Five myths about worship in the early church

[Prodigal_Son1]

I didn’t mean to make my post come off in that way

Edit: if you don’t believe me, then you don’t know what holy mother church teaches, and what the pope preaches as the norm.

 

[catholictiger]

The ‘norm’ is what the Church tells us is acceptable, not what we tell each other it ‘should’ be. The Church has the authority to bind and loose, not the laity.

I’m not saying people should, I wish more people would receive Christ more reverently, I think the most reverent way to receive Christ is to receive it on the tongue kneeling.

Again I wish everyone would receive it on the tongue because it is the norm. But I’m ok with the exception, it should just be used as the word says it an exception.

this discussion is getting way off topic, and I’ve already made the points I’ve need to make I’m going to only respond to claims that deal with the article.

 

[catholictiger]

I just arguing communion on the tongue is the norm of the Church, I’m not saying that a person should receive it that way.

I see and understand that the Church allows this exception, so I’m ok with the exception but it should remain the exception and communion on the tongue should be the norm in all countries.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Cardinal Ratzinger

Communion in the hand, or directly in the mouth?

“I wouldn’t want to be fussy about it,” responded Cardinal Ratzinger. “It was done in the early Church. A reverent manner of receiving Communion in the hand is in itself a perfectly reasonable way to receive Communion.”

On the issue of kneeling, however, Ratzinger takes a hard line.

Kneeling devoutly should remain, says the Prefect, and this is crucial due to the current trend in many parts of the West, especially the U.S., of not only limiting kneeling but of ridding churches of kneelers.

“Communion used to be received kneeling, which made perfectly good sense,” says the Prefect. “Nowadays it is done standing. But this standing, too, should be standing in reverence before the Lord. The attitude of kneeling ought never to be allowed to disappear from the Church. It is the most impressive physical expression of Christian piety, by which, on one hand, we remain upright, looking out, gazing upon Him, but, on the other, we nonetheless bow down.”

 

[catholictiger]

Cardinal Ratzinger

first do you know what the pope requires people to do when he comes to receive the body of Christ? Kneeling on the tongue

second I’m not really sure but I think the article is dispelling the myth that communion on the hand was the norm in the early Church.

Also the way they receive it in the hand was different then what we do today.

Myths about Holy Communion follow a similar pattern. Fifty years ago, the claim that “Communion in the hand” was the universal practice of the early Church was believed by everyone, even by those who didn’t wish to see the practice resuscitated. Now we’re not so sure. What we can say is that some early Christian communities practiced Communion in the hand, but Communion on the tongue may be just as ancient. And when Communion in the hand was practiced, the communicant received from a priest (and only a priest), most likely by putting It in his mouth without his other hand touching it. And in some places, a woman’s hand had to be covered with a white cloth!

\

I don’t think you are reading the people criticizing this article are reading the article. Every objection you people bring up is addressed in the article.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I’m not saying people should, I wish more people would receive Christ more reverently, I think the most reverent way to receive Christ is to receive it on the tongue kneeling.

Again I wish everyone would receive it on the tongue because it is the norm. But I’m ok with the exception, it should just be used as the word says it an exception.

this discussion is getting way off topic, and I’ve already made the points I’ve need to make I’m going to only respond to claims that deal with the article.

Wouldn’t you agree that it’s what we can’t see with the eye that makes receiving, one way or the other, more reverent?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Every objection you people bring up is addressed in the article.

Emphasis is mine.

We are members of the body of Christ. I would think we should be more concerned with what is in our own hearts at the time of receiving and not on how another is receiving. To ‘judge’ another for how they receive is something you see with your eye, but you cannot see what is in their heart. Only one can do that.

 

[catholictiger]

Emphasis is mine.

We are members of the body of Christ. I would think we should be more concerned with what is in our own hearts at the time of receiving and not on how another is receiving. To ‘judge’ another for how they receive is something you see with your eye, but you cannot see what is in their heart. Only one can do that.

you are correct. I just want people to read the article before they make objections.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

you are correct. I just want people to read the article before they make objections.

The article is vague and does not promote one as superior over the other, if I read it correctly. On the subject of communion in the hand it states (emphasis is mine):

What we can say is that some early Christian communities practiced Communion in the hand, but Communion on the tongue may be just as ancient.

We can say that some early Christian communities practiced Communion in the hand…

Then it said, 'but Communion on the tongue may be just as ancient. That’s all it said, ‘may be’ and did not provide any information stating why on the tongue may be just as ancient. Did I miss something?

 

[catholictiger]

The article is vague and does not promote one as superior over the other, if I read it correctly. On the subject of communion in the hand it states (emphasis is mine):

What we can say is that some early Christian communities practiced Communion in the hand, but Communion on the tongue may be just as ancient.

We can say that some early Christian communities practiced Communion in the hand…

Then it said, 'but Communion on the tongue may be just as ancient. That’s all it said, ‘may be’ and did not provide any information stating why on the tongue may be just as ancient. Did I miss something?

yes the article does not cite things but I still think the article is on point. Communion on the hand was not the norm in the early church it occurred but it wasn’t the norm.

It all makes sense the points they make.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

yes the article does not cite things but I still think the article is on point. Communion on the hand was not the norm in the early church it occurred but it wasn’t the norm.

It all makes sense the points they make.

The article offers no evidence, either documentation or other resources, that confirm or deny if it truly was norm or not. It appeared to be unsubstantiated opinion, again without any supporting documentation. Are we to assume that because the author stated it was a ‘myth busted’ it is so? I really fail to see the points made as valid. Even the suggestion that some early Christian communities received in the hand is unsubstantiated.

 

[Transformer]

I haven’t done much reading of it, but if it did occur I be shocked if it was the norm. Communion on the toung has always been the norm I would think, and I wouldn’t be surprised if on the hand is a new style of receiving the Eucharist.

It was the standard way of receiving in some places and at some times. It is not new.

who cares about efficiency,

Who cares about efficiency? The people who actually have pastoral responsibilities. Communion has to be at least reasonably efficient; it can’t take 30-40 minutes. It can’t because people have to get to work, and many would not be able to make daily Mass if it lasted that long. It can’t because we have a shortage of priests, and Father almost certainly has to say another Mass on Sundays after the current one, to ensure that all faithful Catholics are able to attend Mass on Sunday. It can’t because even many devout lay people, who are trying their best to pray well and maintain reverence toward the Eucharist, have trouble staying in uninterrupted silent prayer that long, and they need to be helped where they’re at, and not put in a position where they have to pray silently for much longer than they can handle. Pastoral considerations matter. Christ understood and still understands that.

But anyway, none of that was my original point. My original point was simply that the current norm in the US is no more concerned with efficiency than the use of Communion rails is. Both strive for a reasonable level of efficiency, but both still prize reverence over efficiency.

Kneeling on the tongue while kneeling is the most reverent way to receive it.

Why should this necessarily the case?

jump to about 27 min left in the audio feed of this link. It explains the fast food mentality

catholicunderground.com/2011/06/cu-episode-166-when-co-ed-just-isnt-okay/

btw I love this podcast check it out its enjoyable.

but Ill explain it the way they did. Its the people not the parish, a small percentage of people go up to the priest or minister, who don’t care to much about going to mass, and they just receive it cause they see others seeing it, and its easy.

Most people don’t have this mentality

I’ve seen this dis-reverence for the Eucharist plenty of times.

examples include

receiving it in the hand with one hand walking away then receiving it

receiving it in the hand holding a young child.

receiving it and moving to dump in the sacred blood.

and some others.

I wish everyone would receive it on the tongue I believe many parishes don’t have much reverence for Christ in the Eucharist.

I’m not denying that a lack of reverence exists among many Catholics toward the Eucharist, and that it’s a problem. What I’m denying is that there is any necessary (as opposed to merely incidental) connection between that attitude and receiving the Eucharist in the hand. The connection isn’t necessary. Receiving Christ in the hand is no less implicitly reverent than receiving him on the tongue. It’s just as easy for an irreverent layperson to maintain an irreverent attitude while receiving on the tongue as while receiving on the hand. A return to everyone receiving on the tongue would not somehow magically return everyone to reverence for the Eucharist.

Reception of the Eucharist in the hand is a traditionalist boogeyman. It has existed since earliest times in the Latin Church. There is simply nothing wrong with it.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

We can understand people wanting to protect the Lord from desecration, just as Peter did by drawing his sword in the garden. But we have to remember that Christ told Peter to put away his sword. Even though this protection is without violence, it is still forcing people due to a judgment, and judgment is not ours, especially the laity’s. People should be taught with love, so that they respond appropriately. Condemning another is the same as judging them, because we cannot see in their hearts. Christ knows all ‘men’ and can see in their hearts. Another consideration is when you condemn someone, and say that someone genuinely has love and reverence in their heart, you could be placing a divide within the body of Christ, which is His Church and all of us are members of.

How can one view another person’s reception, judge it, and remain focused on the Mass?

How is doubting another person’s reception making your reception superior?

That’s what these discussions amount too. ‘They don’t receive the same as I do, therefore they are not as holy as I am, because I can see it with my eye.’ Where did Jesus teach this?

 

[laszlo]

kinda a week point the last supper was BEFORE the early church.

The Church was established at the feet of Mount Tabor, where Peter confessed: You are the Messias. Also St Pauk in 1 Cor describes the Mass in diner environment

did you read the article this was dealt with. Also if we are called to receive it like diner, why is on the tongue the norm in the Catholic church, even the United States.

Tempora mutantur and we mutamur in illis

again the article deals with this

if substantially, please quote, if you feel that not stongly enough to talk about it, do not bring it up

what would be the point of subdeacons if the lay were inovlved with ministry as you say.

Do you really believe that the early church started only in the 12th century

this doesn’t deal with the objection.

why? Only details can be discussed

catholicunderground.com/2011/06/cu-episode-166-when-co-ed-just-isnt-okay/

If important please say it in your word written

 

[catholictiger]

It was the standard way of receiving in some places and at some times. It is not new.

I never said that

Who cares about efficiency? The people who actually have pastoral responsibilities. Communion has to be at least reasonably efficient; it can’t take 30-40 minutes. It can’t because people have to get to work, and many would not be able to make daily Mass if it lasted that long. It can’t because we have a shortage of priests, and Father almost certainly has to say another Mass on Sundays after the current one, to ensure that all faithful Catholics are able to attend Mass on Sunday. It can’t because even many devout lay people, who are trying their best to pray well and maintain reverence toward the Eucharist, have trouble staying in uninterrupted silent prayer that long, and they need to be helped where they’re at, and not put in a position where they have to pray silently for much longer than they can handle. Pastoral considerations matter. Christ understood and still understands that.

yeah it can’t take up to 30 to 40 minuets but a person should receive in the most reverent way possible. So even if they receive in the hand they should do it in a reverent, way. receiving on the tongue actually only takes a couple more seconds then in the hand barley at all. I didn’t live before vat 2 but most churches did one or two distributors of the Eucharist, did that go on forever and ever and ever, I don’t think it would. I’m fine with the way the mass is right now, I don’t think we should go back to the Latin mass, but we should push to have people be more reverent when they receive Christ.

But anyway, none of that was my original point. My original point was simply that the current norm in the US is no more concerned with efficiency than the use of Communion rails is. Both strive for a reasonable level of efficiency, but both still prize reverence over efficiency.

i never said we should go back to communion rails, you can kneel without the communion rails. The way some parishes do communion is not very reverent in some instances. Its the people not the parish, but a priest in a parish who don’t have reverence for the Eucharist should deal with it in some way.

Why should this necessarily the case?

when walking past a tabernacle why do you genuflect, or why do you bow. Simple you are humbling yourself in-front of Christ. by kneeling you are humbing yourself infront of Christ, you don’t do that when standing.

on the toungue you are causing a pause, you have to wait to be feed, something is going to happen in that persons heart.

also receiving on the tongue removes the chance for someone to treat the host in an irreverent manner.

I’m not denying that a lack of reverence exists among many Catholics toward the Eucharist, and that it’s a problem. What I’m denying is that there is any necessary (as opposed to merely incidental) connection between that attitude and receiving the Eucharist in the hand. The connection isn’t necessary. Receiving Christ in the hand is no less implicitly reverent than receiving him on the tongue. It’s just as easy for an irreverent layperson to maintain an irreverent attitude while receiving on the tongue as while receiving on the hand. A return to everyone receiving on the tongue would not somehow magically return everyone to reverence for the Eucharist.

yes but still receiving on the tongue is more reverent then on the hand. If you receive the host in a more reverent manner I suspect changes in your heart will happen, if you receive it in an irreverent manner that change in your heart may not happen.

communion on the tongue (standing or kneeling) is the Universal Norm, I would imagine the Catholic Church makes it the norm becuase its the more reverent form to receive Christ.

I notice that communion on the hand is acceptable.

Reception of the Eucharist in the hand is a traditionalist boogeyman. It has existed since earliest times in the Latin Church. There is simply nothing wrong with it.

and the article didn’t argue against it, it argued against the idea that communion in the hand in the early church was the NORM.

 

[catholictiger]

The Church was established at the feet of Mount Tabor, where Peter confessed: You are the Messias. Also St Pauk in 1 Cor describes the Mass in diner environment

I thought the common accepted believe that the Church was founded at pentacoust, meaning the Church didn’t exist before Christ died. You bring up one example, no examples between 33 ad and 300 ad.

Tempora mutantur and we mutamur in illis

hmmm

if substantially, please quote, if you feel that not stongly enough to talk about it, do not bring it up

Another widespread myth is that the early Church had Mass “in the vernacular.” But when Jesus worshipped in the synagogue, the language used was Hebrew, which had already been dead for 300 years. And for the first three centuries in Rome, the Mass was mostly celebrated in Greek, not Latin, which was only understood by a minority of the congregation.

The reason for this is simple: Every apostolic Church — to say nothing of every major world religion — has always had a sacred or hieratic language, a linguistic toolbox different from daily speech specially designed to communicate the transcendence and distinctiveness of the gospel.

Do you really believe that the early church started only in the 12th century

what?

you are so misreading my points and you misread the article

The Council of Nicea in 325, for instance, talked about fine-tuning the office of “subdeacon.” This tells us one thing: that subdeacons were already a fixture in the landscape before the council was convoked. Lay Eucharistic ministers were not.

why? Only details can be discussed

the claim

Lurking behind all of these myths is a powerful “meta-myth,” the claim that there was a rupture in the life of the Church after the Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity in the fourth century. The Church before Constantine, the meta-myth goes, was simple and pristine, a Church “of the people.” After Constantine, however, the Church became clericalist, hierarchical, and corrupted by the desire for grand buildings and highfalutin’ ceremonies.

your response

1. The pre- vs. post-Constantinian Church. There were significant changes after the Church became free, at least in the West The celibacy was required as preselection for the clerics, soon the clerics started to live from the obligatory tithe, churches were built changing the form of the liturgy, so on.

explain how your post responds to the articles claim.

notice what it says in the article after the one I quoted.

If important please say it in your word written

it just reinforces in a more clear manner then the article, I thought having a couple of priest making the points would help my case lol.

it doesn’t add to much so ill just leave it be now. Still you should watch or listen to it.

 

[laszlo]

No proof that the Holy Mother and the other women were not recipient, unless you can uote some new source. Also St Paul’s also diner-like description was definitely not just for priests.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I don’t think we should go back to the Latin mass, but we should push to have people be more reverent when they receive Christ.

Please tell us how you know if a person is receiving the host reverently or not?

Cardinal Ratzinger

Anyone who reflects on this will recognize that on this point it is quite wrong to argue about this or that form of behavior. We should be concerned only to argue in favor of what the Church’s efforts were directed toward, both before and after the ninth century, that is a reverence in the heart, an inner submission before the mystery of God that puts himself into our hands. Thus we should not 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 the hands. God takes an enormous risk–and at the same time this is an expression of his merciful goodness–in allowing not only our hand and our tongue but even our heart to come into contact with him.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I don’t think we should go back to the Latin mass, but we should push to have people be more reverent when they receive Christ.

Please tell us how you know if a person is receiving the host reverently or not?

Cardinal Ratzinger

Anyone who reflects on this will recognize that on this point it is quite wrong to argue about this or that form of behavior. We should be concerned only to argue in favor of what the Church’s efforts were directed toward, both before and after the ninth century, that is a reverence in the heart, an inner submission before the mystery of God that puts himself into our hands. Thus we should not 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 the hands. God takes an enormous risk–and at the same time this is an expression of his merciful goodness–in allowing not only our hand and our tongue but even our heart to come into contact with him.

 

[laszlo]

For te communion please quote the contemporary documents which proove that the early Church practiced the communion on tongue. For further misunderstanding also please define where the early church starts and ends

The Council of Nicea in 325, for instance, talked about fine-tuning the office of “subdeacon.” This tells us one thing: that subdeacons were already a fixture in the landscape before the council was convoked. Lay Eucharistic ministers were not.

Quote please. Simple telling that it was 325 is not enough. Some contemporary reference is needed

As for the church changing in 313 or not, please explain why the celibacy was introduced, why killing/banishing heretics or so called heretics started only on that time. Simply claim that the church did not made immediate turnover, and did not became instantly clerical church is is insufficient. Neither can you claim, that the Church before was clerical oriented. Even in the 6th century the Benedictine monks were confortable w/o clergy or clerical leadership as the contemporary regula testifies.