Communion on the Tongue

[GwenL]

Our priest also highly discourages COTT. During RCIA, he taught that COTH was the method to use, and never mentioned COTT.

During this latest round of flu hysteria, he also told people not to receive on the tongue.

I plan to receive on the tongue (starting Easter Vigil!).

 

[otjm]

Interesting. Thank you. I wonder if it has ever been a part of the Latin Rite…

Not that I know of, but perhaps as the early Church was sorting itself out, and before the rights were necessarily clearly divided, it might have been possible. I ahve seen nothing to indicate that it was, however. Perhaps Aramis or Malphono may know, as they are more familiar with Eastern rites.

 

[benedictgal]

Our priest also highly discourages COTT. During RCIA, he taught that COTH was the method to use, and never mentioned COTT.

During this latest round of flu hysteria, he also told people not to receive on the tongue.

I plan to receive on the tongue (starting Easter Vigil!).

That is not his right to say. It is your right to receive COTT. In fact, the Congregation for Divine Worship stated that dioceses cannot impose CITH on anyone, regardless of the flu hysteria. It is the right of the faithful to receive COTT. CITH, few people realize, is not the universal norm. COTT is. CITH is an indult that can be rescinded at any time. You need to inform the Chancery of the priest’s statements because he is, with all due respect wrong and is violating both the GIRM and RS. Both documents, along with statements from the CDWDS, affirm that the faithful have the right to either COTT or CITH.

 

[Melissa]

Actually, yes, it would be a problem as it is much more difficult to receive from the Cup at the rail.

Not really. I was formerly Episcopalian, and at one of the parishes that I was a member of, the practice was to use a communion rail and everyone received both species (let’s leave aside the validity aspect … I’m merely addressing the logistics). What happened was quite simple–minister 1 came along the rail from the right end to the left end, and then minister 2 – about 3-4 people behind minister 1-- came along the rail with the cup. When they got to the end, they would each take a few steps back and walk back to the far right before moving along the rail again (instead of merely reversing direction).

So, in a Catholic Mass, if the desire was to offer both species and use a rail, it seems pretty doable–have the priest with the Host and a deacon with the Cup. The only difficulty I could see would be with smaller children whose heads just clear the rail (some of your shorter 7-9 year olds), but if there’s a will there would be a way. As far as time–my parish still uses the rail, and it honestly doesn’t take any longer (though I’m flummoxed as to what the all-fire rush is) for the congregation to come up, kneel and wait, and then go back than it does for other parishes I’ve visited where it’s a constantly-moving line. In fact, it might even be quicker, because we use fewer ministers at the rail than I’ve seen used without the rail.

 

[sabriner]

There have been enough studies about the bacteria, etc found in the mouth that it is possibly debatable that the tongue is any cleaner than the hand.

If that’s the case, how are we ever going to consume the Host without ever putting it in our mouths?! lol

(not being malicious here… just an odd, funny thought). I’m glad this thread hasn’t turned as ugly as others I’ve seen on the same topic (let’s keep it this way… hahah)

 

[sabriner]

Real Presence is a foundational dogma of the Church and I cannot believe that you spent 18 years in Catholic education and never heard of it!
What exactly were you told that Holy Communion was?

I can’t believe it either. The devil really did have his chance spreading lies like this for a long time but the youth are coming back and hungry (literally…?) for the Eucharist!

I don’t know. I don’t remember being told that Holy Communion was anything. I’m pretty sure I was told at least once… probably, maybe. And, honestly, even though I wasn’t the most noble person, I nearly always payed attention in class…

 

[roadsend]

…
So, in a Catholic Mass, if the desire was to offer both species and use a rail, it seems pretty doable–…

I have received COTT along with the Precious Blood by intinction at the rail while attending an Anglican Use Catholic Mass in San Antonio.
The Ciborium had cup in its center where the Host was dipped prior to placing it on the tongue.
No EMHCs were required or utilized in this process.

 

[karennascargo3]

In what diocese is it that a priest would actively discourage COTT?
How does he highly discourage it?

Father has asked all leadership and teachers to tell the parishioners in their meetings/classes that he wants only COTH.

Having attended Mass said by a priest who was later convicted in the 1980’s of sexually abusing teenage boys, I don’t think you want to go there…

You lost me. What does the sexual abuse scandles have to do with Communion?

On another note…
I have a question. Since the species are the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ and, since it is under His consecration, protection, love and mercy, then wouldn’t He protect all partakers from viruses/germs/etc. in connection with His body and blood?

Wouldn’t protection seem just as realistic, probable, (as well as necessary) than bread and wine physically becoming His body and blood, which we have no problem believing. How could sin attach itself in any manner to the Eucharist?

 

[bmadamsberry]

Father has asked all leadership and teachers to tell the parishioners in their meetings/classes that he wants only COTH.

You lost me. What does the sexual abuse scandles have to do with Communion?

On another note…
I have a question. Since the species are the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ and, since it is under His consecration, protection, love and mercy, then wouldn’t He protect all partakers from viruses/germs/etc. in connection with His body and blood?

Wouldn’t protection seem just as realistic, probable, (as well as necessary) than bread and wine physically becoming His body and blood, which we have no problem believing. How could sin attach itself in any manner to the Eucharist?

Yes and no. I have NEVER heard of ANYONE getting sick because of receiving COTT or because of receiving the blood from the chalice. I think that people that worry about it have little faith.
However, I can’t blame people for being practical. Though the Body and Blood of Christ is amazing, we shouldn’t stoop to the level of superstition regarding it. What I think is that many diseases that could be passed aren’t because Christ keeps it from being passed, but that it is possible that he doesn’t stop all of them… but then again, I’m the opposite of a germ freak, so it doesn’t bother me when someone receives from the chalice right before me and they’re coughing up a lung.

 

[benedictgal]

Father has asked all leadership and teachers to tell the parishioners in their meetings/classes that he wants only COTH.

That is not for the priest to decide. The faithful have a right to receive COTT or CITH. Rome has gone through great lengths and has written stern letters to those who would mandate one form, in most cases CITH. The priest needs to be reminded that the faithful have the right to receive COTT.

 

[otjm]

You lost me. What does the sexual abuse scandles have to do with Communion?

It was a response to another thread, about the unworthiness of the recipient’s hands as to receiving CITH, and a reference to the holiness of the priest.

And yes, I thoroughly understand the “alter Christus” and the issue of personal sinfulness (or not) of the priest.

The comment I was responding to was essentially: "Who among us, other than the consecrated priest is worthy to touch…

In one sense, no one is “worthy”, but the issue is not about touching but rather receiving. None of us is worthy to receive, but Christ makes us worthy through his ultimate sacrifice.

Much has been made about the consecration of the hands of the priest; popular piety was that it was done so that he could touch the Host. It was done as a sign that as he held the Host, he (through the action of Christ through him) consecrated the Host. But the popular piety was that no one else could touch the Host because only the priest’s hands were consecrated.

That makes no theological sense when one realizes that from the beginning fo the Church and for about 10 centuries, people received CITH (and not exclusively, COTT also being an acceptible means of receiving). But personal piety has a tendency to trump facts in our minds and emotions.

NOTE: I am not suggesting that CITH is in any way superior to COTT. It is just that factually, lay people have handeled the Eucharist in the past and it was perfectly acceptible. The issue of personal worthiness vs. worthiness of the priest and consecrated hands seems to have arisen after COTT was made the only mode of receiving.

 

[onmyknees]

Having attended Mass said by a priest who was later convicted in the 1980’s of sexually abusing teenage boys, I don’t think you want to go there…

People in the Church were legitimately receiving in the hand into the 10th century in the Roman rite.

otjm,

The priests are in persona Christi! When they receive the sacrament of holy orders they receive the indelible mark of priesthood forever. Yes, they are human like the rest of us. We are all sinners but when the priests sins it does not affect grace.

From the catechism.

It is the same priest, Christ Jesus, whose sacred person his minister truly represents. Now the minister, by reason of the sacerdotal consecration which he has received, is truly made like to the high priest and possesses the authority to act in the power and place of the person of Christ himself.

This presence of Christ in the minister is not to be understood as if the latter were preserved from all human weaknesses, the spirit of domination, error, even sin.

 

[onmyknees]

quote otjm
That makes no theological sense when one realizes that from the beginning fo the Church and for about 10 centuries, people received CITH (and not exclusively, COTT also being an acceptible means of receiving). But personal piety has a tendency to trump facts in our minds and emotions.

otjm,

I think it was a very good thing when the Church decided to give communion on the tongue because it is just so much more reverent! We are receiving God! It is not just personal piety that people like to receive communion of the tongue. I came back to the Church because of the Eucharist. Now whenever I see someone receiving Jesus Christ in their hand or the ministers just dolling Him out like they are dealing out cards it makes me cry.

 

[otjm]

otjm,

The priests are in persona Christi! When they receive the sacrament of holy orders they receive the indelible mark of priesthood forever. Yes, they are human like the rest of us. We are all sinners but when the priests sins it does not affect grace.

From the catechism.

It is the same priest, Christ Jesus, whose sacred person his minister truly represents. Now the minister, by reason of the sacerdotal consecration which he has received, is truly made like to the high priest and possesses the authority to act in the power and place of the person of Christ himself.

This presence of Christ in the minister is not to be understood as if the latter were preserved from all human weaknesses, the spirit of domination, error, even sin.

Yes, I sort of figured that part out something like about 55 years ago in grade school religion class. I don’t diasagree with it. I simply responded that the priest, per his ordination, is not set aside to touch the Host and we who are not ordained cannot or should not. I understand how people feel, but that is reducing some issues to emotional issues and presuming that the emotions determine right or wrong. It is a disciplinary matter; people in the first half of the Church could receive in the hand or on the tongue. When they were forbidden to, it was a disciplinary matter; it is still one and is by indult and so can be withdrawn.

Certain people react strongly against CITH and make all sorts of conclusions which are not necessarily supported by facts. On the other end of the spectrum, some people react strongly against COTT and they too are wrong as they are not supported by facts. It is a matter of personal preferance and should not have to be justified (either way) to anyone. Nor should either method be attacked on the basis that one prefers one method as opposed to the other.

 

[otjm]

quote otjm
That makes no theological sense when one realizes that from the beginning fo the Church and for about 10 centuries, people received CITH (and not exclusively, COTT also being an acceptible means of receiving). But personal piety has a tendency to trump facts in our minds and emotions.

otjm,

I think it was a very good thing when the Church decided to give communion on the tongue because it is just so much more reverent! We are receiving God! It is not just personal piety that people like to receive communion of the tongue. I came back to the Church because of the Eucharist. Now whenever I see someone receiving Jesus Christ in their hand or the ministers just dolling Him out like they are dealing out cards it makes me cry.

I fail to see why it would make you cry; one of the Fathers of the Church wrote about making the hand a throne upon which sits Our Lord. I have not heard anything about either method that has been more profound nor any statement that has been more reverent. Either method can be done reverently or irreverently, and most of that issue is about catechesis, not about the method itself.

And I have never seen a priest, deacon or EMHC “dolling Him out like they were dealing cards”; perhaps because I happen to be in a parish with 24 hour Perpetual Adoration for something like 15 years. I have seen them distributing it reverently; so also the Trappist Abbey where I attend Mass occasionally. And as a youth in the 50’s and early 60’s I served for a pastor who would go down the line distributing on tongues as fast as he could possibly move. I didn’t think that was particularly reverent then, and I still don’t.

Much of what we react to is based on prejduices we have before we even view; and those prejudices cans skew our view of the actual facts. I don’t know your parish and it may well be one where things are slipshod, casual, and totally missing the mark. Or it could be one in which you see people “dolling out” the Host, and someone else may see those same people as being reverently distributing it. Same facts, different conclusions because of innate prejudices. One person sees it as irreverent; the next one sees it as reverent for the same action. I don’t know whether your observations are prejudiced or not, but I certainly could understand if they were.

 

[bmadamsberry]

The issue of people receiving the Eucharist in the hands until the 12th century (the romanesque period, which saw the widespread introduction of communion rails) is an annoying one. There is NO clear beginning for when people began receiving in the hand, there is only a clear ending (like I said, 12th century). Therefore any statements about it being the “oldest” practice or whatnot are unfounded. Unless, of course, you have documentation to show me otherwise.

 

[otjm]

The issue of people receiving the Eucharist in the hands until the 12th century (the romanesque period, which saw the widespread introduction of communion rails) is an annoying one. There is NO clear beginning for when people began receiving in the hand, there is only a clear ending (like I said, 12th century). Therefore any statements about it being the “oldest” practice or whatnot are unfounded. Unless, of course, you have documentation to show me otherwise.

Proving a negative is impossible. There is no known documentation of COTT being the method of the earliest Church, either. The earliest documentation of CITH is not done in a way to indicate that it was an innovation. I don’t recall that I said that it was the earliest; it would appear that both existed in early times and there does not appear to be any evidence that either one was exclusive at the beginning.

 

[dusza]

If I may I’d like to throw something into the discussion. If you were assured that it’s absolutely OK to receive in the hand, in other words that it’s an additional gift God is granting you (touching God with your hands), would you still refuse it?

(Hmm, this could be a poll)

 

[bmadamsberry]

Proving a negative is impossible. There is no known documentation of COTT being the method of the earliest Church, either. The earliest documentation of CITH is not done in a way to indicate that it was an innovation. I don’t recall that I said that it was the earliest; it would appear that both existed in early times and there does not appear to be any evidence that either one was exclusive at the beginning.

Wow… why did you think that I was talking about you, or talking about you specifically? I was just letting people know that just because it changed from hand to tongue doesn’t mean that it didn’t go from tongue to hand to tongue.

 

[otjm]

Wow… why did you think that I was talking about you, or talking about you specifically? I was just letting people know that just because it changed from hand to tongue doesn’t mean that it didn’t go from tongue to hand to tongue.

Wow?

Relax, I didn’t take it personally. I think we are both addressing the same thing and I wasn’t intending to dispute you, but simply comment on your comment.