www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology stand vs kneel

The question was asked:

"I notice the priests and deacons never cross themeselves at this point."

To which I replied:

I do and every priest and deacon I have served with does as far as I can remember.

I should have been more clear. As Deacon Paul pointed out priest and deacons are holding the Holy Body at this point, so obviously they cannot cross themselves normally. Most will sign horizontally, that is move their hands in a crosswise fashion while holding the Holy Body of Christ.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I don't understand what the issue is here. Roman Catholics DON'T KNEEL anymore! Why are the BCC's stuck in the Pre-Vatican II Latization past?

Get rid of the kneelers.

This is what a real BCC should look like:
[Linked Image]

BTW, I spoke with Greek Orthodox priest about why the GOC in America had kneelers. He said it was because of the Latins. Go Figure! Now, they have instructions to get rid of them on a timely basis.

There is an importance re kneeling, specifically what that posture shows in terms of a transcendent event uniquely occurring when Christ humbles Himself to become present in the Holy Eucharist! It is not eisegesis that is being applied here but rather a simple observation of what God said. This is not a Protestant analog in re to how they treat Scripture, but rather a very Catholic one. What God said in this regard, again per the very clear Scriptural passages, is that kneeling is important to the point of God commanding kneeling. Traditions have to start with someone. There have been arguments on this thread that kneeling is somehow a pariah, witness the most recent post. God seems to feel differently. Man does not have to explain God's Word when it is so clear, but rather heed it.

stlouisix,

I find it odd that a a supporter of the Tridentine Mass would argue using a sola scriptura arguement. The Church is the final say on interpreting Scripture and deciding liturgical actions. The First Ecumenical Council of Nicea legislated that everyday from Pascha to Pentecost and every Sunday prayer be offered standing as a proclamtion of the Resurrection.

Now obviously the Latin Church has deviated from this for their own reasons and some Eastern Churches, Catholic and Orthodox have as well. One should not interpret a stance against kneeling on Sundays as a lack of respect or adoration for the Holy Gifts. Rather it is an arguement about what is the proper form of adoration. For the East it has traditionally been standing, kneeling was never a posture much used liturgically there. One stood or, when the service called for it, one prostrated. On Sundays and during Pascha one replaced the prostration with a deep bow.

Current problems with people disobeying the liturgical law of the Latin Church cannot and should not influence the restoration of tradition in Eastern Catholic Churches.

Fr. Deacon Lance

This is not a sola scriptura argument. The suggestion carries no merit. The Scriptural refs are widely used in the Great Tradition of the Church by her theologians in the recognition that lex credendi,lex orandi, is more than just a pithy phrase. Any number of Catholic tracts on this are available for proof.

stloiusix,

It certainly is a sola scriptura arguement as the Church has ruled against such a teaching in an Ecumenical Council.

I am not condemning Latin practice, but Latins certainly can't condemn the traditional practice of the East since they are only obeying the ruling of Nicea I!

Fr. Deacon Lance

Not to change the subject, but....

St. Louis are you a Tin Can Sailor?

Pani Rose

stlouisxi,

You state:
"This is a forum on a website called The Byzantine Catholic Church in America. As such, there should be no problem with Catholics posting on it."

Indeed this forum is hosted by a Byzantine Catholic, but you will notice it says Byzantine Forum. This forum for discussion of Byzantine Christianity, Catholic and Orthodox. All are welcome to participate. But I will warn you, coming here and attatcking Byzantine tradition and proclaiming Tridentine Latin tradition as the measuring stick by which other traditions are to be judged is not going to be tolerated.

Fr. Deacon Lance

There is a difference between penitential kneeling and kneeling to show adoration due God. This distinction has been made upon theological observances of what Nicea was talking about, i.e., there was no strict prohibition of kneeling re adoration.

Again, there is, in the history of the Church, the observation that the Nicean prohibition concerned kneeling as penitence, where it says that in the early Church, standing signified that "we have been raised up out of our sins." Why, then, is Nicea I being used to argue against kneeling as adoration?

Moreover, even if standing best expressed faith in the Resurrection at the time of the First Council of Nicea, one could argue that kneeling is best suited to that purpose today. It has been pointed out that, inasmuch as kneeling has come to signify faith in the Real Presence, it must also signify faith in the Resurrection: "If our Eucharistic Lord is really and truly the Word in the flesh, then the Word must have risen from the dead in the flesh and...he will come again to raise us up in the flesh."

In his great encyclical letter on the liturgy, Mediator Dei, Pope Pius XII affirmed that Catholic worship has developed in the course of history, in the light of an ever-deepening understanding of the deposit of faith. He also warned against liturgical "archaism," an excessive deference to the practice of the early Church, which fails to take this development into account. (See numbers 61-63.)

This cannot be a sola scriptura argument when the Church has placed such importance on it, using the aforementioned Scripture as a foundation.

There is no doubt that kneeling during the Consecration is a posture of adoration, not penitence. In number 11 of Inaestimabile donum, the 1980 document of the Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship, we are told that "when the faithful communicate kneeling, no other sign of reverence toward the Blessed Sacrament is required, since kneeling is itself a sign of adoration." This is affirmed in number 1378 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which can't be accused of making sola scriptura arguments ala the heresy of Protestantism.

It is clear from the teaching of Pope Paul VI, in his 1965 encyclical letter on the Holy Eucharist, Mysterium fidei (number 56), he wrote that "the Catholic Church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration, not only during Mass, but also outside it."

Ordinary Catholics who resist the abolition of kneeling usually defend the tradition as a sign of faith in the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. Number 1378 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms that the posture is indeed an expression of that belief. Again, this is brought to your attention because the sum total does not equate to a sola scriptura argument ala Protestantism, which is what was inferred by the charge.

Undoubedtly, there are those who disagree with the observation that the prohibition at Nicea I was against penitential kneeling as opposed to kneeling regarding adoration. Regardless, those observations have been made by not a few theologians.

This is not the point. The point is that there is a foundation to the belief in the importance of kneeling as a sign of adoration that is a part of the Great Tradition of the Church, at least in the West, which follow the aforementioned Scriptural admonitions for a foundation. The Church is the infallible interpreter of Sacred Scripture in this regard, and a large part of the Church believes that it is not a sola scriptura argument to kneel during the Sacred Liturgy. You do not see the argument ever being made in that part of the West where the Liturgy has not been denuded of its Sacred Mysteries, that God meant otherwise than what He said Scripturally in this regard.

Bottom line, God seems to feel, judging by His Words, and how they have been interpreted in the West, at least, that kneeling is important for reasons of adoration to distinguish God from man.

It is a fact that once kneelers were erroneously allowed to be removed in the West, the belief in the Real Presence suffered. All we're talking about here is that which uniquely defines the faith. This, coupled with other myriad options referring to purported early Church practices, which, when examined under the scrutiny of the early fathers, to include the early eastern fathers, ala good sources like the Faith of Our Fathers by Jurgens, an indexed three volume set, are not what they are made out to be, have contributed to a dilution of the faith whereby the man-in-the-pew now believes that dogma can change just like the liturgy.

My what charity evidenced by those on this site to have to warn people about making observations about what God said! It seems to me that a Catholic view requires no warning on a site that has a forum open to Catholics, in particular, when that forum is at the pleasure of a site called The Byzantine CATHOLIC Church in America! Again, no one is attacking anything. Rather, the observation has been made that those having an affinity for kneeling at Sacred Liturgy have a firm foundation for doing so grounded in their tradition which is rooted in Sacred Scripture.

stlouisix,

We are talking here baout the Eastern Churches and what they should be doing, not the Latin Church. The Latin Church has been kneeling for along time and I am not arguing against in the Latin Church.

We are talking hear about what Eastern Catholics should be doing. The tradition of the East is not to kneel on Sundays, the evidence and lived history of our Church bears that out, and no amount of ultramontane pseudo-scholarship is going to change historical fact. I can understand and sympathize with those who kneel, but it can not be supported by an appeal to tradition because this is not a tradition of the Eastern Church.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Stlouisix,

In truth, you have done nothing except attack the Catholic Church since you have started posting on the Forum. Simply put, your views are not really Catholic. You have no understanding of the Eastern half of the Catholic Church and continue in your insistence that Byzantines and Latins be judged according to your personal understanding of the Latin theology. We can only put up with this nonsense for so long. You claim to know �what God said� and yet you know nothing. I can only continue to urge you to put aside your personal theology and dedicate yourself to study the theology of the Catholic Church, and � for information about the Christian East � to read and accept the teaching of Pope John Paul the Great. But if the uncharity continues you will loose posting privileges.

I highly recommend that you talk to your pastor. But something tells me that you have already labeled the majority of priests and bishops in the Church to be heretics.

Admin

It can be supported by an appeal to what God directly said, however.

And as for the Administrators comments, please give an example of how I have "attacked the Catholic Church since coming on this forum." There are many Catholics, to include priests, and an Archbishop, which have a very different opinion than yours in re to what I am saying, which is echoing Church teaching. I have politely presented such on this site attacking no one.

And I have already talked to my pastor, thank you, about all of this, with which he has no problems. Moreover, the problems that he, and a good many other Byzantine Catholics locally are having to include some clergy, per what I was told, and observe during adult catechesis, are a direct reflection of what I just presented in regard to the bigger scope of effect of changes in the liturgy being quickly equated to changes in dogma. I'm referring explicitly to the Catholic side of the equation here, not the Orthodox where the dogmatic differences are well known.

FYI, my statements are a direct function of the Catholic catechesis that I was taught growing up in the Church, and see witnessed by those who know their faith enough so as not to have it subtly stolen from them. Hard to make a charge like the Admins stick when the person he's charging is quoting the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and traditional Church teaching.

I realize that there is a difference in the disciplines between the East and the West. But I also realize that tradition, regardless of whether it is East or West, has to start with Someone. When that Someone is spelled with capital letters, that should carry more credence than otherwise. Again, this is an observation made not just by be but by many theologians realizing Sacred Scripture is one of the roots of tradition.

What did God mean re kneeling if not what He said?

I'm always sort of amused when this topic comes up, because my feeling is, if you want to kneel, kneel! Who's stopping you?

Just last week we had some Traditional Catholic visitors at our Byzantine Catholic Church, and at the consecration, they knelt. We don't have padded kneelers (neither did the early Church!), so they knelt on the floor. And no one approached them and said, "Hey! Stand up!" They were perfectly free to do as they wished - just as you are.

It seems to me the concern is not whether or not *you* can kneel, but whether or not you can require *everyone else* to kneel.

Oh, also wanted to add, for those of you who think removing the kneelers will stop people from kneeling - I've seen little old ladies with bony arthritic knees literally CRAWLING on their knees up the aisle of an uncarpeted church, to plant a kiss at the feet of an image of Our Lady of Guadalupe.

So trust me, if people really want to kneel, they'll kneel - regardless of the "stance" (so to speak) of the church they happen to be in!