Arguing about how to receive Holy Communion

[floresco]

What does it get you though?

If you still can’t tell whether the person kneeling instead of standing is or isn’t being reverent, then so what? Even if you could tell, so what?

It isn’t about telling something about a person. Making judgments about actions gives us an ability to teach the best way to do things. If we figure out that kneeling is more reverent than cartwheels, that gives us the ability to instruct people to kneel and thereby promote reverence.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

It isn’t about telling something about a person. Making judgments about actions gives us an ability to teach the best way to do things. If we figure out that kneeling is more reverent than cartwheels, that gives us the ability to instruct people to kneel and thereby promote reverence.

Thank you. Now I think I’m beginning to understand what you’re saying.

We judge the actions to determine whether we like the actions, not whether the communicant is worthy.

Alan

 

[ncjohn]

It isn’t about telling something about a person. Making judgments about actions gives us an ability to teach the best way to do things. If we figure out that kneeling is more reverent than cartwheels, that gives us the ability to instruct people to kneel and thereby promote reverence.

Do you really feel though that it is our job, AT MASS, to be acting as an observer of people’s actions to determine such things?

The unfortunate reason I ask the question is because of the number of times I’ve read here that “it’s all about externals”. Those comments aren’t just about whether cartwheels are inappropriate. They are directed at how someone dresses or whether they wear headcoverings or which church-approved posture one assumes when receiving communion to be more to the topic here. And they are almost always accompanied by statements that their preferred form is objectively more reverent.

Making judgments about the “nature of actions” in a big-picture context is certainly something that needs to be done, as I’ve already addressed. I doubt however that much of that is needed on any regular basis since norms exist for most of these things. I cannot see any purpose or gain, however, from making judgments about externals of individuals, especially since it distracts from the only reason for us being there to begin with and leaves us less than properly disposed to move to the altar for communion. Not to mention that it doesn’t change anything since you can’t do anything about it except anger yourself. Plus we have the small problem that many of these things are not requirements and don’t have any objective criteria but are “unwritten rules”.

[joking]Maybe the answer is to have some “reverence enforcers” present in the vestibule to ensure that people have the proper dress and have them sign an oath agreeing to match their actions to the designated norms. That way the “undersirables” could be weeded out ahead of time and nobody would be distracted or drawn to judgment during the actual Mass.

This would have the added benefit of freeing people up to focus on watching for liturgical abuses by the priest or Mrs. Goodlady the EMHC. [/joking]

 

[floresco]

Do you really feel though that it is our job, AT MASS, to be acting as an observer of people’s actions to determine such things?

The unfortunate reason I ask the question is because of the number of times I’ve read here that “it’s all about externals”. Those comments aren’t just about whether cartwheels are inappropriate. They are directed at how someone dresses or whether they wear headcoverings or which church-approved posture one assumes when receiving communion to be more to the topic here. And they are almost always accompanied by statements that their preferred form is objectively more reverent.

I don’t think that usually one should be thinking about such things at Mass (although extreme cases intrude themselves on one’s notice) but I agree with those who believe in the importance of externals. God did not make us as disembodied spirits. He made us as physical beings. Simply observing that the Sacraments have a physical component shows that God communicates Himself to us through our physical nature. Overly spiritualizing one’s understanding of reality is a mark of certain heresies.

I also agree with those who believe that it is possible to make statements about objective standards for liturgical practices. I have no problem with identifying some practices as objectively more reverent than others. And yes, those are my personal practices, because once I came to the conclusion they were more reverent I adopted them as my own. I greatly preferred to receive CITH and was very uncomfortable with COTT. But when I came to the conclusion that COTT was objectively better, I had to change.

 

[floresco]

We judge the actions to determine whether we like the actions, not whether the communicant is worthy.

Yes, that’s what’s I’m saying. I feel so understood. It makes me all warm and happy inside. :bounce:

 

[ProVobis]

I can honestly say that in my pretty extensive experience of both forms, both pre and post Vatican II that I have seen what appeared to be incredible reverence in both ways of receiving and I’ve seen what appeared to be incredibly oblivious people in both cases. I can’t judge their interior disposition in either case but appearing oblivious is not confined to either method of reception.

I served in the pre-Vatican II days and if there were any irreverence it was on my part where I perhaps didn’t hold the paten exactly where I was supposed to for everyone. I also regarded those who didn’t come for communion in high respect as well. I doubt if they were oblivious.

 

[ncjohn]

I served in the pre-Vatican II days and if there were any irreverence it was on my part where I perhaps didn’t hold the paten exactly where I was supposed to for everyone.

As I said, I can’t tell you if there was irreverence or not. That is the whole point. One can’t make that determination by looking at externals, even in the face of what appears visually to be total disconnect. There are undoubtedly some I would have misjudged as being reverent and some I would have misjudged as not being reverent.

I also regarded those who didn’t come for communion in high respect as well. I doubt if they were oblivious.

I certainly agree with you there. It is hard to imagine that everyone who shows up to receive communion now is indeed properly disposed.

 

[ncjohn]

I also agree with those who believe that it is possible to make statements about objective standards for liturgical practices. I have no problem with identifying some practices as objectively more reverent than others. And yes, those are my personal practices, because once I came to the conclusion they were more reverent I adopted them as my own. I greatly preferred to receive CITH and was very uncomfortable with COTT. But when I came to the conclusion that COTT was objectively better, I had to change.

You do realize that “objective” means always, for all people at all times, right? Are you then saying that the Eastern churches who have always stood for communion are “objectively” inferior? Are you saying that all those centuries when CITH was the norm were “objectively” inferior?

I’m curious since we are talking about disciplines, which are entirely changeable, and about things that the Church itself has never proclaimed to be “objectively” more reverent. Even if the Church expresses a preference at a given time, as some Popes have, it does not make it “objectively” better; it simply means that that Pope at that time subjectively finds it so and may or may not command universal practice at that time.

 

[Indyann]

I also agree with those who believe that it is possible to make statements about objective standards for liturgical practices. I have no problem with identifying some practices as objectively more reverent than others. And yes, those are my personal practices, because once I came to the conclusion they were more reverent I adopted them as my own. I greatly preferred to receive CITH and was very uncomfortable with COTT. But when I came to the conclusion that COTT was objectively better, I had to change.

Just in case you missed it, this is what the Holy Father said about the matter:

" ‘It is quite wrong to argue about this or that form of behavior.’ Pope Benedict XVI, God is Near Us, p. 71. The pope goes on to urge that instead of arguing about the outer forms or rituals of receiving Communion, we 'should be concerned only to argue in favor of a ‘reverence in the heart, an inner submission before the mystery of God who puts himself into our hands.’

“He admonishes us ‘not to forget that not only our hands are impure but also our tongue and also our heart and that we often sin more with the tongue than with our hands.’ He explains that, by coming to us in Communion, ‘God takes an enormous risk…allowing not only our hand and our tongue but even our heart to come into contact with him. We see this in the Lord’s willingness to enter into us and live with us, within us, and to become from within the heart of our life and the agent of its transformation’ (p.71)”

 

[iluvburpees]

what makes your tongue, with also touches the host, more worthy than your hand?

Actually, this is a pretty odd thing for the CITH people. If you make the “We sin more by our tongue than by our hands” argument, what’s the difference when your tongue will be touching the Host when you put It into your mouth anyway?

 

[choy]

Actually, this is a pretty odd thing for the CITH people. If you make the “We sin more by our tongue than by our hands” argument, what’s the difference when your tongue will be touching the Host when you put It into your mouth anyway?

The obsession with touching the Host with our hands is easily explainable by the obsession with making our Faith an “experience” as much as possible. We have to “feel” everything. The Faith starts to be about the emotions instead othe intellect, and this mindset carries over into everything.

With CITH, receiving in the hand instead of the tongue is a way to “experience” God. It can make one worry more about the physical contact with God instead of the spiritual. When receiving on the tongue, the physical contact is minimized and it is a humbler manner of receiving (this is obvious - imagine that you have an atheist watching you go up for communion. If you receive standing in the hand and pop the Host into your mouth, I doubt he’d think of laughing at you. If you receive kneeling and allow the priest to place this “round piece of bread” on your tongue, I think the atheist would be more likely to laugh at you.)

There was a really good sermon I heard at mass two months ago or so…the priest was talking about the Resurrection of Christ and Mary Magdalene’s discovery of Christ. She reached out to touch Him, but he stopped her. Why? Mary loved Him very much, but now he was trying to perfect that love. He was trying to make her love more spiritual, rather than physical. We can easily see the parallel with CITH. It stresses the touching of Christ rather than the spiritual receiving of Christ into our souls.

i receive CITH and i can say that none of what you said applies to me, i have never experienced what you are saying. i don’t have a desire for the “experience”. when i receive, all i desire for is to be worthy to be in communion with Jesus

 

[Ockham]

i receive CITH and i can say that none of what you said applies to me, i have never experienced what you are saying. i don’t have a desire for the “experience”. when i receive, all i desire for is to be worthy to be in communion with Jesus

Good for you choy. Here’s a revelation: this is the Traditional Catholic forum. People here tend to have traditional Catholic tendencies like COTT. CITH isn’t something you see at the EF. If you are groovy with CITH that’s your preogrative because as you so accurately and incessantly point out it’s approved. So other than that, what’s your point?

Oh, sorry. That was a direct question. I don’t expect you to answer it.

 

[choy]

Good for you choy. Here’s a revelation: this is the Traditional Catholic forum. People here tend to have traditional Catholic tendencies like COTT. CITH isn’t something you see at the EF. If you are groovy with CITH that’s your preogrative because as you so accurately and incessantly point out it’s approved. So other than that, what’s your point?

Oh, sorry. That was a direct question. I don’t expect you to answer it.

that doesn’t justify putting an image on people who choose to receive CITH that doesn’t accurately and justly describe us and our attitude

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Actually, this is a pretty odd thing for the CITH people. If you make the “We sin more by our tongue than by our hands” argument, what’s the difference when your tongue will be touching the Host when you put It into your mouth anyway?

I’m confused. I didn’t know that the argument about the tongue being more sinful was a CITH argument. It was Pope Benedict who made it:
BXVI:

"He admonishes us ‘not to forget that not only our hands are impure but also our tongue and also our heart and that we often sin more with the tongue than with our hands.’ … "

So why are you characterizing this argument as a CITH one?

Alan

 

[ProVobis]

I’m confused.
Alan

I am too. So if I sin with my hands and my tongue, I can sin more by my tongue alone? I don’t think that’s what the Pope means.

If you can’t convince them, confuse them.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I am too. So if I sin with my hands and my tongue, I can sin more by my tongue alone? I don’t think that’s what the Pope means.

If you can’t convince them, confuse them.

No, I just took it to mean that hands which had sinned are no less “worthy” than a tongue, for what it’s worth in receiving Communion.

Hmmm…

Alan

 

[Layman]

CITH and an EMHC doesn’t affect our sanctity. we become one with Jesus when we receive the Eucharist. doesn’t matter what mode of reception

especially standing, Eastern Rites have traditionally been receiving standing. are you denying them sanctity because of this?

• Heh. If it’s all about internals, then why have a Mass at all?
• If you’re going to have a Mass, what should it be like? Bare church, minimal gestures, quick, simple, vernacular prayers, get it done quickly? Funny behaviour at a rite to propitiate God. Or maybe someting more onrate, it you believe God is making Himself more fully present at the request of your priest?

**- If you believe that Jesus is present in the Host, then why change a Roman Catholic Diocese over from, COTT, kneeling, from a priest, to standing, in the hand, from a laywoman? Eastern rites have nothing to do with it. **

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Maybe instead of arguing about how to receive Communion, in the spirit of the OP we should argue about arguing about how to receive Communion. Otherwise we are disobeying our pope and probably falling right into enemy hands – who LOVES brother-against-brother brawls. Regardless of the COTT/CITH issue itself, we KNOW the Holy Father has specifically ordered us not to argue about these things. :sad_yes:

Can we elevate our obedience to God, the pope, and the OP topic, to quit this? Or are we so hopelessly hung up on being right that the wishes of God, the pope, and the OP are irrelevant to the discussion?

I’ve posted this before, and if necessary I’ll post it again: argument clinic.

Alan

 

[ProVobis]

No, I just took it to mean that hands which had sinned are no less “worthy” than a tongue, for what it’s worth in receiving Communion.

Hmmm…

Alan

So how do you avoid the tongue, which is at least as sinful as the hands? Hmmm, indeed.

 

[ProVobis]

Maybe instead of arguing about how to receive Communion, in the spirit of the OP we should argue about arguing about how to receive Communion.

I’m having a hard time with that concept. Is that meant as a first or second derivative of an argument?

Regardless of the COTT/CITH issue itself, we KNOW the Holy Father has specifically ordered us not to argue about these things.

But has the Vatican decreed this? We are still ALLOWED to discuss this, aren’t we?

And last time I checked, profanity and sacrilege were still serious sins against Divine Law. I think it behooves us to want to avoid those and to take maximum precautions against it. In my opinion receiving casually is not a good step in that direction.