Communion on the tongue discouraged

[otjm]

Maybe it is just me, or maybe I didn’t read the OP correctly, but I don’t see where it has been said what it is exactly that the priest is going to say to those who are supposed to meet with him. Are we not prejudging a bit, possibly? Is it possible that he (or others) is/are encountering difficulty with those, or some of those who prefer COTT; specifically not sticking their tongue out far enough and/or sticking the tongue out, but not opening their mouth enough so that there is a danger of the Host nicking the teeth of the upper jaw and being flicked off the tongue?

Granted that he has no right to bully anyone. Are we not presuming this is about bullying?

Or did I just miss something?

 

[markomalley]

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.

Communion in the Hand is an indult granted in the US. Communion on the tongue is the norm.

If you take a look at this in the GIRM, paragraph 160 (in English), you’ll read:
160. The priest then takes the paten or ciborium and goes to the communicants, who, as a rule, approach in a procession.

The faithful are not permitted to take the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them from one to another. The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.

When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the Sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood.
You will note that none of that language exists in the Italian version of the GIRM:
160. Poi il sacerdote prende la patena o la pisside e si reca dai comunicandi, che normalmente si avvicinano processionalmente.

      Non è permesso ai fedeli prendere da se  stessi il pane consacrato o il  sacro calice, tanto meno passarselo di mano in mano. I fedeli si  comunicano in  ginocchio o in piedi, come stabilito dalla Conferenza Episcopale. Quando  però si  comunicano stando in piedi, si raccomanda che, prima di ricevere il  Sacramento,  facciano la debita riverenza, da stabilire dalle stesse norme.

The Latin essentially agrees with the Italian:
160. Sacerdos deinde accipit patenam vel pyxidem, et accedit ad communicandos, qui de more processionaliter approprinquant.

     Non licet ipsis fidelibus panem consecratum neque calicem sacrum  per semetipsos accipere eo minus de manu in manum inter se  transmittere. Fideles communicant genuflexi vel stantes, prout  Conferentia Episcoporum statuerit. Cum autem stantes communicant,  commendatur ut debitam reverentiam, ab iisdem normis statuendam, ante  susceptionem Sacramenti faciant.

You will see that the verbiage highlighted in blue above does not exist in either Italian or Latin.

Having said that, if there are widespread concerns in the parish about the possibility of passing germs, it may be charitable to offer that those wishing to receive on the tongue hold off presenting themselves until those who are squeamish have already received communion.

 

[Canto]

I fedeli si comunicano in ginocchio o in piedi, come stabilito dalla Conferenza Episcopale. Quando però si comunicano stando in piedi, si raccomanda che, prima di ricevere il Sacramento, facciano la debita riverenza, da stabilire dalle stesse norme

Thanks for posting!

*Translation: *The faithful should receive Communion kneeling or standing, as established by the Episcopal Conference. But when Communion standing, it is recommended that, before receiving the Sacrament, give due reverence, to be determined by the same rules.

The US says “providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm [standing].”

I would be curious to know the reasons for this norm.

Back to the topic at hand though, maybe the Priest just wants to remind those receving on the tongue about the method of this. Though if so I wonder why he needs to see them in private and can’t just make the announcement at the begining or end of Mass.

 

[benedictgal]

Thanks for posting!

*Translation: *The faithful should receive Communion kneeling or standing, as established by the Episcopal Conference. But when Communion standing, it is recommended that, before receiving the Sacrament, give due reverence, to be determined by the same rules.

The US says “providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm [standing].”

I would be curious to know the reasons for this norm.

Back to the topic at hand though, maybe the Priest just wants to remind those receving on the tongue about the method of this. Though if so I wonder why he needs to see them in private and can’t just make the announcement at the begining or end of Mass.

Still, even the GIRM notes that it is the choice of the communicant (at least the USCCB version of the GIRM). This negates any need for the pastor to publicly state his preference. It should not matter to him how a communicant receives, so long as the communicant is properly disposed to receive.

 

[sam8901]

Thank you for all the responses. If I am reading the information correctly, it would seem as though most of you think that what our priest has done overstepped the bounds, and I am appreciative of the links that show the Church writings on the subject. With that information, I will feel more confident when approaching our priest. This is not a personal issue for me, but I know there are many within our parish for whom it is, and it worries me if a priest is willing to take liberties in any regard.

For those of you wondering as to his motive for this directive, I am unsure as to what it might be. During the H1N1 scare, the bishop of our diocese gave direction that the following things would be discontinued until the flu had passed: holy water in the fonts, holding hands during the Our Father (a practice I’ve never really understood anyway, BTW. I’ve moved to the US from Canada, and my home parish didn’t do any hand holding, but that’s another matter…) shaking hands during the sign of peace, and the chalice. Those things have since been reinstated, and it was after that that our priest made his announcement about communion on the hand being the preferred method. I’ve heard from another parish member that people haven’t been sticking their tongues out far enough, but if people aren’t receiving it properly, wouldn’t it be better to teach them how it should be done, instead directing those who prefer COTT to see him after Mass?

In any event, I thank you for your replies and will be drafting a letter to our priest. May God bless you.

 

[CDNowak]

Still, even the GIRM notes that it is the choice of the communicant (at least the USCCB version of the GIRM). This negates any need for the pastor to publicly state his preference. It should not matter to him how a communicant receives, so long as the communicant is properly disposed to receive.

This is an inhuman view of the priest. I would venture to say that most priests have an opinion on how they preferred to receive and how they prefer to distribute, and, if done responsibly, they are free to express that opinion (like the faithful are free to have and express opinions on which Eucharistic Prayer or Penitential Rite they prefer).

They are not free to impose that opinion, but gagging priests is unreasonable.

 

[benedictgal]

This is an inhuman view of the priest. I would venture to say that most priests have an opinion on how they preferred to receive and how they prefer to distribute, and, if done responsibly, they are free to express that opinion (like the faithful are free to have and express opinions on which Eucharistic Prayer or Penitential Rite they prefer).

They are not free to impose that opinion, but gagging priests is unreasonable.

I don’t think that “gagging them” is unreasonable. It should not matter to them what legitimate mode the faithful choose to receive Holy Communion. The personal preference of the priest should not come into play here.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I’m skeptical about claims that a priest said such a thing as reported in the original post. All things are, of course, always possible yet I am doubtful that a priest actually told an entire parish that if someone wishes to receive on the tongue that they are to “see him after Mass.”
This doesn’t make a whole lot of sense…

 

[Jea9]

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.

I’m still with benedictgal in that the priest should not mention this at all unless it is in private to someone with whom the priest is close. To say this at Mass, whether in the homily or as an announcement, comes across as being “the rule”. The priest has an obligation to uphold the Magesterium’s teaching. It’s no different than the risk run when one of our Apologists on CA gets something wrong; they’re running a HUGE risk because a lot of people take their word as “the Church teaches”.

Maybe it is just me, or maybe I didn’t read the OP correctly, but I don’t see where it has been said what it is exactly that the priest is going to say to those who are supposed to meet with him. Are we not prejudging a bit, possibly? Is it possible that he (or others) is/are encountering difficulty with those, or some of those who prefer COTT; specifically not sticking their tongue out far enough and/or sticking the tongue out, but not opening their mouth enough so that there is a danger of the Host nicking the teeth of the upper jaw and being flicked off the tongue?

Granted that he has no right to bully anyone. Are we not presuming this is about bullying?

Or did I just miss something?

Were I in this parish I would feel bullied. The priest has said “this is how I want you to do it, but if you don’t want to, you need to see me.” Motivation aside, the priest should not be telling the congregation how to receive. Catechisis on receiving PROPERLY is another matter.

This is an inhuman view of the priest. I would venture to say that most priests have an opinion on how they preferred to receive and how they prefer to distribute, and, if done responsibly, they are free to express that opinion (like the faithful are free to have and express opinions on which Eucharistic Prayer or Penitential Rite they prefer).

They are not free to impose that opinion, but gagging priests is unreasonable.

They can have an opinion, but they should not say it during Mass, whether in a homily or in announcement. A lot of lay people are going to take this as “the priest said I have to…” And your analogy is imperfect in that the laity have no say as to which prayers are said, but the priest has the responsibility of being in authority.

 

[sam8901]

I’m skeptical about claims that a priest said such a thing as reported in the original post. All things are, of course, always possible yet I am doubtful that a priest actually told an entire parish that if someone wishes to receive on the tongue that they are to “see him after Mass.”
This doesn’t make a whole lot of sense…

Ergo, the reason for my post - it didnt make a whole lot of sense to me, either. I did have a follow up reply earlier today - you might want to read that.