Receiving the Eucharist while standing

[Bookcat]

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…

Cardinal Ratzinger (prior to being Pope Benedict XVI) notes that it was the practice of the Early Church.

He notes in God and the World “I wouldn’t be fussy about it. 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” (pg 410)

"..we know that until the ninth century Communion was received in the hand, standing. That does not of course mean that it should always do so. For what is fine, sublime, about the Church is that she is growing, maturing, understanding the mystery more profoundly. In the that sense the new development that began after the ninth century is quite justified, as an expression of reverence, and is well founded. But, on the other hand, we have to say that the Church could not possibly have been celebrating the Eucharist unworthily for nine hundred years. If we read what the Fathers say, we can see in what a spirit of reverence they received Communion…

We should be concerned only to argue in favor of what the Church’s efforts 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…"

Cardinal Ratzinger “God Is Near Us” Ignatius Press Pg 70 2001

I also recall but have not found it at the moment-- that he gave an answer as Pope in a Q & A session with Priests that was similar…

He certainly knows of what he speaks.

 

[Hesychios]

… 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. …

You missed it.

That actually is what happened. I once spoke to a Ukrainian Catholic priest whose father did not present himself for communion many many years because he refused to kneel for communion. Finally the son was ordained and the (then young) priest was brought to tears to see his father swallow his pride and approach and drop down on his knees to receive communion from his own son.

He told me this because ironically the UGCC has finally reversed this practice that tore so many people apart, but I don’t think the father lived to see it.

The eastern churches are undergoing a long process of undoing these kinds of things, the imposition of Latin practices on the eastern Catholics in the pre-Vatican II church.

So yes you missed it, but I doubt you would have enjoyed watching them abused in this way.

The issue of standing or not in the Latin rite churches is an issue for the Latin rite, and there it should be settled, but I think it is probably true that communion was taken standing in the Latin rite churches before the custom of kneeling became common (worth a bit of research, I think). If so it does qualify as a traditional Latin rite practice.

 

[edwest2]

A few words from Pope Benedict:

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0803381.htm

The norm in my Catholic Church was Communion rails and kneeling. You are literally kneeling before the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. There was no chaos. And reverence of where you are and Who is in the Communion wafer can be lost if we forget that. We need reverence before God.

The Holy Father is setting an example, a good example.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Bookcat]

A few words from Pope Benedict:

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0803381.htm

The norm in my Catholic Church was Communion rails and kneeling. You are literally kneeling before the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. There was no chaos. And reverence of where you are and Who is in the Communion wafer can be lost if we forget that. We need reverence before God.

The Holy Father is setting an example, a good example.

Peace,
Ed

He notes in God and the World “I wouldn’t be fussy about it. 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” (pg 410)

"…we know that until the ninth century Communion was received in the hand, standing. That does not of course mean that it should always do so. For what is fine, sublime, about the Church is that she is growing, maturing, understanding the mystery more profoundly. In the that sense the new development that began after the ninth century is quite justified, as an expression of reverence, and is well founded. But, on the other hand, we have to say that the Church could not possibly have been celebrating the Eucharist unworthily for nine hundred years. If we read what the Fathers say, we can see in what a spirit of reverence they received Communion…

We should be concerned only to argue in favor of what the Church’s efforts 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…"

Cardinal Ratzinger “God Is Near Us” Ignatius Press Pg 70 2001

I also recall but have not found it at the moment-- that he gave an answer as Pope in a Q & A session with Priests that was similar…

 

[YoungTradCath]

You missed it.

That actually is what happened. I once spoke to a Ukrainian Catholic priest whose father did not present himself for communion many many years because he refused to kneel for communion. Finally the son was ordained and the (then young) priest was brought to tears to see his father swallow his pride and approach and drop down on his knees to receive communion from his own son.

He told me this because ironically the UGCC has finally reversed this practice that tore so many people apart, but I don’t think the father lived to see it.

The eastern churches are undergoing a long process of undoing these kinds of things, the imposition of Latin practices on the eastern Catholics in the pre-Vatican II church.

So yes you missed it, but I doubt you would have enjoyed watching them abused in this way.

The issue of standing or not in the Latin rite churches is an issue for the Latin rite, and there it should be settled, but I think it is probably true that communion was taken standing in the Latin rite churches before the custom of kneeling became common (worth a bit of research, I think). If so it does qualify as a traditional Latin rite practice.

But you’re not getting the point.

It was wrong for the Eastern Churches when they had to receive Communion kneeling. We agree on that.

However, we cannot call that a “traditional” practice of the Latin Church, because it is a practice randomly and arbitrarily plucked up out of the dusty history books, and for political/ideological reasons, no less. Did the Latin Church do it at one time? Yes. But for at least one thousand years, it did not. It is no living tradition of the Latin Church at all. It is a fabrication. Over one thousand years ago, the Latin Church organically began kneeling to receive Communion on the tongue. Communion standing and in the hand is not a tradition of the Latin Church any more than kneeling and on the tongue is a tradition of the Eastern Churches, regardless of if they ever did it or not.

 

[archangel04]

There is a big argument that if the Eastern rites do it then the Latin Church should follow in its foot steps, but then I ask, why then so many people in the East have an issue with “latinization” of the Eastern rites? Kneeling has been a part of our tradition just as standing as been in the East. Why should we change this tradition? This argument “the East does so it’s ok” is in a way wrong. Should most of the Eastern rites choose to receive on the hand because the Latin Church does it? Should their priest all be celibate? It would seem wrong to say “well the Latin Church does it so they should as well,” the same applies when someone argues vice versa.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

There is a big argument that if the Eastern rites do it then the Latin Church should follow in its foot steps, but then I ask, why then so many people in the East have an issue with “latinization” of the Eastern rites?

This is a debate within the Latin Church. The East is not imposing anything on the West. Latinization was the opposite - West being imposed both on and in the East.

The point was made earlier. The merits of any practice within a tradition should be viewed with a knowledge of and insight into the history of that specific tradition.

 

[Hesychios]

But you’re not getting the point.

It was wrong for the Eastern Churches when they had to receive Communion kneeling. We agree on that.

However, we cannot call that a “traditional” practice of the Latin Church, because it is a practice randomly and arbitrarily plucked up out of the dusty history books, and for political/ideological reasons, no less. Did the Latin Church do it at one time? Yes. But for at least one thousand years, it did not. It is no living tradition of the Latin Church at all. It is a fabrication. Over one thousand years ago, the Latin Church organically began kneeling to receive Communion on the tongue. Communion standing and in the hand is not a tradition of the Latin Church any more than kneeling and on the tongue is a tradition of the Eastern Churches, regardless of if they ever did it or not.

As I said it is a matter for the Latin church to decide but you are wrong to think that I missed any point.

The early canons of the church (the whole entire church) specifically state that kneeling is forbidden on Sunday. This is not merely a case of plucking some dusty old practice out of the history books, it is canon law from the very beginning. It is quite clear that liturgists know that the original tradition of the Latin church is to receive standing which is in compliance with the practice of the universal church from the Apostolic age. This is not a matter of dusty old history but correct practice.

You can decide whether or not it makes sense to return your own church to it’s original practice, since as you said the practice died out for a long time, but it is quite clear that those Latin Catholics who feel that receiving standing is proper for the Latin church have a solid argument in the ancient canons. This is much more than wistfully yearning to return to older forms.

 

[Bookcat]

Communion standing and in the hand is not a tradition of the Latin Church .

It was the way to receive up until the 9th century.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9049067&postcount=21

 

[Hesychios]

There is a big argument that if the Eastern rites do it then the Latin Church should follow in its foot steps, but then I ask, why then so many people in the East have an issue with “latinization” of the Eastern rites? .

I certainly don’t make that argument. The Latin church should not ‘follow in their footsteps’.

I have seen (and I think this is what most people try to say) that sometimes in the debate within the Latin church over practice there is a sense that some options are taken as less legitimate for one reason or another, and if it can be shown that other Apostolic churches have always done these things too then an argument can be made that the option in question is not less legitimate but possibly original. This is not a suggestion that the Latin church ‘easternize’, it is a debate within the Latin western church on how best to proceed and be true to best practice or it’s own tradition.

One cannot make such a claim with, say, Protestant practices (which would be more modern in origin) … but one can do this with other Apostolic church practices which don’t necessarily have to be ‘eastern’ (there are other Apostolic western rites too), but more often than not are.

 

[YoungTradCath]

It was the way to receive up until the 9th century.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9049067&postcount=21

So what? What significance does this have? Kneeling and on the tongue was a legitimate organic development. Back to standing and in the hand was not an organic development.

People also used to confess publicly and receive very harsh penances. Shall we also revert to that? No, because it is useless antiquarianism.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

Some Eastern Catholics kneel when receiving the Eucharist; it really all depends on how tall the priest is. When I went to Divine Liturgy the priest was very short so I had to kneel.

As for the Roman rite I prefer to kneel as oppose to standing because if by the very name of Christ every knee should bend then why shouldn’t my knee bend when in the presence of the Eucharist?

Anyway that’s just my own personal opinion and standard which I impose on myself. If people choose to stand then that is their choice. The one thing I really want to see change is the casual way in which Catholics receive the Eucharist. In Divine Liturgy the communicants have to hold the cloth next to their chin and the Eucharist is given to them with a spoon. I wish the Latin Rite would bring back the use of the paten and remove communion in the hand since so many particles of the Eucharist run the risk of falling on the floor. I would say my position on communion in the hand changed when a priest told me people would never receive in the hand if they knew how many particles of the Eucharist fall on the paten when he uses it and that without that paten those very same particles would have been on the floor rather than back in the chalice.

 

[Bookcat]

So what? What significance does this have? Kneeling and on the tongue was a legitimate organic development. Back to standing and in the hand was not an organic development.
.

So what? Well part of the significance would that it is important to be correct in understanding the various aspects (and sometimes we are not…or at least so my wife tells me )

But sure --communion on the Tongue kneeling yes was a very legitimate development.

And as to the overall idea of organic development – such does not only go away from the source.

I agree with exactly what Cardinal Ratzinger said–he has a very good way of putting it …

"…we know that until the ninth century Communion was received in the hand, standing. That does not of course mean that it should always do so. For what is fine, sublime, about the Church is that she is growing, maturing, understanding the mystery more profoundly. In the that sense the new development that began after the ninth century is quite justified, as an expression of reverence, and is well founded. But, on the other hand, we have to say that the Church could not possibly have been celebrating the Eucharist unworthily for nine hundred years. If we read what the Fathers say, we can see in what a spirit of reverence they received Communion…

We should be concerned only to argue in favor of what the Church’s efforts 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…"

Cardinal Ratzinger “God Is Near Us” Ignatius Press Pg 70 2001

Very well put indeed.

I love both. The Church is so “rich” * Let us bring forth some the treasures of the centuries!*

(Pope Benedict XVI certainly has a gift for such --as he brings out all sorts of wonderful things-- intellectually, spiritually, culturally and liturgically etc)

 

[Bookcat]

A great line from Cardinal Ratzinger:

He notes in God and the World:

“I wouldn’t be fussy about it. 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” (pg 410)

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Some Eastern Catholics kneel when receiving the Eucharist; it really all depends on how tall the priest is. When I went to Divine Liturgy the priest was very short so I had to kneel.

Kneeling for communion is not the norm in most Eastern traditions. As Hesychios and other have mentioned, standing is the ancient liturgical posture, especially on Sunday when the joyous and glorious Resurrection is commemorated. The height of the priest (or lack thereof) is not a dictate of tradition, yet does present an occasional challenge.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Pope Benedict XVI certainly has a gift for such --as he brings out all sorts of wonderful things-- intellectually, spiritually, culturally and liturgically etc.

He does indeed, and also provides great example to all of us with his intellectual honesty. He would thus acknowledge the very real history of related practice and tradion, yet in his uniquely fatherly way, also gently remind us of what is truly important, as noted in the boldface quotatation in your post.

 

[PhilOSophia]

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

Why?

1. Because the Church says “It is allowed” is not the same saying “You should do it and here is why”. No bishop, Cardinal or Pope has come out and said "CITH, standing should replace COTT, kneeling in your parish church and here is why …"

It just crept in. And that is interesting in itself. The sacred matter in your religion and people suddenly took a notion, at a time of revolution and increasing decadence in the wider society, to handle it. Without washing their hands first.

1. “It was done in the early Church.” Again, that is no good reason why it should replace COTT, kneeling, in the late 20th century.
2. Is Christ the Host? Then why have you decided to stop kneeling before Him and start handling Him? Are you holier than your forefathers or Is He less so?
3. Hey, maybe your spriritual forefathers had very good reasons for stopping CITH?

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

Kneeling for communion is not the norm in most Eastern traditions. As Hesychios and other have mentioned, standing is the ancient liturgical posture, especially on Sunday when the joyous and glorious Resurrection is commemorated. The height of the priest (or lack thereof) is not a dictate of tradition, yet does present an occasional challenge.

I know my friend, my comment was just playful banter.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I know my friend, my comment was just playful banter.

It was funny , but sometimes folks here don’t see the humor …

 

[Baelor]

1. Because the Church says “It is allowed” is not the same saying “You should do it and here is why”. No bishop, Cardinal or Pope has come out and said "CITH, standing should replace COTT, kneeling in your parish church and here is why …"

The fact that it is allowed is enough of a justification. The laity are permitted to receive kneeling or standing. The norm in the US is standing. That does not make it better or worse.

1. “It was done in the early Church.” Again, that is no good reason why it should replace COTT, kneeling, in the late 20th century.

As soon as you permit change in discipline at all, then you open up the possibility for future change. I am not saying it should happen now, I am merely stating that you have no basis for claiming that it should never, ever change in the future.

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

1. Is Christ the Host? Then why have you decided to stop kneeling before Him and start handling Him? Are you holier than your forefathers or Is He less so?

Neither. Some of our forefathers received Him standing and in the hand. Were they less holy? Was He less so?

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.