W
Walking_Home
Guest
Read the sentence just prior to the one you quote.
- Status
H
Holly3278
Guest
Wow. It appears to me that this thread has degenerated into nothing but a big fight. If I recall, the thread is about “The main arguments for receiving Jesus kneeling”. I would say that the main argument for receiving Jesus kneeling would be that it seems to be more reverential.
T
tcm22
Guest
Whether we are talking about the Eastern Church, the Latin Church, or the Universal Church, the broader point remains. Neither kneeling to receive the Eucharist on the tongue or standing to receive in the hand are outside the traditional norms of the Catholic Church.
I hesitate to restrict ourselves to the specific traditions of our specific rites, lest be become like the Protestants accuse us of being, and bind ourselves to man-made traditions.
I don’t wish to devalue the traditional and very reverent practice of kneeling to receive Our Lord on the tongue, particularly in the context of the EF where it is wholly appropriate. However what is traditional in the Latin Rite does not carry the weight of Sacred Tradition and must be understood as a discipline vs a doctrine. If it were doctrine, then we certainly would never have had the divergence between the various Rites, hence the importance of pointing out the validity of Eastern Rite practices within the context of the whole Church.
Individual opinion on the matter is interesting, but irrelevant when trying to figure out whether kneeling to receive on the tongue is better than standing to receive in the hand. Within the Latin Rite, both are valid and licit postures to receive the Eucharist. There is really no reason to say any more. For anyone to say their method of receiving communion is somehow more reverent than mine (assuming we are both using approved postures) is just silly.
Should we start a thread on whether we should pray with fingers together or interlaced?
I hesitate to restrict ourselves to the specific traditions of our specific rites, lest be become like the Protestants accuse us of being, and bind ourselves to man-made traditions.
I don’t wish to devalue the traditional and very reverent practice of kneeling to receive Our Lord on the tongue, particularly in the context of the EF where it is wholly appropriate. However what is traditional in the Latin Rite does not carry the weight of Sacred Tradition and must be understood as a discipline vs a doctrine. If it were doctrine, then we certainly would never have had the divergence between the various Rites, hence the importance of pointing out the validity of Eastern Rite practices within the context of the whole Church.
Individual opinion on the matter is interesting, but irrelevant when trying to figure out whether kneeling to receive on the tongue is better than standing to receive in the hand. Within the Latin Rite, both are valid and licit postures to receive the Eucharist. There is really no reason to say any more. For anyone to say their method of receiving communion is somehow more reverent than mine (assuming we are both using approved postures) is just silly.
Should we start a thread on whether we should pray with fingers together or interlaced?
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Walking_Home;5640001:
E
ErichK
Guest
I’ve never seen that. I thought Eastern Orthodox communion was taken with the hands crossed over the chest. While standing, yes, but in the hand? :S
Either way, if I would kneel before Christ at the second coming, then I’d prefer to kneel before the eucharist while partaking in communion.
F
FAB
Guest
B
brotherhrolf
Guest
OK, how 'bout this arguement. There are a whole bunch of us who grew up and made our First Communions before Vatican II. We’re not dead yet and we’re feeling much better. With respect Bishop, I am not a member of the Eastern Church. Call it medieval piety. My ancestors knelt to recieve Our Lord. I made my First Communion kneeling. I would love to do so to this day.
So, we ditched our Western European cultural heritage in 1967. I am by training an anthropologist. It astounds me that there is such a cavalier attitude abounding. Hey, you guys! Not everyone was enthralled with what happened after Vatican II. There are still any number of us who were perfectly content with HMC in 1967. More importantly, we are not dead.
Frankly, I do not care about the practices of the Eastern Church. I’m not Eastern. My ancestors came from Ireland, Scotland, England, France and Germany. Within the venue of my cultural context, my ancestors knelt. As would I given the opportunity to do so…removed from me during the 70’s.
Old practices? Old practices!!! So, what? We just throw out everything our ancestors did and know in favor of what has happened in the last 40 years? Do we abandon our past?
My brother and I served our granmother’s Requiem Mass in 1965. I may be an anachronism but my viewpoint is valid.
So, we ditched our Western European cultural heritage in 1967. I am by training an anthropologist. It astounds me that there is such a cavalier attitude abounding. Hey, you guys! Not everyone was enthralled with what happened after Vatican II. There are still any number of us who were perfectly content with HMC in 1967. More importantly, we are not dead.
Frankly, I do not care about the practices of the Eastern Church. I’m not Eastern. My ancestors came from Ireland, Scotland, England, France and Germany. Within the venue of my cultural context, my ancestors knelt. As would I given the opportunity to do so…removed from me during the 70’s.
Old practices? Old practices!!! So, what? We just throw out everything our ancestors did and know in favor of what has happened in the last 40 years? Do we abandon our past?
My brother and I served our granmother’s Requiem Mass in 1965. I may be an anachronism but my viewpoint is valid.
P
palmas85
Guest
Agreed, yet the fact remains that this particular sub forum is allegedly dedicated to Traditional ROMAN CATHOLIC spirituality, and practices, not the Eastern Churches.
I would venture to say that the overwhelming number of posters on this forum realize that there are other Churches in communion with Rome and that their rites and rituals are somewhat different in some respects. That does not nullify the validity of those rites any more than constantly pointing out the differences as some do, elevates them.
There is a forum dedicated exclusively to the Eastern Liturgies and I am quite sure that those interested in learning about them could benefit from the information which is constantly posted here concerning them…
B
brotherhrolf
Guest
indeed!!!
J
JuanCarlos
Guest
Amen! With caveats
- I do care what the Eastern Church does. I think they should not be Latinized. By the same token, I don’t think the Latin Church should be “Easternized”. We kneel for Communion in our tradition- we kneel for Confession in our tradition. We kneel for Matrimony in our tradition. In our tradition, we just plain kneel in reverence when it comes to God. An action which may not fit with the Byzantine praxis, but that’s the Western way.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
This is the forum for Roman Traditional discussion is it not. It says right there in the forum title. Because it is such --it should not be expected that each and every sentence/post be denoted with the Latin Rite qualifier.
I never said that John Paul II --did not allow communion in the hand --but he did make a certain distinction concerning the hands of the priest. Anointing of the hands is not part of the Byzantine and/or Orthodox–but it is part of the Latin tradition.
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
Anointing of the hands is not part of the Byzantine and/or Orthodox–but it is part of the Latin tradition.
**It still confers nothing. The Mystery of the Priesthood has already been bestowed by the imposition of the Bishop’s hands.
And you’re quite right. It’s the entire hands, NOT just the fingers as some think.**
**It still confers nothing. The Mystery of the Priesthood has already been bestowed by the imposition of the Bishop’s hands.
And you’re quite right. It’s the entire hands, NOT just the fingers as some think.**
W
Walking_Home
Guest
The annointing while not conferring any extra ability–is still for us Latins an added sign that the priests hands are the hands of a priest --one ordained --to bring us our Lord’s Body and Blood. It is not your tradition --that is fine—but it is part of our Latin tradition.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
This is a hard question…and I mean that depending on where you are, the question can put you between a rock and a hard place. In this age of few priests and many complaints coming at each of them, it is a situation that needs to be approached with discretion. Not to give up on what you want, but to put it on an equal footing with the desires of others, assuming their desires are legally valid as well. We have to make our argument without being argumentative, lest we put a reverent practice in a bad light.
I mean this:
When you’re at a parish where no one receives kneeling and there are no amenities remaining (or ever installed) for distributing to kneeling communicants en masse, the parish doesn’t own a paten with a handle (and so on) there are logistical problems with it. I think the best solution in that case is to talk to the pastor, because very often, it is possible to sit in the front and receive with those who have difficulty walking. When those who wish to receive kneeling are few, this is a reasonable accomodation. When there are more, then there obviously a quorum exists for a greater accomodation to be made.
(OTOH, I hope nobody would dream of trying to receive standing in a parish or at a Mass where recieving kneeling is the norm, unless kneeling presents a physical difficulty–in that case, the person should be accomodated with what he or she can do. Let’s hope that goes without saying.)
Secondly, the bishop’s hands are anointed and ours aren’t, this is true, but the bishop’s judgement also enjoys pre-eminence over ours. Therefore, we have to be careful that in idealizing his hands in comparison to ours we do not fail to also extend to his authority a recognition that he has the authority of Christ, too, and not the hands of Christ only. Again, in putting forth our needs, we have to put a priority on discretion, patience, and every virtue, since our behavior puts the practice of receiving kneeling in a certain light. If we recognize the hands of Christ in the clergy, but not the authority of Christ, we risk seeming more interested in our own desires than in the desires of Christ.
It is like serving as a EMHC…if those who feel a deep reverence and love for the Eucharist will not do it, out of reverence, then who is left to do it? Which makes the Lord suffer more…that we do it, or that we refuse? So there is a rock and a hard place there, too.
I don’t think there is anything more Traditional than the virtues. So those have to come first, before even the best reverent practice. If you genuflect perfectly and kneel to receive on the tongue, but have not love…
That is not saying that reverent practices are in any way opposed to the virtues. Far from it! It is simply that the temptation to put the practices even slightly ahead of the virtues they are meant to encourage in the heart is one of the evil one’s oldest tricks. This can tempt some to put the blame on the practice–giving the evil one two attacks for the price of one!–but that is misplaced. Still, we always have to put the virtues first, if for no other reason than to put no stain or mark on the practice, but really for the good of our own souls.
IOW, these are trying times, but we need to keep our eyes on the ball, so to speak.
Having said that…you don’t need any argument that you want to receive the Lord kneeling. It is an ancient practice, one that is recognized by our current Holy Father for its reverence, so it needs no defense. Rather, you need to take care not to give the opposition ammunition.
I mean this:
When you’re at a parish where no one receives kneeling and there are no amenities remaining (or ever installed) for distributing to kneeling communicants en masse, the parish doesn’t own a paten with a handle (and so on) there are logistical problems with it. I think the best solution in that case is to talk to the pastor, because very often, it is possible to sit in the front and receive with those who have difficulty walking. When those who wish to receive kneeling are few, this is a reasonable accomodation. When there are more, then there obviously a quorum exists for a greater accomodation to be made.
(OTOH, I hope nobody would dream of trying to receive standing in a parish or at a Mass where recieving kneeling is the norm, unless kneeling presents a physical difficulty–in that case, the person should be accomodated with what he or she can do. Let’s hope that goes without saying.)
Secondly, the bishop’s hands are anointed and ours aren’t, this is true, but the bishop’s judgement also enjoys pre-eminence over ours. Therefore, we have to be careful that in idealizing his hands in comparison to ours we do not fail to also extend to his authority a recognition that he has the authority of Christ, too, and not the hands of Christ only. Again, in putting forth our needs, we have to put a priority on discretion, patience, and every virtue, since our behavior puts the practice of receiving kneeling in a certain light. If we recognize the hands of Christ in the clergy, but not the authority of Christ, we risk seeming more interested in our own desires than in the desires of Christ.
It is like serving as a EMHC…if those who feel a deep reverence and love for the Eucharist will not do it, out of reverence, then who is left to do it? Which makes the Lord suffer more…that we do it, or that we refuse? So there is a rock and a hard place there, too.
I don’t think there is anything more Traditional than the virtues. So those have to come first, before even the best reverent practice. If you genuflect perfectly and kneel to receive on the tongue, but have not love…
That is not saying that reverent practices are in any way opposed to the virtues. Far from it! It is simply that the temptation to put the practices even slightly ahead of the virtues they are meant to encourage in the heart is one of the evil one’s oldest tricks. This can tempt some to put the blame on the practice–giving the evil one two attacks for the price of one!–but that is misplaced. Still, we always have to put the virtues first, if for no other reason than to put no stain or mark on the practice, but really for the good of our own souls.
IOW, these are trying times, but we need to keep our eyes on the ball, so to speak.
Having said that…you don’t need any argument that you want to receive the Lord kneeling. It is an ancient practice, one that is recognized by our current Holy Father for its reverence, so it needs no defense. Rather, you need to take care not to give the opposition ammunition.
- Status