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

[Della]

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

It has occurred to me that what the USCCB means is that it is the norm for the USA, which is under their authority and which has the right to decide such matters of discipline for the dioceses of the USA.

 

[chotock]

It has occurred to me that what the USCCB means is that it is the norm for the USA, which is under their authority and which has the right to decide such matters of discipline for the dioceses of the USA.

I was making a general statement about how anything coming from any group in US seems to have this air of absolute authority for everyone hanging about it. I always get a giggle from friends who travel outside of the US and find that receiving on the hand is not acceptable, that many places do not share the cup, and that the nave is not a social club.

One problem I have with this ambiguity in how to receive is that it is very easy to cause scandal at a parish you are visiting if you do not receive the more normal fashion for the parish, heck I scandalize at my own parish for receiving on the tongue.

 

[drforjc]

It has occurred to me that what the USCCB means is that it is the norm for the USA, which is under their authority and which has the right to decide such matters of discipline for the dioceses of the USA.

Has anyone produced this hypothetical document yet? I’d also add that the USCCB generally speaking has to have departures from universal law approved by Rome.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

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

Catholig

Yes.
Actually I often use that as a litmus test. If a person disapproves of communion under both species then I tend to regard them as reactionaries rather than people with a genuine commitment to good liturgy. The case for receiving the precious blood is strong.

I am not miltantly opposed to Communion in the hand. However I don’t think that people who want a “priesthood of believers” type church have really thought through what they are asking for.

 

[beckers]

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.

I think it is a wrong for your priest to do this. What is someone in AA suppose to do at the rail? If your visiting a parish you don’t have time to let the priest know that you can’t receieve the blood. The hand request could be seen as a sign to the priest.

 

[Unfinished]

Yes.
Actually I often use that as a litmus test. If a person disapproves of communion under both species then I tend to regard them as reactionaries rather than people with a genuine commitment to good liturgy. The case for receiving the precious blood is strong.

I only disapprove of it because I don’t think a layman should be holding the chalice. What ever happened to laymen putting on gloves before they touch the sacred vessels?

If a second priest or deacon is not around to hold the Blood, then I would not mind seeing intinction. And not just because it forces everyone to recieve on the tongue… but I do like the idea.

 

[Missa_Solemnis]

I think it is a wrong for your priest to do this. What is someone in AA suppose to do at the rail? If your visiting a parish you don’t have time to let the priest know that you can’t receieve the blood. The hand request could be seen as a sign to the priest.

Im confused?

My parish offers only the Body to people. So people in AA should not have a problem there. So I dont see how that has anything to do with it.

Finally, I made it clear that my parish DOES NOT distribute the blood. So I wont neet to let the priest know I cant recieve it.

And I dont understand what you mean about hands being a sign to the priest?

 

[Catholig]

I only disapprove of it because I don’t think a layman should be holding the chalice. What ever happened to laymen putting on gloves before they touch the sacred vessels?

If a second priest or deacon is not around to hold the Blood, then I would not mind seeing intinction. And not just because it forces everyone to recieve on the tongue… but I do like the idea.

Another question, while I understand the reason why traditionalists are opposed to the distribution (probably not the right word, right?) of communion by eucharistic ministers, what would be wrong with them holding the chalice, whether with gloved or ungloved hands? I mean they aren’t directly touching Jesus right? Can someone explain this?

Catholig

 

[dessert]

Yes to the hand no to the blood. Typical of the church I attend. dessert

 

[Unfinished]

Another question, while I understand the reason why traditionalists are opposed to the distribution (probably not the right word, right?) of communion by eucharistic ministers, what would be wrong with them holding the chalice, whether with gloved or ungloved hands? I mean they aren’t directly touching Jesus right? Can someone explain this?

Catholig

It is out of respect for the vessels that you wear gloves.

It is the priest’s job to distribute communion. A layman should not be doing it.

Although they have recieved permission to in recent times, it is supposed to be in RARE circumstances, not how they are used in parishes today with 16-22 of them. 90% of the parishes out there should not have a single EMHC on Sunday.

That is why I would push for intinction in the NO, it elimates the problem and no one can complain about “not recieving the Blood.”

 

[Ceil-1]

I tried to take it on the tongue, once, and the priest dropped it. Thank goodness my relfexes are good and I caught it, but he was very irritated. I was irritated that a priest did not know how to give Communion on the tongue. Another priest I know makes a face. I hear he has some sort of germ-phobia. Most ignore it, but I can’t.

In my old diocese, my friends took it kneeling on the tongue. The new priest, a roly-poly man, became red in the face and hollered, “get up”!, his jowls shaking from side to side. He was literally seething in anger. He refused to give it to him. I had already left the parish in disgust, and I am so glad I wasn’t there. Thank God I wasn’t there the day he had his dog up on the Altar with him.

I question the faith and belief of the priests who seem to prefer communion in the hand. I know they are required to give it, but we know the good priests from the bad. The careless, “liberal-minded”, lukewarm ones don’t like it on the tongue. We have a priest in our diocese who cannot say Mass here because he cannot bring himself to give Communion in the hand. Needless to say, he is a very holy man, a true-believer. He’s the one you want to go to confession to. Young, too.

My multiple bad experiences have made Communion an occasion of turmoil for me. I pass no judgement on people based on how they take Communion. I, however, cannot take it in the hand. It just does not convey the proper reverence. I rarely take from the Chalice. Somehow it doesn’t seem right when I see the priest pour the wine into six or seven chalices instead of just one. It seems profane to me. They don’t bother to incense anymore because it is too much trouble. Incensing keeps the evil spirits out of Mass. And we wonder why we are in such dire straits.

I was told by someone that we should be receiving from the priest, not giving ourselves Communion. (Although Jesus did say take, and eat, and, originally it was taken home in a white cloth). I’m not saying it is wrong to take it in the hand or take from the Cup. Again, no judgements on those who administer it or take it. It’s just that I crave a worthy, holy Communion.

Pray for more holy priests like we are seeing come out of the seminaries lately. It is our only hope.

 

[palmas85]

It is out of respect for the vessels that you wear gloves.

It is the priest’s job to distribute communion. A layman should not be doing it.

Although they have recieved permission to in recent times, it is supposed to be in RARE circumstances, not how they are used in parishes today with 16-22 of them. 90% of the parishes out there should not have a single EMHC on Sunday.

That is why I would push for intinction in the NO, it elimates the problem and no one can complain about “not recieving the Blood.”

I agree that intinction is the way to go is distributing under both species to the laity and have never really understood why it was not done on a large scale…

 

[Titus]

I receive on the tongue and I also partake of the Precious Blood.
This is an issue where since there is no definitive vatican statement (for NO mass) on if we can use the hand/ take precious blood, it is a matter of personal conscience.

For me, I would never touch the Sacred Species. But receiving the Blood doesn’t mean touching the Species, and it is a very reverent experience for me, so I do it.

 

[djrakowski]

We have a priest in our diocese who cannot say Mass here because he cannot bring himself to give Communion in the hand. Needless to say, he is a very holy man, a true-believer. He’s the one you want to go to confession to. Young, too.

Refusing to allow the permitted practice of communion in the hand is the mark of a holy priest and a true believer? He sounds just as belligerent as those who refuse to distribute on the tongue!

Even at our parish, where the norm is communion on the tongue by intinction, there are exceptions made. My priest told me about a gentleman who is in a medically fragile state, and prefers to receive in the hand because he doesn’t want the priest’s fingers to accidentally touch his tongue. Father makes an exception for him, and thank God he does.

 

[AlexV]

Incensing does not “keep evil spirits away”.

Superstition, alive and well…

 

[djrakowski]

I only disapprove of it because I don’t think a layman should be holding the chalice. What ever happened to laymen putting on gloves before they touch the sacred vessels?

I understand your preference (and actually share it), but is there anything in the rubrics that prevents laypeople from holding the chalice?

Fortunately, we have enough priests and deacons that we rarely have laypeople distributing the Eucharist. Sometimes, at particularly well-attended Masses, our seminarians have helped, but that’s about it.

 

[MilesXpisti]

This may have already been said, but I feel it highly unorthodox that the USCCB has declared communion in the hand the “norm”, when it is only by indult that communion in the hand is allowed in the US in the first place. The universal norm of the Church, both NO and TLM is communion in the hand.

 

[Titus]

I don’t think you meant that last bit, Miles.

 

[MilesXpisti]

Quite right! I meant to say that the universal norm is on the tongue!

 

[Unfinished]

I understand your preference (and actually share it), but is there anything in the rubrics that prevents laypeople from holding the chalice?

Not that I am aware of. But that doesn’t mean the practice should be encouraged or made the norm either. The local church has about 22 EMHC on any given Sunday. It is a tragic sight.

Perhaps putting on gloves might just be one of those “useless traditions of men” that went away. I had heard once, through the grapevine, that in older Eastern churches if a man touched the vessels they would send him off to be ordained.