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

[Unfinished]

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?

Kneeling or on the tongue is not contrary to the rubrics of the Novus Ordo. To recieve in the hand IS contrary to the rubrics of the TLM.

The Bishops merely said that they would prefer the faithful recieve one way over another, though both are allowed in the NO. Both are NOT allowed in the TLM.

 

[MariaG]

Kneeling or on the tongue is not contrary to the rubrics of the Novus Ordo. To recieve in the hand IS contrary to the rubrics of the TLM.

The Bishops merely said that they would prefer the faithful recieve one way over another, though both are allowed in the NO. Both are NOT allowed in the TLM.

Okay, so it is a matter of the level of the authority in which each is spoken.

One is in the Rubics and the other is not? And therefore carries more force. Correct?

 

[Unfinished]

Okay, so it is a matter of the level of the authority in which each is spoken.

One is in the Rubics and the other is not? And therefore carries more force. Correct?

Right. The Bishops cannot override the rubrics of the Mass. The rubrics come straight from the Pope and the Vatican. Therefor, communion can never be recieved in the hand at a TLM because it specificly says it must be recieved kneeling on the tongue.

It can however, go both ways in the NO because the rubrics do not say which way it MUST be recieved. It allows for both. The Bishops then decided that they would prefer everyone to recieve in the hand, but they cannot DENY you kneeling or on the tongue because the rubrics allow for both.

Get it?

 

[MariaG]

Right. The Bishops cannot override the rubrics of the Mass. The rubrics come straight from the Pope and the Vatican. Therefor, communion can never be recieved in the hand at a TLM because it specificly says it must be recieved kneeling on the tongue.

It can however, go both ways in the NO because the rubrics do not say which way it MUST be recieved. It allows for both. The Bishops then decided that they would prefer everyone to do it a certain way, but they cannot DENY you the other way because the rubrics allow for both.

Get it?

Gotcha.

What was the declaration of the “norm” for the US in the NO Mass, of the bishops in the US called? Just a declaration? Appears to be a rubic but just a directive?

If it is a rubic, you would say that in the TLM it is obligatory under pain of sin and in the NO it is a just a directive that does not bind, since one cannot declare sinful, a practice that the church has done for years?

rubrics

(Latin: rubrica, red earth used by carpenters as chalk to mark wood; red titles of law announcements)

Directive precepts or liturgical prescriptions found in the Missal and the Ritual to guide the priest in the execution of sacred rites, saying Mass, administering the Sacraments, etc.; so called because they are printed in red. Some are obligatory and bind under pain of sin; others are merely directive and do not bind.

 

[Unfinished]

Gotcha.

What was the declaration of the “norm” for the US in the NO Mass, of the bishops in the US called? Just a declaration? Appears to be a rubic but just a directive?

If it is a rubic, you would say that in the TLM it is obligatory under pain of sin and in the NO it is a just a directive that does not bind, since one cannot declare sinful, a practice that the church has done for years?

rubrics

(Latin: rubrica, red earth used by carpenters as chalk to mark wood; red titles of law announcements)

Directive precepts or liturgical prescriptions found in the Missal and the Ritual to guide the priest in the execution of sacred rites, saying Mass, administering the Sacraments, etc.; so called because they are printed in red. Some are obligatory and bind under pain of sin; others are merely directive and do not bind.

Well, very simply put the rubrics of the Mass are “Say what is in black, do what is in red.” Those are put out by a level much higher than the USCCB. I cannot tell you the document. (The one from the USCCB stating the “norm” is in the hand). Perhaps someone else would be able to locate it for you.

If you are asking me if it is sinful to recieve in the hand, I am required to say no. Holy Mother Church has spoken on the matter. Do I find it highly irreverent? Yes. But that is just my opinion.

SO, because communion on the hand is not sinful, it may be more directive. However, once again, the rubrics of the TLM, unlike the NO, specificly say communion must be recieved kneeling on the tongue. So that is the rule that must be followed when celebrating a TLM, and no Bishop (Besides the one in Rome) can override that.

 

[MariaG]

Well, very simply put the rubrics of the Mass are “Say what is in black, do what is in red.” Those are put out by a level much higher than the USCCB. I cannot tell you the document. (The one from the USCCB stating the “norm” is in the hand). Perhaps someone else would be able to locate it for you.

If you are asking me if it is sinful to recieve in the hand, I am required to say no. Holy Mother Church has spoken on the matter. Do I find it highly irreverent? Yes. But that is just my opinion.

SO, because communion on the hand is not sinful, it may be more directive. However, once again, the rubrics of the TLM, unlike the NO, specificly say communion must be recieved kneeling on the tongue. So that is the rule that must be followed when celebrating a TLM, and no Bishop (Besides the one in Rome) can override that.

I need to think more on this.

Thanks for your help at attempting to simplfy this issue for me.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Unfinished]

I need to think more on this.

Thanks for your help at attempting to simplfy this issue for me.

God Bless,
Maria

I’m trying. :X

I see it pretty clearly. I guess maybe seeing the difference between rubrics and the preference(“norm”) of the USCCB might help.

Lemme know if I can help any more.

 

[MariaG]

I’m trying. :X

I see it pretty clearly. I guess maybe seeing the difference between rubrics and the preference(“norm”) of the USCCB might help.

Lemme know if I can help any more.

Thanks, I will:thumbsup:

I think the problem I am wrestling with is it still “feels” wrong.

However, I know we should not be led by our feelings since they are not always correct. It “feels” like a double standard. That does not mean it is, but sometimes it takes longer for ones “feelings” to catch up to the intellect.

But I WILL think on this more and contact you if I need more help probably by PM since I realize My tangent has completely dominated this thread

God Bless,
Maria

 

[batteddy]

I recieve on the tongue only from a priest or deacon, and if it is a priest or deacon, I always recieve on the tongue. I try to sit so that I will be in line with the priest.

However, if I am recieving the host from an EMCH, I recieve on the hand…I figure if it’s already touched one pair of unconsecrated hands…

If the cup is offered, though ideally I think in the Latin Church it shouldn’t be, I usually recieve so as to not “pass it by” as it were. Recieving this from an EMCH doesn’t bug me as much because it is in a cup so it doesnt actually touch anyone’s hands, all they do is hold the cup.

 

[Della]

I recieve on the tongue only from a priest or deacon, and if it is a priest or deacon, I always recieve on the tongue. I try to sit so that I will be in line with the priest.

However, if I am recieving the host from an EMCH, I recieve on the hand…I figure if it’s already touched one pair of unconsecrated hands…

If the cup is offered, though ideally I think in the Latin Church it shouldn’t be, I usually recieve so as to not “pass it by” as it were. Recieving this from an EMCH doesn’t bug me as much because it is in a cup so it doesnt actually touch anyone’s hands, all they do is hold the cup.

I do the same and for the same reasons (except I’m so little I never have to bend down or sit or do anything like that to be on the same level as the priest! LOL!)

I, though am happy the cup is offered once again in the Roman rite because it makes receiving that much more significant for me–to be receiving Christ under both forms, as he first established it (understanding fully why the Church did not for a very long time).

 

[arieh0310]

If the cup is offered, though ideally I think in the Latin Church it shouldn’t be, I usually recieve so as to not “pass it by” as it were.

I have only received from the chalice once because that is the only time it was offered by a priest or deacon. In all other cases when I am at an NO parish (which is rare these days) I bow when passing by the chalice held by an EMHC.

 

[Missa_Solemnis]

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

Well, while the Holy See allows it…

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

Exactly.

 

[LuxAurumque]

In regards to denying Communion in the Hand at a Pauline Rite Mass it could be argued that any priest could deny Communion in the Hand to any communicant if he deems it a “risk” of profanation of the Sacrament- and how he chooses to define this “risk” can vary from being not being catechized or the chance that someone could walk away with the Host or any other excuse the priest may think may be a factor for his flock. The Church makes it clear that no priest may deny Communion on Tongue to anyone ever but it does give permission to deny Communion in the Hand to anyone (whenever there is a ‘risk’- whatever that ‘risk’ may be).

Redemptionis Sacramentum 92

[92.] Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice,[178] if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand.*** If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.***[179]

*emphasis added
[vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html]](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html])

 

[Brendan]

Yes, I usually recieve on the tounge and the Precious Blood as well.

But that’s because my parish offers both species intincted

(And kneeling at the Communion rail)

 

[Lover_of_Jesus]

Yes I recieve Jesus on the tongue and I also recieve the Precious Blood.
I f Christ is offered in both these ways I’m certainly not going to pass Him up.

 

[Asperges_Me]

I’ve never received in the hand. I’ll partake of the Precious Blood if it is offered by a priest or deacon. This is fairly rare, but it does happen occasionally. Otherwise, I feel that the use of EMHC’s to distribute the Precious Blood is an abuse.

 

[AngelicDoctor]

I receive on the tongue and occasionally receive from the chalice. I do not have an idea why I do this, except that I receive from the chalice usually only at small daily masses, and only when I feel so inclined. I, of course, know that it is not neccessary to receive from the chalice, so I do so only when I feel “moved” to do so. (Chalice: not necessary, but a “fuller sign” = sometimes for me.)

PS: at a Novus Ordo Mass (no TLM near me in Iowa) I once saw a person kneel to receive Communion in the hand. That was a little different.

 

[AngelicDoctor]

I’ve never received in the hand. I’ll partake of the Precious Blood if it is offered by a priest or deacon. This is fairly rare, but it does happen occasionally. Otherwise, I feel that the use of EMHC’s to distribute the Precious Blood is an abuse.

I would agree with Asperges Me… I prefer to receive from an ordinary minister of Holy Communion, and only seldom is this a deacon or priest…

 

[Unfinished]

In regards to denying Communion in the Hand at a Pauline Rite Mass it could be argued that any priest could deny Communion in the Hand to any communicant if he deems it a “risk” of profanation of the Sacrament- and how he chooses to define this “risk” can vary from being not being catechized or the chance that someone could walk away with the Host or any other excuse the priest may think may be a factor for his flock. The Church makes it clear that no priest may deny Communion on Tongue to anyone ever but it does give permission to deny Communion in the Hand to anyone (whenever there is a ‘risk’- whatever that ‘risk’ may be).

Redemptionis Sacramentum 92

*emphasis added
[vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html]](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html])

Thanks for the quote from Redemptionis Sacramentum. So despite the USCCB saying the hand is the “norm”, in reality the tongue is still techincally the norm. Interesting.

 

[chotock]

Thanks for the quote from Redemptionis Sacramentum. So despite the USCCB saying the hand is the “norm”, in reality the tongue is still techincally the norm. Interesting.

Surprising when we hear that the USCCB is not the highest authority in the Church I wonder if anyone has told them yet…sorry just having a moment here