Arguing about how to receive Holy Communion

[choy]

• 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?

does God care about ornaments or does He care more about the hearts of people? would more statues and stained glass inside a Church make one inside that Church holier?

besides, i’m not saying we do away with the externals. i’m saying they’re secondary

- 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.

its not my decision to make the change nor do i have the authority to. i just follow the Church. we can say anything we want, but nothing will change the facts that the Church allows these things you don’t agree with. and as long as the Church allows it, they are acceptable to God. the Bishops have the power and authority to bind and loose on earth and they will be the same way in heaven. such is their authority. we only follow.

and you can’t disregard the Eastern Rites. because the words you use would mean a global condemnation of such practices. but such practices occur somewhere else in our Church. we are one Church. one can’t be bad in the Roman Church and be good in, say, the Byzantine Church. we’re not different faiths praying to different Gods. if one mode of reception is acceptable in one Church, it should be good in all of the Churches. it may be illicit by the Rite, but not invalid

 

[Layman]

Internal reverence does not trump external reverence in a public, communal rite of propitiation of a wrathful God. We’re all hoping the attenders are internally reverent but we can’t police that.

We can set up the conditions whereby those attending can worship reverently. COTT, kneeling, from a priest is one of those conditions. The Mass is organised, communal, public worship, not ‘do what you feel is right’.

To the individual attender, what other people are feeling internally is irrelevant but what they are doing is significant. They can see and hear it. As can Jesus.

What message is the RC Church sending to Him by changing from receving Him, kneeling, on the tongue, to Him being handed out by laypeople?

The Eastern Rites argument is another example, like versus-populum, the vernacular, altar girls and EMHCs, of the exception becoming the rule. Was it ever done anywhere, at any time, in any rite in the Church’s history? Then let it be done now, in the Roman Catholic rite, if it suits the current appetite for novelty.

But not the TLM, curiously. Older trads will tell you stories of indifference and opposition to having that Mass said. Curious, given the enthusiasm for folk and Charismatic masses and the like. You’d think the hierarchy would welcome Cahtolics actively wanting to attend a Mass.

Once again, ‘the Church allows it’ is no argument for CITH, especially given how it got established. It can be done, but why should an RC diocese be changed over to this practice?

There are fashions in the Church’s history: Arianism, Jansenism. These were eventually condemned. ‘The Church’ allows it is not a reason to promote it. There shoud be other reasons. I’m waiting to hear them.

 

[ProVobis]

The Eastern Rites argument is another example, like versus-populum, the vernacular, altar girls and EMHCs, of the exception becoming the rule. Was it ever done anywhere, at any time, in any rite in the Church’s history? Then let it be done now, in the Roman Catholic rite, if it suits the current appetite for novelty.

You’re right about that. The Eastern Rites and the early Church argument. As always, there are circumstances built into the “allowed” practices, depending on culture, disposition, pressure, perceived reverence, abuse, persecution, schism, and just plain snottiness. I guess it wouldn’t bother me if I saw good intentions from everyone but I guess I can’t help but see a lot of “See now I can touch the Host, so there!” attitudes being written over their faces and I feel I have to say something. What they’re treating merely as a legal issue, I take seriously as a religious and Divine Law issue.

We know in the early church, they took communion in the hand. But did everyone? Why was it discontinued? Wasn’t there also a cloth on the communion rail? Was the practice exactly the same as it is today? Did everyone in church receive? Did everyone fast for just an hour beforehand? Did people walk out of the church right after they chewed the Host like a snack? A lot of questions have to be asked before one can use the “Well they did it over there so I should be able to do it over here” justification. It simply doesn’t work that way in life. What’s profane and sacrilegious in one culture isn’t necessarily profane and sacrilegious in another culture and that’s the real bottom line here.

 

[choy]

Internal reverence does not trump external reverence in a public, communal rite of propitiation of a wrathful God. We’re all hoping the attenders are internally reverent but we can’t police that.

of course it does
do you mean a person receiving COTT and kneeling but is thinking about the World Cup is more reverent than the person receiving CITH and standing but his mind is totally affixed on Jesus Christ?

We can set up the conditions whereby those attending can worship reverently. COTT, kneeling, from a priest is one of those conditions. The Mass is organised, communal, public worship, not ‘do what you feel is right’.

it is not for us to judge one’s reverence anyone. we attend Mass for God and for ourselves, not to show off to the other people. thats just posturing and Jesus is clearly against posturing. i know i don’t have to quote the verses, you know where they are

To the individual attender, what other people are feeling internally is irrelevant but what they are doing is significant. They can see and hear it. As can Jesus.

the Father in heaven sees in secret
Jesus can hear what others cannot hear
why is there a need for others to see and hear? again, Jesus is against praying for the sake of letting other people hear and see

What message is the RC Church sending to Him by changing from receving Him, kneeling, on the tongue, to Him being handed out by laypeople?

is the Eucharist about sending a message to Jesus? i was under the impression that it was about communion with Him

The Eastern Rites argument is another example, like versus-populum, the vernacular, altar girls and EMHCs, of the exception becoming the rule. Was it ever done anywhere, at any time, in any rite in the Church’s history? Then let it be done now, in the Roman Catholic rite, if it suits the current appetite for novelty.

i’m comparing with the Eastern Rites because some of what you object to is something some of the Eastern Churches has done since the beginning

But not the TLM, curiously. Older trads will tell you stories of indifference and opposition to having that Mass said. Curious, given the enthusiasm for folk and Charismatic masses and the like. You’d think the hierarchy would welcome Cahtolics actively wanting to attend a Mass.

Once again, ‘the Church allows it’ is no argument for CITH, especially given how it got established. It can be done, but why should an RC diocese be changed over to this practice?

and why not? the Church has authority, what it allows and disallows in our faith practice is what we follow and what we cannot deny. a lot of people don’t agree with many things the Catholic Church teaches, but she has the authority in matters of faith if she set loose something on earth, it will be as it is in heaven. how can we deny that?

There are fashions in the Church’s history: Arianism, Jansenism. These were eventually condemned. ‘The Church’ allows it is not a reason to promote it. There shoud be other reasons. I’m waiting to hear them.

for one thing, CITH is the original practice of reception and the Church has allowed to go back to this early tradition

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I trust the following doesn’t apply to this situation:
Matt 23:24-28:

Blind guides, who strain out the gnat and swallow the camel! "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You cleanse the outside of cup and dish, but inside they are full of plunder and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee, cleanse first the inside of the cup, so that the outside also may be clean. "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You are like whitewashed tombs, which appear beautiful on the outside, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and every kind of filth. Even so, on the outside you appear righteous, but inside you are filled with hypocrisy and evildoing.

( I’m not arguing … I’m just quoting unrelated scripture. )

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I understand the need for tradition. Tradition is a device that helps people continue on doing something for generations.

But if we bicker about it, it means that what’s important to God, the inside, is lost. Who can read the following and still justify bickering over this – even if one believes he is “objectively” correct?
Rom 14:1-19:

Welcome anyone who is weak in faith, but not for disputes over opinions. One person believes that one may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. The one who eats must not despise the one who abstains, and the one who abstains must not pass judgment on the one who eats; for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on someone else’s servant? Before his own master he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. (For) one person considers one day more important than another, while another person considers all days alike. Let everyone be fully persuaded in his own mind. Whoever observes the day, observes it for the Lord. Also whoever eats, eats for the Lord, since he gives thanks to God; while whoever abstains, abstains for the Lord and gives thanks to God. None of us lives for oneself, and no one dies for oneself. For if we live, we live for the Lord, 3 and if we die, we die for the Lord; so then, whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s.

For this is why Christ died and came to life, that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living. Why then do you judge your brother? Or you, why do you look down on your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God; for it is written: “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bend before me, and every tongue shall give praise to God.” So (then) each of us shall give an account of himself (to God).

Then let us no longer judge one another, but rather resolve never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; still, it is unclean for someone who thinks it unclean. If your brother is being hurt by what you eat, your conduct is no longer in accord with love. Do not because of your food destroy him for whom Christ died.

So do not let your good be reviled. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of food and drink, but of righteousness, peace, and joy in the holy Spirit; whoever serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by others. Let us 4 then pursue what leads to peace and to building up one another.

Maybe we should trust the Church to handle it. Do we not have confidence in the pope to handle his bishops properly?

Now, kidding aside, I am arguing in the meta-argument that is the OP topic.

Alan

 

[choy]

[Once again, ‘the Church allows it’ is no argument for CITH, especially given how it got established. It can be done, but why should an RC diocese be changed over to this practice?

to add to this, does it really matter what the arguments are for or against CITH is? bottom line is, the Church allows it and any arguing doesn’t change that fact. unless the Church itself changes her position on the matter, any argument about it is just hot air. bottom line is, its allowed, does it have to be a longer argument? does coming up with a Vatican Archives amount of arguments for or against it will change that fact?
[/quote]

 

[floresco]

to add to this, does it really matter what the arguments are for or against CITH is? bottom line is, the Church allows it and any arguing doesn’t change that fact. unless the Church itself changes her position on the matter, any argument about it is just hot air. bottom line is, its allowed, does it have to be a longer argument? does coming up with a Vatican Archives amount of arguments for or against it will change that fact?

Try to imagine yourself being a person who believes that COTT is objectively better. Although you would know that both options are allowed, don’t you think that you would want to persuade people to follow what you believed to be the better practice?

Perhaps what you are perceiving as arguing is people trying to persuade others. Let’s say that someone was trying to convince you to join your parish choir. This person might tell you all the reasons why being in the choir is a good and explain all its spiritual benefits to you and to others. He very well might tell you that it is better to be in the choir. If you were to say to this person, “The Church allows people not to be in choirs. There is no point in arguing with me about this,” would it make sense?

There is a difference between “allowed” and “better”. They are two different concepts. If someone is talking to you about “better” it is irrelevant to tell them what is allowed.

 

[Layman]

This is the Traditional Catholicism sub-forum. As CITH is not part of traditional Roman Catholicism it shouldn’t really take up so much space here, but it comes up regularly as a topic. So we debate.

No one can see your internal reverence.
How you pray in private affects no one, except you.
But, if we are to worship together in public, how should we do it?
Everyone do his own thing? No. That would be chaos. So we have order. We have ritual. We have symbolic acts.

**What form should that order take? **

This is what we are debating here. What are we to do in a public, communal rite, intended to propitiate God by representing the Sacrifice of His Son, preceded by His Last Meal on Earth?

Jesus is present in the Host. You are arguing that it does not matter that we changed from receiving Him, kneeling. I have argued that a wonderful opportunity, to express humilty before Him, before God and man, has been lost.

Now, combine that with:

Dumping Latin;
Dumping ancient hymns;
Removing the division between the sacred space and the rest of the church;
Letting lay people in the sanctuary in mundane clothing;
Adding folksy, banal hymns;
Dropping beautiful prayers;
Shifting feasts;
Letting unvested lay people read fom the pulpit;
Even, God help us, wrecking altars …

And you have all the ingredients of a prolonged iconoclasm. An act of destruction. And after 40 years of this, what do we have? A ‘faithful’ who, despite all the emphasis on ‘catechesis’ and lay involvement, are more ignorant of their faith than their forefathers.

COTT, kneeling is also a simple, visual, lesson that that The Host Is Important. Change over to CITH and the only logical conclusion is that the Host is now less important or we laity are now more holy.

Which, in truth, is what now occurs at N.O. Masses. Casual behaviour in the sanctuary and the laity much more to the forefront.

I’ve been to Latin Masses for two years now. I have a Liber Usualis and a simple Latin Missal. I’ve been to and sung at Missa Cantatas, including the Easter Triduum. The average Catholic has no idea of what they’re missing or how the faithful have been sold a pup in the Novus Ordo Mass.

And, Alan, that ‘Pharisee’ quote: it’s amazing how often that’s flung at posters in this sub-forum. It’s not new. Also: Argumentem Ad Hominem is sophistry.

Understand: a seismic change has occured in Roman Catholicism since 1955. It fruits have been rotten. One silly or outrageous modification after another. **Time for a counter-reformation. **

 

[Ockham]

All the CITH defenders have is a quote from St Cyril 1800 years ago and “it’s approved”. Well, guess what? God gives us Free Will. He gives us the opportunity to make choices. Some choices are good, some bad; some better than others. The case for COTT has been made quite well and if after reading it is one still prefers CITH then go ahead. The facts speak for themselves. The “Traditional Catholic” forum on this site has … guess what… Traditional Catholics. Traditional Catholics know the difference between CITH and COTT and choose the latter. They do so for very good reasons unlike their counterparts. If those reasons upset you then the charitable thing to do is work that out personally rather than coming in here and venting frustrations.

 

[ncjohn]

They do so for very good reasons unlike their counterparts.

Unfortunately, this is exactly the sort of statement that flies in the face of both reality and charity.

People who receive COTT have good reasons for doing so and I commend them. To make the assumption that those who receive CITH do not have good reasons, or that the only reasons are “because they can” or “because it’s allowed” or imply that they are just inherently less reverent is just so far beyond reason as to numb the mind. It is the epitome of making judgments about people based on externals, which I truly thought we had gotten past earlier. You really harm your credibility making such statements when it is abundantly clear that we can make no judgments whatsoever about motivation or disposition based on the external form of reception.

ProVobis:

What’s profane and sacrilegious in one culture isn’t necessarily profane and sacrilegious in another culture and that’s the real bottom line here.

While I doubt that it was meant to be read this way, I actually fully agree with your conclusion here and it is the very summation of why the “objectively better” argument just doesn’t wash. For something to be objectively better it has to be better across cultures and across time. If it is objectively better for Roman Catholics it has to be objectively better for all Catholics and the Church would have to be arguing against the practices of the Eastern Catholics that are even older than those that the traditionalists prefer. It would have to be objectively better at different times during the Church’s history, which of course is also untrue since the method of reception has had different norms throughout the Church’s history, even if COTT was the most recent.

The simple fact of the matter is that the mode of reception is a discipline and disciplines are entirely changeable at any time. Something that is an objective truth cannot be changeable or it is, by definition, not objectively true. Celibacy is a longstanding tradition within the Roman church but is not “objectively better” than married priests. Again you have different norms during the Church’s history and different norms within the Church itself as it currently stands. And please don’t give me the “we don’t care what the Eastern Church does”, as if Eastern Catholics are somehow not really Catholics and don’t count, making their equally longstanding traditons (many of them longer than Roman ones) irrelevant.

I’m sorry but I just don’t buy that the Church would have ever accepted something it felt was “objectively inferior”. How it got accepted is ultimately irrelevant, not that the end justifies the means but because it was indeed accepted and promulgated by the Pope. I’m sure the opposition was based on legitimate concerns but I’m equally sure that had those legitimate concerns come to fruition that the Church would have pulled the plug immediately. That could well happen at some point in the future and if it does I’m sure we’ll just do whatever is instructed at the time.

Again though, the point is that making judgments about reverence from externals has no meaning since the reverence is ultimately internal and that cannot be seen or ascertained. While those who receive CITH have given their reasons why, though they owe them to nobody and those hearing them tend to just blow them off as unacceptable, in the end they should be able to receive in the way they feel most connected to God from without having to have people “clucking” in the background instead of minding their own business and focusing on their own interior disposition.

Layman:

I have argued that a wonderful opportunity, to express humilty before Him, before God and man, has been lost.

And I would argue that much has been gained. We now have at least two different ways for people to express that humility, not to mention other ways such as intinction and the many differernt ways in the Eastern Churches. I rejoice that people are still coming for that opportunity and will make the assumption that just by being there they are at least trying to be pleasing to God rather than throw the stumbling blocks of argument and judgment at them.

I truly find it disappointing that the argument aspect continues rather than trying to find meaningful ways to sharpen our focus on what we’re really there for.

Peace,

 

[AlanFromWichita]

And, Alan, that ‘Pharisee’ quote: it’s amazing how often that’s flung at posters in this sub-forum. It’s not new. Also: Argumentem Ad Hominem is sophistry.

It’s not new, but it was inspired by the insistence that externals are more important than internals.

Do you agree that internals are more important to God than externals? If you do, than I totally withdraw the use of the quote, which was aimed at behavior, not ad hominem. The behavior is specifically the insistence that externals are more important than internals. How does the scripture quote not apply?

Alan

 

[floresco]

People who receive COTT have good reasons for doing so and I commend them. To make the assumption that those who receive CITH do not have good reasons, or that the only reasons are “because they can” or “because it’s allowed” . . .

As far as I can tell, “because it’s allowed” is reason that the CITH apologists give most often in these discussions. It isn’t an assumption to the say this is a reason. It’s an observation.

For something to be objectively better it has to be better across cultures and across time. If it is objectively better for Roman Catholics it has to be objectively better for all Catholics and the Church would have to be arguing against the practices of the Eastern Catholics that are even older than those that the traditionalists prefer. It would have to be objectively better at different times during the Church’s history, which of course is also untrue since the method of reception has had different norms throughout the Church’s history, even if COTT was the most recent.

The simple fact of the matter is that the mode of reception is a discipline and disciplines are entirely changeable at any time. Something that is an objective truth cannot be changeable or it is, by definition, not objectively true. Celibacy is a longstanding tradition within the Roman church but is not “objectively better” than married priests. Again you have different norms during the Church’s history and different norms within the Church itself as it currently stands. And please don’t give me the “we don’t care what the Eastern Church does”, as if Eastern Catholics are somehow not really Catholics and don’t count, making their equally longstanding traditons (many of them longer than Roman ones) irrelevant.

You continue to misunderstand the definition of “objective”. It has been posted (#157, as I recall). Please reread it. “Objective” does not mean eternal or unchangeable. It means observable rather than based on personal feelings. For example, it is an objective fact that the 1983 Code of Canon Law does not contain any canons about women covering their heads. It is objective because anyone who reads the CCC can see this for himself. I like the custom of women covering their heads. That is a subjective fact. It is based on personal feelings. Neither of these of these facts is unchangeable. The 1917 Code did have a canon about head-covering. At one time I was indifferent to the custom. The objective/subjective distinction has nothing to do with whether things change.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I have thought of a situation in which the Bible addresses externals.
Matt 6:16-18:

“When you fast, do not look gloomy like the hypocrites. They neglect their appearance, so that they may appear to others to be fasting. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, so that you may not appear to be fasting, except to your Father who is hidden. And your Father who sees what is hidden will repay you.”

I think it is safe to say that this particular exhortation to make good on externals does not apply to receiving Communion.

Therefore it is without reservation that I claim internals are objectively more important to God than externals.

Alan

edit: P.S. this thread may be in the traditional catholic section because it addresses traditional catholic issues, but I’m sure there is not a one poster who’s been around this section for more than a day, who doesn’t realize that a thread marked “Arguing about how to receive Holy Communion” is going to include arguments from CITH and “free choice” apologists. I’m sure that if CITH-opposers didn’t bother to respond, they’d go away. Yes, that’s it: scrollll on down into oblivion!

 

[floresco]

Therefore it is without reservation that I claim internals are objectively more important to God than externals.

In general, internals are more important the externals. But there are specific circumstances in which it is important to pay attention to externals. For example, when King Solomon built the temple , he was given instructions on measurements and design and materials. Everyone knew that this building was for the purpose of honouring God. Everything was made to be as precious and beautiful as they knew how. And God was pleased with the Temple.

Later Jesus came and taught people to worship God in spirit and in truth, but it was nevertheless right for the Temple builders to have put their best efforts in their external way of honouring God.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

In general, internals are more important the externals. But there are specific circumstances in which it is important to pay attention to externals. For example, when King Solomon built the temple , he was given instructions on measurements and design and materials. Everyone knew that this building was for the purpose of honouring God. Everything was made to be as precious and beautiful as they knew how. And God was pleased with the Temple.

Later Jesus came and taught people to worship God in spirit and in truth, but it was nevertheless right for the Temple builders to have put their best efforts in their external way of honouring God.

OK, you make some good points. Externals should not be ignored, is where I’m willing to go so far. I might even say they should not be “downplayed.”

It seems it’s like a particular play that is enacted by a choreographer, and it’s supposed to look a certain way. If it doesn’t, the play comes off poorly. This says nothing about the internal dispositions of the actors, although there is likely to be some sign that shows that a sufficiently sensitive observer could pick up – but with caution.

I am all for discussing the Communion issue at this level; I don’t consider it arguing.

Peace and joy,
Alan

 

[Layman]

It’s not new, but it was inspired by the insistence that externals are more important than internals.

Do you agree that internals are more important to God than externals? If you do, than I totally withdraw the use of the quote, which was aimed at behavior, not ad hominem. The behavior is specifically the insistence that externals are more important than internals. How does the scripture quote not apply?

Alan

It doesn’t apply becuase without ‘externals’, there is no Mass.

 

[choy]

Try to imagine yourself being a person who believes that COTT is objectively better. Although you would know that both options are allowed, don’t you think that you would want to persuade people to follow what you believed to be the better practice?

Perhaps what you are perceiving as arguing is people trying to persuade others. Let’s say that someone was trying to convince you to join your parish choir. This person might tell you all the reasons why being in the choir is a good and explain all its spiritual benefits to you and to others. He very well might tell you that it is better to be in the choir. If you were to say to this person, “The Church allows people not to be in choirs. There is no point in arguing with me about this,” would it make sense?

There is a difference between “allowed” and “better”. They are two different concepts. If someone is talking to you about “better” it is irrelevant to tell them what is allowed.

persuading people to believe what i believe in is one thing
denigrating people who prefer a different practice than one that i do is another thing

my stand has always been, there’s two ways today that the Church allows in most areas for reception of the Eucharist. do what each one feels to be the most reverent for them. i don’t think making people feel bad about a practice they do that is allowed by the Church is a good way to persuade people.

 

[Layman]

Unfortunately, this is exactly the sort of statement that flies in the face of both reality and charity.

What’s uncharitable about debating the demerits of CITH?

People who receive COTT have good reasons for doing so and I commend them.

** And what are these good reasons? I’ve asked for these many times.**

… in the end they should be able to receive in the way they feel most connected to God from without having to have people “clucking” in the background instead of minding their own business and focusing on their own interior disposition.

It’s a public rite, with rules. We’re discussing those here. No one can see your inner disposition. We can see outer behaviour.

And I would argue that much has been gained. We now have at least two different ways for people to express that humility, not to mention other ways such as intinction and the many differernt ways in the Eastern Churches.

How is changing to receiving standing up, from the hand of a layperson, a way of expressing humility?

I rejoice that people are still coming for that opportunity and will make the assumption that just by being there they are at least trying to be pleasing to God rather than throw the stumbling blocks of argument and judgment at them.

I truly find it disappointing that the argument aspect continues rather than trying to find meaningful ways to sharpen our focus on what we’re really there for.

Peace,

It’s … the … traditional … Roman … Catholic … internet … discussion … sub-forum.

Also:

We’re Roman Catholics. Just because something is done, in a different, Eastern rite, is no reason for it to be plucked out of context and adopted by us.

 

[choy]

This is the Traditional Catholicism sub-forum. As CITH is not part of traditional Roman Catholicism it shouldn’t really take up so much space here, but it comes up regularly as a topic. So we debate.

and moreover, this is a Catholic forum. Catholics shouldn’t be bashing other Catholics, which seems to be a theme for some especially in this subforum

No one can see your internal reverence.
How you pray in private affects no one, except you.

God sees internal reverence. and He’s the only one we should be concerned about. if i’m at Mass, my focus is on the altar. i’m not scouting people around me seeing what they do.