Communion on the tongue

[RyanL]

mercygate:

It just has to go onto the earth.

In the beginning, God made the earth. And it was good. God made the earth good, and the earth has been sanctified by Him. Any spot would do. That said…

Of course, if you live on the 29th floor of a Manhattan apartment building, taking it to the Church garden (if there is one) would be the way to go.

mercygate, as usual, is right on point. Sanctity has nearly as much to do with how we view it as having to do with as it actually is. Handle the species respectfully and reverently, and if you are able, dispose of it in a respectful and reverent manner. Consecrated ground would be best.

I know I didn’t add much, but (more than anything else) I wanted to put in a plug for the wisdom of mercygate.:bowdown2:

Oh, and if you’re able, hand wash the garment with holy water until the “accidents” of the Precious Blood are gone (color, scent, etc.) - not in a sink, but over a sacrarium (there’s one at your parish). Once the accidents no longer remain, Christ is no longer present, and you can wear your garment again without fear of sacrilege.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[jebojora]

mlchance:

Yes, it could have. One could simply not chew.

Not really an option. Once it’s in your mouth it immediately begins to breakdown because it’s placed on your tongue.

 

[otm]

Fidelis:

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.

I do not make light of the importance. However, there seems to be a feeling that the abuse is due to the fact that we receive in the hand. I disagree; I believe that lack of respect for the Eucharist has nothing so much to do with receipt in the hand as it has to do with poor catechesis. Poor catechesis has to do with the movement, largely from the liberal end of the spectrum, that catechesis needed to be changed after Vatican 2. They felt that there was too much emphasis on doctrine.

It is entirely possible to learn all of the doctrines of the Church and have no, or little faith. It is, however, possible to have great faith and little understanding of doctrine, but that most often will lead to errors such as practical (as opposed to intentional) abuses such as some of the observations within this thread.

Sadly, people connect the (largely) unintentional abuses with receipt in the hand as if that were the cure. The cure, IMHO, is proper catechesis. Christ appeared to have no problem with distribution in the hand. We should not either, given proper catechesis.

As to the issue of abuse, it should be noted that pre Vatican 2 Catholics were often told about those who wished to intentionally abuse the Eucharist, and it is still entirely possible to do so, whether one receives on the tongue or in the hand. Most of the issues however do not seem to be intentional but rather, done by those who simply have no clue.

 

[bear06]

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.

Once again, I prefer to receive on the tongue. That said, you are simply wrong about this. My husband and I were in the vestibule after Communion because one of our children was screaming and my husband, the usher, was getting ready to open the doors and pass out the bulletins. We looked down and right on the floor between us was a Host! Horrified and not quite sure of the protocol and worried about the people who were about to jet out the door before the priest stepping on it, he picked it up and consumed it. Not to gross anyone out but the Host had already been in someones mouth. While I think it’s more easily abused when in the hand, it is quite possible for the same thing to happen when receiving on the tongue.

 

[CindyGia]

bear06:

Once again, I prefer to receive on the tongue. That said, you are simply wrong about this. My husband and I were in the vestibule after Communion because one of our children was screaming and my husband, the usher, was getting ready to open the doors and pass out the bulletins. We looked down and right on the floor between us was a Host! Horrified and not quite sure of the protocol and worried about the people who were about to jet out the door before the priest stepping on it, he picked it up and consumed it. Not to gross anyone out but the Host had already been in someones mouth. While I think it’s more easily abused when in the hand, it is quite possible for the same thing to happen when receiving on the tongue.

OH MY GOODNESS! DO YOU MEAN TO SAY THAT SOMEBODY MIGHT’VE SPIT OUT THE HOLY EUCHARIST RIGHT ONTO THE FLOOR?

HOW TERRIBLE! COULD HAVE BEEN EITHER BY A CHILD OR MAYBE EVEN DONE SPITEFULLY AND SACRILIGIOUSLY.

I THINK THOUGH IT MIGHT’VE BEEN ALRIGHT TO PICK IT UP AND HAND IT TO THE PRIEST. THAT’S WHAT I DID ONE MORNING AT MORNING DAILY MASS. RIGHT THERE ON THE FLOOR WAS A HOST, AND NOT KNOWING WHAT TO DO, I PAUSED, PICKED IT UP AND HANDED IT TO THE PRIEST - WHOM I BELIEVE, CONSUMED IT.

COMMENDABLE THOUGH AT WHAT YOUR HUSBAND DID!
HE DID THE RIGHT THING.

 

[jebojora]

bear06:

Once again, I prefer to receive on the tongue. That said, you are simply wrong about this. My husband and I were in the vestibule after Communion because one of our children was screaming and my husband, the usher, was getting ready to open the doors and pass out the bulletins. We looked down and right on the floor between us was a Host! Horrified and not quite sure of the protocol and worried about the people who were about to jet out the door before the priest stepping on it, he picked it up and consumed it. Not to gross anyone out but the Host had already been in someones mouth. While I think it’s more easily abused when in the hand, it is quite possible for the same thing to happen when receiving on the tongue.

I’m not saying that it couldn’t happen, but to be used for sale on Ebay it was most likely not in anyone’s mouth. I realize it could be but the options for stealing the Host are greater in the hand. It’s easier to palm it and stick in your pocket then get it out of your mouth.

 

[jebojora]

jebojora:

I’m not saying that it couldn’t happen, but to be used for sale on Ebay it was most likely not in anyone’s mouth. I realize it could be but the options for stealing the Host are greater in the hand. It’s easier to palm it and stick in your pocket then get it out of your mouth.

Not to mention, the man who had it on Ebay said he is not Catholic, he went up to receive, consumed the first Host and then got in line again and palmed the second Host. So, we know in this particular case that it was stolen in his hand and not in his mouth.

 

[CindyGia]

jebojora:

Not to mention, the man who had it on Ebay said he is not Catholic, he went up to receive, consumed the first Host and then got in line again and palmed the second Host. So, we know in this particular case that it was stolen in his hand and not in his mouth.

**IDIOT! THAT GUY IS A TOTAL IDIOT! **

 

[bear06]

jebojora:

I’m not saying that it couldn’t happen, but to be used for sale on Ebay it was most likely not in anyone’s mouth. I realize it could be but the options for stealing the Host are greater in the hand. It’s easier to palm it and stick in your pocket then get it out of your mouth.

I said it would be easier but to say that it can’t happen isn’t true. The person who dropped the host could have easily just taken it out of their mouth and let it dry. I certainly hope it was just a matter of someone dropping the Host out of their mouth and not noticing. My church is very unusual in the average age (if you subtract us) is 79 so that is actually likely. That said, I’m highly suspect because my pastor told me it had happened 3 times in the few weeks leading up to our incident.

 

[Bishopite]

Kendy:

Some people seem really offended by others receiving communion on the hand. Why? Why does it matter?

Kendy

Receiving the Eucharist on the tongue is the norm. It has always been that way until recently did the Vatican approve the reception of the Eucharist in the hand. And I’m told, but I don’t have the documentation at hand (sorry no pun intented) to support this, but when one receives in the hand, they are supposed to put their hands together in the form of a cross and bring the body of Christ up to their mouth and not pick it up and place it in their mouth as do most American Catholics.

 

[mlchance]

jebojora:

Not really an option. Once it’s in your mouth it immediately begins to breakdown because it’s placed on your tongue.

No, it doesn’t. I’ve received Communion often enough to know. Unless, of course, the priests I’ve received from haven’t gotten those brand new, quick-dissolving Hosts.

jebojora:

Not to mention, the man who had it on Ebay said he is not Catholic, he went up to receive, consumed the first Host and then got in line again and palmed the second Host. So, we know in this particular case that it was stolen in his hand and not in his mouth.

Which neither discredits the Church’s approval of reception in the hand or demonstrates that the abuse couldn’t have happened another way.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[YADA]

More Catholic than Rome… some have used the term. Made me think about Mass at St. Peter’s…

My husband and I were at Mass with Pope John Paul II in October 2000. The Jubilee Year. Mass in St. Peter’s Square celebrated by the Pope. 50,000 of or closest Catholic friends and relatives received communion that day.

Now it may be that some received on the tongue. I did not witness any. However, of the several thousand around me, all received in the hand. I was amazed that Communion could happen amid what seemed like chaos. I was watchful, afraid that the Blessed Sacrament might fall or … People just moved in Mass to the various places to receive. No aisles, no ushers, no order…

One of the most memorable Masses of a lifetime. Although every encounter with our Lord is a miracle and a wonder…Each and every time, pure Love poured out…:bowdown2:

Pope John Paul II wrote that his preference was reception on the tongue. Personal preference but not bindng and reception in the hand is not less reverent, less Holy or illicit.

 

[Liberian]

JKirk,

Thanks for the clarification. One less thing to get offended over … hooray!

• Liberian

 

[Myangel]

steveandersen:

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

Hygiene issues??? The Priest washes his hands before touching the Body of Christ, we however offer the sign of peace by shaking other peoples hands right before receiving our Lord, HYGIENE???

 

[mlchance]

Myangel:

Hygiene issues???

Unless you’re receiving in the hand and then giving the Host to someone else, there aren’t any. Right?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Myangel:

Hygiene issues??? The Priest washes his hands before touching the Body of Christ, we however offer the sign of peace by shaking other peoples hands right before receiving our Lord, HYGIENE???

Water is poured over the hands of the priest and then he dries them. No soap, no sanitizer…and the water isn’t hot. Anyone who thinks that this is a sufficient guard against germs needs to take a food handlers class to get the real scoop.

 

[otm]

Fidelis:

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.

I was referring to the time after constantine and before the Renaissance. Sorry, I am not a historian, and can’t give you an exact date as to when the Irish monks were introducing a practice of the individual confession, and the opportunity to receive the sacrament more than once in a lifetime. It was not used as a disparaging term.

 

[Myangel]

JKirkLVNV:

Water is poured over the hands of the priest and then he dries them. No soap, no sanitizer…and the water isn’t hot. Anyone who thinks that this is a sufficient guard against germs needs to take a food handlers class to get the real scoop.

Yes but at least he has water, what do you have once you finish shaking the congregation’s hands???

 

[otm]

super64:

Hello,
This comes from www.desertvoice.org

In Christ, now, there is no suffering, but only in the Mystical Body. But there is one place, which I would like to address this morning, where I believe that Our Lord is truly grieved. I want to challenge you in that area: That is, the manner by which we receive Holy Communion. The Church is very clear in Her documents that she desires that we would receive Holy Communion on the tongue and not in the hand. The bishops of America, as well as a few other countries in the world, have allowed Communion in the hand as a dispensation. But the Church is very, very clear that She does not want us receiving Communion in the hand.

Let me explain a little as to why. First of all, to receive is something that is passive. The priest takes Holy Communion because the priest is the one who offers the Victim in sacrifice. Therefore, the one who offers the Victim must also take part in that Victim. But the people of God are to receive Holy Communion. To take the Host from your hand and put It into your
own mouth is to take Communion, not to receive Communion; and so it is an active thing, not a passive thing. The Lord desires to give Himself to you as a gift, not to be taken by you. We need to be very careful that we do not lose the symbolism of what is happening in the Blessed Sacrament.

Also, if you will notice, during Mass after the Consecration, my fingers remain together because of the particles of the Host that are there. When we take Holy Communion in the hand, there are particles of Our Lord that are on our hands and on our fingers. That is why, after Communion, the priest will purify his fingers - because of the particles of the Host. But how often the people of God, after receiving Holy Communion, simply brush the particles
onto the ground and walk on Our Lord. Or they put their hands in their pockets, and Our Lord is right there on their clothing. The abuses that this opens them up to are very grave. Not that anyone is intentionally doing that, but I think it is something that we need to consider exceedingly carefully.

What I always tell people is that you can look forward to the Day of Judgment and ask yourself how you intend to approach Our Lord, because He is your Judge. The same Lord you approach in Holy Communion is the same One you will approach on the Day of Judgment. Do you assume that you will put your hand out to Our Blessed Lord on the Day of Judgment? Is your view of
judgment that you will shake Our Lord’s hand and tell Him how wonderful it is to see Him? Or is your view that you will do great reverence to Our Blessed Lord? My view is that I will be flat on my face - not shaking His hand.

We do not put out our hand to God. Scripture says that God holds us in the palm of His hand. We should not be holding God in the palm of ours. He created us; He made us in His image and likeness. He is the Creator; we are the creature. We must approach Him with the greatest reverence, the greatest respect.

It is always wise to remember that what the Church does and says is not necessarily reflected by every ordained individual. It is obvious from the comments of the priest that he has put his own spin on the issue.

Again, someone wants to make Rome look like they don’t have it together; as if someone coerced Rome into permitting reception in the hand. Rome has given permission, and the world wide norm in reception on the tongue with a specific indult to allow it in the hand.

I wonder if this priest were suddenly transported back in time to the last supper, or to a church 50, 100 or even 150 years after that Last Supper, if he would be upseet by the practice of receiving it in the hand. I suspect if Christ handed him the Eucharist, he wouldnt know what to do.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. And recipeints of the Eucharist are intitled, by the specific permission of Rome, to receive it in the hand. My recollection from years long past is that the Latin, and the Greek, both say that Christ said “take and eat”, not “receive and eat”, so his bit about active and passive don’t really make a lot of sense in the context.

I disagree that the Church is very very clear that they do not want us receiving in the hand; they gave us permission. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that somehow Rome was coerced into permitting what they do not want, or somehow incapable of regulating the liturgy.

 

[otm]

super64:

Part II

If we simply look at the fruit that has been borne by Holy Communion being taken in the hand, it is not good: the loss of reverence for the Blessed Sacrament, the familiarity. Thankfully it is not happening here, but go to most churches and ask yourself if you see people praying before Mass or if they are chatting, goofing around, and talking.

this is a “post hoc ergo propter hoc” arguement. He is presuming that the loss of reverence is due to Communion in the hand. I say that it is due to loss of catechesis, which is well documented. We solved the issue of the chatting before Mass by using a second tabernacle in the main sanctuary (the main tabernacle is in the chapel, where, by the way, we have perpetual adoration). Simple catechesis solved the problem. And the vast majority of the parishoners, including almost all who attend perpetual adoration, receive in the hand.

{QUOTE=supter64] Since we have been receiving Communion in the hand, we have lost sight of the idea of going to Confession, of our own sinfulness, of the reverence we must have for Our Lord. We have made Communion so easy a thing and so nonchalant a thing that people have lost that sense of reverence, of awe, and of respect in the Presence of Our Lord.Again, “post hoc, ergo propter hoc”. It started before reception in the hand was permitted, when we started dumbing down the catechesis.
supter64:

But again, look at what has happened in the last forty years of this particular practice and ask yourself if the fruit it has borne has been good.

To begin with, the permission is not 40 years old. but the radical revision of catechesis is.

I don’t fault the priest for his passion about the Eucharist; would that everyone shared it. But I certainly disagree that Communion in the hand is the issue. The vast majority of people I see receiving the Eucharist in the hand are not abusing the sacrament. The casualness I see is not due to how we physically receive it, but what we have been taught about what we receive.