Receiving the Eucharist while standing

[PhilOSophia]

The fact that it is allowed is enough of a justification.

Logically, it is not. I hope the Church still values reason. What you are saying is:
CITH should be done because the Church allows it i.e. it’s allowed … because it is allowed!

Furthermore, this is somewhat of a straw man because few if any would argue for a total replacement.

I know. They can’t and don’t. That’s interesting, isn’t it? But it’s happened anyway.

Some of our forefathers received Him standing and in the hand. Were they less holy? Was He less so?

The problem is we are behaving as if this is now so. Otherwise, why the change? Because it was daring and … fun? The symbolism is very stark and a religious rite is defined by its symbolism.

Kneeling is a sign of respect. That is why we kneel. There is nothing inherent per se in kneeling. We kneel because it incidentally demonstrates respect. In continues to do so, which is why we continue to kneel.

That is pretty tortured reasoning. We kneel because it demonstrates respect but at the same time, it doesn’t really?

This is the crux of the matter: Roman Catholic Church priests, bishops and laypeople have decided, without any outright statement by Pope or Cardinal that it should be done, that radical, mundane changes to the symbolism of our main rite should be made.

CITH, lay lectors, vernacular, all the rest crept in after the detonation of the New Mass and then they keep harping on that its the laity’s fault that they’ve drifted away or that the magic word CATHECESIS! is all that’s needed, when the way the mass is said and the behaviour of the participants are giving a lesson all their own.

 

[Baelor]

Logically, it is not. I hope the Church still values reason. What you are saying is:
CITH should be done because the Church allows it i.e. it’s allowed … because it is allowed!

Logically it is. You stated that it was permitted. This was used in an argument “proving” the following statement:

There is no reasonable justification whatsoever for CITH, standing, in a Roman Catholic diocesan church.

No one argued that it “should” be done, i.e. that it ought to be done. But you stated that there is “no reasonable justification” for standing. This is not true – the Church has permitted it, which is a reasonable justification. If the Church felt it totally inappropriate, it would not be permitted.

The problem is we are behaving as if this is now so. Otherwise, why the change? Because it was daring and … fun? The symbolism is very stark and a religious rite is defined by its symbolism.

Symbolism is important. We changed for a reason. That does not mean another reason cannot at some point prompt another change. The important thing is that the underlying symbolism and theology remains. In this case, I would posit that belief in the True Presence and reverence for Him are at play.

That is pretty tortured reasoning. We kneel because it demonstrates respect but at the same time, it doesn’t really?

Of course it demonstrates respect now. And has for quite some time – e.g. kneeling for fealty. But this is a societal association with kneeling. If this societal association changes, the Church practice will and should follow.

In other words, another strawman – I never said kneeling does not demonstrate respect. And it is not “tortured” reasoning.

This is the crux of the matter: Roman Catholic Church priests, bishops and laypeople have decided, without any outright statement by Pope or Cardinal that it should be done, that radical, mundane changes to the symbolism of our main rite should be made.

First, it is permitted, and therefore the “Pope [and] Cardinal” have permitted it. You are operating on a misleading ambiguity regarding the word “should” that makes your point (whatever it is) both elusive and enticing. Rephrase your argument without it so that the motives of the people you are discussing are clear.

In case that was too cryptic, I will help you out. Does “should” mean we always 100% ought to? That we should be permitted to? Something else?

CITH, lay lectors, vernacular, all the rest crept in after the detonation of the New Mass and then they keep harping on that its the laity’s fault that they’ve drifted away or that the magic word CATHECESIS!

Vernacular did not “creep in.” Latin was forced out, but vernacular was explicitly permitted.

 

[iohanne]

I think the case can be made when looking at the cultural restraints that exist today. In the times when we did stand for Communion and for worship, standing was a normative sign of respect. It no longer is today, though. No one ever stands when a lady enters the room. No one ever stands when their superior enters the room. No one stands and waits for the head(s) of a household to sit down first at the dinner table. It’s not common to do so anymore while it was common to do so back then. What has developed in our Western culture is kneeling as a sign of respect - though it was originally a sign of penitence. Notice how we genuflect while we are about to ask someone to marry us.

Now, indeed, we can go back to a more primitive form of worship, yes, that’s possibly, but does it have the same cultural impact that it did back them? Not so sure.

---

If there’s any liturgical posture that we should be reconsidering, it should not be kneeling. It should be sitting. If people want more standing and wish to revert to a more ancient practice, they can have more standing.

 

[thewanderer]

Thanks for all the replies everyone.

From whats been said here so far, can I take it that the argument is that because it is a tradition it should never be changed, or at least only under extreme circumstances?

Is there some more evidence for this claim? Can you explain what it is about a tradition which does not permit of it changing except under extreme circumstances? please provide quotes if possible.

Also, maybe it would be helpful for me if I understood more about what exactly a ‘tradition’ is. How do traditions come into existence and develop? What is their ultimate significance in the church? What is their connection with culture?

The way I understand it a tradition is basically a practice that grows naturally out of the culture of the present time. (please don’t debate the value of today’s culture, I am not trying to get into that argument, just trying to understand the connection between tradition and culture in general)

Any thoughts on these questions?

[EDIT: also, please note that I am not trying to debate whether certain practices are correct or not, I am trying to understand more about the way a tradition is understood, and the implications this has for when traditions ought to change etc. I started this with the example of standing to receive as it is an example of something which is clearly not wrong in and of itself, and so, arguments against its usage in the west must be based upon a certain understanding of tradition]

 

[floresco]

From whats been said here so far, can I take it that the argument is that because it is a tradition it should never be changed, or at least only under extreme circumstances?

I would not put it that way. Traditions are customs that are handed down to us from our ancestors. Out of respect for their wisdom and because we value our connection to them, we are reluctant to change these. Our default course of action is continue in the traditions we have received. It is possible the situations may arise in which it is not possible or desirable to continue, but the decision to break with tradition should always have strong, compelling support.

Think of your family traditions, perhaps around celebrating birthdays or holidays. These are important for your sense of identity as a family. People do not arbitrarily change these.

In our family, we developed the tradition of eating Lucky Charms for breakfast whenever one of us had a birthday. We did this for many years but over time some us starting having problems with sugar, gluten, etc. and this did not work any more. We changed the tradition but we had a good reason that was clear to all of us.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I would not put it that way. Traditions are customs that are handed down to us from our ancestors. Out of respect for their wisdom and because we value our connection to them, we are reluctant to change these. Our default course of action is continue in the traditions we have received. It is possible the situations may arise in which it is not possible or desirable to continue, but the decision to break with tradition should always have strong, compelling support.

Think of your family traditions, perhaps around celebrating birthdays or holidays. These are important for your sense of identity as a family. People do not arbitrarily change these.

In our family, we developed the tradition of eating Lucky Charms for breakfast whenever one of us had a birthday. We did this for many years but over time some us starting having problems with sugar, gluten, etc. and this did not work any more. We changed the tradition but we had a good reason that was clear to all of us.

This.

Arbitrary changes are usually done for political/ideological reasons rather than deeper ones.

 

[felsguy]

This.

Arbitrary changes are usually done for political/ideological reasons rather than deeper ones.

Can you clarify what you mean here, please. Not disagreeing or agreeing, just not quite understanding: arbitrary = based on a whim or preference while ideological = based on a set of doctrines or beliefs.

 

[PhilOSophia]

Ok, I’ll make it clearer.

‘Should’ means an obligation or a duty. “You should change the practice in your local Church from COTT, kneeling to CITH, standing because …”
**
The Church has never finished that sentence.**

What the Church has said is: *“CITH is allowed”. *That’s all. It has not said why your church should change to this practice.

Changing over to CITH, standing makes no sense in Western culture, in the context of a sacred rite, where the sacred object is now handled by laypeople, like it was … bread.

Sure, disciplines can change. Again, that is no apologia for CITH. All you are saying is that, again, CITH is now allowed.

But I’ll tell you what, I wonder if the advocates of change would be happy if the next change was a change back.

 

[Baelor]

‘Should’ means an obligation or a duty. "You should change the practice in your local Church from COTT, kneeling to CITH, standing because …"
**
The Church has never finished that sentence.**

Nor does it need to. The fact that standing is permissible is enough for the laity. Furthermore, many parishes now have parishioners who have known nothing but standing, hence the perspective problem that I mentioned earlier.

For the record, I am totally an advocate of kneeling to receive communion if it does not cause a distraction during Mass.

Sure, disciplines can change. Again, that is no apologia for CITH. All you are saying is that, again, CITH is now allowed.

No, I did not. The thread topic states “Receiving the Eucharist while standing.” I have not discussed CITH in this thread because I am not interested in discussing anything other than what the OP wanted discussed in this thread. Do not mention CITH or COTT to me again in this thread, for the reason I just mentioned.

 

[PhilOSophia]

Symbolism is important. We changed for a reason. That does not mean another reason cannot at some point prompt another change. The important thing is that the underlying symbolism and theology remains. In this case, I would posit that belief in the True Presence and reverence for Him are at play.

That statement doesn’t make much sense. What underlying symbolism? What’s reverent about going from kneeling to standing up if you believe in the True Presence?

Nor does it need to. The fact that standing is permissible is enough for the laity. Furthermore, many parishes now have parishioners who have known nothing but standing, hence the perspective problem that I mentioned earlier.

Neither does that one. Both *sound * significant, but …

As Catholics, we can critique these disciplines. At some point, on their own authority, Catholics decided to stand up to receive Communion and the clergy accomodated them. And also to do That Which You Do Not Want Mentioned.

Personally, I think it was a sign that we have lost the plot. Are the clergy afraid whole nations will apostasise if they put their foot down? Well, I think they’re doing that anyway, so they may as well try to save those that truly wish to believe, by setting a stricter standard.

(Also, I think its against the terms of this sub-forum to pit Eastern and Western practices against each other. This sub-forum is for discussions about traditional Roman Catholicism.)

 

[Baelor]

That statement doesn’t make much sense. What underlying symbolism? What’s reverent about going from kneeling to standing up if you believe in the True Presence?

The underlying symbolism of the acts. You yourself admit that there is such when you ask how a gesture is relevant. That mere question points to reverence as a key aspect of Communion. Why? Because of the True Presence. Hence we have a framework within which to work.

(Also, I think its against the terms of this sub-forum to pit Eastern and Western practices against each other. This sub-forum is for discussions about traditional Roman Catholicism.)

I am not.

 

[Hesychios]

As soon as you permit change in discipline at all, then you open up the possibility for future change. … I am merely stating that you have no basis for claiming that it should never, ever change in the future.

Interesting point.

If a discipline has changed from the original it is not immutable and can change some more, it can be changed back to the original or sometimes to another option entirely (although we might have difficulty conceiving of this from our vantage point). There is no way to freeze a discipline forever in one form once it can been demonstrated that it has been previously changed.

 

[Mike30]

Nor does it need to. The fact that standing is permissible is enough for the laity. Furthermore, many parishes now have parishioners who have known nothing but standing, hence the perspective problem that I mentioned earlier.

For the record, I am totally an advocate of kneeling to receive communion if it does not cause a distraction during Mass.

No, I did not. The thread topic states “Receiving the Eucharist while standing.” I have not discussed CITH in this thread because I am not interested in discussing anything other than what the OP wanted discussed in this thread. Do not mention CITH or COTT to me again in this thread, for the reason I just mentioned.

Well for that matter when everyone went to standing. well almost everyone, parishes were full of people who knew nothing except kneeling.

Also when we changed there was no explanation given. No rationale, nothing. Just one day we do it this way and that was it. As of yet, I have never seen a coherant statement that explains why the change waseven considered let alone necessary or how it became the norm in some areas.

I would like just once for someone to give a well reasoned reply, without using the old standbyes of well it was done in the early Church, the Easterns do it and we should receive Christ as free men, adults, not children. Those three explain absolutely nothing.

Oh and for those who cling to the Eastern position I point out that the Easterns receive by intinction, not in the hand, and if we are going to receive standing, I think that would be best way to go about it. Hey,:newidea: we might even be able to get rid of some of the swarms of Extraordinary Ministers if we do it that way as well.

A win win situation!!

 

[PhilOSophia]

The underlying symbolism of the acts. You yourself admit that there is such when you ask how a gesture is relevant. That mere question points to reverence as a key aspect of Communion. Why? Because of the True Presence. Hence we have a framework within which to work.

**
Sure, for people who believe in the True Presence … but then … why would one make or tolerate these changes if one believed in that?**

• If you go from kneeling to standing within a generation, that is a symbolic act.
• If you go from COTT for CITH within a generation, that is a symbolic act.
• If you start to let laypeople distribute the True Presence in the Mass, that is also a symbolic act.

It says you don’t really believe it’s God any more or that you are now more holy. Or the priest is just a guy.

Now we come to a generation who are so poorly taught they think the Catholic way is to stop fornicating for a while before they marry their concubine. Or haven’t a clue about fasting before Communion. Or who made their First Confession years after their First Communion.

Does anyone think that these changes are helping their belief?

The legalistic attitude ‘We can do what ever isn’t actually forbidden’ or ‘We can do whatever was once done in the Church in any circumstances’ is destructive, when applied to mystical matters.

 

[Baelor]

**
Sure, for people who believe in the True Presence … but then … why would one make or tolerate these changes if one believed in that?**

And this is your actual argument – it is not even about changing anything, it is that you feel the changes are not reverent, independent of the fact they introduce change.

• If you go from kneeling to standing within a generation, that is a political act.
• If you go from COTT for CITH within a generation, that is a political act.
• If you start to let laypeople distribute the True Presence in the Mass, that is also a political act.

No, that is not how I was using the word symbolism. If you want to make that claim, use a different word to avoid ambiguity. I changed it to “political,” but many would work.

It says you don’t really believe it’s God any more or that you are now more holy. Or the priest is just a guy.

Those statements do not follow. The reason you have not provided actual irrefutable reasoning for these claims is that there is none.

Weaving in the leading “point” of your post, in no way can you make the claim:

Standing → lack of belief in True Presence.

Your reasoning borders dangerously on a No True Scotsman fallacy. I could claim that people who kneel must not believe in the True Presence because prostration is so much more reverent. This would obviously fall apart because there is no objective rule that can apply in this case.

Now we come to a generation who are so poorly taught they think the Catholic way is to stop fornicating for a while before they marry their concubine. Or haven’t a clue about fasting before Communion. Or who made their First Confession years after their First Communion.

This thread is not the plate for your rants on the degenerating nature of society.

The legalistic attitude ‘We can do what ever isn’t actually forbidden’ or ‘We can do whatever was once done in the Church in any circumstances’ is destructive, when applied to mystical matters.

Correct. Fortunately, one can reach many conclusions without using that reasoning.

 

[agnes_therese]

Following the norms allowed by the Church means you don’t believe in God anymore?? That’s one of the more unusual theses I’ve seen put forward here.

Frankly, I don’t feel qualified to say “my personal opinion is better than the norms of the Church.” But hey, that’s just me.

**
Sure, for people who believe in the True Presence … but then … why would one make or tolerate these changes if one believed in that?**

• If you go from kneeling to standing within a generation, that is a symbolic act.
• If you go from COTT for CITH within a generation, that is a symbolic act.
• If you start to let laypeople distribute the True Presence in the Mass, that is also a symbolic act.

It says you don’t really believe it’s God any more or that you are now more holy. Or the priest is just a guy.

 

[felsguy]

Frankly, I don’t feel qualified to say “my personal opinion is better than the norms of the Church.”

Apparently these are all the qualifications required to do so:

1. Have access to a computer
2. Sign on to CAF
3. Type
4. Make popcorn (optional)

.

 

[PhilOSophia]

You can’t reduce the significance of these changes to mere opinion, feelings or “it’s just a discipline”. That’s relativism. COTT, kneeling, was a way for laypeople to show humility, as individuals, as a community and as catholics, when they received God.

And now it’s gone, in most Catholic churches.

CITH is not a norm. COTT is. COTT can never be denied to a communicant. CITH can be. “The Church” has never promoted CITH, standing. It has allowed it after the fact. Big difference.

I can certainly say that a Roman Catholic church, changing over from COTT, kneeling, to CITH, standing, signifies a diminishing of a belief in the True Presence or an increasing belief in ones own holiness, or that will encourage same. If you believe the Host is God, why would you make that change, in a public rite?

Yes, prostration would be better, if the Host is God. Except you can’t easily receive that way.

 

[Baelor]

You can’t reduce the significance of these changes to mere opinion, feelings or “it’s just a discipline”. That’s relativism.

In what way? Discipline inherently has a degree of relativism that doctrine does not. The Church openly admits this, hence acculturation.

COTT, kneeling, was a way for laypeople to show humility, as individuals, as a community and as catholics, when they received God.

No one is disputing this.

And now it’s gone, in most Catholic churches.

No one is disputing this either.

CITH is not a norm. COTT is. COTT can never be denied to a communicant. CITH can be. “The Church” has never promoted CITH, standing. It has allowed it after the fact. Big difference.

I am not going to discuss anything other than standing and kneeling.

I can certainly say that a Roman Catholic church, changing over from COTT, kneeling, to CITH, standing, signifies a diminishing of a belief in the True Presence or an increasing belief in ones own holiness, or that will encourage same.

That is not what you said. You said this:

Sure, for people who believe in the True Presence … but then … why would one make or tolerate these changes if one believed in that?

and then this

It says you don’t really believe it’s God any more or that you are now more holy. Or the priest is just a guy.

I am disputing that statement, not a different one that you bring up later. No one can have a conversation with you when your arguments are as fleeting as a leaf in the wind. What are you discussing? Why does each of your posts have a different position in it? First you say that people who stand do not actually believe in the Real Presence, now you say that behavior is a more general indicator. Which is it?

Plus, I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever for that.

If you believe the Host is God, why would you make that change, in a public rite?

Why not?

Yes, prostration would be better, if the Host is God. Except you can’t easily receive that way.

But you can receive that way. So why do you not at Mass? All true Catholics would receive prostrating, eyes cast downward.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

NOTICE

Refrain from making comments such as, "If people believed . . . " or "They don’t believe . . . " We don’t speculate about the faith of others. It is against forum rules.