Arguing about how to receive Holy Communion

[AlanFromWichita]

Seems like I remember the Holy Father addressing this:

“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)”

Alan

 

[choy]

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.

i hate to sound kinky in a religious site, but believe me one’s tongue gets a lot of mileage as well. there’s actually more bacteria in your mouth than in your hand.

also, you use your hand to prepare your food and eat, to pick up your child, hold a loved one, etc.

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.

we benefit from the Eucharist, not the other external signs associated with it

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.

that is just so wrong. the Mass isn’t about the externals. its a public gathering, yes, but i can’t believe a true Catholic would think its all about the externals. Jesus is against something thats merely externals, castigating the pharisees about praying in public and honoring God with only their lips, not their hearts.

 

[ProVobis]

…she did it in faith and was healed.

Which is what we say at the “Domine non sum dignus.” THREE TIMES.

… 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…
Alan

With this logic, we should just hold the Host and not consume Him, because if we consume, than, given 15 minutes or so, we’ve broken down all the accidents and separated ourselves from Him.

Weird logic.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

With this logic, we should just hold the Host and not consume Him, because if we consume, than, given 15 minutes or so, we’ve broken down all the accidents and separated ourselves from Him.

Weird logic.

I’m sorry. I’m really trying to understand your analogy.

Alan

 

[Layman]

• “That’s just your opinion” is not an argument.
• What an individual feels in a Mass does not override the external actions. A laymans feelings are irrelevant, I think, to the performance of the rite.
• People can be proud while kneeling, I suppose, but that’s kind of the idea; to get over that. How? By kneeling!
• Non-Catholics do attend our Masses. COTT, kneeling, from a priest gives a simple, visual lesson of What We Believe. No lecture needed.

 

[ProVobis]

Stand up to receive Communion. Hold out your hand and get it from a neighbour.

Sounds about as reverent as a block party.

 

[ProVobis]

…she did it in faith and was healed.

Which is what we say at the “Domine non sum dignus.” THREE TIMES.

 

[choy]

• “That’s just your opinion” is not an argument.
• What an individual feels in a Mass does not override the external actions. A laymans feelings are irrelevant, I think, to the performance of the rite.
• People can be proud while kneeling, I suppose, but that’s kind of the idea; to get over that. How? By kneeling!
• Non-Catholics do attend our Masses. COTT, kneeling, from a priest gives a simple, visual lesson of What We Believe. No lecture needed.

of course it does

if Mass is all about externals, then its all about symbolism
and that makes the Eucharist as a symbol
then that denies the Real Presence

even the Real Presence doesn’t rely on the externals. we see bread and wine where there is the body and blood of Jesus. the externals are bread and wine. that is why externals in a Mass are just secondary

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Before I saw two parts to the argument; the church side and the communicant side.

Now it just occurred to me there is a God side as well.

What would God think if He saw us receiving Him while standing – that we don’t have respect? Can He not judge everyone at the rail and standing as well?

What would God think if He saw us receiving Him while kneeling – that we do have respect? Can He not judge everyone at the rail and standing as well?

So there are three things at stake:

• Does God have a preference of how we receive?
• Does the Church have a preference of how we receive?
• How do individuals feel about how we receive?

I think this is important because we mix all these things up. If it is a rite about externals, then obviously the intended target for the rite is man, not God. By “target” I mean those people who benefit from executing the performance of the rite in a certain particular way.

My strong belief is that God is HUGELY more concerned with us loving each other than He is in us being “right” about the way we receive.

Alan

 

[Layman]

of course it does

if Mass is all about externals, then its all about symbolism
and that makes the Eucharist as a symbol
then that denies the Real Presence

even the Real Presence doesn’t rely on the externals. we see bread and wine where there is the body and blood of Jesus. the externals are bread and wine. that is why externals in a Mass are just secondary

We can’t see the internals. We go to a Mass in a public place and attend a public rite. We could, I suppose, sit still in our pews, in an empty room and just do a consecration, but how uplifting would that be? God doesn’t need to draw nearer to us. He is Omnipresent. We need to draw nearer to Him. A beautiful Mass replete with reverential actions, sonorous texts and Gregorian chant is one means to this end. Even someone who can’t read, or even hear, can be moved by it.

One of the outer actions of our rite has been drastically changed, for no good reason. In fact, 1955 - 2010 has seen a major iconoclasm in the Church. It doesn’t seem to have ushered in a new Springtime. The opposite has happened. So, time to try a tried-and-tested rite. Without personal modifications.

Still waiting to hear how changing an RC diocese over to CITH, standing, from a laywoman, helps us in our quest for sanctity. If externals are not so important, why change at all?

 

[ncjohn]

We can’t see the internals.

Which is exactly why we shouldn’t be judging externals in the first place. In fact we should be paying attention to nothing beyond our worship of God as we are receiving or preparing to receive. God makes clear in many places, both new and old testament, what He thinks about those judging based on externals.

All of this worry about what someone else is doing, or about what someone else thinks about what we’re doing, is a strong indication that we are not properly disposed to be at the communion rail at all. As previously mentioned it would seem that we are to listen at that point to the instruction that says that if we approach the altar and remember that we have a grudge against a brother that we are to first go reconcile with our brother and only then return to the altar.

Rather than worrying about thinking we can “instruct” a proper interior disposition it sounds like the REAL answer is that we need to instruct about not trying to judge people’s externals. If we’re going to go by externals neither Jesus nor St. Francis would even be welcome in our churches and that ragtag bunch of disciples would be very quickly sent packing if not worse.

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’m sorry, but of all the good reasons I’ve heard for either choice, this one is a total non-starter for me.

And lest we forget the one visible external…

They’ll know we are Christians by the way we love one another.

 

[nice2000]

4marks.com/articles/details.html?article_id=3839

Pope Benedict to Catholics: Kneel For Communion

“Whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the Body and of the Blood of the Lord… For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the Body of the Lord” - 1 Corinthians 11:27,28
Pope Benedict to Catholics:
Kneel and Receive on the Tongue Only
Pope Benedict XVI does not want the faithful receiving Communion in their hand nor does he want them standing to receive Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. According to Vatican liturgist, Monsignor Guido Marini, the pope is trying to set the stage for the whole church as to the proper norm for receiving Communion for which reason communicants at his papal Masses are now asked to kneel and receive on the tongue.
The Holy Father’s reasoning is simple: “We Christians kneel before the Blessed Sacrament because, therein, we know and believe to be the presence of the One True God.” (May 22, 2008)

According to the pope the entire Church should kneel in adoration before God in the Eucharist. “Kneeling in adoration before the Eucharist is the most valid and radical remedy against the idolatries of yesterday and today” (May 22, 2008)
The pope’s action is in accord with the Church’s 2000 year tradition and is being done in order to foster a renewed love and respect for the Eucharist which presently is being mocked and treated with contempt. The various trends and innovations of our time (guitar liturgy, altar girls, lay ministers, Communion in the hand) have worked together to destroy our regard for the Eucharist, thus advancing the spiritual death of the church. After all, the Eucharist is the very life and heartbeat of the Mystical Body around which the entire Church must revolve.

 

[floresco]

Which is exactly why we shouldn’t be judging externals in the first place. In fact we should be paying attention to nothing beyond our worship of God as we are receiving or preparing to receive. God makes clear in many places, both new and old testament, what He thinks about those judging based on externals.

This makes no sense to me. Judging externals is exactly what we are supposed to do. We cannot judge interior states, but we can discuss what is external.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

This makes no sense to me. Judging externals is exactly what we are supposed to do. We cannot judge interior states, but we can discuss what is external.

I’d say we can judge the externals in that we can determine whether they fit a prescribed formula. In other words, we can say, “that person waddled sideways when in line walking,” or “that person made a deep bow,” or whatever.

I submit one cannot look at another and say whether that person has respect or not, nor can one infer internals. One example near and dear to me; the person may have a mental illness and behave in ways you don’t expect, even while showing great respect in his/her own way.

Alan

 

[ncjohn]

This makes no sense to me. Judging externals is exactly what we are supposed to do. We cannot judge interior states, but we can discuss what is external.

There may certainly be cases where we are called to judge externals but not with regards to figuring out someone else’s devotion or relationship with God. To be “discussing” someone else’s externals as an indication of anything at all is nothing more than petty gossip since we can know absolutely nothing from it.

What would we possibly gain from judging someone’s dress or whether they kneel? Does it make us more reverent if we see someone else who appears to be reverent? Does it make us less reverent if we see some we judge to be irreverent? I would think that at most it allows us to feel superior to those we judge less reverent or possibly envious of those we see to be more so.

If judging someone to be irreverent on appearances is an indication that they are irreverent I would have had to refuse communion to the overwhelming majority of people under whose chins I put a paten as an altar boy at the TLM’s I attended growing up if it had been up to me.

I just don’t see a single thing to be gained by making such judgments and quite frankly I see us, as I noted previously, losing the proper disposition to even be approaching if we are spending our time at that moment looking to see what others are doing.

Maybe I’m missing something though. Can you tell me what you gain by judging someone more or less reverent and how that helps you be better prepared to meet the King of Kings?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

jinx

 

[floresco]

Maybe I’m missing something though. Can you tell me what you gain by judging someone more or less reverent and how that helps you be better prepared to meet the King of Kings?

Judging someone more or less reverent is not judging externals. It is judging an interior state. Judging externals would be something like saying that kneeling is by nature a more reverent action than turning cartwheels. There may be specific circumstances in which a person doing cartwheels is doing so with great reverence or a person kneeling is doing so with no reverence, so this isn’t a claim about specific people. It is a judgment about the nature of the actions.

 

[ncjohn]

Judging someone more or less reverent is not judging externals. It is judging an interior state. Judging externals would be something like saying that kneeling is by nature a more reverent action than turning cartwheels. There may be specific circumstances in which a person doing cartwheels is doing so with great reverence or a person kneeling is doing so with no reverence, so this isn’t a claim about specific people. It is a judgment about the nature of the actions.

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?

Does the unknown abortionist become more or less acceptable because he kneels and has on a coat and tie? Or to use Alan’s example, does the fact that the person with a mental illness mumbles and sways back and forth make any difference?

I’m just at a loss at what purpose you think judging the externals–actions or whatever–serves? No matter what it is one is looking at it still seems to me that one is distracted from being fully focused on what one is about to do, or has just done. And I just can’t find any gain to be had from it other than being able to compare.

In saying all that I’m not commenting that I believe that proper signs and actions shouldn’t be taken according to established rubrics, or implying some sort of anything goes attitude. Nor am I condoning people dressing or acting inappropriately. I am simply commenting on the fact that we need to get away from letting such things distract us and from making judgments about the people which can only involve us speculating as to WHY and then internally answering our own questions. We can claim we’re only looking at the externals but the truth is that once we do we’re going to start assigning labels to the internals based on what we perceive the reason to be.

I think we can be better than that.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Judging someone more or less reverent is not judging externals. It is judging an interior state. Judging externals would be something like saying that kneeling is by nature a more reverent action than turning cartwheels. There may be specific circumstances in which a person doing cartwheels is doing so with great reverence or a person kneeling is doing so with no reverence, so this isn’t a claim about specific people. It is a judgment about the nature of the actions.

Personally I think doing cartwheels is a great sign for the love of God, but in a Communion line they can be dangerous. If the Church comes down and dictates that kneeling is more reverent than cartwheels, then it is so. I don’t see that as an “obvious” conclusion in any absolute sense. We agree that no internals can be measured via externals, so to say that a particular performance correlates to the interior quality of “reverence” so I don’t understand.

The only thing I can do is judge whether the external behavior fits a particular mold. IOW, “I’ll give that guy an 9 because of his reverent walk but that one gets a 2 because he failed to make an obvious enough gesture of humility and respect.” Again, like John asked, what’s the point?

To be objective, one must have objective criteria, and one must not read any meaning into the criteria other than the criteria themselves.

At this point, I’m not asking for agreement, but just to know if what I’m saying makes any sense to anyone but John and me.

Peace and joy,
Alan

 

[choy]

We can’t see the internals.

but God can
do we go to mass so we can show off to other people our kneeling and praying and all that? didn’t Jesus call out the pharisees for showing off without the proper internal reverence?

besides, is the Mass a visual feast for other people, or a solemn prayer and offering to God?

We go to a Mass in a public place and attend a public rite. We could, I suppose, sit still in our pews, in an empty room and just do a consecration, but how uplifting would that be? God doesn’t need to draw nearer to us. He is Omnipresent. We need to draw nearer to Him. A beautiful Mass replete with reverential actions, sonorous texts and Gregorian chant is one means to this end. Even someone who can’t read, or even hear, can be moved by it.

our closeness to God has nothing to do with physical location. our closeness or separation to God depends on our disposition. are our minds and hearts in tune with God, in communion with Him? or have we turned our hearts and mind off from God and desire the physical world and its pleasures more. this is what separates us from God, and its not a physical separation that can be compensated by omnipresence

One of the outer actions of our rite has been drastically changed, for no good reason. In fact, 1955 - 2010 has seen a major iconoclasm in the Church. It doesn’t seem to have ushered in a new Springtime. The opposite has happened. So, time to try a tried-and-tested rite. Without personal modifications.

Still waiting to hear how changing an RC diocese over to CITH, standing, from a laywoman, helps us in our quest for sanctity. If externals are not so important, why change at all?

standing, 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?