Receiving the Eucharist while standing

[thewanderer]

The discussion of why receiving the Eucharist came up inanother thread, and it got me to wondering, why do many traditionalists argue against this? It has clearly beenaround in the church for a very long time, (eastern rites). Does the argument end up coming down to the fact that kneeling has been the traditional sign of reverence in the Latin rite and traditions shouldn’t change? It certainly seems that it would be presumptuous to argue that it is imitator wrong as it has been the practice in the eastern rites for quite a while from what I understand.

(moderators: I do not intend this thread to be too controversial, bu if you feel it is just opening a can of worms feel free to delete)

 

[Cristiano]

The Traditionalist Catholics are really members of the Latin rite. The Latin rite developed its own liturgy depending on cultural constraints that are different from those of the Eastern Churches. The discussion about changes is usually not about an absolute practice but in relation to those specific cultural constraints.

 

[floresco]

The Traditionalist Catholics are really members of the Latin rite. The Latin rite developed its own liturgy depending on cultural constraints that are different from those of the Eastern Churches. The discussion about changes is usually not about an absolute practice but in relation to those specific cultural constraints.

Exactly. I don’t have a problem with people standing to receive in Eastern churches.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Because it has been a practically uninterrupted practice for over a thousand years in the Latin Church. The whole, “The Eastern Catholics do it,” or whatever argument doesn’t really work. I’d love to see the reaction if an Eastern Church started to require its adherents to kneel for Holy Communion and use the justification, “The Latin Church does [did?] it!” It just boggles the mind.

Latin Catholics and Eastern Catholics have, for the most part, hugely different traditions. It is true that Latinizations plagued the Eastern Churches for centuries, but it seems that Easternizations are now starting to plague the Latin Church. Neither should be the case.

To the people who say, “The early Romans did it.” Okay, so what? We aren’t early Romans anymore than we are Eastern Catholics. Antiquarianism much? The practice of communion kneeling and on the tongue was a thoroughly legitimate and organic development in the Latin Church. The recent innovation in the Latin Church of CITH standing, while licit (and you will not see me call anyone out for doing it ever) was clearly not an organic development and that is just historical fact. It is not Western as it has been almost unheard of in the West for a very long time.

How about respect the West’s differences from the East and not force either to adopt the long-standing traditions of the other. As much respect as we gained for the Eastern Churches after Vatican II, I think much of the respect for the Western Church has gone down the drain. Accepting and holding in high esteem does not mean emulating.

 

[NewsTheMan]

Because we are not Eastern Rite Catholics.
Because standing was introduced to subvert belief in the Real Presence and to introduce a new theology where the laity are ‘adults’ and simply ‘friends’ with Jesus.
Because if the Eastern Rites suddenly introduced kneeling (or other novel Western practices/theological ideas) they’d rightly have a fit.

 

[Mike30]

The Eastern Churches not only stand while receiving Holy Communion, they receive by intinction. Those are their traditions. They are not, however, ** our **traditions.

Thats why in a simplified way without going into a long winded theological discussion pitting the Eastern traditions against the Western. That particular practice has already been addressed on this forum by the moderators…

 

[thewanderer]

I’m sorry that some of you mistook the OP as an attempt to pit the traditions of different Rites against each other, that was not my intention. I honestly desired to know what the argument actually is. I only brought up the Eastern Rites to eliminate the answer that it is wrong “in and of itself”. Would I be correct, then, in saying that Catholics who believe the Latin rite shouldn’t stand while receiving is based upon the premise that once a tradition is put in place it ought never to be changed? If this is a fair way of understanding this argument, can someone explain where this premise comes from?

Again, I honestly am not intending to bring up a controversy, I am just trying to understand this argument.

 

[Big_Feet]

Because standing was introduced to subvert belief in the Real Presence and to introduce a new theology where the laity are ‘adults’ and simply ‘friends’ with Jesus.

Really?? I would LOVE to see your citations to this “fact.”

 

[BlindManWalking]

I’m sorry that some of you mistook the OP as an attempt to pit the traditions of different Rites against each other, that was not my intention. I honestly desired to know what the argument actually is. I only brought up the Eastern Rites to eliminate the answer that it is wrong “in and of itself”. Would I be correct, then, in saying that Catholics who believe the Latin rite shouldn’t stand while receiving is based upon the premise that once a tradition is put in place it ought never to be changed? If this is a fair way of understanding this argument, can someone explain where this premise comes from?

Again, I honestly am not intending to bring up a controversy, I am just trying to understand this argument.

The Eastern rites have a strong history of eschewing flavors of the year/decade. Unfortunately, our Western minds just can’t stop going with the flow of popular opinion. It’s enough to make one want to learn Greek, grow a beard, and go Orthodox.

Compare the reverence of an Eastern service with one of the OF/Latin, particularly in America. Apples and oranges.

To receive standing with reverence is one thing. To do so in the hand, historically, led to the organic development of kneeling/COTT because reverence was not maintained.

The exact reason the Eastern church can get away with this and you won’t hear me saying a thing, aside from the fact that it’s their tradition, is because it is absolutely reverent!

 

[floresco]

Would I be correct, then, in saying that Catholics who believe the Latin rite shouldn’t stand while receiving is based upon the premise that once a tradition is put in place it ought never to be changed? If this is a fair way of understanding this argument, can someone explain where this premise comes from?

Traditions should not be changed without a very good reason. Other things being equal, traditions should be preserved. The practices that have been handed on from our forefathers are precious because they connect us to those who lived the Faith before us and they are a constant reminder that the Communion of Saints is timeless.

 

[Bookcat]

It was the practice up til the 9th century (not just in the East)

(standing…kneeling…in the hand…on the tongue…all can be very good and reverent ways to receive where the Church permits such)

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Because it has been a practically uninterrupted practice for over a thousand years in the Latin Church. The whole, “The Eastern Catholics do it,” or whatever argument doesn’t really work. I’d love to see the reaction if an Eastern Church started to require its adherents to kneel for Holy Communion and use the justification, “The Latin Church does [did?] it!” It just boggles the mind.

Yet, there was a time, not so long ago, when communion rails once adorned some Eastern Catholic Churches in the U.S. and elsewhere.

History has shown that conformity to a tradition is best examined within the confines of that specific tradition.

I would also point out that the manner in which the Holy Eucharist is distributed in Eastern Rites would make it both impractical and somewhat hazardous to attempt in respect of a recipient kneeling before a priest.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I’m sorry that some of you mistook the OP as an attempt to pit the traditions of different Rites against each other, that was not my intention. I honestly desired to know what the argument actually is. I only brought up the Eastern Rites to eliminate the answer that it is wrong “in and of itself”. Would I be correct, then, in saying that Catholics who believe the Latin rite shouldn’t stand while receiving is based upon the premise that once a tradition is put in place it ought never to be changed? If this is a fair way of understanding this argument, can someone explain where this premise comes from?

Again, I honestly am not intending to bring up a controversy, I am just trying to understand this argument.

No one is saying that this is based upon the premise that once a tradition is put in place it ought never to be change. The problem with this is the very words you use, “Put in place.” That is exactly what we oppose. True traditions are NEVER “put in place.” That implies a sense of committee-style fabrication. Committees can never “make” a tradition on a desk. Traditions are born out of centuries of consistent and organic change. CITH and standing in the Latin Church as practiced now is not an organic change in any way, shape or form, no matter how you look at it. We are not opposed in principle. We are opposed in practice. If, perhaps after several hundred years of organic tradition it was implemented as the “norm,” then fine. That is how traditions develop. They do not develop out of people saying, “K guys, let’s decide on something else to change!” and then use the argument, “Well, we did it a thousand years ago,” to support the decision.

There is absolutely Z E R O amount of organic change when it comes to CITH and standing in the Latin Church. It was imposed and continues to be an indult to the universal norm.

 

[PrincepsAuguste]

To me, the action itself is less important than the mental and spiritual state that one is in when the action is performed. Even if one receives communion by hand while standing, if one reverences the Eucharist by bowing properly and truly recognizes and reverences the fact that they are receiving the flesh and blood of God’s son, then there really is nothing wrong. If your definition of reverence is to kneel and have the Eucharist put on your tongue, more power to you.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Yet, there was a time, not so long ago, when communion rails once adorned some Eastern Catholic Churches in the U.S. and elsewhere.

History has shown that conformity to a tradition is best examined within the confines of that specific tradition.

I would also point out that the manner in which the Holy Eucharist is distributed in Eastern Rites would make it both impractical and somewhat hazardous to attempt in respect of a recipient kneeling before a priest.

And that is wrong and I clearly and VEHEMENTLY oppose such a practice in the Eastern Churches; I respect your traditions for what they are, your traditions. But it is not Latin, and so it boggles my mind that we do it.

So you are right, and I think we agree wholeheartedly.

Latins should not be Easternized.

Easterns should not be Latinized.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

And that is wrong and I clearly and VEHEMENTLY oppose such a practice in the Eastern Churches; I respect your traditions for what they are, your traditions. But it is not Latin, and so it boggles my mind that we do it.

So you are right, and I think we agree wholeheartedly.

Latins should not be Easternized.

Easterns should not be Latinized.

And together we may enjoy and benefit from the full depth and breadth of the Catholic Church, East and West!

 

[Nicea325]

The discussion of why receiving the Eucharist came up inanother thread, and it got me to wondering, why do many traditionalists argue against this? It has clearly beenaround in the church for a very long time, (eastern rites). Does the argument end up coming down to the fact that kneeling has been the traditional sign of reverence in the Latin rite and traditions shouldn’t change? It certainly seems that it would be presumptuous to argue that it is imitator wrong as it has been the practice in the eastern rites for quite a while from what I understand.

(moderators: I do not intend this thread to be too controversial, bu if you feel it is just opening a can of worms feel free to delete)

I once recall watching an episode of Web of Faith on EWTN and someone asked the same question. The two priests on the show stated it was more common practice in the early church to receive the communion standing. I am not repeating both has stated on the show.

 

[BlindManWalking]

I once recall watching an episode of Web of Faith on EWTN and someone asked the same question. The two priests on the show stated it was more common practice in the early church to receive the communion standing. I am not repeating both has stated on the show.

So, antiquarian reasoning to make excuse for the exact situation kneeling/COTT was made the norm, and still is?

It was also common practice in the Early Church to do penance that would, today, make most men weep like little girls.

Sackcloth and ashes for everyone, the early Church did it!

Actually, I think that would be a great thing, personally.

We’re too soft now.

 

[Franna]

I think some traditions aren’t always very practical.In the Catholic church I attend,everyone assembles into three lines,because it makes the communion lines move quicker. I miss kneeling at the communion rail,which is what I was brought up with.Our church not ony doesn’t have a communion rail,but it would be total chaos if we did.As it stands now,some of the parishioners act like they can’t wait to get the whole thing over with.Someone is always waiting to jump the line.

 

[Tridentinum]

Because we are not Eastern Rite Catholics.
Because standing was introduced to subvert belief in the Real Presence and to introduce a new theology where the laity are ‘adults’ and simply ‘friends’ with Jesus.
Because if the Eastern Rites suddenly introduced kneeling (or other novel Western practices/theological ideas) they’d rightly have a fit.

Bravo! :clapping: