Communion on the Tongue

[magnificatlady]

This topic has me thinking about something I noticed while watching the Easter Mass at the Vatican on EWTN. When communion was presented, I noticed a certain priest that although the faithful were holding out their hands, he seemed to only offer the Holy Eucharist to them on the tongue. He didn’t do it in a rude way, he just didn’t give them the choice. It made me smile. I watched the rerun, too.

 

[puzzleannie]

My question is - where are all these other posters from that act as though it is very rare to have communion on the tongue?

probably because they have never seen it, and have never lived in areas where it is done or encouraged, or even allowed. I have about given up unless I know the parish, because outside of my own or the basilica, I never meet up with ministers (even priests or deacons) who know how to administer properly, or no what to do when a communicant stands with mouth open and head raised, and hands folded.

 

[Ockham]

ST. SIXTUS I (115-125). Prohibited the faithful from even touching the Sacred Vessels: “Statutum est ut sacra vasa non ab aliis quam a sacratis Dominoque dicatis contrectentur hominibus…” [It has been decreed that the Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than by those consecrated and dedicated to the Lord.]

POPE ST. EUTYCHIAN (275-283). Forbade the faithful from taking the Sacred Host in their hand.

ST. BASIL THE GREAT, DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH (330-379). “The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in time of persecution.” St. Basil considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.

COUNCIL OF SARAGOSSA (380). It was decided to punish with EXCOMMUNICATION anyone who dared to continue the practice of Holy Communion in the hand. The Synod of Toledo confirmed this decree.

POPE ST. LEO I THE GREAT (440-461). Energetically defended and required faithful obedience to the practice of administering Holy Communion on the tongue of the faithful.

SYNOD OF ROUEN (650). Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege.

SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, AT CONSTANTINOPLE (680-681). Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening the transgressors with excommunication.

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS (1225-1274). “Out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament.” (Summa Theologica, Pars III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8)

COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1565). “The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”

POPE PAUL VI (1963-1978). “This method [on the tongue] must be retained.” (Apostolic Epistle “Memoriale Domini”)

POPE JOHN PAUL II (197. "To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained. (Dominicae Cenae, sec. 11)

“It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another.” (Inaestimabile Donum, April 17, 1980, sec. 9)

Related article: Rethinking Communion in the Hand

latin-mass-society.org/commwhy.htm

 

[Cathryn]

My Pastor only gives First Communion on the tongue at a Communion rail that is placed for this First Communion. This is for both adults and children. Since this is the norm, he wants them to experience COTT. He however tells them after their First Communion they can decide for themselves how they choose to recieve Holy Communion. More and more people in my parish are starting to receive on the tongue.

 

[ChurchTorch]

There are a number of parishes in a number of dioceses that are more liberal than others.

They forget that** communion in the hand is an indult granted to the dioceses of the US by the Holy See and that the norm is communion on the tongue.**

(I personally have run into parishes in both the Archdiocese of Washington, the Archdiocese of Baltimore, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, and the Archdiocese of St Paul where that attitude has been displayed…)

In the US and much of the rest of the world.

The fact that CIH is allowed via indult in no way makes it inferior to COT.

 

[Ockham]

In the US and much of the rest of the world.

The fact that CIH is allowed via indult in no way makes it inferior to COT.

Actually, CITH is inferior to COTT all by itself. It doesn’t matter whether it’s an indult or not. The Church teaches that to receive COTT an extra sign of reverence needs to be made first; COTT while kneeling does not require anything extra. Also, a priest may deny CITH at any time he determines, whereas he can never deny COTT. Church tradition is COTT, whereas CITH is a recent development strictly taught against for centuries.

 

[benedictgal]

In the US and much of the rest of the world.

The fact that CIH is allowed via indult in no way makes it inferior to COT.

No, but, the indult can just as easily be rescinded as it was granted. Furthermore, Redemptionis Sacramentum states that there are instances when CITH should not be employed:

However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to thefaithful.179

You don’t see that kind of restrictive language used for COTT.

 

[otjm]

Actually, CITH is inferior to COTT all by itself. It doesn’t matter whether it’s an indult or not. The Church teaches that to receive COTT an extra sign of reverence needs to be made first; COTT while kneeling does not require anything extra.

I am not convinced that is true. People kneel where COTT is the practice, which is the sign of reverence parallel to the bow when receiving CITH. And since most parishes receive standing in the US, it is not without reason that the rule is that one makes a bow (or other sign of reverence) before receiving. Where one kneels, no other sign of reverence is required because one is already being made.

Also, a priest may deny CITH at any time he determines, whereas he can never deny COTT.

I don’t believe the priest has that power (and I could be wrong); my recollection is that is the decision of the bishop. A bishop does not have to allow CITH but if he does, I don’t believe that filters down to authority on the part of the priest to deny it.

Church tradition is COTT, whereas CITH is a recent development strictly taught against for centuries.

First, thank you for the quotes of various individuals over the centuries.

Second, it all depends on what tradition you are talking about. As has been noted elswhere, the tradition of COTT we are generally speaking of is restricted to the Roman rite (and other rites may use it, but we are talking of the Roman or Latin rite). But as to the Catholic Church, it appears that CITH has a 2000 year history in that it is continuous in at least one of the Eastern rites. So if we are talking about the Church tradition, that is different than the Roman rite tradition.

Further, the evidence is that CITH continued in the Roman/Latin rite for about 1000 years is spite of determinations by various popes. So it has a tradition in the Roman rite stremming from antiquity (and arguably the method Christ gave to the Apostles and the Apostles continued in the Church - He said “Take and eat”; no need for “Take” if it was not in the hand). It is disciplinary, an indult currently, and appears to be the most widely method of receiving in the Roman rite in the US. As a point, multiple popes would not have spoken on the matter if it had not been continuing.

NOTE: when I teach RCIA and we get to practice, I always teach both methods, and I always make clear that CITH is by indult.

 

[choy]

if your hands are not worthy of the Lord, what makes the rest of your body any more worthy?

do we not sin more with our mouths and tongues (lies, hurtful words) than with our hands?

 

[ChurchTorch]

if your hands are not worthy of the Lord, what makes the rest of your body any more worthy?

do we not sin more with our mouths and tongues (lies, hurtful words) than with our hands?

:clapping:
You got that right!

Nor is kneeling to receive any better than bowing and then kneeling to receive where both postures are permitted.

People try to push their personal choices as being objectively superior and they are not. I think that’s why quite a few people who push such positions have credibility issues on liturgical matters.

 

[ChurchTorch]

Actually, CITH is inferior to COTT all by itself. The Church teaches that to receive COTT an extra sign of reverence needs to be made first; COTT while kneeling does not require anything extra.

You’ve provided incorrect information again. Everyone is to give a sign of reverence before they receive communion while standing whether they receive CIH or COT. I receive COT while standing and I reverence both species with a profound bow before receiving as directed by the Church.

Also, a priest may deny CITH at any time he determines, whereas he can never deny COTT. Church tradition is COTT, whereas CITH is a recent development strictly taught against for centuries.

Wrong again. An individual priestly celebrant of the Mass may not rescind such an indult.

Why did you provide this incorrect information?

 

[choy]

:clapping:
You got that right!

Nor is kneeling to receive any better than bowing and then kneeling to receive where both postures are permitted.

People try to push their personal choices as being objectively superior and they are not. I think that’s why quite a few people who push such positions have credibility issues on liturgical matters.

finally someone here who agrees with me

yes, if the Church approves it, why can we (or you) not accept it? for lay people to say one practice is more superior to another when both are approved by the Church seems to be overstepping our authority. Jesus entrusted the Church to the Apostles who then appointed the Bishops we have today. and as i mentioned in another thread, there are several Biblical passages about following your teachers and respecting those who are in authority.

i would suggest those who are staunchly for COTT to write their bishops and petition what they want. if the Bishop or Bishops collectively change their minds, then we all go with it. but if they continue to allow COTH, then we must all accept this teaching and believe one form is no lesser than the other.

 

[otjm]

You’ve provided incorrect information again. Everyone is to give a sign of reverence before they receive communion while standing whether they receive CIH or COT. I receive COT while standing and I reverence both species with a profound bow before receiving as directed by the Church.

I think he was referencing between the EF and the OF; in the OF generally we stand and in the EF generally we kneel.

Wrong again. An individual priestly celebrant of the Mass may not rescind such an indult.

Why did you provide this incorrect information?

A) he is from Canada and I do not profess to know the rules up there. B) Assuming you are correct (and I believe you are), not everyone knows the rules exactly and not all of us have the rules at our fingertips. I do not presume any intent on Ockham’s part to provide incorrect information.

 

[ChurchTorch]

finally someone here who agrees with me

yes, if the Church approves it, why can we (or you) not accept it? for lay people to say one practice is more superior to another when both are approved by the Church seems to be overstepping our authority. Jesus entrusted the Church to the Apostles who then appointed the Bishops we have today. and as i mentioned in another thread, there are several Biblical passages about following your teachers and respecting those who are in authority.

i would suggest those who are staunchly for COTT to write their bishops and petition what they want. if the Bishop or Bishops collectively change their minds, then we all go with it. but if they continue to allow COTH, then we must all accept this teaching and believe one form is no lesser than the other.

I’m not sure if these forums are representative of most “traditionalists” but they largely are of the “traditionalists” I attend the Mass and Divine Liturgy with and that’s too bad.

When someone identifies themselves as a “traditional Catholic” and then makes ignorant comments about things like CIH/COT it reflects poorly on all traditional-minded Catholics.

Someone was very upset at my Eastern parish because they had to receive communion not only from an EMHC but a WOMAN EMHC at a Latin Rite parish. They were so loud and emotional that I finally confronted them. I began by reminding them that no one was forcing them to receive communion. After a bunch of hemming and hawing they conceded that point. Then I asked them about the Mass setting, the number of people, etc. Based on my opinion it seemed like the one EMHC was very much warranted and that they still could have received from the priest had they chosen to.

They finally conceded that the single EMHC was warranted and allowed but that it should have been a man. Pardon me? Where does the Church direct that? That’s just bigotry. They also said they shouldn’t be inconvenienced by having to sit on the other side of the church to receive from the priest. What?

All I could think about is the untold number of time this person had unknowingly supported the (pardon me while I laugh) “liberals” with his odd rants such as the one he was having in front of me.

 

[Ockham]

Why did you provide this incorrect information?

You have posted incorrect information. I’ll give you some time to correct it and apologize for your errors. If you think you are correct then provide original sources to support your propositions.

 

[Apryl]

My Pastor only gives First Communion on the tongue at a Communion rail that is placed for this First Communion. This is for both adults and children. Since this is the norm, he wants them to experience COTT. He however tells them after their First Communion they can decide for themselves how they choose to recieve Holy Communion. More and more people in my parish are starting to receive on the tongue.

I tried to get my priest to do COTT for the First Holy Communion

His response was that it’s not required, and he wasn’t going to set up any parameters that are not already in place

I can see his logic. Doesn’t mean I have to like it.

 

[benedictgal]

.Wrong again. An individual priestly celebrant of the Mass may not rescind such an indult.

Why did you provide this incorrect information?

Perhaps you need to re-read Redemptionis Sacramentum, ChurchTorch:

**If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.179 **

CITH, thus, carries this particular restriction; COTT does not. Furthermore, if Communion is to be distributed via intinction, the Communicant must receive the intincted Host on the tongue, not in the hand. Granted, they may receive CITH, but, not through intinction.

 

[choy]

its only common sense why there is that restriction

its not like you can scoop the Precious Blood with your hand and drink from it. obviously when intincted there is great possibility of spilling the Precious Blood, that is why it must be placed on the tongue

that doesn’t justify that COTT is superior to COTH. only a practical reason when intincted

 

[Ockham]

Further, the evidence is that CITH continued in the Roman/Latin rite for about 1000 years is spite of determinations by various popes. So it has a tradition in the Roman rite stremming from antiquity

Then it is a tradition of disobedience. Can you provide this evidence?