Receiving the Eucharist while standing

[ProVobis]

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

FWIW,

I don’t know about the 9th century, but it wasn’t until the 11th century that communion bread took on the form of wafers.

newadvent.org/cathen/01349d.htm

I would imagine up to that time, it would have been harder to place a larger piece of bread on one’s tongue.

But I recall one of the local bishops mentioning through a priest once that early practice of receiving communion used some type of altar cloth instead of directly on one’s hands.

 

[agnes_therese]

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.

I’m glad you have the authority to tell the Church how it is obligated to handle changes in discipline. I don’t.

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.

I would follow the Church, just as I do now.

 

[thomas_jd]

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.

Should has a few definitions.
Should is not a binding word but rather a suggestive word.

 

[ProVobis]

Should has a few definitions.
Should is not a binding word but rather a suggestive word.

OTOH, why go through the process of creating round tongue-sized wafers when regular unleavened wheat communion bread could be used?

 

[paperwight66]

OTOH, why go through the process of creating round tongue-sized wafers when regular unleavened wheat communion bread could be used?

Well, for one thing, wafers ‘keep’ for months, unlike bread. They also, unlike bread, don’t shed crumbs.

 

[ProVobis]

Well, for one thing, wafers ‘keep’ for months, unlike bread. They also, unlike bread, don’t shed crumbs.

Then it seems as if larger pieces wouldn’t shed crumbs either, though after seeing rubs on silver coins caused by the smallest amount of finger handling, I doubt if even wafers don’t wear off to some extent.

 

[thewanderer]

Can we please keep this thread on track? This thread is not for the discussion of COTT vs CITH, so I’d you wish to discuss this, please start a new thread. Also, this thread is not simply a discussion o what everyone thinks about receiving communion standing, I am in particular trying to understand the argument that since it has been the tradition of the Latin rite, it should not be allowed currently.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

(snipped) I am in particular trying to understand the argument that since it has been the tradition of the Latin rite, it should not be allowed currently.

In my experience, trying to understand this argument is pointless.
Some people will ***always ***look to the outward signs and judge them based on their perceptions. Usually they will be wrong.

For me, the biggest problem with this debate, and others like it, is that some people like to use these outward signs as “gauges” for other’s faithfulness.
This is not my job, or anyone else’s but God’s.

 

[thewanderer]

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.

Thank for your reply. I really like your example of the traditions in a family, it makes a lot of sense to me, but it still leaves me with a few questions. To what extent should the new members influence the traditions of the family? For instance, when more children are born, or when someone from another family joins through marriage? It seems in these instances new traditions get brought in, and old ones can even get left behind in a very natural and fitting way which is not simply an attempt to seperate oneself from one’s family and ancestors. Also, to what extent do you see change to traditions coming from the ‘culture of the day’ (regardless of what time period I is in history) as natural?

 

[thewanderer]

In my experience, trying to understand this argument is pointless.
Some people will ***always ***look to the outward signs and judge them based on their perceptions. Usually they will be wrong.

For me, the biggest problem with this debate, and others like it, is that some people like to use these outward signs as “gauges” for other’s faithfulness.
This is not my job, or anyone else’s but God’s.

I know it can be really frustrating to have people judge you for no following every practice they believe a real Catholic, or even if they deny that they are judging you to have the way they speak imply that same judgement. But I tend to have a little more faith that it is possible to have a good discussion about any topic if you can just find the righ people and approach it the right way! That’s why I am trying to discourage people from arguing about these practices in this thread so that we can hopefully get a fruitful discussion going.

 

[floresco]

Thank for your reply. I really like your example of the traditions in a family, it makes a lot of sense to me, but it still leaves me with a few questions. To what extent should the new members influence the traditions of the family? For instance, when more children are born, or when someone from another family joins through marriage? It seems in these instances new traditions get brought in, and old ones can even get left behind in a very natural and fitting way which is not simply an attempt to seperate oneself from one’s family and ancestors. Also, to what extent do you see change to traditions coming from the ‘culture of the day’ (regardless of what time period I is in history) as natural?

Yes, family traditions do change. We are now in the stage of accumulating grandchildren and are back to having babies and toddlers around. So we are reviving customs that we used when our own children were that age. And the people entering the family bring new traditions. For example, my cupcake baking daughter-in-law makes special cupcakes for most occasions.

I think that changes do happen from the culture of the day. For example, I know many families who have made watching The Passion part of their Easter Triduum tradition. The Church too can adopt traditions from the culture, as long as the customs are not immoral in themselves. This is a natural process.

Much of the discomfort among trads is based on the perception that new practices and liturgies are being introduced in a way that does not respect the natural process. They are being imposed by “experts” who create them artificially. For example, “liturgical dance”. It just doesn’t seem to come from anywhere real. It seems like an idea from some “expert liturgist” imposed on us.

 

[floresco]

That’s why I am trying to discourage people from arguing about these practices in this thread so that we can hopefully get a fruitful discussion going.

I appreciate what you are trying to do. May I suggest that in the future, you select your subject line with this in mind. I suspect that many people come into a thread with certain expectations based on its name. Sometimes, this seems to have more influence than the actual questions being asked.

 

[floresco]

I know that outward signs are important to me. To some extant, this is a reaction to our culture’s over-reliance on the subjective. So many people seem to consider only their personal feelings and this is going too far. Faith contains many objective elements. I tend to stress these because I see them being neglected. But you should not assume that my focus on outward signs means I am judging anyone.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

But you should not assume that my focus on outward signs means I am judging anyone.

I am assuming nothing of no one.
I said that "some people" use these outward signs as gauges of other’s faithfulness, not "all people".
This is based on my own experiences.
I, for one, am all about balance.
I do what works for me, and allow others to do the same.

 

[floresco]

I am assuming nothing of no one.
I said that "some people" use these outward signs as gauges of other’s faithfulness, not "all people".
This is based on my own experiences.
I, for one, am all about balance.
I do what works for me, and allow others to do the same.

Doing “what works for me” is an example of the subjectivism that I am a reacting to. One of the foundational assumptions to Catholicism is a belief in objective truth. We believe there objectively is a God. Jesus Christ is objectively His Son, true God and true Man. All of humanity is objectively condemned to eternal separation from God by our sins. We objectively have the opportunity to be restored to friendship with God through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Therefore, it does not seem strange to me that there might exist an objectively best way to worship this God. And it seems like a good idea to seek it.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Doing “what works for me” is an example of the subjectivism that I am a reacting to. One of the foundational assumptions to Catholicism is a belief in objective truth. We believe there objectively is a God. Jesus Christ is objectively His Son, true God and true Man. All of humanity is objectively condemned to eternal separation from God by our sins. We objectively have the opportunity to be restored to friendship with God through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Therefore, it does not seem strange to me that there might exist an objectively best way to worship this God. And it seems like a good idea to seek it.

Regarding the highlitghted portion-
In a word- NO!

The Church allows for options.
Who am I to say that one of their options is objectivly “better” than the other.
And why “better” or “worse”?
Why not just different?

 

[PhilOSophia]

**The thing is, the Mass is all outward signs. If you remove or change them, you change the meaning. **

You simply can’t reasonably concoct your own Mass, in the same way that you can’t concoct your own language. Such a thing is pointless unless there is shared meaning.

 

[floresco]

The Church allows for options.
Who am I to say that one of their options is objectivly “better” than the other.
And why “better” or “worse”?
Why not just different?

The Church allows for options in choosing one’s vocation but also teaches that priesthood is objectively better. Therefore, just because the Church allows options, it does not necessarily prove that they are objectively of equal value.

Sometimes things are just different. Sometimes it is possible to determine better and worse. For example, Catholic is better than non-Catholic.

 

[otjm]

The Church allows for options in choosing one’s vocation but also teaches that priesthood is objectively better. Therefore, just because the Church allows options, it does not necessarily prove that they are objectively of equal value.

Sometimes things are just different. Sometimes it is possible to determine better and worse. For example, Catholic is better than non-Catholic.

On the other hand, the Church has two thousand years of differing liturgical rites, and I don’t think that anyone can say that one is objectively better than another.

In some instances, one can say that a certain aspect of liurgy (e.g. posture) is objectively better than another; but if one expands that, one may find that that objective is time and place specific, and/or culturally conditioned. At which point, perhaps the term “objective” is not the best term.

To take the point further, the poster you were referring to was not talking aboust sacraments, as in marriage and ordination, but rather in liturgical postures. I am not sure that liturgical postures and sacarments are on the same plane. Sacraments are not subject to cultural determination but are intrinsic realities. Liturgical postures are subject to shaping by culture, and as culture changes, so may the postures.

 

[otjm]

Those who protest posture change have an interesting and perhaps not entirely acknowledged conundrum.

They protest most voiciferously any action coming from “the bottom up”; that is, one starting with the laity. And yet, it would appear that the actions/postures/changes which they hold so dear, and which may have been with us for ten or more centuries, became so because they came from “bottom up” and were finally codified.

That is, they expect all changes to be “organic”, a process that in the past was “bottom up”, and yet when something does appear to be coming that way, they reject it.

Were a change to be imposed by the Pope’s fiat, that would not be “organic”. However, when a change comes, through research, consultation and consideration from liturgists and with permission is allowed by Rome for the laity to do, which should be an “organic” process, the cry issues forth…

Perhaps by organic they mean something else; that there is somehow a slow integral process by which changes could be made; however, they never explain what that process is or should look like.

The net result is that they appear to want to codify permanently forever and forever that which we had 100 years ago, or 75 (and never mind that even liturgiclly there have been small changes since at least Trent, which appears to be a marking place).

They also seem to have no knowledge nor any desire for any such knowledge as to the process over the last 2000 years for liturgical growth and change.

Again, all too easy is the cry of “antiquarianism” for anythign and everything that occured within the first 1000 years of Church history. While that charge can be made is some circumstances, it fails to admit that in a thousnad years (as in, the last thousand), there could have come accretions which have moved us - perhaps not in bad directions, but in ways that have succeeded in over-emphacizing some aspects of a sacrament at the detriment of other aspects.

A prime example of that is the issue of Mass as Sacrifice and Sacred Meal. While we may all agree that the issue of Sacred Meal has been over-emphacized by some, the objections to it (in spite of the Magisterial teahing on the matter) relegate it to so low an aspect as to have no significance at all.