www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology early Church canons and kneeling on Sundays

Hello,

I asked this on another forum but I'm just wondering if anyone has any information.

I saw there's a canon from an early Church council that says that everyone should stand during liturgy on Sundays and during the Easter season. I was under the impression that this is only for the East, based on differences between the East and the West of how kneeling is perceived. However, an Orthodox poster on another forum said that the Canon applied to the whole Church.

Here's the canon:

"There are some people who kneel down on Sunday and during the Easter season, the fifty days from Easter Sunday to Pentecost Sunday. Therefore, it has pleased the holy Council to decree that people should offer their prayers to the Lord, standing. This is required so that in each diocese (en pase paroikia) everything will be done in harmony ..."
Nicea - 325AD

Im wondering what could be the Catholic response to this, was there maybe another canon later on that changed this, was it just something meant for that specific time? Because of course in the Latin rite, everyone kneels.

Also, is this covered in Eastern Canon Law somewhere?

And finally (sorry lol :)) - if an Eastern Catholic is visiting Latin rite Mass on Sunday, and they kneel, is that okay?

thanks! I'm kind confused with this cause I don't know anything else about the topic and don't know where to find information. I thought maybe someone here would know.

God bless

My recollection is that this was a canon from the Council of Nicea, therefore applicable to the Church catholic (East and West).

When I was part of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America I would place my self at variance to my colleagues if our monthly ministerial Eucharist in Paschaltide was held somewhere where kneeling to receive was customary. In obedience to this canon I defied local tradition.

Good Lutheran, after all, "here I stand...."

The difference lies in whether "the standing" is what Nicaea was emphasizing or the "in harmony".

St. Ambrose's advice to St. Monica is apposite: "When in Rome, do as the Romans do".

Thanks for the replies!

I was told elsewhere that a custom is able to change a previously given law.. and this link was cited: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04576a.htm if that's the case, then the Latin custom of kneeling had changed this law? I see the point about harmony, maybe most people stood and some knelt, so the Council wanted to encourage everyone to do the same thing, for the sake of harmony. Now, everyone in the Mass kneels so it would be against harmony to stand when others are kneeling (or to kneel in the DL when others are standing?). Any thoughts on this?

Monica,

It is the decided custom or tradition, or whatever similar term one elects to apply to it, that Latin Catholicism considers kneeling to be the way in which it presently expresses reverence. In the Eastern Churches (albeit one can certainly find places in which kneeling has crept or even galloped into place), kneeling is the exception to the norm, being reserved to certain occasions.

If an Eastern Catholic is in attendance at a Latin Mass and elects to follow the praxis of his or her own Church, they stand out like a sore thumb and they understandably engender the same sort of reaction from the Latins that we of the East visit upon the Latin who, attending Divine Liturgy, loudly proclaims the Filioque during the Creed. It smacks of a pridefulness and a disregard for the ritual life of those with whom one is worshipping as a visitor.

Instead of worrying about the extent to which rubrical prescriptions or proscriptions made by Councils of centuries past apply to a particular Church other than one's own, I recommend that you accept the praxis of the particular Church in which you are worshipping - it isn't yours to question.

To answer your specific queries:

No, the posture to be taken in worship is not addressed in Canon Law, Eastern or Western.

An Eastern Catholic attending a Latin Mass who kneels commits no sin or offense. In fact, one such who does not kneel at the times that the Latins do is much more likely to be guilty of making a spectacle of oneself to no valid point and could well be criticized for pridefulness.

On the rare occasions when I attend a Latin Mass, I still cross myself as an Eastern, I still bow rather than genuflect, and I refrain from saying the Filioque - all of which are readily doable without calling particular attention to myself or distracting my Latin brothers and sisters from their worship. Otherwise, I follow the norms of their praxis.

Many years,

Neil

On those occasions when I have "had" to go to a Latin rite mass, I have simply stood in the back for the entire liturgy. Then nobody notices that I am not kneeling during the eucharistic prayers.

There is variance on the practice among the Eastern Churches as well, for example, in the Syriac and Malankara Liturgy:

See 16.55:


47.02:


9.43:


14.02:


0.01:

I am Latin Rite but when I've gone to the DL I've used followed the praxis of the Church completely ... including crossing myself right to left, and not even quietly adding the filioque ... but after reading these replies I'm wondering if I really need to do that.

I see no problem with either way, but I do have to think a bit more when crossing the "Eastern way," ... why not just do everything as it comes naturally to me, provided I'm not drawing attention myself?

Then again, part of me likes doing things differently when I'm in a different place ...

Roman Catholics who come to my parish (Orthodox) do the sign of their cross their way, and when I have gone to Latin rite Mass, I do the sign of the cross my way.

P.S...as for kneeling or not kneeling, I would do in Rome as the Romans, figuritevely and literally!

The crossing of oneself can be pretty varied even with in Roman Rite Parishes -- in particular those with Hispanic, Filipino, or other cultures. Some do whole open hand (where 5 fingers represent the 5 wounds of Christ), some do 3-finger eastern, some end with a kiss, some do 3 (4?) "small" crosses then one large cross.
Not saying the filioque though when at a Roman Rite church seems odd though. There is a clear although perhaps nuanced distinction between what the East and West mean by "proceed" (in English at least). To not say it when professing the faith seems to denying the validity of the faith of those around you. It would seem to be equally offensive for a westerner to go into an EC and add the filioque when reciting it.
When I have been to an Orthodox or EC parish I follow whatever is done there and follow along to their traditions and ways of doing things even when it may not be what I am used to.

I think only the Byzantine Churches have developed a mystagogical rationale for making the sign of the Cross in a specific manner. Certainly we're the only people who have ever literally gone to the stake over it.

Can you expound on that a little more? I've not heard of persecution over sign of cross before.

I should explain myself a bit more thoroughly: My discomfiture at kneeling during Paschatide came at the same time that I began to discern that my former affiliation (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America--ELCA) was setting itself in schism with the holy, catholic, and apostolic church.

So a question frequently debated among those who have departed the ELCA and those who have remained is, "is it schismatic to seperate from an ecclecial body which is in fact in schism?" Most concur that such separation is not schismatic, but nevertheless unfortunate, no matter how necessary.

As part of the Nikonian reform imposed upon the Russian Church in the 1650s, the Patriarchate changed the manner in which the sign of the cross was made in Russia (with just thumb and forefinger together) to the manner used in Greece (with thumb, forefinger and middle finger together). The Old Ritualists refused to accept this and the other Nikonian reforms (it turns out they were largely right about being closer to the original Byzantine practices), and because it was so visible, how the sign was made became a distinguishing mark, a shibboleth between the Nikonians and the "Old Believers". Numerous leaders of the Old Believers were imprisoned, tortured and executed under {Patriarch Nikon and Tsar Alexei (Piotr Velikye simply transported most of them to the frontier, where their industriousness and sobriety were much appreciated). In some instances, whole communities of Old Believers locked themselves in their churches and set them on fire, believing that the change in ritual marked the advent of the Antichrist. Modest Mussorgsky captured the era well in his great opera Khovanschnina.