Communion on the tongue discouraged

[benedictgal]

Thanks, japhy. That’s what I think too. Do you think benedictgirl agrees with you that he can state what his preference is?

Yes, I agree it does seem a bit out of line. It doesn’t seem pastoral or prudent.

But – clearly overstepping his bounds? I can imagine him wanting to make sure those who legitimately chose to receive in the hand understand what to do.

VC

With all due respect, I do not agree with japhy on this one. Nowhere in any of the authoritative documents of the Church, including Redemptionis Sacramentum, does it note that the priest could state what his preference is. It is none of the celebrant’s business how a person receives Holy Communion (unless, there is a risk of profanation, and Redemptionis Sacramentum covers this particular instance). The Communion Rite is not about him and about what he prefers. It is not his call to make as to what the faithful can licilty do. The faithful have legitimate options.

Now, privately, a priest friend of mine from aonther diocese told me that he prefers CITH, but, he is not going to make it his rule nor prevent the faithful from exercising their legitimate right (especially since COTT is the norm). He respected my right.

 

[ProVobis]

Thanks. So, can a priest in an EF parish say communion in the hand is not allowed?

VC

I haven’t heard a priest saying it’s not allowed. However, I have heard that communion at this (EF) Mass will be at the communion railing, on the tongue, and no "Amen"s. CITH is not even mentioned. Good move, in my opinion.

 

[ChurchTorch]

Not that COTT is going anywhere, but I do wonder if CITH will ever be given the same status in the Latin Rite as COTT? This would guard against some trying to infer that COTT is somehow superior because CITH is not universal and instead by indult. Then again there really is not reason to make the paperwork change. CITH isn’t going anywhere, at least here in the USA.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

CITH isn’t going anywhere, at least here in the USA.

ChurchTorch,

I wonder if that’s what was thought 50 years ago about COTT?

VC

 

[eucharisteo]

Our parish priest announced at all Sunday Masses last weekend that the preferred method of receiving communion was on the hand and advised parishoners that those wishing to receive communion on the tongue would be required to see him after Mass. I’m wondering what the Church teaches on this subject as it seems inappropriate to me.

That’s not true, there are 2 acceptable methods and in the USA we are allowed to receive on the hand, but the preferred method is probably on the tongue. What I can’t stand is when people come forward and not stick out their tongue or grab it from the hand or slap it in their mouth like its a pill while still in the palm of their hand. We have been clearly taught correct several times throughout the year and I would prefer that we all receive on the tongue to avoid this. It would also be easier to prevent people from stowing away or who aren’t Catholic that play like they are, some innocently uneducated on the subject.

 

[Like]

That’s not true, there are 2 acceptable methods and in the USA we are allowed to receive on the hand, but the preferred method is probably on the tongue. What I can’t stand is when people come forward and not stick out their tongue or grab it from the hand or slap it in their mouth like its a pill while still in the palm of their hand. We have been clearly taught correct several times throughout the year and I would prefer that we all receive on the tongue to avoid this. It would also be easier to prevent people from stowing away or who aren’t Catholic that play like they are, some innocently uneducated on the subject.

Hi eucharisteo,

I don’t want or mean to derail this thread, but would you mind explaining what a transformed Catholic is?

Thanks

 

[japhy]

Nowhere in any of the authoritative documents of the Church … does it note that the priest could state what his preference is. … It is not his call to make as to what the faithful can licilty do. The faithful have legitimate options.

The priest making his preference known is not at all an infringement of the rights of the laity.

Now, privately, a priest friend of mine from aonther diocese told me that he prefers CITH, but, he is not going to make it his rule nor prevent the faithful from exercising their legitimate right.

Simply stating his preference (publicly or privately) is not making it a rule not infringing on the rights of the laity.

 

[Newbie2]

He is still walking a fine line. The reception of Holy Communion is not about his personal preference. It is about what the Church allows, in this case, both COTT and CITH. Now, the only time that he can rescind CITH is when there is a risk of profaning the Sacred Host. RS certainly gives him that option. However, the norm is COTT, since CITH is an indult that can be rescinded at any time.

I guess we could say then, as a** practical** matter, that either form is the “norm” until such time as CITH is recinded, no?

 

[ProVobis]

Simply stating his preference (publicly or privately) is not making it a rule not infringing on the rights of the laity.

Well, whoever or whichever group it was who (re)started the current practice of CITH sure had a lot of influence to change the rules.

 

[benedictgal]

The priest making his preference known is not at all an infringement of the rights of the laity.

Simply stating his preference (publicly or privately) is not making it a rule not infringing on the rights of the laity.

However, he should not say what he prefers. Nowhere in the documents does it state that the celebrant should announce his personal preference. It should not matter to him. It is the communicant’s right.

 

[benedictgal]

I guess we could say then, as a** practical** matter, that either form is the “norm” until such time as CITH is recinded, no?

No. The norm is COTT. The option is CITH.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

However, he should not say what he prefers. Nowhere in the documents does it state that the celebrant should announce his personal preference. It should not matter to him. It is the communicant’s right.

I think what japhy is getting at (correct me if I’m wrong, please!) is that it is the communicant’s* right* to receive communion on the tongue (and he is *allowed *to receive communion in the hand) but there doesn’t seem to be a right that protects one from the expression of a preference.

I don’t think that the fact COTT is a right and CITH permitted, or in so many words that both are licit options, means necessarily that the laity, the pastor, or the Church herself, can’t have and express a preference for one over the other. Does it?

EDITED TO ADD:

Of course, it might not be prudent, or pastoral, to express a preference. It might be done with greater or lesser diplomacy. It might even be an indefensible preference. . . but I’m not convinced (yet) that we can’t have one, and a pastor can’t have one for his flock, so long as licit options are not substantially foreclosed.

VC

 

[Newbie2]

No. The norm is COTT. The option is CITH.

Do you simply not read my posts, BDG? I wrote “as a **practical **matter”. I know that you have been a legalist, but please try to understand what others are saying.

When Joe Catholic goes up to communion in the USA, as a PRACTICAL matter, he has the choice between receiving in the hand or on the tongue. If he hasn’t read all that you have, all he knows is that he has a choice between two equally licit and valid methods or receiving. That’s what I mean by a PRACTICAL matter.

“Legally”, yes, you are correct. What he knows or doesn’t know doesn’t change the legality of the matter.

 

[CDNowak]

However, he should not say what he prefers. Nowhere in the documents does it state that the celebrant should announce his personal preference. It should not matter to him. It is the communicant’s right.

Where in the documents does it say that he cannot express his preference?

It seems expressing the issue would be a matter of prudence, and the fact that it is a personal preference should be established.

 

[benedictgal]

Where in the documents does it say that he cannot express his preference?

It seems expressing the issue would be a matter of prudence, and the fact that it is a personal preference should be established.

Just because it is not contained in the documents, that does not necessarily give him the permission to do this. He does not enjoy universal authoritiy and cannot impose. The only one who enjoys universal authority and can dictate is the Holy Father by virture of his being the Supreme Pontiff.

 

[Newbie2]

Where in the documents does it say that he cannot express his preference?

It seems expressing the issue would be a matter of prudence, and the fact that it is a personal preference should be established.

Just because it is not contained in the documents, that does not necessarily give him the permission to do this. He does not enjoy universal authoritiy and cannot impose. The only one who enjoys universal authority and can dictate is the Holy Father by virture of his being the Supreme Pontiff.

What if he were to state his preference in a homily i.e. “When I was a lad, I used to prefer communion on the tongue in the parish where I grew up…” and not state it or “enforce” it as practice in his parish?

Any thoughts on that?

 

[japhy]

He does not enjoy universal authoritiy and cannot impose. The only one who enjoys universal authority and can dictate is the Holy Father by virture of his being the Supreme Pontiff.

He’s not dictating or imposing anything! I don’t see what the hang-up here is.

We’re not talking about the priest saying to each communicant as he (or she) approaches, “I prefer to give you Communion on the tongue. The Body of Christ.” At least, I never got that impression from this thread. We’re simply talking about a priest expressing to his congregation, somehow (bulletin, announcement at the end of Mass, etc.), that he prefers Communion on the tongue.

 

[JerrySeibert]

I would ask for more information on this. Is it possible that your Priest is looking at everyones best interest. For instance H1n1 we at a time were asked to not recieve Eucharist on the tongue for obvious reasons.

 

[Jea9]

Our parish priest announced at all Sunday Masses last weekend that** the preferred method of receiving communion was on the hand and advised parishoners that those wishing to receive communion on the tongue would be required to see him after Mass.** I’m wondering what the Church teaches on this subject as it seems inappropriate to me.

Bolding mine.

He’s not dictating or imposing anything! I don’t see what the hang-up here is.

We’re not talking about the priest saying to each communicant as he (or she) approaches, “I prefer to give you Communion on the tongue. The Body of Christ.” At least, I never got that impression from this thread. We’re simply talking about a priest expressing to his congregation, somehow (bulletin, announcement at the end of Mass, etc.), that he prefers Communion on the tongue.

Jumping in here, I think (based on the OP anyway) that he IS imposing, and agreeing with benedictgal, that this priest is clearly crossing the line. He doesn’t get to meet with each individual person to tell them why they should receive in the “preferred” method. A person might feel very strongly about receiving on the tongue, but they may not feel that they can handle defending their decision or being confronted by the priest and thus feel bullied into receiving on the hand. Sure, that seems to be as much as the individual’s fault, that the don’t have the strength to defend themselves, but this subject should never come up.

As to the OP, I would write a letter to the priest (as it’s easier for me to “confront” in writing), maybe even hand delivering it, and let him know why this isn’t appropriate. Then hopefully the priest will elaborate. My personal opinion is that if this was a germ issue, then the priest would have said why he is stating his preference, like, “hey, I’ve recently been diagnosed with OCD regarding germs and this is a struggle for me, please pray for me and in the mean time it is very hard for me to distribute Communion on the tongue”. Of course, my further personal opinion is that it is still crossing the line to do this.

 

[japhy]

Jumping in here, I think (based on the OP anyway) that he IS imposing, and agreeing with benedictgal, that this priest is clearly crossing the line.

Sorry, we got a bit off-track. I was speaking about the hypothetical way in which a priest could let the congregation know his preference, without the “scare tactic” of requiring people who prefer otherwise to meet him “out back” after Mass.

I agree completely that the priest in the OP is imposing and going about things in a very unpastoral manner.