Anyone here recieve on the tongue AND also receive the precious blood?

[Catholig]

Just a question - do any of you who receive on the tongue also receive the precious blood, when it is offered?

Catholig

 

[Corki]

Yes, I do. Most of the people in my parish who receive on the tongue also receive from the cup. Why do you ask?

 

[Catholig]

I asked because while reading a thread concerning receiving on the tongue someone said that the RCIA candidates (after they had been brought into the Church) were ordered to receive communion in the hand, and to take the wine, and that got me thinking about the TLM where, if I understand correctly, the precious blood isn’t offered.

Thanks for answering.

Catholig

 

[Missa_Solemnis]

Just a question - do any of you who receive on the tongue also receive the precious blood, when it is offered?

Catholig

I have never ever seen the Precious Blood offered to the faithful at a TLM.

My priest denies people communion if they want to recieve in the hand.

 

[Catholig]

I have never ever seen the Precious Blood offered to the faithful at a TLM.

My priest denies people communion if they want to recieve in the hand.

Missa Solemnis, that sounds a bit harsh. I mean I’m all for communion on the tongue, and believe that form should be favored, however if receiving in the hand can be done reverently, and is allowed by the USCCB what gives an individual priest the right to turn someone away from the communion rail (assuming of course that that person is in a state of grace)?

Catholig

 

[CatholicNick]

Missa Solemnis, that sounds a bit harsh. I mean I’m all for communion on the tongue, and believe that form should be favored, however if receiving in the hand can be done reverently, and is allowed by the USCCB what gives an individual priest the right to turn someone away from the communion rail (assuming of course that that person is in a state of grace)?

Catholig

Receiving on the hand is NOT allowed in the Classical Mass.

 

[Corki]

I asked because while reading a thread concerning receiving on the tongue someone said that the RCIA candidates (after they had been brought into the Church) were ordered to receive communion in the hand, and to take the wine, and that got me thinking about the TLM where, if I understand correctly, the precious blood isn’t offered.

Thanks for answering.

Catholig

OK, for clarrification I was speaking of the Pauline Mass - not the TLM.

I think that the RCIA comment was about some people in Religious Ed presenting as “must” what is really an option (receiving on the tongue or from the cup).

We had a similar situation with our First Communion class. The DRE wanted all the children told that they “must” receive in the hand. It took one second grade teacher going “over her head” to the pastor and it got straightened out.

 

[catholica]

Yes to both for me.
In my church of 3500 families, 99+% receive in the hand.

 

[djrakowski]

At our parish, we receive kneeling, on the tongue, by intinction. So we receive the Precious Blood, though not directly from the chalice.

 

[Eliza10]

Just a question - do any of you who receive on the tongue also receive the precious blood, when it is offered?

Catholig

Yes, I receive on the tongue and I also recieve the Precious Blood whn its offered. Because its Jesus. So why would I walk by?

 

[MariaG]

My priest denies people communion if they want to recieve in the hand.

This seems as wrong to me as those priests who refuse communion to those who present themselves kneeling, or wish to recieve on the tongue.

Why is this okay to do

 

[Brenda_V]

Missa Solemnis, that sounds a bit harsh. I mean I’m all for communion on the tongue, and believe that form should be favored, however if receiving in the hand can be done reverently, and is allowed by the USCCB what gives an individual priest the right to turn someone away from the communion rail (assuming of course that that person is in a state of grace)?

Catholig

This seems as wrong to me as those priests who refuse communion to those who present themselves kneeling, or wish to recieve on the tongue.

Why is this okay to do

The reason this is not wrong is the rite of the Mass that is being said. Receiving in the hand at a TLM Mass is forbidden. Receiving standing unless there is a physical reason why one can not kneel is wrong too. The Rubrics will tell you so. At least that is my understanding of the TLM. So, anyone attending a TLM had better know better than to present themselves in an improper way, standing and/or expecting to receive in the hand.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

This seems as wrong to me as those priests who refuse communion to those who present themselves kneeling, or wish to recieve on the tongue.

Why is this okay to do

Pax tecum!

As a couple others have said, the Mass that Missa was talking about was the TLM, where people are not allowed to recieve in the hand. Most likely the people Missa is talking about are people that have come to the TLM for the first time and don’t know that. At the church I normally attend Mass (the NO), they do a Dominican Rite Mass every once in a while (Low Mass first Saturday of the month and High Mass on special days), and the pastor will usually announce at the end of the homily (on the High Mass days, since more people come to those than the Low Mass, which is just a daily Mass) that Communion will be recieved kneeling and on the tongue only.

As an interesting side note, though, JPII was known to have refused to give Communion in the hand on a number of occasions, especially in his native Poland.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[MariaG]

The reason this is not wrong is the rite of the Mass that is being said. Receiving in the hand at a TLM Mass is forbidden. Receiving standing unless there is a physical reason why one can not kneel is wrong too. The Rubrics will tell you so. At least that is my understanding of the TLM. So, anyone attending a TLM had better know better than to present themselves in an improper way, standing and/or expecting to receive in the hand.

But again, how is this any different than someone who presents themselves kneeling at a NO Mass? They are not to be refused communion for kneeling since kneeling is okay, just not considered the “norm” for the US in a NO Mass.

Why does someone need to “know better” at a TLM Mass but not at a NO Mass in order to recieve? Why is it wrong for someone to be denied communion kneeling at a NO mass, but Okay to deny someone communion in the hand at a TLM mass

This seems like a double standard.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

But again, how is this any different than someone who presents themselves kneeling at a NO Mass? They are not to be refused communion for kneeling since kneeling is okay, just not considered the “norm” for the US in a NO Mass.

Why does someone need to “know better” at a TLM Mass but not at a NO Mass in order to recieve? Why is it wrong for someone to be denied communion kneeling at a NO mass, but Okay to deny someone communion in the hand at a TLM mass

This seems like a double standard.

Pax tecum!

Because the NO rubrics are silent on the posture for reception of Communion. Standing is now the norm, but nowhere does it say it is required. The TLM rubrics, however, do specifically say that one must recieve kneeling and on the tongue.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[MariaG]

Pax tecum!

As a couple others have said, the Mass that Missa was talking about was the TLM, where people are not allowed to recieve in the hand. Most likely the people Missa is talking about are people that have come to the TLM for the first time and don’t know that. At the church I normally attend Mass (the NO), they do a Dominican Rite Mass every once in a while (Low Mass first Saturday of the month and High Mass on special days), and the pastor will usually announce at the end of the homily (on the High Mass days, since more people come to those than the Low Mass, which is just a daily Mass) that Communion will be recieved kneeling and on the tongue only.

As an interesting side note, though, JPII was known to have refused to give Communion in the hand on a number of occasions, especially in his native Poland.

In Christ,
Rand

I see you posted this while I posted another

But this still makes no sense to me. Why is it wrong to deny someone kneeling at a NO Mass, but okay to deny someone in the hand at a TLM Mass?

Pax tecum!

Because the NO rubrics are silent on the posture for reception of Communion. Standing is now the norm, but nowhere does it say it is required. The TLM rubrics, however, do specifically say that one must recieve kneeling and on the tongue.

In Christ,
Rand

I thought the US bishops issued something on the “norm” for the US And although they are not to deny someone who kneels, they are to be “counseled”.

 

[MariaG]

Pax tecum!

Because the NO rubrics are silent on the posture for reception of Communion. Standing is now the norm, but nowhere does it say it is required. The TLM rubrics, however, do specifically say that one must recieve kneeling and on the tongue.

In Christ,
Rand

I thought the US bishops issued something on the “norm” for the US And although they are not to deny someone who kneels, they are to be “counseled”.

 

[Unfinished]

I see you posted this while I posted another

But this still makes no sense to me. Why is it wrong to deny someone kneeling at a NO Mass, but okay to deny someone in the hand at a TLM Mass?

Rand:

Pax tecum!

Because the NO rubrics are silent on the posture for reception of Communion. Standing is now the norm, but nowhere does it say it is required. The TLM rubrics, however, do specifically say that one must recieve kneeling and on the tongue.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Unfinished]

I thought the US bishops issued something on the “norm” for the US And although they are not to deny someone who kneels, they are to be “counseled”.

They spoke of the NO “norm.”

 

[MariaG]

They spoke of the NO “norm.”

Okay. I see that. But how is it different for a person to be present themselves contrary to the norm of the NO Mass, and the person presenting themselves contrary to the norm of the TLM?

This still seems like a double standard to me and to deny someone for what is licit in the US seems wrong in both instances.

But I truly am trying to see the reasoning on why one is right and the the other wrong.

Please, all, keep trying.

Does one declaration carry more weight? If so, why?

God Bless,
Maria