Arguing about how to receive Holy Communion

[Layman]

like i said in my other post, i don’t see anything wrong in someone saying COTT is better. there isn’t really. but oftentimes when one defends COTT as better, it involves in denigrating CITH, which of course is a spit in the face of those who practice CITH as well as the Church who allows it. if COTT is inherently better as you say it is, then that point can be made without saying anything negative about CITH. COTT being better should be able to speak for itself

This is just silly. We shouldn’t say anything bad about CITH, because if we do we’re denigrating CITH fans? “Spit in the face?”. That’s really over-egging the pudding.

I think I see the trick here: ‘Charity’ means not saying, or even implying, at a stretch, anything bad about anybody.

 

[ncjohn]

From the perspective of a person who is looking for objective reasons, there are no good reasons for CITH.

Which is of course a totally subjective opinion. In fact there are no “objective” reasons supporting either way. They are each nothing more than preferences based on which one is perceived to be more reverent. Unfortunately reverence itself is subjective and varies from person to person, culture to culture, and era to era.

What I have said is that COTT is objectively better. As I have explained before, what I mean by this is that it is better based on objective criteria. In other words, it is not subjective. I am not saying that it feels better to me. I am saying that there are observable facts which lead me to the conclusion that it is better. When I use “objective” in this context, it is precisely to contrast it with “subjective”. I have never claimed to be stating an absolute and timeless truth.

---

Objective truth, like absolute truth, is not dependent on personal experiences. This does mean they are the same thing. Absolute truth is timeless and unchangeable. Objective truth is not necessarily so. This is not part of its definition. It is possible to be both objective and changeable. I gave an example in an earlier post. You are conflating two different concepts.

That was not MY definition. It is the accepted definition of objective truth. You are welcome to try to define it any way you want but objective truth is indeed timeless and unchangeable. We don’t get to say that something is objectively true because we define it to be so outside of the reality of its meaning.

Even “objective facts” that can readily be “seen” aren’t always actually true. Ask any prosecutor about the reliability of eyewitness testimony. Try to explain to a child who sees the sky as objectively “blue” that it really isn’t blue at all. Many things cloud our vision, whether it is literally our sight or whether it is the vision of our experience. Without meaning to single out or insult traditionalists, there does seem to be a much greater tendency for them to assign objective superiority to many aspects of their preferences. COTT vs CITH, kneeling vs standing, Latin vs vernacular, old music vs currently-composed music, the role of lay people in the liturgy, ad infinitum. Hopefully we do all feel that what we’re doing is reverent or we wouldn’t be doing it. That doesn’t mean though that OUR preference and perception is objectively superior to that of anyone else’s.

It is possible for something to be objective and changeable. For example it is objectively true that at the moment I am sitting at my desk. In five minutes that will likely not be true. A belief or a practice, however, cannot be objectively true unless it is applicable across the population and time. It might be objectively true that you currently believe something but that does not in any way make it objectively true.

For instance if you take a look at this video youtube.com/watch?v=YPlB20a0CQw you’ll see lots of things you would believe to be objectively true based on what you “see” but which are in fact nothing more than illusions. That is because we see what we have been trained to see and at times overcoming that training, which we believe to be objectively true, is very difficult. If the premise that we use as the foundation to arrive at a conclusion of objective truth is faulty, the conclusion itself cannot be trusted to be objective. This particular topic just has too many lenses filtering things to be able to arrive at an “objective” conclusion because not only are the lenses different, the object itself has changed over time.

That all may seem like subtle differences of splitting hairs but it truly isn’t and within theology and philosphy those are basic understandings. A discipline that can be changed cannot be an objective truth, period. If it was an objective truth it could not be changed. You could not have the possibility that a Pope could come in tomorrow and abrogate COTT or make CITH the norm, or adopt one of the Eastern practices as the norm, and still claim that one of them is “objectively better.”

 

[choy]

This is just silly. We shouldn’t say anything bad about CITH, because if we do we’re denigrating CITH fans? “Spit in the face?”. That’s really over-egging the pudding.

I think I see the trick here: ‘Charity’ means not saying, or even implying, at a stretch, anything bad about anybody.

but thats the truth. oftentimes people who practice CITH are stereotyped by some of the Traditionalists. i’ve responded to a post earlier when one describes why one receives CITH. and my reaction? not one of those statements describe me, so how can that person (can’t remember it could even be you) conclusively say thats what the mentallity of people receiving CITH is? i don’t even know a person who thinks that way

and why do you want to say bad about someone who’s doing something that is not bad? its not like CITH is not allowed by the Church at all. if one person is doing an abuse then by all means call out the abuse. castigate the person. but don’t call out someone and castigate them for doing something that is valid

 

[choy]

I have no problem at all with someone who has never known any other way to receive other than ITH.

What I don’t understand is how a Roman Catholic who …

1. truly believes in the Real Presence
2. has been informed CITH was born of a total disregard of centuries of the norm by those who didn’t even get Rome’s permission to do so
3. has been informed it was rejected by a strong majority of the Bishops of the Church when asked

…can continue receiving CITH “because we can”. I just don’t get it.

thing is, people who receive CITH don’t see a difference between CITH and COTT. most of the time its a hygene thing as priests inadvertenly touch people’s tongues. and i’ve heard of priests who prefer to distribute CITH because they get bitten a lot

all these accusations of people not believing in the Real Presence and other agendas really are just baseless speculation. its not like there weren’t any people pre-V2 who received kneeling on altar rails and OTT who didn’t believe in the Real Presence.

Cardinal Arinze said we should “crawl” to approach the Most Blessed Sacrament.

that is his opinion. being who he is, if he really thinks that is the way we should receive then it will be implemented universally in the Church. given there’s no changes to any Church document on the matter, it means that there is no official prescription to do so

Listen to this Bishop tear the “at one time, it was allowed” argument to pieces.

newliturgicalmovement.org/2008/03/as-bishop-i-cannot-be-silent.html

Once the Church determined how precious a gift Christ The King gave us, it determined only the hands of the ordained may touch the Blessed Sacrament.

It’s very simple. We really should take the hint from H.H. BXVI.

according to the Church herself, thats not the case. you know where in the documents they are, i don’t need to quote it for the Nth time

 

[BettyM]

I’ve been reading the posts where people are arguing over how to receive Holy Communion and it breaks my heart to see this. I’m even afraid to comment for fear that I will be attacked since it’s happened before. Why fellow Catholics do this to each other, and treat each other uncharitably, I don’t know. But anyways, I wanted to share the following information:

This excerpt is from the book, " 7 Secrets of the Eucharist " by Vinny Flynn; Introduction by Fr. Mitch Pacwa, S.J.; published by MercySong, Inc. in collaboration with Ignatius Press, pg. 12-13:

 "Pope Benedict XVI also discusses this issue of how to receive, emphasizing that, instead of arguing about whether it's better to receive kneeling or standing, in the hand or on the tongue, we need to focus on the spirit of reverence with which the early Fathers of the Church received Communion.

 "First urging priests to 'exercise tolerance and to recognize the decision of each person,' he goes on to ask everyone 'to exercise the same tolerance and not to cast aspersions on anyone who may have opted for this or that way of doing it.'  What is important is reverence:

      "It is quite wrong to argue about this or that form of behavior.  We should be concerned only to argue in favor of...a reverence in the heart, an inner submission before the mystery of God."

Notes, Sources and References, page 111-112:

 " '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)"

Our parish allows both. You may either receive COTT or CITH. Probably during communion we should be concentrating on what we are doing rather than how the other person is receiving communion.

That said, I do prefer COTT and recently read on another post where someone said they had crumbs on their hands after receiving the host and they had fell to the floor and didn’t know what to do. This very issue was brought up at our parish once about what we do with our hands after we receive CITH. We touch the pews. We touch our clothes and whatever. There could be pieces of the host on our hands and those pieces are the body and blood of our Lord.

I wonder over the years, so many people, so many crumbs. How much has been lost.

I guess what I would say is if you receive CITH be very aware of pieces that could be left on your hand but I know you could be very reverent either way.

I would also love to see the communion rails returned, but I think alot of the problem is time. It would take longer. People don’t like it when Mass is long. We are a too busy society today. That is why there are so many EM at Mass. Don’t hold up the line. Move along. People have other things to do on Sundays. Sports and shopping are taking away our day with the Lord and our feeling of reverence of what is going on.

I also, think peole do tend to get a little defensive on this post but when it comes to something that means so much to you, you get a little defensive. The host is Jesus and when you have a close relationship with someone you want to defend them. It’s not just about how you take bread and wine. It is about how you take Jesus as close as you can.

 

[ProVobis]

The host is Jesus and when you have a close relationship with someone you want to defend them. It’s not just about how you take bread and wine. It is about how you take Jesus as close as you can.

Yes, this is one of the conditions necessary to allow the practice, if I’m not mistaken.

Interestingly enough, there is a tradition among the Poles in exchanging the opłatek on Christmas.

Christmas wafer (Polish: opłatek, plural opłatki; Lithuanian: kalėdaitis) is a Central European Christian Christmas tradition celebrated in Polish, Slovak, Lithuanian and Italian families during Wigilia (Christmas Eve Vigil).

The unleavened wafers are baked from pure wheat flour and water, are usually rectangular in shape and very thin; they are identical in composition to the Host used during a Catholic mass however, they are not consecrated. Wafers are embossed with Christmas related religious images, varying from the nativity scene, especially Virgin Mary with baby Jesus, to the Star of Bethlehem.

Family members and friends break off a small piece of the opłatek wafer and give it to one another along with a blessing. Breaking off and exchanging part of opłatek with someone is symbol of forgiveness between two people and is meant to remind participants of the importance of Christmas, God, and family.

A sample blessing can take the form of “I wish you much health, happiness and the Lord’s bountiful blessings as well as the fulfillment of all your plans and everything you wish for yourself.” or just wishing good grades to a child and good health to your parents. It is also common to put a “shared part” into the envelope while you’re sending Christmas card to someone close to You so that during Christmas Eve supper someone could share it with You as well as those personally present…

The tradition of sharing the wafer is one of the rich variety of traditions that Poles still celebrate during Christmas Eve Supper which is the most elegant and pompous evening in the whole year.

The tradition traces its origins to the times of early Christianity (see Antidoron) and is seen as a non-sacramental foreshadowing of the liturgical partaking of the consecrated eucharistic Bread (Host). As a Christmas custom, “opłatek” originated in Poland and was spread widely as far back as the 17th century. It was the part of the szlachta’s (Polish nobility) culture and the custom had spread throughout the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and neighbouring countries. In the 19th century in the aftermath of the partitions of Poland it gained patriotic subtexts as the common wish during sharing of “opłatek” became the wish for Poland’s regaining its independence. Since that time “opłatki” are often embossed with religious images. In the 20th century “opłatek” custom went beyond families and gained another meaning: the meeting of present or past co-workers or students and Niks.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_wafer

This exchange was done at all the Christmases I had with the family and I’m not criticizing the practice. But I’ve often wondered, however, how many of those who receive CITH in the Church do so for close to the same reasons the Poles exchange the oplatek. Not judging, just curious. Any thoughts?

 

[choy]

Yes, this is one of the conditions necessary to allow the practice, if I’m not mistaken.

Interestingly enough, there is a tradition among the Poles in exchanging the opłatek on Christmas.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_wafer

This exchange was done at all the Christmases I had with the family and I’m not criticizing the practice. But I’ve often wondered, however, how many of those who receive CITH in the Church do so for close to the same reasons the Poles exchange the oplatek. Not judging, just curious. Any thoughts?

speaking for myself, nope, i can’t say thats my reason for CITH

is it hard for a Traditional Catholic to believe that for someone who receives CITH, we have the same mentality and reverence towards the Eucharist as any Traditional Catholic? we just don’t see the mode of reception as an issue or an impediment to inner reverence

 

[floresco]

That was not MY definition. It is the accepted definition of objective truth. You are welcome to try to define it any way you want but objective truth is indeed timeless and unchangeable. We don’t get to say that something is objectively true because we define it to be so outside of the reality of its meaning.

Since your definition is different from the dictionary’s, perhaps you could cite an authoritative source to support your view.

It is possible for something to be objective and changeable. For example it is objectively true that at the moment I am sitting at my desk. In five minutes that will likely not be true. A belief or a practice, however, cannot be objectively true unless it is applicable across the population and time. It might be objectively true that you currently believe something but that does not in any way make it objectively true.

While one may speak of beliefs being objectively true, it does not make sense to speak of a practice being true, objectively or otherwise. ( Although we could say something about a practice being true to Catholic teaching.) One can assign a truth value to a proposition not to an action.

That all may seem like subtle differences of splitting hairs but it truly isn’t and within theology and philosphy those are basic understandings. A discipline that can be changed cannot be an objective truth, period. If it was an objective truth it could not be changed. You could not have the possibility that a Pope could come in tomorrow and abrogate COTT or make CITH the norm, or adopt one of the Eastern practices as the norm, and still claim that one of them is “objectively better.”

I have studied philosophy and theology (I have an MDiv) and you are not saying anything that sounds like any basic understandings that I have come across. A discipline would not be called an objective truth, subjective truth or any kind of truth. The words do not go together.

 

[floresco]

like i said in my other post, i don’t see anything wrong in someone saying COTT is better. there isn’t really. but oftentimes when one defends COTT as better, it involves in denigrating CITH, which of course is a spit in the face of those who practice CITH as well as the Church who allows it. if COTT is inherently better as you say it is, then that point can be made without saying anything negative about CITH. COTT being better should be able to speak for itself

To say that COTT is better necessarily implies that CITH is worse. Perhaps you yourself don’t do this, but I have seen those who consider merely saying that COTT is better to be an act of denigration.

 

[choy]

To say that COTT is better necessarily implies that CITH is worse. Perhaps you yourself don’t do this, but I have seen those who consider merely saying that COTT is better to be an act of denigration.

no, not really
if i remember my language classes, its good, better best. bad, worse, worst. when you agrue that COTT is better, you can leave CITH at good. what other people do is to prove that COTT is better, they leave COTT at good and downgrade CITH to bad or worse or worst. and thats the problem. from the COTT perspective of being better, yes CITH is worse but only because its a notch down at good. but that doesn’t mean that CITH is bad.

and to reinforce my earlier point why CITH can’t be bad, because if it is then all who practice CITH is bad, and the Church itself is bad for allowing something bad. which is not good

 

[floresco]

no, not really
if i remember my language classes, its good, better best. bad, worse, worst. when you agrue that COTT is better, you can leave CITH at good. what other people do is to prove that COTT is better, they leave COTT at good and downgrade CITH to bad or worse or worst. and thats the problem. from the COTT perspective of being better, yes CITH is worse but only because its a notch down at good. but that doesn’t mean that CITH is bad.

and to reinforce my earlier point why CITH can’t be bad, because if it is then all who practice CITH is bad, and the Church itself is bad for allowing something bad. which is not good

I think I understand what you are saying. While claiming that COTT is better implies that CITH is comparatively worse, it does not necessarily mean CITH is bad. You are bothered by statements about CITH being bad because you see them as a criticism of the people who receive that way and of the Church for allowing it. Is that what you are saying? I feel like I have a much better grasp of your position now.

Do you consider someone stating that CITH is more susceptible to abuse than COTT to be denigration? As I recall, I have written that. But I really don’t think anything bad about those who practice CITH. I did it myself for decades. And, while I do think it is a problem that the Church allows CITH, I would not say that the Church is bad. Fixing the problems in the Church is a putting-the-toothpaste-back-in-the-tube situation. It is not a simple matter and I really try to avoid second-guessing Church leaders. Every time I am tempted to, I ask myself if I would want their job.

 

[choy]

I think I understand what you are saying. While claiming that COTT is better implies that CITH is comparatively worse, it does not necessarily mean CITH is bad. You are bothered by statements about CITH being bad because you see them as a criticism of the people who receive that way and of the Church for allowing it. Is that what you are saying? I feel like I have a much better grasp of your position now.

yes, that is exactly what i’m saying

Do you consider someone stating that CITH is more susceptible to abuse than COTT to be denigration? As I recall, I have written that. But I really don’t think anything bad about those who practice CITH. I did it myself for decades. And, while I do think it is a problem that the Church allows CITH, I would not say that the Church is bad. Fixing the problems in the Church is a putting-the-toothpaste-back-in-the-tube situation. It is not a simple matter and I really try to avoid second-guessing Church leaders. Every time I am tempted to, I ask myself if I would want their job.

not only with Church leaders, but oftentimes we look at someone else and we think they’re doing a bad job and we could do a better job, without considering our knowledge of the job and other things that goes with doing the job. our Bishops i believe are doing their best to balance Church doctrine, tradition and a way to keep people in the Church given the challenge of modern times.

i think for most people who receive CITH, they don’t see it as a different approach than if they receive COTT. all these talk about novelties and experiences and all that doesn’t even come into the mind of a lot who receive CITH. i haven’t even heard of someone speak of the “joys of being able to touch the Lord.” all these people are thinking about is receiveing the Eucharist.

 

[Ockham]

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,

Actually, it is out of charity that I keep replying to CITH defenders.

What numbs my mind (after banging my head against the wall) is how CITHers totally ignore WHY CITH is approved. Disobedient Europeans who were in favour of other radical things like married priests started it in the sixties. It went up the ladder to the Vatican. It was put to a vote. Two thirds of the bishops surveyed ruled against it.

Unfortunately, there was a loop hole. After the Vatican ruled AGAINST CITH Pope Paul VI gave an indult to places ALREADY practicing it. North America was not practicing CITH at the time. It spread like a cancer throughout many part of the world and rather than risk schism or scandal Pope Paul VI extended the indult. To be so adament in defence of an exception granted to an abuse is astonding.

“Many priests did whatever they liked. They imposed their own personalities. Very often unauthorized initiatives could not be stopped. In his great goodness and wisdom, the Holy Father then made concessions, often against his own inclinations.”
Cardinal Gut, Prefect Congregation Divine Worship

 

[ProVobis]

What numbs my mind (after banging my head against the wall) is how CITHers totally ignore WHY CITH is approved. Disobedient Europeans who were in favour of other radical things like married priests started it in the sixties.

Indeed. And to think that just as easily the old custom could have been made more reverent/meaningful/spiritual by such things as cloth on the altar rail, mandatory confessions beforehand, and reverting to the midnight fast. Oh, well.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

What if CITH was objectively “wrong” and should never have been allowed? (I don’t believe it is, but what if?)

What should the rank-and-file do about it?

Alan

 

[choy]

i scratch my head and wonder why married priests are wrong?

 

[At_Trent]

thing is, people who receive CITH don’t see a difference between CITH and COTT. most of the time its a hygene thing as priests inadvertenly touch people’s tongues.

That is ridiculous. There are more germs on your keyboard and the paper money you handle than you can imagine.

What about the cup ? You think an EMHC wiping the cup repeatedly with the same cloth sanitizes it ? How about backwash ? How about the hand you shake during the Sign of Peace, or the pew you steady yourself with as you stand from kneeling or genuflect ?

For all the suffering Our Savior endured for our sake, we are to worry about catching a cold ?

We genuflect before the Tabernacle because of what it contains, but receive what it contains without bending a knee.

Mind boggling.

 

[At_Trent]

What if CITH was objectively “wrong” and should never have been allowed? (I don’t believe it is, but what if?)

What should the rank-and-file do about it?

Alan

Follow our Holy Father’s example.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

That is ridiculous. There are more germs on your keyboard and the paper money you handle than you can imagine.

What about the cup ? You think an EMHC wiping the cup repeatedly with the same cloth sanitizes it ? How about backwash ? How about the hand you shake during the Sign of Peace, or the pew you steady yourself with as you stand from kneeling or genuflect ?

For all the suffering Our Savior endured for our sake, we are to worry about catching a cold ?

We genuflect before the Tabernacle because of what it contains, but receive what it contains without bending a knee.

Mind boggling.

At least during the H1N1 scare, some churches quit having handshake of peace, and discoured holding hands during the Our Father.

Alan

 

[Layman]

i think for most people who receive CITH, they don’t see it as a different approach than if they receive COTT. all these talk about novelties and experiences and all that doesn’t even come into the mind of a lot who receive CITH. i haven’t even heard of someone speak of the “joys of being able to touch the Lord.” all these people are thinking about is receiveing the Eucharist.

Now* you know what’s going on in the minds of those who receive CITH? This is too much.

I don’t think about people who receive CITH. Most of the time, I go to TLMs, where it doesn’t exist. So lets leave them out of it. Judging CITH is not equal to judging CITH receivers. Not by a long chalk, in any rational discussion.

*“Which does God prefer: a person being interiorly reverent or an outerly reverent posture?” *is a trick question, to which the answer is: “God, we guess, prefers both”. It assumes that we have to choose or that one is antagonistic towards the other.

I’d add that outer reverence encourages the inner. What would be the point of turning up to a free-for-all? It would be terribly distracting. Pointless.

The changes to our rite are stupid. Dump Latin, ancient hymns, altar rails, beautiful prayers, exclusion, long fasts. Add in unvested laity in the sanctuary, folk hymns, 1 hour fasts, local lingo, laywomen handing out communion, emphasise the ‘Lord’s banquet’ and then wonder where the mystery and awe has gone.

“It’s still the Holy Sacrifice Of the Mass!”, say proponents. Well, I say those involved should jolly well act like it is.

In a way, I thank God for the N.O. It gives the experimenters and their willing test-subjects something to play around with, while those who want something tried-and-tested can go to a TLM. Imagine if the TLM had been let ‘organically develop’ in the last 40 years in the hands of ‘liturgical scholars’? [shudders]