So THAT'S why we kneel

  • Thread starter Thread starter Karl_M
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Karl_M

Guest
Hello, I’m a new old member, and this came out as a letter to the editor in our local Diocese newsletter.

A local priest wrote a lenghty letter stating that the reason we are told to kneel at the consecration is that it began as a Seventh Century tradition, because vassals would kneel in front of their lord. And Jesus is called “Lord,” so guess what… :eek:

Prior to that, people stood. So, then one must obviously conclude that standing is correct and kneeling is wrong, and only pushed by the EWTN Catholics who think that they’re better than everyone because they still use Latin. Latin, by the way was only used because it was a common language (although I do tend to agree with that particular point).

Oh silly me, I thought that since I’m visiting Jesus, I might kneel, since he is Christ the Savior. But I guess I was wrong. Kneeling is not historically correct.

Oh thank you wonderful priest for pointing out to me that standing is right. :mad:

And in case he didn’t see me the first time: :mad:

I’m strongly considering sending my own letter in, but I don’t know if if my opinion of this priest and his ideas (:mad:, in case you forgot) would be reprintable in polite company.
 
I could say a dozen things, but I would just be tempted to ask that priest, “why stand”? Why not sit? If kneeling is wrong, why isn’t standing also wrong?

Wonder what he’d say?
 
Karl:

This is what the Scriptures say:

Because of this, God greatly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Phillippians 2:9-11 NAB

The four living creatures, each of them with six wings, were covered with eyes inside and out. Day and night they do not stop exclaiming: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God almighty, who was, and who is, and who is to come.”

Whenever the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to the one who sits on the throne, who lives forever and ever, the twenty-four elders fall down before the one who sits on the throne and worship him, who lives forever and ever. They throw down their crowns before the throne, exclaiming: “Worthy are you, Lord our God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things; because of your will they came to be and were created.”
Revelation 4:8-11 NAB

According to Dr. Scott Hahn and several others, the Revelation of St. John is the Heavenly, or Divine, Liturgy which we try to mirror (oversymplification alert) every time we celebrate the Eucharist.

If John saw the angels and Saints in Heaven kneeling before our Lord as they sang the “Sanctus”, don’t you think early Christians did as well?

And, this is what we’re supposed to do if we’re standing in the presence of God:

Then he said, “Do not come near; put off your shoes from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.”
Exodus 3:5 RSV

I’ve found that many who say the things this priest did often question significant points of Catholic Doctrine.

Can you get EWTN?

If not, it’s available online - ewtn.com/
Mother Angelica and her crew won’t lead you astray.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael
 
And I suppose if Jesus appeared in human form in front of your priest one day he wouldn’t immediately drop to his knees in respect as Thomas did and as all mere mortals should to the King of Kings and Lord of Lords? Sheesh!
 
If you are in front of your King would you Stand or kneel?

Me i will kneel before my King. Who am i to be of level of him?
 
Well, if you write something that sounds like it’s against what the priest was saying, then you risk other people thinking “those Catholics don’t even agree whether they should stand or kneel” and make the whole thing portray disunity.

But if you could write a brief thing that didn’t sound like you were blasting the priest’s comments, that would probably be all around better.

Like, you could just say that kneeling is the most honoring thing, and reference a couple of the Bible verses that were mentioned above. Historical things aside about the 7th century (?), maybe people would understand our Catholic perspective better.
 
LilyM said:
And I suppose if Jesus appeared in human form in front of your priest one day he wouldn’t immediately drop to his knees in respect as Thomas did and as all mere mortals should to the King of Kings and Lord of Lords? Sheesh!
Click to expand...
I don’t think the bible says that Thomas knelt. I wouldn’t blame him if he did, but there it is.

tee
 
tee_eff_em said:
I don’t think the bible says that Thomas knelt. I wouldn’t blame him if he did, but there it is.

tee
Click to expand...
you’re right, on further study - it was the apostles/disciples in Matthew’s resurrection account who fell to their knees when they saw the risen Jesus.
 
Karl_M said:
Hello, I’m a new old member, and this came out as a letter to the editor in our local Diocese newsletter.

A local priest wrote a lenghty letter stating that the reason we are told to kneel at the consecration is that it began as a Seventh Century tradition, because vassals would kneel in front of their lord. And Jesus is called “Lord,” so guess what… :eek:

Prior to that, people stood. So, then one must obviously conclude that standing is correct and kneeling is wrong, and only pushed by the EWTN Catholics who think that they’re better than everyone because they still use Latin. Latin, by the way was only used because it was a common language (although I do tend to agree with that particular point).

Oh silly me, I thought that since I’m visiting Jesus, I might kneel, since he is Christ the Savior. But I guess I was wrong. Kneeling is not historically correct.

Oh thank you wonderful priest for pointing out to me that standing is right. :mad:

And in case he didn’t see me the first time: :mad:

I’m strongly considering sending my own letter in, but I don’t know if if my opinion of this priest and his ideas (:mad:, in case you forgot) would be reprintable in polite company.
Click to expand...
The letter that he wrote was completely false. Not only is scripture full of the imagery of kneeling before God or even lying prostrate but his idea that kneeling in liturgy was a seventh century development is false. The Council of Nicea in its canons dictated the times of the year that kneeling was proper and the times that were not. And if memory suites me properly … Nicea was a little before the seventh century.
 
tee_eff_em said:
I don’t think the bible says that Thomas knelt. I wouldn’t blame him if he did, but there it is.

tee
Click to expand...
Tee:

This was Mary of Magdelene’s Response:

But Mary stayed outside the tomb weeping. And as she wept, she bent over into the tomb and saw two angels in white sitting there, one at the head and one at the feet where the body of Jesus had been…

When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus there, but did not know it was Jesus. Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you looking for?” She thought it was the gardener and said to him, “Sir, if you carried him away, tell me where you laid him, and I will take him.”

Jesus said to her, “Mary!” She turned and said to him in Hebrew, “Rabbouni,” which means Teacher. Jesus said to her, “Stop holding on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am going to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”
John 20:11-12, 14-17 NAB

Mary was at the door of the tomb. Jesus was on the other side of the Garden. Mary’s dive covered the distance.

Thomas, called Didymus, one of the Twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples said to him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands and put my finger into the nailmarks and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

Now a week later his disciples were again inside and Thomas was with them. Jesus came, although the doors were locked, and stood in their midst and said, “Peace be with you.” Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and see my hands, and bring your hand and put it into my side, and do not be unbelieving, but believe.”

Thomas answered and said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
John 20: 24-28 NAB

I don’t think St. Thomas could have probed the nail wounds in Jesus’ feet unless he knelt. We do know that St. Thomas was willing to go where the Lord sent him and was willing to give his live for Him. And, maybe it’s the attitude of the SERVANT that we see over and over again in the Blessed Mother. the Apotles and so many of the Early Christians that needs to be spotlighted.

These people were willing to give themselves freely to each other and to our Lord, and to give their lives rather than betray each other or our Lord.

How many of us are ready to do that today? And, How many of our parishes would cause unbelievers to look at them and say, “Look at how those Catholics love each other!?”

There is a persecution coming - Are we ready for it?

Your Brother in Christ, Michael
 
Um.

Did something I wrote cause you to believe I need be convinced of the appropriateness of kneeling?

I only pointed out an oversight in another’s post (which that poster has graciously admitted and corrected). I do this as a friend, rather than allow an enemy to take advantage of it later.

Bad apologetics isn’t a help. For instance:
Traditional_Ang said:
Thomas, called Didymus, one of the Twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples said to him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands and put my finger into the nailmarks and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

Now a week later his disciples were again inside and Thomas was with them. Jesus came, although the doors were locked, and stood in their midst and said, “Peace be with you.” Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and see my hands, and bring your hand and put it into my side, and do not be unbelieving, but believe.”

Thomas answered and said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
John 20: 24-28 NAB

I don’t think St. Thomas could have probed the nail wounds in Jesus’ feet unless he knelt. We do know that St. Thomas was willing to go where the Lord sent him and was willing to give his live for Him. And, maybe it’s the attitude of the SERVANT that we see over and over again in the Blessed Mother. the Apotles and so many of the Early Christians that needs to be spotlighted.
Click to expand...
Just as the bible does not say that Thomas knelt, neither does it say he actually probed the marks of the passion – Only that our Lord offered them.

It is dangerous, IMHO, to resort to an assertion like *“I don’t think St. Thomas could have…” *Unless you are prepared to allow others to resort to similar constructions:
  • “I don’t think St Thomas could have dared take Our Lord up on his offer…”
  • “I don’t think Jesus could have been a good Jew and remained unmarried…”
  • “I don’t think Mary and St Joseph could have refrained from sexual relations for all of their married life…”
  • “I don’t think Jesus could have celebrated the Passover/Last Supper without women present, whom he would have ordained…”
“I don’t think” such speculation makes for good apologetics.

:twocents:
tee
 
Go to Cardinal Ratzinger’s book, The Spirit of the Liturgy. There is a great description in there of both kneeling and standing for prayer. He cites the many times in the Gospels when people kneel when they approach the Lord. I have read the quotes on line somewhere but no longer recall where.
 
OK, here is my not-so-humble take on this.

I have read these posts, and I have seen a lot of good reasons for why we kneel. But there is one other reason why we kneel.

According to the GIRM (General Instruction of the Roman Missal), kneeling is the mandated posture for all Roman Catholic Masses in the United States, from the ending of the Sanctus through the Great Amen.
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. The faithful kneel after the Agnus Dei unless the Diocesan Bishop determines otherwise.
GIRM - Paragraph 43
Click to expand...
It is very common for priests, deacons, “liturgists”, and even bishops to forward a faulty argument based on archaeologism - the belief that things should be done as they were originally done. The Church rejects this type of argument.

Consider, for example, the elevation - the point where the priest raises the consecrated host after saying the words, “This is my body …” and the chalice after saying, “This is the cup of my blood …”. This practice started around the year 1200 in response to the eucharistic heresies of the previous two centuries. The elevation cannot be omitted today on the grounds that it only started 800 years ago.

I think that engaging a priest in a debate based on the merits of kneeling is a bad idea. It gives the priest the impression, or perhaps crystallizes an existing impression, that he can do whatever he wants in the mass provided that you cannot prove him wrong to his satisfaction. THere are way too many priests out there who think the liturgical laws to be optional.

MT
 
tee_eff_em said:
I don’t think the bible says that Thomas knelt. I wouldn’t blame him if he did, but there it is.

tee
Click to expand...
I do not have my Bible handy, but I think you are correct, and I do see your point.

I find it equally irritating when people, describing the conversion of St. Paul from the Acts of the Apostles, say that St. Paul (“Saul”, at the time) was knocked from his horse. My Bible says he was knocked to the ground - no mention of a horse. Now, maybe he was on his horse, or maybe he was taking a rest, or maybe he was relieving himself behind a rock - I do not know. The best thing to do is stay with the Biblical wording; the Bible says he was knocked to the ground, so I say he was knocked to the ground.

I also feel the same way about the story of David and Goliath. If I hear one more priest say that David used a slingshot I’m going to strangle him with his own stole - or at least imagine doing so. My Bible says that he used a sling, and yes, there is a big difference between the two.

Anyway, there are MY two cents!

MT
 
My friends,

Let me say first and formost that I understand 100% that this matter is being discussed in the context of the liturgical praxis of the Latin Church… I get it. Speaking as an Eastern Catholic, however, I’d like to interject a closely related issue in the hopes that it is not viewed as “hijacking” of the thread.

Many Eastern Catholics do not kneel at all and, in fact, remain standing throughout the entire Divine Liturgy (Mass), beginning to end. My intent here is not to debate which is the “most honoring” posture (to use Reformed Rob’s words) but to point out that neither posture is inherently, in and of itself, more reverent than the other, as some would imply. Our Catholic Church has de facto said as much by recognizing that the Byzantine Catholic Divine Liturgy, sans kneeling, is just as reverent, just as Catholic, a form of worship as the Roman Catholic Mass… no more, no less.

Here’s why I point this out (and why I risk being called a thread hijacker 🙂 )…

We speak often within this forum about our desire for reunification with our Orthodox brethren. Reunification will not mean turning our Orthodox brethren into Roman Catholics. It will mean welcoming them into communion with the pope and the rest of the Catholic Church with their own liturgical practices intact. The impression I’m left with after reading many of the posts in this thread (and others) is that there seems to be an attitude among some folks that runs along the lines of, “Anything that deviates from what I think is proper, reverent and most honoring is wrong and, therefore, not Catholic!”

If and when that glorious day arrives wherein God wills for our reunification with our Orthodox brethren, we must be fully prepared to accept that this union will bring with it many practices that don’t resemble at all what we may be used to within the context of our own sui iuris Churches. Indeed, many of these practices may actually be outright contrary to the practices of our own particular Church (e.g. leavened vs. unleavened bread for Holy Communion). This does not mean that we should expect the “offending” party to change. This does not mean that those whose practices differ from my own are not “as” Catholic as me.

Case in point: I stand throughout the entire Divine Liturgy; the bread that my priest consecrates into the Body and Blood of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is leavened bread; I bow rather than genuflect; I cross myself right-to-left; I do not recite the filioque when I pray the Creed… these are all things that I fear many would be quick to label as “irreverent” at best and even “non-Catholic” at worst… yet I defy anyone to tell me that I am not a Catholic! Our Holy Father Benedict XVI is as much my pope as he is any other Catholic’s on this forum.

And so it shall be when we are once again One Church, along with our (hopefully!) reunited Orthodox brethren. To expect them to forfeit their own liturgical practices and expressions in favor of those of the (far and away!) largest sibling within our family of sui iuris Catholic Churches will do nothing but ensure that our effort toward a much longed for reunification stops dead in it’s tracks, for who knows how many more ceturies, or even millenia.

Again, I stress… I’m not questioning standing vs. kneeling within the context of the Roman Catholic Mass - you RCs are doing a fine job without my meddling! What I am questioning is the attitude by some (many?) that one way must be inherently better than another, and it so happens that this particular issue, the topic of this thread, represents but one of a multitude of examples wherein I’ve seen this attitude manifest itself.

Unity, not uniformity… *that’s *what Catholicism is, and should be, my friends!
 
Karl_M said:
Hello, I’m a new old member, and this came out as a letter to the editor in our local Diocese newsletter.

A local priest wrote a lenghty letter stating that the reason we are told to kneel at the consecration is that it began as a Seventh Century tradition, because vassals would kneel in front of their lord. And Jesus is called “Lord,” so guess what… :eek:
Click to expand...
He has it backwards. They (the lords and vassals) got it from us. Because they saw us kneeling to God, they realized that kneeling denotes high honour toward the person who is being knelt towards. Because this was already a custom of the Church, it was a universally recognizable symbol of authority.

There would not have been any reason for the Church to incorporate the customs of lords and vassals, though, since those weren’t universally recognized; they were purely local phenomena.
 
a_pilgrim said:
We speak often within this forum about our desire for reunification with our Orthodox brethren. Reunification will not mean turning our Orthodox brethren into Roman Catholics. It will mean welcoming them into communion with the pope and the rest of the Catholic Church with their own liturgical practices intact. The impression I’m left with after reading many of the posts in this thread (and others) is that there seems to be an attitude among some folks that runs along the lines of, “Anything that deviates from what I think is proper, reverent and most honoring is wrong and, therefore, not Catholic!”
Click to expand...
:tiphat: A tip o’ the hat to a_pilgrim. (Very reminiscent of a thread or two I was involved in before the recent crash)

tee
 
a_pilgrim said:
Many Eastern Catholics do not kneel at all and, in fact, remain standing throughout the entire Divine Liturgy (Mass), beginning to end. My intent here is not to debate which is the “most honoring” posture (to use Reformed Rob’s words) but to point out that neither posture is inherently, in and of itself, more reverent than the other, as some would imply. Our Catholic Church has de facto said as much by recognizing that the Byzantine Catholic Divine Liturgy, sans kneeling, is just as reverent, just as Catholic, a form of worship as the Roman Catholic Mass… no more, no less.
Click to expand...
While respecting your post and the concerns about latinization I do not agree with the substance of your post in the context of this thread.

The Holy Father makes a compelling argument that the posture of kneeling is an eminent form of displaying adoration to our Lord across all cultures. I would argue with him that in fact there is something intrinsically more noble to kneeling than a standing or profound bow. While these are more issues dealing with interpretation of proper posture in the context of our ecclesial union with God I will leave it at that. However, apart from latin bias I think that a firm argument can be made that there is an objectively superior nature to kneeling as a form of reverence regardless of the tradition of one rite to the next.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top