Combox for:
Counter-"Traditionalist" Argument From Liturgical Development: Method of Receiving Holy Communion (vs. David Palm )
[25 June 2008]
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...ument-
from.html
Seemingly unaware of these historical facts, the late, well-known "traditionalist" Michael Davies opined in 2004:
Standing has never been considered an act of reverence within the Roman Rite. . . . I repeat, standing is not an act of reverence, it has never been an act of reverence, and its imposition has nothing to do with the wisdom of the Church—it is antithetical to that wisdom.
Beg to differ, Dave, but Davies was right -- there is no evidence that standing has ever been a sign of reverence for the Eucharist. The evidence shows that standing for Communion was once the universal practice, but the evidence does not show that they stood out of reverence for the Blessed Sacrament.
'The evidence shows that standing for Communion was once the universal practice, but the evidence does not show that they stood out of reverence for the Blessed Sacrament'.
Why did they stand then? Surely they would just sit if they were little concerned about showing reverence?
Also, were the early Christians really so indifferent to showing reverence to the Eucharist?
I find that hard to believe.
I must say that you have lost me on this one, Jordanes. I don't have the faintest clue how your reasoning works here.
Like James said, it would follow, then, that all these standing recipients had no reverence, which is absurd. Davies was all wet. He equated little "t" tradition with Big "T" Tradition, just as Ben Douglass observed some folks do with regard to communion on the tongue.
If you can worship God in prayer standing, then you can certainly worship Him in the Eucharist, standing, and have reverence, just as you can kneeling. Reverence is primarily in the heart. The physical posture only reflects what is in the heart, and there can be an irreverential kneeling and a reverential standing, depending on who is doing it. Is this not obvious?
Sigh.
[ E) Conversely, any liturgical changes that can be shown to have no historical precedent at all are no developments, but in fact a harmful corruptions, and therefore to be rejected as a violation of the above established principles, and deleterious to the Church and the piety of the Catholic faithful. ]
I never said this. But it remains true that Vatican II stated that developments must come from "existing forms". Do you agree with that or not?
[ F) As particular examples, David Palm suggests that kneeling to receive communion, on the tongue, are practices "distinctively, unmistakably Roman Catholic" and "objectively superior . . . in terms of preserving the Roman Church's venerable liturgical tradition" while contrary actions possess a "distinctive Catholic content" that "is approaching zero." ]
Dave, this is a blatant misrepresentation of what I said. You wrench this one example out of a whole list, twist it, and then present it as the whole of my thought. You should be ashamed to behave like this.
Yet it remains a fact that the Roman liturgical tradition from time immemorial has been to receive Holy Communion kneeling, on the tongue. Do you agree or not?
[ Standing has never been considered an act of reverence within the Roman Rite. ]
Davies is right. Standing has never been considered an act of reverence within the Roman Rite. I'm not sure it's been considered an act of reverence per se in any rite, but certainly not in the Roman Rite. Do you agree?
Our Roman liturgical tradition since time immemorial has been to receive Holy Communion kneeling, on the tongue. In the East they receive Holy Communion standing, on the tongue.
I have never denied that Catholics once received Holy Communion in the hand (although its prevalence is exaggerated.) I have never denied that immediately prior to Vatican II Catholics in certain approved rites regularly received standing (the Eastern rites.) But on the eve of Vatican II there was no rite of the Catholic Church or even in Eastern Orthodoxy in which Holy Communion was given in the hand; the practice had been extinct for centuries in every single Christian body possessing valid apostolic succession. Pope Paul VI gave excellent reasons why Communion on the tongue is superior to Communion in the hand:
"This method of distributing Holy Communion must be retained, taking the present situation of the Church in the entire world into account, not merely because it has many centuries of tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful's reverence for the Eucharist. . . . Further, the practice which must be considered traditional ensures, more effectively, that Holy Communion is distributed with the proper respect, decorum and dignity. It removes the danger of profanation of the sacred species, in which 'in a unique way, Christ, God and man, is present whole and entire, substantially and continually.' Lastly, it ensures that diligent carefulness about the fragments of consecrated bread which the Church has always recommended: 'What you have allowed to drop, think of it as though you had lost one of your own members'" (Memoriale Domini).
The historical fact is that receiving Holy Communion by standing recipients in the hand had been extinct in the Catholic Church for centuries. In the West, it had been reintroduced by Protestant heretics with the express purpose of undermining the people's faith in the Real Presence:
"The origin of the current practice of Communion in the hand in Western Christianity can be traced to the Protestant Revolution, or 'Reformation.' Some will argue that this was the reintroduction of a formerly universal and venerable practice. . . . But even if it were the case that this was formerly a practice in the Catholic Church, its introduction in the sixteenth century was hardly orthodox. Rather, it was an embodiment of a denial of the Real Presence as taught by Christ and his Church, and of the reality of the Catholic priesthood. It was a liturgical consequence of a prior heresy" (Jude A. Huntz, "Rethinking Communion in the hand," Homiletic & Pastoral Review, March 1997 (http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/
Homiletic/04-97/2/2.html)
Then in the modern era it was reintroduced by modernists for the same purpose. Alice von Hildebrand noted that, “This practice was first introduced in Belgium by Cardinal Suenans, in flagrant disobedience to the rubrics given by the Holy See” ("The Sacredness of Tradition", Christian Order, Dec 1995; http://www.ewtn.com/library/LITU...Y/SACREDTR.TXT)
.
It rapidly spread throughout the world, borne on the wings of organized dissent:
"In 1976 Call to Action, an influential group of Catholic dissenters (recently condemned in Nebraska by Bishop Bruskewitz), added to their agenda the promotion of communion-in-the-hand. Other publicly-dissenting Catholic groups, already holding wildly disobedient do-it-yourself liturgies, also actively promoted it" ("Communion-in-the-Hand: An Historical View", St. Catherine Review, May-June 1996, http://www.aquinas-multimedia.co...rine/hand.html)
.
I am unaware of any orthodox Catholic individuals or groups that were pressing for the practice. On the contrary, groups such as CUF were resisting the innovation.
Please see also this excellent interview with the auxiliary bishop of Karaganda in Kazakhstan on the pastoral aspect of this practice: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0...h?v=0-WlLk-
Av90
So, Dave, is it your argument that the reintroduction of Communion in the hand to standing recipients was an organic development of the kind called for by Vatican II?
Actually Jordanes (and Davies) make perfect sense.
Unless you truly believe that no practice of the early Church could have been improved.
The Ancient Church doing something does not necessarily make it good (neither does it make it bad)--this should be particularly apparent to someone interested in the developement of doctrine (like you Dave). As, in the early centuries of Christianity, the Church developed her beautiful Eucharistic theology the awesome gift and terrifying truth of the Christ truly being present must have been more and more fully impressed upon the faithful. The more they learned, the more awesome it became.
At some point, at least in the West, standing (what one does before an equal in many wester societies) and certainly sitting (what one may do in the presence of a subordinate) began to seem grossly inappropriate.
Of course many factors play into this, including changing cultural contexts. However, once introduced into the Roman Rite (if indeed it was introduced), kneeling reinforced itself, as it were.
It became more and more of a stylized, acknowledged form of demonstrating obeidience and reverence. In this developed and, indeed, developing cultural context doing away with kneeling could not fail to be an act of rebellion at the worst or outrageous ignorance.
Like James said, it would follow, then, that all these standing recipients had no reverence, which is absurd.
Good grief, Dave, take a course in logic! Standing communicants are not standing specifically as a gesture of reverence, therfore they have no reverence! Of course that follows.
None of this is to imply that the early Christians were irreverent, or thought of themselves as equal to or better than Christ. Nor do those rites where standing has always been the norm.
The Ancient Church was practicing a very new liturgy, in a rapidly changing and very diverse cultural context, with a less complete understanding of eucharistic theology. Ritual movements indicating reverence were, in all likely hood, drawn from a wide variety of cultures and cults without regard to origins or unity. It was, in many cases, a rather sloppy and irregular (though certainly pious) affair; the product of new Christians doing their best with the tools as their disposal. The EF, on the other hand, has had the benefit of one of the greatest tools at the Church's disposal: Time. 2000 years to separate good from bad, aesthetic from ugly, reverent from commonplace. 2000 years to add good popular devotions as pious practices. 2000 years for prudent trimming and pruning.
Liturgy should not be developed by one man (or even a group of men) at one time. It is rightly the product of hundreds over centuries and not them only but also the subtle guidance of the Holy Ghost. It is not always a strictly rational process and not one to be dissected by a simple race into history with an "oldest is best" mentality.
Comments like "Davies was all wet" display a risable ignorance of history and what a Rite is and how it comes into being. Davies was not all wet, nor was the prideful. He was, in fact, humble enough to avoid the idea that one generation had sufficient gifts to know better than dozens of earlier ones.
I intended my comments to be next to one another.
Also Dave,
RE: posture--you really need to read Spirit of the Liturgy as I have been saying in all of these discussions. It is an excellent introduction by the present Pope.
Morning David,
8 comments in 45 minutes! This combox is hoppin'. That shows, I think, that I've hit a nerve. All three of my esteemed "trad" friends are falling over themselves to "refute" my argument (that in fact, hasn't been touched in the slightest yet).
ME: [ E) Conversely, any liturgical changes that can be shown to have no historical precedent at all are no developments, but in fact a harmful corruptions, and therefore to be rejected as a violation of the above established principles, and deleterious to the Church and the piety of the Catholic faithful. ]
I never said this.
Well, you didn't say my exact words (I agree), but you expressed this or something very similar to it.
Perhaps I overstated the second part a bit, but it is not foreign to your thought at all. You said 50,000 times that liturgical developments had to be organic, from existing forms. That much is certain. I painstakingly documented it.
So all that remains is to accurately convey your opinion as to those elements that you feel are NOT organic developments. You expressed that opinion in your comparison of two Pauline Masses that didn't violate rubrics: the "traditional" and the "modern." How did you describe the "modern" things you reject?:
"One is distinctively, unmistakably Roman Catholic. In the other, the actually distinctive Catholic content is approaching zero-- . . . I personally would argue that the first is objectively superior to the second in terms of preserving the Roman Church's venerable liturgical tradition, in expressing the fullness of the Catholic Faith in word and deed, and in instilling by example a holy reverence in the parishioners. Two abuse-free Novus Ordo Masses. Huge difference. One objectively superior to the other . . ."
I described this opinion as:
"harmful corruptions, and therefore to be rejected as a violation of the above established principles, and deleterious to the Church and the piety of the Catholic faithful."
I don't see a heck of a lot of difference (apart from mine being a bit more pointed, as is my wont: to get down to brass tacks and bottom lines). You can nitpick and squawk all you like, but this is not a misrepresentation.
In your kneeling article you specifically stated that the move back to kneeling and receiving on the tongue was "restor[ing] liturgical sanity." What, then, is the alternative mode of reception? Insanity? Or is that misrepresenting you again?
But it remains true that Vatican II stated that developments must come from "existing forms". Do you agree with that or not?
Of course I do. The question (that I have no definite answer to) is whether this is restricted to immediately existing forms (the premise you have assumed) or not: the degree of latitude that was intended. For example, take the the restoration of the diaconate: that had fallen our of use for many centuries: so when it was brought back to fuller operation, that was necessarily a return to an earlier tradition, skipping over many intervening centuries. I'm sure other examples could be produced as well.
Another possibility might be (just a possible solution that occurred to me) that standing communion could plausibly be regarded as an existing form in other rites of the Catholic Church, such as the Eastern rites. Sacrosanctum Concilium appears to leave that window open (again, one must then determine the degree and extent) by referring in part to non-Roman rites:
"Among these principles and norms there are some which can and should be applied both to the Roman rite and also to all the other rites. The practical norms which follow, however, should be taken as applying only to the Roman rite except for those which, in the very nature of things, affect other rites as well." (Introduction, 3; Flannery 1988 revised edition)
Another possible factor is to reflect upon what "reform" means in the first place. It means at least partially going back to original forms that had become corrupted: going back to the roots. Hence, SC discussed corruption in the existing forms. It is, thus implied that to eliminate these corrupstions would mean to go back to an earlier, more pure form that preceded them. In so doing, we would be skipping over the immediate past and going to an earlier time, by the nature of the case, because corruption had crept in. Hence SC 3, 62:
"With the passage of time, however, there have crept into the rites of the sacraments and sacramentals certain features which have rendered their nature and purpose far from clear to the people of today; hence some changes have become necessary . . ."
Also, 1, III, 21:
"For the liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change. These not only may but ought to be changed with the passage of time if they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become unsuited to it."
Pope Paul VI, in Missale Romanum showed this principle of reforming by gong back to earlier forms. I suppose you could say he didn't have a clue about what the Council meant by "existing forms." I don't buy it. So he wrote:
"After the Council of Trent, the study "of ancient manuscripts of the Vatican library and of others gathered elsewhere," as Our predecessor, St. Pius V, indicates in the Apostolic Constitution Quo primum, has greatly helped for the revision of the Roman Missal. Since then, however, more ancient liturgical sources have been discovered and published and at the same time liturgical formulas of the Oriental Church have become better known. Many wish that the riches, both doctrinal and spiritual, might not be hidden in the darkness of the libraries, but on the contrary might be brought into the light to illumine and nourish the spirits and souls of Christians. . . .
"Also, "other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the earlier norm of the Holy Fathers": for example the homily, the "common prayer" or "prayer of the faithful," the penitential rite or act of reconciliation with God and with the brothers, at the beginning of the Mass, where its proper emphasis is restored."
If earlier manuscripts were not even available to Trent, then it is clear that they have a bearing on Tradition and revisions in our own time, based on fuller knowledge, just as biblical scholars act when considering variant biblical manuscripts. And so there is a sense of "jumping back over the centuries." Note also the mention of the "Oriental Church," as I alluded to above as a possible explanation.
In fact, right after the passage about "forms already existing" (23), mention is made of the eastern liturgical tradition, and it is clear that part of the background thinking of the document is to incorporate the wisdom found therein:
"23. . . . As far as possible, notable differences between the rites used in adjacent regions must be carefully avoided.
"24. Sacred scripture is of the greatest importance in the celebration of the liturgy. . . . Thus to achieve the restoration, progress, and adaptation of the sacred liturgy, it is essential to promote that warm and living love for scripture to which the venerable tradition of both eastern and western rites gives testimony."
I think those are feasible arguable avenues of explaining the difficulty you raise. But I don't have a definitive answer to this one and don't have to pretend that I do. I'd like to see someone who is an expert in this area explain it more fully, as to exactly how much latitude there is.
I do know for sure, however, that I have found a severe self-contradiction in your position as you have staked it out (because that is a matter of simple logic). I've answered as honestly as I can on this point; you need to face the profound difficulties in your own position, too, and you have not done so as of yet. You haven't even interacted at all with my actual argument as I laid it out.
ME: [ F) As particular examples, David Palm suggests that kneeling to receive communion, on the tongue, are practices "distinctively, unmistakably Roman Catholic" and "objectively superior . . . in terms of preserving the Roman Church's venerable liturgical tradition" while contrary actions possess a "distinctive Catholic content" that "is approaching zero." ]
Dave, this is a blatant misrepresentation of what I said. You wrench this one example out of a whole list, twist it, and then present it as the whole of my thought. You should be ashamed to behave like this.
The shame is all on your head, because you have evaded your intellectual responsibility to defend your propositions and arguments and what you actually wrote, and have taken the foolish path of overreacting and irrationally accusing me of something I didn't do (blatantly misrepresenting you). This has become, unfortunately, a distressingly common motif in your reactions to critiques coming from me (thinking back to several of our past exchanges).
I did nothing of what you accuse me of. My analysis is perfectly logical and acceptable.You argued in the following format:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...2859409/
#166172
First you gave the example of a reverent Pauline Mass (such as occurs at my parish). You gave ten elements of "traditional" worship that you approve and favor (as I do myself). Then you gave the counter-example of a "modern" Pauline Mass:
"Now imagine another NO said, still according to the approved rubrics, all in English using the Vatican-approved but now admitted-by-the-Vatican-to-be-problematic vernacular translation, priest facing versus populum, all female servers, all female lectors, all modern music, priest not genuflecting as he passes the Tabernacle (now approved), all of the "may" provisions taken in the rubrics so that he ad libs at all of those places, he wanders from the pulpit into the nave during the homily (approved), Consecration done according the least distinctive Eucharistic Prayer he can find, Holy Communion received in the hand by standing recipients."
In this you provide 12 elements that you disapprove of. Then you compare the two and make a judgment:
"The two liturgical expressions are night and day from one another. One is distinctively, unmistakably Roman Catholic. In the other, the actually distinctive Catholic content is approaching zero--it is rapidly approaching a service that many Protestants would find perfectly amenable.
"It is still valid. It is still the Mass as Shane has quite rightly pointed out.
"But I personally would argue that the first is objectively superior to the second in terms of preserving the Roman Church's venerable liturgical tradition, in expressing the fullness of the Catholic Faith in word and deed, and in instilling by example a holy reverence in the parishioners."
All I did was to utilize a compacted version of this, by taking the example of receiving communion alone. This is neither misrepresenting, nor illogical, because the following is solid logic:
1) Mass A has elements 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 that make Mass A "objectively superior"; it is "distinctively, unmistakably Roman Catholic."
2) Mass B has elements 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 that make Mass B "objectively inferior" and where " the actually distinctive Catholic content is approaching zero."
3) Each particular element can be described in the way that they were described collectively. If I say, e.g.:
a) "Zebras and tigers and barbershop poles and candy canes all have stripes"
I can also say:
a1) zebras have stripes.
a2) tigers have stripes.
a3) barbershop poles have stripes.
a4) candy canes have stripes.
That's not misrepresenting; it is particularizing. You seem to (nothing personal) have a dim appreciation of logic to not understand something so elementary.I took two examples out of your litany of "liturgical corruptions" and "insanity" and analyzed them. People do this all the time in rational argumentation. If, e.g., you provided 100 examples of liturgical corruptions, and for time's sake I responded to only 46 of them, would I then be accused of "misrepresenting" because I didn't cover all 100? Yet you make the ridiculous statement:
" You wrench this one example out of a whole list, twist it, and then present it as the whole of my thought."
I did no such thing. You are the one who should be thoroughly ashamed to engage in such atrocious "reasoning" processes. The charitable interpretation is that you are simply upset and so not thinking logically. You're lashing out because I have made a strong case and you have not shown any attempt to actually refute it through rational argumentation. Lacking that, you adopt the fool's recourse of false charges against your dialogical opponent. Tsk tsk tsk.
Yet it remains a fact that the Roman liturgical tradition from time immemorial has been to receive Holy Communion kneeling, on the tongue. Do you agree or not?
No! Not if the Catholic Encyclopedia and historical sources like Dix are to be believed. I already documented this, so why is it still a live issue? You're acting like Baghdad Bob: thumbing your nose at established facts and pretending that they don't exist, as if a wish creates a reality (ironically, the same thing you accuse "non-trads" of doing re" the Church crisis: which I always say -- following Fr. Hardon -- ss the greatest in the history of the Church):
Dix: "The ancient church universally stood to receive communion."
"It appears to have been the universal tradition in the pre-Nicene church that all should receive communion standing."
Catholic Encyclopedia: "The practice of kneeling during the Consecration was introduced during the Middle Ages."
"That, in the early Church, the faithful stood when receiving into their hands the consecrated particle can hardly be questioned. . . . . . . St. Dionysius of Alexandria, writing to one of the popes of his time, speaks emphatically of "one who has stood by the table and has extended his hand to receive the Holy Food" (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., VII, ix). The custom of placing the Sacred Particle in the mouth, rather than in the hand of the communicant, dates in Rome from the sixth, and in Gaul from the ninth century (Van der Stappen, IV, 227; cf. St. Greg., Dial., I, III, c. iii)."
What is there about the words "sixth century" or "universal" or "standing" that is so difficult to comprehend. Now, of course, you could challenge these writers and provide contrary evidence. But that will require an argument, not a silly accusation. I'm going by these sources (precisely because I am no expert at all on the topic and have to rely on others).
ME: [ Standing has never been considered an act of reverence within the Roman Rite. ]
Davies is right. Standing has never been considered an act of reverence within the Roman Rite. I'm not sure it's been considered an act of reverence per se in any rite, but certainly not in the Roman Rite. Do you agree?
No, since "universal" practice in the early Church includes Rome. The sources above expressly contradict this, unless you want to argue that standing to receive communion necessarily entailed no reverence (because standing supposedly never was an act of reverence at Rome).
This is getting downright ridiculous. How long can you continue to make such atrociously deficient arguments? It's embarrassing . . .
Our Roman liturgical tradition since time immemorial has been to receive Holy Communion kneeling, on the tongue.
Again, your burden is to prove that Dix and the CE are dead wrong in their historical reports. Best wishes.
Ya know...
On a Catholic forum you always find the Protestants posting gravitate towards Mary and the Communion of the saints. Every time it will come back to that.
While the Trad Catholics always rage on about Liturgy.
Personally, I find it gets old.
Protestants need to register that 99.56% of our theology is not about Mary and deal with more fundmental issues - says I.
Trad Catholics need to register that relationship with God and Moral living does not revolve entirely around liturgy. (As I've said before, I;m not even sure Rad-Trads even ackowledge the possibility of relationship with God!)
The way Trads go on (and on and on and on and on) arguing about the smallest rubrics and bang on about LITURGY you 'd have though it was through Liturgy that we were saved.
If certain Protestants have Biblioatry I do think Rad-Trads have Liturology.
For me, whatever points Trads may have about the Mass is swallowed up by what I see as obsession about form. By the time a TRAD quotes 'Vesper Manderina' by Pope Pius LXXVII of blessed memory about how one cannot scratch one's nose during the Gloria, I've lost complete interest because I kind of think a few camels have entered the building.
Like the Pharasees, the Trads (as opposed to genuine Traditionalists) are alwasy 100% right and 100% wrong at the same time. Says I.
Carry on. I'm just observing and not commenting on anyone in particular here.
Threads about liturgy attract posts like flies to honey.
It worries me. I feel we've missed something if evangelism or meaty theology threads are empty. It's always liturgy... Liturgy and Mary,
So, Dave, is it your argument that the reintroduction of Communion in the hand to standing recipients was an organic development of the kind called for by Vatican II?
It could possibly be if my analysis above concerning development, reform, going back to earlier sources, and incorporating the liturgical wisdom and practice of the East is a valid interpretation of Vatican II directives.
My own preference, as all should know by now, is communion on the tongue kneeling. That's what I've done at my church for 17 years, from before the time you were a Catholic at all.
But I don't make the hackneyed arguments about communion in the hand that you make; that it is objectively inferior and so forth. Even Ben Douglass seems to reject those, to some extent. Reverence is a matter of the heart. The attitude toward God and worship and the Real Presence exists interiorly before any action we do, whether kneeling or standing or hand or mouth.
I have received standing in the hand, on occasion, just as reverently as receiving at my church. It doesn't become irreverent simply by being a standing posture. That's absurd. The piety is or isn't IN ME in either case.
Whether liberals tried to introduce it for nefarious, diabolical reasons also has no bearing on whether standing and receiving in the hand can indeed be done piously and reverently, or whether the early Church achieved the same worthy goal. I don't have to, and never do, defend liberal nonsense and their arrogant condescensions and disdain for Tradition. But I sure do defend my brothers and sisters in the early Church (and my eastern Catholic brethren) who received or receive communion differently than you do and differently from how I do 95% of the time.
The Ancient Church doing something does not necessarily make it good (neither does it make it bad)--this should be particularly apparent to someone interested in the developement of doctrine (like you Dave).
Ah. Okay, I get it now. The Christians for the first six centuries in Rome (a longer time than that from now to Trent) were of neutral piety when receiving communion: not necessarily pious and reverent or impious and irreverent. They were ignorant, not having the benefits of the subsequent 14 centuries of development like we do today in our wonderfully spiritual age. And we all know that ignorance is bliss . . .
At some point, at least in the West, standing (what one does before an equal in many wester societies) and certainly sitting (what one may do in the presence of a subordinate) began to seem grossly inappropriate.
I see. So what is grossly inappropriate in the West is perfectly pious and acceptable in the East? I can understand cultural differences of expression and manner and so forth; the problem is that the differences in liturgy are expressed far too strongly, as if they were literally matters of Catholic Dogma. Vastly overstating your case and botching crucial category distinctions does it no good.
'Good grief, Dave, take a course in logic! Standing communicants are not standing specifically as a gesture of reverence, therfore they have no reverence! Of course that follows.'
But Ben,
Jordannes originally wrote; 'there is no evidence that standing has ever been a sign of reverence for the Eucharist'
If there is 'no evidence' that standing 'has ever been' a sign of reverence then it is logical to say that Jordanes rules out standing as a sign of reverence. He rules it out SPECIFICALLY, doesn't he?
If there is 'no evidence' that standing 'has ever been' a sign of reverence then it is logical to say that Jordanes rules out standing as a sign of reverence. He rules it out SPECIFICALLY, doesn't he?
You don't understand my objection to Dave's comment. Dave argued that, if communicants were not standing as a sign of reverence, then they had no reverence. This is a fallacy. I can have reverence while I am sitting, even though I am not sitting as a sign of reverence. I can have reverence while walking, even though I am not walking as a sign of reverence. Just because one particular posture is not intended as a gesture of reverence, does not mean that the person who has assumed that posture lacks reverence.
But I don't make the hackneyed arguments about communion in the hand that you make; that it is objectively inferior and so forth. Even Ben Douglass seems to reject those, to some extent.
No, I was very explicit in my article that my sole intent was to demonstrate that Communion on the hand does not necessarily lead to sacrilege.
Meanwhile, the heart and essence of my actual argument: i.e., how kneeling and communion on the tongue (introduced at some point in contradistinction to the earlier practice) can be exempt from the same charge of not being organically developed from what was immediately prior, just as we are told standing and in the hand violate the same requirement today, has been completely ignored.
Why? I suppose one or more of the following explains it:
1) My argument has not been comprehended (I find that, often both analogical arguments and arguments concerning development of doctrine, are dimly understood, and in proportion to the emotional antipathy towards the historical and theological / liturgical conclusions reached).
2) It is understood, but it is perceived that it is a strong argument, and so it has been ignored (a very common tactic across the board, when one has no ready, plausible reply).
3) It was understood at least partially, as a strong argument, leading to anger and frustration; hence the personal attacks and charges that we see above, in lieu of detached intellectual exchange.
4) It was understood, but the facts of the matter in the early Church are so counter to the already-held positions that they have to be wished away, as we also see above in the flat refusal to acknowledge the facts of standing reception in Rome for the first six centuries and universally at least in the pre-Nicene period (i.e., up to 325).
Whatever the reason, it is undeniable fact that the heart of my argument has been utterly ignored, though David Palm exerted a considerable degree of effort in pursuing various rabbit trails and non sequiturs above.
In the end, it' doesn't matter, for my purposes, because I'm always trying to persuade all readers, not just the immediate recipient of my counter-arguments. If David can't see the strength of my argument, then I am very confident that many others will.
Conversely, if I am wrong, I also trust that I will be given some decent arguments to ponder, rather than silly, unsubstantiated charges (based on poor logic) that I have "misrepresented," blah blah blah.
Okay, Ben, then what was the sign of reverence towards the Eucharist in the early Church, since they universally received standing? You tell me. If you say it was standing, you contradict Davies and your own past arguments. If you deny it was standing, what in the world WAS it, or do you say there was NO such sign?
Even kneeling at the consecration came much much later in Christian history.
Hi Dave,
Things are heating up again. I will try to give a measured response here. Neither of us is stupid. Let’s try to understand each other.
[ You said 50,000 times that liturgical developments had to be organic, from existing forms. That much is certain. I painstakingly documented it. ]
I said that because Vatican II said it.
[ Liturgical changes (so Holy Mother Church has decreed and established) must be organic developments from preceding liturgy. ]
I argued that Vatican II said that “care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.” You expanded my argument beyond what I did.
[The question (that I have no definite answer to) is whether this is restricted to immediately existing forms (the premise you have assumed) or not ]
Yes, that is the question. Ultimately my argument doesn’t stand or fall on this point. I do not have a definitive answer either. But I submit (in the spirit of a “hermeneutic of continuity”) that this would be the prudent interpretation of that passage. It would, for example, harmonize well with the warning set out by Pius XII, as well as the parallel with doctrinal development:
“Clearly no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas by the Church, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for souls, because it pleases him to hark back to the old formulas. No more can any Catholic in his right senses repudiate existing legislation of the Church to revert to prescriptions based on the earliest sources of canon law. Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation” (Mediator Dei 63).
I submit that my position has the additional advantage that it would prevent situations like the one on the table: the approval of actions of dissident groups out to undermine the Church’s teaching being touted as an “organic development” of the liturgy.
[to continue]
[ I don't see a heck of a lot of difference (apart from mine being a bit more pointed, as is my wont: to get down to brass tacks and bottom lines). You can nitpick and squawk all you like, but this is not a misrepresentation. . . . All I did was to utilize a compacted version of this, by taking the example of receiving communion alone. This is neither misrepresenting, nor illogical,]
The way you presented the “compacted” version of my argument, it appears to me to suggest that I was saying that the one change, by itself, would result in a Mass with a "distinctive Catholic content" that "is approaching zero." My actual argument was that taking all of the approved options I outlined results in such a liturgy. That is the way your presentation appears to me and that is a misrepresentation of my argument.
[You seem to (nothing personal) have a dim appreciation of logic to not understand something so elementary. "You wrench this one example out of a whole list, twist it, and then present it as the whole of my thought." I did no such thing.]
I hope it is clear now why I consider your truncated presentation to be a misrepresentation.
What I did assert and what I continue to assert is that receiving Holy Communion on the tongue is objectively superior to receiving in the hand. I cited Pope Paul VI, who gave excellent reasons to back this up. Please interact with those if you take the counter-position that the two modes of receiving are equal in all ways.
[to continue]
[Yet it remains a fact that the Roman liturgical tradition from time immemorial has been to receive Holy Communion kneeling, on the tongue. Do you agree or not? No! Not if the Catholic Encyclopedia and historical sources like Dix are to be believed. I already documented this, so why is it still a live issue? You're acting like Baghdad Bob: thumbing your nose at established facts and pretending that they don't exist. . . . This is getting downright ridiculous. How long can you continue to make such atrociously deficient arguments? It's embarrassing . . . ]
Dave, I was using the technical language of liturgical study. An “immemorial custom” is one established by such long and continuous useage that there is no living memory of any other. So it is technically accurate to say that Holy Communion received kneeling, on the tongue is part of the Roman liturgical tradition from time immemorial. It is not equivalent to saying that there had never been any other custom, just that the current one is an “immemorial custom”. Neither you or I are experts in liturgy, Dave, so I will try and be more clear as I lay things out to avoid these kinds of misunderstandings.
Now, I would submit that John presented a very fine case as to how kneeling was indeed an organic development, going hand-in-hand with organic doctrinal development. I do not think that you have provided anything approaching that to explain how receiving standing in the hand is such an organic development in our own historical context, which would tend to indicate just exactly the opposite—a degenerated theogical impulse resulting in a degenerated liturgical custom.
God bless,
Thanks for lowering the "heat" / polemical level. I need to do some of my work for CHNI after having devoted several hours to this debate this morning and early afternoon. I'll return to it later (comments will probably be up to 80+ by then!).
Why? I suppose one or more of the following explains it:
Or perhaps lack of time explains it. It's difficult to keep up with you, especially for one who writes slowly and has a more than full time job. Also, you make little errors and objectionable statements here and there, and it is my inclination to purify discourse of small errors before pursuing the heart of the issue.
Okay, Ben, then what was the sign of reverence towards the Eucharist in the early Church, since they universally received standing?
First off, I don't grant you that they "universally" received standing. You take the word "universal" from Dix, and I have already explained why you cannot trust Dix, especially when he's talking about the liturgy of the pre-Nicene Church. He involved himself in speculative reconstruction of pre-Nicene practices based on his personal theories and preferences. He speculated that the primitive Eucharist lacked the Institution narrative. If you reject this speculation, why then do you uncritically trust his speculations about other aspects of the primitive Eucharist?
To directly answer your question, the early Christians practiced other gestures of reverence towards the Eucharist such as the sign of the cross, precise folding of the hands, and applying the Eucharist to the sensory organs. If I had more time to research I might also be able to document bowing and prostration.
[ First off, I don't grant you that they "universally" received standing. ]
Neither do I.
[ the early Christians practiced other gestures of reverence towards the Eucharist ]
Davies has also documented the use of the "dominical" cloth, so that the recipient did not actually touch the Eucharist with bare hands (the bishop in the video I cited above refers to this as well.) What is very clear, from the sweep of organic liturgical development in both East and West, is the move away from the laity handling the Blessed Sacrament with their hands, to the point that for many centuries before Vatican II this had complete disappeared from the way Holy Communion is received, in every liturgical rite of the Church.
A traditionalist asks if this doesn't indicate a holy wisdom on the part of the collective Body of Christ, with which it is foolish to tamper, especially in the thick of open rebellion.
"Ah. Okay, I get it now. The Christians for the first six centuries in Rome (a longer time than that from now to Trent) were of neutral piety when receiving communion: not necessarily pious and reverent or impious and irreverent. They were ignorant, not having the benefits of the subsequent 14 centuries of development like we do today in our wonderfully spiritual age. And we all know that ignorance is bliss . . ."
If you were less concerned with scoring rhetorical points, you would have realized that clearly I was not saying the recipients themselves were of neutral piety. I was making two points:
1)"but, but...the early church did it!" is not an argument, especially considering that it is absurd to claim that any uniform liturgical practice existed in the early church (much less to tell us what it was.) We simply cannot know what the Ancient Church, writ large, did as regards the liturgy. The evidence, both in the historical record and physical evidence, is too inconclusive. It is simply disingenuous to claim otherwise.
2)That the practice of early Christians when recieving the eucharist changed as their understanding of what it was deepened. This does not mean that they were ignorant, per se, anymore than we are ignorant of the results of further investigations in theology. They did the best they could with what they had. When they "got more," so to speak, they adapted their praxis to be in line with their theology. WE do not do the best with what we have in many cases. So clearly I'm not looking down on them, I am embarassed by their faithful example when they had so little and we have thrown away so much.
Indeed I would argue that liturgy is one of the few areas where it is good to be a "progressive" if by that term one means someone in favor of steady progress toward more perfect worship of the Lord. The reactionary, ahistorical impulse to return to some unreal, totally pure ancient church is protestant in its origins and trajectory.
To avoid any misconceptions I want to add to my post above that by steady progress I mean a process much like one might use on a japanese bonzi tree. Trimming where appropriate and otherwise allowing nature to take its course.
Of course this is an imprefect analogy because sometimes a dire pedagogical need has made a more vigorous intervention necessary. But these cases are few and far between.
Things are heating up again.
I had no inflammatory remarks at all in my original post, far as I can tell. It was strictly rational argument. Hard-hitting, as most of my stuff is or can be, but not personal or insulting.
I will try to give a measured response here. Neither of us is stupid. Let’s try to understand each other.
I believe it is possible, yes. Everyone who loves debate must believe that going in.
ME: [ You said 50,000 times that liturgical developments had to be organic, from existing forms. That much is certain. I painstakingly documented it. ]
I said that because Vatican II said it.
But Vatican II also indicated a need for liturgical reform because of some corruptions and better knowledge of liturgical history than was available in 1545. That means that it is possible to adopt some practices that didn't have an uninterrupted history.
It also occurred to me as I was pondering all this today, that the statement you keep referring to about "existing forms" (SC 23) may not have been intended as a no-exceptions clause, but as a more general statement. That would seem to me to be the case in light of the other factors I have mentioned.
ME: [ Liturgical changes (so Holy Mother Church has decreed and established) must be organic developments from preceding liturgy. ]
I argued that Vatican II said that “care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.” You expanded my argument beyond what I did.
I don't see much difference.
ME: [The question (that I have no definite answer to) is whether this is restricted to immediately existing forms (the premise you have assumed) or not ]
Yes, that is the question. Ultimately my argument doesn’t stand or fall on this point.
If it doesn't, you sure mention it a lot.
I do not have a definitive answer either. But I submit (in the spirit of a “hermeneutic of continuity”) that this would be the prudent interpretation of that passage. It would, for example, harmonize well with the warning set out by Pius XII, as well as the parallel with doctrinal development:
“Clearly no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas by the Church, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for souls, because it pleases him to hark back to the old formulas. No more can any Catholic in his right senses repudiate existing legislation of the Church to revert to prescriptions based on the earliest sources of canon law. Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation” (Mediator Dei 63).
Good point for your argument. But I think one possible way out of it would be to note the clause "changes of circumstances and situation." Since this allows some variability, why wold it be inconceivable to again arrive at a "circumstances and situation" that resembles earlier situations in some way? Then, since we are allowed to make a change by that principle, it would perhaps (but not necessarily) have resemblance to the situation in earlier times.
I submit that my position has the additional advantage that it would prevent situations like the one on the table: the approval of actions of dissident groups out to undermine the Church’s teaching being touted as an “organic development” of the liturgy.
I agree (as far as this goes). If something is a significant change, we have seen how it can and is exploited by the liberals for their nefarious and misguided purposes.
ME: [ I don't see a heck of a lot of difference (apart from mine being a bit more pointed, as is my wont: to get down to brass tacks and bottom lines). You can nitpick and squawk all you like, but this is not a misrepresentation. . . . All I did was to utilize a compacted version of this, by taking the example of receiving communion alone. This is neither misrepresenting, nor illogical,]
The way you presented the “compacted” version of my argument, it appears to me to suggest that I was saying that the one change, by itself, would result in a Mass with a "distinctive Catholic content" that "is approaching zero." My actual argument was that taking all of the approved options I outlined results in such a liturgy. That is the way your presentation appears to me and that is a misrepresentation of my argument.
I see. Okay, fair enough. If you think I misrepresented your reasoning, then by all means let's clear that up right here and now, so we can get back to the argument and away from all the microscopic examination of the molecules of the bark of the trees.
You make the point that you said that the entire set of 12 objectionable things amounted to what you described in your negative characterizations. Now you say that no one or two of the 12 can be described in the same way as the set of 12 collectively. Though I think this is exceedingly nitpicky and not very helpful for the progress of the dialogue, I do see some small measure of validity in it, technically speaking.
So let's put this one to rest. You described these 12 things collectively in certain ways, and described the ten "good" characteristics of a more traditional Mass in another (strongly implying that the other set of 12 lacked those characteristics).
Granted, some generally "bad" things are worse than others. If you have a last-place basketball team, not all 12 players are equally responsible for the last-place finish. So please clarify by selecting a number of 1 to 10 for each, with 1 meaning "least resemblance to the description" and 10 meaning complete resemblance or applicability:
--- Communion in the Hand ---
1) "distinctively, unmistakably Roman Catholic"
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [select one]
2) "distinctive Catholic content is approaching zero"
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [select one]
3) "objectively superior" [or, inferior, with 1 being about as inferior as it can get and 10 being altogether superior]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [select one]
4) "preserv[es] the Roman Church's venerable liturgical tradition"
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [select one]
5) "express[es] the fullness of the Catholic Faith in word and deed"
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [select one]
6) "instill[s] by example a holy reverence in the parishioners"
--- Communion Received Standing ---
1) "distinctively, unmistakably Roman Catholic"
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [select one]
2) "distinctive Catholic content is approaching zero"
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [select one]
3) "objectively superior" [or, inferior, with 1 being about as inferior as it can get and 10 being altogether superior]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [select one]
4) "preserv[es] the Roman Church's venerable liturgical tradition"
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [select one]
5) "express[es] the fullness of the Catholic Faith in word and deed"
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [select one]
6) "instill[s] by example a holy reverence in the parishioners"
Thanks! Once that is straightened out, I can incorporate it into the original argument, thus removing all possible objection along those lines, and we can resume the actual argument (as an extra bonus).
I hope it is clear now why I consider your truncated presentation to be a misrepresentation.
Once you select your "ratings" above than I and my readers will know EXACTLY where you are coming from.
What I did assert and what I continue to assert is that receiving Holy Communion on the tongue is objectively superior to receiving in the hand. I cited Pope Paul VI, who gave excellent reasons to back this up. Please interact with those if you take the counter-position that the two modes of receiving are equal in all ways.
I haven't said they are equal in all ways, only that they can both be reverent according to the disposition of the individual (a vastly different position). Things can differ according to time, place, and culture. People can walk around naked in some cultures and it is no big deal. It's not even sexual, but for us it is a tremendous scandal and immodesty and lust, etc. The reaction comes from the personal experience and the heart.
Here is your quote from Pope Paul VI:
"This method of distributing Holy Communion must be retained, taking the present situation of the Church in the entire world into account, not merely because it has many centuries of tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful's reverence for the Eucharist. . . . Further, the practice which must be considered traditional ensures, more effectively, that Holy Communion is distributed with the proper respect, decorum and dignity. It removes the danger of profanation of the sacred species, in which 'in a unique way, Christ, God and man, is present whole and entire, substantially and continually.' Lastly, it ensures that diligent carefulness about the fragments of consecrated bread which the Church has always recommended: 'What you have allowed to drop, think of it as though you had lost one of your own members'" (Memoriale Domini).
This is from the Congregation for Divine Worship (29 May 1969), but we'll assume it was approved by Pope Paul VI.
It goes against your overall scenario in the second paragraph, because it mentions a practice that was observed, then wasn't, and then was again, as sanctioned by Vatican II (communion of both kinds: I should have thought of that example before!):
"For this reason it is of great concern that the Eucharist be celebrated and shared in most worthily and fruitfully, by observing unchanged the tradition that has reached us step by step, the tradition whose riches have been poured into the practice and life of the Church. The documents of history demonstrate that the ways of celebrating and receiving the holy Eucharist have been diverse. Even in our time many and important ritual changes have been introduced into the celebration of the Eucharist in order to bring it into accord with the spiritual and psychological needs of men today. Because of circumstances, communion under both kinds, bread and wine, which was once common in the Latin rite but had fallen into disuse little by little, has again been made a part of the discipline governing the faithful's mode of receiving the holy Sacrament. At the time of the Council of Trent a different situation had arisen and was in effect everywhere; the Council approved and defended it as suited to the conditions of that period."
It also states:
" It is true that, according to ancient usage, it was once permitted for the faithful to take the sacred food in their hands and themselves to place it in their mouths and even, in the earliest period, to carry the holy Sacrament with them from the place of celebration, especially in order to receive it as viaticum if they should have to suffer for the profession of the faith."
Paul VI wasn't (apparently) dead set against it because he asked the opinions of the bishops:
"1. Does it seem that the proposal should be accepted by which, besides the traditional mode, the rite of receiving Holy Communion in the hand would be permitted?
Yes: 567
No: 1,233
Yes, with reservations: 315
Invalid votes: 20"
That is 2115 votes total. Total yes votes comprise a large 42% minority (with the unqualified yes vote a respectable 27%). Would you like to , therefore, contend that 42% of the world's bishops in 1969 were classifiable as liberal dissidents or radical liturgical agents, etc., due to having this opinion?
The document then appears to leave a loophole. If the pope were absolutely against communion in the hand, then he wouldn't have allowed this, no? Or was he being a wimp?
I accept the reasoning of the document itself as appropriate to our time and situation, according to opinions I have been expressing for years, and my own personal practice. When did YOU start receiving on the tongue only? I started in 1991.
I agree with what Master of Papal Liturgical Celebrations, Monsignor Guido Marini said in a recent interview:
"it must not be forgotten that the distribution of Communion in the hand still remains, from a juridical point of view, an indult [i.e. an exception] to the universal law, granted by the Holy See to those bishops' conferences who have requested it. The manner adopted by Benedict XVI aims to underline the validity of the norm valid for the whole Church. In addition one could perhaps even see a preference for using this manner of distribution which, without taking away anything from the other [manner], better highlights the truth of the Real Presence in the Eucharist, helps the devotion of the faithful, and introduces [them] more easily to the sense of the mystery. These are aspects which, in our time, pastorally speaking, it is urgent to stress and recover."
http://thenewliturgicalmovement....nuity-
full.html
He doesn't speak in terms of superior and inferior, but uses the milder comparative "preference" -- partially determined by our particular circumstances. Note how he also uses the terminology (very unlike you) of "without taking away anything from the other" [communion in the hand]. This is the Catholic "both/and" that I adhere to. I think you would do better to do so as well, rather than trying to dichotomize everything. That's also your problem with regard to the ordinary and extraordinary forms of the Roman rite.
Now, I would submit that John presented a very fine case as to how kneeling was indeed an organic development, going hand-in-hand with organic doctrinal development. I do not think that you have provided anything approaching that to explain how receiving standing in the hand is such an organic development in our own historical context, which would tend to indicate just exactly the opposite—a degenerated theological impulse resulting in a degenerated liturgical custom.
This is the closest I've gotten to a reply to the heart of my argument: one paragraph of two sentences, and even here you appeal to someone else rather than make your own argument. Meanwhile I've spent multiple hours carefully and comprehensively answering your arguments today at great length and in detail. But I'll take it. Every 1000-mile journey begins with the first step, after all. Here are John's arguments that you appeal to:
The Ancient Church doing something does not necessarily make it good (neither does it make it bad)--this should be particularly apparent to someone interested in the development of doctrine (like you Dave).
Of course. Thia has no bearing on my arguments one way or another.
As, in the early centuries of Christianity, the Church developed her beautiful Eucharistic theology the awesome gift and terrifying truth of the Christ truly being present must have been more and more fully impressed upon the faithful. The more they learned, the more awesome it became.
Sure. No problem so far.
At some point, at least in the West, standing (what one does before an equal in many wester societies) and certainly sitting (what one may do in the presence of a subordinate) began to seem grossly inappropriate.
Why is it inconceivable that merely cultural factors could change again in our times? After all, it is often said that our world is as different from that of 100 years ago, as that culture was to 1000 years before that time.
You say standing implies equality. It certainly doesn't intrinsically. The Jews prayed to God in Bible times, and continue to do so to this day. One time Henry Kissinger was asked by Richard Nixon to pray with him, in the dark post-Watergate days, and to kneel, which was extremely embarrassing to him as a Jew.
We generally don't kneel towards earthly figures of authority; we stand. No one kneels before Queen Elizabeth II do they (maybe when being knighted or something)? We stand at the National Anthem and the notion of patriotism. We stand to pray in church, which is to God as well.
Of course many factors play into this, including changing cultural contexts. However, once introduced into the Roman Rite (if indeed it was introduced),
So you continue to deny that it was not always this way in the early days? Even David Palm has conceded that, for heaven's sake.
kneeling reinforced itself, as it were.
It became more and more of a stylized, acknowledged form of demonstrating obeidience and reverence. In this developed and, indeed, developing cultural context doing away with kneeling could not fail to be an act of rebellion at the worst or outrageous ignorance.
I agree that in our time it certainly seems more reverential. I'M NOT ARGUING AGAINST KNEELING PER SE. I'm arguing against the automatic assumption that it is "objectively superior" to standing at communion.
The argument fails as a defeater of my argument, however, because it is based on cultural determinants, which the Council said can and do change (and the liturgy can with them). David Palm was arguing that liturgical development must be organically related to what came before.
If you claim that standing and kneeling are so similar to each other that the latter could "organically develop" from the former, then by the same token you can't rule out a possible scenario determined by cultural variables, that standing could again predominate and be organically related to the kneeling, which in turn was (so you say) organically related to standing in a consistent development.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. My argument works because it highlights the arbitrariness and non-symmetrical nature of yours (kneeling is organically related to standing ["because we trads prefer it"], but standing cannot possibly be organically related to kneeling ["cuz we don't like it and it is a rotten liberal conspiracy"] ).
None of this is to imply that the early Christians were irreverent, or thought of themselves as equal to or better than Christ. Nor do those rites where standing has always been the norm.
Great, then it seems to me that you could comprehend a Latin Catholic standing today and being just as reverent as his Eastern Catholic or Orthodox brother or his ancestors in the early Church. But you guys don't seem to want to acknowledge that. Why?
The Ancient Church was practicing a very new liturgy, in a rapidly changing and very diverse cultural context, with a less complete understanding of eucharistic theology.
Then why do Eastern Catholics stand? Do they have less understanding of the Eucharist than western Roman rite Catholics?
Ritual movements indicating reverence were, in all likely hood, drawn from a wide variety of cultures and cults without regard to origins or unity. It was, in many cases, a rather sloppy and irregular (though certainly pious) affair; the product of new Christians doing their best with the tools as their disposal. The EF, on the other hand, has had the benefit of one of the greatest tools at the Church's disposal: Time. 2000 years to separate good from bad, aesthetic from ugly, reverent from commonplace. 2000 years to add good popular devotions as pious practices. 2000 years for prudent trimming and pruning.
Indeed, and after all that time. Eastern Catholics in many different rites haven't changed a bit: they still stand. So you're saying they underwent no eucharistic development at all in that regard?
Liturgy should not be developed by one man (or even a group of men) at one time. It is rightly the product of hundreds over centuries and not them only but also the subtle guidance of the Holy Ghost. It is not always a strictly rational process and not one to be dissected by a simple race into history with an "oldest is best" mentality.
Amen.
Comments like "Davies was all wet" display a risable ignorance of history and what a Rite is and how it comes into being. Davies was not all wet, nor was the prideful. He was, in fact, humble enough to avoid the idea that one generation had sufficient gifts to know better than dozens of earlier ones.
The comment from him remains a remarkably dumb one (which is why I cited it in my paper), showing the tunnel vision arrogance of a Roman rite Catholic disparaging that which is completely reverential to an Eastern Catholic, and historical ignorance as well.
Sorry to go after one of the sacred cows of "trads" but I have never been one to avoid saying what might be controversial. I speak truth as I see it, and that's how I see this one. Say I'm ignorant if you wish. I say that Davies was ignorant in this area if he thought that.
I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but I think the words the priest speaks at the moment of receiving Holy Communion are objectively superior in the TLM:
"May the Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ preserve your soul unto life everlasting. Amen."
In the NO all that is said is, "The Body of Christ."
I also want to mention that one image which changed my whole outlook on the Mass (for the better) was when there was a Mass on EWTN at the Sistene Chapel and one of the images was Jesus giving Communion on the tongue to someone kneeling, I thought that was the most beautiful and most superior form of receiving.
Hi Ben & David,
BEN: First off, I don't grant you that they "universally" received standing. You take the word "universal" from Dix, and I have already explained why you cannot trust Dix,
DAVID: Neither do I.
Okay. Do you both distrust the Catholic Encyclopedia as well (and Eusebius)?:
"That, in the early Church, the faithful stood when receiving into their hands the consecrated particle can hardly be questioned. . . . St. Dionysius of Alexandria, writing to one of the popes of his time, speaks emphatically of "one who has stood by the table and has extended his hand to receive the Holy Food" (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., VII, ix)."
("Genuflexion")
I also want to mention that one image which changed my whole outlook on the Mass (for the better) was when there was a Mass on EWTN at the Sistene Chapel and one of the images was Jesus giving Communion on the tongue to someone kneeling, I thought that was the most beautiful and most superior form of receiving.
The only catch is that it's not historical. The first communion service was a Passover meal where eating was done in the ordinary manner. It's a classic case of anachronistic historical reasoning.
People can walk around naked in some cultures and it is no big deal.
In pagan, devil worshipping cultures. The missionaries put clothes on them.
Then why do Eastern Catholics stand? Do they have less understanding of the Eucharist than western Roman rite Catholics?
I can speak from experience as having attended many Divine Liturgies. The consecrated hosts are put into the precious Blood, and the priest spoons the Eucharist to the communicants with a utensil. It would be extremely precarious for the priest to stoop down and spoon the Eucharist to a kneeling person in this manner. There would be a grave danger of sacrilege.
There's probably many other reasons, but this is an important one.
The comment from [Davies] remains a remarkably dumb one (which is why I cited it in my paper), showing the tunnel vision arrogance of a Roman rite Catholic disparaging that which is completely reverential to an Eastern Catholic, and historical ignorance as well.
Please note that Davies deliberately qualified that he was speaking only of the Roman Rite.
Do you both distrust the Catholic Encyclopedia as well (and Eusebius)?
The Catholic Encyclopedia is usually reliable, but it's not infallible. The article on the firmament unacceptably compromises biblical inerrancy, for example. In this specific instance, I think the author's conclusion overreaches the evidence he cites. To cite one historical source suffices to establish that a practice existed in the early Church, but it is not enough to justify stating simply, "this was the practice of the early Church."
I think a powerful contrary argument can be drawn from St. Basil's 93rd letter:
"It is needless to point out that for anyone in times of persecution to be compelled to take the communion in his own hand without the presence of a priest or minister is not a serious offence, as long custom sanctions this practice from the facts themselves. All the solitaries in the desert, where there is no priest, take the communion themselves, keeping communion at home. And at Alexandria and in Egypt, each one of the laity, for the most part, keeps the communion, at his own house, and participates in it when he likes. For when once the priest has completed the offering, and given it, the recipient, participating in it each time as entire, is bound to believe that he properly takes and receives it from the giver. And even in the church, when the priest gives the portion, the recipient takes it with complete power over it, and so lifts it to his lips with his own hand. It has the same validity whether one portion or several portions are received from the priest at the same time" (St. Basil the Great, Letter 93).
St. Basil is justifying the practice of taking Communion in the hand during times of persecution. If Communion in the hand were already the established liturgical praxis in his own Church, why would he justify the practice by appealing to the example of
...If Communion in the hand were already the established liturgical praxis in his own Church, why would he justify the practice by appealing to the example of Alexandria? Why wouldn't he appeal to the example of his own Church and the tradition which had been handed down there?
Note also, he states, "And even in the church, when the priest gives the portion, the recipient takes it with complete power over it, and so lifts it to his lips with his own hand..." St. Basil is saying that, in Alexandria, not only do people take Communion in the hand at home and in the desert; they receive Communion in the hand even in Church. This implies that the faithful do not receive in the hand in St. Basil's Church. When a man says, "in such and such a place people do X even in Church", it is safe to say that, where this man lives, people do not do X in Church.
Don't keep dragging the Eastern Rites into this. The cultural context in which their standing developed is very different of that of the Latin Rite. There are definitely ways that make their practice laudable and I suspect (though I am no expert on the matter) equally reverent. (Also, as a practical matter, they tend to make greater use of prostrations, especially for clergy, it is a bit difficult to recieve in this fashion)
But since you want to compare apples to oranges let us please compare the way that an Eastern Rite Catholic recieves standing (as is his ancient custom in many rites) to the way that a Latin Rite Catholic in the USA saunters up in his gym shorts, deaf leopard T0-shirt and fanny pack to sieze in his grubby, unconsecrated mitts (from, I might add, the grubby unconsecrated mitts of an "extraordinary" minister) the Body of our sweet Lord, mumble, shove Him in his mouth and then proceed back to his pew like a cow chewing his cud.
Doubtless you will point to your own fabulous parish as proof that it isn't like this but I've been to mass many many places and I assure you, it is.
why the difference then? Simple, the origins of the posture. The Eastern practice of standing was born of reverence and long-term developement. The Western practice of standing was born of the rebellion of liberal and heterodox laypeople as well as the misguided egalitarian impulse of some doubtless good and sincere clerics.
ruffled feathers... nitpick and squawk all you like... sacred cows of "trads"
And Dave wonders why the discussion becomes heated.
Anyway, I need to clarify my posts above. Dave's quotation from the Catholic encyclopedia contains two claims: that in the early Church, "the faithful stood" and that the received "into their hands." My argument from St. Basil's 93rd letter rebuts the second claims but is irrelevant to the first.
The only catch is that it's not historical. The first communion service was a Passover meal where eating was done in the ordinary manner. It's a classic case of anachronistic historical reasoning.
The painting may be historical in the sense that it represents an apparition which a saint actually received at some point in history.
ME: People can walk around naked in some cultures and it is no big deal.
In pagan, devil worshipping cultures. The missionaries put clothes on them.
Actually, there was a significant Catholic tradition of baptizing adults in the nude. The early Christians viewed nudity very differently than we do, where everything is collapsed to sex and lust (e.g., the many nude paintings, even of Jesus, that later had little "underwear" painted on them). It shows how bankrupt our outlook is. But my original point was to highlight cultural relativism by a striking example. You tried to make it strictly a "pagan" thing, so I showed how that was untrue; it was also Christian: at least in the baptism ceremony. And don't ask me to document this. do it yourself. I'm busy enough with all three of you guys and your endless minutiae. Do a search of "baptism" and "nude" and you'll find plenty of stuff. It was even mentioned in First Things (Jan 2008, I think it was).
Please note that Davies deliberately qualified that he was speaking only of the Roman Rite.
And he was wrong about the early centuries, or else they had no reverence.
The Catholic Encyclopedia is usually reliable, but it's not infallible. The article on the firmament unacceptably compromises biblical inerrancy, for example. In this specific instance, I think the author's conclusion overreaches the evidence he cites. To cite one historical source suffices to establish that a practice existed in the early Church, but it is not enough to justify stating simply, "this was the practice of the early Church."
I see. How about Philip Schaff? Is he immediately suspect because he is a Protestant? He backs up completely what I have been saying about early Church practice: that you and David and John continue to deny:
"From scattered statements of the ante-Nicene fathers we may gather the following view of the eucharistic service as it may have stood in the middle of the third century, if not earlier. . . .
"The elements were common or leavened bread (except among the Ebionites, who, like the later Roman church from the seventh century, used unleavened bread), and wine mingled with water. This mixing was a general custom in antiquity, but came now to have various mystical meanings attached to it. The elements were placed in the hands (not in the mouth) of each communicant by the clergy who were present, or, according to Justin, by the deacons alone, amid singing of psalms by the congregation (Psalm 34), with the words: "The body of Christ;" "The blood of Christ, the cup of life;" to each of which the recipient responded "Amen." The whole congregation thus received the elements, standing in the act. . . .
"After the public service the deacons carried the consecrated elements to the sick and to the confessors in prison. Many took portions of the bread home with them, to use in the family at morning prayer. This domestic communion was practised particularly in North Africa, and furnishes the first example of a communio sub una specie."
[footnote: "The standing posture of the congregation during the principal prayers, and in the communion itself, seems to have been at first universal. For this was, indeed, the custom always on the day of the resurrection in distinction from Friday ("stantes oramus, quod est signunt resurrectionis," says Augustin) . . . After the twelfth century, kneeling in receiving the elements became general, and passed from the Catholic church into the Lutheran and Anglican, . . ."
(History of the Christian Church: Ante-Nicene Christianity: A.D. 100-325 (Vol. II), Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1976, from fifth edition of 1889, Chapter Five: "Christian Worship": § 68. Celebration of the Eucharist, pp. 236,238-239)
Why did they stand then?
As a sign of the resurrection, as a sign that human nature had been redeemed and received divine dignity in the God-Man Jesus Christ.
But it wasn't done as a sign of reverence towards the Blessed Sacrament.
Surely they would just sit if they were little concerned about showing reverence?
Sorry, that doesn't follow at all. At various times and places, reverence was shown to the Eucharist through gestures such as bowing one's head, extending arms heavenward in prayer, making a throne of one's hands, as one received Communion in the hand.
But their standing was not an act of reverence or worship of the Eucharist. It was intended to convey belief and thanksgiving for the resurrection.
Also, were the early Christians really so indifferent to showing reverence to the Eucharist?
I find that hard to believe.
It doesn't follow that just because standing was never, historically, a sign of reverence in the Roman Rite, therefore they never showed reverence to the Eucharist. They showed reverence through other liturgical gestures.
If there is 'no evidence' that standing 'has ever been' a sign of reverence then it is logical to say that Jordanes rules out standing as a sign of reverence. He rules it out SPECIFICALLY, doesn't he?
No, I don't. In context, I was referring to the Roman Rite, not any other rite. One could conceive of a rite in which the faithful stood to show reverence for the Real Presence, but that was not, and is not, the Roman Rite -- based on what we know, that is. Standing in the Roman Rite was not directed specifically as reverence towards the Sacrament. It was, of course, an act of worship of God -- just not targeted, as it were, to the Eucharistic species.
Standing in the Roman Rite was not directed specifically as reverence towards the Sacrament.
And (I'm curious) from what sources do you conclude this (since I am challenged to the nth degree on every source I cite)?
This website conveniently lists a few of the witnesses that testify to the universal practice in ancient times always to stand during the Sunday Liturgy -- it was in fact forbidden to kneel, such that standing was more than a custom, but was the law throughout the Church, including the Roman Rite:
http://www.dneoca.org/articles/k.../
kneel0495.html
This study paper is also helpful in tracing the outline of Eucharistic piety during the early centuries of the Church:
http://people.vanderbilt.edu/
~ja....htm#_ftnref258
Now, if everyone is already standing all throughout the Liturgy of the Eucharist, not just at Communion, and they are doing so in order to "remind ourselves of the grace we have received" on the Day of the Resurrection, as St. Basil said, then the standing could not be an act of worship directed towards the Eucharistic species.
"The Study of Liturgy" (1992), p.234, in summarising the Western Eucharistic rites, of which the Roman Rite was one, mentions that, according to St. Augustine (Serm. 392.5) the communicants approached the chancel rails (or altar rails) and received Communion there, apparently in joined hands (Contr. ep. Parm. 2.7.13). But St. Augustine apparently does mention their standing as due to reverence for the Eucharist -- though I'm absolutely not a scholar of St. Augustine and can't say there isn't something out there I heard of.
Something else that is interesting in "The Study of Liturgy" is found in the summary of West Syrian liturgies, p.236: Theodore of Mopsuestia "instructs the communicants to adore the bread, and to apply it to their eyes and lips before eating it." Remember, the communicants were already standing -- so, if their standing were already adoration of the Eucharistic species, why did Theodore tell them to adore the Eucharist before eating It? From this it would appear that standing was not an act of reverence towards the Eucharist in West Syria -- by analogy, one should not expect it to be a sign of reverence in the Roman Rite either.
An inadequate response, I know, but it's late and I'm feeling pretty inadequate right now. . . .
And for the record, I am aware that Fr. Koblosh is an opponent of kneeling -- I just refer to his webpage out of convenience since he summarises the early Patristic witness to standing during the Sunday liturgy, not because I agree with his strong opposition to kneeling. I also want to make clear that my initial comment was only to nitpick the way you interacted with Davies' comment -- I was neither agreeing nor disagreeing with your overall arguments that you had delineated regarding what constitutes organic liturgical development. My remark is really tangential to that discussion, only tenuously linked to it in fact.
"something out there I HAVEN'T heard of."
Told you it was late . . .
More documentation of the early liturgy:
"Cum Amore Ac Timore", by Auxiliary Bishop Athanasius Schneider, L'Osservatore Romano, January 8, 2008
http://www.catholicculture.org/l...cfm?
recnum=8059
"Thus, in the wake of an organic development, by at least as early as the 6th century, the Church began to give the Holy Eucharist directly into the mouth. This is testified in the biography of Pope Gregory the Great, who reigned from 590 to 604, and by an indication of the Pope himself. . . .
"In the West the custom of kneeling and prostrating oneself before receiving the Eucharist was established in monasteries as early as the 6th century (e.g., in the monasteries of St. Colombanus). Later, in the 10th and 11th centuries, this custom became even more widespread.
"At the end of the patristic age, the practice of receiving Holy Communion directly into the mouth became so widespread as to be almost universal. . . ."
" In the early Church, men had to wash the palms of their hands before receiving the Eucharist. Also, believers had to take a deep bow and receive Christ's Body directly in the palm of their right, but not their left, hand. The palm of the right hand was used, so to speak, as a paten or as a corporal (especially for women).
"A sermon by St. Caesarius of Arles reads as follows: "All men who desire to receive Holy Communion are to wash their hands. All women are to bring a linen cloth upon which Christ's Body is to be placed."
"The palm of the hand was usually washed after reception of the Eucharist, as is still the case in the Communion of the clergy in the Byzantine liturgy. . . .
"At the end of ancient times, the organic development of Eucharistic devotion by the Fathers of the Church, in the West and East alike, resulted in the distribution of the Eucharist into the mouth and the gestures of prostrating oneself (in the East) and kneeling (in the West)."
Sorry Jordanes I thought you meant that they didn't show reverence, at all.
Dave,
Just so everyone's clear it might be useful to point out that Bishop Schneider is one of the foremost advocates of Latin Rite Catholics receiving on the tongue while kneeling.
So am I. That has no bearing on the facts he presents. In fact, it makes him more credible, because he cites historical facts that are contrary to his own favored position.
I think we can lay David Palm's argument to rest, regarding every liturgical reform having to organically develop from immediately preceding "existing forms" (Vatican II: SC 23), based on the same Council's recommending the vernacular and offering the cup of communion. Both practices had fallen out of use and now were being brought back to some extent.
I've given enough counter-examples and proposed alternate scenarios to refute the argument, IMO. It is because it doesn't reflect the entire teaching of Vatican II that it leads to nonsensical conclusions, as I have shown. But my position is coherent and in accord with historical facts.
I'm still awaiting the answers to the 12 questions about communion, standing and in the hand, so I can correct my "misrepresentations" of David's position. How can I get it right, failing those???
I want total precision and accuracy in my portrayals of opposing positions!
For David's convenience (I know this is a long thread), here was my post asking for needed clarification, in case he missed it:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...?
a=50943#166349
Before we continue the discussion, we need to keep clearly in focus the position being argued, namely, that the double-innovation of receiving Communion in the hand while standing is not an organic development in the Roman liturgy. It is, rather, the imprudent approval of a practice which had its roots in rebellion and a negation of true organic development. That it bears approval from Rome (i.e. in the Novus Ordo it is not technically an “abuse”) is precisely the point. This is one of many (too many) examples that could be cited. As Fr. John Hardon noted:
"Communion in the hand [came]...with the publication of the Dutch Catechism with nobody's permission except the bishops—in effect, in principle separated themselves from the Holy See. One country after another began then to ask for permission, which the Dutch bishops never asked for, permission to receive Communion in the hand. Behind Communion in the hand—I wish to repeat and make as plain as I can—is a weakening, a conscious, deliberate weakening of faith in the Real Presence.
"In the very, very early Church, Communion was given in the hands. However, as the faith of the Christians weakened in the Real Presence, by the 5th, 6th centuries Communion on the tongue became mandatory—remained mandatory until the present century.
"And the American hierarchy took most—three times, those wanting Communion in the hand kept pushing and pushing. Finally, meantime, I was asked by the vice-president of the Catholic Conference of Bishops to defend Communion on the tongue, which I did. To get enough votes to give Communion in the hand, bishops who were retired, bishops who were dying, were solicited to vote to make sure that the vote would be affirmative in favor of Communion in the hand. Whatever you can do to stop Communion in the hand will be blessed by God.”
(http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?
t=94097)
I continue to submit that what we face in the approval of Communion in the hand in our present historical circumstance is a corruption, not an organic liturgical development.
[to continue]
[ But Vatican II also indicated a need for liturgical reform because of some corruptions and better knowledge of liturgical history than was available in 1545. That means that it is possible to adopt some practices that didn't have an uninterrupted history. ]
We have demonstrated that receiving Communion on the tongue was an organic development, not a corruption. At the time of the Council it was the Church’s universal practice from East to West. The reintroduction of the counter-practice was neither justified in order to address a “corruption”, nor based on better knowledge of liturgical history.
[Good point for your argument. But I think one possible way out of it would be to note the clause "changes of circumstances and situation." Since this allows some variability, why wold it be inconceivable to again arrive at a "circumstances and situation" that resembles earlier situations in some way? Then, since we are allowed to make a change by that principle, it would perhaps (but not necessarily) have resemblance to the situation in earlier times. ]
The “times and circumstances” that led to the reintroduction of Communion in the hand were outright, public rebellion against the Holy See and fraudulent means to get it introduced at least in the U.S., as Dr. von Hildebrand, Fr. Hardon, and many others have documented. I submit that is not what Pius XII had in mind when he spoke of “new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation”.
[I see. Okay, fair enough. If you think I misrepresented your reasoning, . . . You make the point that you said that the entire set of 12 objectionable things amounted to what you described in your negative characterizations. Now you say that no one or two of the 12 can be described in the same way as the set of 12 collectively. ]
Dave, you continue to mispresent my argument. It is obvious that making only the one change we’re talking about would not, by itself, result in a liturgy in which the "distinctive Catholic content . . . is approaching zero." Taking them all together would.
[ Though I think this is exceedingly nitpicky and not very helpful for the progress of the dialogue, I do see some small measure of validity in it, technically speaking. ]
You see only a small measure of validity in the fact that you misrepresented my argument and then ridiculed my intellectual capacity on the basis of your misrepresentation. Okay.
I think the reader will find me justified in ignoring the little quiz that flows from your misrepresentation.
If it isn’t already obvious, I’m using this issue of Communion in the hand is a “wedge” issue. It is illustrative of a pattern which has occurred over and over again in the liturgical “reform”. That is the real point here. This single issue may be followed with numerous additional examples just like it, or worse (such as female altar servers, which were borne of the same rebellion and hav
Now, we have this again from the Pope:
"This method of distributing Holy Communion must be retained, taking the present situation of the Church in the entire world into account, not merely because it has many centuries of tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful's reverence for the Eucharist. . . . Further, the practice which must be considered traditional ensures, more effectively, that Holy Communion is distributed with the proper respect, decorum and dignity. It removes the danger of profanation of the sacred species, in which 'in a unique way, Christ, God and man, is present whole and entire, substantially and continually.' Lastly, it ensures that diligent carefulness about the fragments of consecrated bread which the Church has always recommended" (Memoriale Domini).
Once again, the argument is not whether Communion can be received in the hand reverently. That is your red-herring. The argument that brought this whole discussion about is whether traditional liturgical practices, especially as embodied in the TLM, are objectively superior. The Holy Father gives numerous ways in which Communion on the tongue is objectively superior to Communion in the hand. You wanted concrete examples of objective superiority. Here’s one. Again, you will need to interact with his reasoning if you disagree.
[ Would you like to , therefore, contend that 42% of the world's bishops in 1969 were classifiable as liberal dissidents or radical liturgical agents, etc., due to having this opinion? ]
There were indeed many liberal dissidents or radical liturgical agents. You blame them all the time for the ills of the Church, Dave, so please don’t pretend now that you don’t think they exist in sufficient measure to skew that polling. Also, you left off this important sentence:
“From the responses received it is thus clear that by far the greater number of bishops feel that the present discipline should not be changed at all, indeed that if it were changed, this would be offensive to the sensibilities and spiritual appreciation of these bishops and of most of the faithful.”
[ The document then appears to leave a loophole. If the pope were absolutely against communion in the hand, then he wouldn't have allowed this, no? ]
A loophole. The traditionalist points to ambiguities in modern Church documents in order to maintain continuity with prior Church teaching and discipline. Dave sees loopholes in modern Church documents and uses them to justify practices borne in doctrinal degeneration and outright rebellion. He wants to continue to claim that these practices really are organic developments of the liturgy. And he objects to being called a “neo-conservative”.
[ Or was he being a wimp? ]
You will have to answer that question for yourself based on the available evidence.
God bless,
An heroic effort this Dave. And to thinky that this is not your area of expertise. And these guys have been 'at their books' for years.
I think I'm going to write to the pope to get you a papal medal of Honour. The citation;'for services rendered in countering old fuddy duddies'.
Really though, and it turns out that there was precedent for all this; communuion in the hand, standing to receive communion, the priest facing the people.
Their presuppositions have finally been challenged and I think it has has come as rather a shock to them.
But as chesterton said; 'it's always good to give people a shock'
Dave, you continue to mispresent my argument. It is obvious that making only the one change we’re talking about would not, by itself, result in a liturgy in which the "distinctive Catholic content . . . is approaching zero." Taking them all together would.
Exactly. I discussed only the issue of how to receive communion. So I now ask for the third or fourth time that you clarify exactly what you feel about that and complete my survey:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...?
a=50943#166349
That will clarify the issue, let me and my readers know EXACTLY what your positions are (rather than relying on my report of them), and put this rabbit trail to rest.
You wanted to make an issue of this, and so I am following through (a cynic might say I am calling your bluff). The ball's in your court. If you don't answer, then your complaint that I misrepresented you can't be taken seriously, since I am doing everything to correct any possible misrepresentation on my part (including re-editing my original; post) and (in that event) you refused to cooperate.
Let's go through them; Ben Douglass, he's falling back on fastidious pedantry, rather than taking on the arguments.
David Palm; His contributions have become steadily weaker, and he knows it. He's losing heart.
John Triolo; his mini-tirade about present day mass goers shows he's rattled.
I'm satisfied to leave things where they are, Dave. I think that any reasonable reader will see that the traditionalists had the better part of this discussion.
I would like to make Fr. Hardon's words my own:
“Behind Communion in the hand—I wish to repeat and make as plain as I can—is a weakening, a conscious, deliberate weakening of faith in the Real Presence. . . . Whatever you can do to stop Communion in the hand will be blessed by God.”
God bless,
You're way too kind, James, but thanks. I'm just having a lot of fun making arguments and learning a ton of things about liturgical history. I love the subject of development, so making that part of the discussion made it an extra treat, too. And as all my regular readers know, I love a challenge. There seem to be so few substantive ones to be had anymore, so in that respect, I toast my opponents (clink).
Hi David,
I see that I didn't read far enough:
You wish to act in the following manner:
"Dave, this is a blatant misrepresentation of what I said. You wrench this one example out of a whole list, twist it, and then present it as the whole of my thought. You should be ashamed to behave like this."
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...?
a=14538#166283
"The way you presented the “compacted” version of my argument, it appears to me to suggest that I was saying that the one change, by itself, would result in a Mass with a "distinctive Catholic content" that "is approaching zero." My actual argument was that taking all of the approved options I outlined results in such a liturgy. That is the way your presentation appears to me and that is a misrepresentation of my argument. I hope it is clear now why I consider your truncated presentation to be a misrepresentation."
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...?
a=14538#166322
I reply:
"I see. Okay, fair enough. If you think I misrepresented your reasoning, then by all means let's clear that up right here and now, so we can get back to the argument . . .
"You make the point that you said that the entire set of 12 objectionable things amounted to what you described in your negative characterizations. Now you say that no one or two of the 12 can be described in the same way as the set of 12 collectively. Though I think this is exceedingly nitpicky and not very helpful for the progress of the dialogue, I do see some small measure of validity in it, technically speaking.
"So let's put this one to rest. You described these 12 things collectively in certain ways, and described the ten "good" characteristics of a more traditional Mass in another (strongly implying that the other set of 12 lacked those characteristics).
"Granted, some generally "bad" things are worse than others. If you have a last-place basketball team, not all 12 players are equally responsible for the last-place finish. So please clarify by selecting a number of 1 to 10 for each, with 1 meaning "least resemblance to the description" and 10 meaning complete resemblance or applicability: . . . .
"Thanks! Once that is straightened out, I can incorporate it into the original argument, thus removing all possible objection along those lines, and we can resume the actual argument (as an extra bonus). Once you select your "ratings" above than I and my readers will know EXACTLY where you are coming from."
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...?
a=50943#166349
You reply now:
"Dave, you continue to mispresent my argument. It is obvious that making only the one change we’re talking about would not, by itself, result in a liturgy in which the "distinctive Catholic content . . . is approaching zero." Taking them all together would.
"You see only a small measure of validity in the fact that you misrepresented my argument and then ridiculed my intellectual capacity on the basis of your misrepresentation. Okay. I think the reader will find me justified in ignoring the little quiz that flows from your misrepresentation."
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...?
a=14538#166400
So what has happened is the following:
1) Dave Armstrong (DA) took 2 two out of 12 of your list of objectionable liturgical practices listed by David Palm (DP) and constructed an argument, launching off of those.
2) DP objected that this was a misrepresentation since the two in isolation cannot be described in the same way as the set of 12.
3) DA grants this (at least in part) and asks in return that DP clarify exactly how he WOULD characterize the two issues that DA chose to critique. Once that is clarified, DA has stated that he will incorporate the corrected data into his original post in order to be fair to DP and represent his views with complete accuracy.
4) DP replies that DA is continuing to "mispresent" his argument.
5) DP contends that DA "ridiculed my intellectual capacity on the basis of your misrepresentation."
6) [DA replies to #5 that I was simply making an argument from logic and critiquing nitpicky, "can't-see-the-forest-for-the-trees" methods, and not "intellectual capacities." DA suggests that DP get a thicker skin and not take everything in argument personally.]
7) DP appeals to my readers: "I think the reader will find me justified in ignoring the little quiz."
8 ) DP (rather remarkably) claims that even the quiz itself,-- that was designed specifically to determine what exactly he believed, so that I would not misrepresent him -- "flows from your misrepresentation." So the very thing that was supposed to clear up any misunderstanding and so-called "twist[ing]" of DP's views is itself scorned and spurned as part and parcel of the very objectionable thing it was sincerely trying to rectify. In other words, the conciliatory effort is insulted, alongside the original argument that DP didn't care for.
I don't know where one goes from there, if DP insists on being so insulting and cynical, but I do have one idea: since he has alluded to the opinions of my readers, I'm very curious: I'd like to take a survey of what you think. Please select one answer out of the following:
A) David Palm should answer the quiz questions because it was a sincere effort on Dave Armstrong's part to correct any possible (and wholly unintentional) "misrepresentation" of Palm's views.
B) David Palm should clarify his particular views that he claims Dave misrepresented, but not by means of the quiz; rather, through a simple explanation that Dave can incorporate into his original post.
C) David Palm should not answer Dave's quiz since Dave has ridiculed his intellectual capacity based on his misrepresentations and indeed constructed the quiz based on the same objectionable elements. Answering, therefore, would not allow the discussion to progress forward.
D) No particular opinion. This discussion is boring and of little use, anyway.
----------------
Please answer by selecting one. No explanation is necessary, but if you want to comment further, that's fine too.
===================================
Well, folks, I acted too quickly. As I was writing this, David Palm opted out of the entire discussion, just as (I thought) it was getting interesting, fascinating, and possibly of great constructiveness in clarifying the issues between us:
"I'm satisfied to leave things where they are, Dave. I think that any reasonable reader will see that the traditionalists had the better part of this discussion."
He decides, then, to make the charge that I blatantly misrepresented him; I offer to do whatever I can to correct this by incorporating his clarifications, so we can move ahead, but he steadfastly refuses to cooperate in that effort and lobs further insults and departs, claiming victory.
I am still very curious, though, about what my readers think of my quiz and efforts to make things right by correcting any misrepresentation I may have been guilty of. Also, now, since David has claimed that "any reasonable reader" would think the "trads" prevailed in this discussion and had the better argument, I'd also like to hear your opinions on that.
Lastly, I am a strong advocate (as I've said at least half a dozen times) of communion on the tongue, kneeling, having attended these last 17 years, a parish where that is normative practice. The issue was never my opposition to that, because it doesn't exist.
Note that my logical acumen was also pointedly criticized, by David Palm's friend and fellow "trad" Ben Douglass, and that was fine and dandy (not a peep of protest from David Palm that this was improper):
"Good grief, Dave, take a course in logic! Standing communicants are not standing specifically as a gesture of reverence, therfore they have no reverence! Of course that follows."
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...?
src=hsr#166289
You don't see me flying off the handle and being over-sensitive. I continued calmly making my arguments, just as I did in another thread when Ben tried to pin me down as appearing disingenuous by using the word "lie" in the secondary dictionary sense of "non-deliberate falsehood." He was attacking not only my logic there but knowledge of definition of a fairly common word:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...0274791/
#166219
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...0274791/
#166290
I could have gotten all sensitive and on my ear and outraged over that "attack" on my "intellectual capacity" but I didn't. I made a cool logical response, based on actual dictionary definitions, and (I think) blew the contention out of the water:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...0274791/
#166238
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...0274791/
#166320
I submit that these two lines of argument from Ben Douglass were every bit as pointed and (if we must adopt this mentality) insulting to the intelligence as anything I've written about David Palm's logical shortcomings. But I didn't take it personally, whereas David did.
I guess, then,m it goes back to the old saying" "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." And so David Palm has, just when I thought we could actually accomplish something.
It makes me appreciate all the more my cordial discussions with Ryan Grant.
"So am I. That has no bearing on the facts he presents. In fact, it makes him more credible, because he cites historical facts that are contrary to his own favored position."
Well that's only true if one takes this out of the context of his body of work. In fact this piece is on the need for greater reverence --full stop--. I am sure he want people to show that in the manner appropriate to their own rite.
Dave,
I want to give you my opinion on this thread. It's only my opinion and I hope you will take it as honest criticism from a well wisher.
While you certainly have constructed a great case in many respects I can, I think, sum your defense of it up in one sentence:
"You didn't REALLY address my argument. I am winning and anyone can see it."
Saying it doesn't make it so.
I'm all for greater reverence too! Amen!
The point of all this citation from Church history is to counter the skepticism of both David Palm and Ben Douglass (and you, too, John?) on the question of whether standing for communion was "universal" in the early Church, including Rome.
I can't find any historical analysis that would go counter to this. Ben was so desperate that he had to attack Gregory Dix's credibility rather than produce counter-evidence.
But the verdict is in: from all hands: the early Church distributed communion to the faithful as they stood. Also, many times, they received oh the tongue. Kneeling for the reception of Holy Communion didn't even begin for about 1000 years.
I found more evidence last night:
"The Council of Nicaea ordered that the faithful should remain standing on Sundays and throughout the Easter ceremonies. Since the services were very long the effort involved was altogether praiseworthy; and St. Augustine alludes to it on several occasions, apologizing for imposing it upon his audience."
(renowned Catholic historian Henri Daniel-Rops, The Church of Apostles and Martyrs, translated by Audrey Butler, London: J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd, 1960; originally 1948 in French, 531)
So the myth of a Catholic receiving communion kneeling on the tongue in A.D. 100 or 200 (even 300) is (as far as we can tell) just that: a myth, and wishful thinking. If "trads" are inclined to engage in historical revisionism to make their "case" I don't see how that will help them.
Hi John,
While you certainly have constructed a great case in many respects I can, I think, sum your defense of it up in one sentence:
"You didn't REALLY address my argument. I am winning and anyone can see it."
That is sheer nonsense. I wrote rings around all three of you put together, in presenting my case, and in carefully answering yours. I answered everything that was put to me, often producing new arguments in so doing. By contrast, David Palm NEVER addressed the central aspect of my argument. He simply appealed to a statement of yours (which I then critiqued at length).
It's a fact that my argument was never properly addressed. You took the best shot at it, but you weren't the principal opponent (which was David Palm). It was his responsibility to defend his arguments and to rationally reply to my counter-argument.
He never did so. I was simply stating the fact. It's not as if I said this without making my arguments. I made probably 50 different sub-arguments. Even you admit that I " constructed a great case in many respects" (thanks!).
Instead, when I tried to clarify what David Palm believed, that he claimed I misrepresented, he insulted that, refused to answer, claimed victory, and split.
And now all you can say is that I kept saying my argument proper wasn't addressed (which is absolutely true)?
This is NOT impressive. If the "trad" case was truly so superior, then it would have been defended, and all of my many questions would have been cheerfully dealt with. But that didn't happen at all. Most of my queries were ignored, while I was constantly challenged to interact with this and that, and I did (I believe in every case or almost every; I may have missed one or two, with three opponents firing away at me).
Actually, there was a significant Catholic tradition of baptizing adults in the nude.
Yes, in sex segregated environments. That's why the early Church had deaconesses: to baptize the women.
There's nothing wrong with heterosexual men seeing each other naked and there's nothing wrong with heterosexual women seeing each other naked. In order for your citation of nude baptism to be relevant to your point about the alleged cultural relativism of modesty, you would have to establish that men and women were baptized in the nude together.
(e.g., the many nude paintings, even of Jesus, that later had little "underwear" painted on them)
I would be curious to what extent, if any, you could document nude Christian paintings from the patristic and medieval eras. It was the corrupt, decadent, and sensual age of the Rennaisance which witnessed the explosion of nude Christian artwork (as also such abominations as statues of pagan gods being carried behind the Eucharist in papal processions). I believe it was the Popes of the Counter-Reformation who had the underwear painted on. Perhaps this may help us to establish a pattern: in fervently Christian eras, artists put clothes on their figures, and in sensual eras, artists paint them naked.
I see. How about Philip Schaff? Is he immediately suspect because he is a Protestant? He backs up completely what I have been saying about early Church practice: that you and David and John continue to deny:
Dave, I presented you with an argument based on a primary source (St. Basil's 93rd letter) that Communion in the hand was not the universal practice of the early Church. St. Basil describes the practice of Communion in the hand in Alexandria as if it were foreign to the practice with which he was familiar.
As a general rule, when someone presents you with an argument from a primary source, it is not adequate rebuttal to simply quote another secondary source who agrees with you (especially a biased one like Schaff who disparages the "Roman" doctrine of the Eucharist). You have to rebut the use of the primary source.
So, can you do so? I can think of a potential counter-argument myself, but I'll leave the ball in your court.
(and you, too, John?)
And me too. As a historian by training I am naturally skeptical of any claim to universal knowledge of poorly documented practices in the distant past. Especially when there is so much ideology tainting the analysis.
Really though, and it turns out that there was precedent for all this; communuion in the hand, standing to receive communion, the priest facing the people.
Their presuppositions have finally been challenged and I think it has has come as rather a shock to them.
James, none if this is a shock to me. If you read Dave's article, you will notice that he quotes an article I wrote a few years ago, in which I documented the patristic precedent for Communion in the hand. Your cheerleeding on this score is less than impressive.
And what exactly is fastidious and pedantic about providing Dave with a primary source argument, that one of the claims of his secondary sources (that Communion in the hand was the universal practice of the early Church) is in error?
He was attacking not only my logic there but knowledge of definition of a fairly common word:
No, Dave, I was criticising the prudence of using a common word with a commonly accepted meaning in an obscure sense which one has to have a "big dictionary" to discover. When people read a common word like "lie" in a common context (e.g., so and so tells lies about me) they are going to assign to that word it's common meaning. If that is not the meaning you intend to communicate, you ought to consider using a different word (e.g., falsehood).
Ben was so desperate that he had to attack Gregory Dix's credibility rather than produce counter-evidence.
...Except I did produce counter-evidence, which you have not yet addressed.
To clarify, I have, as of yet, only produced counter-evidence to rebut the claim that Communion in the hand was the universal practice of the early Church, not that Communion standing was the universal practice of the early Church.
The Council of Nicaea ordered that the faithful should remain standing on Sundays and throughout the Easter ceremonies. Since the services were very long the effort involved was altogether praiseworthy; and St. Augustine alludes to it on several occasions, apologizing for imposing it upon his audience.
Note the qualification: remain standing on Sundays and throughout the Easter Ceremonies. That does not establish the universal practice of the early Church because it does not establish the practice of the early Church on, for example, Friday.
By the way, calling me "depserate" is way over the top. The primary reason I am not providing fuller and better documented responses to your arguments is time.
As a general rule, when someone presents you with an argument from a primary source, it is not adequate rebuttal to simply quote another secondary source who agrees with you (especially a biased one like Schaff who disparages the "Roman" doctrine of the Eucharist). You have to rebut the use of the primary source.
So, can you do so? I can think of a potential counter-argument myself, but I'll leave the ball in your court.
McElhinney and "Matt 1618" dealt with that issue at length in their paper that I used as a source. Oops! I realized that I removed my link to it in my paper, and should list it at the end. But they dealt with it, and I used part of the same quote. I don't think it proves what you assert.
With David Palm having departed the discussion, it's now over. I'm not gonna continue it with you and John, since the critique was of HIS statements and arguments, and it is his responsibility to defend his viewpoints. He started doing so (with the obligatory charge of misrepresentation which is almost becoming a hallmark of his approach anymore). I refuse to take part in his evasive exercise of letting others fight his fights for him.
Besides, I've devoted far more than enough time to this anyway. It messed up my workday yesterday, and as always, I have many other projects I could or should work on. Palm left (with insults and highly dubious claims of victory), so the debate itself is "over before it should have been over"; by default, by his choice.
Here was the article that dealt with St. Basil's Letter 93:
"The Red Herring of Communion in the Hand"
(I. Shawn McElhinney and ‘Matt1618’)
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/c.../
communion.html
I would be curious to what extent, if any, you could document nude Christian paintings from the patristic and medieval eras.
"Nude figures based on antique models appear in Italy as early as the mid-thirteenth century"
That's during the lifetime of St. Thomas Aquinas.
http://www.metmuseum.org/TOAH/HD...umr/
hd_numr.htm
"The early Christian emphasis on chastity and celibacy further discounted depictions of nakedness. In this climate, there was little motive to study the nude, and unclothed figures are thus rare in medieval art. Among the notable exceptions are Adam and Eve, whose story casts undress in an ominous light. In late antique works like the sarcophagus of Junius Bassus (ca. 359; St. Peter's Grottoes, Vatican City), the ideal forms of Greco-Roman nudes are transformed into the first exponents of sin."
Here is a picture of that (which was in St. Augustine's lifetime):
http://lanecc.edu/artad/ArtHisto...rogram/11-
5.htm
McElhinney and "Matt 1618" dealt with that issue at length in their paper that I used as a source.
Dave, the argument they refute in that paper is a completely different argument from the one I presented. Some Traditionalists have argued that Communion in the hand is sinful because St. Basil says that if someone takes Communion in the hand in times of persecition, he will not be guilty of grave sin, and this implies that, if he takes Communion in the hand under normal circumstances, he will be guilty of grave sin. This is a stupid argument and McElhinney and Lopez are right to refute it. I also refute it in my article which you have quoted!
So, my argument stands unrefuted.
Dave, the article you cite about nude art supports what I am saying. When Christianity conquered paganism, artists stopped sculpting and painting nudes, with the exception of Adam and Eve, whose nakedness symbolized shame, sin, and weakness. In the sarcophagus of Junius Bassus, Adam and Eve look dejected, and they are covering their loins in shame. These naked figures are a cautionary tale: don't act like these people.
The mid-thirteenth century Italian artists who reintroduced the nude into the mainstream did so in imitation of pagan antiquity. This is the proto-Rennaisance, the beginning of the decline of Christendom.
Furthermore, a huge chasm separates (a) artists creating nude art (especially if the figures are highly abstracted and even covering their genitals, as in the sarciophagus), and (b) real live, flesh and blood, men and women walking around naked. Nothing you have said here begins to substantiate your extraordinary claim that standards of modesty are so culturally relative that, in some cultures, it might be perfectly morally acceptable to walk around naked. No, cultures which have people walking around naked are evil, objectively wrong.
Great, Ben. It's time to move on to other things now. I already have other duties that demand my attention.
I was willing to engage the discussion as long as David Palm was involved, but with his departure my motivation dropped about 95%. It was his position to defend from the start and he has shirked his responsibility.
I was dumb enough to introduce the nudity thing as a passing reference to cultural differences (my fault), and now you're obsessed with that.
Time to move on. Spend time going after White's imbecilities. You've been doing that a lot lately.
If I'm not wearing a shirt am I naked...just shorts...small shorts...a loincloth...cheeks ... belly button showing?
Now answer that for am male or female.
I would answer there is no such thing as "objectively naked" thus you cannot say objectively sinful.
Ben,
The accusation of pedantry....
A long time ago I quoted David palm. The quote ran something like;'the changes to the mass have done grave harm to the Church'. I surmised that that was blaming the church harshly, I wrote; 'that is harsh criticism of the Church'. Then to emphasise my point in a later post about the seriousness of the charge I said grave is like mortal. Anyway David Palm replied (without addressing what I had written); 'I don't see that me and Ben have made harsh criticism of the Church'. Then you decided to contribute. But you didn't address the charge (that David was gravely criticising the church) but went into a PEDANTIC definition of 'grave'. And thus avoided or evaded the argument, or my point.
So, could I just ask you-The Pope and the Magisterium hold this new mass as the Ordinary Mass of the catholic church. This new mass is said by David Palm to be doing 'grave harm to the Church'. The Popes and the bishops can stop this happening. They are not doing so. So the Pope and the bishops are allowing 'grave harm' to be done to the Church. Do you agree?
Hey Dave,
A phrase you wrote has been rattling round in my head; 'threads of tradition'. As well as a great title for a book, with your interest in development of doctrine, you could maybe go into more how tradition works.
'grave' harm to the church' see it is HARSH the criticism.
I mean if you berlieve that then you must be in some way 'detached' from the Church Ben?
Question -- can we relate reception of Communion while standing to the Israelites eating the first Passover meal standing?
Possibly; I don't know. It's an interesting parallel.
Commenting by HaloScan
