Communion on the tongue

[Kendy]

mercygate:

I LOVE the Tridentine Mass – but Kendy, you’re right: the silent canon is really distancing. My Latin is very good. And I am very familiar with the TLM (I have carefully studied an instructional video for Priests), but when I attend the TLM, I still have trouble keeping up.

I alternate receiving on the hand/tongue depending on the circumstances, which can include my frame of mind. When I receive in the hand, I break protocol :tsktsk: and kiss the host before I place it in my mouth. (Picked that up from a Dominican hermit-nun where I go on retreat every year.) In Europe, I receive on the tongue because that is their custom.

You are wise to decide that this is not going to be a biggie for you.

You are not allowed the kiss the host? That’s sounds like a great little tradition.

Kendy

 

[Kendy]

Roche42:

Just wondering, what does everyone do when you have no other option but to receive the blessed sacrament from an EMHC, receive it on the tongue still, or on the hand?

Now, what’s the deal with receiving from an EMHC? Oh, so much too learn .

Kendy

 

[mercygate]

Kendy:

You are not allowed the kiss the host? That’s sounds like a great little tradition.

Kendy

I don’t think it is so much a matter of “not being allowed” as it is a matter of simply not going by the book. The “proper” way to receive in the hand is to accept the Host in your non-dominant hand, pick it up with the thumb and forefinger of your dominant hand, and place it reverently in your mouth.

I’m not expecting the liturgy police to pound on my door in the middle of the night and haul me off to the Inquisition any time soon. That said, it is not a practice I would teach to my sixth graders.

 

[Roche42]

Kendy:

Now, what’s the deal with receiving from an EMHC? Oh, so much too learn .

Kendy

Nothing wrong with it, its allowed, some people just prefer to receive from a priest and it seems like some of the EMHC’s at my parish get a bit squeemish when I go to receive on the tongue.

 

[mercygate]

Kendy:

Now, what’s the deal with receiving from an EMHC? Oh, so much too learn .

Kendy

Actually, this is one of the places when I receive in the hand. A post down the thread notes that EMHCs tend to be squeamish about offering the Host on the tongue. I have heard them say that it is almost impossible not to make lip/tongue contact. But the old pros (priests and bishop) where I attend daily Mass never have a problem with that.

The only “issue” I have with receiving on the tongue on weekdays is that at 7:00 a.m., the last thing the priest’s hands have touched before Mass is his after-shave, so you receive Jesus with a dash of Old Spice. Ew.

 

[hurst]

steveandersen:

as for only a preist handling a sacrifice what is the difference between hand or tounge?

Particles often break off in the hand. If it happens on the tongue, then nothing is lost. This is also why priests used to always keep their thumb and forefinger together.

The actions performed by the priest…
He closes his fingers, i.e. the thumb and first finger, after the consecration, because, with them, he had touched the consecrated body of Christ; so that if any particle cling to the fingers, it may not be scattered: and this belongs to the reverence for this sacrament.

Summa Theologica
Whether the actions performed in celebrating this sacrament are becoming?
Reply to Objection 5
newadvent.org/summa/408305.htm

In any case, protocol has been slackened to allow alternatives, but the need for reverence remains.

hurst

 

[mercygate]

hurst:

. . . This is also why priests used to always keep their thumb and forefinger together.

Affectionally known as his “canonicals” because they were canonically the only part of the hand allowed to touch the consecrated Host.

 

[Kendy]

mercygate:

Affectionally known as his “canonicals” because they were canonically the only part of the hand allowed to touch the consecrated Host.

Do you really think Jesus wants us to be this uptight?

Kendy

 

[mercygate]

Kendy:

Do you really think Jesus wants us to be this uptight?

Kendy

Uptight? One man’s ‘meticulous’ is another man’s ‘uptight.’ One man’s ‘relaxed’ is another man’s ‘slovenly.’

The TLM was/is celebrated with the strictest protocol – any deviation from the form was a mortal sin for a Priest (really, it was) – because the Church was protecting its most precious treasure in the best way she knew how.

Maybe it was extreme, but loosening the laces has opened us up to some appalling abuses. Frankly, I do not believe there were no abuses before the Council – I attended a lot of “tobacco auction” Masses – but abuses are easier to spot now because they are conducted out loud and in English.

A Priest today, who prays the Mass with his heart and soul fully recollected, is still offering the perfect Sacrifice.

 

[wisdom_3_5]

Personally, I like the image of the Church feeding the people like a mother feeds her baby. It helps me feel more humble to open my mouth and be fed than to feed myself.

 

[mercygate]

mercygate:

Uptight? Or careful? One man’s ‘meticulous’ is another man’s ‘uptight.’ One man’s ‘relaxed’ is another man’s slovenly.

The TLM was/is celebrated with the strictest protocol – any deviation from the form was a mortal sin for a Priest (really, it was) – because the Church was protecting its most precious treasure in the best way she knew how.

Maybe it was extreme, but loosening the laces has opened us up to some appalling abuses. Frankly, I do not believe there were no abuses before the Council – I attended a lot of “tobacco auction” Masses – but abuses are easier to spot now because they are conducted out loud and in English.

A Priest today, who prays the Mass with his heart and soul fully recollected, is still offering the perfect Sacrifice.

 

[Fidelis]

Let me start out by saying I am one who prefers not to recieve in the hand, and don’t like the practice.

HOWEVER-- It is a fact that this practice (recieving in the hand) is now approved in many places by legitimate authority, including here in the US of A. As an obediant Catholic I am not going to gripe and moan about something that outside my direct power to change. The bishops are the one who have to answer to God for their vocation, as I have to answer for mine.

Having said that, let me tell you why I don’t like the in-the-hand practice. This is with the working assumption that we are talking about the Real Presence of Christ, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, God – His body, blood, soul and divinity in even the smallest particle. Agreed?

My distaste for this practice stems, not from horror stories I have heard --and I’ve heard plenty – but from the abuses of the Blessed Sacrament that I have seen with my own eyes (and no, I’m not looking around like the Communion police: these things happen right in from of me, so it’s impossible *not * to see):

People placing the host in their pocket or attempting to leave the church with the host still in their hand

People clapping the host in their mouth like a cracker

People dusting the “crumbs” from their hands or wiping them on their clothes

People chewing gum and recieving.

People (mostly children) who were given communion who obviously are not Catholic or haven’t made their first Communion not having the least idea what to do with the host til someone notices and makes them consume it.

Couples doing cutsey little rituals where they wait til both have their host, face the altar, hold up their hosts, then entwine arms to give each other their host. I’m not kidding.

The list could be extended, believe me.

Granted, communion on the tongue only would not eliminate all these abuses, but it would make them more difficult to accomplish. For my part, one of the reasons I recieve on the tongue is, in my small way, letting people know that it’s legitimate to do so, and no one has to be pressured into recieving in the hand. Until Catholics regain a sense of the sacred, which arguably has been lost in the last 40 years, the tongue is safer for Our Lord than in the hands of the undercatechized. Anyway, that’s my two cents.

 

[chrisb]

Kendy:

I am a post vatican II baby and I am just now trying to return to church. I will admit that I don’t understand the reasons behind all of the churches tradition but is there possibly a distinction to be made between Sacred Tradition and just regular tradition. I attended a Tridentine mass a few weeks ago and it was the most alienating experience I have ever had. It was not God with us but God removed from us, God not looking at our uglyness. Personally, I can understand why that tradition drove people to protestant churches.

Grace and Peace Kendy,

Alienating is perhaps going to be one of the experiences you’ll likely encounter on your ‘first’ Latin Mass; thay and perhaps ‘awe’ at the sheer majesty of Heaven on Earth. I have heard the same kinds of statements from those who experience their first Orthodox Divine Liturgy, alienating and and sheer awe. I think in a way this also discribes how Moses felt as he knelt before the presence of God at the Burning Bush. Alienation and Awe. Ponder this and ask yourself what is the common experience of all those in Sacred Scripture when they encounter God. How about the on Mt. Tabor?

Liturgy, in my humble opinion, should be an encounter with the Divine, yes God with us. It should be alienating unless you think you are without sin and it should also be awe inspiring and yes even full of thanks and praise. It should be an overwhelming encounter that reorients ourselves toward the Divine as often as we need.

I don’t receive communion in my hand out of lack of reverence, but because I know exactly who I am holding. I get excited just thinking about it .

I have also taken Communion in my hand during the Nuvo Ordo but after experiencing both the Latin Mass and the Orthodox Divine Liturgy I believe that modern man has been overly chavalier in out attitudes toward the Mysteries of our Faith.

I do greatly enjoy the Novu Ordo at the Benedictine Abbey as well but I primarily go there to attend Matins (Morning Prayer). Man I really love how those monks chant.

We really do need to resurrect the ‘art’ of being Catholic Laity. We have really lost so much it’s sad.

Peace and God Bless!

 

[JMJ_Theresa]

I know at my mom’s parish, they have found Eucharistic hosts under pews, in hymn books, under kneelers.

When I learned that, I turned into a “receive on the tongue” proponent.

One Easter, I watched a young woman cup a host into the palm of her hand and walk down the aisle. I’m sure she was just ignorant, but I have prayed for her ever since.

Ironically, in this era of ignorance of the True Presence, communion on the tongue may be more needed than a generation ago.

 

[jimmy]

There is nothing inherently wrong with recieving in the hand. The problem is that it was recieved kneeling on the tongue for over 1500 years in the west and then all of a sudden they remove the altar rails and they say you can recieve in the hand. It is almost like they changed the doctrine. People completely lost respect for the sacrament and now no one goes to confession and they recieve it like it is a potato chip. Now they have been recieving in the hand standing for less than 40 years and it is the norm. The problem in my mind is the lack of respect for the liturgy.

 

[jimmy]

YADA:

In the early church, reception of the Eucharist on the hand was normative. It is possible to receive in a reverent manner, whether it is on the tongue or on the hand. Similarly it is possible to receive irreverently each way.

Some posts imply that to receive the Eucharist on the hand is an inovation that is in opposition to 2000 years of practice and Tradition. That is not the case. Reception on the tongue was a change that was made to combat abuses, not because it was more sacred or more reverent.

St Cyril of Jerusalem [ca. AD 35 - 386]wrote, preached, and or taught the neophytes [those newly received into the Church] on the reception of the Eucharist:

"In approaching, therefore, do not come up with yor wrists apart or your fingers spread, but make of your left hand a throne for the right, since you are abot to receive into it a King. And having hallowed your palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it the “Amen”. Then, cautiously sanctifying your eyes by the the touch of the Holy Body, partake, being careful lest you lose anything of it. For whatever you might lose is clearly a loss to you from one of our own members. Tell me: if someone gave you some grains of gold, would you not hold them with all carefulness, lest you might lose something of them and thereby suffer a loss? Will you not, therefore, be much more careful in keeping watch over what is more precious than gold and gems, so that not a particle of it may escape you?"

Reception on the tongue was the result of abuses like using the Eucharist in a superstitious manner as a talisman or good luck charm or for demonic worship.

There are factions that despise any renewal of the liturgy or change. The Latin language used at Mass prior to Vatican II was an ‘inovation’ that entered into the Tradition, it was a change from the original language(s) used to offer the Mass. At the Last Supper, the institution of the Eucharist, the language used was not latin but aramaic or hebrew. Then it was Greek, the common tongue of the more gentile than jewish Christian Church. Later followed by the official language of the Roman Empire, Latin.

In the early church, reception on the hand was normative. Now we have a choice, both are valid, both are or should be equally reverent. St Cyril certainly thought so.

Like I said in the last post, it is not about innovation, it is about going against the tradition of the Church. The Church gained certain traditions over 1900 years of its history. The liturgy developed in a certain way and then all of a sudden they completely go against that tradition and change everything. Whether latin was the original language of the mass does not matter. What matters is that they developed a tradition that said that is how liturgy is celebrated and then one day they say, that is no longer how liturgy is celebrated. The same thing with the Eucharist. It became the norm that the Eucharist was only recieve kneeling on the tongue and then one day they say, no that is not the way it is done anymore. Someone who wants to recieve kneeling on the tongue is an aberation anymore. They are looked at as this weirdo that is stuck in the 19th century. I have a problem with that.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

jimmy:

and then one day they say, no that is not the way it is done anymore. Someone who wants to recieve kneeling on the tongue is an aberation anymore. They are looked at as this weirdo that is stuck in the 19th century. I have a problem with that.

Not remotely true. A country’s bishops have to obtain permission to implement communion in the hand. If they do so, they cannot deny communion on the tongue if someone wishes to receive that way. If you kneel for communion, you cannnot be accused of disobedience, just as those of us who receive it in the hand shouldn’t be accused of a lack of devotion. Again, John Paul doesn’t seem to paint with as broad a brush as you do:

"This is in no way meant to refer to those who, receiving the Lord Jesus in the hand, do so with profound reverence and devotion, in those countries where this practice has been authorized."

If you don’t want to receive communion in the hand, then don’t receive it that way. It’s really very simple.

 

[jimmy]

JKirkLVNV:

Not remotely true. A country’s bishops have to obtain permission to implement communion in the hand. If they do so, they cannot deny communion on the tongue if someone wishes to receive that way. If you kneel for communion, you cannnot be accused of disobedience, just as those of us who receive it in the hand shouldn’t be accused of a lack of devotion. Again, John Paul doesn’t seem to paint with as broad a brush as you do:

"This is in no way meant to refer to those who, receiving the Lord Jesus in the hand, do so with profound reverence and devotion, in those countries where this practice has been authorized."

If you don’t want to receive communion in the hand, then don’t receive it that way. It’s really very simple.

Excuse me but nothing I said was even close to saying or implying anything false. If you decide to kneel to recieve communion you are looked at as being disobedient and going against the norm of the Church. The bishops have specified that if someone kneels when they go up for communion they are to be instructed on what the norm of the recieving is. If you continue to recieve on your knees you are disobeying the Church.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

chrisb:

Grace and Peace Kendy,

Alienating is perhaps going to be one of the experiences you’ll likely encounter on your ‘first’ Latin Mass; thay and perhaps ‘awe’ at the sheer majesty of Heaven on Earth. I have heard the same kinds of statements from those who experience their first Orthodox Divine Liturgy, alienating and and sheer awe. I think in a way this also discribes how Moses felt as he knelt before the presence of God at the Burning Bush. Alienation and Awe. Ponder this and ask yourself what is the common experience of all those in Sacred Scripture when they encounter God. How about the on Mt. Tabor?

Liturgy, in my humble opinion, should be an encounter with the Divine, yes God with us. It should be alienating unless you think you are without sin and it should also be awe inspiring and yes even full of thanks and praise. It should be an overwhelming encounter that reorients ourselves toward the Divine as often as we need.

I have also taken Communion in my hand during the Nuvo Ordo but after experiencing both the Latin Mass and the Orthodox Divine Liturgy I believe that modern man has been overly chavalier in out attitudes toward the Mysteries of our Faith.

I do greatly enjoy the Novu Ordo at the Benedictine Abbey as well but I primarily go there to attend Matins (Morning Prayer). Man I really love how those monks chant.

We really do need to resurrect the ‘art’ of being Catholic Laity. We have really lost so much it’s sad.

Peace and God Bless!

I feel the same way as Kendy about the TLM…it left me cold. I very much liked the Divine Liturgy at the Byzantine Catholic Church here in our diocese, but perhaps that’s because it was done in English and I could understand it (and hear it! I cannot imagine ever liking the silent canon of the TLM). As much as I did like the Divine Liturgy, I love the austerity of a reverently celebrated Mass of Paul VI…which I fortunately get every Sunday in my parish church.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

jimmy:

Excuse me but nothing I said was even close to saying or implying anything false. If you decide to kneel to recieve communion you are looked at as being disobedient and going against the norm of the Church. The bishops have specified that if someone kneels when they go up for communion they are to be instructed on what the norm of the recieving is. If you continue to recieve on your knees you are disobeying the Church.

Jimmy: You need to search these forums. That’s not true. There was a dubium submitted to the CDW and their ruling was that you could never be accused of disobedience for kneeling for reception. If a priest does that (that’s how we came to have the CDW ruling), he should be reported to his bishop. If a bishop does it or refuses to act on a complaint against a priest, then it should be reported to the Apostolic Nuncio and/or the Congregation for Divine Worship. You can kneel, you can receive on the tongue. The first is protected by a CDW ruling, the latter by the law governing the indult.