Kneeling During Eucharistic Prayers

[Brendan_64]

Such ideas do not die easily (after a new code of canon law, a couple of new G.I.R.M.s, and 30+ years, the idea still persists) and as a result we have all those church buildings designed and/or built in the 1980s and 1990s which *never *had kneelers installed.

Such designs do not have anything to do with what was actually stated in Vatican II, nothing whatsoever. I imagine that they have more to do with certain elements within our Church who see themselves as ‘modernisers’ and wish to break with the past and bring us more into line with our separated brethren in the Protestant denominations. The false claim that this has something to do with Vatican II is simply a way to try to justify anything that breaks with the past.

The bottom line is that if it’s not stated in any of the documents of Vatican II it has nothing to do with Vatican II. When people claim that certain things are justified because of Vatican II, simply and politely ask them, “In which particular Vatican II document is that mentioned?”

 

[Skeptic92]

Right; lets clear up some confusion.

Standing vs Kneeling during the Eucharistic prayer.

This is a difficult one to answer either way as to which one is older; we simply do not know. The symbolism involved though could help us; standing was (and is) seen as a joyous posture, whilst kneeling was (and is) seen as a more sorrowful/penitential posture. This reveals at least a hint that standing is probably the older practice of the early Church, confirmed by Orthodoxy’s retention of Standing (almost throughout) over kneeling. Kneeling/Genuflection in the Latin probably has its roots in the early Medieval period (between 600-800), influenced not just by social realities but the development of western Theology.

The norm of the western Church is still kneeling, as that is the tradition of the Latin Church. Standing is the tradition of the Eastern Churches, and they to this day retain it. It is a different emphasis of symbolism (joyful at the resurrection and the presence of the Lord, sorrowful/penitential for our sins that put Christ on the Cross), rather than any contradiction.

 

[Deep_Roots]

Right; lets clear up some confusion.

Standing vs Kneeling during the Eucharistic prayer.

This is a difficult one to answer either way as to which one is older; we simply do not know. The symbolism involved though could help us; standing was (and is) seen as a joyous posture, whilst kneeling was (and is) seen as a more sorrowful/penitential posture. This reveals at least a hint that standing is probably the older practice of the early Church, confirmed by Orthodoxy’s retention of Standing (almost throughout) over kneeling. Kneeling/Genuflection in the Latin probably has its roots in the early Medieval period (between 600-800), influenced not just by social realities but the development of western Theology.

The norm of the western Church is still kneeling, as that is the tradition of the Latin Church. Standing is the tradition of the Eastern Churches, and they to this day retain it. It is a different emphasis of symbolism (joyful at the resurrection and the presence of the Lord, sorrowful/penitential for our sins that put Christ on the Cross), rather than any contradiction.

Well said.

 

[SyroMalankara]

If an Easterner did disparage the Latins for kneeling, usually the Canons of Nicaea are brought up, as Nicaea forbids kneeling on Sunday. I don’t know the circumstances of the abrogation in the Latin Church, or if it was formally abrogated. Either way, I kneel when attending a Roman Liturgy, and stand at an Eastern.

 

[Deep_Roots]

When in Rome…

 

[Digitonomy]

The bottom line is that if it’s not stated in any of the documents of Vatican II it has nothing to do with Vatican II. When people claim that certain things are justified because of Vatican II, simply and politely ask them, “In which particular Vatican II document is that mentioned?”

This is a mistake I see on this forum frequently… It’s not quite that simple. There were a number of changes, especially to the mass, that were put in place as a result of Vatican II. The documents of Vatican II itself simply said there will be a reform of the liturgy, and here are some general guidelines, but the exact changes and rules will come later. Just because they came later and are not explicitly ordered in Sacrosanctum Concilium doesn’t mean they were not a result of Vatican II.

Having said that, while the current GIRM countenances standing during the Eucharistic Prayer in certain circumstances, my most charitable explanation for the claims quoted in the OP is that they are highly imaginative.

 

[pianistclare]

Right; lets clear up some confusion.

Standing vs Kneeling during the Eucharistic prayer.

This is a difficult one to answer either way as to which one is older; we simply do not know. The symbolism involved though could help us; standing was (and is) seen as a joyous posture, whilst kneeling was (and is) seen as a more sorrowful/penitential posture. This reveals at least a hint that standing is probably the older practice of the early Church, confirmed by Orthodoxy’s retention of Standing (almost throughout) over kneeling. Kneeling/Genuflection in the Latin probably has its roots in the early Medieval period (between 600-800), influenced not just by social realities but the development of western Theology.

The norm of the western Church is still kneeling, as that is the tradition of the Latin Church. Standing is the tradition of the Eastern Churches, and they to this day retain it. It is a different emphasis of symbolism (joyful at the resurrection and the presence of the Lord, sorrowful/penitential for our sins that put Christ on the Cross), rather than any contradiction.

This is a very good response, and also not one filled with personal emotion. My personal, main objection to the announcement in our parish, was that the people were told that this (standing) was going to be a U.S. mandate, and we should adopt it immediately, and get used to it. This does not seem to be the case. There are no churches that do this around us, and in fact, at the Cathedral it is not being done, and you would think the Bishops would be on board with it, if it were true. What is further confusing is that when Bishops come for Confirmation Masses, they don’t blink an eye at it. Which tells me that for THIS Diocese, it’s either/or. No one has instructed the newer pastor to go back to kneeling, although he himself permits it. People have placed notes in the “suggestion box” asking if they can kneel, and it has not been publicly addressed. (Isn’t it funny how we Catholics can still be afraid to ask a question directly of the pastor?) I asked when I first started working there. He said kneel if you want to. “They” don’t kneel here, but you are free to if you wish, no problem.

So I kneel after the Angus Dei and during the distribution of Holy Communion. I find that if I stand while others receive, I find myself not praying at all! I’m looking at shoes, people, their children, basically like waiting at a bus stop for something to happen. I need to be kneeling to pray well, and personally. I don’t subscribe to the explanation that we stand because the church as a whole, receives Christ in Eucharist, and we stand in recognition of this. This is how it was explained to them years ago when they adopted this.
Wrong to me, my 2 cents.
And I agree, every time something odd happens, everyone starts crowing about Vatican II. It does get tiresome.

I agree with Brendan regarding folks who blame Vatican II for everything.

 

[FaithfulKnight]

My personal preference is that as long as I am able I will kneel. I have attended Mass at locations where it was necessary to use a temporary Altar and the priest advised that standing would be okay, some chose to stand, some knelt.
I also prefer to receive Communion while kneeling, although often in the name of easing the flow in the aisle I will stand.
I believe this is all derived from my Catholic education as a youth and my continued deep belief in what the Eucharist means to me.

 

[ProVobis]

This is a mistake I see on this forum frequently… It’s not quite that simple. There were a number of changes, especially to the mass, that were put in place as a result of Vatican II. The documents of Vatican II itself simply said there will be a reform of the liturgy, and here are some general guidelines, but the exact changes and rules will come later. Just because they came later and are not explicitly ordered in Sacrosanctum Concilium doesn’t mean they were not a result of Vatican II.

But doesn’t that argument presuppose that Vatican II was open-ended and all changes since then, including the restoration of previous practices, have been its effects? Or maybe I’m wrong and Vatican II did officially end at some point, but I doubt it, seeing all the liturgical committees and subcommittees at the parish level still abounding.

 

[Brendan_64]

But doesn’t that argument presuppose that Vatican II was open-ended and all changes since then, including the restoration of previous practices, have been its effects?

Exactly. Vatican II has been erroneously used to justify any innovations that someone sees fit to introduce. The fact that the changes were never mentioned or even implied in any documents of Vatican II doesn’t seem to matter to the ‘innovators’, simply say that because Vatican II suggested change therefore that particular change (not mentioned in any VII documents) is justified. Following that line of logic is carte blanche to do whatever you like and claim that Vatican II supports it.

Benedict XVI was entirely correct, the ‘spirit’ of Vatican II is in the letter of Vatican II. And Pope Francis is also on record as rejecting the ‘hermeneutic of discontinuity’ which sees the ‘spirit’ of Vatican II as going beyond the actual word of the documents of Vatican II.

 

[ProVobis]

Benedict XVI was entirely correct, the ‘spirit’ of Vatican II is in the letter of Vatican II. And Pope Francis is also on record as rejecting the ‘hermeneutic of discontinuity’ which sees the ‘spirit’ of Vatican II as going beyond the actual word of the documents of Vatican II.

Indeed. As I keep pointing out there are more arguments of the mutatio gratia mutationis (change for the sake of change) type then there are for the continuity of the same rite. For example, I once questioned whatever happened to the Introit, Offertory, Secret, and Communion prayers. No one seemed to know and then I found out they are still there (they were right there in the missalette!!) but hardly ever used. (At least I have yet to hear them since 1970.) Instead you have the Battle of the Hymns in their place.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Indeed. As I keep pointing out there are more arguments of the mutatio gratia mutationis (change for the sake of change) type then there are for the continuity of the same rite. For example, I once questioned whatever happened to the Introit, Offertory, Secret, and Communion prayers. No one seemed to know and then I found out they are still there (they were right there in the missalette!!) but hardly ever used. (At least I have yet to hear them since 1970.) Instead you have the Battle of the Hymns in their place.

Or better yet the Battle Hymn of the Republic… or Star Spangled Banner…

I will shut up now.

 

[Digitonomy]

But doesn’t that argument presuppose that Vatican II was open-ended and all changes since then, including the restoration of previous practices, have been its effects?

No, although it does allow room for debate as to if or when Vatican II has been fully implemented. I won’t get into that debate now.

My goal was merely to refute the rather expansive and absolutist claim “if it’s not stated in any of the documents of Vatican II it has nothing to do with Vatican II”. There are all sorts of things that are not stated in the documents of Vatican II, but that came about as a direct and intentional result of Vatican II.

E.g., Vatican II never said that the season after Epiphany was to be renamed Ordinary Time. Nonetheless, it does seem to be a result of the council:

1. The liturgical year is to be revised so that the traditional customs and discipline of the sacred seasons shall be preserved or restored to suit the conditions of modern times; their specific character is to be retained, so that they duly nourish the piety of the faithful who celebrate the mysteries of Christian redemption, and above all the paschal mystery. If certain adaptations are considered necessary on account of local conditions, they are to be made in accordance with the provisions of Art. 39 and 40.

 

[Brendan_64]

There are all sorts of things that are not stated in the documents of Vatican II, but that came about as a direct and intentional result of Vatican II.

No. Many things have come about as a result of individuals viewing Vatican II as a justification for these changes.

The notion that Vatican II intended many changes that were not written (or even implied) in the documents does not hold water. To do that is to give Vatican II some sort of life as a living entity with a mind of it’s own that is continually being unfolded. Vatican II was a Council of the Church (just like to 20 others before it) nothing more, nothing less.The bishops met, discussed matters, came to decisions, produced 16 major documents and went home. Vatican II is not some sort of ‘living spirit’ of the Church.

Who then determines whether something not written in Vatican II was actually meant (but not written) in the documents? There are 1.2 billion Catholics in the world, are we each entitled to our own interpretation of Vatican II and what was not written, but we individually feel was meant?

Vatican II was not meant as some sort of blueprint to wipe out old practices and ‘innovate’ to create a so-called ‘Church for the future’, ‘21st century Church’ etc., but too often it is used by some as a justification to do so.

If it is not written in the documents of Vatican II, then it is not of Vatican II, and Vatican II cannot be used to justify it. Vatican II is what is written in Vatican II, Benedict XVI stated this and Pope Francis has supported this.

 

[Digitonomy]

Who then determines whether something not written in Vatican II was actually meant (but not written) in the documents?

The Church does.
Brendan 64:

There are 1.2 billion Catholics in the world, are we each entitled to our own interpretation of Vatican II and what was not written, but we individually feel was meant?

In the example I gave, Vatican II did not say to strip away the season after Epiphany, instead the Church did so after the fact, but as a result of Vatican II. What the hundreds of millions of Catholics at the time did was not relevant.

 

[Brendan_64]

The Church does.

And by that I presume you mean the relevant Church authority, the Magisterium? Because it is not the Magisterium of our Church that runs about claiming ‘spirit of Vatican II’ to justify innovations.

Pope Francis, Benedict XVI, John Paul II, and their predecessors all endorse the hermeneutic of continuity. Benedict XVI stated that if it’s not in the letter of Vatican II then it’s not the true ‘spirit’ of Vatican II as the ‘spirit’ of the council is in the letter of the council. Pope Francis has stated that he endorses the position of Pope Benedict.

Nowhere (to my knowledge) in the documents of Vatican II is there any reference to some sort of unfolding, spirit, vision, that lives on into the future. Vatican II is not the ongoing embodiment of the Holy Spirit, it was a council of the Church (like all the others before it) nothing more and nothing less.

 

[Digitonomy]

And by that I presume you mean the relevant Church authority, the Magisterium? Because it is not the Magisterium of our Church that runs about claiming ‘spirit of Vatican II’ to justify innovations.

No, the Church doesn’t normally go “running about.” It implements changes as it sees fit, and as I said these are sometimes a direct, intended result of Vatican II, without the precise change being listed in the documents of Vatican II.
Brendan 64:

Benedict XVI stated that if it’s not in the letter of Vatican II then it’s not the true ‘spirit’ of Vatican II as the ‘spirit’ of the council is in the letter of the council.

I am interested in reading his exact wording on this topic.

 

[ProVobis]

No, the Church doesn’t normally go “running about.” It implements changes as it sees fit, and as I said these are sometimes a direct, intended result of Vatican II, without the precise change being listed in the documents of Vatican II.I am interested in reading his exact wording on this topic.

So what happened with the Vatican II intentions of implementing Gregorian chant, pipe organ, ability to recite prayers in Latin, etc.? What exactly do you mean by “as it sees fit”? It doesn’t seem the bishops who spent the time writing up these documents would let some much smaller committee decide those provisions are not that important after all.

 

[Digitonomy]

So what happened with the Vatican II intentions of implementing Gregorian chant, pipe organ, ability to recite prayers in Latin, etc.? What exactly do you mean by “as it sees fit”? It doesn’t seem the bishops who spent the time writing up these documents would let some much smaller committee decide those provisions are not that important after all.

Like I said, there is certainly room for debate as to if or when Vatican II has been fully implemented.

 

[TimothyH]

When in Rome…

Such would be pragmatic and practical, and therefor to be rejected entirely.

I’m going to march right down to the Etheopian Orthodox Church and give them a piece of my Roman Catholic mind.

-Tim-