Receiving Communion

[james]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Feb 26 2005, 10:14 PM']

James, if you would have bothered to read the whole of this thread, obedience has been one of two central themes going in this thread.  1. Reverence, 2. Obedience.  I am changing nothing, but rather, speaking to the topic as it has been discussed.

[/quote]

Obedience only entered the equation because someone asserted that kneeling for communion is disobedient, which is absurd. Kneeling for communion is a centuries old tradition. Both kneeling, and now, standing are accepted by the church so obedience is not an issue here.

It is your attempt to associate traditionalist Catholics with schism and disobedience, the same spirit in which the person who asserts that kneeling for communion is disobedient, which I find objectionable.

Practicing one's faith consistently with church tradition cannot be disobedient.

I stated a plain fact, that kneeling before God is more reverent than standing before Him. Progressive Catholic's tendency is away from reverence by standing for communion rather than kneeling. This is a fact.

Since kneeling is more reverent than standing, kneeling is a point of reference by which standing is gauged as less reverent.

I disagree with your assertion that progressives don't recognize this. The fact that kneeling before authority is more reverent than standing is beyond debate. Everyone, even those who are in denial, at some level recognize this truth. So I believe that I am on solid ground when I state that progressives who stand for communion are uncomfortable in the presence of those who kneel, simply because their tendency away from reverence is in clear display in this context.

Edited February 27, 2005 by james

[james]

[quote name='JP2Iloveyou' date='Feb 26 2005, 04:06 PM'] I tried sending this to you personally, but it wouldn't go through.  I'm sorry I have to post this in public, but I think it needs to be said.

I've been reading some of your posts, and the tone in them is quite arrogant.  You seem to put yourself on a pedastal and look down at everyone else.  You're opinions are not in line with the those of the Church and you need to reform them.  Also, just a word of advice, be careful not to fall into the sin of pride.

I'm only saying this as a brother in the Lord, because I truly care about your soul.

God Bless [/quote]
I'll assume that your post is sincere and answer it accordingly.

My support of church tradition and opposition to progressives who seek to erase that tradition is neither arrogant or proud, and it will not place my soul in any danger.

I'm sorry that you see it that way.

I would suggest that your concern is misdirected and recommend that you focus your concern not on me, but on the church which is in a very grave state.

God bless you.

Edited February 27, 2005 by james

[JP2Iloveyou]

[quote name='james' date='Feb 27 2005, 05:33 AM'] I'll assume that your post is sincere and answer it accordingly.

My support of church tradition and opposition to progressives who seek to erase that tradition is neither arrogant or proud, and it will not place my soul in any danger.

I'm sorry that you see it that way.

I would suggest that your concern is misdirected and recommend that you focus your concern not on me, but on the church which is in a very grave state.

God bless you. [/quote]
My post was completely sincere. It is for you to determine if you are being arrogant or proud. I just think your posts give that impression. I have read quite a few posts in here of people boasting about how they go to Communion, how often they go to Communion, etc. I for one, do not care how you receive or how often you receive. That is between you and your spiritual director. The point is, you are trying to be more Catholic than the Pope, which is impossible. Again, this is a case of people trying to put tradition above the authority of the Church, which can't happen.

[Cam42]

James, et al.

If you wanna get into the Tradition debate. Don't do it here. This is for discussing Holy Communion. Go to the new thread....Tradition?.....

Cam42

[jasJis]

JP2,
Thanks for a searingly clear post. Discussing the manner we receive communion is a touchstone issue of most Traditionalists who denigrate the Authority of the Magisterium way below the Tradition. They would seem to be the ones who would argue against Cannoninzing the Scripture because Tradition did not have it for almost 300 years. Unfortuantely, orthodox 'conservative' leaning Catholics feel attacked, and orthodox 'liberl' leaning Catholics feel attacked, and the discussion gets uncomfortable for all of us.

I'm old enough to have received (and served as an alcolyte) both ways. People can manage to be irreverent either way. The same is true today. I personally question people I don't know who would kneel during a Sunday mass in my parish as it is rarely done and all 8 of our Masses are standing room only and it takes a long time for Communion. Sunday Masses are heavily about Community.

But daily mass is another thing. It's less attended so Communion is faster and may not even have an EM that would get confused. It's less likely you'd cause the person behind you to trip as you get down or get up. (Face it. When we used to kneel, we had elevated kneelers and and a rail to aid us.)

Those of you who are now moved and want to try kneeling, do so at a daily mass. I think all of us should concentrate on being properly reverent by obeying the Norms of your local bishop and pastor and Bow if we receive standing, and pray the people who are receiving with you at the mass are receiving Him fully in their hearts wether they're standing, kneeling, receiving in their hand, or on the tongue.

Edited February 27, 2005 by jasJis

[God Conquers]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Feb 26 2005, 10:30 AM'] Which is more reverent: (a) receiving communion on the tongue while kneeling with deep adoration and love for the Lord in your heart, or (b) receiving communion in the hand while standing recognizing the Lord's true presence in love?

Clearly, (a) is, because both body and soul are signifying the act of worship (latria) in the clearest of terms as it is traditionally understood in the Roman Rite; (b) is of course reverent, in that the inner intention is good and holy, but the bodily posture, at the level of aesthetic sign is less clear, and so preference must be given, as I already indicated, to (a). [/quote]
Todd,

I believe that even if the Eucharist is recieved standing it is necessary (from an obedience to the Church POV) to display a physical act of reverence such as a deep bow before reception. In this way wouldn't the bosily posture aspect be satisfied and equalize the reverence of both ways?

Matt

[StPiusVPrayForUs]

[quote name='james' date='Feb 27 2005, 05:33 AM'] I'll assume that your post is sincere and answer it accordingly.

My support of church tradition and opposition to progressives who seek to erase that tradition is neither arrogant or proud, and it will not place my soul in any danger.

I'm sorry that you see it that way.

I would suggest that your concern is misdirected and recommend that you focus your concern not on me, but on the church which is in a very grave state.

God bless you. [/quote]
James,

"Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray. Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."
-St. Athanasius during the Arian heresy, who BTW just like Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated Bishop's without the Pope's approval.

We are living in like times. We have Bishops like O'Malley in Boston calling the police on fellow Catholics who want to preserve their church so they won't become restaurants or condos. We have Bishops and priests in Florida that won't support Terri Schiavo, etc. Sounds like we're repating history. Say what ypu want about Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer, but if it wasn't for them and folks like Michael Davies, Cardinal Ottaviani, et al. Mass would not be regarded as a Sacrifice anymore as the Novus Ordo's original text did not contain any reference's to a Sacrifice when the definition of the Mass was publishized. Then again, if you had a Free Mason priest plot a new Mass with six Protestants, then I doubt real presence and Sacrifice would be what they would worry about.

Countinue what you have learned and don't let the modernists shake you. People stand to get their food from Burger King from some normal person trying to make a living. Flash forward into the churches and we have priestesses giving Communion out into the hand of laity as if it was just a wafer. But it's not. It's Christ's Sacred Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity (assuming the proper form, matter and intent was used). At the name of Jesus Christ every knee shall bend. But I guess the new demagods refuse to humble themself before their God.

Obiedance to the Pope, Bishop, or Priest all the time no matter what they say is not true obiedance. One must be obiediant to God before man. You tell me who has their priorities straight with this madness of eccumenism. Take Assisi, there they don't need pray for peace through Christ, but Peace through Christ, Muhammed, Buddah, Allah, Sivha, etc. I'd rather go to an SSPX Mass where I get straight forward Catholic dogma not only in the sermon, but throughout the Mass than my old Novus ordo church where I had a circus atmosphere and a Father of Mercy comparing his looks to Pee-Wee Herman duirng his sermon where he didn't teach anyone anything, let alone the horrid translation from Latin.

[StPiusVPrayForUs]

Further, I think that people should stand for Communion. After all, Bill Clinton stood for Communion.

[img]http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/Images/056_clintonCommunion_30Gio_4-98.jpg[/img]


Pro-abortion and Protestant President Bill Clinton received
the Holy Eucharist at Queen of the World Church
in Johannesburg, South Africa.

The priest who gave the Communion alleged he was just applying the latest directive of ecumenism that came from
the South African Bishops Conference.

According to Catholic catechism, this constitutes a sacrilege,
but it is an action becoming increasingly more frequent in the post-Vatican II era. Pope John Paul II, for instance, gave Holy Communion to the Episcopalian prime minister Tony Blair at the Vatican
in February 2004.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='God Conquers' date='Feb 27 2005, 11:38 AM']Todd,

I believe that even if the Eucharist is recieved standing it is necessary (from an obedience to the Church POV) to display a physical act of reverence such as a deep bow before reception. In this way wouldn't the bosily posture aspect be satisfied and equalize the reverence of both ways?

Matt[/quote]
Yes, I noted that in a previous post, but it cannot be said often enough:



[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Feb 26 2005, 10:15 AM'][. . .] That being said, it is a custom in the Roman Rite to kneel for communion, and that practice is normative within the rite as a whole and has been for centuries; moreover, it is customary to receive communion on the tongue, and that practice is normative within the Roman Rite as a whole as well, so both of these postures are preferred in universal law and in the particular tradition of the Roman Rite. The practice of receiving communion standing ([b][i]with some sign of reverence added, e.g., a bow, etc.[/i][/b]) is permitted within various geographical regions that have received an indult from the Holy See allowing that posture, but that does not mean that a man cannot say that that posture is less reflective of proper piety and adoration (latria) owed to the Blessed Sacrament, and the same is true when it comes to receiving communion in the hand. These new postures have been permitted by the Church as long as profanation of the sacrament is safeguarded against, but to say that one cannot make aesthetic distinctions between the newer innovative postures and the traditional postures for receiving communion in the Roman Rite, prescinding from the unknown inner intentions of a man's heart, is utter nonsense.[/quote]

[quote name='God Conquers' date='Feb 27 2005, 11:38 AM']In this way [i.e., making a deep bow] wouldn't the bosily posture aspect be satisfied and equalize the reverence of both ways?[/quote]

Although making a deep bow would be a good thing to do, that is, if one receives communion while standing; it should be noted that the normative sign of adoration (latria) in the Roman Rite is to kneel or genuflect, and so standing for the reception of communion, at the level of an outward sign (even with a profound bow), would not be as clear a sign of adoration (latria) as kneeling or genuflecting.

Clearly, a deep bow would be better than a simple nod of the head, but the particular tradition of the Roman Rite holds that bows are generally a sign of veneration, and not of adoration (latria).

Let me emphasize once again that I am only speaking at the level of the outward sign and not at the level of the inward intention. Thus, I am not saying that people who stand to receive communion -- which is permitted as an indult within the Roman Rite -- are by that very fact making a sacrilegious communion; rather I am simply saying that at the level of an aesthetic sign, the reception of communion while kneeling clearly and visibly manifests the fact that the person in question is adoring the Lord's Eucharistic presence.

God bless,
Todd

[JP2Iloveyou]

[quote name='StPiusVPrayForUs' date='Feb 27 2005, 01:56 PM'] James,

"Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray. Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."
-St. Athanasius during the Arian heresy, who BTW just like Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated Bishop's without the Pope's approval.

We are living in like times. We have Bishops like O'Malley in Boston calling the police on fellow Catholics who want to preserve their church so they won't become restaurants or condos. We have Bishops and priests in Florida that won't support Terri Schiavo, etc. Sounds like we're repating history. Say what ypu want about Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer, but if it wasn't for them and folks like Michael Davies, Cardinal Ottaviani, et al. Mass would not be regarded as a Sacrifice anymore as the Novus Ordo's original text did not contain any reference's to a Sacrifice when the definition of the Mass was publishized. Then again, if you had a Free Mason priest plot a new Mass with six Protestants, then I doubt real presence and Sacrifice would be what they would worry about.

Countinue what you have learned and don't let the modernists shake you. People stand to get their food from Burger King from some normal person trying to make a living. Flash forward into the churches and we have priestesses giving Communion out into the hand of laity as if it was just a wafer. But it's not. It's Christ's Sacred Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity (assuming the proper form, matter and intent was used). At the name of Jesus Christ every knee shall bend. But I guess the new demagods refuse to humble themself before their God.

Obiedance to the Pope, Bishop, or Priest all the time no matter what they say is not true obiedance. One must be obiediant to God before man. You tell me who has their priorities straight with this madness of eccumenism. Take Assisi, there they don't need pray for peace through Christ, but Peace through Christ, Muhammed, Buddah, Allah, Sivha, etc. I'd rather go to an SSPX Mass where I get straight forward Catholic dogma not only in the sermon, but throughout the Mass than my old Novus ordo church where I had a circus atmosphere and a Father of Mercy comparing his looks to Pee-Wee Herman duirng his sermon where he didn't teach anyone anything, let alone the horrid translation from Latin. [/quote]
I think this sums up everything I have been trying to say. This will be my last post on this thread because you have made my point for me and there is not need for further dialogue with you. You in your own words have criticized the Church and the Magisterium, thereby denying one of the doctrines of Tradition that you claim to hold so dear, namely that the Church can never fall into error in matters of faith and morals. I must commend you though, at least you are honest and upfront about rejecting the authority of the Church. Most people in your movement won't do it. You are in my prayers.

Pax

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='JP2Iloveyou' date='Feb 27 2005, 12:37 PM'] I think this sums up everything I have been trying to say.  This will be my last post on this thread because you have made my point for me and there is not need for further dialogue with you.  You in your own words have criticized the Church and the Magisterium, thereby denying one of the doctrines of Tradition that you claim to hold so dear, namely that the Church can never fall into error in matters of faith and morals.  I must commend you though, at least you are honest and upfront about rejecting the authority of the Church.  Most people in your movement won't do it.  You are in my prayers.

Pax [/quote]
I commend you for your obedience to the Magisterium. All Catholics are required to give the assent of divine and catholic faith to those things proposed by the Church, either through a solemn judgment or through the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.

It is good also that you submit willingly to the authoritative decisions of the Holy See, even when they do not concern the doctrine of the faith.

Nevertheless, it is important that Catholics not confuse authoritative acts of governance with infallible definitions of the Magisterium, because they are not the same thing.

JP2Iloveyou, your contributions in this thread have been helpful and insightful, and it is my hope that you will continue to contribute to it in defense of the Magisterium.

God bless,
Todd

[God Conquers]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Feb 27 2005, 02:16 PM'] Yes, I noted that in a previous post, but it cannot be said often enough:







Although making a deep bow would be a good thing to do, that is, if one receives communion while standing; it should be noted that the normative sign of adoration (latria) in the Roman Rite is to kneel or genuflect, and so standing for the reception of communion, at the level of an outward sign (even with a profound bow), would not be as clear a sign of adoration (latria) as kneeling or genuflecting.

Clearly, a deep bow would be better than a simple nod of the head, but the particular tradition of the Roman Rite holds that bows are generally a sign of veneration, and not of adoration (latria).

Let me emphasize once again that I am only speaking at the level of the outward sign and not at the level of the inward intention. Thus, I am not saying that people who stand to receive communion -- which is permitted as an indult within the Roman Rite -- are by that very fact making a sacrilegious communion; rather I am simply saying that at the level of an aesthetic sign, the reception of communion while kneeling clearly and visibly manifests the fact that the person in question is adoring the Lord's Eucharistic presence.

God bless,
Todd [/quote]
Yikes,

Sorry, I should have read that post more carefully, you did mention that.

And good response as well. As an outward descriptive of latria I believe you are correct in representing genuflection as the norm and tradition.

I love going to parishes with intact communion rails (that are used at mass) but find it difficult when their presence is absent to kneel. I only know one exceptionally humble, simple and loving man who can pull off kneeling for communion in a communion line without serious grumbles from people or a sense of being "holier than thou".

Should we be concerned about the opinions of others in our parish in this? Granted the disposition of our hearts and souls when recieving communion is between us and God, and their opinion of our actions between them and God, I think (with great sadness) that kneeling when no one else does causes confusion and negative feelings in many other people. I find it difficult, even if it is a witness of reverence, because it is percieved as a symbol of spiritual pride by many, and may even be a manifestation of that in some who practice it.

[Cam42]

[quote]I commend you for your obedience to the Magisterium. All Catholics are required to give the assent of divine and catholic faith to those things proposed by the Church, either through a solemn judgment or through the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.

It is good also that you submit willingly to the authoritative decisions of the Holy See, even when they do not concern the doctrine of the faith[/quote]

I echo this sentiment.

Cam42

[Ash Wednesday]

[quote name='StPiusVPrayForUs' date='Feb 27 2005, 02:14 PM']Pope John Paul II, for instance, gave Holy Communion to the Episcopalian prime minister Tony Blair at the Vatican
in February 2004.[/quote]
There have been contradicting reports on that matter from people that attended the service, which was private, so we can't confirm that as fact. It has also been reported that the story was false and that he received a blessing.

I tend to favor the pope's judgement over "news reports" from the British press ( :haha: ) and "Fatima Crusader Catholics" that favor the "Gospel According to Fatima" over everything else.

[vianney]

It is fine to receive on knees or standing. It is one thing to say that it is more reverant for oneself to receive kneeling rather than standing and yet it is another thing to say that receiving kneeling is more reverant than standing for all. Last I recalled the Pope himself even when he was in good health didnt always receive kneeling, is the Pope not acting with the utmost reverance? This thread is closed as it is stupid debates that shouldnt take place and Catholic vs Catholic bickering.