I
iohanne
Guest
Sitting during specific parts of the liturgy always feels as if I’m being “released” from something or being “relieved from duty.” At the very least, sitting expresses that the reason for which you were standing has ceased to exist. Seeing as I attend the Extraordinary Form almost exclusively, I personally find it awkward to sit during the Gloria or the Creed in the middle of which the sacred ministers as well as most of the congregation sit. This is apparently a mediaeval accretion whereby the unsung low mass began to influence the sung high mass: the priest would recite sotto voce the parts of the Mass normally chanted by the choir/congregation and would thus finish ahead of the choir/congregation and therefore would sit down.
While I am of the belief that many liturgical developments throughout the history of the Latin Church are organic and legitimate, I question this specific mediaeval accretion because it seems to undermine the idea of liturgy as “the work of the people” as if to imply that the priest’s recitation is all that is required while the work of the laity is simply embellishment over on top. Assuming that plainchant rather than polyphony is the musical setting of the Mass, the priest should be chanting along with everyone else. The altar is supposed to be a place of unceasing prayer, praise and glorifications. Nowhere else in Christendom is it the case that the sacred ministers “rest” during the liturgy except in the Latin Church.
After the Reformation, under the influence of Protestant worship services pews began to be introduced more and more into many Catholic parishes when there had been until then only an open space for a nave and some discrete pews only on the side walls and/or in the back. Here is an example of a painting of the inside of St. Mark’s Basilica in Venice. By the 1700s, pews were being introduced on a much more wide scale into the Roman Church. However, even in the 1840s, John Coke Fowler, an Anglican denounced the practice of the rich paying money to permanently reserve the front pews, while speaking of Roman Catholics who “stand and kneel upon the floor which is still common to all of them.” In Canon J.B. O’Connell’s book, Church Furnishings and Buildings (1958), he calls pews “a necessary evil.” The new forest of pews made it awkward to hold a Stations of the Cross, to have a procession around the Church, to refrain from communion when one had not confessed and was not spiritually prepared, to go to the nave because of a disruptive child, to go to the bathroom, etc. It also affected the acoustics of the Church and the echoing effect of the chant was dampened. However, the most relevant change that pews introduced was when the congregation began to imitate the sacred ministers and sit whenever they were sitting - during the Gloria and the Creed - although my research has been unable to p(name removed by moderator)oint why and when this began.
At any rate, I am nothing but an overly educated layman so I’m content to let the sensus fidelium and the proper authorities in Rome lead the way in terms of our liturgical renewal.
However, in the spirit of traditionalism, I wanted to personally rekindle the standing mode of worship of our forefathers and personally abstain from sitting during the Mass. At first, I wondered if this was even allowed but the little pamphlet that came with my Baronius Press missal entitled A Guide To When To Sit, Stand and Kneel says,
"Bodily postures were never comprehensively codified by the rubrics, and these are only offered as a guide to help those attending the extraordinary form of the Roman rite. Depending on local customs different postures from these may be followed, particularly at Low Mass.
So I thought it wasn’t really that big of a deal. I didn’t want to draw too much attention to myself or look too pious or look like a rebel, so at first I simply stood at the very back of the Church and knelt on the bare floor at the appropriate times. I hated being so separated from the action in the sanctuary so I thought I would be daring and go up to the middle of the naive where there’s kind of a vertical “aisle” without pews and I positioned myself all the way to the side hoping to go unnoticed. This didn’t work either because I felt very uncomfortable sticking out like a sore thumb.
Now it’s starting to make me think that maybe I was feeling uncomfortable because maybe I had accidentally fallen into some kind of “liturgical abuse” in that I was separating myself from the Body of Christ in our communal worship. This makes me a little disappointed because I had begun standing during Lent and I really enjoyed the ascetic aspect of it. Additionally, remaining standing has improved my ability to stay concentrated on the liturgy and to maintain an unceasing prayerful and contemplative state. I really think that it’s one way of “increasing active participation” which are words often thrown about in this climate of liturgical controversy. Finally, I really enjoy the fact that the Greek word for “resurrection” is anastasis and can also mean “standing” and I like the idea of the congregation being the Mystical Body of Christ and therefore being iconic of His resurrection. Everything we do in Church is iconic of the heavenly worship and participates in it. Anyways, what’re your opinions on the matter? Am I being disobedient or am I abusing the liturgy?
While I am of the belief that many liturgical developments throughout the history of the Latin Church are organic and legitimate, I question this specific mediaeval accretion because it seems to undermine the idea of liturgy as “the work of the people” as if to imply that the priest’s recitation is all that is required while the work of the laity is simply embellishment over on top. Assuming that plainchant rather than polyphony is the musical setting of the Mass, the priest should be chanting along with everyone else. The altar is supposed to be a place of unceasing prayer, praise and glorifications. Nowhere else in Christendom is it the case that the sacred ministers “rest” during the liturgy except in the Latin Church.
After the Reformation, under the influence of Protestant worship services pews began to be introduced more and more into many Catholic parishes when there had been until then only an open space for a nave and some discrete pews only on the side walls and/or in the back. Here is an example of a painting of the inside of St. Mark’s Basilica in Venice. By the 1700s, pews were being introduced on a much more wide scale into the Roman Church. However, even in the 1840s, John Coke Fowler, an Anglican denounced the practice of the rich paying money to permanently reserve the front pews, while speaking of Roman Catholics who “stand and kneel upon the floor which is still common to all of them.” In Canon J.B. O’Connell’s book, Church Furnishings and Buildings (1958), he calls pews “a necessary evil.” The new forest of pews made it awkward to hold a Stations of the Cross, to have a procession around the Church, to refrain from communion when one had not confessed and was not spiritually prepared, to go to the nave because of a disruptive child, to go to the bathroom, etc. It also affected the acoustics of the Church and the echoing effect of the chant was dampened. However, the most relevant change that pews introduced was when the congregation began to imitate the sacred ministers and sit whenever they were sitting - during the Gloria and the Creed - although my research has been unable to p(name removed by moderator)oint why and when this began.
At any rate, I am nothing but an overly educated layman so I’m content to let the sensus fidelium and the proper authorities in Rome lead the way in terms of our liturgical renewal.
However, in the spirit of traditionalism, I wanted to personally rekindle the standing mode of worship of our forefathers and personally abstain from sitting during the Mass. At first, I wondered if this was even allowed but the little pamphlet that came with my Baronius Press missal entitled A Guide To When To Sit, Stand and Kneel says,
"Bodily postures were never comprehensively codified by the rubrics, and these are only offered as a guide to help those attending the extraordinary form of the Roman rite. Depending on local customs different postures from these may be followed, particularly at Low Mass.
So I thought it wasn’t really that big of a deal. I didn’t want to draw too much attention to myself or look too pious or look like a rebel, so at first I simply stood at the very back of the Church and knelt on the bare floor at the appropriate times. I hated being so separated from the action in the sanctuary so I thought I would be daring and go up to the middle of the naive where there’s kind of a vertical “aisle” without pews and I positioned myself all the way to the side hoping to go unnoticed. This didn’t work either because I felt very uncomfortable sticking out like a sore thumb.
Now it’s starting to make me think that maybe I was feeling uncomfortable because maybe I had accidentally fallen into some kind of “liturgical abuse” in that I was separating myself from the Body of Christ in our communal worship. This makes me a little disappointed because I had begun standing during Lent and I really enjoyed the ascetic aspect of it. Additionally, remaining standing has improved my ability to stay concentrated on the liturgy and to maintain an unceasing prayerful and contemplative state. I really think that it’s one way of “increasing active participation” which are words often thrown about in this climate of liturgical controversy. Finally, I really enjoy the fact that the Greek word for “resurrection” is anastasis and can also mean “standing” and I like the idea of the congregation being the Mystical Body of Christ and therefore being iconic of His resurrection. Everything we do in Church is iconic of the heavenly worship and participates in it. Anyways, what’re your opinions on the matter? Am I being disobedient or am I abusing the liturgy?
Yes, I suppose that was true sometimes