Pope Benedicts wishes for communicants

[TimothyH]

Originally Posted by JReducation

We have many people who read these threads and may not post, but they're reading. Some of them get confused. I receive about 20 PMs a week from observers. It's always the same thing, "Brother, what does this mean?" or "Brother, do I have to do this?" or "Brother, is it a sin if I don't do that?" It's usually because someone is interested in a subject, but the posters left out a detail. The inquirer is uncomfortable asking for a clarification on the thread.

The fine print is helpful to many people.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

This is one of the reasons why I post.

Often people mean well, but they don't realize that they are forcing their spirituality on others, or forcing others to worship God in ways which our Church does not require. Suggesting that if others don't do X, Y and Z, then it is a sin or shows their lack of love for Jesus, no matter how well intentioned, is putting a stumbling block in front of a believer, many of whom are new to the faith, spiritual infants, and come here looking for God.

Its for the twenty people who don't post that I do.


-Tim-

[Rich C]

Originally Posted by ByzCath

Subjective. Not Fact.

I receive the Eucharist in the way that is most reverent for me.

I thought I made it clear I was only talking about Roman Catholics. I'm given to understand that kneeling has a different context in the Eastern traditions.

Nonetheless, in our tradition, it's the height of deconstructionist thinking to say that there is no hierarchy of reverence when it comes to postures. It's fact to say that there is, not subjectivity. To take a different example: there is a reason we must stand for the Gospel if we're able. I also listen to what my priests say about it and try to follow the example they put for me.

I thought this was a very uplifting thread where we could share the joy we find in a traditional practice, not a condemnation of COTH, but naysayers jumped in and made it an argument. Thanks.

[triumphguy]

Well then, please feel free to share the joy that you experience when you receive COTH. You might inspire someone.

I found, and it backs up what my grandma told me: You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

[ByzCathCantor]

Originally Posted by Rich C

I thought I made it clear I was only talking about Roman Catholics. I'm given to understand that kneeling has a different context in the Eastern traditions.

Nonetheless, in our tradition, it's the height of deconstructionist thinking to say that there is no hierarchy of reverence when it comes to postures. It's fact to say that there is, not subjectivity. To take a different example: there is a reason we must stand for the Gospel if we're able. I also listen to what my priests say about it and try to follow the example they put for me.

You are correct in that kneeling has a different context in Eastern traditions. It is a penitential posture. You may also be aware that we stand when receiving the Holy Eucharist, as standing is a posture of joy. There is indeed a "hierarchy of reverence when it comes to postures" in the Eastern Churches (which includes some not generally seen in the Latin Church, like full prostrations), as well.

In both Eastern and Western traditions, it is clear that postures have intended meanings, and in that regard your post adds an interesting note to this discussion. In the Latin tradition, what is the underlying thought and belief as to whether one should stand or kneel? I honestly don't fully appreciate that, not having been catechized formally in the Latin Church.

The variability of postures that accompanies each of the two possible manners of reception of the Holy Eucharist acceptable in the Latin Church seemingly adds to the confusion among the faithful. And, whenever options are available in any context, matters of personal preference or views as to the superiority of a given choice will inevitably become matters of debate in common circles.

What I think ByzCath was trying to say in the post you had quoted is that he follows his conscience when in the Latin Church. As my mother's side of the family are all faithful Roman Catholics, I find myself in the Latin Church on more than an occasional instance. I too try to follow my conscience in this regard, but it is very awkward when that choice reveals a preference that is different than the majority of the congregation present. Clearly, even for canonical and practicing Latin Catholics, this also seems to be the case, and the divide seemingly tends to run between traditional and modern norms of thought and preference.

I hope some day here to see some informed discussion on the postures associated with COTT vs CITH, as you have alluded.

[Christine85]

I think we need to take a breather and just appreciate Christ in the Eucharist in which ever manner we accept him. He loves us so much he would not want us arguing over how to approach him. Let's just accept that different people have their preferences. Though I must say I have realized tonight that by considering us unworthy to approach him defeats what he did on the Cross for us.
Of course as stated by the Church we are to be free from mortal sin, but even when we are why do people who promote receiving on the tongue insist they are not worthy to touch Jesus. Do you think Jesus believes this too?

[Rich C]

Originally Posted by Christine85

I think we need to take a breather and just appreciate Christ in the Eucharist in which ever manner we accept him. He loves us so much he would not want us arguing over how to approach him. Let's just accept that different people have their preferences. Though I must say I have realized tonight that by considering us unworthy to approach him defeats what he did on the Cross for us.
Of course as stated by the Church we are to be free from mortal sin, but even when we are why do people who promote receiving on the tongue insist they are not worthy to touch Jesus. Do you think Jesus believes this too?

I don't think our unworthiness can be comtemplated enough. The fault is in distorting our perception of God's infinite love for us, displayed most of all on the cross. I think the right balance, found in the reading of the saints, is to appreciate first our utter unworthiness, and then see how our unworthiness actually shows how great is God's love for us.

After all, "domine non sum dignus."

[triumphguy]

None of us are worthy even to look at the Eucharist, never mind touch it at all.

It is God's gift to us, as is the gift of His Son's death.

The Eucharist is pure gift.

For me receiving in the hand is like an awareness that I must bring this gift into the world by my actions.

When I receive on the tongue it is like an awareness that I am receiving Christ intimately.

I go to confession frequently in order to be fit (though I never am worthy) to receive.

Arguing about which way of reception is better is totally fruitless in my mind because no way is worthy. We don't deserve the gift.

But the gift is still given.

[Friar David, O.Carm]

Originally Posted by Rich C

I thought I made it clear I was only talking about Roman Catholics. I'm given to understand that kneeling has a different context in the Eastern traditions.

Nonetheless, in our tradition, it's the height of deconstructionist thinking to say that there is no hierarchy of reverence when it comes to postures. It's fact to say that there is, not subjectivity. To take a different example: there is a reason we must stand for the Gospel if we're able. I also listen to what my priests say about it and try to follow the example they put for me.

I thought this was a very uplifting thread where we could share the joy we find in a traditional practice, not a condemnation of COTH, but naysayers jumped in and made it an argument. Thanks.

Again, I receive in the manner that is most reverent for me. Stating that how you receive is more reverent than any other option is a matter of preference and is subjective.

I will also point out to you that while I am a Byzantine Catholic I am also a Carmelite friar so I am well versed in the Roman Church as my order is a Roman order.

So there is "our" about it. It is also mine.

[Friar David, O.Carm]

Originally Posted by EcceAgnusDei

Yes, it is interesting how in the "Traditional Catholicism" forum there are self-appointed monitors who make sure they have something to say against traditional Catholic practices.

Sometimes it seems like they want every post on traditional Catholic spirituality to come with the fine-print disclaimers that accompany pharmaceutical ads

+ PAX

May I ask you who is the arbiter of what is traditional? Just because something is a practice that is pre-vatican II does not necessarily make it traditional. What about pre-trent practices? What about practices that come from the early church? Are those not traditional?

[Friar David, O.Carm]

Originally Posted by rben20

Every traditional thread is somehow voted down by trolls. Reminds me of YouTube haters voting down religious videos

Maybe they are voted down because they are inaccurate in what they are posting.

Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them a troll.

[Rich C]

Originally Posted by ByzCath

Again, I receive in the manner that is most reverent for me. Stating that how you receive is more reverent than any other option is a matter of preference and is subjective.

I will also point out to you that while I am a Byzantine Catholic I am also a Carmelite friar so I am well versed in the Roman Church as my order is a Roman order.

So there is "our" about it. It is also mine.

Well, it's not my place to argue with you brother David. Have a nice day.

[ImmaculataFides]

Originally Posted by ByzCath

Just because something is a practice that is pre-vatican II does not necessarily make it traditional.

Most of the time it does, because it has been practiced for centuries and centuries.

Originally Posted by ByzCath

What about pre-trent practices? What about practices that come from the early church? Are those not traditional?

Yes, but they were developed upon through hundreds of years of organic development; which enhances orthodoxy and worship.

[TempleServant]

The thing about COTT is symbolism. "Oh Lord, I am not worthy that Thou shoulds't enter under my roof ...".

I am therefore, as an act of devotion and humilty, certainly not worthy that I should handle You, O King Of Kings, especially as my forefathers didn't.

But everything changed in the 1960's. It was a new beginning! We realised how much more worthy we were and how rigid our forefathers were.

[Big_Feet]

Originally Posted by TempleServant

But everything changed in the 1960's. It was a new beginning! We realised how much more worthy we were and how rigid our forefathers were.

I dont quite think that this was/is the case.
And, CITH is not a world-wide accepted/approved practice, only in certian areas of the globe.

[Brooklyn]

From Father Z's blog in 2009:

Do you believe that each particle of a Host is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ Jesus, God and man?

Do you receive Communion in the hand?

A reader sent two photos. The first is of an unconsecrated communion host rest on the palm of a black glove.

This photo shows the fragments left behind.



Father Z goes on to write:

"But Father! But Father!", some of you will perhaps be howling now. "That’s a glove, not a hand! We don’t know that that is what happens with hosts put into people’s hands! That’s not fair!"

I grant that we don’t know. I grant that palms are not gloves. I grant that there are differences.

Go here if you wish to read the rest.

Father Z does write in this post:

Let me be clear: I do not think people intend to be irreverent when they receive on the hand.

I think if people were more aware of what is actually happening to the consecrated host, which is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, when they receive, they just might think twice of receiving in the hand.