Receiving the Eucharist while standing

  • Thread starter Thread starter thewanderer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
We are unworthy to receive Our Lord standing and or on the hand. Just like in scripture when it says “every knee shall bend” it shows a great sign of reverence.

This is from Cardinal Arinze speaking on behalf of the Holy Father.
youtube.com/watch?v=Ap1KL2D5ae4
 
Traditionalists just don’t like the recent changes, full stop. They haven’t resulted in a revival of our worship. Things which worked well have been dropped. Beauty has been lost and banality substituted in its place.

You could have any change you want, it seems, except a change back. Thankfully, things are … changing 😃
 
otjm said:
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.
Click to expand...
Could you please give an example of a change that came from the bottom up that is protested by trads. I cannot think of any. Several examples would be good.
 
Before a judgment is rendered, it may be helpful to carefully consider the history of the tradition and the genesis of the current indult.

As Eastern Catholics, we tend to be conservative by nature and gravitate toward long-standing (ancient, if you will) custom, practice and tradition. In that vein, we would offer that we receive standing, not simply to suggest it is OK (because it is so in the East), but to offer the “why” for the further reflection and consideration.

In the Eastern traditions, the Divine Liturgy is first and foremost a commemoration of the glorious Resurrection. It is through the Saving Grace that we are even notionally worthy to receive the Pure Body and Most Precious Blood. Standing is a liturgical posture of joy. We commemorate the Resurrection with joy. Thus we stand (and do not kneel) during the Divine Liturgy, and stand to receive the Holy Eucharist, to receive the grace made possible by the triumph over death and sin.

Admittedly, the Western view of the focus of the Mass is somewhat different. However, the Eastern practice suggests the posture for worship and the reception of the Holy Eucharist might best serve as a reflection of the liturgical focus on the Sacrament embodied in the Mass.

The final prayer and response of the Communion Rite is suggestive:
Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.
Click to expand...
If that means kneeling, so be it. If standing is acceptable or to be accepted as the norm, we pray our bishops catechize and instruct accordingly. Either way, the posture should be consistent with the liturgical focus of the Latin Rite Mass and the Latin Rite’s expression of the Eucharistic Sacrifice.
 
floresco said:
Could you please give an example of a change that came from the bottom up that is protested by trads. I cannot think of any. Several examples would be good.
Click to expand...
How about the subject we are discussing (since I don’t want to assist in getting off topic).
 
ByzCathCantor said:
Before a judgment is rendered, it may be helpful to carefully consider the history of the tradition and the genesis of the current indult.
Click to expand...
I think looking at the history here is a good idea as well, and if I could make a couple more observations here:

The very early church’s posture could very well have been to receive (Latin word is actually “accipere”) standing. I could see where that would be considered more reverent than reclining or sitting as the Apostles had done.

The other point is that the scripture part about “every knee shall bend” (Romans, Philippians) probably wasn’t written until the second century. I don’t know if this is what started kneeling but it might explain why the West and East differ in their philosophy here.
 
ProVobis said:
I think looking at the history here is a good idea as well, and if I could make a couple more observations here:

The very early church could have very well been receiving standing. I could see where that would be considered more reverent than reclining or sitting as the Apostles had done.

The other point is that the scripture part about “every knee shall bend” (Romans, Philippians) probably wasn’t written until the second century. I don’t know if this is what started kneeling but it might explain why the West and East differ in their philosophy here.
Click to expand...
The scriptural reference to “every knee shall bend” dates to the 1st century. It is virtually universally accepted that both Romans and Philippians are genuine letters of St. Paul.
 
ProVobis said:
I think looking at the history here is a good idea as well, and if I could make a couple more observations here:

The very early church’s posture could very well have been to receive (Latin word is actually “accipere”) standing. I could see where that would be considered more reverent than reclining or sitting as the Apostles had done.

The other point is that the scripture part about “every knee shall bend” (Romans, Philippians) probably wasn’t written until the second century. I don’t know if this is what started kneeling but it might explain why the West and East differ in their philosophy here.
Click to expand...
The difference in perspectives about kneeling and standing has to do with the fact that in the East, kneeling was associated with penance (and therefore incompatible with celebrations of the Eucharist), while in the West, kneeling came to be seen as a sign of reverence.
 
RyanBlack said:
The scriptural reference to “every knee shall bend” dates to the 1st century. It is virtually universally accepted that both Romans and Philippians are genuine letters of St. Paul.
Click to expand...
You may be right but we don’t have the originals to show that. We don’t even know the language the originals were written or dictated in, though later they were written in Greek. Point is, however, the Mass came before the New Testament as we know it was written.
while in the West, kneeling came to be seen as a sign of reverence.
Click to expand...
Okay, but what was the basis for this, if not St. Paul?
 
ProVobis said:
You may be right but we don’t have the originals to show that. We don’t even know the language the originals were written or dictated in, though later they were written in Greek. Point is, however, the Mass came before the New Testament as we know it was written.
Click to expand...
I don’t think I have ever come across anyone who questioned they were originally written in Greek. Do you have a source for this?
 
ProVobis said:
You may be right but we don’t have the originals to show that. We don’t even know the language the originals were written or dictated in, though later they were written in Greek. Point is, however, the Mass came before the New Testament as we know it was written.
Click to expand...
Your point about the celebration of the Eucharist predating the writing of the New Testament is correct. However, belief that Romans and Philippians are both genuine Epistles of St. Paul and that they (like all of the NT, with the possible exception of the Gospel of Matthew, where a very few believe it was originally written in Aramaic) were originally written in Greek is practically universal among scholars.
 
floresco said:
I don’t think I have ever come across anyone who questioned they were originally written in Greek. Do you have a source for this?
Click to expand...
RyanBlack said:
Your point about the celebration of the Eucharist predating the writing of the New Testament is correct. However, belief that Romans and Philippians are both genuine Epistles of St. Paul and that they (like all of the NT, with the possible exception of the Gospel of Matthew, where a very few believe it was originally written in Aramaic) were originally written in Greek is practically universal among scholars.
Click to expand...
catholicplanet.com/TSM/NT-introduction.htm
 
floresco said:
The author of this article only has a bachelor’s degree in philosophy and theology. His opinion does not carry much weight against the consensus of experts in this field.
Click to expand...
I don’t know who your experts are but we’ll have to disagree here. I’ll side with the archaeologists and PBS documentaries on this one. It makes more practical sense to me.

That said, I’ve managed to go off-topic again. I apologize to the OP and will leave the thread. If there is a communion rail, I’ll kneel; if not, I’ll stand.
 
ProVobis said:
I don’t know who your experts are but we’ll have to disagree here. I’ll side with the archaeologists and PBS documentaries on this one. It makes more practical sense to me.

That said, I’ve managed to go off-topic again. I apologize to the OP and will leave the thread. If there is a communion rail, I’ll kneel; if not, I’ll stand.
Click to expand...
His experts are practically every (Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant/Non-Christian/Atheist, Conservative/Liberal) Biblical scholar out there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top