I was having an interesting argument…verbal boxing match…er…animated conversation with my dear dad last week. :) I sometimes wonder how we get on to the topics we do, but for whatever reason, we found ourselves discussing the oft-mentioned Swine Flu Communion restrictions, which are still in place. It turns out that both my dad and I are against the restrictions still being in place, but for different reasons.
I think these restrictions should be lifted because the threat of the Swine Flu has surely passed by now? I mean, Spring is almost here! Why should we continue to restrict those of us that wish to receive on the tongue from doing so?
It’s fair to say that my dad doesn’t really care much for such “old school” ways of receiving Our Lord. His basis for having these restrictions lifted came from the Gospel reading the Sunday before last (“I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” – John 6:53). Dad was saying that the Church in New Zealand was not allowing Catholics to follow the commands of Christ – in restricting the Eucharist to only one species.
And so the debate began.
I started by saying that the Church said that receiving one kind gained the same graces as receiving both. Dad responded that such a position was farcical given that Christ commanded us to receive both. I responded by saying that so long as you received under both kinds once in your life (e.g. your First Communion), you had fulfilled Christ’s command – the rest was just bonus rounds. :) In fact, I stated, I recalled someone telling me that 400-500 years ago, it was common for Catholics to only receive Communion once in their lives – as close to their deathbeds as could be scheduled. I definitely recall seeing that on a documentary to do with Constantine. He left getting baptised until the last years of his life because he knew he had more killing to do…according to the documentary anyway. ;)
We agreed to disagree, and then dad had a go at receiving on the tongue. He said that, once again, Christ commanded us to “take and eat” and “take and drink”, not “place on the tongue” and “don’t bother receiving”. I responded by saying that we didn’t know how Christ distributed at the Last Supper. Dad said all common sense would say there was no placing on tongues. I said that either way – whether you receive in the hand or receive on the tongue – neither is strictly in line with the Gospel as neither is taking. Receiving is a different verb altogether.
We, again, agreed to disagree. But later on, after agreeing to disagree again on whether the Church had changed her teaching on limbo and suicide, I mentioned (nonchalantly) that I had heard a rumour that the “old” Our Father was soon to be returning to our shores. Talk about lighting a fuse! :) Dad responded with “that will never happen” and also asked why people would care so much about something so silly as a few clarifications of words. I responded with I would rather pray the same Our Father as all other Christians, and that our version was just used here and some parts of Australia. Dad called rubbish on that, and said that he had seen the same version prayed in other overseas countries recently, including Hong Kong and…one other one I can’t remember.
So, to those who know far more than I on these topics:
- What’s the story on receiving under one kind being equivalent to both?
- Was I right that long ago, Catholics would only receive once or twice in their lifetimes and would delay as long as they could?
- What did you think of my argument re: receiving on the tongue? ;)
- And do you have any thoughts (or confirmation of rumours) on the old vs. the new Lord’s Prayer?
I do like these chats with my dad – who is an amazing man of faith, a faithful Catholic, one who loves his Church and his God, and who has inspired me in so many ways that I’ve lost count. He encourages this kind of debate and active thought, so I thought it wise to check my facts for Round II. ;)
Recent Comments