Communion on the tongue

[BlindSheep]

You know, it seems rather presumptuous for the people on this thread to condemn something THE CHURCH allows (not to mention taking such a scornful and uncharitable tone towards those who do it). I guess some here are more Catholic than the pope…

 

[Kendy]

chrisb:

Grace and Peace Kendy,
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?
Peace and God Bless!

I think there is a difference between being awed and alienated. While Moses was awed, God still spoke a language he understood he understood. Fankly, (and I know you guys are going to booed me for this), it’s not awe inspiring to speak to someone in a language they don’t understanding with your back turned; it’s just silly.

Second, I think it takes away from what Christ work in coming to us humbly and tearing the temple veil for us on the cross. While we are not worthy, Christ makes it possible for us to come into His presence with reverence AND affection.

Kendy

P.S. Not saying you can’t receive communion on the tongue if you want to .

 

[Kendy]

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.

I have question about this. The first time, I went back to mass, I tried to talk away holding the host and the usher stopped; he was very angry. I don’t know what he thought I was doing, but I just really excited and I wanted to hold Jesus for a little while. I had every intention of consuming it soon after.

Kendy

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Kendy:

I think there is a difference between being awed and alienated. While Moses was awed, God still spoke a language he understood he understood. Fankly, (and I know you guys are going to booed me for this), it’s not awe inspiring to speak to someone in a language they don’t understanding with your back turned; it’s just silly.

Second, I think it takes away from what Christ work in coming to us humbly and tearing the temple veil for us on the cross. While we are not worthy, Christ makes it possible for us to come into His presence with reverence AND affection.

Kendy

P.S. Not saying you can’t receive communion on the tongue if you want to .

Kendy! Kendy, Kendy, KENDY!!! You are fanning a flame with a gasoline-soaked handkerchief!

The TLM was for centuries the Mass of the Church. It isn’t silly, it cannot BE silly. AND it was loved and reverenced by countless generations of the faithful. It was offered by SAINTS, for pity’s sake! I’m glad it’s no longer the normative Mass of the Church, but I would never denigrate it or disparge it. It leaves me cold, but I sympathize with those who desire it to be offered alongside the Pauline Rite (until they start dumping on the Pauline Rite, that is). Really, kiddo, it isn’t silly.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Kendy:

I have question about this. The first time, I went back to mass, I tried to talk away holding the host and the usher stopped; he was very angry. I don’t know what he thought I was doing, but I just really excited and I wanted to hold Jesus for a little while. I had every intention of consuming it soon after.

Kendy

He suspected that you either didn’t know what to do with the Most Sacred Body or that you were going to do something evil with it. We are to consume it as soon as we’ve said “amen” to the words “Body of Christ.”

 

[YADA]

It is true that receiving on the tongue was true for a very long time. However, the most ancient practice was in the hand. I have received both ways. I have attended the LAtin Mass and Novus Ordo Mass. I do not think that someone who receives on the tongue is a weirdo nor do I think those who receive in the hand are irreverent.

Liturgy needs to mean something. When the meaning is lost or a practice is without meaning and merit a change must be made. Is it to catechise better? That would solve much of the liturgical problem in the church. Review the historical practices and the subsiquent development. Make changes in light of that research. My Liturgy professor said that the church must constantly do this reflection or all liturgy becomes lost to its meaning.

For example [and I hope not contoversial!]: the processing of the Book of the Gospels. It is proper to process the book at the beginning of Mass. However, many Churches also processed it out at the end of Mass. The New GIRM clarified that the book was to be processed in but not out. Why? We come to receive the Word of God and the Eucharist. At the dismissal, we are to carry the Word of God along with the Body and Blood out into the world to do the work of God. We are Christ to the world as he dwells in us. We are not to ‘re-capture’ the word of God back into the book. This was a hard concept fro some at our parish. There was another mass 30 minutes later and the Book needed to be at the back of the Church. Processing the book out was more about transportation then reverenceing the Word of God. By the way, my Liturtgy professor was a very orthodox Holy Cross priest and the above is a paraphrased and shorten version of his ‘why the book is not to be processed out’

A practice [receiving in the hand as described by St. Cyril] that was common and normative in the early church is not without merit and can stand side by side with the practice of receiving on the tongue.

 

[Kendy]

JKirkLVNV:

Kendy! Kendy, Kendy, KENDY!!! You are fanning a flame with a gasoline-soaked handkerchief!

The TLM was for centuries the Mass of the Church. It isn’t silly, it cannot BE silly. AND it was loved and reverenced by countless generations of the faithful. It was offered by SAINTS, for pity’s sake! I’m glad it’s no longer the normative Mass of the Church, but I would never denigrate it or disparge it. It leaves me cold, but I sympathize with those who desire it to be offered alongside the Pauline Rite (until they start dumping on the Pauline Rite, that is). Really, kiddo, it isn’t silly.

Hey, I knew I would get in trouble for that. But honestly, I find it hard to believe that the tradition persisted for so many years. When I was a little girl, my father would tell me about going to Mass in Latin, which he didn’t understand, and how the people in the pews would pronounce things wrong and had no idea what the priest was doing or what he was talking about. These were poor Haitian peasants who couldn’t even read. Why would anyone do that? It’s like the laity don’t even matter.

The Latin Mass I attended is in Woodlawn (a poor, black community in South Chicago). There is a whole community out there right outside their to be reach, but they were only twelve people in this chapel who were clearly NOT from the community (not too many middle class, white people living in that area). The church was in ruin (I guess you can’t support a parish on twelve people). And frankly, I walked away feeling a little offended. These twelve people cared more about participating in an old, comfortable ritual than reaching the thousand of working class, African-American right outside their doorstep. That’s not a church I want to be a part of.

Again, that was the only Latin Mass I have been to, but that and the stories my father has told me have left a pretty negative impression.

Ok, my foot is stuck so deep in my throat, there is no getting it out.

Kendy

 

[jimmy]

JKirkLVNV:

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.

You are wrong. Whether someone said something on this forum or not does not matter. Read what the bishops have said. Here is something for you which says basically what I said.

1. 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.
usccb.org/liturgy/current/chapter4.shtml#sect3

This above paragraph has been understood in different ways by different bishops. Some call it a complete ban others do not. However, in some diocese this is a complete ban of kneeling for the Eucharist. Like I said above, if you kneel they will give you the Eucharist but you will then be catechized about what the proper form is. If you do not stand after that then you are not following what the bishops have given. It becomes disobedience. You are then commiting the sin of disobedience and you are consequently recieving unworthily. Look at the mess this causes.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

jimmy:

You are wrong. Whether someone said something on this forum or not does not matter. Read what the bishops have said. Here is something for you which says basically what I said.

.

Please read this link. They concern the reports to the Holy See that I spoke of and the Holy See’s responses. Hardly a case of “whether someone said something on this forum or not.” Esp. take note of the following quote:

“Indeed, the faithful should not be imposed upon nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly when they kneel to receive Holy Communion”.

catholic.com/library/liturgy/kneeling_1.asp

%between%

 

[steveandersen]

hurst:

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…

well, when I was an alter boy back in the pre-hand, tongue-only days I saw instances of the Host getting stuck on tongues, or chipped against teeth, etc. pieces can fly

It seems to me that since doing things with your hands is more natural and that we’re usually more dexterous with our hands than mouth, the chance of dropping or missing or something else would be much lower using the hands. Ny to mention the hygiene issues

As for a Latin mass
I’ve never been to one
Part of me thinks that it must have been interesting that in any church in any place in the world you could hear the same thing
But when I listen to the words (when they are not drowned out by music but that is another story) I’m so glad that it is in a language I can understand

 

[otm]

hurst:

However, one cannot judge others in this matter because the Church has allowed this practice via dispensation for the past 30 years or so, in spite of the fact that how that dispensation came about is itself an issue of contention.

It is interesting that the only contention is coming from people who don’t like it. Given that they are not required to receive that way, the only other logical conclusion is that they are uber-Catholic; they are more Catholic than Rome. The Church has a history of practices allowed in only one fashion, and another fashion coming from the congregation instead of Rome causing Rome to change the way we do things: a prime example is Reconcilliation in the Dark Ages.

 

[otm]

chrisb:

Grace and Peace be with you all,

Little by little we have bartered away what is Sacred in our Tradition as a means to appease Protestantism and the West. Vatican II was in a lot a ways a garage sale of our all that was held Sacred for almost 2000 years. It is a real shame which is why I am at a Tridentine Parish and seriously questioning the Papacy for Orthodoxy who appear to take the Sacred Traditions of our Church seriously.

I hope I have not offended anyone, that was not my intention.

Peace and God Bless.

Perhaps a better understanding of what is Tradition in the Church, and what is tradition, would help.

 

[otm]

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.

Why is it that the Church is lauded for having rules for a long period of time, and then when those rules change, people don’t want to follow them?

When the rule was that everyone kneel for Communion, everyone did. the norm - the rule - is that Communion is to be standing. I can understand that people are “used” to kneeling, that it “feels” more reverent. But the only reason that people insist on kneeling when the norm is standing is that they choose to follow their feeling instead of the norm - the rule - of the Church. and that is disobedience. It is not punishable disobedience, as one cannot be refused Communion, but it is disobedience none the less.

I wonder how many people who insist that they kneel to receive are the same people who are quick to point out “liturgical abuse”, someone else not following a rule they approve of? None, I am sure, of course!

 

[christaddict]

Whatever way it is, we should be extremely careful about the bits left, if any, on the hand. For Christ is present there, no matter what the quanitity is.(You might have noticed the priest doing it and collecting the bits back into the chalice, for they are careful too)

That’s the reason why I prefer to receive on the tongue.

 

[jebojora]

Another issue is people who come forward with evil intentions.

Right after Pope John Paul II died the Host showed up on Ebay that he had consecrated. Now that could have never happened if we could only receive on the tongue.

Also, one time I saw a young mother go up to receive, she had a child about 3 years old with her. As they were returning down the isle the child was hanging on her begging for a piece of the Host…as if it was a cookie. Her mother broke off some and gave it to her.

Someone in the Philapeanes posted one time about how lay people in her church have to watch communicants to make sure the Host is not removed from Church. She said some people who belong to the Occult take the Body of Christ for desecration.

I realize that this is not what most people are doing and that these are a few (I hope it’s only a few) extreme cases.

For myself, I am a convert and in my second marriage. I could not receive until after my husband had his marriage annulled and we had our marriage blessed. I sat for almost 4 years weekly and could not receive but prayed the prayer of “spiritual communion” in the Pieta. When the day came that I finally could receive again…I just couldn’t take it in my hand. After waiting so long and desiring Him so much…I just seemed wrong for me. It’s His sacred body and for me it should not be held in my worthless hands.

I do not, however, judge or look ascance at people who do. That’s not my business and they are doing nothing wrong. One woman told me that after so many years of only being able to receive on the tongue, she felt honored to be able to touch the Host. So, its a blessing either way.

 

[PROUD_2_B_RC]

+JMJ+

I think I am going to have sit this one out this time,because as some of you already know I can get um,heated!

God bless you and Mary keep you!

P.S.After reading my own posts yesterday I just want to say I found my self getting away from one important thing recieveing PERIOD!I think Jesus Christ is just happy that we recieve at all.That we come to see him!I believe in recieveing on the tongue and if he wants only that way it will happen but right now as thistle stated in the other thread the Church has spoken.Big P.S.,huh!
God bless you and Mary keep you!

 

[thistle]

+JMJ+

I think I am going to have sit this one out this time,because as some of you already know I can get um,heated!

God bless you and Mary keep you!

P.S.After reading my own posts yesterday I just want to say I found my self getting away from one important thing recieveing PERIOD!I think Jesus Christ is just happy that we recieve at all.That we come to see him!I believe in recieveing on the tongue and if he wants only that way it will happen but right now as thistle stated in the other thread the Church has spoken.Big P.S.,huh!

    God bless you and Mary keep you!

Forgive me if I pressed you too hard on that but you know the point I was making. For your information I actually receive on the tongue.

 

[Fidelis]

otm:

It is interesting that the only contention is coming from people who don’t like it. Given that they are not required to receive that way, the only other logical conclusion is that they are uber-Catholic; they are more Catholic than Rome.

Actually, that is not the only logical reason. It may be that they tend to be more informed about their Faith than those who are performing the abuses mentioned in this thread and feel duty bound to say something about it. Nobody has said it is forbidden, only abused. This is impossible to contest, and given the fact 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-- some think this is pretty important.

The Church has a history of practices allowed in only one fashion, and another fashion coming from the congregation instead of Rome causing Rome to change the way we do things: a prime example is Reconcilliation in the Dark Ages.

Which “Dark Ages” are those? That is a term usually used by non-Catholics to disparage the entire Middle Ages as a superstitious fog of unthinking boors --a time that gave us intellectual giants like St. Thomas Aquinas.

 

[PROUD_2_B_RC]

+JMJ+

It is not you who needs to apologize it is I.I was the one aurguing and judging.Be holier than thou,something I most certainly should not be because I aint holier than any other person out there.So please forgive me.
So you were right in pressing me so hard,you defended what was right,because the Church has spoken and to recieve on the hand is permitted.
God bless you and Mary keep you!

 

[thistle]

+JMJ+

It is not you who needs to apologize it is I.I was the one aurguing and judging.Be holier than thou,something I most certainly should not be because I aint holier than any other person out there.So please forgive me.
So you were right in pressing me so hard,you defended what was right,because the Church has spoken and to recieve on the hand is permitted.
God bless you and Mary keep you!

God bless you too.