no kneeling??!

[AMDG]

I think this article answers your question:

Catholic Culture : Library : Sacred Signs and Active Participation at Mass

The article notes that from the 7th century only the Pope stood while the Faithful all bowed for the entire Eucharistic prayer. Then in the 9th century there is evidence of kneeling. Then in the 13th entury kneeling during the Consecration became the norm. And finally in the 16th century kneeling was prescribed.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Makes sense... It's probably a little like the Christian name/last name issue for clergy. It's interesting how something can be ancient and yet now viewed as disrespectful.

It depends on why someone is not kneeling. And the Church allows for reasonable exceptions.
.

 

[ThePilgrim]

I think this article answers your question:

Catholic Culture : Library : Sacred Signs and Active Participation at Mass

The article notes that from the 7th century only the Pope stood while the Faithful all bowed for the entire Eucharistic prayer. Then in the 9th century there is evidence of kneeling. Then in the 13th entury kneeling during the Consecration became the norm. And finally in the 16th century kneeling was prescribed.

Interesting... That goes a long way towards answering the question, but there is something worth noting.

During these centuries (as today in many Catholic Churches) the Eucharist was celebrated daily, not just on Sundays. It's true that these show people kneeling during the Mass, but most Masses took place during the week, so that wouldn't have been abnormal during any period of Church history -- the faithful always stood on Sundays and knelt during the week.

The article even makes mention of this when it talks about the 9th century evidence, noting that "for Sundays and feasts, it was the custom to stand."

It never specifically mentions when the weekday position became normative in the Catholic Church for Sundays as well...

I guess the answer is probably what Gwendolyn suggested earlier. Probably at some point after the 9th century, the weekday rubrics began to be practiced on Sundays as well, as the distinctions got blurred a little.

Thanks for your help

Grace and peace,
Sbn John

 

[ThePilgrim]

It depends on why someone is not kneeling. And the Church allows for reasonable exceptions.
.

It's interesting to me that what used to be the norm has become an exception requiring explanation. I think it shows the interaction between liturgy, piety, and culture in an interesting way...

 

[Fantine]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, Arial]Is reverence divisive?
Recent efforts to prohibit kneeling has met with considerable resistance from the pews -- and from many bishops as well. In places where people have been ordered to stand until after everyone has received Holy Communion, worshippers feel manipulated, and torn between their desire to be obedient to their priest or bishop and their desire to show reverence for Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.[/FONT]

I guess that the Church can't change anything without some group or another whining and complaining. I never knew kneeling had so many fans.

Personally I find kneeling to be a distraction that interferes with my focus and concentration, and I think God would rather have me concentrating and focused on my feet than distracted on my knees.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

It's interesting to me that what used to be the norm has become an exception requiring explanation. I think it shows the interaction between liturgy, piety, and culture in an interesting way...

It is a good example of the difference between doctrine and discipline. Disciplines can change while doctrines can't. Think of a parent teaching their child discipline. The discpline changes as the develpment of the child and the present circumstances require. That's why we call the Church our Mother. Catholicism is a family relationship.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Again, not a comparison--merely an observation in that there have been Bishops that have caused real damage to the Church (and those who blindly follow them and not the Pope who is protected by the Holy Spirit.) The Bishops are only above reproach when they are in union with the Pope. And we know of some Bishops that have allowed many things that are theologically incorrect in their diocese (dancing in Mass, and more). Surely we are not to just follow the lead of those (if we know that they are not in union with the Pope)--are we?

There have also been bad Pope's, who led armies into wars for the acquisition of power and wealth, so following them isn't a guarantee that we'll not be led astray. Christ is who we follow above all others.

That being said, generally, the Pope doesn't operate outside of the council of Bishops, and it is very rare,
that he acts outside of that council.

Either way, your Bishop is the authority for setting the norms of your dioceses, as the Vatican II document states.

CONSTITUTION
ON THE SACRED LITURGY
[SIZE=+1]SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM[/SIZE]


A) General norms
22. 1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.

2. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.

B) Norms drawn from the hierarchic and communal nature of the Liturgy
26. Liturgical services are not private functions, but are celebrations of the Church, which is the "sacrament of unity," namely, the holy people united and ordered under their bishops.

Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium

Jim

 

[AMDG]

Either way, your Bishop is the authority for setting the norms of your dioceses, as the Vatican II document states.

I know that Jim, really I do. However, it is not meant that the individual Bishops can do their own thing, but only do things within limits as have been decided by the Pope in union with the Bishops. (Jesus promised the Pope protection. He is to strengthen his brethern--that is fellow Bishops--just as the Bible tells us.) And we do know of Bishops who have decided to act on their own and against what the Pope in union with the Bishops have decided. (I know, many, many years ago and some Bishops ago as well, our diocese had such a Bishop who finally got in "dutch" with the Vatican--I shiver to think how many he led astray--and it has taken some time to bring things back "in line". And we do know about U.S. Bishops who have okayed dance at Mass and other things the Vatican has explicitly vetoed.) We do have rules--rubrics--that have been approved by the Bishops in Conference and then the Pope--they must be there for a reason. If we (all of us--Bishops included) aren't to obey them, then I wonder why we have them in the first place.

BTW, I learned that "cling to what the Pope says and you won't go astray" from someone in the Eastern Rite Catholic Church. Of course, it seems to make sense--why else would Jesus choose a head for His Church?