Communion on the tongue at Spanish Masses

[UpUpAndAway]

For a time I attended an ethnic Polish parish. If one had been visibly non-Polish (I blended in), the people would have been of the mindset “what is he doing here — did he come here by mistake?”

But see, even this concerns me. When I see people at Mass who I haven’t seen before, I assume they’re Catholics who are passing through or visiting, or that they’re new in the parish. I don’t think, “What’s that guy who doesn’t look like everyone else doing here?” :woman_shrugging:t2:

 

[twf]

Only the Host is distributed in much of the world. That is the norm in my archdiocese.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

At the Spanish Masses in this area on Sundays, there would not be room for half the church to be white people. There are a lot of Hispanic people around here (Farm workers primarily) and relatively few Spanish-language Mass options for them. They fill up the available Sunday Masses in Spanish. There are, by contrast, a couple dozen Sunday Masses in the area in English. So no real reason for an English speaker to attend Spanish Mass, especially since the Mid-Atlantic isn’t particularly bilingual either, unlike the Southwest.

Add in the fact that Spanish Sunday Masses tend to run at least a half hour longer than the English language Mass and that’s a further reason why English speakers would not want to go and sit through very long announcements in Spanish, a longer homily in Spanish, and extended guitar hymns.

 

[Glennon_P]

the people would have been of the mindset “what is he doing here — did he come here by mistake?”

Many years ago, I was invited to attend a Mass at the Vietnamese parish in my city. The Mass was to celebrate Tet.

As one of the few Anglos there (aside from the Bishop and his Master of Ceremonies and perhaps a few others), I had three observations:

1. I’ve never felt so tall in all my life. I’m 6’1…a good deal taller than most of the congregation.
2. I’ve never seen so much incense used during a Mass.
3. I didn’t understand much other than the Bishop’s homily (delivered by himself in English and then translated by the pastor).

But overall it was a fabulous experience! I felt welcomed by the congregation and had an incredible sense of the universality - the Catholicity - of our Faith.

Seeing the ardent faith of so many of the parishioners who had to flee Vietnam after the end of the war was unbelievably edifying. The thought came to my mind, “Praise God that the Faith was brought to Vietnam so it could be passed down to these people!”

Then a tiny voice in my fat head said, “Praise God that the Faith was brought to Germany and Poland and Austria and Bohemia and the rest of the places in your ancestry so it could be passed down to you, you Eurocentric knucklehead!”

Point taken.

 

[13pollitos]

I can understand that. At that same parish I was talking about, the English Mass had many Hispanics in attendance as well, and that was how I actually found out about the Spanish Mass. there were two masses in English and two in Spanish and it really kind of worked out that people attended whichever time work out best for them.

 

[13pollitos]

I’ve never lived in the Southwest. I’ve attended bilingual Masses in Kentucky and that area is not what I would consider bilingual either. The difference is that they have many priests that are bilingual and are pastors or associates assigned to parishes. They say Mass in both languages regularly and on special feasts or for other occasions (baptisms, weddings, funerals, and even parish picnic days) will say bilingual Masses.

 

[Asinner]

Lingering shades of Jansenism, I assume.

No, I don’t think it has anything to do with Jansenism. It used to be a common discipline to fast from marital relations before receiving Holy Communion in the same way that it is still required to fast from food. I believe some Orthodox churches still observe this discipline (which is how you know it has nothing to do with Jansenism). I think self denial out of reverence towards the Eucharist should be encouraged.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

For a time I attended an ethnic Polish parish. If one had been visibly non-Polish (I blended in), the people would have been of the mindset “what is he doing here — did he come here by mistake?”

Ethnic or “national” parishes exist for the benefit of those who share the ethnicity. Of course anyone is welcome there. No one will ever be turned away. But I think it would be seen as a little odd for someone obviously not of that ethnicity to choose that parish over a mainstream parish.

It is probably fairly obvious that a visibly Anglo person, not accompanied by a Latino family member, is likely coming to the Spanish Mass as it is their only way, or a preferred time, to fulfill their obligation. In my part of the country, Spanish Masses tend to be in the mid-afternoon, which is convenient if one has slept late or had something to come up during the morning. Anglo Americans are not known for being bilingual. I understand the basics, even without a missal, but most Anglos do not.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I think self denial out of reverence towards the Eucharist should be encouraged.

If the Church thought this was helpful to people, they would encourage it.

The Church chooses to not encourage it. One drawback I can see is that if a married person wished to attend daily Mass, it would be difficult to balance the receiving of Eucharist with the normal demands of a healthy marital intimacy.

We should be careful about imposing requirements on ourselves for receiving Eucharist that the Church does not impose on us. The Church wants us to receive frequently. It also wants married people to have a healthy marital life, be fruitful and multiply.

The discipline of which you speak likely comes from the era when frequent reception of the Eucharist was not encouraged as it is today, and in fact people were encouraged instead to believe they weren’t good enough to receive. The Popes from at least St. Pius X onwards (and probably a couple before him) have tried to dispel this type of thinking.

 

[Asinner]

Thanks for pointing out the Latin Rite does not currently impose abstinence before reception of Holy Communion, and the positives of that discipline. I’m not even necessarily advocating for that to become a new discipline.

I just wanted to say the Church wasn’t wrong for imposing that discipline at the time either, just as she is not wrong now. I really don’t like it when any Eucharistic discipline (whether it’s a marital relations abstinence, increasing the fast from food, defending the current fast from food, or even the insistence that being in a state of grace in necessary) automatically gets connected to Jansenism.

I worded the sentence you quoted the way I did to try to not come across as accusing paperwight of anything. I guess that made it a little vague.

 

[BartholomewB]

Is there a cultural reason for this, or does it indicate a more traditional approach to Eucharistic reverence?

What it means, I think, is that they don’t expect everybody to receive the same way. Nobody is going to give you a funny look, even if you’re the only one receiving on the tongue in a church where everyone else is receiving in the hand, or the other way around. Similarly, I don’t think anyone would have seen anything wrong if you had crossed to the other aisle to receive from the priest rather than from a minister. That preference is quite widespread in Latin American countries, as well as in the U.S.

As a matter of interest, did people line up for Communion in the American way, row by row, from the front to the back of the church, or the way it’s done in most other countries, where everyone is free to join the line at any moment they choose?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

or even the insistence that being in a state of grace in necessary

That is not just a “discipline”. It is Church teaching, taken straight from the Bible.

What it means, I think, is that they don’t expect everybody to receive the same way. Nobody is going to give you a funny look, even if you’re the only one receiving on the tongue in a church where everyone else is receiving in the hand, or the other way around. Similarly, I don’t think anyone would have seen anything wrong if you had crossed to the other aisle to receive from the priest rather than from a minister. That preference is quite widespread in Latin American countries, as well as in the U.S.

Well, perhaps in some parishes, but in others, they make it very difficult to receive from the priest. The pastor of the parish I formerly attended would deliberately randomize which aisle he used (there were at least four), then would switch around to another aisle in the middle of Communion. I took this to mean “you ARE going to receive from a eucharistic minister whether you like it or not”. For this and other reasons, I eventually switched parishes.

As a matter of interest, did people line up for Communion in the American way, row by row, from the front to the back of the church, or the way it’s done in most other countries, where everyone is free to join the line at any moment they choose?

It was very orderly and done in the standard “American” way.

 

[dochawk]

I attended Mass in Holland while on holidays. I don’t know a single word of Dutch but I didn’t feel like a guest at someone else’s Mass.

I was quite startled to stumble across a Catholic Church in Amsterdam when I was there–I thought we’d all been chased out centuries ago.

Anyway, the door was open, so I went in.

I recognized by the cadence that they must be praying the rosary. Figuring that Mass would follow, I stuck around, and it did.

I could follow once sentence as being so close to English that it made sense, while the next was incomprehensible even though I know what it had to be.

On the other hand, after a week there, I could largely understand the signs, headlines, and messages on. displays . . .

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I could follow once sentence as being so close to English that it made sense, while the next was incomprehensible even though I know what it had to be.

On the other hand, after a week there, I could largely understand the signs, headlines, and messages on. displays . . .

Dutch is like that. In its written form, it can often be deciphered. Spoken, that’s another story. Thankfully, wherever Dutch is spoken, English is often spoken as well.

 

[poche]

That wasn’t always the case. I remember hearing someone tell me that the people in his neighborhood were so holy that the mgr would stand at the door before mass and if there was someone he knew wasn’t Polish then he would turn them away. This was in the 1970s. The person who told me this thought that this was a sign of their particular holiness.

 

[Phemie]

Phemie:

I attended Mass in Holland while on holidays. I don’t know a single word of Dutch but I didn’t feel like a guest at someone else’s Mass.

I was quite startled to stumble across a Catholic Church in Amsterdam when I was there–I thought we’d all been chased out centuries ago.

Anyway, the door was open, so I went in.

I recognized by the cadence that they must be praying the rosary. Figuring that Mass would follow, I stuck around, and it did.

I could follow once sentence as being so close to English that it made sense, while the next was incomprehensible even though I know what it had to be.

On the other hand, after a week there, I could largely understand the signs, headlines, and messages on. displays . . .

Having grown up and received all my sacraments of initiation before Vat II, I’m used to using visual clues to help me know what’s happening and where we are at any given time.

 

[PeterT]

I did not receive, as I only receive from a priest or deacon, and it would have been very obvious, and possibly insulting, if I had maneuvered to the other side of the church to receive from the Anglo priest. Given that I was possibly the only Anglo there (at least my appearance could cause one to surmise this), this could have been received badly, so in the interests of harmony and not causing scandal, I chose not to receive.

Wow, this really blows my mind!

I understand people’s preferences that they would prefer to receive Holy Communion from a priest or deacon rather than from an EMHC. But to decline to receive Holy Communion for ONLY THIS reason simply blows my mind.

Do you understand that in the Holy Eucharist the real presence of the body and blood, soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus is not DIMINISHED one iota if one receives it from a EMHC versus a priest or deacon? That one would decline to be in Holy Communion with our Lord and the whole Catholic Church simply because one could not receive Him from a priest or deacon is totally incomprehensible to me.

and it would have been very obvious, and possibly insulting, if I had maneuvered to the other side of the church to receive from the Anglo priest.

Why are you fixed on the ethnicity of a Catholic priest? Was there a non-Anglo priest closer to you? We’re one universal church made up of people from around the whole world from many different ethnic origins and yet we’re all UNITED in Christ our Lord.

Why did you feel that it was important to state if the priest was Anglo or not? It doesn’t make a hill of difference.

 

[halogirl]

I’ve had confession from a priest who barely spoke English but it was still valid . This thread has encouraged me to go to my parish’s polish mass

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I did not receive, as I only receive from a priest or deacon , and it would have been very obvious, and possibly insulting, if I had maneuvered to the other side of the church to receive from the Anglo priest. Given that I was possibly the only Anglo there (at least my appearance could cause one to surmise this), this could have been received badly, so in the interests of harmony and not causing scandal, I chose not to receive.

I think it was a horrible decision to allow EMHCs. I am not saying that the Church exceeded its authority in so doing, I just think it was a mistake. Same with communion in the hand. Mother Teresa said that the latter is “the worst problem in the world”. We are entirely permitted to opine that the Church has erred in disciplinary matters. Are you old enough to remember when EMHCs and CITH were introduced? There was some pushback. Prior to their introduction (it happened about the same time), Catholics had always been taught that only the priest or deacon can touch the Host.

One reason: do the EMHCs purify their hands before and after they administer the sacrament? Why not? The priest does. Why should he purify and the EMHCs not purify? For that matter, this problem also exists with CITH.

and it would have been very obvious, and possibly insulting, if I had maneuvered to the other side of the church to receive from the Anglo priest .

I am not fixated on the nationality of the priest, and there was only one priest. In fact, it wasn’t crystal-clear to me that he was Anglo until his accent and speech pattern indicated this. Then he joked about his Spanish not being that good. I just thought it could look like I was not Hispanic and that I did not want to receive from a Hispanic layperson. Judgment call. Aside from the priest, no one ever has to receive communion, except for making their Easter duty.

I don’t particularly care for the sign of peace either, but one reason I exchange it is that it could appear racist for a white person not to want to shake hands with a person of color.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I’ve had confession from a priest who barely spoke English but it was still valid .

Just be aware that some of them will ask you to leave the confessional if their English isn’t very good, especially if they know there is an English language confessor available. I have seen this happen to people.