Receiving Communion

[MichaelFilo]

We could go on for a little while longer, but I won't. JPII makes a good point. Whatever the Church allows is fine, while I won't change my mind that one is greater than the other unless there is some good reason to. Otherwise, I won't respond to anymore posts about whether it's better to receive with your hands or on your tongue, or anything like that. This thread is about kneeling for Communion, and I think it has been suffeciently OK'd.

God blesss,
Mikey

[Cam42]

Receiving in the hand is an indult, much in the same way that reception of Holy Communion standing is. Both require recognitio of the Holy See in order for them to take place. Both are to be allowed with proper catechesis.

I have spoken to the idea of kneeling and I believe that discussion has dutifully been answered. As for reception in the hand, it is interesting to note that at Vatican Council II this practice was defeated almost 2 to 1. However, as time passed and this action was permitted, an indult needed to be granted with the recognitio of the Holy See.

Here is the direction from the Holy See,
[quote]Before initiating the practice of giving Holy Communion in the hand a suitable instruction and catechesis of Catholic doctrine is necessary concerning both the real and permanent presence of Christ under the Eucharistic species and the reverence due to this Sacrament. (Immensae Caritatis January 25, 1973)[/quote]

Has this happened? I don't know. I have never received any catechesis on this issue. I have never attempted to receive in the hand, so I guess it doesn't apply to me. BTW, I made my first Holy Communion in 1979.

Although, I am a Catechist, and I have never been instructed to give catechesis on either. I do, but I have never been instructed to. Hmmmmm......

Cam42

[epiclesis]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Feb 25 2005, 10:46 PM']
Here is the direction from the Holy See,
"Before initiating the practice of giving Holy Communion in the hand a suitable instruction and catechesis of Catholic doctrine is necessary concerning both the real and permanent presence of Christ under the Eucharistic species and the reverence due to this Sacrament. (Immensae Caritatis January 25, 1973)"

Has this happened?  I don't know.  I have never received any catechesis on this issue.  I have never attempted to receive in the hand, so I guess it doesn't apply to me.  BTW, I made my first Holy Communion in 1979.

Although, I am a Catechist, and I have never been instructed to give catechesis on either.  I do, but I have never been instructed to. Hmmmmm......

Cam42[/quote]
So you made first Communion without receiving instruction concerning the Real Presence of Christ under the Eucharist and the reverence due the Sacrament?

BTW, suitable instruction and catechesis of Catholic doctrine concerning the Real Presence is necessary for any Catholic receiving Communion whether by hand or on the tongue.

Edited February 26, 2005 by epiclesis

[Cam42]

[quote]So you made first Communion without receiving instruction concerning the Real Presence of Christ under the Eucharist and the reverence due the Sacrament?[/quote]

Either you misunderstand or you are being coy. I have had plenty of instruction in receiving Holy Communion, but I have never attempted to receive in the hand, so no instruction has been given to me in that regard.

Believe me, I show a great amount of reverence to the Blessed Sacrament. Some say too much. But then again, I don't really care what people think of my devotions to my various causes within the Church.

Cam

[james]

Progressivists loathe tradition because tradition functions as a benchmark.

The act of kneeling is more reverent than standing.

The discomfort that progressive Catholics feel in the presence of those who kneel while receiving communion is most likely due to the reverent behavior of those who kneel being a point of reference by which their own behavior may be judged.

Rather than be influenced by those who kneel in the direction of more reverence, progressives would rather that those who kneel be influenced in their direction; the direction of less reverence. Progressives prefer to have it their way, preferably without having to experience any of the discomfort which naturally occurs when their actions are juxtaposed against actions that are more reverent.

Hence the progressive's objection to those who kneel.

So much for "tolerance" and "diversity", the ruse under which progressives advance their cause.

Edited February 26, 2005 by james

[Cam42]

[quote]The act of kneeling is more reverent than standing.[/quote]

While I personally agree with this statement, Rome says that either is acceptable. The indult is to stand, this is granted with the express condition that kneeling still be permitted based upon Redemptionis Sacramentum no. 91.

I will not make a public statement to say that kneeling should be the only way, however, I will say that it is up the the faithful to choose. I choose to kneel. Others don't. Neither is wrong. Both have the explicit approval to do so.

The idea of progressives being ashamed, I doubt it. I don't think that is the case at all. I think that they are so convinced of their position that they don't see anything wrong with it. This is also apparent with the schismatics, such as SSPX, SSPV, and the CMRI. The ultra-traditionalists fall into the same categories that you state for the progressives except in the opposite way.

The discomfort that [i]schismatic Catholics[/i] feel in the presence of those who [i]attend the Missa Normativa[/i] is most likely due to the [i]authentic behavior of those who attend that Mass and subsequently have[/i] a point of reference by which their own behavior may be judged.

If you are not with Rome on the left, you are not with Rome. If you are not with Rome on the right, you are not with Rome. Either way, it is best to follow Rome, because that is the only way to be with Rome. Obedience. That is the issue. Are progressives being obedient while standing to receive Holy Communion? Yes, insofar as they allow those who wish to kneel, to do so.

Cam42

[epiclesis]

It bears restating: Reverence is in the heart of the believer.

One cannot always judge the inner intent of another by the outward appearance, whether we are talking about standing or kneeling for Communion or receiving in the hand or on the tongue. You simply do not know the heart of the other person.

Some of the language in this discussion reminds me of anti-Catholics who insist that Catholics worship statues because they "see Catholics doing it".

[Cam42]

[quote]You simply do not know the heart of the other person.[/quote]

That is not always the case though. Priests do have to make a determination as to the ability of one to approach Holy Communion. If one is known publicly to be unworthy to approach, such as being formally excommunicated or if one is in schism, also if one is not Catholic, would be another. You and I should not judge, I agree, however a judgment can and is made by the pastor as to the worthiness of reception of the Sacred Species.

It does bear noting that the priest has to follow strict guidelines though....as lined out in Canon Law and various liturgical documents.

Cam42

Edited February 26, 2005 by Cam42

[epiclesis]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Feb 26 2005, 08:16 AM']
That is not always the case though.  Priests do have to make a determination as to the ability of one to approach Holy Communion.  If one is known publicly to be unworthy to approach, such as being formally excommunicated or if one is in schism, also if one is not Catholic, would be another.  You and I should not judge, I agree, however a judgment can and is made by the pastor as to the worthiness of reception of the Sacred Species.

It does bear noting that the priest has to follow strict guidelines though....as lined out in Canon Law and various liturgical documents.

Cam42[/quote]
All that is well and good, but the point of my post is that one can not simply say that kneeling for Communion is more reverent than standing or that receiving on the tongue is more reverent than receiving in the hand. The actions in and of themselves are not reverence. They are an expression of the reverence felt in the heart of the actor.

The best that you can say is that for you kneeling is the greater expression of the reverence that you hold for the Eucharist. Or that receiving on the tongue is a greater expression of reverence.

You can not state that person A is more reverent than person B simply based on your observation of whether one receives kneeling or standing or on the tongue or in the hand.

As I asked before, which is the greater act of reverence? Receiving on the tongue while kneeling without even the most fleeting thought as to the Presence of our Lord, or receiving in the hand while standing in a state of deep and genuine reflection on the Presence?

The later is obviously more reverent. And that reverence is not something that you can know simply based on outward appearances because reverence resides in the heart and is truly known only by God.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='epiclesis' date='Feb 26 2005, 08:03 AM'] As I asked before, which is the greater act of reverence?  Receiving on the tongue while kneeling without even the most fleeting thought as to the Presence of our Lord, or receiving in the hand while standing in a state of deep and genuine reflection on the Presence? 

The later is obviously more reverent.  And that reverence is not something that you can know simply based on outward appearances because reverence resides in the heart and is truly known only by God. [/quote]
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).

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='epiclesis' date='Feb 26 2005, 08:03 AM'] The best that you can say is that for you kneeling is the greater expression of the reverence that you hold for the Eucharist. Or that receiving on the tongue is a greater expression of reverence. [/quote]
Kneeling within the Roman Rite is a sign of adoration (latria) and not simply of reverence (dulia).

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='epiclesis' date='Feb 26 2005, 08:03 AM']All that  is well and good, but the point of my post is that one can not simply say that kneeling for Communion is more reverent than standing or that receiving on the tongue is more reverent than receiving in the hand.  The actions in and of themselves are not reverence.  They are an expression of the reverence felt in the heart of the actor.[/quote]
Certainly a man can say that one outward sign is more reverent in itself than another outward sign. It is true that a man cannot judge the secrets of the heart of another man (because God alone can do that), but he most certainly can judge the outward actions of others, and in fact it is his duty to do so in the moral sphere, and this holds in a lesser degree even if one is talking about liturgical actions. Catholics are not Gnostics, and so bodily actions are not unimportant within theology, in fact the incarnation speaks loudly against such an idea. The Church teaches that the body and the soul are an integral whole; and so, the body should reflect in every way possible the inner intentions of the heart. 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 (with some sign of reverence added, e.g., a bow, etc.) 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.

[james]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Feb 26 2005, 07:47 AM']
While I personally agree with this statement, Rome says that either is acceptable.

[/quote]
Standing for communion may be acceptable to Rome, but the point still stands. Kneeling for communion displays more reverence before God than standing does.

[quote name='Cam42']If you are not with Rome on the left, you are not with Rome.  If you are not with Rome on the right, you are not with Rome.  Either way, it is best to follow Rome, because that is the only way to be with Rome.  Obedience.  That is the issue. [/quote]

Your attempt to change the topic from reverence to obedience is noted, however, obedience is not an issue since kneeling is also a stronger gesture of obedience than standing is.

[JP2Iloveyou]

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

[Cam42]

[quote]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]

[quote]Kneeling within the Roman Rite is a sign of adoration (latria) and not simply of reverence (dulia).[/quote]

Exactly true, Appy.

[quote]Your attempt to change the topic from reverence to obedience is noted, however, obedience is not an issue since kneeling is also a stronger gesture of obedience than standing is.[/quote]

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.

Cam42