Arguing about how to receive Holy Communion

[AlanFromWichita]

WatchingMedia,

Thank you for the links. One thing I noticed that the cardinal did say that once a country accepts a practice that communicants have the freedom to choose. I know that wasn’t a major point, but it was one I was looking for.

That is, I think there are two arguments that get mixed up.

One involves the church teachings. How did the indult come into place? What authority does it have? Did the bishops legitimately accept the practices of CITH and standing in the US and was it ratified by the Vatican? What if it is morally wrong, what can we do about it? The bishop really didn’t go into these things on the video.

The other involves personal choice. Is it wrong to receive CITH? Why do people use CITH and do they care about the church? Do you believe I should not have a choice when our country offers it? You know, stuff like that.

To me, the personal choice argument should simply not be. Pope Benedict in the OP quotes stated that very well, I thought.

Alan

 

[WatchingMedia]

WatchingMedia,

Thank you for the links. One thing I noticed that the cardinal did say that once a country accepts a practice that communicants have the freedom to choose. I know that wasn’t a major point, but it was one I was looking for.

That is, I think there are two arguments that get mixed up.

One involves the church teachings. How did the indult come into place? What authority does it have? Did the bishops legitimately accept the practices of CITH and standing in the US and was it ratified by the Vatican? What if it is morally wrong, what can we do about it? The bishop really didn’t go into these things on the video.

The other involves personal choice. Is it wrong to receive CITH? Why do people use CITH and do they care about the church? Do you believe I should not have a choice when our country offers it? You know, stuff like that.

To me, the personal choice argument should simply not be. Pope Benedict in the OP quotes stated that very well, I thought.

Alan

I don’t know the answer to all your questions. Personally, I think its more respectful for COTH, and that is the way I choose to do it.

I also personally think we should do what the Pope stongly recommends. However, until and unless he makes a stronger statement the “choice” stands, and must be obeyed and respected by all no matter what our personal preferences may be.

If I were denied my rights as allowed by the Vatican, I would contact the Bishop of the Diocese in a heartbeat with a cc to the Pope.

 

[WatchingMedia]

I believe you meant “traditional Catholicism”. There’s plenty of Traditional Catholics who receive via the hand.

The word Traditional means different things to different people. Traditional to me means the way I was brought up Roman Catholic Church prior to Vatican II, when all Masses in the US were the same.

Mass was in Latin, and our missals had both the English and Latin so it was easy to follow.
We had Altar rails, and received COTT, knelt at the rail while receiving, altar boys assisted the Priests at Mass. Eucharistic Ministers did not help distribute Communion at Mass.

Just using the word “Traditional” as a thread header is confusing, since it correctly means different things to different people. Tradition defined in the CCC is neither.

 

[ProVobis]

I believe you meant “traditional Catholicism”. There’s plenty of Traditional Catholics who receive via the hand.

Then count me as neither. I just prefer the EF and receiving by the old rules against sacrilege and profanity.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I don’t know the answer to all your questions. Personally, I think its more respectful for COTH, and that is the way I choose to do it.

I also personally think we should do what the Pope stongly recommends. However, until and unless he makes a stronger statement the “choice” stands, and must be obeyed and respected by all no matter what our personal preferences may be.

If I were denied my rights as allowed by the Vatican, I would contact the Bishop of the Diocese in a heartbeat with a cc to the Pope.

I agree with you on these points.

I wasn’t really expecting an answer to the questions; just trying to differentiate between those parts of the discussion that I think are OK and those that I think should be off the table.

Alan

 

[Layman]

I believe you meant “traditional Catholicism”. There’s plenty of Traditional Catholics who receive via the hand.

As far as I know, CITH, standing, from a laywoman was not allowed in pre-1969 Roman Catholicism. That is the tradition I’m referring to. It adds nothing to our worship. Its introduction suggests we are now more holy, or the Host less so.

Odd behaviour in the presence of the King of Kings. Now, if you wanted to suggest that the bread was merely blessed bread and we were now, somehow, more elevated spiritually, its introduction would make sense.

Or is it: “We’re recreating the Last Supper, so dump a 1500+ years of tradition”? Pretty arrogant, I think.

Honestly, I have no confidence that these liturgical experimenters are leading us anywhere holy. If nothing else, dumping the tried-and-tested work of saints and scholars and choosing the efforts of people like Abp. Bugnini looks like too great a gamble. It’s people’s salvation they’re playing with.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

As far as I know, CITH, standing, from a laywoman was not allowed in pre-1969 Roman Catholicism. That is the tradition I’m referring to. It adds nothing to our worship. Its introduction suggests we are now more holy, or the Host less so.

I see your point, that it does not do anything to add. However, I also believe it does nothing to detract. I don’t see how the Host is less holy because of the lay minister touching it. Is it not the True Presence, and how can that possibly be made less holy even if somebody tried?

Odd behaviour in the presence of the King of Kings. Now, if you wanted to suggest that the bread was merely blessed bread and we were now, somehow, more elevated spiritually, its introduction would make sense.

Or is it: “We’re recreating the Last Supper, so dump a 1500+ years of tradition”? Pretty arrogant, I think.

I guess I don’t see arrogance here, at least on the part of actually communicants who choose one way or the other. Maybe you’re extrapolating a mindset from the behavior; I’m OK with that if that’s what it is. Actually, now that I think about it, why is it not arrogant to think that only certain people should touch a host? What if we said to the Lord, “Lord, that person is not worthy to touch your body,” would the Lord not say to the one who touched him, “who touched me? … your faith has healed you.”

 

[Layman]

It’s simple: The Mass is a public, mystical ritual, full of symbolic actions. Now, what
is symbolised by changing an RC diocese over to this practice? What are we saying?

If the Host is special, why change over to CITH, standing, from a laywoman?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

If the Host is special, why change over to CITH, standing, from a laywoman?

No ifs about it. The Host is special. Nothing, even CITH, can make it “unspecial.”

To me, a worse thing for the host than to touch it with hands, is to approach it with a heart full of anxiety and judgment. Certainly this may not apply to you, but if a person is troubled over which way another receives Communion, then maybe that person is not properly “dressed” for the banquet and should be reconciled first – or maybe go to a TLM. I’d venture to say that 99% of CITH receivers do not even know there is anything wrong with what they are doing, so they are not anxious over their choice or the choices of others.

Why did the Church change over in our country, or at all? That is a question I cannot answer, because I am not a scholar in these things.

Alan

 

[floresco]

I’d venture to say that 99% of CITH receivers do not even know there is anything wrong with what they are doing, so they are not anxious over their choice or the choices of others.

I too suspect that this is the main reason people receive CITH. I think it is important to make a distinction between the practice itself and the people who practice it. I do not see anything wrong with comparing the practices of COTT and CITH and concluding that COTT is objectively better. It is problem when people judge the interior state of others based on their mode of reception.

 

[Layman]

No ifs about it. The Host is special. Nothing, even CITH, can make it “unspecial.”

To me, a worse thing for the host than to touch it with hands, is to approach it with a heart full of anxiety and judgment. Certainly this may not apply to you, but if a person is troubled over which way another receives Communion, then maybe that person is not properly “dressed” for the banquet and should be reconciled first – or maybe go to a TLM. I’d venture to say that 99% of CITH receivers do not even know there is anything wrong with what they are doing, so they are not anxious over their choice or the choices of others.

Why did the Church change over in our country, or at all? That is a question I cannot answer, because I am not a scholar in these things.

Alan

Our touching it isn’t making the Host less special. But we are saying, symbolically, by changing over to CITH, that either we are somehow more holy (we are fit to touch it now, whereas before we weren’t) or that it is now less holy (it’s ok to touch it now).

Whatever anyone attending feels internally is not pertinent to this argument. This is a public act of communal worship. No one else participating can see your inner state of reverence. Only what you do outwardly. And what we’re doing outwardly, now, is adding more and more mundane elements to what’s supposed to be a sacred rite.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Our touching it isn’t making the Host less special. But we are saying, symbolically, by changing over to CITH, that either we are somehow more holy (we are fit to touch it now, whereas before we weren’t) or that it is now less holy (it’s ok to touch it now).

Whatever anyone attending feels internally is not pertinent to this argument. This is a public act of communal worship. No one else participating can see your inner state of reverence. Only what you do outwardly. And what we’re doing outwardly, now, is adding more and more mundane elements to what’s supposed to be a sacred rite.

Thank you for explaining that. I think I understand your points now.

Maybe, at 51, I’m just young enough that I was not taught that we were not worthy to touch the host. Sure, in first Communion training, we were taught not to touch it but they really didn’t get so much into the why.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I too suspect that this is the main reason people receive CITH. I think it is important to make a distinction between the practice itself and the people who practice it. I do not see anything wrong with comparing the practices of COTT and CITH and concluding that COTT is objectively better. It is problem when people judge the interior state of others based on their mode of reception.

I like the way you wrote this, and I honor that distinction (although I personally am yet to be convinced that one is objectively better).

Alan

 

[ProVobis]

What if we said to the Lord, “Lord, that person is not worthy to touch your body,” would the Lord not say to the one who touched him, “who touched me? … your faith has healed you.”

So much obsession with touching. Since when has communion been all about touching? Did the priest in the Old Testament make sure everyone present touched the burnt offerings before he consumed parts of it? What would be the purpose of that?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

So much obsession with touching. Since when has communion been all about touching? Did the priest in the Old Testament make sure everyone present touched the burnt offerings before he consumed parts of it? What would be the purpose of that?

I was thinking about the woman who touched Jesus’ cloak. Clearly, since it was in a crowd she touched it in a way that others didn’t, because He felt power go out of Him. But when she touched him, she did it in faith and was healed.

My point is that the woman was no more worthy to touch Our Lord than any of us, and yet she did and the Lord found it remarkable. I don’t have a problem with rituals done certain ways, but if the problem with touching the host is that we are unworthy to touch God, then I say that is just an artificial separation between the Creator and the created. I know we were brought up to think it is horrible to touch the host, but did that fear actually come from God?

Alan

 

[Layman]

Reasons for COTT, kneeling, from a priest:

1. Graphically tells your heart, your sub-conscious, in no uncertain terms, that this Matter is Holy. It bypasses the cunning lawyer and the jabber of the conscious mind.
2. Is a small offering to the Lord: “See, Lord, I humble myself before Thee!”
3. Cues everyone else around you, including pagans, protestants, and people in the process of conversion, that Something Serious Is Going On Here. It’s the best sort of propaganda; not written, but visual. It’s a visual statement of Faith.
4. Is suited to the words “Lord, I am not worth to receive You …”
5. Is a suitable posture when receiving a gift from a King. The King of Kings.
6. The Real Presence.

Changing over to CITH, standing, from a laywoman? Boggles the mind, really.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Here is the fairly simple explanation, from my perspective and in my opinion, as to why we argue about this.

I was catechised before the Council and prior to the modern changes of the 70’s, especially concerning the Blessed Sacrament. I was taught in Catholic grammar school that Holy Communion was the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. Hopefully, we can all still agree with that. It was the single most precious gift Christ could leave us. Because it is Christ, we were taught that once confected, it would only be kept in vessels of precious metal and could only be handled by the anointed fingers of a priest. We were taught that each individual speck of the Blessed Sacrament, down to the tiniest of crumbs that collect in the fingers of the priest, are preciously safeguarded so that the priest, once the host is consecrated, must hold the thumb and index finger together on both hands until the final ablutions after Communion. He must learn to perform the intricacies of the Mass, including opening the tabernacle with a key and removing the cover from a ciborium with those fingers together. The only part of our body the Blessed Sacrament should ever touch would be our tongues while we knelt with our tongues out and our head back and eyes closed. And if, by accident, the host touched anything else, like dropping on the Communion Rail or God forbid, the floor, there was a purification rite that priest must perform immediately after Mass with Holy Water and purificator while still vested in alb or surplice and stole.

Mind you, we were not taught for how many hundreds of years the church had this practice, nor did the priests and nuns discuss with us whether early Christians did it any other way. It was sufficient to teach that this was Christ in Body and in Spirit and this is how we treat it.

Since the advent of CITH in which ever posture you choose, we have repeatedly reviewed the hows and whys, and that it is a form specified by the church and as such, is changeable at the discretion of the church.

What underlies the passion, I believe, probably comes primarily from those of us who learned at the the most tender age, the sublimity of the Blessed Sacrament and the way it was handled reflected that sublimity. The day that Eucharistic Ministers were introduced into the church, for me, was one of the days you remember like ‘Where were you when you heard that the Pope was shot’. I was a teenager myself and said “How could this be?”. It was absolutely inconsistent with everything I was taught concerning this most precious of gifts.

In our local diocesan church there is a Sunday evening teen (folk) Mass with teen eucharistic ministers. Of course, I now know the technical and legal answer to “How could this be”. But my heart, based on my Catholic upbringing still asks this question “How could this be?”

That, I believe is part of the reason for the emotion that keeps this argument active and frequently heated.

Hope that helps answer the original question.

Instead of answering the question on why we argue over CITH, you just continue to argue about CITH. You need to think about WHY you are so passionate about it…

 

[choy]

Our touching it isn’t making the Host less special. But we are saying, symbolically, by changing over to CITH, that either we are somehow more holy (we are fit to touch it now, whereas before we weren’t) or that it is now less holy (it’s ok to touch it now).

what makes your tongue, with also touches the host, more worthy than your hand?
and aren’t your reading too much into the action and making it more than what it is? i don’t think anyone who receives via CITH thinks they’re more holy just because they get to touch the host with their hands

Whatever anyone attending feels internally is not pertinent to this argument.

but isn’t that what is important? so you or anyone saying something has more effect on one person’s actions regarding the Eucharist over their own personal disposition? i thought we are to be judged by OUR actions and the contents of OUR hearts, not with what other people think about us

This is a public act of communal worship. No one else participating can see your inner state of reverence. Only what you do outwardly. And what we’re doing outwardly, now, is adding more and more mundane elements to what’s supposed to be a sacred rite.

even though its a public act of worship, you’re not supposed to be looking at other people and judging. the only human beings you need to be focusing on are the ones in front, namely the priest, the readers, lectors, etc.

 

[choy]

Reasons for COTT, kneeling, from a priest:

1. Graphically tells your heart, your sub-conscious, in no uncertain terms, that this Matter is Holy. It bypasses the cunning lawyer and the jabber of the conscious mind.

actions are actions, they don’t have meaning unless one person interprets them to be that way. an american would shake your hand but a japanese would bow to you. which one is more respectful? to the american, bowing seems like a submissive action, while to the japanese it shows a sign of respect. your interpretations of one’s actions is just that, your interpretation

1. Is a small offering to the Lord: “See, Lord, I humble myself before Thee!”

as mentioned above, one can boast even in the most humbling of actions if one’s heart thinks that such actions are boastful. case in point, the “holier than thou” attitude. “ha, i’m kneeling and receiving COTT, i’m 10x holier than these guys who are standing”

1. Cues everyone else around you, including pagans, protestants, and people in the process of conversion, that Something Serious Is Going On Here. It’s the best sort of propaganda; not written, but visual. It’s a visual statement of Faith.

i was not aware that there are pagans and protestants in a Catholic Mass. we can’t even get all the Catholics in there

1. Is suited to the words “Lord, I am not worth to receive You …”
2. Is a suitable posture when receiving a gift from a King. The King of Kings.
3. The Real Presence.

Changing over to CITH, standing, from a laywoman? Boggles the mind, really.

boggles the mind in what way? that one’s opinion doesn’t agree with it?

 

[Layman]

The symbolic acts of our rite must have meaning. Otherwise, we’re in Humpty Dumpty land, where things mean whatever one wants them to mean.

I wipe my *** and pick my nose with my hand. COTT, kneeling, from a priest is a highly symbolic act. “Lord, I am not worthy to receive you …”. Replacing it with CITH, standing, from a laywoman offers no benefits that I can see, except mundane ones.

It’s a public rite. External actions are the rite. No one else present can see your inner disposition. They can certainly see what you’re doing outwardly. Changing the mode of reception makes no sense if you believe the Host is sacred; Jesus Himself.

Strip the Mass right down; remove Latin, chant, prayers, icons, statues, actions. Add in cheesy folk songs and pop instruments. Get the laity in plain-clothes up there. Stand up to receive Communion. Hold out your hand and get it from a neighbour.

A funny response to decadent, Satanic times.