Our SSPX priest handed out a flyer to tell the parishioners when to stand, sit, and kneel during the Mass.  It makes slight changes to what our chapel has always done.

The one change that rather surprised me was that, in both High Mass and Low Mass, the people are to stand at the "Orate, fratres" and remain standing until the celebrant has finished reciting the Sanctus then kneel.

Everywhere I have ever been, in all the older films of the Mass I have ever seen, the people kneel when the bells are rung at the Sanctus.  

I am wondering if standing during the Sanctus is really the norm and how it was prior to the Novus Ordo.  Or is this a first step of the Novus Ordo "enrichment" of the traditional Mass?

He might get angry, but why not ask the priest about the change?  If he gets angry, at least you'll know it is pointless to ask him about such things :)

All older missals are the same: we kneel as the bells are ringing, after the words "...una voce dicentes..."

He might get angry, but why not ask the priest about the change?  If he gets angry, at least you'll know it is pointless to ask him about such things :)

All older missals are the same: we kneel as the bells are ringing, after the words "...una voce dicentes..."

I don't have to ask about the change.  His sermon on Sunday was all about what we in the pews are supposed to do.  The reason we are all supposed to do the same thing, in the same way, according to the handout he provided to us, is so that we can "fully participate" in the "public prayer" of the Mass because the Mass is a "public prayer" and not a "private prayer."  [He didn't mention vocal and menal prayer, so he must have been using a different catechism.]

I'm really not concerned about the issues that you are raising, all I want to know is does anyone know of a time before the Novus Ordo that it was the general custom of the people to stand during the Sanctus?  If not, why is the SSPX deciding to make this change?

Is this what happens in all SSPX chapels or just mine?

I am curious.

For the record, I happen to know that the posture of the people during Mass is entirely up to the local tradition.  The Church has never commanded one particular posture over another.  I read once (forgive me, but I cannot remember who wrote it) that prior to "the changes", every posture and gesture of the priest was regimented so that he had no freedom and had to completely empty himself in the Mass while the people were free to do what they felt was best suited, though there were some dioceses that tried to regiment the people when pews were first introduced into the naves of the churches.  When the Novus Ordo came along (and perhaps even prior to the Novus Ordo when the expirimentations began), the priest was largely freed from most requirements in posture and gestures (and most priests think they are free from all requirements) while the people began to be rigidly controlled throughout the Mass.  Of course, this makes sense given that the Conciliar church works pretty much like a communist or fascist dictatorship--the rules apply only to the masses, not to the leaders.

Kneeling after the Sanctus has been said (or sung) is the more correct method. Unfortunately, this was not often taught or practiced here in the States, though the rubricians mention it in their texts.

This is an excellent article about participation at Mass giving the theological and philosophical reasons:  http://sspx.org/regional_sspx_news/africa/why_is_the_sspx_in_africa_the_remanent_interview_of_fr_loic_duverger_5-31-2011/why_is_the_sspx_in_africa_the_remanent_interview_of_fr_loic_duverger_5-31-2011.htm.

Hope this helps!

I tried also, and the URL page cannot be found.  You should try using TinyURL.com for posting those really long URLs.

But I have to ask why one LOCAL tradition is better than another local tradition.  What makes one better than another is the Church's decision to adopt a particular local tradition to the Universal Church.

To my knowledge, the Church has never done this with regards to the posture of the laity at Mass.  The SSPX seems to have decided somewhere along the line that they will impose one particular local custom universally throughout it's chapels.  Actually, I don't have an objection to this but I do object to their suggestion that what we have been doing is wrong.  Whether the faithful sit, stand, or kneel during parts of the Mass (remember that there was a time when there were no pews in Catholic churches) is not a matter of doctrine, theology, OR law.  It is a preference among the lay faithful that has developed slightly differently in different parts of the the world.

In the United States (and I have heard, though I do not have evidence, that this is true of the entire Western Hemisphere) the custom has been to kneel when the Sanctus begins and was changed only upon the introduction of the new rites.

I just obtained an old hand Missal that was published in 1945.  It is the first one I've ever seen that has directions to stand, sit, or kneel during the parts of the Mass.  This on actually tells the faithful to kneel when the Sanctus is begun.

This missal was approved by Patrick Caridnal Hayes of New York in 1937.

Are you saying that this direction to kneel at the beginning of the Sanctus was a liturgical abuse?

Also, can you give me actual Church docuмents directing the lay faithful to assume particular postures during the Mass?  I can find Church docuмents directing the priests at Mass, but all of these commentaries that tell the faithful what they should do seem to be simply the opinions of the writers and not necessarily the mind of the Church.  If they were the mind of the Church, the customs would not have developed.

In any case, please understand that I'm just asking the questions because I still haven't seen a good reason to stay standing when the Sanctus bells are rung as it goes against what everyone in the parish has ever done.

After all, does it make sense for everyone to noisily and distractingly drop to their knees while the priest is saying the awesome entrance into the sacred Canon? Would it not be better for all to remain standing at attention as he says "Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus..." then sign themselves in union with him (at Low Mass; at High, people should + themselves as they sing "Bene + dictus...") and kneel when he has finished the prayer?  I believe common liturgical sense here wins the day.

The significance of the rubrics of Holy Mass and other liturgical functions can take on different sorts of symbolism for attentive worshipers according to their various proclivities and inclinations. As long as the rubrics are followed, whatever symbolism or significance is relatively valid insofar as it is agreeable with holy doctrine, can edify the individual and would be conducive unto the participation of Holy Mass digne, attente ac devote.

During the Middle Ages, various authors delighted in writing treatises upon the various interpretations of the symbolisms of Sacred Liturgy (mystical, anagogical, allegorical, &c.), the greatest example being Guillaume Durandus. And such mystics as the great Benedictine Virgin, St. Gertrude the Great, found in the texts of the Mass and Office the occasions for ecstatic revelations and the most beautiful mystical experiences in Medieval German hagiography.

The example of the holy Trisagion that follows the Preface here mentioned affords an opportunity to illustrate this point. The interpretation cited above is good, but I personally find it more edifying and more sensible to kneel at the Sanctus.

As the Priest begins to pronounce the seraphic praise of the thrice-Holy God, I cannot but feel myself weighed down with a sacred dread before the ineffable and awe-inspiring Mystery that is to be accomplished upon the Altar. Feeling the weight of my utter unworthiness and of the iniquities wherewith I have coinquinated my soul in a heightened and clearer sense that is unspeakably unnerving and humbling, I cannot but readily kneel down and bow my head at the Sanctus as the bells announce the beginning the most sacred of prayers in the Roman Rite. I can almost hear the ancient Cherubikon echo within the depths of my soul, knowing how unworthy I am, as the Priest enters the hallowed silence of the Canon, like as Moses ascended into the shady cloud on Mount Sinai. I cannot but beckon the pious terror and wonder that seized the Prophets of old when they foresaw the glories of the Incarnate Word: "O Lord, I have heard the report of Thee, and was afraid; I heard, and mine inmost parts shuddered, my lips quivered at the report" (Hab. ch. iii. 2, 16).

But, this is my personal interpretation and point of view. Just like some follow the older prayerbooks and meditate upon the Passion of Our Lord throughout the ceremonies of Holy Mass, so others (like myself) cannot but follow the texts and rubrics of the Mass exactly as they are being recited (or chanted) and done at the Altar in order to gain as much fruit from Holy Mass as one is capable of doing so and enabled by grace and cooperation therewith.

Not again.
This particular debate divided the first SSPX parish I ever attended. People left the parish over it, heated arguments in the parking lot, nasty letters sent to parishioners... UGH!
It's been a while but I vaguely remember the reasoning to remain standing for the Sanctus is that it is part of the Mass for the Faithful and not the Canon and you don't kneel until the Canon. It's been almost 20 years so don't quote me on that.