In The Archdiocese Of Colombo, Communion In The Hand Is Not Permitted.

[Noel's angel]

Ok, so one week you can receive in the hand, and the next you must receive on the tongue whilst kneeling. What difference does it make? There will still be the same people there that were there last week, and their hearts will be the same, and what they think and believe about the Eucharist will be the same.

[Nihil Obstat]

Ok, so one week you can receive in the hand, and the next you must receive on the tongue whilst kneeling. What difference does it make? There will still be the same people there that were there last week, and their hearts will be the same, and what they think and believe about the Eucharist will be the same.

Do you believe that the external has some bearing on the internal?

Or, to save money, why do we not just build all new churches as concrete rectangles with no ornamentation?

[Basilisa Marie]

Ok, so one week you can receive in the hand, and the next you must receive on the tongue whilst kneeling. What difference does it make? There will still be the same people there that were there last week, and their hearts will be the same, and what they think and believe about the Eucharist will be the same.

 

It doesn't make an objective difference, at all.  

 

For a lot of people, receiving while kneeling and on the tongue fosters a good sense of reverence for the Eucharist.  In other people, it doesn't.  Personally speaking, receiving while standing has more meaning for me than kneeling, because standing is the most traditional position for Christians, like how we stand when we listen to the Gospel as a sign of respect. One reason while kneeling became popular was because it was how one approached a king, and in some areas lots of "i am unworthy" theology was brought into the liturgy.  That's not to say good theology isn't done while receiving while kneeling.  But it really is a preference, and what's important is the internal disposition of the communicant, and whichever position fosters the best internal disposition should be used. It's also important to make sure we aren't kneeling because we don't think the standers are holy or reverent OR that we're standing because we think the kneelers are being "holier than thou."  

[BG45]

Not going to get into the debates about Communion on the Hand/Tongue, but two comments leaped out at me.

 

since these things are indults, they are absolutely within the local bishop's authority, whether one likes it or not.  A bishop couldn't add other ways of receiving, and he couldn't forbid the universal way (kneeling and on the tongue),

 

Someone should inform Bishop Tod Brown of this. :|

 

If Ranjith became pope, I bet he would at least consider making the same instructions worldwide.

 

And then the media would howl they were betrayed by getting a non-European Pope like they whined for, but then he wasn't instituting massive liberalizations they demanded.  :hehe2:

[Ice_nine]

That video was horrifying.

 

I do love the Orthodox liturgy. But I wonder: WHY hasn't Orthodoxy succumbed to the same nonsense as many Catholic liturgies? Is it only because of abuse of Vatican II? Or is there something in the Orthodox Church—in the tradition, the Church hierarchy, etc.—that's made it immune to this sort of change?

 

I wonder the same thing.

[Nihil Obstat]

Not going to get into the debates about Communion on the Hand/Tongue, but two comments leaped out at me.

 

 

Someone should inform Bishop Tod Brown of this. :|

 

 

And then the media would howl they were betrayed by getting a non-European Pope like they whined for, but then he wasn't instituting massive liberalizations they demanded.  :hehe2:

Yes, someone absolutely should.

 

Lol, would it not be the best thing ever? :proud:

[BG45]

Yes, someone absolutely should.

 

Lol, would it not be the best thing ever? :proud:

 

I would laugh.  So very much.  :)

[gaudium et spes]

That video was horrifying.

 

I do love the Orthodox liturgy. But I wonder: WHY hasn't Orthodoxy succumbed to the same nonsense as many Catholic liturgies? Is it only because of abuse of Vatican II? Or is there something in the Orthodox Church—in the tradition, the Church hierarchy, etc.—that's made it immune to this sort of change?

Apotheoun, any ideas?

[Nihil Obstat]

Apotheoun, any ideas?

I might speculate here. We in the Roman Church have had popes in the past who encouraged, either implicitly or explicitly, certain experimentations in the Mass. For instance, quite a bit of experimentation was encouraged - officially mind you - during the time in which the Pauline Missal was being created. Such top-down encouragement certainly affected clergy right down to the parish level. It created a culture in which that experimentation was simply par for the course.

On the other hand, the Orthodox and Eastern Catholics, with a much higher degree of autonomy, have not experienced the same kind of encouragement towards experimentation. The patriarchs, metropolitans, etc., simply do not do things that way, and because of that the lower clergy are led in a more liturgically strict direction.

Edited March 9, 2013 by Nihil Obstat

[Apotheoun]

Apotheoun, any ideas?

I gave a partial answer to this question in another thread recently when I said:

". . . the Western Church seems to have lost the proper sense of Tradition. Tradition is living, not because it is constantly changing, the Church Fathers would never have accepted such an idea, but because it (i.e., Tradition) is an extension of the incarnation vivified by the life-creating Spirit of God."

 

I would add to this by saying that in many ways the concept of the "magisterium" has replaced Tradition in the Western Church, and that is what has made it possible for the bishops (or the pope) to simply issue directives that alter or suppress time immemorial liturgical practices. The end result of all of this is that the lay faithful in the West see everything as being open to change, and of course that approach is simply foreign to Eastern Orthodoxy. Tradition - for Orthodox Christians - is received by each new generation, and not created by it.

[homeschoolmom]

I will try to keep this in mind if I'm ever visiting Sri Lanka. :|

[Nihil Obstat]

If it can happen in Sri Lanka....... :proud:

[Nihil Obstat]

I would add to this by saying that in many ways the concept of the "magisterium" has replaced Tradition in the Western Church, and that is what has made it possible for the bishops (or the pope) to simply issue directives that alter or suppress time immemorial liturgical practices. The end result of all of this is that the lay faithful in the West see everything as being open to change, and of course that approach is simply foreign to Eastern Orthodoxy. Tradition - for Orthodox Christians - is received by each new generation, and not created by it.

I strongly agree that we need to regain the sense that the Magisterium exists in service to Tradition. I think that we need to work to re-establish the link between the two. At the moment the two are sort of treated as being two very separate realities, which obviously is not the case, and was never meant to be the case. The Magisterium serves, when necessary interprets, and never may contradict Tradition - or at least, that is how it should be. Right now it is treated by some as the Magisterium being one thing, and Tradition being something different, and since the Magisterium has greater visibility, Tradition is ignored.

[Evangetholic]

How am I to know what Tradition is apart from the Magisterium?

[Nihil Obstat]

How am I to know what Tradition is apart from the Magisterium?

I think I will leave this one alone for someone more qualified than myself. That is a question that jumps to the limits of my own competency. :P