“On the tongue and while kneeling”

@philosopher - Quite! The subjectivity which men live by is just shocking! On the other hand, i do agree to the OBjective order which you posit. This is the reason for my point that kneeling at the altar rails and receiving on the tongue can become empty meaningless actions, UNLESS, the communicant is thoroughly catechised - are the Clergy equiped to do this? Most of them are no more than glorified social workers.....

@ACL, I agree, due to original sin, humanity does not always give the proper value response to being. Man attempts to relativize all values by making himself the ethical and metaphysical ultimate. They can, and often do, as you pointed out, have a value blindness rooted in pride; self-motivating reasons- they just don't see it. Good point, that you made, about liberal education and catechesis, which does have an influence in perpetuating value blindness, and it takes a person who is willing to get out of the cave; away from the shadows, as Plato said, to transcend it. The fact that many people have a value blindness does in no way, though, destroy the objectivity of the heirarchy of being and its value according to its level. I would add to your awesome insight, that man's inability to see the value of things, not only applies to God, but also to truth, beauty, goodness and human life.

@philosopher - Essentially I agree, however, due to the disorder which has accompanied original sin, man does not always see himself as beneath God! Man might THINK he is beneath God, yet, man goes off and commits murder, genocide, steals, takes advantage of nature, the poor, etc. All of these sins are examples of man BEHAVING superior to God in an attempt to assert his non-extant authority over God. What man thinks and what he feels is demonstrably at loggerheads with each other. Therefore, because of the reality of sin, I think the natural order of things as your objection raised, is to be put aside in this fallen World.

@SBpfu - Quite! However, unfortunately, not everyone UNDERSTANDS what you understand. The chaps these days were rared under a rather liberal padagogic rule. Therefore, they are more inclined to ask WHY, and the clergy ought always to be prepared to answer! The trouble is that the Clergy are not sufficiently educated so to do.....

Every objective entity, within the hierarchy of realty, warrants a value response. Plants are higher in value than stones; animals higher than plants; man higher than animals, and God higher than man. Once, you understand what the Holy Eucharist is, then the proper and most reverent value response toward the Creator of the universe is to go down on your knees, and receive Him on the tongue. There is an objectivity, because God is higher than man, therefore, the response would not standing, as if to imply an equality or an erroneous naturalism.

@ SBpfu - Well, if we go by the Descartian"cogito ergo svm", we need to express in concrete action that which we THINK (not feel). How many times have the Saints, Doctors of the Church warned us against following our 'feelings' (Teresa de Avila, Juan de la Cruz, Augustine of Hippo, etc). In fact they all, sans exception , instructed that we seek always to educate our emotions. I shall return to this later.

On the other hand, if we go with the existentialists, "facio ergo svm" , we get into a state of living, wherein our actions do not always reflect what our mind and heart are saying. Actions which are meaningless. It is a life of profound shallowness, like the example ScripsitVeritas has sited bellow.

Nevertheless, I see a via media between the aforementioned positions. Returning to the Descartian"cogito ergo svm" and amending this with the teachings of the Doctors of the Church:IF our actions are born of an informed emotional stance (informed by Church teaching and grace), the action is valid. Now, turning to the existentialists in similar fashion: IF the legally prescribed action (as instructed by Church teaching and grace) educates the mind and heart, and so brings the soul closer to God, the action is valid. However, mechanical action without interior benefit is empty and therefore not valid. The same is true for actions borne of faulty education and interior processes. Therefore how is one to know?

Hereupon we arrive at the via media I mooted above. Not everyone is gifted intellectually enough to work these things out, nor is everyone so enlightened by Grace so to do. That one ought always to know exactly WHY one kneels and receives upon the tongue is paramount. Therefore, unless the people are adequately catechised, I remain unconvinced that it be de riguer. It can, like ALL action, devolve into empty meaningless gesture. My conclusion is that the interior stance is the important thing, the external will follow. Let the Clergy teach Holiness, bring the people to a true convertion unto the Divine Majesty, through sound teaching and example, and the laity will follow. Kneeling will catch on like a wild fire!

“It is to simply know that we are before God himself and that He came to us and that we are undeserving,” - I disagree with the rationale. Jesus instituted the Eucharist as an invitation to join him and share in his love. He was aware of the suffering he was about to endure. He wanted us to love both Him and the Father through the Eucharist. Before there were hosts as we know them, there was the breaking and tearing of bread between members. Reception of the Eucharist is a matter of education in reverence, the act of kneeling and tongue reception does not mean reverence actually exists. I was raised in the old ways. Kneeling and tongue reception at the time were just mechanical forms of submission, not from the heart.