How do you respond to this? (regarding CITH)

[TraditionalistThomas]

I was just watching an argument on CAF. A trad was saying that receiving on the tongue is more reverent and traditional in the Latin rite. He faced fierce opposition. People responded to him by saying things such as "Reverence is subjective. I receive how it's most reverent for me".

How are you supposed to respond to that? I understand that reverence is subjective, that is most certainly true; but in my mind that argument is flawed but I don't know how to explain it. For hundreds and hundreds of years, the 'reverent' and 'proper' way to receive was always kneeling and on the tongue, and this is contested by countless saints, including the angelic doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas. Why wasn't this "reverence is subjective, I will receive what is most respectful for me" argument present 500-1000 years ago? Do you catch my drift? The opposition also said that just because it was 'pre-Vatican II' it doesn't make it traditional. How would you respond to that?

The thread is here if anyone would like to look: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=670630&page=5

[MRose]

Reverence is not subjective!

A priest once put it to me thus: children do not feed themselves, for they are not able. We are to have child-like faith. We receive as children, for we do not take because we are not entitled, but graciously invited and commanded by Our Lord.

The weight of a nearly universal practice of the entire Church, at all times and everywhere, is of the highest. No serious scholar believes the garbage about Communion in the hand in the early Church anymore; the quotations they cite, if even authentic (which is doubtful) merely serve to prove the rule of Communion on the tongue (and kneeling). If, after hearing that, they persist in defending Communion in the hand, then I know not what one ought to say to them.

Simply meditate for a while on the fact that one is receiving Almighty God. Sit there (or kneel, as it were!) and contemplate that!

I remember reading something written by a protestant cleric a while back who said some to the effect that if people really believe in the Real Presence, they ought to be crawling and groveling on the floor to receive. In some places people still do go forward to receive on their knees.

The evidence concerning the destruction of belief in the Real Presence following Communion in the hand (though it goes along with the novus ordo itself, versus populum, etc.) should convince any honest inquirer that it is indefensible. Not only is it objectively more reverent, men need "external" signs to propagate and perpetuate religious belief. You change in this manner how we receive the Living God, then you change what many believe about Him (and subsequently about everything else).

[Phillipus Iacobus]

If I were you, I would present the arguments found in Dominus Est! by Schneider.

[Crusading Philologist]

Part of it might be that we are more dualistic than in the past. For St. Thomas and basically everyone else in the pre-modern world, the physical world had inherent meaning, and so did physical actions. This is what underpins much of natural law teaching. Today, however, we believe that meaning exists only in minds. The physical universe itself is both meaningless and purposeless. So, St. Thomas would probably not have agreed with the idea that physical actions are completely subjective and what you have in your mind is all that really matters.

Another point to consider is that our idea of piety is much more individualistic than in the past. But if you consider the fact that you are taking part in public worship, then "doing your own thing" seems pretty self-centered. St. Thomas's discussion of custom might also be somewhat relevant here:

Now just as human reason and will, in practical matters, may be made manifest by speech, so may they be made known by deeds: since seemingly a man chooses as good that which he carries into execution. But it is evident that by human speech, law can be both changed and expounded, in so far as it manifests the interior movement and thought of human reason. Wherefore by actions also, especially if they be repeated, so as to make a custom, law can be changed and expounded; and also something can be established which obtains force of law, in so far as by repeated external actions, the inward movement of the will, and concepts of reason are most effectually declared; for when a thing is done again and again, it seems to proceed from a deliberate judgment of reason. Accordingly, custom has the force of a law, abolishes law, and is the interpreter of law.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2097.htm#article3

[ResiduumRevertetur]

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiUqDa_Gzj0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiUqDa_Gzj0</a>

I say, think whatever you like, but I don't wish to step on on our Lord's body and carry Him around town on the bottom of my shoe, all because you have a "subjective reverence" pet theory to prove by receiving in the hand in the Communion line just before me. Their way only makes sense if the Real Presence of Christ is subjective (He's real for you, maybe, but not for everyone). Or maybe I'm a nut. That is all.

[Ray M Facere]

The argument that reverence is subjective is most certainly false and can be attacked with a reductio ad absurdum -- if that premise is true, then we would also be forced to agree that what was a subjectively reverent way to receive for a Satanist -- say taking in the hand, placing on the floor and stopping on Most Holy Eucharist -- would be acceptable as well.

Attacking it another way, if reverence is subjective, then so also is the object of religious study and the Church's doctrines. If we accept that premise, then the true object of the Faith is subjective and completely worthless in the external forum. We know this to be false for obvious reasons.

[Crusading Philologist]

I think the argument is that the physical expression of reverence is subjective, not the feeling of reverence itself.

[Ray M Facere]

I think the argument is that the physical expression of reverence is subjective, not the feeling of reverence itself.

Assuming good faith, the two are the same thing, since any external action will always be driven towards what one considers the good.

[Scriptorium]

One, reverence is not subjective. If so, then I can receive our Lord while walking on my hands, or doing a Elvis Presley style dance. Reverence is an adjustment of my deportment in reference to another person or thing. I adjust to it, not it to me. Honor is in the one honored. So honoring our Lord should command a posture extremely reverent. The honor we give has nothing to do with us, except for circumstances in which it is impossible, or extremely difficult, to give the honor (like an elderly person). But even in these circumstances the honor never bends to us. We simply do all that we can and human limitation comes in. A person who says "I will receive what is most respectful for me" does not understand what the external postures of Mass and prayer are. His action is already preceded by pride (not thy will, O Lord, but mine). Now the Church has extended permission to receive in the hand, and then to administer the sacrament to yourself. But any view of Church history will show that this practice was superseded in almost every instance by communion on the tongue due to reverence for the sacrament, reverence for the priesthood, and humility of the communicant. And since the practice has been reintroduced, there are not any good fruits to be shown, and really the practice has opened the flood gates to all kinds of abuses. This man should look at his own words and see a fruit of the abuse, namely, the idea that reverence is a subjective thing.

[Magdalene]

Dominus Est   is a good suggestion for reading material.

I think also, when words fail, modeling the behavior may speak louder than any words.  Ultimately we can only answer for ourselves.  Our dress and reverence does speak volumes.

St. Francis of Assisi saw that some friars were beginning to want a new way of living other than the Rule he established.  His words only went so far and he stopped speaking up for the most part; instead he modeled the behavior as best he could that was the living out of the Rule.