Pews in European churches

[twf]

In places without kneelers, some people bring their own kneeling cushion, some kneel on the floor. Those who canno kneel due to frailty, disability, age, etc, do not kneel-- they sit or stand.

In Europe they kneel for the consecration. The U.S. received permission to kneel again after the Aganus Dei, that is not done elsewhere.

Yes, the universal norm is simply to kneel during the Consecration itself. The faithful stand immediately after the priest says or intones “the mystery of faith”. In the US the faithful kneel throughout the entire Eucharistic Prayer until the Great Amen and again after the Agnus Dei. This latter practice is also found in some large Canadian dioceses: Vancouver and Toronto come to mind. I believe in most other Canadian dioceses the universal norm (less kneeling) is in place.

 

[twf]

In Canada we also only kneel for the consecration, and after communion.

When the abbey where I normally attend Mass has a lot of American tourists, it’s always amusing to hear the kneelers crash to the floor and see people start to keel at the start of the EP. The rest of us kneel at the consecration and rise immediately for the Mystery of the Faith.

Not in all of Canada. In Vancouver we definitely kneel throughout the entire EP and again after the Agbus Dei. I noticed the same practice in at least the parishes I’ve been to in Toronto- but it’s definitely the norm in Vancouver. Interestingly the other dioceses in BC kneel only during the consecration.

 

[TimothyH]

Do most Episcopal churches have pews? Because there’s one near me that I noticed has no pews, just folding chairs, and I always found that odd. Now I’m learning from this thread that the pews are a Protestant invention!?

I don’t know anything about Episcopal Churches.

Regarding Catholic Churches, have a look at the following excellent threads by Patrick457. They were written for a different topic but address the issue in this thread (which is pews, not kneeling, but everyone wants to argue about kneeling and kneelers).

Back in the old days the congregation was segregated into men and women. Men and women attending the liturgy stood separately, in opposing halves of the nave and the adjacent aisles: the men were at the southern side aisle(s), while the women were on the opposite side. Viewed from the sanctuary, men are on the right-hand side, while women are on the left: they were not standing (there were no pews then) in the central nave facing the sanctuary front-and-center like we do at church today.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=9575350&highlight=central+ambo#post9575350

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=12698446&highlight=central+ambo#post12698446

-Tim-

 

[Elizium23]

The OP didn’t ask about kneeling. He asked about pews.

-Tim-

Sigh… let me requote the OP for you so we’re crystal clear on what was asked.

I’ve discovered while perusing photos of various European churches that I very seldom see pews, rather things that remind me of rows of wooden dining room chairs. How does the congregation kneel? Or are the rubrics/attitudes different in Europe? I’ve always been curious about this.

The OP asked two questions following one observation. The observation was about pews, while the questions were about kneeling, rubrics, and attitudes. So I think that it is altogether fitting that we discuss kneeling, rubrics, and attitudes in this thread, don’t you think?

 

[TimothyH]

Sigh… let me requote the OP for you so we’re crystal clear on what was asked.

The OP asked two questions following one observation. The observation was about pews, while the questions were about kneeling, rubrics, and attitudes. So I think that it is altogether fitting that we discuss kneeling, rubrics, and attitudes in this thread, don’t you think?

Yes, he did ask about how people kneel. You are correct. Sorry to have upset you wherever you are.

The answer is that in many places they bowed instead, likely a profound bow from the waist with sign of the cross. Kneeling is/was sometimes seen as a sign of penance and therefor inappropriate for Sunday which the day or resurrection.

This is the way it is still done in much of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

-Tim-

 

[ProVobis]

I agree. The thing to keep in mind about liturgy, it is the prayer of the whole Church, in unity, and thus “it isn’t all about me”.

OTOH, maybe in Italy they consider when to kneel/stand or not too much legalism? Just a thought.

 

[Brendan_64]

In Europe they kneel for the consecration. The U.S. received permission to kneel again after the Aganus Dei, that is not done elsewhere.

Yes it is. In the UK we also kneel after the Agnus Dei (and during the Consecration of course).

And if there are no kneelers, then simply kneel on the floor (unless you are unable to due to ill-health or old-age). If Christ could carry the cross all the way up the Via Dolorosa and be crucified on it, then the least we can do is kneel for a short while on the floor. What is wrong with a bit of physical discomfort once in a while?

 

[BartholomewB]

In Canada we also only kneel for the consecration, and after communion.

Curiously, that’s exactly the same rule we follow here in Brazil.

When the abbey where I normally attend Mass has a lot of American tourists, it’s always amusing to hear the kneelers crash to the floor and see people start to keel at the start of the EP. The rest of us kneel at the consecration and rise immediately for the Mystery of the Faith.

Here’s a difference, though. I’ve never seen kneelers in any church in Brazil. When we kneel, we kneel on the floor. On the other hand, kneeling is never compulsory: usually about half the people will stand, rather than kneel, for the consecration, and some of the older or frail people will remain seated.

 

[Brendan_64]

I agree. The thing to keep in mind about liturgy, it is the prayer of the whole Church, in unity, and thus “it isn’t all about me”.

And it is the whole Church, not the whole church. How can it be in unity if some congregations in some countries kneel, while others stand? Does it really matter that a person is not doing the same as others in the church he happens to be in, when they in turn aren’t doing what other congregations in other places are doing?

It isn’t about being in unity, specifically with the people who happen to be in a particular church, but about being in unity with the whole Church, both on Earth and in Heaven. It is about being in unity, both synchronically with the Church everywhere, and diachronically with the Church throughout time. On that basis, other than on a very parochial level (and we are not a parochial or national Church, we are a universal Church) kneeling when others are standing cannot be seen as an act of disunity with the Church.

 

[Brendan_64]

In Canada we also only kneel for the consecration, and after communion.

When the abbey where I normally attend Mass has a lot of American tourists, it’s always amusing to hear the kneelers crash to the floor and see people start to keel at the start of the EP. The rest of us kneel at the consecration and rise immediately for the Mystery of the Faith.

The Consecration does not occur at one specific, definite point during the Eucharistic prayer, there is no defining moment when all of a sudden the Consecration happens. As the Consecration happens during the Eucharistic prayer it is fitting that we kneel throughout the Eucharistic prayer. I thought that was actually the universal norm, it certainly is the case in the UK, Ireland and evry church in every country I’ve been in (although I have never been to Canada).

 

[OraLabora]

And it is the whole Church, not the whole church. How can it be in unity if some congregations in some countries kneel, while others stand? Does it really matter that a person is not doing the same as others in the church he happens to be in, when they in turn aren’t doing what other congregations in other places are doing?

The same way that monasteries are in unity with the whole Church even though they don’t use the same Divine Office, say the Mass in Latin, etc. Even among themselves, monasteries have different Divine Offices (there are currently 4 major licit schemas).

Unity does not equal uniformity.

 

[Brendan_64]

The same way that monasteries are in unity with the whole Church even though they don’t use the same Divine Office, say the Mass in Latin, etc. Even among themselves, monasteries have different Divine Offices (there are currently 4 major licit schemas).

Unity does not equal uniformity.

Indeed, so why then do you seem to suggest (and I apologise if I am mistaken here) that individuals ought to follow the same postures as others at a particular Mass, even if the posture the individual chooses to adopt is not theologically questionable, is in line with Church norms (universal or otherwise) and is permitted? You seem to be arguing that it is not necessary for individual monasteries etc. to follow exactly what others are doing in order to express unity, but at an individual level a person must do as others in that particular church do in order to express unity.

 

[OraLabora]

Indeed, so why then do you seem to suggest (and I apologise if I am mistaken here) that individuals ought to follow the same postures as others at a particular Mass, even if the posture the individual chooses to adopt is not theologically questionable, is in line with Church norms (universal or otherwise) and is permitted? You seem to be arguing that it is not necessary for individual monasteries etc. to follow exactly what others are doing in order to express unity, but at an individual level a person must do as others in that particular church do in order to express unity.

It’s because an individual assembly should be praying with one voice. It’s the same principle as not having one group singing a hymn and the other chanting the propers at the same Mass. It becomes, in this case, visual cacophony, something an abbot would never allowing his community.

A monastery for instance never prays the same Office (normally… there are exceptions) as the Roman Church, and even between them there will be individual quirks. But within one, two things will be evident. One, there will be a highly choreographed sense of unity in posture song and customs, and two, a high level of obedience as a monk is not allowed to possess even his own will according to the Rule he chose to live by.

 

[Brendan_64]

It’s because an individual assembly should be praying with one voice. It’s the same principle as not having one group singing a hymn and the other chanting the propers at the same Mass. It becomes, in this case, visual cacophony, something an abbot would never allowing his community.

A monastery for instance never prays the same Office (normally… there are exceptions) as the Roman Church, and even between them there will be individual quirks. But within one, two things will be evident. One, there will be a highly choreographed sense of unity in posture song and customs, and two, a high level of obedience as a monk is not allowed to possess even his own will according to the Rule he chose to live by.

Monastic life is quite different from life as a lay-person. Lay-people do not take vows of obedience to their parish priest or even their diocesan bishop. A lay-person is completely free to adopt a posture that is not disapproved of by the Church, regardless of whatever posture others in the church are adopting. Our Church permits that, therefore it is entirely acceptable. By doing so they are in no way acting out of unity with the Church.

 

[babochka]

Monastic life is quite different from life as a lay-person. Lay-people do not take vows of obedience to their parish priest or even their diocesan bishop. A lay-person is completely free to adopt a posture that is not disapproved of by the Church, regardless of whatever posture others in the church are adopting. Our Church permits that, therefore it is entirely acceptable. By doing so they are in no way acting out of unity with the Church.

The fact that we do not take vows of obedience does not mean we are not called to obey those in authority. Those include our pastor/parish priest and bishop and we should obey them in those areas in which they have jurisdiction. This is, of course, not the same as monastic obedience, but should not be discounted.

 

[Brendan_64]

The fact that we do not take vows of obedience does not mean we are not called to obey those in authority. Those include our pastor/parish priest and bishop and we should obey them in those areas in which they have jurisdiction. This is, of course, not the same as monastic obedience, but should not be discounted.

If the Church permits a lay-person to adopt a particular position then we are not obliged to obey a parish priest (or even a bishop) should he instruct that we ought not adopt such a position. The priest would be acting outside of his jurisdiction and denying the lay-person their canonical rights. All Catholics (including priests and bishops) are bound by Canon Law and are not permitted to deny others their rights under Canon Law.

If a priest instructs us contrary to Canon Law then not only are we permitted to ignore his instruction, but we are obliged to ignore his instruction.

 

[Augustine]

Curiously, that’s exactly the same rule we follow here in Brazil.

That’s not what I observed visiting my childhood family. Used to the customs in the US, I would kneel too soon and stand up too late.

Here’s a difference, though. I’ve never seen kneelers in any church in Brazil. When we kneel, we kneel on the floor.

My childhood parish has always had kneelers. Fixed ones, not those movable kneelers common in the US.

Pax Christi

 

[Brendan_64]

That’s not what I observed visiting my childhood family. Used to the customs in the US, I would kneel too soon and stand up too late.

You can never kneel too soon or stand up too late when in the presence of Our Lord. What the rest of the congregation are doing matters not, we don’t come to Mass for the congregation.

 

[Phemie]

Monastic life is quite different from life as a lay-person. Lay-people do not take vows of obedience to their parish priest or even their diocesan bishop. A lay-person is completely free to adopt a posture that is not disapproved of by the Church, regardless of whatever posture others in the church are adopting. Our Church permits that, therefore it is entirely acceptable. By doing so they are in no way acting out of unity with the Church.

Number 43 of the universal GIRM decrees postures for all parts of the Mass for the universal Church. GIRM 390 gives the Conference of Bishops the right to adapt posture while cautioning that thay have to fit in with what is actually happening at the time.

The CCCB opted to simply adopt the universal GIRM where posture is concerned. While # 43 calls for kneeling only during the Consecration, it says that where kneeling for the entire EP and after the Ecce Agnus Dei has been done it is laudable for the practice to be retained. Some Canadian Bishops/Archbishops have opted to decree kneeling at those times for their flock, and some parishes have simply continued kneeling as they had been doing all along.

The USCCB opted to make kneeling for the entire EP mandatory, as well as kneeling after the Ecce Agnus Dei unless the diocesan Bishop decided on another posture.

 

[ProVobis]

Number 43 of the universal GIRM decrees postures for all parts of the Mass for the universal Church. GIRM 390 gives the Conference of Bishops the right to adapt posture while cautioning that thay have to fit in with what is actually happening at the time.

This is true but only because postures after the Suscipiat were not specified. The populus surgit (people rise) appears in IGMR 146 and only the responses to be said appear after that. My guess is that this was intentionally left that way so the bishops could decide on postures after the Orate Fratres, whether to remain standing, or to kneel.

Brendan64 is technically right, though, when he mentions that the entire EP can be construed as the Consecration. At least a case may be made for it in light of at least one rite which doesn’t have the words of Consecration, as we know them.