Why Kneel for Communion

[FrancisB]

As for the glorification of rape, I am reminded of scenes from classical antiquity that found a rebirth in the art of the Renaissance: the rape of Lucretia, Proserpina, the Sabine women, and so forth. Bernini, the man responsible for Peter’s throne and the high altar of St. Peter’s made a statue of the Rape of Proserpina. And he did so before he was commissioned to do work for the church. How do you reconcile that? And as for the homosexuality of antiquity, they didn’t need to campaign for same-sex marriage: the purpose of marriage in antiquity was to have children and secure heirs that united families. It wasn’t about expressing love. Pederasty was openly part of their society and was indeed considered more beautiful than heterosexual relationships.

And various groups have gathered together and clamoured for attention preaching heresy since the beginning of the faith; indeed there were heresies even in ancient Judaism. It may be easier today to reach out across the world to like-minded people, but in the past people were not as well educated and insulated from outside ideas, which means that if a heretical idea emerged in a community, it might easily spread throughout that community without being corrected. We have only to look at the spread of heresy in the Middle Ages to see this.

It’s not a matter of numbers of websites. There was pornography before the internet, indeed before photography. There were indecent drawings, paintings, books. There were people having adulterous relationships. The mediaeval concept of courtly love is, at its heart, nothing more than a celebration of adultery and the songs sung about it spread throughout the mediaeval world like wildfire. We already survived that. We’ll survive this.

 

[ConstantineTG]

As for the glorification of rape, I am reminded of scenes from classical antiquity that found a rebirth in the art of the Renaissance: the rape of Lucretia, Proserpina, the Sabine women, and so forth. Bernini, the man responsible for Peter’s throne and the high altar of St. Peter’s made a statue of the Rape of Proserpina. And he did so before he was commissioned to do work for the church. How do you reconcile that? And as for the homosexuality of antiquity, they didn’t need to campaign for same-sex marriage: the purpose of marriage in antiquity was to have children and secure heirs that united families. It wasn’t about expressing love. Pederasty was openly part of their society and was indeed considered more beautiful than heterosexual relationships.

And various groups have gathered together and clamoured for attention preaching heresy since the beginning of the faith; indeed there were heresies even in ancient Judaism. It may be easier today to reach out across the world to like-minded people, but in the past people were not as well educated and insulated from outside ideas, which means that if a heretical idea emerged in a community, it might easily spread throughout that community without being corrected. We have only to look at the spread of heresy in the Middle Ages to see this.

It’s not a matter of numbers of websites. There was pornography before the internet, indeed before photography. There were indecent drawings, paintings, books. There were people having adulterous relationships. The mediaeval concept of courtly love is, at its heart, nothing more than a celebration of adultery and the songs sung about it spread throughout the mediaeval world like wildfire. We already survived that. We’ll survive this.

Like I said, I never questioned their existence in the past. But modern technology has allowed for immorality to reach a new, never seen before level.

 

[Layman]

How can you acurately connect standing and CITH to dwindling belief in the Real Presence? There is a dwindling belief in the faith in general because of increasing secularism.

I would say that the way CITH is done in the Roman Rite doesn’t help. I’ve heard CITH in at least one other rite is accompanied by purifying your hands in incense smoke(?) As a revert, I never knew that you were to bow your head before receiving CITH, in the Roman Rite. I didn’t pick it up from just going to Mass.

If people are just going up to receive CITH, standing, from a lay EMHC, there’s little ‘theatre’ to tell them Something Special Is Occuring. So maybe that’s why those who are generally happy with the status quo call for more cathechesis, only, to fix this.

I’d say it would save a lot of talk to revert to COTT, kneeling, from the priest; learn by doing.

 

[Aramis]

Like I said, I never questioned their existence in the past. But modern technology has allowed for immorality to reach a new, never seen before level.

No, not really. We are just more aware of it than ever before.

In the 1950’s, a man molests a child, the child might report it, might not… and if he did, it wouldn’t make the local news unless the man was tried.

In 1995, a man molests a child, and the child is likely to report it, and it makes the police blotter even if unsupported by evidence, and if there is credible evidence, the media picks up on it.

In 2005, a man molests a child, the kid most likely tells his counselor or teacher at school, the man’s arrested, it’s on the police blotter even if no evidence besides the claim, the kid facebooks it, and any kid who got approached suddenly comes forth, media hype picks up on the buzz, and it’s a local splash, with comments from around the world.

Access to information is massively up. The actual rates of reported abuse are in fact down, and convictions are up.

In the 1950’s, people talked about “Fred’s funny uncle and his roommate”… but no one really wanted to think about what they did.

In the 1980’s, people talked about “Fred’s gay uncle and his boyfriend”… and everyone realized what they were doing… and a few TV shows showed homosexuals in a positive light. The news portrayed homosexuals as the source of the “AIDS epidemic.” (Well, as the HTLV III epidemic, at first…)

In the 1990’s, Many of Hollywood’s more obviously homosexual actors came out of the closet. They started demanding marital rights, mostly over issues of adoption, inheritance, and insurance. The homosexuals in the military started demanding equal treatment; the solution was mishandled*. It all made the papers and the news.

In the 2000’s, the squeaky wheels get homosexuals from all over the country protesting when one state or another makes a decision that is seen as “anti-gay”… And news of the upcoming decisions is spread worldwide before the case is actually before the panel, by bloggers and pundits.

Organization has always benefited the smaller side more than the larger, as it’s harder for a larger group to coordinate quickly; information spread has always been the means of organization formation and control. Information spread has gone from 20 words per minute telegraph to 1 billion words per minute fiber line in the last 100 years. And from 50 miles a day by horse or boat to 250,000+ Miles per second** over the last 200.

More information hits the web every day than most small towns in the 1980’s had in their entire library system…

It’s not that more is happening, it’s that what’s happening is more easily found out.

• The real solution would have been to simply make all fornication punished the same; fornication was, at the time, a violation of the UCMJ… whether straight, kinky, or queer.
  ** includes relay delays, etc.

 

[Layman]

So what you’re saying is that if CITH came in without the other major changes, it would be more natural and acceptable?

My point is that it is discussed as if it had; in isolation. Nice, academic discussions about Eastern Catholic practices or history and discipline within the rite. Not in the context of the massive other changes in our religion.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I would say that the way CITH is done in the Roman Rite doesn’t help. I’ve heard CITH in at least one other rite is accompanied by purifying your hands in incense smoke(?)

Yes thats how Chaldeans do it. But should we introduce the traditions of another Rite into our own? I actually think this tradition is beautiful, but its not Latin Rite tradition.

As a revert, I never knew that you were to bow your head before receiving CITH, in the Roman Rite. I didn’t pick it up from just going to Mass.

Sadly, same here. Actually the bow is when receiving standing, regardless of you’re receiving CITH or COTT.

If people are just going up to receive CITH, standing, from a lay EMHC, there’s little ‘theatre’ to tell them Something Special Is Occuring. So maybe that’s why those who are generally happy with the status quo call for more cathechesis, only, to fix this.

I don’t necessarily disagree with the simplier way of receiving today. Too much emphasis has been placed on the externals. Believe me, I’ve been to Masses where my mind is half-way across the globe, but I sit, stand, kneel with everyone even if I am mentally absent. Example of a good practice but still lacks good Catechisis is genuflecting towards the tabernacle. You’ll only catch this during Good Friday or if your parish doesn’t have the tabernacle in the sanctuary, that some people still genuflect towards the front even if the Blessed Sacrament in the tabernacle is not there, or if the tabernacle is empty. If people go through the motions without undertsanding what the motions stand for, then its an empty gesture.

I’d say it would save a lot of talk to revert to COTT, kneeling, from the priest; learn by doing.

Or we can just faithfully and obediently accept what the Church has taught today and support it. The difference is you and I cannot do anything about changing Church norms, but we can support what is here today and help provide better Catechisis in support of it.

 

[FrancisB]

I would say that the way CITH is done in the Roman Rite doesn’t help. I’ve heard CITH in at least one other rite is accompanied by purifying your hands in incense smoke(?) As a revert, I never knew that you were to bow your head before receiving CITH, in the Roman Rite. I didn’t pick it up from just going to Mass.

If people are just going up to receive CITH, standing, from a lay EMHC, there’s little ‘theatre’ to tell them Something Special Is Occuring. So maybe that’s why those who are generally happy with the status quo call for more cathechesis, only, to fix this.

I’d say it would save a lot of talk to revert to COTT, kneeling, from the priest; learn by doing.

You have three different matters in play here, and they must be treated differently.

CITH is not the normative practice even in the OF. It is done through recognitio. It has no bearing on standing or kneeling, since theoretically one could receive in the hand while kneeling, and I have seen people receive on the tongue while standing; I do whenever I am at a church where others do not kneel.

The distribution of communion by extraordinary ministers was dealt with in Redemptionis Sacramentum. These regulations are frequently ignored: “157. If there is usually present a sufficient number of sacred ministers for the distribution of Holy Communion, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may not be appointed.” Interestingly so is this important regulation from the same source: “93. The Communion-plate for the Communion of the faithful should be retained, so as to avoid the danger of the sacred host or some fragment of it falling.” But these things are failure to follow rules and nothing more.

The last issue is that central to this thread and the instructions, quoting the GIRM, say: " 'The faithful should receive Communion kneeling or standing, as the Conference of Bishops will have determined”, with its acts having received the recognitio of the Apostolic See. ‘However, if they receive Communion standing, it is recommended that they give due reverence before the reception of the Sacrament, as set forth in the same norms.’ " And here I think we need to be careful.

The first two are issues as to whether or not it is appropriate for the unordained to touch the Holy Eucharist. The third is a matter of posture. Clearly we can see the difference between the two matters, no?

 

[rosary_kat]

…Like it or not, the recovery is a lay-led one.
…We can be pushed only so far…and eventually, something snaps. …Pope Benedict… needs to be constantly reminded that hes not alone. ...Its up to us.

Oh, my, and here I’ve been praying “To God Be The Glory” all these years. Thank you for pointing out my mistake.

Please be careful, I wouldn’t want to see you break your arm patting yourself on the back.

 

[rosary_kat]

Probably but that’s of little consolation to many of those who have held the Blessed Sacrament in the highest esteem for a long time.
Easier said than done.

Seriously, what kind of consolation from the bishops of 40+ years ago are you looking for now? How many of them are dead? What do you want from the ones who are still around? And to what end? If the surviving bishops opted for the penance of Henry II, would that satisfy? Seriously, WHAT DO YOU WANT?

Specifically… not just vague rhetoric.

And by the way, it’s only easier said than done when a person is to proud to DO it. How about we start a thread about forgiveness? It’s obvious some refuse to forget.

 

[ProVobis]

Seriously, what kind of consolation from the bishops of 40+ years ago are you looking for now? How many of them are dead? What do you want from the ones who are still around? And to what end? If the surviving bishops opted for the penance of Henry II, would that satisfy? Seriously, WHAT DO YOU WANT?

Specifically… not just vague rhetoric.

And by the way, it’s only easier said than done when a person is to proud to DO it. How about we start a thread about forgiveness? It’s obvious some refuse to forget.

I was replying to the poster who thought the whole thing can just easily be dismissed as lets-just-learn-to-get-along type of argument. Apparently your argument is along those same lines so there’s nothing to be gained if I respond with a repeat of my arguments. We have had numerous threads on CITH (one thread exceeding 1000 posts) and standing on both on this forum and the L&S so you might want to go back and read some of my and other’s posts there.

 

[Layman]

Yes thats how Chaldeans do it. But should we introduce the traditions of another Rite into our own? I actually think this tradition is beautiful, but its not Latin Rite tradition.

Are you having a laugh, here? We just did introduce a tradition from another rite into our own, and for no good reason. CITH is it. And please, don’t bring up that ‘The Franciscans did it’. They’re the exception to the the rule.

It seems that post-Vat. II justification for the massive changes to our worship must be found retrospectively by scratching around for tenuous precedent: "Was it ever done anywhere, at any time, in any circumstances, in any rite of the Catholic Church? Yes? Then it’s fine to insert into the Roman Catholic one, today. And drop whatever operated previously. Even if it was for 1000 years."

 

[SunnaB16]

Seriously, what kind of consolation from the bishops of 40+ years ago are you looking for now? How many of them are dead? What do you want from the ones who are still around? And to what end? If the surviving bishops opted for the penance of Henry II, would that satisfy? Seriously, WHAT DO YOU WANT?

Is that paragraph relevant?
ProVobis didn`t say anything about taking out his frustrations (your ref. to Henry II) on any surviving bishops of 40+ years ago.

Specifically… not just vague rhetoric.

???
The “rhetoric” has been anything but vague!

And by the way, it’s only easier said than done when a person is to proud to DO it. How about we start a thread about forgiveness? It’s obvious some refuse to forget.

Too many Catholics are like sheep!

This has nothing to do with pride and lack of forgiveness, but about repairing the damage which some of us are convinced has been inflicted as a result of CITH and standing.
The past is dead and gone; but repairs can be carried out in the present.
One good area would be for bishops to stop their very successful stonewalling, to prevent the spread of the TLM, as if its a 21st Century spiritual equivalent of The Black Death. Thered be true choice in a lot more locations if they stopped being obstructive.
What are they frightened of?

An aspect of the TLM which hasnt been mentioned, at least on this thread: Receiving our Lord at the Communion rails from the CONSECRATED hands of a priest, with an altar server beside him holding the paten under our chin, and the priest saying the words: "May the Body......", and ourselves being totally passive and saying nothing...... were better looked after than the ones moving forward in the line, and the assembly line-type “Next, please!” atmosphere. In a way, our dignity as God`s children is raised.
COTT and kneeling are much more formal than CITH and standing. Compare the Ballroom in the Imperial Palace in Vienna with some outback tin shed. Include appropriate clothing. You can dance in either, but…hard to put into sensible words.

Personally, i wouldnt advocate banning outright CITH and standing, but id encourage COTT and kneeling, and SEVERELY restrict the use of EHMCs.
So what if Mass goes on for a few extra minutes!
Too many people are putting their maulers on the Sacred Species.

PS
Don`t forget that this thread is under the banner of Traditional Catholicism.

 

[SunnaB16]

.

It seems that post-Vat. II justification for the massive changes to our worship must be found retrospectively by scratching around for tenuous precedent: "Was it ever done anywhere, at any time, in any circumstances, in any rite of the Catholic Church? Yes? Then it’s fine to insert into the Roman Catholic one, today. And drop whatever operated previously. Even if it was for 1000 years."

THUMBS UP!

Thanks to the Holy Spirit, the Church has grown in wisdom in the almost 2000 years of Her existence, and those “ancient customs” were eventually turfed out for good reason.
Rather than exhuming them, it`d be better for them to remain dead and buried.

 

[FrancisB]

Personally, i wouldnt advocate banning outright CITH and standing, but id encourage COTT and kneeling, and SEVERELY restrict the use of EHMCs.
So what if Mass goes on for a few extra minutes!
Too many people are putting their maulers on the Sacred Species.

PS
Don`t forget that this thread is under the banner of Traditional Catholicism.

Don’t forget that the thread also is about kneeling, not CITH vs. COTT. The two are not the same topic, and the normal means of receiving while standing is still COTT from the priest with the altar server holding the paten under your mouth. The paten part is rare these days for sure, but plenty of people still receive communion on the tongue from the priest or deacon (the ordinary ministers) while standing.

And the location of the thread seems quite irrelevant. Do you really want everyone to agree on the threads? What kind of discussion would occur if every post was “we should kneel while taking communion.” “Oh, I quite agree. It’s very nice.” And then perhaps to add a little flare, “It makes me angry that some churches have stopped kneeling for communion.” Without dissenting ideas, no discussion can take place. The position of Devil’s Advocate is quite Catholic, my friend.

 

[rosary_kat]

…they stopped being obstructive.
What are they frightened of?

Precisely how have they (the bishops) been obstructive. Name names.

…hard to put into sensible words.

Such ramblings usually are. Sorry, but it’s true.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Are you having a laugh, here? We just did introduce a tradition from another rite into our own, and for no good reason. CITH is it. And please, don’t bring up that ‘The Franciscans did it’. They’re the exception to the the rule.

I was talking about the purifying of hands using incense before receiving CITH. There is proof that CITH also existed in the past, not sure if it was traced down to a specific rite or it was a general practice back then.

It seems that post-Vat. II justification for the massive changes to our worship must be found retrospectively by scratching around for tenuous precedent: "Was it ever done anywhere, at any time, in any circumstances, in any rite of the Catholic Church? Yes? Then it’s fine to insert into the Roman Catholic one, today. And drop whatever operated previously. Even if it was for 1000 years."

CITH wasn’t introduced because we wanted to introduce a Chaldean or Coptic tradition into the Roman Church. CITH was used in early Church history. The Chaldeans and Coptics (and East Assyrian Orthodox) kept the practice, but it suggest that the practice is not limited to their Rites from the beginning.

 

[ConstantineTG]

THUMBS UP!

Thanks to the Holy Spirit, the Church has grown in wisdom in the almost 2000 years of Her existence, and those “ancient customs” were eventually turfed out for good reason.
Rather than exhuming them, it`d be better for them to remain dead and buried.

They weren’t turfed out. The Coptics and Chaldeans have preserved CITH and have used them from the beginning until today.

 

[ProVobis]

The Chaldeans and Coptics (and East Assyrian Orthodox) kept the practice, but it suggest that the practice is not limited to their Rites from the beginning.

Not a good argument. Different cultures. Different traditions. Different customs. Different attitudes. Different liturgical climate. Would you advocate using their civil laws in your country?

 

[FrancisB]

Not a good argument. Different cultures. Different traditions. Different customs. Different attitudes. Different liturgical climate. Would you advocate using their civil laws in your country?

Perhaps part of the problem, though, is that we haven’t created different Western Rites to allow for some variation. We are, essentially, imposing Italian rules on American Catholicism, aren’t we? That wasn’t the way things always were. There were different liturgical traditions in the West throughout the Middle Ages. They were just forced to disappear over time. As to how many of them used CITH, you already mentioned that the Franciscans did, so clearly it is part of the Western tradition in some form.

But let us not forget that CITH is not the normative practice even in the OF or that this thread is not a comparison of CITH and COTT. It is about standing versus kneeling.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Not a good argument. Different cultures. Different traditions. Different customs. Different attitudes. Different liturgical climate. Would you advocate using their civil laws in your country?

But the Roman Church are in areas right now that are not Roman in culture nor part of the Western World. So your argument would go against a Roman Church forcing Western Traditions on, say Japan, China, Thailand, etc.