Stop Tearing Apart Jesus' Body!

[Eucharisted]

The Year of the Lord is not divided pre-VCII and post-VCII. The Year of the Lord is one single Age, the Age of the Church, which extends from the Resurrection to the Second Coming.

The Mass is not divided into the TLM and the NO. The Mass is the Mass, the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and there are many forms of it in the Catholic Church.

The reception of Holy Communion is not divided between hand and tongue. The reception of Holy Communion is the receiving of Christ Jesus in your soul, and the Church decrees it may be by hand or by tongue.

If you say, “The Age of the Church is divided because the Council introduced something new!” than you do not know what the Church teaches, for the Church teaches that the Council merely developed, deepened and more fully explained the doctrine of the Church.

If you say, “The Mass is divided because one form is better than the other!” than you do not know Jesus Christ, for He is not divided against Himself, there is only one Mediator - not two - and if you love the form more than the Mass, than you do not love the Redeemer.

If you say, “The reception of Holy Communion is divided because one manner is better than the other!” than yo do not know yourself, for you offend the Lord both by your tongue and by your hand. None of your organs are worthy of the Lord, yet still He comes to you.

But as many times as I correct you, so many times you plug your ears and call me a liar. How much longer will God put up with you? Stop judging and be reconciled! You are only an instrument of His Will, and the instrument is not greater than the one who uses it; yet you say to God, “I am greater than You!” and do not listen to His gentle reproaches. He wishes to save you, not only from Hell but from ignorance and self-blindness as well, yet each time you do not care, you go on as if everything is fine, even to the jaws of Hell. Do not be swallowed up! Return to God, listen to His Church, be humble like Jesus Christ is. Only in this way will you find the peace and joy which your souls so ardentally long for!

 

[RyanML]

The reception of Holy Communion is not divided between hand and tongue. The reception of Holy Communion is the receiving of Christ Jesus in your soul, and the Church decrees it may be by hand or by tongue.

Some thoughts from Rome concerning the current practices of receiving Holy Communion:

The Italian website Pontifex.Roma has published a short interview with Msgr. Nicola Bux on the topic of Holy Communion. Here is the full text of the interview in English translation. Emphases mine.

Given Msgr. Bux’s closeness to the Pope and his liturgical thought, it seems that we have here a clear exposition of the “Benedictine” stance regarding the proper way to receive communion: clearly favorable towards communion kneeling and on the tongue coupled with a clear disapproval of communion in the hand (clearer than in the previous three Pontificates), without as yet proposing strict measures to abolish anything not already condemned in documents like Redemptionis Sacramentum, and definitely without opposing communion standing up. – CAP.

---

How to administer communion in a dignified manner

Communion on one’s knees guarantees devotion and the sense of the sacred. Certain flippant ways to administer this sacrament show a loss of the sense of the sacred. The faithful must not take for themselves the Chalice and the Host, this being a serious abuse.

Monday, July 20th, 2009
From Pontifex Roma

How should one administer communion in a dignified manner? We asked the theologian and esteemed liturgist Monsignor Nicola Bux. It may be a random case but the modernism and the slovenliness of certain post-conciliar interpretations have lead to such a debasement of this Sacrament , that there are all kind of ways in which people approach it…

Don Bux, which is the most correct way to communicate?

“I would say there are two ways. There is the position where one stands up, taking the Host in the mouth, or else on one’s knees. I do not see any third way.”

There is the standing-up position.

“OK, I have nothing against it. The important thing is that the faithful are intimately conscious of what they are about to receive, that is that they do not approach the communion with a lightheartedness that shows immaturity and being at a complete distance from God.”

Communion standing up, but what is the best way to do it?

“Well, look here, even the receiving of the communion standing up may be full of devotion, of compunction…… and a sense of the Sacred is good to have. It would be very good and convenient, no doubt about it, to let a formal sign of reverence precede communion (even if it is received standing up), which means the head is covered for the women, sign of the cross or a slight bow in a sign of one’s love.”

But for what reason do people often approach the communion as if it is a kind of buffet?

“I like this expression and in part it is correct. Many persons rise mechanically (from their seats - CAP) and they do not know and are not even able to imagine what they are about to receive. They think that participation in Mass something that automatically includes communion and that they have to go up and receive it, although the fact is that only those who are really in the grace of God should do so”.

In his latest Masses pope Benedict XVI has administered communion only to those who were kneeling.

"Yes, he was very right to do so. I believe that kneeling when receiving the communion helps one to gather oneself together and to understand the mystery in a more reverential way. To kneel in front of the Body of Christ is an act of gratuitous love and humility before God, and this sense of the sacred is seldom understood. In our days it is mostly adrift and lost or almost muted. “

All in all, communion on one’s knees helps the spirit?

“Yes, certainly so, it favors devotion and spirituality. I believe that the position on one’s knees when receiving the communion is the one which by far responds the most to the Sacred.”

And receiving in one’s hand?

“I am sorry to say, but there is no text of the Tradition which supports it. Not even if everybody takes it and eats it in this way. There is no text concerning this, and if we wish we could say that the Apostles were priests and thus had the right to take it by the hand. The Oriental Church does not permit it.”

 

[RyanML]

If you say, “The Mass is divided because one form is better than the other!” than you do not know Jesus Christ, for He is not divided against Himself, there is only one Mediator - not two - and if you love the form more than the Mass, than you do not love the Redeemer.

I love how traditionalists are always the bad guys, even when the current Holy Father is moving more and more in their favor. Perhaps if all the priests and bishops would be obedient to the Holy Father and to the decrees of Vatican II concerning the Liturgy, then there wouldn’t be all this fuss about the Liturgy. The traditionalists just want what the Church teaches we should have and is our right as Catholics to receive. If you want to talk about tearing apart the Church, write a post about all the priests and bishops who disobeyed the Council and who now disobey the Pope and ignore his example of Liturgical renewal.

 

[dove51]

I love how traditionalists are always the bad guys, even when the current Holy Father is moving more and more in their favor. Perhaps if all the priests and bishops would be obedient to the Holy Father and to the decrees of Vatican II concerning the Liturgy, then there wouldn’t be all this fuss about the Liturgy. The traditionalists just want what the Church teaches we should have and is our right as Catholics to receive. If you want to talk about tearing apart the Church, write a post about all the priests and bishops who disobeyed the Council and who now disobey the Pope and ignore his example of Liturgical renewal.

Seriously. Traditionalists are not the ones making changes that tear things and people apart.

 

[sancte_joseph]

Seriously. Traditionalists are not the ones making changes that tear things and people apart.

AMEN.

 

[bpbasilphx]

How to administer communion in a dignified manner

Communion on one’s knees guarantees devotion and the sense of the sacred.

---

**I disagree. That’s merely his opinion.

The first Book of Common Prayer and the Lutheran rites called for kneeling at communion–and there was also a specific repudiation of transsubstatiation.

Byzantines and other Eastern Churches have always received standing, and there’s no denying devotion or sense of the Sacred in Eastern Churches.**

---

And receiving in one’s hand?

“I am sorry to say, but there is no text of the Tradition which supports it. Not even if everybody takes it and eats it in this way. There is no text concerning this, and if we wish we could say that the Apostles were priests and thus had the right to take it by the hand. The Oriental Church does not permit it.”

---

**Clearly this man does not know what he’s talking about.

The Assyrian Church of the East, in her Liturgy of the Apostles Addai and Mari, calls for Communion in the hand, from what I’ve seen on video.

The Byzantine Liturgy of St. James calls for Communion in the hand.

And these are traditional uses, too.

The Latin use is NOT the wnole of tradition.

Finally, there is no such thing as “the Oriental Church.” There are Eastern ChurchES, Catholic, Orthodox, and Non-Chalcedonian.**

 

[RyanML]

How to administer communion in a dignified manner

Communion on one’s knees guarantees devotion and the sense of the sacred.

---

**I disagree. That’s merely his opinion.

The first Book of Common Prayer and the Lutheran rites called for kneeling at communion–and there was also a specific repudiation of transsubstatiation.

Byzantines and other Eastern Churches have always received standing, and there’s no denying devotion or sense of the Sacred in Eastern Churches.**

---

And receiving in one’s hand?

“I am sorry to say, but there is no text of the Tradition which supports it. Not even if everybody takes it and eats it in this way. There is no text concerning this, and if we wish we could say that the Apostles were priests and thus had the right to take it by the hand. The Oriental Church does not permit it.”

---

**Clearly this man does not know what he’s talking about.

The Assyrian Church of the East, in her Liturgy of the Apostles Addai and Mari, calls for Communion in the hand, from what I’ve seen on video.

The Byzantine Liturgy of St. James calls for Communion in the hand.

And these are traditional uses, too.

The Latin use is NOT the wnole of tradition.

Finally, there is no such thing as “the Oriental Church.” There are Eastern ChurchES**, Catholic, Orthodox, and Non-Chalcedonian.

Yes, I am aware that Msgr’s views are not all together. My point in quoting him was to show that there are high ranking officials in Rome who publically state that they believe receiving communion on the tongue is a more reverent way, reflecting the Holy Father’s own preference.

Communion in the hand, in the West, has been instrumental in a decreasing love, devotion, respect, and even belief in the Real Presence. In fact, communion in the hand was introduced in the West by protestants as a way of denying the Real Presence. And even though some protestants kneel to receive, the Anglicans made it clear in the “black rubric” that such gestures were in no way meant as adoration of the Sacrament. And the way of receiving in the hand in some Eastern Churches is hardly the same as in the West. In some liturgies, the hands of the faithful are purified before touching the Sacrament. Such a practice in the West would seem almost excessive given that we have so lost a sense of the Sacred.

I share Msgr. Bux’s opinion, as well as the Holy Father’s, that communion kneeling and on the tongue is a very appropriate way to reverence the Lord and needs to be reintroduced to the West as a means of restoring reverence and solemnity.

 

[sancte_joseph]

How to administer communion in a dignified manner

Communion on one’s knees guarantees devotion and the sense of the sacred.

---

**I disagree. That’s merely his opinion.

The first Book of Common Prayer and the Lutheran rites called for kneeling at communion–and there was also a specific repudiation of transsubstatiation.

Byzantines and other Eastern Churches have always received standing, and there’s no denying devotion or sense of the Sacred in Eastern Churches.**

---

And receiving in one’s hand?

“I am sorry to say, but there is no text of the Tradition which supports it. Not even if everybody takes it and eats it in this way. There is no text concerning this, and if we wish we could say that the Apostles were priests and thus had the right to take it by the hand. The Oriental Church does not permit it.”

---

**Clearly this man does not know what he’s talking about.

The Assyrian Church of the East, in her Liturgy of the Apostles Addai and Mari, calls for Communion in the hand, from what I’ve seen on video.

The Byzantine Liturgy of St. James calls for Communion in the hand.

And these are traditional uses, too.

The Latin use is NOT the wnole of tradition.

Finally, there is no such thing as “the Oriental Church.” There are Eastern ChurchES**, Catholic, Orthodox, and Non-Chalcedonian.

I hate when people bring up the Eastern Churches…

OF COURSE they are part of the body of Christ and of course they bring their rich tradition to the church and they receive communion differently than the Roman Church does

BUT when speaking of the west (which Rome practically built) kneeling means reverence and respect and as is the case in the liturgy adoration.

so in the “Roman” tradition of the Church kneeling is better (In my opinion and in the holy fathers opinion) at showing that reverence and adoration.

 

[bpbasilphx]

I hate when people bring up the Eastern Churches…

Please note that it was Msgr. Bux that brought up the Eastern Churches in the interview quoted at some length here, not I.

Why do you hate Eastern Churches being brought up?

Does our existence disturb the preferred perception (or fantasy) of a totally uniform Church?

Are we somehow inferior?

Are we supposed to get in the back of the bus or something?

Frequently, our experience, witness, and uses can show a way of resolving hard-liners who are butting heads on opposite sides of an issue.

Eastern Churches ARE traditional.

Deal with it.

 

[gloria97000]

Please note that it was Msgr. Bux that brought up the Eastern Churches in the interview quoted at some length here, not I.

Why do you hate Eastern Churches being brought up?

Does our existence disturb the preferred perception (or fantasy) of a totally uniform Church?

Are we somehow inferior?

Are we supposed to get in the back of the bus or something?

Frequently, our experience, witness, and uses can show a way of resolving hard-liners who are butting heads on opposite sides of an issue.

Eastern Churches ARE traditional.

Deal with it.

Indeed…the Church is not torn apart but built up in its diversity, in its many expressions of solemnity and worship. And the many forms of expression serve to indicate that different people may express profound worship in different ways. There are many Religious Orders within the Roman Church, some active, some contemplative, some are both; there are several vocations in the Catholic Church at large. We need not be surprised that some find reverence in one posture and some in another. This is particularly true when we see that entire cultures express reverence in different ways – something internal in our shared human nature has allowed for standing to be reverent.

 

[em3boone]

Seriously. Traditionalists are not the ones making changes that tear things and people apart.

Quoted for truth

 

[Indyann]

so in the “Roman” tradition of the Church kneeling is better (In my opinion and in the holy fathers opinion) at showing that reverence and adoration.

If “kneeling is better”, why aren’t we kneeling when the Gospel is read?

 

[DonaNobis_Pacem]

No matter what form of Mass we attend, whether Extraordinary Form or Ordinary Form, we have forgotten just Who the Mass is about.

When we elevate our personal Mass preference to the level of infallible Church dogma, no matter which form it may be, we no longer recognize the Mass as being the re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Calvary, where heaven and earth meet. Instead, we shift the focus away from God and onto ourselves; we become selfish, uncharitable, arrogant, and decide which form of the Mass is pleasing to us, rather than believe what the Church and the Holy Father teach is pleasing to God.

The Mass and the sacraments are not about us. Their purpose is to allow us to worship God, ask for His blessings, and receive the graces He freely gives to us. Even more than that, they remind us that God is the object of our love, and we the object of His love. Whether we prefer the Ordinary Form or Extraordinary Form of the Mass and the sacraments, they remain the Mass and the sacraments. They provide infinite graces to us insofar as we are properly disposed and willing to seek them. But, most of all, we must remember that they are signs of God’s love for us and a means for us to love Him in return.

God wills for us to grow in communion with one another, as well as to become more intimate in our relationship with Him. We cannot do so when our own preferences take precedence over seeking to please our Lord by worshiping Him in spirit and truth, in humility and charity.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

QUOTE=bpbasilphx;5476179]

*The first Book of Common Prayer and the Lutheran rites called for kneeling at communion–and there was also a specific repudiation of transsubstatiation.

Byzantines and other Eastern Churches have always received standing, and there’s no denying devotion or sense of the Sacred in Eastern Churches.*

The Latin use is NOT the wnole of tradition.

I don’t want to be disrespectful but this is a Roman Catholic issue and the Latin use is our tradition. For that reason other traditions are not used as examples to be followed.

 

[bpbasilphx]

QUOTE=bpbasilphx;5476179]

*The first Book of Common Prayer and the Lutheran rites called for kneeling at communion–and there was also a specific repudiation of transsubstatiation.

Byzantines and other Eastern Churches have always received standing, and there’s no denying devotion or sense of the Sacred in Eastern Churches.*

The Latin use is NOT the wnole of tradition.

I don’t want to be disrespectful but this is a Roman Catholic issue and the Latin use is our tradition. For that reason other traditions are not used as examples to be followed.

Please look carefully at the name of this forum.

It is NOT “Traditional Roman Catholicism” or “Traditional Latin Catholicism,” nor is there reason to assume it does.

It is “Traditional Catholicism.” Period.

That means ALL the traditions of the Church.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

Please look carefully at the name of this forum.

It is NOT “Traditional Roman Catholicism” or “Traditional Latin Catholicism,” nor is there reason to assume it does.

It is “Traditional Catholicism.” Period.

That means ALL the traditions of the Church.

I’m afraid I don’t get that impression from other threads and posts. I’ve never heard anyone include any other traditions in Traditional Catholicism. Because, although you disagree, Trad Catholicism does imply Roman. I think including orthodox churches in this context is a bit tricky, no?
But I digress, this is not the topic of the thread.

 

[RyanML]

If communion in the hand had been introduced in full obedience to Rome (which it was not) and had led to a more profound reverence towards the Eucharist (which it has not) then I could see a legitimate argument for it. The traditions of the East have nothing to do with it. The argument is not whether communion in the hand is intrinsically bad. Obviously it’s not. But it needs to be changed in the Roman Church because the practice has had only negative consequences.

 

[wisdomseeker]

The Year of the Lord is not divided pre-VCII and post-VCII. The Year of the Lord is one single Age, the Age of the Church, which extends from the Resurrection to the Second Coming.

The Mass is not divided into the TLM and the NO. The Mass is the Mass, the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and there are many forms of it in the Catholic Church.

The reception of Holy Communion is not divided between hand and tongue. The reception of Holy Communion is the receiving of Christ Jesus in your soul, and the Church decrees it may be by hand or by tongue.

If you say, “The Age of the Church is divided because the Council introduced something new!” than you do not know what the Church teaches, for the Church teaches that the Council merely developed, deepened and more fully explained the doctrine of the Church.

If you say, “The Mass is divided because one form is better than the other!” than you do not know Jesus Christ, for He is not divided against Himself, there is only one Mediator - not two - and if you love the form more than the Mass, than you do not love the Redeemer.

If you say, “The reception of Holy Communion is divided because one manner is better than the other!” than yo do not know yourself, for you offend the Lord both by your tongue and by your hand. None of your organs are worthy of the Lord, yet still He comes to you.

But as many times as I correct you, so many times you plug your ears and call me a liar. How much longer will God put up with you? Stop judging and be reconciled! You are only an instrument of His Will, and the instrument is not greater than the one who uses it; yet you say to God, “I am greater than You!” and do not listen to His gentle reproaches. He wishes to save you, not only from Hell but from ignorance and self-blindness as well, yet each time you do not care, you go on as if everything is fine, even to the jaws of Hell. Do not be swallowed up! Return to God, listen to His Church, be humble like Jesus Christ is. Only in this way will you find the peace and joy which your souls so ardentally long for!

so, you are ok with the way things are right now and who knows what will be tomorow right?

so you are ok with the disobedience of the bishops and priests to the holy father?

do you understand the situation of the Church today? if we dont go back very soon, God knows what will happened to the Mass in a few years.

Revival of the Gregorian Chant is a start.

 

[Guiness]

I would prefer the more traditional mass but must agree that the form of the mass is secondary to the spirit of the liturgy. We are there to worship Christ Jesus. We receive a foretaste of the Heavenly Banquet when we attend mass. We also are present at Calvary when we atend mass. Having said that I believe we need to have a reverant mass and act accordingly. Benedict Groschel once stated at a conference in CA that they wll need to keep Purgatory open for 10,000 years for the person who allowed receiving in the hand to take hold. I agree that posture does indeed make a difference.

As to kneeling for the Gospel, it is not the same fullness of presence that we have in the Eucharist. That is unique.

 

[adstrinity]

Eugh. Everytime I read the title of this thread, I just hear that one whiney guy, “LEAVE BRITTANY ALONE!” That’s the vibe I get.