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

[japhy]

Until the 4th century, Mass was conducted in private homes. Pews and kneelers were unlikely - I am unaware of any historic evidence of such.

When Masses were moved to “church buildings,” there were no pews. People stood and even moved to different areas of the church according to the liturgy. There were perimeter benches for those who could not stand.

Right; standing was the normative posture during the first few centuries. Many Orthodox churches still have no seats in the nave at all.

Pews are a Protestant “invention,” providing a place to sit for extended periods as their liturgy placed an emphasis on the word.

I do not know when the kneeler became ubiquitous in Catholic (and Anglican) churches; however, previous contributors have correctly noted that the last 2 GIRMs direct kneeling (if possible) during certain phases of the Mass. What they have not noted is that this is a modification to the universal GIRM by the US National Conference of Catholic Bishops (often not enforced). The basic, universal GIRM provides for standing and sitting, but does not mandate kneeling. Note that the canon refers to “standing before You.”

Pews may have been, but I would expect furniture made for kneeling existed long before pews, at least in the Roman Rite.

GIRM 43 (in the Latin) calls for kneeling during the consecration. GIRM 179 (in the Latin) calls for the deacon to kneel from the epiclesis through the elevation of the chalice.

While Eucharistic Prayer II says “we thank you for counting us worthy to stand in your presence and serve you”, the Roman Canon (Eucharistic Prayer I) does not mention standing.

 

[dantept]

As I said, I don’t know when kneelers became ubiquitous, and I suspect that people knelt on certain occasions, but there is not to my knowledge any evidence of kneelers in common use by the faithful as a whole during the Mass for a long, long time.

The current English translation of the GIRM, 43, makes it clear (as did the previous edition) that kneeling by the faithful is a posture prescribed specifically by the US bishops (also see 390 regarding the adaptations to GIRM allowed on the part of Conferences of Bishops). The previous edition of GIRM, in a somewhat different manner, said the same thing: that kneeling was not a universal mandate, but up to the Conferences. (And what applies to the Deacon’s posture during Mass does not apply to the rest of the assembly.)

As for the location in the Eucharistic Prayers regarding “standing,” I don’t have my Missal with me and was speaking from memory, so I expect that I stand corrected. However, the point remains: the language refers to standing, not kneeling.

 

[japhy]

As I said, I don’t know when kneelers became ubiquitous, and I suspect that people knelt on certain occasions, but there is not to my knowledge any evidence of kneelers in common use by the faithful as a whole during the Mass for a long, long time.

My point is simply that, in the Roman Rite, it is traditional to kneel at least twice: during the consecration, and when receiving Holy Communion. The Eastern churches see kneeling as a more penitential posture, whereas we ascribe to it more than just penitence.

 

[THurifer2]

The Cathedral that I attend, my parish and my childhood parish all have kneelers. Most of the churches I’ve attended over here in the States have also had kneelers, with the exception of a few newer churches.

But many of the extremely old churches and cathedrals that I visited in Europe, such as the ones built during the Middle Ages or during the Rennaissance, do not have kneelers or pews. There are individual chairs set up. Some of the chairs did have kneelers attached, but many did not have that. From what I understand they were always without them.

I was told that the absense of kneelers did not mean people didn’t kneel. The faithful knelt on the floor. I was also told that the harder the floor the better…

 

[Eric_Olsen]

I would kneel anyway. If you get dirty looks…so what?
Ask the people who give you a problem to explain where it is written that you must not kneel anymore and why?

My church has no kneelers and no pews - only chairs arranged in a circle around the altar. I have heard many excuses for their absence, such as there is a plan to build a chapel, but there is no money right now and the priority was to build the hall. I know this is a crock, because this is a very wealthy parish and was established 10 years ago - 10 years and the can’t see fit to put in facilities for proper worship!

My question for the forum is this - should I (and my family) just start to kneel on the floor after the Sanctus and after the Agnus Dei? When else should I kneel (I typically also kneel in private prayer before Mass and after Communion)? How visible should I make myself (front row?) and what do I say to people when they say I don’t have to kneel? Obviously I think it would be nice if this started to catch on.

Is there anything else I should do?

 

[dantept]

I would kneel anyway. If you get dirty looks…so what?
Ask the people who give you a problem to explain where it is written that you must not kneel anymore and why?

As noted before, in the US, kneeling at certain times is prescribed by the GIRM. And I doubt if many people - if any - will say you “must not” kneel or criticize you for doing so. However, consider this: The GIRM, 42, notes that “A common posture, to be observed by all participants, is a sign of the unity of the members of the Christian community gathered for the sacred Liturgy: it both expresses and fosters the intention and spiritual attitude of the participants.” The Mass itself is an occasion of communal celebration, not private devotion.

If a church building does not have kneelers, it is certain that the vast majority of the faithful will not kneel (many cannot). Therefore, if you kneel, you are an exception to the community posture (and possibly calling undue attention to yourself and your well-intentioned act of piety). One can reason that the greater good would be to follow the postures of the celebrating community as a whole - you are not alone at this time.

(A footnote related to another recent post: we stand when we receive communion and GIRM 43 allows for sitting or kneeling after the reception of communion.)

 

[Brendan]

The GIRM, 42, notes that “A common posture, to be observed by all participants, is a sign of the unity of the members of the Christian community gathered for the sacred Liturgy: it both expresses and fosters the intention and spiritual attitude of the participants.” The Mass itself is an occasion of communal celebration, not private devotion.

One thing that you are missing is that we participate as a full community of ALL Catholics ( including those in Heaven), not just those who happen to be in the same building.

That is why the Church adopts a common posture only in the General sense, as someone who is kneeling when others nearby are standing is STILL in a common posture, common with all others in the world who are kneeling in prayer at that time.

This is why Cardinal Arinze, in answering a question posed by the USCCB on kneeling after Communion, responded as such

The mens [reasoning] is that the prescription of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, no. 43, is intended, on the one hand, to ensure, within broad limits, a certain uniformity of posture within the congregation for the various parts of the celebration of Holy Mass, and on the other, to not regulate posture rigidly in such a way that those who wish to kneel or sit would no longer be free.

So if the Vatican considers the uniformity of posture to be in the
“broad” sense, can any of us say differently?

 

[Eric_Olsen]

As noted before, in the US, kneeling at certain times is prescribed by the GIRM. And I doubt if many people - if any - will say you “must not” kneel or criticize you for doing so. However, consider this: The GIRM, 42, notes that “A common posture, to be observed by all participants, is a sign of the unity of the members of the Christian community gathered for the sacred Liturgy: it both expresses and fosters the intention and spiritual attitude of the participants.” The Mass itself is an occasion of communal celebration, not private devotion.

I always thought the mass was the sacrifice on the holy altar, not a community activity.

If a church building does not have kneelers, it is certain that the vast majority of the faithful will not kneel (many cannot). Therefore, if you kneel, you are an exception to the community posture (and possibly calling undue attention to yourself and your well-intentioned act of piety). One can reason that the greater good would be to follow the postures of the celebrating community as a whole - you are not alone at this time.

How about when people try to make me hold hands with them durring the our father and I refuse?

(A footnote related to another recent post: we stand when we receive communion and GIRM 43 allows for sitting or kneeling after the reception of communion.)

So, there if I draw attention to myself by kneeling there should be no problem. I’ll just refer the “offended” people to the girm.

 

[dantept]

One thing that you are missing is that we participate as a full community of ALL Catholics ( including those in Heaven), not just those who happen to be in the same building.

That is why the Church adopts a common posture only in the General sense, as someone who is kneeling when others nearby are standing is STILL in a common posture, common with all others in the world who are kneeling in prayer at that time.

This is why Cardinal Arinze, in answering a question posed by the USCCB on kneeling after Communion, responded as such

So if the Vatican considers the uniformity of posture to be in the
“broad” sense, can any of us say differently?

I am not missing what you claim because that is not an issue here. You are stretching it and being inventive: the GIRM passage I quoted speaks specifically to the assembly gathered at Mass at a specific time and place. If the authors of GIRM didn’t care about common postures, they would not have addressed the issue. Nor are they concerned here with common postures for the souls in Heaven or in another country at the same time. (In fact, unless other national Bishop Conferences have issued the same adaptation requiring kneeling as in the US, others are not necessarily kneeling.) And a common posture is just that; kneeling and sitting are not common postures.

Cardinal Arinze’s response appears to be in conformance with the GIRM’s allowance of sitting or kneeling specifically after communion, not an option for the entire Mass. Of course, if one cannot kneel but must sit or chooses to kneel rather than sit, neither I nor many others, I wager, will object to that person. I am only saying that we should give serious consideration to the goal of common postures and resist making individualistic expressions (when we are physically able to freely choose otherwise) because our individual expression calls attention to ourselves and distracts/detracts from the communal celebration.

 

[dantept]

I always thought the mass was the sacrifice on the holy altar, not a community activity.

How about when people try to make me hold hands with them durring the our father and I refuse?

(A footnote related to another recent post: we stand when we receive communion and GIRM 43 allows for sitting or kneeling after the reception of communion.)

So, there if I draw attention to myself by kneeling there should be no problem. I’ll just refer the “offended” people to the girm.

There is much written on the Mass as a communal event, not a private devotion or one reserved to the priest-celebrant. I suggest that you read the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, the first document promulgated by the Council Fathers and Pope Paul VI in 1963. A couple of references will give you the flavor of this document and those that followed to implement its principles:
• ¶7: Christ is present in the liturgy in many ways and all members of the community are copresiders with Christ.
• ¶14: “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.”
• ¶124: Churches shall be “suitable for the celebration of liturgical services and to bringing about the active participation of the faithful.”

Also, in the GIRM, example references that apply:
• ¶27: Outlines the fourfold presence of Christ in the celebration: the assembly, the minister, the word and the eucharistic elements.
• ¶288: “Churches…should be suitable for carrying out the sacred action and for ensuring the active participation of the faithful.”

And, a third major liturgical document: Environment and Art in Catholic Worship (1978); succeeded by Built of Living Stones (2000).
• Provides principles for preparing liturgical space for the worship of the Christian assembly: the building, furnishings; also, the gestures and movement of the people.
• EACW was normative particular law applicable to US churches: so designated by the U.S. bishops Appendix to the GIRM. BOLS is a guideline but does contains content often based on other legally-binding documents. One pertinent excerpt from BOLS:
• ¶31: “Because liturgical actions by their nature are communal celebrations, they are celebrated with the presence and active participation of the Christian faithful whenever possible.”

My experience with this thread confirms again my experience of many years as an architect and member of the Environment and Art Committee of our now-defunct Diocesan Liturgical Commission: the clergy - in general - have done a lousy job (no job, actually) of explaining to their parish communities the principles of and reasons for the changes to the liturgy initiated by Vatican II and its Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. It is no wonder that there is so much misunderstanding of where we are, how we got here, what we should be doing.

In reference to the holding of hands or refusal to do so: that is up to you, of course. Hand-holding is not mentioned in the documents and I expect most people would not be offended. And kneeling after communion is one of your options under the GIRM. In my experience, most people do, although I attended a Mass in the LA Cathedral where the congregation stood after communion. I don’t expect that you will be criticized for it (you seem to be looking for conflict)!

 

[Eric_Olsen]

My experience with this thread confirms again my experience of many years as an architect and member of the Environment and Art Committee of our now-defunct Diocesan Liturgical Commission: the clergy - in general - have done a lousy job (no job, actually) of explaining to their parish communities the principles of and reasons for the changes to the liturgy initiated by Vatican II and its Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. It is no wonder that there is so much misunderstanding of where we are, how we got here, what we should be doing.

thats because the liturgical experts, like father Vosko, have a skewed idea of what the VII council actually wanted.

 

[dantept]

thats because the liturgical experts, like father Vosko, have a skewed idea of what the VII council actually wanted.

Hardly-Father Vosko has demonstrated a very clear, unskewed knowledge of what the Fathers “wanted” as expressed in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (CSL). I repeat - read it for yourself: its essential meaning and thrust is quite clear, as are the documents that followed to implement its provisions. They are consistent over a period of years. Remember - the original schema of the CSL - after much discussion and preparation - was approved 2162-46. The final document with some amendments was approved overwhelmingly, also. Pope Paul VI as a cardinal voted for the CSL and as pope, promulgated it. It is those who want to rollback VII that attempt to skew the intent and meaning of the documents.

The problem lies not with the Voskos of this world - would there were more of them! The problem lies with many clergy, including the bishops who did not and do not educate themselves, the priests or the faithful about the liturgy (as directed by CSL II). It is understandable that the average layperson would be reluctant or resistant to embrace change without proper catechesis. Although I welcomed the obviously beneficial changes such as the priest’s facing the congregation, the use of the vernacular and the increased emphasis on the Word, including the Old Testament, I did not fully appreciate that the Council was attempting to return to our liturgical roots. That understanding required more thorough reading of the documents and exposure to the history of the church and liturgical development. (It doesn’t have to be a Ph.D. regimen!)

When all the Council documents were completed and published, I happened to be the president of our Holy Name Society. I thought a program series focusing on those documents would be appropriate. No such luck-the pastor (an elderly and saintly man) wouldn’t hear of it. He never did much catechesis on VII to the parish, either. As fine a priest as he was, I believe he failed in his pastoral duty. Moving ahead to the near-present, our current Bishop, faced with budget problems, fired the Director of the Liturgical Commission, which is therefore, defunct. The liturgy is “the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed; at the same time it is the power from which all her power flows.” CSL, 10. Apparently, our Bishop either doesn’t understand that or doesn’t agree.

From what I have observed, my experience has been repeated in somewhat similar fashion in many places over the years. So I am grateful that we have at least a few Father Voskos left!

By the way, other passages relating to the communal nature of the liturgy can be found in CSL III(B).

We should all pray, “Come Holy Spirit!” that we come together in joy and not spend our energies on division.

 

[Eric_Olsen]

Hardly-Father Vosko has demonstrated a very clear, unskewed knowledge of what the Fathers “wanted” as expressed in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (CSL). I repeat - read it for yourself:

oh you gotta be kidding me!!!

Father Vosko has destroyed many of a Catholic Church with his twisted view on the constitution of the sacred liturgy. I have read that document and nowhere does it say to do what this man has done to beautiful churches.

 

[dantept]

No - I am not kidding you! Im sorry, but if you have read the Constitution (and the GIRM and EACW or BOLS) and still feel that way about his work, you have somehow missed the meaning of the documents. Not that he gets it all right every time, but he is pretty close to the mark.

 

[japhy]

No - I am not kidding you! Im sorry, but if you have read the Constitution (and the GIRM and EACW or BOLS) and still feel that way about his work, you have somehow missed the meaning of the documents. Not that he gets it all right every time, but he is pretty close to the mark.

Ugh, don’t get me started on EACW. I read it a few months ago… the pictures are probably the worst part of it. Looking at pictures #9 and #10, for example, I cannot believe that Sacrosanctum Concilium had such decimation in mind.

I think I counted six instances in EACW that encouraged seating in-the-round (so that the congregation can see each other) and thereby implied the traditional rows-of-pews arrangement makes the people spectators rather than participants.

Other oddities include its fascination with an off-center altar; one of the pictures (#39) seems to show an ambo in the center of the sanctuary with the altar apart from (or diagonally adjacent to) the main sanctuary. The paragraphs on the altar (nn. 71-73): a) never mention “sacrifice” (a word that does not appear in the document’s index) and is focused instead on the community’s “sharing” at the altar, b) regrettably use the phrase “common table” (although “common” in this case means “belonging to the whole assembly”), c) suggest that it should be square (rather than an elongated rectangle) simply because only one person should be standing at it, d) consider the presence of other altars harmful, and (as I noted before) e) suggest that an off-center altar “may be a good solution in many cases”.

It also doesn’t support most of its “principles to guide” with references to or quotes from the relevant universal documents.

 

[Walking_Home]

So, there if I draw attention to myself by kneeling there should be no problem. I’ll just refer the “offended” people to the girm.

There is much written on the Mass as a communal event, not a private devotion or one reserved to the priest-celebrant. I suggest that you read the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, the first document promulgated by the Council Fathers and Pope Paul VI in 1963. A couple of references will give you the flavor of this document and those that followed to implement its principles:
• ¶7: Christ is present in the liturgy in many ways and all members of the community are copresiders with Christ.

---

I did not find that language in the Constitution. If as you say --we “copreside” --that would make us concelebrators. You do know --only validly ordained priests preside and concelebrate.

 

[japhy]

¶7: Christ is present in the liturgy in many ways and all members of the community are copresiders with Christ.

The closest I see to that is “every liturgical celebration … is an action of Christ the priest and of His Body which is the Church”. That doesn’t make us “copresiders with Christ”.

And, a third major liturgical document: Environment and Art in Catholic Worship (1978) … was normative particular law applicable to US churches: so designated by the U.S. bishops Appendix to the GIRM.

That’s exactly the opposite of what the USCCB says about the document:
Environment and Art in Catholic Worship is a 1978 statement of the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy. The purpose of the document is to provide principles for those involved in preparing liturgical space. The committee statement received the approval of the Administrative Committee in keeping with Conference policy. Because the document was not proposed as a statement of the whole conference of Bishops, the full body of bishops was never asked to consider it.

Environment and Art in Catholic Worship does not have the force of law in and of itself. It is not particular law for the dioceses of the United States of America, but a commentary on that law by the Committee for the Liturgy. However, it does quote several documents of the Apostolic See and in that sense it has the force of the documents it quotes in the areas where those documents legislate.
And as for its mention in the GIRM, this is relevant:
We have talked to the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy about the statement in the U.S. Appendix which says EACW is to be followed. According to the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy, the U.S. Appendix to the General Instruction, n. 238, which says that the directives of EACW are to be applied in the U.S., means that where it is repeating principles and directives found in authoritative documents, it is to be followed. Any new statements not from authoritative documents are simply commentary and are not binding.

 

[Eric_Olsen]

Well I have read the docoment on the sacred liturgy and especially the secion on sacred furnishings and from what I can see, Fr. Vosko has totally ignored that section from looking at all the reckovations he has done. The section talks about not destroying existing furnishings in old churches. Fr. Vosko has destroyed the Cathederal in Milwakee, and elsewhere. He is also responsible for that ugly mess in LA they call a cathederal.

No - I am not kidding you! Im sorry, but if you have read the Constitution (and the GIRM and EACW or BOLS) and still feel that way about his work, you have somehow missed the meaning of the documents. Not that he gets it all right every time, but he is pretty close to the mark.

 

[Eric_Olsen]

All one has to do is read “Ugly as sin” by Michael Rose.

Ugh, don’t get me started on EACW. I read it a few months ago… the pictures are probably the worst part of it. Looking at pictures #9 and #10, for example, I cannot believe that Sacrosanctum Concilium had such decimation in mind.

I think I counted six instances in EACW that encouraged seating in-the-round (so that the congregation can see each other) and thereby implied the traditional rows-of-pews arrangement makes the people spectators rather than participants.

Other oddities include its fascination with an off-center altar; one of the pictures (#39) seems to show an ambo in the center of the sanctuary with the altar apart from (or diagonally adjacent to) the main sanctuary. The paragraphs on the altar (nn. 71-73): a) never mention “sacrifice” (a word that does not appear in the document’s index) and is focused instead on the community’s “sharing” at the altar, b) regrettably use the phrase “common table” (although “common” in this case means “belonging to the whole assembly”), c) suggest that it should be square (rather than an elongated rectangle) simply because only one person should be standing at it, d) consider the presence of other altars harmful, and (as I noted before) e) suggest that an off-center altar “may be a good solution in many cases”.

It also doesn’t support most of its “principles to guide” with references to or quotes from the relevant universal documents.

 

[japhy]

The paragraphs on the altar (nn. 71-73): a) never mention “sacrifice” (a word that does not appear in the document’s index)

The word “sacrifice” is used three times in the document:
29. The most powerful experience of the sacred is found in the celebration and the persons celebrating, that is, it is found in the action of the assembly: the living words, the living gestures, the living sacrifice, the living meal. This was at the heart of the earliest liturgies. …

1. To gather intentionally in God’s presence is to gather our total selves, our complete persons – a “living sacrifice.” …
2. Great care, however, should be taken in the design and care of movable furnishings that none of the dignity, noble and simple beauty proper to such objects is sacrificed.
   It’s clear the mention in 65 is not relevant in this case. But note the other two, in which the word is used in the phrase “a/the living sacrifice”. This phrase is found in two places in the Ordinary Form: EP III and EP IV.

In EP III, the context is: “Father, calling to mind the death your Son endured for our salvation, his glorious resurrection and ascension into heaven, and ready to greet him when he comes again, we offer you in thanksgiving this holy and living sacrifice. Look with favor on your Church’s offering, and see the Victim whose death has reconciled us to yourself.”

In EP IV, the context is: “Lord, look upon this sacrifice which you have given to your Church; and by your Holy Spirit, gather all who share this bread and wine into the one body of Christ, a living sacrifice of praise.”

By EACW’s link of “living sacrifice” with the assembly of the faithful (in #35), it implies it means the same thing in #29, and that “living meal” alone refers to the Eucharist. EACW is leaning towards EP IV’s use of “living sacrifice”, rather than EP III’s, so it is concerned with the Church as the “body of Christ” rather than with the Precious Body and Blood of Christ now present on the altar as the “holy and living sacrifice”. In other words, the document does not apply the word “sacrifice” (explicitly, and probably implicitly either) to the Eucharist nor to the altar.

Perhaps I’m mistaken, but that’s how I’ve interpreted this document. I’d say ambiguity is something the Church has not been lacking these past few decades.