The main arguments for receiving Jesus kneeling

[Cormaria]

I’m sure this has been covered else where, but what are the main arguments for receiving Holy Communion kneeling and on the tongue?

 

[JRKH]

I’m sure this has been covered else where, but what are the main arguments for receiving Holy Communion kneeling and on the tongue?

I can only speak for myself, but to me it shows a greater reverence for the great gift that I have been given. I am in the presence of My God and King, Kneeling is more appropriate. Receiving on the tongue means one less chance that Our Lord might be dropped.

These are my reasons.

Of course the Church allows for both so we should not make those who choose either method feel unwelcome.

Peace
James

 

[excelsus]

Of course the Church allows for both so we should not make those who choose either method feel unwelcome.

While this is true, it seems that the hand is more of a reluctant acceptance by the Church, while tongue is definitely the more encouraged position.

 

[bpbasilphx]

While this is true, it seems that the hand is more of a reluctant acceptance by the Church, while tongue is definitely the more encouraged position.

Not quite true.

Certain Eastern liturgies have had Communin in the hand as being the norm, and most do receive, and have always received standing.

The Latin Church is NOT the totality of “the Church,” and never has been.

 

[excelsus]

Not quite true.

Certain Eastern liturgies have had Communin in the hand as being the norm, and most do receive, and have always received standing.

The Latin Church is NOT the totality of “the Church,” and never has been.

I meant no disrespect with that. I actually did not know that some of the Eastern rites had communion in the hand.

But, my statement is what I have perceived of the Pope in the Latin rite.

 

[bpbasilphx]

But, my statement is what I have perceived of the Pope in the Latin rite.

---

Which, as I said, is not the entire Church.

 

[excelsus]

Agreed.

 

[fulbert4605]

The high point of Mass is the moment you receive Jesus.

Any outward sign helps to keep the focus on reverence since the human mind is so prone to straying into vainful thinking. This is also why there are other statues and symbols all around the Church. To help keep that focus.

As far as the tongue is concerned, again, it’s the reverence shown. A priest’s fingers are consecrated for handling the host. This is to remind us how holy this Sacrament is. When Communion is received in the hand and/or standing it has the potential to lead the whole process to be more casual.

 

[bpbasilphx]

A priest’s fingers are consecrated for handling the host

---

**False.

According to the teaching of Pope Pius XII, the priestly character is imparted by the laying on of hands.

Therefore the additional prayers and ceremonies, howsoever comely, including the anointing of the priest’s hands, contribute nothing.

The Pre-Vatican 2 rite of ordination is available on line. Read it, and you’ll see that at the anointing of the neopresbyter’s hands, there’s NOTHING about “being able to hold the Host” in the accompanying prayer.

Furthermore, there is NO anointing used in the Byzantine rite for ordination.

Are they somehow less priests?**

 

[palmas85]

Not quite true.

Certain Eastern liturgies have had Communin in the hand as being the norm, and most do receive, and have always received standing.

The Latin Church is NOT the totality of “the Church,” and never has been.

Neither are the Eastern Churches and since by definition this particular forum is for discussions of the Traditional Roman, which equates to Latin, Church and I quote from the Forums Main Page
Traditional Catholicism
Forum for discussion of traditional Roman Catholic spirituality

I still wonder why you persist in bringing up things that do not apply to the Traditional Roman Catholic Church. There is a forum for the Eastern Churches.

It seems to me that you are pursuing some sort of agenda in your repeated references to differences in the Roman Rite versus the various Eastern Rites. Actually, it often appears that you are attempting to say that various practices of the Eastern Churches are in fact the correct way to do things and that it is high time that the Roman Church join in and give up its traditional rites and norms in favor of the Eastern rites and norms…

 

[Walking_Home]

Neither are the Eastern Churches and since by definition this particular forum is for discussions of the Traditional Roman, which equates to Latin, Church and I quote from the Forums Main Page
Traditional Catholicism
Forum for discussion of traditional Roman Catholic spirituality

I still wonder why you persist in bringing up things that do not apply to the Traditional Roman Catholic Church. There is a forum for the Eastern Churches.

It seems to me that you are pursuing some sort of agenda in your repeated references to differences in the Roman Rite versus the various Eastern Rites. Actually, it often appears that you are attempting to say that various practices of the Eastern Churches are in fact the correct way to do things and that it is high time that the Roman Church join in and give up its traditional rites and norms in favor of the Eastern rites and norms…

---

 

[tcm22]

While this is true, it seems that the hand is more of a reluctant acceptance by the Church, while tongue is definitely the more encouraged position.

Not quite true.

Certain Eastern liturgies have had Communin in the hand as being the norm, and most do receive, and have always received standing.

The Latin Church is NOT the totality of “the Church,” and never has been.

Neither are the Eastern Churches and since by definition this particular forum is for discussions of the Traditional Roman, which equates to Latin, Church and I quote from the Forums Main Page
Traditional Catholicism
Forum for discussion of traditional Roman Catholic spirituality

I still wonder why you persist in bringing up things that do not apply to the Traditional Roman Catholic Church. There is a forum for the Eastern Churches.

It seems to me that you are pursuing some sort of agenda in your repeated references to differences in the Roman Rite versus the various Eastern Rites. Actually, it often appears that you are attempting to say that various practices of the Eastern Churches are in fact the correct way to do things and that it is high time that the Roman Church join in and give up its traditional rites and norms in favor of the Eastern rites and norms…

I think the point is valid.excelsus made reference to “reluctant acceptance by the Church” not just those who determine the disciplines of the Latin Rite.

bpbasilphx makes a valid argument. We can’t just view the arguments for kneeling and how to receive Communion in the narrow sphere of the Latin rite and the prism of pre and post-VII procedures. His point is that it’s not just a question of Traditional vs Modern in the Latin right. Communion in the hand and standing to receive the Eucharist are perhaps somewhat new in the Latin right, but hold a long and sacred tradition in the Eastern Churches. That refutes the entire notion of “reluctant acceptance by the Church.” The Church is more than just Roman Catholics.

 

[bpbasilphx]

I think the point is valid.excelsus made reference to “reluctant acceptance by the Church” not just those who determine the disciplines of the Latin Rite.

bpbasilphx makes a valid argument. We can’t just view the arguments for kneeling and how to receive Communion in the narrow sphere of the Latin rite and the prism of pre and post-VII procedures. His point is that it’s not just a question of Traditional vs Modern in the Latin right. Communion in the hand and standing to receive the Eucharist are perhaps somewhat new in the Latin right, but hold a long and sacred tradition in the Eastern Churches. That refutes the entire notion of “reluctant acceptance by the Church.” The Church is more than just Roman Catholics.

PRECISELY the point I’m trying to make.

And in case anyone wonders, except at the Byzantine Liturgy of St. James and Chaldean/Assyrian Liturgy of Addai and Mari, I receive on the tongue.

 

[Walking_Home]

Originally Posted by tcm22 View Post
I think the point is valid.excelsus made reference to “reluctant acceptance by the Church” not just those who determine the disciplines of the Latin Rite.

---

Well --considering that this forum’s title is as Palmas states-- Traditional Catholicism
Forum for discussion of traditional **Roman **Catholic spirituality ----it should not be expected that we qualify each and every statement with the words --Latin rite.

As you say bpbasilphx–there are certain Eastern Liturgies where communion is received in the hand. What if people from these Eastern Liturgies started to interfere with the Eastern jurisdictions whose tradition is to offer and receive communion in the mouth via intinction. They could more or less use the same sort of “arguments” that you bring to this forum–against all Easterners whose tradition is to receive via intinction.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Well --considering that this forum’s title is as Palmas states-- Traditional Catholicism
Forum for discussion of traditional **Roman **Catholic spirituality ----it should not be expected that we qualify each and every statement with the words --Latin rite.

I think this is right except when what is being said can be taken in a way as to be said of the whole Church.

Such as the idea of the “priest’s fingers are consecrated for handling the host” which is not true but is an often raise argument against reception of the Eucharist in the Hand.

It also does not matter how reception in the Hand came about recently. It is a valid choice where the bishop allow it.

 

[bpbasilphx]

As you say bpbasilphx–there are certain Eastern Liturgies where communion is received in the hand. What if people from these Eastern Liturgies started to interfere with the Eastern jurisdictions whose tradition is to offer and receive communion in the mouth via intinction. They could more or less use the same sort of “arguments” that you bring to this forum–against all Easterners whose tradition is to receive via intinction.

---

**As a matter of fact, this is PRECISELY what happened to the Maronites and other Eastern Churches when the Latin Church started interfering with Eastern liturgical praxis, assuming the Latin was intrinsically superior.

Or did you know that?**

 

[Walking_Home]

Originally Posted by Walking_Home View Post
Well --considering that this forum’s title is as Palmas states-- Traditional Catholicism
Forum for discussion of traditional Roman Catholic spirituality ----it should not be expected that we qualify each and every statement with the words --Latin rite.

---

Except --that those who access this forum need to keep in mind that what is said here in this forum is in the context of the Latin Rite. When some says --the Church --it is the Church as She relates to the the Latin Rite. An inexperienced member new to this site and forum may have an excuse of not understanding that this forum is for Latin rite discussion. But someone who in fact has experience in this site and forum has no excuse for continually jump in with purpose of finding some faint crack and wedging in that the Eastern Rites are being slighted.

As to the significance of a priests hands --John Paul II had this to say:

"But one must not forget the primary office of priests, who have been consecrated by their ordination to represent Christ the Priest: for this reason their hands, like their words and their will, have become the direct instruments of Christ.

If I remember right --even the Orthodox place special significance to the hands of a priest.

 

[Walking_Home]

As you say bpbasilphx–there are certain Eastern Liturgies where communion is received in the hand. What if people from these Eastern Liturgies started to interfere with the Eastern jurisdictions whose tradition is to offer and receive communion in the mouth via intinction. They could more or less use the same sort of “arguments” that you bring to this forum–against all Easterners whose tradition is to receive via intinction.

---

**As a matter of fact, this is PRECISELY what happened to the Maronites and other Eastern Churches when the Latin Church started interfering with Eastern liturgical praxis, assuming the Latin was intrinsically superior.

Or did you know that?**

---

Yes–I am aware of that. So how would the Eastern Catholics who offer and receive communion in the mouth via intinction react – if the Easterners who receive in the hand started to interfere with the tradition of receiving in the mouth.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I know that reception on the tongue is the norm for the universal Church (Latin Rite and perhaps others, lest I leave someone out), and that reception in the hand is an indult–a practice that is permitted but may be revoked at any time.

I believe, but I am not certain, that the same is true regarding kneeling being the norm for the universal church and that (again) standing is an indult given for the U.S. (probably because so many altar rails were torn out–and I won’t go into details about that lest this thread go seriously off topic).

So: The main arguments to me would be that if it is the universal, it would be preferred per se even IF an indult existed. Of course, under the indult one would not be wrong in receiving according to the indult. . .but we’re not asking if something is right or wrong, we’re addressing why, given two possible legitimate choices, one might be ‘better.’ Again I would think that the universal norm, being universal, would be theoretically at least ‘better’, all other things being equal.

 

[bpbasilphx]

When some says --the Church --it is the Church as She relates to the the Latin Rite.

---

**And just why should “Latin Rite” be the default mode of “Church”?

_____________**