Kneelers: were they removed from your church? Reinstalled? Never had them?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lepanto
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
dantept said:
You have an answer but apparently do not want to believe it. As a confessor told my very religious aunt once, “Don’t try to be holier than Mother Church!” 🙂

As for why a church would be built without kneelers, one can only speculate without knowing the details of the specific deliberations. However, a few possibilities would be:

• A desire to return to the earliest churches (and even many churches built later).

• To eliminate one of the impediments to the movement of the faithful. Such movement about the church during various elements of the Mass and other liturgies such as baptisms, weddings and funerals was not uncommon until the advent of pews introduced by the Protestant Reformation.

• To eliminate the unreverential noise of kneelers being raised and lowered.

• To eliminate the tripping hazard of kneelers.

• To save money and space.

Of course, you are free to kneel or genuflect (yes, there is a difference in common usage) as you wish!
Click to expand...
Now who could it have been that put the “desire to return to the earliest churches” into some peoples minds. Could it be the proponents of returning to the “primitive/early” Church----where supposedly communion was received “sitting”.
 
dantept said:
As for why a church would be built without kneelers, one can only speculate without knowing the details of the specific deliberations. However, a few possibilities would be:

• A desire to return to the earliest churches (and even many churches built later).
Click to expand...
Such a break with the tradition of the Roman Rite (and all the Rites of the Western Church, if I’m not mistaken) is unwarranted. Further, it smacks of archeologism or antiquarianism, a fallacy in the realm of liturgical reform.
dantept said:
• To eliminate one of the impediments to the movement of the faithful.
Click to expand...
So install kneelers that move out of the way; don’t get rid of the kneelers altogether!
dantept said:
• To eliminate the unreverential noise of kneelers being raised and lowered.
Click to expand...
So, instead of installing kneelers that aren’t squeaky and clunky, and instead of reminding the faithful to gently lower and raise the kneelers, we should dispose of them altogether. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
dantept said:
• To eliminate the tripping hazard of kneelers.
Click to expand...
I can see it now… a parish getting sued because someone tripped on a kneeler. 😦
dantept said:
• To save money and space.
Click to expand...
I doubt much space is taken up by well-designed kneelers; the models I’ve seen are stored under the pew/chair in front of you. Money, I can’t speak to that. I have no idea how much they cost. But it seems we’re frugal with church design nowadays anyway, so why not axe the kneelers!

Another reason you didn’t include is because the pastor (and/or the people) don’t like the posture of kneeling – we’re an Easter people, you know! – and so they do away with it by getting rid of kneelers. I would suspect this is the case in those parishes that get all flustered and frustrated and up-in-arms when their pastor (or better yet, their bishop) requires kneelers to be installed where they got by for “so long” without them.
 
Walking_Home said:
Now who could it have been that put the “desire to return to the earliest churches” into some peoples minds. Could it be the proponents of returning to the “primitive/early” Church----where supposedly communion was received “sitting”.
Click to expand...
Imagine that - just like the apostles did at the Last Supper (as far as we know)!
 
MrS said:
Try Bishop Carlson in the Saginaw Diocese of Michigan.

He has been bishop for about 4 years and makes changes as best he can. He acknowledged the lack of kneelers in some of his parishes… and gave them approximately 2 years to install them or raise the money to install them. There were no exceptions (oopps…indults :rolleyes: ) granted.
Click to expand...
What is the deadline?

How has this directive been received by the presbyterate and the people?

Have any parishes actually complied by installing kneelers?
 
dantept said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home View Post
Now who could it have been that put the “desire to return to the earliest churches” into some peoples minds. Could it be the proponents of returning to the “primitive/early” Church----where supposedly communion was received “sitting”.

Imagine that - just like the apostles did at the Last Supper (as far as we know)!
Click to expand...
Seems using the apostles to justify the introduction of supposed early practices —would fall under the error of antiquarianism —condemned by Pope Pius XII.
 
By your logic, we should ignore the Old and New Testaments! They are both rather antique. Let’s use some God-given reason, folks!
 
dantept said:
By your logic, we should ignore the Old and New Testaments! They are both rather antique. Let’s use some God-given reason, folks!
Click to expand...
We are not speaking of scripture – now are we–so don’t derail the thread.

Your “logic” --ignores the Holy Spirits guidance in the organic development of the Mass since the time of the Apostles.
 
I am not derailing anything - simply extending your logic to its logical conclusions. As for the Holy Spirit and the development of the Mass, you apparently have been discounting or possibly even ignoring His/Her guidance during and since Vatican II.
 
Walking_Home said:
Seems using the apostles to justify the introduction of supposed early practices —would fall under the error of antiquarianism —condemned by Pope Pius XII.
Click to expand...
No kidding, the Early Church also practiced Confession by the penitent confessing their sins to the whole parish and recieving a penance that lasted years.

If Early Church Sacramental practices are better than current one, why should we not practice confession in the same way?
 
dantept said:
I am not derailing anything - simply extending your logic to its logical conclusions. As for the Holy Spirit and the development of the Mass, you apparently have been discounting or possibly even ignoring His/Her guidance during and since Vatican II.
Click to expand...
Maybe you’re not familiar with Mediator Dei of Pope Pius XII, where he condemns antiquarianism:
61. The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world. They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man.
  1. Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer’s body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.
  2. … Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation.
  3. This way of acting bids fair to revive the exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism to which the illegal Council of Pistoia gave rise. …
    (And if you’re thinking of applying #63 to the Church’s desire for the restoration of the 1962 liturgy, you’re taking Pope Pius XII out of context, and your perspective is terribly skewed.)
As for the Holy Spirit guiding the development of the liturgy, I believe the Holy Spirit did guide the promulgation of Sacrosanctum Concilium. However, the failure to implement parts of it and the implementation of things far beyond its purview is another matter entirely. If the Holy Spirit led the bishops to say that Latin and Gregorian chant deserve pride of place and should be retained in the liturgy in 1964, why did the Holy Spirit change his mind a mere 5 years later when Pope Paul VI lamented that the new rite of Mass necessitated a departure from the sacred language of the centuries and the beautiful music proper to the Rite?

There is a disconnect. A “hermeneutic of rupture”, as Pope Benedict described it.
 
dantept said:
By your logic, we should ignore the Old and New Testaments! They are both rather antique. Let’s use some God-given reason, folks!
Click to expand...
Actually, we do “ignore” the Old Testament in the places where it has been superseded by the New Testament; and since we don’t have a newer testament, we can’t ignore the New Testament.
 
dantept said:
I am not derailing anything - simply extending your logic to its logical conclusions. As for the Holy Spirit and the development of the Mass, you apparently have been discounting or possibly even ignoring His/Her guidance during and since Vatican II.
Click to expand...
Your extention of what you see as my logic to its logical conclusions would apply to Pope Pius XII—now wouldn’t it. It is his condemnation of the error of antiquarianism that is being applied.

As to ignoring His (The Holy Spirit) guidance since Vat. II ----I’ve read the document —no mention of doing away with kneeling. Seems its more of the “Spirit of Vat II” that is pulling out interpretations that were not mean to be.

Now Pope Benedict XVI (he participated in Vat II by the way) – as Card. wrote on the meaning of kneeling and now as Pope --has also spoken on this and is setting the example. Would you say he is ignoring the guidance of what you see as the the spirit during and after Vat II.
 
If one rereads these last few contributions to the thread, it is so obvious that we all interpret the language of pronouncements and documents to suit our own perspectives. The popes have not been above that, either - it is human nature. It is interesting how we all are given to pick and choose what practices in church history are presumably inviolate and which are not. If it is an old, even ancient, practice that we like, we call it “tradition” and sometimes elevate it to the status of the immutable. If we don’t like it, we might call it “exaggerated … antiquitarianism.” If it is new and we don’t like it, we might call it “modernism.” If we like it, we might call it “progress.” All these terms can be given meanings that suit our preferences. The validity of any liturgy and other religious practice should depend on its efficacy and not on whether it is old, new or middle-aged.

My point in giving the example of the the first Eucharist at the Last Supper was to attempt to put this entire discussion of kneeling, sitting and standing in perspective and not to promote reception of communion in a sitting position. Again, these expressions of faith by various postures are of human invention and development. They have changed and will continue to change until the end of the world. Our faith and our salvation are not dependent on our posture, however appropriate (or, for another example, whether or not we sing Gregorian Chant, which is beautiful but unintelligible to almost all of us). And regarding the Eucharist, its sacramental efficacy is not at all dependent on whether we receive it standing, kneeling, sitting or prone; in the mouth or in the hand.

Once more, I appeal for a little perspective and a lot less waste of time and energy on matters, which though important in their own right, are not so important that they overshadow and obscure the essentials of our faith practice. Come, Holy Spirit!
 
dantept said:
If one rereads these last few contributions to the thread, it is so obvious that we all interpret the language of pronouncements and documents to suit our own perspectives. The popes have not been above that, either - it is human nature. It is interesting how we all are given to pick and choose what practices in church history are presumably inviolate and which are not. If it is an old, even ancient, practice that we like, we call it “tradition” and sometimes elevate it to the status of the immutable. If we don’t like it, we might call it “exaggerated … antiquitarianism.” If it is new and we don’t like it, we might call it “modernism.” If we like it, we might call it “progress.” All these terms can be given meanings that suit our preferences. The validity of any liturgy and other religious practice should depend on its efficacy and not on whether it is old, new or middle-aged.

My point in giving the example of the the first Eucharist at the Last Supper was to attempt to put this entire discussion of kneeling, sitting and standing in perspective and not to promote reception of communion in a sitting position. Again, these expressions of faith by various postures are of human invention and development. They have changed and will continue to change until the end of the world. Our faith and our salvation are not dependent on our posture, however appropriate (or, for another example, whether or not we sing Gregorian Chant, which is beautiful but unintelligible to almost all of us). And regarding the Eucharist, its sacramental efficacy is not at all dependent on whether we receive it standing, kneeling, sitting or prone; in the mouth or in the hand.

Once more, I appeal for a little perspective and a lot less waste of time and energy on matters, which though important in their own right, **are not so important that they overshadow and obscure the essentials of our faith practice. ** Come, Holy Spirit!
Click to expand...
Seems Pope Benedict is saying otherwise. It is the indifferentist attitude brought on by the “Spirit of Vat II” in respect to how we worship our Lord and God that is undermining the Faith itself.
 
Walking_Home said:
Seems Pope Benedict is saying otherwise. It is the indifferentist attitude brought on by the “Spirit of Vat II” in respect to how we worship our Lord and God that is undermining the Faith itself.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t how we worship and pray affect what we believe? If only there were some coy Latin expression to that effect… 😉

Could it possibly be that people became less and less aware that the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice (the re-presentation of Jesus’s sacrifice on Calvary) when certain prayers and language were removed from the liturgy? Odd how, now that the Eucharistic Prayer is said out loud, people fail to recognize the part where the priest says that he is offering the living sacrifice present on the altar to God the Father. But then again, that could be because the language in the Eucharistic Prayers (at least in English) is simplified and neutered.

I was going to provide several examples, but this no longer has ANYTHING to do with kneelers per se, so I will start a new thread.
 
japhy said:
Doesn’t how we worship and pray affect what we believe? If only there were some coy Latin expression to that effect… 😉

Could it possibly be that people became less and less aware that the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice (the re-presentation of Jesus’s sacrifice on Calvary) when certain prayers and language were removed from the liturgy? Odd how, now that the Eucharistic Prayer is said out loud, people fail to recognize the part where the priest says that he is offering the living sacrifice present on the altar to God the Father. But then again, that could be because the language in the Eucharistic Prayers (at least in English) is simplified and neutered.

I was going to provide several examples, but this no longer has ANYTHING to do with kneelers per se, so I will start a new thread.
Click to expand...
No - what we believe is clearly the foundation for how we worship and pray: first things first.

And how do you know that people fail to recognize what the priest is saying? Quite an assumption to speak for others.

Finally, if I were indifferent to worship and/or the faith, I wouldn’t bother entering into this discussion. Now - THAT would be indifference.
 
dantept said:
No - what we believe is clearly the foundation for how we worship and pray: first things first.

**And how do you know that people fail to recognize what the priest is saying? ** Quite an assumption to speak for others.

Finally, if I were indifferent to worship and/or the faith, I wouldn’t bother entering into this discussion. Now - THAT would be indifference.
Click to expand...
vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_doc_20050707_instrlabor-xi-assembly_en.html

The Perception of the Eucharistic Mystery among the Faithful
  1. Generally speaking, the responses to the Lineamenta reveal a certain decrease in the understanding of the mystery celebrated. The Eucharist as gift and mystery is not always perceived. This is witnessed in various cultural nuances. For example, in those countries enjoying a general climate of peace and prosperity—primarily western countries—many perceive the Eucharistic mystery as simply the fulfilment of a Sunday obligation and a meal of fellowship. Instead, in those countries experiencing wars and other difficulties, many understand the Eucharistic mystery more fully, that is, including its sacrificial aspect. The paschal mystery, celebrated in an unbloody manner on the altar, gives profound spiritual meaning to the sufferings of Catholic Christians in these lands, helping these people to accept them as a participation in the mystery of the death and resurrection of the Lord, Jesus Christ.
 
dantept said:
No - what we believe is clearly the foundation for how we worship and pray: first things first.
Click to expand...
It goes both ways; they affect one another. A person’s beliefs can change when the prayers they pray change. Especially since the Mass can be for some people the primary place where they learn their faith, if the Mass fails to articulate some important Catholic belief in its prayers (such as the Eucharist being offered for the atonement of the sins of the living and the dead), that person might never have their faith formed properly and end up believing the Eucharist is a meal that God gives us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top