Receiving Communion Kneeling as a Symbol of Salvation History

~J.M.J~

A catechumen myself, I have had many dreams about receiving Holy Communion - it is something I am eagerly looking forward to. I am bent on receiving the Corpus Christi on my knees for the rest of my life because I feel that that is due to my Lord. Recently, I reflected on each action I would have to take when making Communion on my knees, and slowly realised how each action spoke of a milestone in our Salvation History from the Fall of Man to eternal life.

As I fall to my knees, I recall the Fall of Man. Desperate, and in need of a Saviour. 

Then, the priest draws the Blessed Sacrament from the ciborium and brings it down to my tongue. With the ciborium representing heaven, and my tongue the earth, this action mirrors the Incarnation, when "He came down from Heaven" to dwell among us.

I retract my tongue and break the Host with me teeth. The breaking of the Eucharistic Bread signifies the crucifixion and death of Christ, just as during the Fractioning at the Agnus Dei. Therefore, I fulfil Jesus' command. "Take this, all of you, and eat of it, for this is My Body, which will be given up for you." 

Then, I swallow the Host. Now in complete Communion with Christ, I rise to my feet - for just as Jesus rose from the dead, so too am I suppose to rise with Him. For Christ Himself promised, "I am the Living Bread come down from Heaven; whoever eats this Bread will live forever, and the Bread that I give is My Flesh for the life of the world." (Jn 6:51) Thus witnessing how a sinner was saved by the grace of God.

And I awake from my sweet slumber, realising it was all a dream. But I look forward to time when I shall savour the Bread of Life for the rest of my days. For St John Vianney said, "Every consecrated Host is made to burn Itself up with love in a human heart."

Præsta meæ menti de Te vívere,
Et Te illi semper dulce sápere.

The Greatest Eucharistic Miracle

J.M..J.

In 700 A.D., a priest, doubting in the Real Presence was saying Mass. After the words of consecration, the bread visibly changed into Flesh, and the wine into Blood.

In the 13th century, another priest, also doubting the Real Presence, witnessed blood dripping from the Host, staining the corporeal, as he barely said the words of consecration. Pope Urban IV investigated this miracle and, in honour of it, established a new feast: Corpus Christi.

These are just two of many Eucharistic miracles which have occurred throughout history - all of which are testament to the Real Presence of Christ Jesus in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar. Some say this miracle is the greatest, others claim another. In my opinion, this is the greatest Eucharistic miracle:

The Transubstantiation.

Yes, the miracle that is, was, and shall be repeated at every Mass is my favourite of all Eucharistic miracles. Mere bread and wine, by the power of the Holy Spirit, transform into the true Body and true Blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

Is that not plain usual and boring?

Well, the Transubstantiation is the most important miracle because it is indispensable, and is the most amazing simply because it happens at every single Mass. It is the miracle that fulfils Christ's motivation behind instituting the Holy Eucharist - to feed His flock. Jesus Himself said, "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him." (Jn 6:56) So infinite is this miracle and the grace that flows from it!

Imagine what would happen if the Gifts ceased to turn into the Body and Blood of our Saviour. All the faithful will be denied of the graces promised in this great Sacrament. In addition, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI says, "Without the Eucharist, the Church simply does not exist." And if the Transubstantiation does not occur, we worship bread, and will be idolators. I believe most of us would condemn ourselves to Hell over such a grievous sin.

All the other miracles add to the faith of those who choose to believe them, yet many still persist in disbelief and find ways and means to offer alternative explanations behind these miracles. If they never happened, those strong in faith will still confess in the Real Presence. Therefore, these miracles only confirm, for the doubters, what is already true: that Transubstantiation occurs. Yes, these miracles are great, deserve to be proclaimed, and are useful in evangelisation. We should praise God for them. But they are still dispensable.

Therefore, I urge you to, at subsequent Masses, recall the moment of consecration, where Transubstantiation occurs, as the greatest Eucharistic miracle. As the priest elevates the Host, adore Him with intense love, and as the priest genuflects, bow your head in deep thanksgiving for that wonderful miracle.

Verbum caro, panem verum
Verbo carnem efficit:
Fitque sanguis Christi merum,
Et si sensus deficit,
Ad firmandum cor sincerum
Sola fides sufficit.

(Pange Lingua Gloriosi Verse 4 - St Thomas Aquinas)

Disclaimer: I do not belong to any religious order. In fact, I am a catechumen seeking baptism in the Catholic Church. Nonetheless, while at Adoration, the Lord has instructed me to write about His Real Presence. If I have confused the my own perceptions with the Lord's wisdom by writing something contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church, I firstly seek your forgiveness, and ask that you bring it up to me in the comments so that others may not be misled. Thank you.

If you wish to journey with me through RCIA, you can read my blog at myrciajourneymmxiii.blogspot.sg.

Why I Believe in the Bible

~J.M.J~

If you asked me, "Why should I believe in the Bible?" to be honest, I have no satisfactory answer for you. But if you asked me "Why do YOU believe in the Bible?" I am very clear on that. And here is my answer:

Because I believe that someone powerful (i.e. God) is truly present in the Holy Eucharist through my many deep encounters with this Sacrament. And when I finally questioned the validity of the Bible (why follow the Bible and not the scriptures of other religions), I could only answer: because the Bible teaches the Eucharist is the Real Presence of Jesus Christ, who is God, and I have experienced for myself that those teachings are true. In a similar light, I place my faith in the Catholic Church.

Twisted? How can faith be built upon one Sacrament rather than the Word of God? Actually, my path of faith is perfectly reconcilable with the teachings of the Church. CCC 1324 states, 'The Eucharist is the "source and summit of Christian life."' That the Eucharist is my source of Christian life is a fitting description of my journey of faith, since my faith in all the other aspects of this Christian faith is built on it. All Christians agree that faith should be grounded in Christ. And this is how my faith is.

Therefore, it follows that I either be Catholic, or not Christian at all. Because if I were to renounce the Real Presence, my faith in the Bible and all the other tenets of Christianity will be thrashed with it.

Certainly, I cannot rely solely on Eucharistic Adoration to increasing my faith. The Sacrament of Silence remains silent most of the time; I only heard Him once. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary to listen to Scripture, where the voice of the Sacrament of Silence is more audible, and thus increase my love for and knowledge in God. Yet, I spend time with Him in the Sacrament of Silence because presence is essential in any relationship.

Yes, it was indeed by the words of the Word Incarnate that mere bread and wine transformed (and thenceforth still be transformed) into His own Body and Blood. Precious are the words that He spoke, yet more precious is the Gift those words brought about - the Gift of Himself to us.

Adoro Te devote, latens Deitas,
Quæ sub his figuris vere latitas:
Tibi se cor meum totum subjicit
Quia Te contemplans totum deficit.

Three Manners of Receiving Communion (Corpus Christi Special)

~J.M.J~

I'd sat on this one for a long time, thinking of what to write as a special on this Feast of Corpus et Sanguis Christi (The Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ). It's a day late, but I finally decided to write about the manners in which Holy Communion may be received: kneeling and on the tongue, standing and on the tongue, and standing and on the hand.

Kneeling and On the Tongue

On Corpus Christi 2008, Pope Benedict XVI asked that communicants kneel while receiving the Precious Body and Blood of Christ. Ever since, he had been administering Holy Communion only to the faithful who knelt at the altar rail until he retired from the Petrine Ministry. Currently, Pope Francis administers this Sacrament only to his priests, and they all kneel when receiving the Flesh of the Lord. There is only one message from these two popes: Holy Communion is preferably received kneeling. There are two reasons: reverence and Tradition.

Imagine the scene on the last day when you meet the Lord face-to-face. Would you be standing or kneeling? Most probably, the answer would be kneeling. Why? Because you wish to show your submission to the Lord your God, your respect for the Lord your King, your love for the Lord your Saviour. If you firmly confess in the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Sacrament of the Altar, you would behave similarly before the Blessed Sacrament - you would kneel. After all, you have admitted that you are not worthy that He should enter under your roof.

The second reason is that of Sacred Tradition. For one-and-a-half millennia, since St Gregory the Great decreed so, the entire Latin Rite has been kneeling to receive the Most Precious Body and Blood of Christ, at least when they were not celebrating Mass. The countless saints have all humbled themselves before the Lord by kneeling to receive him. Therefore, in continuity of Tradition, Holy Communion should be received kneeling.

It has also been argued that receiving Communion standing was driven from the diocesan level towards the Holy See, which was then pressured to make the change in policy to permit, in certain dioceses, that practice.

Standing and In the Hand

For the first four centuries of the Church, Communion was received standing and in the hand. This means that three of the Four Fathers of the Latin Church, Sts Augustine, Ambrose and Jerome, received the Body and Blood of Christ in this manner. The only one who did not do so was St Gregory the Great, as he himself decreed that the Host be received on the knees. Therefore, receiving Holy Communion in this manner is more traditional than kneeling or on the tongue.

Theologically speaking, the Lord, who is present in the Blessed Sacrament, is risen. Thus, we should receive Him standing. As to why on the hand, it is because Jesus said, "Take and eat," which suggests the using of hands.

However, it may be argued that the Church continually renews herself to bring the people closer to God, thus newer teachings of kneeling should supersede the older teaching of standing. As to the argument about Jesus' words, they were probably uttered in Aramaic, then translated to Greek, and then to Latin, and then to English. Things could have been lost in the translation. St Jerome, who translated the Bible to Latin, may have been influenced to choose the word "accípite"(Latin for "take") by his current practices.

Standing and On the Tongue

What is not consecrated should not come into contact with the Precious Body. That is why the hands of a priest and vessels of the Eucharist are consecrated. Our hands commit sin, and therefore renders them impure, and should never touch the Sacred Host. 

In addition, fine crumbs of the Body of Christ will be inevitably stuck on the communicant's hands, and scattered all over the ground and trampled upon by the faithful. This is deep sacrilege to the Heavenly King. Only the priest washes his hands in holy water after administering Communion and consumes the entire mix of fine crumbs of the Precious Body, small drops of the Precious Blood, and the holy water.

However, there exists a hygiene concern as the tongue may occasionally touch the hands of the priest or extraordinary Communion minister (ECM). Also, no priest or ECM would consume the Sacred Host if it fell of a communicant's tongue and onto the floor. The communicant would have to pick it up and consume it, which would be rather foolish as they have to touch the Blessed Sacrament after all the trouble (s)he has gone through to avoid that.

Also, the Holy See prefers that Holy Communion be received on the tongue. For a diocese to receive the Eucharistic Bread on the hand, the bishops in a country have to vote and pass by a two-thirds majority that they want this practice to be enforced. After which, the findings are reported to the Holy See, and then approval may be granted at the Holy See's full discretion. That a two-thirds majority is required clearly demonstrates that the Holy See prefers that Communion be received on the tongue. It can be said that they have casted 2/3 - 1/2 = 1/6 of the votes against Communion in the hand. Watch this video for more information. It touches on the issue at 5:00. The rest of the video is informative too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ap1KL2D5ae4

Conclusion

Personally, I prefer to receive Holy Communion kneeling, that is after my baptism of course. I see no difference between the Sacred Host held in the hands of a priest before me, and when I go before the Throne when I meet the Lord face-to-face. I feel that even kneeling cannot sufficiently express how much I respect and love my Lord, but that is the best I can do with my body to demonstrate my sincerity. 

If you say that you would stand before the Throne of the Lord, then I encourage you to stick to your beliefs and receive the Blessed Sacrament standing. For some local cultures, it may be more reverent to stand instead of kneel, and for others, receiving things on the hand may be very respectful.

Therefore, I offer only one piece of advice: Do whatever you feel best expresses your feelings towards the One in the Holy Sacrament of the Altar.

Traditional Latin Mass Changed By Ecumenism

(Picture source: http://1969j.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/holymass2.jpg)

~J.M.J~

Today, on the Feast of the Pentecost, I attended a Traditional Latin Mass at the St Joseph's Institution (International) Chapel, Singapore. Yes, it did lose me on several occasions, but it did satisfy an untellable hunger for tranquility and reverence. After all, I believe that Communion is ideally received kneeling, and will do so after my baptism. As the Latin rolled off my tongue, I felt one in Christ with my brothers and sisters from all the corners of the earth, as well as those in Purgatory and the saints in Heaven.

How is it that so much of the Eucharistic celebration has changed? Ecumenism was one of the priorities of the Vatican II reforms, and so our worship became more similar to that of our Protestant brethren's, whom I respect and love. Their ideal, desirable in moderation, that the people should participate in everything, gradually exceeded moderation. It is prescribed by Vatican II that the priest can face the people at any time of the Mass as he deems fit, but nowhere did they say this was to be maintained throughout the celebration. Nor did they say that the Mass was to be celebrated exclusively in the vernacular tongue. In fact, they had explicitly stated, "Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites." (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy 36.1).

If we explore the effectiveness of the reforms on Ecumenism, the results are obvious. Yes, the Anglicans are returning, but traditionalist groups have split from us. Overall, no progress has been made in Ecumenism, and we have diluted our Sacred Tradition in the process. I do not blame Vatican II for this situation, because they never foresaw it. It is some theologians who have misinterpreted the documents and propagated their erroneous views who, in my opinion, are at fault.

So Mass isn't about us? Well, if it were, we would be adoring ourselves. Do I prefer the Traditional Latin Mass? Not entirely. I find some actions superfluous and distracting from the focus on the all-important Eucharist. Although I understand the symbolism behind tracing 52 crosses over the Body and Blood of Christ, I find that the crossing after Consecration seems to imply that Transubstantiation is gradual, which does not conform to Doctrine. Am I condemning Protestant worship? No, it's fine and beautiful in its own way and we do mimic it outside of Mass, in what we call "Praise & Worship".

However, we understand Mass not as a form of participatory worship, but as the offering of the Perfect Sacrifice to God the Father. Hence, we should preserve it in its antiquity and catholicity.

Blessed Pentecost! Veni Créator Spíritus!

-------------------------------------------

Hi everyone, I have just came across the part of the Summa Theologica, 3rd Part, Q28, Art 5, which states this:

Objection 4. Further, the Apostle says (Hebrews 7:7): "And without all contradiction, that which is less, is blessed by the better." But Christ, Who is in this sacrament after the consecration, is much greater than the priest. Therefore quite unseemingly the priest, after the consecration, blesses this sacrament, by signing it with the cross.

Reply to Objection 4. After the consecration, the priest makes the sign of the cross, not for the purpose of blessing and consecrating, but only for calling to mind the virtue of the cross, and the manner of Christ's suffering, as is evident from what has been said (ad 3).

Hymn Analysis - Pange Lingua Gloriosi

~J.M.J.~

Disclaimer: I do not belong to any religious order. In fact, I should not even be called a Catholic, as I am not baptised yet. (I have signed up for the R.C.I.A after this Easter.) Nonetheless, at a recent Adoration, the Lord has instructed me to write about His Real Presence. If I have confused the my own perceptions with the Lord's wisdom by writing something contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church, I firstly seek your forgiveness, and ask that you bring it up to me in the comments so that others may not be misled. Thank you.

Hi everyone. This is my first blog and as mentioned above, the Lord, at a recent adoration, bade me write about His Real Presence. So what better way to start than by discussing a hymn which calls my tongue to speak of the glorious mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ, Pange Lingua Gloriosi, by St Thomas Aquinas.

(Full credits to Steven's Blog)

-Uses of this Hymn-

On Holy Thursday, which is in about a week's time, you would most likely chant this hymn at the Eucharistic procession. So it is kind of fitting for me to write about this now. Otherwise, this hymn can be used any time to praise the Lord Jesus, especially in the Blessed Sacrament.

The last two stanzas of this hymn are often set apart as a separate hymn known as Tantum Ergo, and often used at Benediction. Personally, I open every adoration with Tantum Ergo to venerate the Lord. I usually throw myself down at the words "veneremur cernui" (vererate with faces to the ground), and raise my torso as I begin the last stanza, where the Holy Trinity is praised, crossing myself at "Procedenti ab utroque" when all three Members of the Holy Trinity have been honoured.

-Analysis-

This hymn begins with a call to praise the Blessed Sacrament, with the words "Pange lingua gloriosi Corporis Mysterium, Sanguinisque pretiosi" serving as a fitting introduction to the prayer. The rest of the hymn is nothing but praise of the Blessed Sacrament, with occasional reminders to the devotee who is praying this hymn. The highlight of this stanza is that the King of nations gave to ransom to the world. This means that His incarnation was simply to achieve one goal: to free the world (us) from eternal death which we deserved for our damning sins. 

Stanza 2 begins by emphasising that Jesus was given to, and born for us sinners. By becoming man, he shared with us all human traits, and this is truly humbling; He was to become hungry when He went without food for forty days, and felt pain when tortured during His Passion. 

That aside, He sowed the seeds of His word, and closed His life with great order. He closed His life with the Institution of the Eucharist. The next stanza reveals so. On what account then, was the institution of the Sacrament an ordered way of closing His life. Firstly, He knew that He was about to suffer, die, rise from the dead and ascend, body and soul, into Heaven. Desiring to continue dwelling among us physically, He performed this wonderful rite so that even today, we may surrender our concerns to Him, with Him before our eyes. Secondly, this rite allows that those of you who may receive Communion to have His body infused with yours. This is a privilege unavailable to those who lived in His time. In some sense, it is a compensation for us who cannot see his face as some others did 2000 years ago. 

Stanza 3 recalls the Institution of the Eucharist itself. The most striking part of this stanza is the last part, "Cibum turbae duodene, | Se dat suis manibus." To those of you who are baptised Catholics, recall how, at Communion, the priest (or extraordinary Communion minister) holds the Precious Body before you, proclaiming, "The Body of Christ." This paraphrases Jesus' words, "This is my body." This moment reenacts Jesus giving His body with His venerable hands to His apostles. 

This leads me to a question.

Do you allow these words to sink into before you sincerely declare "Amen", or do you say it out of routine? If your answer is the latter, you have committed mortal sin. "For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgement on himself" (1 Cor. 11:27, 29) So even if you received Communion, then acknowledged His presence, you have already committed mortal sin. Therefore, be mindful of this and should you feel that you cannot give a sincere answer "Amen" to the Lord, do not commit yet another sin by lying with an "Amen". Instead, indicate that you wish to receive a spiritual communion (aka blessing) - at least you did not commit a mortal sin. After Mass, consult someone who may assist you in building up your Eucharistic faith.

Stanza 4 describes how by the words of the Word Made Flesh, bread is changed into His flesh and wine into His blood. (Verbum caro, panem verum, | Verbo carnem efficit) Poetic as these words sound, St Aquinas reminds us that Christ is the Word, so His words is the Word, which is the Truth. When He said, "This is my body", we are all to believe so. St Aquinas understood that this is a great challenge as His Real Presence is so unintuitive, and so consoles us by telling us to fall back on our faith in the Truth with the words "Et si sensus deficit, | Ad firmandum cor sincerum, | Sola fides sufficit."

Having justified that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, St Aquinas calls us to venerate Him. That aside, the "antiquum documentum" refers to Holocaust, and the "novo ritui" refers to the Eucharist, so he is saying that the Eucharist is the new rite which replaces the Holocaust. The Eucharist is perfect, because Christ, Who is sacrificed in the Eucharist is the Perfect Sacrifice. (Recall Eucharistic Prayer I: This pure victim, this holy victim, this spotless victim...) After all, no sacrifice of animals could appease the Father, so He had to send His Son to die for us on the Cross. Then, once again, the Eucharistic doctor beckons us to use our faith to supply for our limitations in sight.

Finally, like all other hymns written at that time, this hymn concludes by honouring the Trinity. Bear in mind that in the Holy Sacrament of the Altar, the Son is truly present - body and soul, humanity and divinity. As the Trinity is undivided, the Father and Holy Spirit are truly present in the Blessed Sacrament too. So we should not forget to honour them.

Thanks for reading, and I hope that this attempt at explaining this hymn will help you find the Eucharistic procession on Holy Thursday more meaningful. Habemus Papam! God bless you this Lent.

Let our lives be focused on the Small White Circle - the Holy Sacrament of the Altar. Hence, to the Devil will we never turn our eyes, and towards the present One shall we draw.