Note: I had to abridge this quote to get my post under 4000 characters. Please refer to the original.
…rather than private inclination or arbitrary choice.
A common posture, to be observed by all participants, is a sign of the unity of the members of the Christian community gathered for the Sacred Liturgy: it both expresses and fosters the intention and spiritual attitude of the participants.
Except, perhaps, when it fosters and expresses the intention and spiritual attitude of some worshipers to compel other worshipers to conform to the first worshipers’ standards of behavior. But this instruction still doesn’t address the question of whose intention and spiritual attitude is correctly expressed by what posture.
This instruction directs us that a common posture is a sign of unity, with which I fully agree, but the posture to be assumed still isn’t defined except, as noted previously, that the Faithful should stand to pray the Our Father. This instruction could as readily be cited by those who would demand that the entire assembly hold hands or assume the orans as a sign of unity as by those who would prefer not.
It should also be kept in mind , though, that even though unity Liturgical and Sacramental actions are generally desirable, the faithful still do indeed enjoy certain freedoms in these regards, even if they might arrive at decisions regarding these in what might be regarded as private inclinations or arbitrary choices. A good example of this is the various manners in which the the Faithful may receive Communion.
At this time, in churches in the United States at least, communicants may receive either in the hand or on the tongue. At Masses where the Precious Blood is offered, communicants may elect to receive from the Chalice or they may decline and receive only the Host. Communicants may base their decisions on how to receive the Blessed Sacrament on whatever criteria they prefer, personal piety, health concerns, whatever. While it would probably be presumptous to classify thoughtful decisions as arbitrary, it would probably not be inaccurate to describe them as private inclinations. But regardless of how the communicant makes his decision, he still enjoys certain freedoms which should not be withheld in the name of unity. For example, if one Communicant wishes to recieve the Host on his tongue and decline the Chalice at a Mass where every other Communicant received in the hand and received from the Chalice, that one Communicant should not be refused on the grounds that he is being disunitive. What he is doing is exercising a legitimate freedom.
Sadly, though, I have heard of a situation in which something very like this is alleged to have happened (in which a communicant who wished to receive on the tongue was refused and told either to receive in the hand or leave without receiving.) As I was not present personally, I don’t know all the circumstances. I recognize the possibility, though, and if a Catholic was to be refused a right which is as clearly defined as the right to receive the host on the tongue, then it surprises me that much less that Catholics might be discouraged or forbidden from a pious practice whose illicitness has not yet been established.
The question still remains: If the issue is not addressed at all, is it permitted or forbidden? Again, please keep in mind that
no hand posture is mentioned in the above instruction. Not hand holding, not hand folding. Not pew-back grasping, not hymnal clasping. Not hands raised in the orans (except for the celebrant), not hands dangling toward the floor. If one of these is verboten, even though none are mentioned in the instruction, does this mean that according to this instruction
all are forbidden? If not, why not?
.
