses and the blatant indifference towards Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.

I listened to Fr. Benedict Groeschel in a homily once describe going to the then Soviet Union in 1978 to pray the rosary in front of the Kremlin on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. He went to the Russian Orthodox Cathedral and it was open. He went in and he was surprised to see Holy Mass was being celebrated. He said it was wall-to-wall filled to capacity (no pews or kneelers in this Cathedral).

At the consecration, he said he watched in utter amazement as EVERY perrson in the Cathedral was not only on their knees (on the hard marble floor), they had their faces to the ground as well!

That's proper reverence and respect for Our Lord.

Great post! Thanks bluengold!

[jasJis]

And the accusation of "unwarranted arrogant self-pride" is simply a foul piece of slander. You are the one who is being judgemental and condemning of others my friend. How can you read my interior disposition through some posted text that you have fundamentally misinterpretted?

I posted it as my perception of who you are. I stated it was my opinoin, and also stated I could be very wrong and I could be the one who is overly prideful of my opinion.

A little too defensive?

And don't twist it back on me, being judgemental. That is the oldest rehetorical arguement in Plato's book, and that dog won't hunt for me.

As far as my opinion, and where I stand, I'll try and make myself clear.

Kneeling is generally great, it's reverent. Standing is generally great, it's reverent. The Mass is communal worship, and should be done as a community. Bishops and preists have some latitude in directing posture and gestures. The GIRM instructs the lay to be obedient to them. Choosing to stand at optional times is not construed by me as an attack on kneeling. Being disobedient to the Chief Liturgist is an attack on the role and office of that person in the Church. I personally would rather err in obedience to the Authority of the Church, and have a high standard that must be met before I can choose to object and disobey, particualarly, with public action.

The tail does not wag the dog, no matter how committed you are to your ideas or opinion. Whether it's Voice of the Faithful, or schismatic SSPX'ers. They are both wrong for questioning God's active guidance within His Church. The Church will be continually renewed, guided, and corrected whith the Clergy and the Laity working together, not attacking each other.

[Laudate_Dominum]

I posted it as my perception of who you are. I stated it was my opinoin, and also stated I could be very wrong and I could be the one who is overly prideful of my opinion.

A little too defensive?

And don't twist it back on me, being judgemental. That is the oldest rehetorical arguement in Plato's book, and that dog won't hunt for me.

As far as my opinion, and where I stand, I'll try and make myself clear.

Kneeling is generally great, it's reverent. Standing is generally great, it's reverent. The Mass is communal worship, and should be done as a community. Bishops and preists have some latitude in directing posture and gestures. The GIRM instructs the lay to be obedient to them. Choosing to stand at optional times is not construed by me as an attack on kneeling. Being disobedient to the Chief Liturgist is an attack on the role and office of that person in the Church. I personally would rather err in obedience to the Authority of the Church, and have a high standard that must be met before I can choose to object and disobey, particualarly, with public action.

The tail does not wag the dog, no matter how committed you are to your ideas or opinion. Whether it's Voice of the Faithful, or schismatic SSPX'ers. They are both wrong for questioning God's active guidance within His Church. The Church will be continually renewed, guided, and corrected whith the Clergy and the Laity working together, not attacking each other.

I wouldn't call making a plain observation mere rhetoric. What does your perception of who I am have to do with the discussion? That's more like back alley material Jas.

"A little too defensive?" Another rash judgement. Maybe you should stick with discussing the issues instead of judging people.

And I don't substantially disagree with your stated position. I am a bit troubled by the insinuations that are laced throughout. I don't think having a theological position on the status of kneeling implies disobedience. I don't think voicing an opinion in defense of the Church's traditions and practices is particularly disobedient either. And even if I was advocating kneeling during the consecration even in the case where the parish stands, this would not be disobedience. Kneeling from the Sanctus to the Great Amen is the norm in the U.S. and the faithful always have that option. It has preeminence.

If you have particular statements of mine that you disagree with or would like me to clarify I would be happy to do so. I only ask that you present your issues with charity and refrain from making slanderous statements about me.

[bluengold]

Hello jJ, I do not know how to do your quote thingy you guys do so please bear with me!

You say: "As far as my opinion, and where I stand, I'll try and make myself clear.

Kneeling is generally great, it's reverent. Standing is generally great, it's reverent. The Mass is communal worship, and should be done as a community. Bishops and preists have some latitude in directing posture and gestures. The GIRM instructs the lay to be obedient to them. Choosing to stand at optional times is not construed by me as an attack on kneeling. Being disobedient to the Chief Liturgist is an attack on the role and office of that person in the Church. I personally would rather err in obedience to the Authority of the Church, and have a high standard that must be met before I can choose to object and disobey, particualarly, with public action."

Okay I need some help here on this "choosing to stand when optional" and "being obedient to the Chief Liturist" thing.

Can you show me in the GIRM where it says there are times that there is an "option" between kneeling or standing? I am serious and I am trying to be charitable (no stepping on toes here!). :D

Also, it is my understanding according to Sacrosanctum Concilium (VII doc on Sacred Liturgy), that nobody, even if he be a priest, has to authority to add or remove anything from the rubrics of the Mass (SS 22:1-3). The Mass is the private prayer of the Church, not somebody's personal property to change at will. How can we be universal (even in the good ol' USA) if we go from diocese to dicoese (heck, even parish to parish within a diocese) and see Holy Mass celebrated in such different ways (using this topic of standing/kneeling that is).

I mean no ill-will towards anybody here. I am just trying to understand what jJ is saying.

Peace.

[jasJis]

23. Moreover, in order that such a celebration may correspond more fully to the prescriptions and spirit of the Sacred Liturgy, and also in order to increase its pastoral effectiveness, certain accommodations and adaptations are specified in this General Instruction and in the Order of Mass.

24. These adaptations consist for the most part in the choice of certain rites or texts, that is, of the chants, readings, prayers, explanations, and gestures that may respond better to the needs, preparation, and culture of the participants and that are entrusted to the priest celebrant. Nevertheless, the priest must remember that he is the servant of the Sacred Liturgy and that he himself is not permitted, on his own initiative, to add, to remove, or to change anything in the celebration of Mass.34

25. In addition, certain adaptations are indicated in the proper place in the Missal and pertain respectively to the diocesan Bishop or to the Conference of Bishops, in accord with the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy35 (cf. below, nos. 387, 388-393).

26. As for variations and the more substantial adaptations in view of the traditions and culture of peoples and regions, to be introduced in accordance with article 40 of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy because of benefit or need, the norms set forth in the Instruction On the Roman Liturgy and Inculturation36 and below (nos. 395-399) are to be observed.

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.

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.53

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.

*end of excerpts from the GIRM*

Certain adaptations are allowed for Pastoral reasons, and that is not considered as adding, removing, or changing. The GIRM is a clear framework, not a rigid wall. The priest and Bishop is to stay within the framework and have certain limited choices. Read the pre-amble to the GIRM as well.

And for the record. I consider myself a moderate, orthodox Catholic, who believes the Fullness of Christianity exists only and completely in Catholicism. I am a big fan of Ratzinger, particualarly after reading Dominus Iesus. We may believe or understand we're trying to figure how to fit a camel through a needle's eye, but we're only human thinkers and often fail to comprehend how all things are possible with God.

Edited February 20, 2004 by jasJis

[IcePrincessKRS]

Lets keep this thread to its intended discussion. Bantering back and forth over who is judgemental or opinionated or whatever isn't doing this thread any good, if it continues the thread will end up going bye-bye.

Thank you bluengold for keeping things on track! :)

[bluengold]

Well jJ, I might not necessarily agree with your understanding of said rubrics posted, but I respect you none-the-less!

BTW, would you agree that having kids (or anybody else for that matter) up around the Altar anytime during the Eucharistic Prayer is an abuse of said rubrics? I am seriously curious, no intent to discredit or slam you.

(For myself: I follow what the Church teaches on faith, morals, liturgy, and discipline, and do not waiver from them out of faithful obedience. 1 Sam 15:22)

[Katt1227]

Okay, after reading (and many times rereading) the GIRM and what it says about kneeling during the consecration is that while kneeling is preferred, both postures, standing and kneeling, are acceptable and reverent. Am I incorrect in reading the GIRM this way?? My understanding of the GIRM is that standing is a perfectly acceptable sign of reverence in certain circumstances (lack of space, health, etc.), or when a church has chairs instead of pews that are placed too close together to give way to kneeling. When kneeling is impractical, due to the location and/or other reasons, standing is perfectly fine. I'm in no way advocating that one posture is better than another or that one is more reverent than another.

However I think an important thing to note in the GIRM is that last little paragraph:

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.

So, if you find yourself in a place where kneeling is impractical and the parish stands during the consecration, to be in union with your brothers and sisters and the priest, deacon, etc of that congregation, one should stand. This is my interpretation of this little paragraph.

Because of this interpretation, those who do not join in the posture indicated by the priest, deacon, etc, simply because they choose not to are not following the indications set forth by the GIRM. I understand that some people have certain personal issues, such as health, that prevent them from kneeling or standing, but to not follow the indications just to do what you want to do does not seem to be showing reverence for the community with which you are sharing the celebration of the Eucharist. And within the community is Christ, so one cannot be reverent to Christ and irreverent to his brothers and sisters within the church community.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Okay, after reading (and many times rereading) the GIRM and what it says about kneeling during the consecration is that while kneeling is preferred, both postures, standing and kneeling, are acceptable and reverent. Am I incorrect in reading the GIRM this way?? My understanding of the GIRM is that standing is a perfectly acceptable sign of reverence in certain circumstances (lack of space, health, etc.), or when a church has chairs instead of pews that are placed too close together to give way to kneeling. When kneeling is impractical, due to the location and/or other reasons, standing is perfectly fine. I'm in no way advocating that one posture is better than another or that one is more reverent than another.

However I think an important thing to note in the GIRM is that last little paragraph:

So, if you find yourself in a place where kneeling is impractical and the parish stands during the consecration, to be in union with your brothers and sisters and the priest, deacon, etc of that congregation, one should stand. This is my interpretation of this little paragraph.

Because of this interpretation, those who do not join in the posture indicated by the priest, deacon, etc, simply because they choose not to are not following the indications set forth by the GIRM. I understand that some people have certain personal issues, such as health, that prevent them from kneeling or standing, but to not follow the indications just to do what you want to do does not seem to be showing reverence for the community with which you are sharing the celebration of the Eucharist. And within the community is Christ, so one cannot be reverent to Christ and irreverent to his brothers and sisters within the church community.

I basically agree, except I've been to Masses where there are no kneelers and they say "you may stand", not "you must stand", so in times like that I think it's still ok the kneel but because they didn't say you have to stand. Of course that stinks. I've been to Masses where half the people stand and half kneel and you can't see anything when you kneel because the guy in front of you is standing.

Shucks, I wish they never would have changed it.

[morostheos]

Kneeling or not kneeling has been quite a controversy at my home parish for quite some time, so I have heard much of both sides of the arguement. I grew up standing, so for a long time I never knew some people did kneel, or why. I am currently undecided on the topic, and am comfortable following the guidance of the priest where ever I am.

While kneeling in supplication and penitence to God has always been practiced, standing is the traditional posture of pulic prayer. The practice of kneeling during the consecration did not begin until the middle ages. The Catholic Encyclopedia says,

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.

Also,

In early times an attempt was made to insist yet more emphatically on the character of penitents as that most befitting ordinary Christians. A practice crept in of posing in church as penitents, that is, of kneeling, on all days alike. It was a principle akin to that which deemed it a great virtue to fast even on Sundays and feast days. In both cases the exaggeration was condemned and severely repressed. In the twentieth canon of the Council of Nicæa (A. D. 325) the fathers lay down (the canon, though passed over by Rufinus, is undoubtedly genuine): —

Because there are some who kneel on the Lord's Day and in the days of Pentecost [the fifty days between Easter and Whit-Sunday]: that all things may be uniformly performed in every parish or diocese, it seems good to the Holy Synod that the prayers [tas euchas] be by all made to God, standing. The canon thus forbids kneeling on Sundays; but (and this is carefully to be noted) does not enjoin kneeling on other days. The distinction indicated of days and seasons is very probably of Apostolic origin. Tertullian, long before Nicæa, had declared kneeling on the Lord's Day to be nefas (De Cor. Mil., c. iii). See also pseudo-Justin (Quæst. et Resp. ad Orthodox., Q. 115); Clement of Alexandria (Strom., VII); Peter of Alexandria (can. xv); with others. For post-Nicene times, see St. Hilary (Prolog. in Psalm.); St. Jerome (Dial. contra Lucif., c. iv); St. Epiphanius (Expos. Fidei, 22 and 24); St. Basil (De Spir. Sanct., c. xxvii); St. Maximus (Hom. iii, De Pentec.); etc. Note, however, with Hefele (Councils, II, ii, sect. 42) that St. Paul is expressly stated to have prayed kneeling, during paschal time (Acts, xx, 36; xxi, 5). Moreover St. Augustine, more than fifty years after the Council of Nicæa, writes: "Ut autem stantes in illis diebus et omnibus dominicis oremus utrum ubique servetur nescio" (i.e. but I do not know whether there is still observed everywhere the custom of standing, whilst praying, on those days and on all Sundays). Ep. cxix ad Januar. By canon law (II Decretal., bk., IX, ch. ii) the prohibition to kneel is extended to all principal festivals, but it is limited to public prayer, "nisi aliquis ex devotione illud facere velit in secreto", i.e. (unless anyone, from devotion, should wish to do that in private). In any case, to have the right to stand during public prayer was looked upon as a sort of privilege — an "immunitas" (Tertullian, loc. cit.).

On the other hand, to be degraded into the class of the "genuflectentes", or "prostrati", who (Fourth Council of Carthage, can. lxxxii) were obliged to kneel during public services even on Sundays and in paschal time, was deemed a severe punishment. St. Basil calls kneeling the lesser penance (metanoia mikra) as opposed to prostration, the greater penance (metanoia megale). Standing, on the contrary, was the attitude of praise and thanksgiving. St. Augustine (loc. cit.) considers it to signify joy, and therefore to be the fitting posture for the weekly commemoration by Christians of the Lord's Resurrection, on the first day of the week (See also Cassian, Cobb., XXI). Hence, on all days alike, the faithful stood during the chant of psalms, hymns, and canticles, and more particularly during the solemn Eucharistic or Thanksgiving prayer (our Preface) preliminary to the Consecration in the Divine Mysteries. The diaconal invitation (Stomen kalos, k.t.l.; orthoi; Arab. Urthi; Armen. Orthi) is frequent at this point of the liturgy. Nor have we any grounds for believing, against the tradition of the Roman Church, that during the Canon of the Mass the faithful knelt on weekdays, and stood only on Sundays and in paschal time. It is far more likely that the kneeling was limited to Lent and other seasons of penance.

And,

The kneeling posture is that at present enjoined for the receiving of the sacraments, or at least confirmation, Holy Eucharist, penance and Holy orders. Certain exceptions, however, seem to show that this was not always the case. Thus, the supreme pontiff, when solemnly celebrating, receives Holy Communion in both kinds, seated; and, remaining seated, administers it to his deacons who are standing. In like manner, should a cardinal who is only a priest or deacon be elected pope; he is ordained priest (if he has not yet taken the step) and consecrated bishop, while sitting on his faldstool before the altar. It seems reasonable to suppose that at the Last Supper the Apostles were seated round the table when Christ gave them His sacred Body and Blood. That, in the early Church, the faithful stood when receiving into their hands the consecrated particle can hardly be questioned. Cardinal Bona indeed (Rer. Liturg., H, xvii, 8) hesitates somewhat as to Roman usage; but declares that in regard to the East there can be no doubt whatever. He inclines moreover to the view that at the outset the same practice obtained in the West (cf. Bingham, XVI, v). St. Dionysius of Alexandria, writing to one of the popes of his time, speaks emphatically of "one who has stood by the table and has extended his hand to receive the Holy Food" (Euseb., Hist. Eccl., VII, ix). The custom of placing the Sacred Particle in the mouth, rather than in the hand of the communicant, dates in Rome from the sixth, and in Gaul from the ninth century (Van der Stappen, IV, 227; cf. St. Greg., Dial., I, III, c. iii). The change of attitude in the communicant may perhaps have come about nearly simultaneously with this. Greater reverence was being insisted upon; and if it be true that in some places each communicant mounted the altar-steps, and took for himself a portion of the consecrated Eucharist (Clem. Alex., Strom., I, i) some reform was sorely needed.

So, kneeling because it is sacred Tradition only applies to Tradition that was created in the middle ages. It is not quite accurate to claim that the practices of the Church should never change because they have not changed for 2000 years. Beliefs have not changed, but practices have.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Kneeling or not kneeling has been quite a controversy at my home parish for quite some time, so I have heard much of both sides of the arguement.  I grew up standing, so for a long time I never knew some people did kneel, or why.  I am currently undecided on the topic, and am comfortable following the guidance of the priest where ever I am.

While kneeling in supplication and penitence to God has always been practiced, standing is the traditional posture of pulic prayer. The practice of kneeling during the consecration did not begin until the middle ages.  The Catholic Encyclopedia says,

Also,

And,

So, kneeling because it is sacred Tradition only applies to Tradition that was created in the middle ages.  It is not quite accurate to claim that the practices of the Church should never change because they have not changed for 2000 years.  Beliefs have not changed, but practices have.

Those are very informative quotes, thank you!

But the issue isn't really whether standing is a valid posture in Liturgy. I think this is quite clear given the fact that many Liturgical traditions within the Church have always had this as the norm. The question has more to do with the status of kneeling as an important part of the Liturgical tradition in the Roman Rite. Not a Sacred Tradition, but a Liturgical tradition. These traditions are not dogmatic and part of the deposit of Faith like Sacred Tradition, but are revered and holy expressions of the Church's life and belief. They are a part of Her heritage and the are treasured aspects of Her culture and lived experience. As I've mentioned before the first guiding principle of the Liturgical reform as outlined in Vatican II was "fidelity to the traditions". What the Church did in the early Church is not that relevant to this principle. You can say that was the earlier tradition, but that doesn't give it primacy by any means. That's not the way it works. For example, Eucharistic Adoration is a tradition that is probably about as old as kneeling for the consecration, but you cannot say that we should get rid of Adoration and base this on the fact that the early Church hadn't yet developed this practice.

The Church also called for openness to legitimate changes to the Liturgy, which could include abolishing kneeling (the Church certainly has the right and authority to do this), but the fact is the Church has retained a positive view of this tradition. The meaning of this liturgical act in the context of our tradition in the last 1000 years go far beyond the merely penitential aspect. As I've mentioned before, Cardinal Ratzinger in his latest book on the Liturgy, devotes a section to kneeling. This book was published to help orient the current discussions on the Theology of the Liturgy. You could say I'm just siding with Ratzinger and others might disagree so this isn't authoritative. But I also believe the official Church documents commend the tradition and therefore I believe it is something that the Church still intends to retain (in general, obviously in different cultural contexts this intention could vary).

Another aspect of my conviction is what you might call personal preference. I cannot imagine Mass without kneeling. I've experienced it before and it doesn't feel right. I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way and I trust that the Church has more pastoral sense than to abolish kneeling in areas where it is customary.

Those who actively oppose kneeling, I believe, do so with genuinely good intentions. The Council called for "ressourcement" and to some this counts as a valid form of renewing the expressions of the faith from times when the Church had particular vitality in those areas. They often have ecumenical reasons because protestants and Orthodox do not kneel in their services and Liturgies (with very, very few exceptions). There are other approaches as well, and I believe they are all well meaning, but I think they still do not do justice to our tradition and fail to conform to the mind of the Church (expressed in Sacrosanctum Concillium and current magisterial and disciplinary statements). The Latin Rite has quite a developed Theology of the Liturgy that has been largely abandoned since the novus ordo, in the name of a new, fresh liturgical reform. I believe the Church is calling for a return to these traditions in order to "reform the reform" if you will. This is in conformity with the expressed views of Cardinal Ratzinger and the Curia; consider the most recent Liturgical documents from the Curia (the one on sacred music, Liturgican Authenticam, etc..). So I'm not just trying to be a stubborn traditionalist type, this is my genuine conviction of what the Church wants.

I have many more reasons from different angles, mostly Theological, but I think I've conveyed the main reasons why I personally am convinced of the importance of kneeling. And I don't think it has to be a matter of one being superior to another objectively speaking (otherwise you would be slamming the East). But there is a sense in which one is more appropriate to a particular tradition than another. For example standing would be innappropriate (not to mention illicit) for the Trindentine Mass. However in the East kneeling would be a latinization and considered a corruption. Since the novus ordo is a work in progress (we're still in the midst of the liturgical reform) it is really up to the Church to discern what is proper and prudent, not theologians or us lay folk. (Although we are entitled to our opinions).

Peace

[littleflower+JMJ]

I have never seen a document from the diocese of Pittsburgh stating teenagers could stand around an altar.

I wrote to the regional director of life teen awhile back and asked a copy of any document stating teens could "gather" around the altar. She said they were working with the USCCB. It said that was nice, please cite me a document.

She again repeated they were working with the bishops. I said fine, show me ANY document saying teenagers could gather ariound the altar.

I am still waiting as she never wrote back.

When my youth group goes to Mass together we sit in the pews like everybody else, usually in the front.

cmom you rock! :D

[bluengold]

So, kneeling because it is sacred Tradition only applies to Tradition that was created in the middle ages. It is not quite accurate to claim that the practices of the Church should never change because they have not changed for 2000 years. Beliefs have not changed, but practices have.

Morostheos, I believe it would be a better thing to say that the development of the Doctrine on the Holy Eucharist, and our understanding of Jesus's Real Presence in the Eucharist, was more the reason the Church started kneeling more at Holy Mass than anything else.

From what I understand, St. Francis of Assisi (+ 1220 or so) was very instrumental in fostering proper reverence for the Eucharistic species. Abuses were very prevalent during his time (sound familiar?).

Is it any wonder that Mother Angelica's Friars (and religious sisters, who are Franciscans) are so successful with their vocations? Same as Fr. Groeschel's order (also Franciscans!). Look at the success of the Youth 2000 retreat.

Also successful in fostering religious vocations are dioceses who have a lot of Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament at their parishes (the vocations director of the Archdiocese of Atlanta even SAID this on an episode of Catholic Answers Live).

If we rain the floors with our knees, especially when in the Presence of Our Lord in the Most Holy Eucharist of the Altar, we will see much fruit from this proper worshiping posture.

He is the King of kings and the Lord of lords! (Rev 19:16) Let us show it in our posture! :D