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

[EasterJoy]

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

I’d say “communal” rather than “community”, but the two aren’t mutually exclusive.

In baptism, we were buried in the death of Christ, so as to also share in His Resurrection. It follows that we are made an acceptable offering by, as it were, having our lives caught up and hidden within the only Offering which actually IS acceptable.

Once baptized, our lives are not our own, but are one in Christ. Our one life is offered on that altar, too, every time the Mass is offered. We are to be poured out, as Christ has been poured out. If that doesn’t give us all pause, then I don’t know what…and hey, Mikey, *that *is communal!!

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.

You know, I’ve never had anyone look at me funny for not holding their hands during the Our Father. I’ve never had anyone look at me funny for kneeling during consecration or, when a kneeler wasn’t available, for making a profound bow as the priest genuflected, as I was instructed to do in that case. Maybe I wasn’t paying attention, but I just didn’t get that sense at all.

When and if anyone expresses offense to you, express surprise. It is appropriate. In the meantime, do not worry about it.

 

[MarieVeronica]

Just thought I’d throw my :twocents: in.

The absence of kneelers in some Catholic churches… is yet another of those emerging “trends” which is so disturbing. At least, to me. One of our local parishes has now removed the kneelers from within the church. When I questioned it… I was told that we only kneel now, during the Consecration (Says who? Certainly not Rome… that I’m aware of). And that if you “want” to kneel (implying it to be a personal choice… there goes that darn Relativism again)… that you must kneel on the hard, tile floor.

I immediately wondered how many elderly or infirmed people this practice would impede? And how many children will grow up… with the notion that “kneeling” (or perhaps other things, such as making the Sign of the Cross… Genuflecting, etc.) is their own “personal choice” or “option”.

Maybe it’s just me… but this whole “personal choice” thing, if applied to matters of Church practices… customs… devotions, etc., makes me uncomfortable. Sounds a LOT like the “Pro Choice” (abortion rights) movement, in miniature.

Scares the tar outta me.

 

[Ghoti]

I’ve been in two Catholic churches without kneelers. One is here in Toronto – St Edith Stein, which actually operates out of a United Church building (United Church of Canada that is, which is Methodist + Congregationalist + Presbyterian, and very liberal). They used stacking chairs – the tubular-steel type with the vinyl seat and back and wood armrest. I just kneel on the floor at the appropriate time. I went there for Mass one winter’s night – I have no idea how I managed to keep my dress pants from getting covered in slush. (A miracle! :bowdown: )

The other was St Paul’s in St John’s, NF. IIRC, they used chairs as well. They were a new church, attached to a school, built in the 1980’s. Very non-descript architecturally, as I recall.

I remember an article I read somewhere (I can’t remember if it was in a diocesan paper or the parish bulletin) about the lack of kneelers, and it went something to the effect of Catholics finally “getting up off their knees.”

This must be the same mentality that said the reason we stand for Communion is that it’s symbolic for Catholics as “a people on the move.”

Seems to me that when they decide to do something – whoever “they” are – they do the deed first and then try to spin it.

 

[peary]

Kneelers: were they removed from your church?

Never had them?

Were they reinstalled at some point, or perhaps retrofitted into a church that never had them?

Did your priest (or anybody else) ever teach on the importance of having kneelers? Or perhaps teach on why they are not important?

How did you and the people react to any of the above?

The parishes I belonged to throughout my life have all had kneelers. Relatives in Wisconsin, however, had them removed from their churches until a new bishop was installed, and he ordered them back, and also ordered the people to kneel during Consecration. When I was young, both the priests and nuns taught that kneeling was a sign of holy respect for God as He is present blood, body, soul and divinity in the Tabernacle, which is why quiet was necessary so that we could commune with Him. The priests also taught that it was a perfect expression of devotion to God based on the biblical passage “Every knee shall bend” to His glory. I don’t know what they have been teaching for the past two or three generations, but I’m not impressed.

 

[dantept]

Been away and/or otherwise occupied for several days, but would like to follow-up regarding my earlier comments regarding the previous edition of GIRM and its relationship to EACW.

From other church documents I have read, the GIRM is normative law of the same status as Canon Law. The statement of the UCCB - years later - regarding the status of EACW does a bit of a dance backwards. The actual Appendix of the the 1975 GIRM, 253, reads: “In those things pertaining to the arrangement of churches and other requisites of liturgical art and architecture, the principles and directives of the 1978 statement of the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy, Environment and Art in Catholic Worship, should be consulted and applied (emphases mine).” No temporizing clauses there.

It is true that the recent successor documents of the GIRM and EACW refer to BOLS provisions as guidelines. But consider that even if certain provisions are “only” guidelines, they are meaningful efforts by the UCCB to guide the physical expression of the principles and meanings of the liturgical documents as set down especially by the SC and GIRM. They are not to be dismissed out of hand just because we don’t like them and/or because they are a change from that with which we are familiar.

The reconfigurations of many older churches and the configurations of new churches, at their best (and yes, there have been poorly done examples), are attempts to facilitate and express the revised liturgy, especially the principle that the worship environment should express the gathering of the entire assembly to celebrate the Mass and the principle of encouraging the full and active participation of the congregation. The traditional configuration with which most of us grew up, with the sanctuary a stage at one end and the congregation seated theater fashion as observers, simply does not meet the principles of the liturgy documents very well; hence, the many alternate configurations to better engage the congregation with the focal points and encourage full and active participation. The liturgy documents are run through with this goal.

To those who “blame” Fr, Vosko for the LA cathedral, be aware that he was a consultant but not the design architect. I, too, find fault with some of the elements of that church; however, I don’t know to what extent Vosko was responsible. I also understand that Cardinal Mahony was quite involved in the detailed planning; for example, he was responsible for at least requiring (if not designing) that those awful glass sunshades be added to “protect” the alabaster “windows.” In my opinion, they give a penal allusion to those elevations. And the traditionalists among us should note that the layout of the cathedral is essentially, shall we say, traditional!

Finally, a request that we maintain a certain perspective regarding the kneeling issue. As I said before, I have no personal problem with kneeling, only with the non-reverential noise made by the kneelers. And certainly, it is a posture expressive of reverence and worship. However, keep in mind that this posture, like most, is a human development. At the Last Supper, the apostles were sitting, as far as we know (and not in theater rows, either) and received the first eucharist without kneeling or even standing (and without fasting). Let’s all chill-out a little and not get so exercised about matters that are not essential to our core faith.

 

[japhy]

The statement of the USCCB - years later - regarding the status of EACW does a bit of a dance backwards. The actual Appendix of the the 1975 GIRM, 253, reads: “In those things pertaining to the arrangement of churches and other requisites of liturgical art and architecture, the principles and directives of the 1978 statement of the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy, Environment and Art in Catholic Worship, should be consulted and applied (emphases mine).” No temporizing clauses there.

I’d say the USCCB was correcting a mistake of theirs in implying that EACW did authority in and of itself.

It is true that the recent successor documents of the GIRM and EACW refer to BOLS provisions as guidelines. But consider that even if certain provisions are “only” guidelines, they are meaningful efforts by the UCCB to guide the physical expression of the principles and meanings of the liturgical documents as set down especially by the SC and GIRM. They are not to be dismissed out of hand just because we don’t like them and/or because they are a change from that with which we are familiar.

What if the guidelines are based on misinterpretations of the Council? Or, worse yet, aren’t actually based on the Council? EACW makes several suggestions and conjectures without backing up its claims. What “solution” does an off-center altar provide, honestly!?

The reconfigurations of many older churches and the configurations of new churches, at their best, are attempts to facilitate and express the revised liturgy, especially the principle that the worship environment should express the gathering of the entire assembly to celebrate the Mass and the principle of encouraging the full and active participation of the congregation.

This sounds like the canard that there was no full, conscious, and active participation of the laity before the revision of the liturgy… or that such participation wasn’t even possible. It’s bogus.

The traditional configuration with which most of us grew up, with the sanctuary a stage at one end and the congregation seated theater fashion as observers, simply does not meet the principles of the liturgy documents very well…

Churches in-the-round seem to me to be better examples of theatre than traditionally-configured churches. There is so much emphasis placed on people seeing each other (a point which EACW raises half a dozen times), and priests seem to have a greater tendency to be showmen when they’re facing the congregation and the center of attention. And I disagree that a traditionally-configured church fails to meet the principles of Sacrosanctum Concilium, although I will admit that the further you get from that source document, the more embellished the liturgy documents become, again often without a basis in the traditional liturgical practices of the Church and without a basis in S.C. either.

 

[dantept]

I couldn’t disagree with you more.

 

[peary]

I’ve been in two Catholic churches without kneelers. One is here in Toronto – St Edith Stein, which actually operates out of a United Church building (United Church of Canada that is, which is Methodist + Congregationalist + Presbyterian, and very liberal). They used stacking chairs – the tubular-steel type with the vinyl seat and back and wood armrest. I just kneel on the floor at the appropriate time. I went there for Mass one winter’s night – I have no idea how I managed to keep my dress pants from getting covered in slush. (A miracle! :bowdown: )

The other was St Paul’s in St John’s, NF. IIRC, they used chairs as well. They were a new church, attached to a school, built in the 1980’s. Very non-descript architecturally, as I recall.

I remember an article I read somewhere (I can’t remember if it was in a diocesan paper or the parish bulletin) about the lack of kneelers, and it went something to the effect of Catholics finally “getting up off their knees.”

This must be the same mentality that said the reason we stand for Communion is that it’s symbolic for Catholics as “a people on the move.”

Seems to me that when they decide to do something – whoever “they” are – they do the deed first and then try to spin it.

But times, they are a-changin’, as they say. More and more people are opting to receive Communion on the tongue as well as kneeling. If anything, if will be the laity that will bring this practice back rather than the hierarchy. The bible never says that we are to stand to worship the Lord. It says that "every knee shall bend."

 

[Walking_Home]

Interesting read concerning Environment and Art in Catholic Worship.

adoremus.org/98-03_mcnamara.htm

 

[Catholic4Christ]

one church that I regularly attend has no kneelers. I don’t really know why, it’s the only church i can remember going to (out of a LOT of churches) that doesn’t have them.

 

[Walking_Home]

From what can be seen below — the Church acknowledges not all is well with the redesigning of our churches. Seems it is an experiment — gone wrong.

vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_doc_20050707_instrlabor-xi-assembly_en.html

The Dignity of the Sacred Space
Based on the Bible, the Church has traditionally set aside an area reserved for the sacred ministers, as a powerful sign that the Lord is the one who choses his ministers and brings them into his service. This distinction has been maintained in the Eastern Churches, through the delineation of the sanctuary, and in the West, through the presbytery. The liturgy manifests that the People of God is hierarchically ordered and geared to active participation. The altar is the most holy part of the Church building and is elevated to indicate that God’s work is far superior to all human works. The linens which cover it are symbolic of the purity which is necessary to encounter the divine. Like the Church building, the altar is dedicated to the Lord only, and cannot be used for any other purpose.
Some responses reported other occurrences, opposed to afore-mentioned Church tradition, which obscure the sense of the sacred and the transcendent character of the sacred mysteries. For example, many new Churches—not to mention older ones after renovation—are built on the fundamental architectural plan of bringing the faithful into close proximity to the altar to ensure visual contact and communication between the celebrant and the assembly. Likewise, the tendency to turn the altar around to face the people—in practice eliminating the presbytery—is based on the same idea.** In doing so, what might be gained in communication might not sufficiently safeguard a sense of the sacred, which is also an essential part of liturgical celebrations.**

Some responses are very encouraging, however. Based on the guidelines set down in The General Instruction on the Roman Missal, diverse initiatives have been undertaken to ensure that sacred spaces in already existent Churches and those under construction be true places of prayer and adoration, where art and iconography become instruments to serve liturgical needs. **For example, in some Churches, kneelers have returned along with the practice of the faithful kneeling during the Eucharistic Prayer. Tabernacles, previously not clearly visible, have again been placed in the sanctuary or in a prominent place. **The planning of new Churches is providing greater prominence to art, decoration, vestments and sacred vessels. This seeks to bring into harmony the nearness of the celebrant to the people and the sacred nature of the divine mysteries which are, at one and the same time, immanent and transcendent.

 

[JU2]

Just this past Sunday (22 June), I attended mass at a parish I hadn’t been to since 1979: St Thomas a Becket Catholic Church, in Reston, VA. It was built with no pews or kneelers back in the 70’s. Just an open space. They put the chairs (sans kneelers) in there for mass. As a result, no one kneels. I had never experienced standing during the Eucharistic prayer, and didn’t like it. Again, as mentioned elsewhere, it seems lots of different “techniques” for celebrating the mass are becoming the norm. I sure hope the US Bishops begin to make more statements on what is and is not acceptable for the liturgy.

 

[dantept]

Just this past Sunday (22 June), I attended mass at a parish I hadn’t been to since 1979: St Thomas a Becket Catholic Church, in Reston, VA. It was built with no pews or kneelers back in the 70’s. Just an open space. They put the chairs (sans kneelers) in there for mass. As a result, no one kneels. I had never experienced standing during the Eucharistic prayer, and didn’t like it. Again, as mentioned elsewhere, it seems lots of different “techniques” for celebrating the mass are becoming the norm. I sure hope the US Bishops begin to make more statements on what is and is not acceptable for the liturgy.

Please refer to previous posts I have offered. The norm for the universal church (see the basic GIRM) is not to kneel (as was the tradition in the early church); the norm for the US (and probably some other nations) is to kneel (see the US adaptation of the GIRM). But the bishops have never, to my knowledge, insisted that kneelers be added where there are none. Until the GIRM of 1974 was promulgated, I don’t believe that there was any formal “law” that mandated kneeling, so many new churches were built without kneelers.

 

[MrS]

Please refer to previous posts I have offered. The norm for the universal church (see the basic GIRM) is not to kneel (as was the tradition in the early church); the norm for the US (and probably some other nations) is to kneel (see the US adaptation of the GIRM). But the bishops have never, to my knowledge, insisted that kneelers be added where there are none. Until the GIRM of 1974 was promulgated, I don’t believe that there was any formal “law” that mandated kneeling, so many new churches were built without kneelers.

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 ) granted.

 

[japhy]

The norm for the universal church (see the basic GIRM) is not to kneel (as was the tradition in the early church);

No, the Latin GIRM says that kneeling is done for the consecration. IGMR 43 reads, in part, “Genuflectant vero, nisi valetudinis causa, vel ob angustiam loci vel frequentiorem numerum adstantium aliasve rationabiles causas impediantur, ad consecrationem. Hi vero qui non genuflectunt ad consecrationem, inclinationem profundam peragant dum sacerdos genuflectit post consecrationem.”

Now, as to what part of the Eucharistic Prayer constitutes “the consecration”, I have heard that it generally means “from the epiclesis” (because the deacon is told to kneel then) “to the memorial acclamation”.

Until the GIRM of 1974 was promulgated, I don’t believe that there was any formal “law” that mandated kneeling, so many new churches were built without kneelers.

Well, why were older churches built with kneelers then?! My point is, in the Roman Rite, kneeling – even if not mandated during the liturgy – is a common posture for prayer. And, since the GIRM states that kneeling is proper for part of the Mass, kneeling constitutes part of our active participation, and thus to not provide the facility for kneeling is to hinder the participation of the faithful.

 

[dantept]

The English translation of the current GIRM does not address the consecration specifically in 43 but does call for kneeling by the faithful (“should” kneel, not “must” kneel) during certain parts of the Mass, with exceptions allowed. (And genuflection is not kneeling, as such.)

Yes, kneeling was customary in the church for many centuries (but as I said, not in the early church). However, in the period between Vatican II and the GIRM of 1974, there was no specific universal mandate for kneeling, to my knowledge. From what you say, Bishop Carlson’s directive has occurred since 1974. (Even the 1974 US adaptation to the GIRM used the word “should,” not “must.”)

JU2 was asking for direction from the bishops. I am merely trying to point out that such direction exists.

 

[japhy]

IGMR 43 reads, in part, “Genuflectant vero, nisi valetudinis causa, vel ob angustiam loci vel frequentiorem numerum adstantium aliasve rationabiles causas impediantur, ad consecrationem. Hi vero qui non genuflectunt ad consecrationem, inclinationem profundam peragant dum sacerdos genuflectit post consecrationem.”

The English translation of the current GIRM does not address the consecration specifically in 43 but does call for kneeling by the faithful (“should” kneel, not “must” kneel) during certain parts of the Mass, with exceptions allowed. (And genuflection is not kneeling, as such.)

The US GIRM 43 reads, in part, “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.” So yes, we should kneel, but we are excused for a variety of reasons. However, with this knowledge that we should kneel, WHY ON EARTH would you construct a church without kneelers? Are you seeking to provide “some other good reason” (namely: we have no kneelers!) for the people to not kneel during the Eucharistic Prayer? Malarky.

And as for genuflecting vs. kneeling… The Latin verb genuflectere means both “to kneel” and “to genuflect”, so I can see that might lead to some confusion, especially in n. 43: Genuflectant vero, nisi valetudinis causa, vel ob angustiam loci vel frequentiorem numerum adstantium aliasve rationabiles causas impediantur, ad consecrationem. Hi vero qui non genuflectunt ad consecrationem, inclinationem profundam peragant dum sacerdos genuflectit post consecrationem. … Ubi mos est, populum ab acclamatione Sanctus expleta usque ad finem Precis eucharisticae et ante Communionem quando sacerdos dicit Ecce Agnus Dei genuflexum manere, hic laudabiliter retinetur. (n. 43)

It is the priest who genuflects, whereas the people kneel. Genuflection on the part of the people during Mass (notwithstanding a sign of reverence made immediately before receiving Communion in some places) is only done during the Creed on Annunciation and Christmas: Symbolum cantatur vel recitatur a sacerdote una cum populo (cf. n. 68 ), omnibus stantibus. Ad verba Et incarnátus est, etc. omnes profunde se inclinant; in sollemnitatibus vero Annuntiationis et Nativitatis Domini genua flectunt. (n. 137)

And I have yet to hear of a person receiving Communion while genuflecting, but rather while kneeling: Fideles communicant genuflexi vel stantes, prout Conferentia Episcoporum statuerit. (n. 160)

So I think it’s safe to say that the universal GIRM calls for kneeling on the part of the people during the consecration, not genuflection. However, I would absolutely love to have an authoritative answer on this.

 

[Walking_Home]

adoremus.org/1102TheologyKneel.html

The theology of kneeling is explained by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in the following excerpt from a chapter, “The Body and the Liturgy”, in The Spirit of the Liturgy, published by Ignatius Press in 2000, reprinted with permission. This important work, by the Catholic Church’s chief official on Catholic doctrine, was reviewed for AB by Father Paul Scalia (“The Scandal of the Liturgy”, Dec.2000/Jan 2001). See also Jesuit Father James Schall’s column on the book.

The Christian Liturgy is a cosmic Liturgy precisely because it bends the knee before the crucified and exalted Lord. Here is the center of authentic culture - the culture of truth. The humble gesture by which we fall at the feet of the Lord inserts us into the true path of life of the cosmos.

There is much more that we might add. For example, there is the touching story told by Eusebius in his history of the Church as a tradition going back to Hegesippus in the second century. Apparently, Saint James, the “brother of the Lord”, the first bishop of Jerusalem and “head” of the Jewish Christian Church, had a kind of callous on his knees, because he was always on his knees worshipping God and begging forgiveness for his people (2, 23, 6). Again, there is a story that comes from the sayings of the Desert Fathers, according to which the devil was compelled by God to show himself to a certain Abba Apollo. He looked black and ugly, with frighteningly thin limbs, but most strikingly, he had no knees. The inability to kneel is seen as the very essence of the diabolical.

But I do not want to go into more detail. I should like to make just one more remark. The expression used by Saint Luke to describe the kneeling of Christians (theis ta gonata) is unknown in classical Greek. We are dealing here with a specifically Christian word. With that remark, our reflections turn full circle to where they began. It may well be that kneeling is alien to modern culture – insofar as it is a culture, for this culture has turned away from the faith and no longer knows the one before whom kneeling is the right, indeed the intrinsically necessary gesture. The man who learns to believe learns also to kneel, and a faith or a liturgy no longer familiar with kneeling would be sick at the core. Where it has been lost, kneeling must be rediscovered, so that, in our prayer, we remain in fellowship with the apostles and martyrs, in fellowship with the whole cosmos, indeed in union with Jesus Christ Himself.

 

[dantept]

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!

 

[Brendan]

But the bishops have never, to my knowledge, insisted that kneelers be added where there are none. .

Cardinal Maida of Detroit has done so. If any renovations are being done to a parish that does not currently have kneelers, kneelers are to be installed.

As MrS correctly noted, Bishop Carlson of Sagniaw has made a similar pronouncement.