Denied reception on the tongue

[Don_Ruggero]

Children should be taught that receiving both ways is acceptable.

Would parents be just as guilty as the EMHC if ( if there is no valid excuse) when the parents insist a child receive only one way?

I ask because I know some parents that insist thier children only recieve one way,( without any extenuating circumstances to warrant this…).Or do parents have authority over church teaching about this?

You are correct. Children should be taught that all the approved methods of receiving the Eucharist are proper. This should be part of their catechesis and verified by examination of the child.

And the decision as to how to receive is properly the child’s decision – not the parent’s. They should not be making that decision for their children.

Now, having said that, as parish priest, I always said on the other hand that the decision about the child receiving from the chalice should be the parent’s and not simply the child’s…if the parent did not want the child to receive from the chalice, the child should not. If the child wanted to receive the Host in the way opposite of the way the parent did, that, however, should be respected.

Parents do an incredible disservice to their child(ren) when they say that one method of receiving is right and another is wrong or that one is preferred and another is not. This is simply wrong.

While a parent could say that the child, while underage, could not receive from the chalice, it would however be terribly incorrect for that parent to say, for example, it was better to abstain from receiving both species on the grounds that receiving only the Host was more traditional. That would also be wrong…even looking only to the theology of sign alone, without the other considerations, shows receiving under both species preferable to receiving under one species.

That is the sort of things that need to be corrected in catechesis and by the homilies of the priest. Both parent and child are each directly under the pastoral care of the parish priest.

In most of the instances where I have seen this sort of thing occur concerning administration of Communion, it is because of a misunderstanding and not because of ill will.

The modality of receiving is, literally, as nothing compared to actually receiving the sacrament. If one is presented with a situation where one has to receive in a non-preferred manner, it is something to offer up, receive the Eucharist, and then find the resolution AFTER the Mass…not in the midst of it.

Presuming, of course, the person is not thereby put in actual danger…such as if the minister is mistakenly trying to give a regular Host to a person in need of a low Gluten Host. That is a different issue.

Ministers attempting to distribute the Eucharist have my absolute sympathy. Today it is getting more complex as one accommodates those in need of low Gluten hosts as well chalices unaffected by cross-contamination for those who cannot tolerate even the low Gluten host and must receive from the chalice alone – and a chalice not exposed to the commingling rite.

For years, I was in an assignment where we had people from everywhere approaching for Communion. In Europe, we have a distinct gesture for non-communicants coming forward in the Communion procession to receive a blessing. The Americans, on the other hand, adopted a gesture which was not infrequently used by Eastern Christians in the posture they assumed when they came forward for Communion at a Latin Rite service…which resulted in the risk of not giving Communion to an Eastern Catholic who should receive or giving Communion to a non-Catholic who was trying to convey they only wanted a blessing. One had to be on one’s toes.

Verbal communication at the Communion station is very difficult. First, you’re not expecting it. Often enough there is music playing in the background. Many of us are older and hear less well. The person is typically speaking softly…and, one can only hope, in a language you can understand.

It is one thing if someone receiving asks me, in French, if I could see their mother in the wheelchair at the back receives Eucharist; gladly. If the request is made in Russian…well, all I can do is shrug my shoulders since I don’t understand Russian.

Finally, my lived reality as a priest is that many more people today receive in the hand than they do on the tongue. Just because something is a norm does not mean that is what most people actually do, as I see every time I am the Presider at a Mass with a congregation.

 

[alphomega]

In the US, the instruction is to be given on the hand, it is not the exception. On the tongue is more of the exception, because if the communicant wants to, then it will be given on the tongue.

This video should clear things up. The O.P’s. specific concerns are addressed staring at 3:30.
youtube.com/watch?v=Ap1KL2D5ae4

The child should be taught that he/she should be submissive to the Church and in practice, to the priest of the parish, especially in the area of Sacraments and liturgy. This is the general principle of thing.

It seems Cardinal Arinze is saying that the Priests are the ones needing to be “submissive”

should he/she come to a parish where the priest decided that receiving is only on the hand.

According to Cardinal Arinze the Priest has no such authority to deny anyone who is properly disposed to receive on the tongue standing or kneeling. I have not seen, heard, or read anything that indicates either Cardinal Sarah (the current Prefect Emeritus of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments) or the Popes has altered this.

 

[Rosebud77]

I think “i don’t do that, hold out your hand or I will bless you” pretty much qualifies as denied. What if the child had stood there insisting on communion on the tongue? The EMHC would deny it to her.

And another thing, EMHC **cannot **give a blessing in the communion line! This EMHC seems very poorly trained.

This is definitely something to talk to the pastor about.

The OP may also want to instruct her child to get in the communion line with the priest in the future and/or what to do if this scenario happens again.

Am I right in that he actually tried to part the child’s hands?

 

[mommy_k]

You are correct. Children should be taught that all the approved methods of receiving the Eucharist are proper. This should be part of their catechesis and verified by examination of the child.

And the decision as to how to receive is properly the child’s decision – not the parent’s. They should not be making that decision for their children.

Now, having said that, as parish priest, I always said on the other hand that the decision about the child receiving from the chalice should be the parent’s and not simply the child’s…if the parent did not want the child to receive from the chalice, the child should not. If the child wanted to receive the Host in the way opposite of the way the parent did, that, however, should be respected.

Parents do an incredible disservice to their child(ren) when they say that one method of receiving is right and another is wrong or that one is preferred and another is not. This is simply wrong.

While a parent could say that the child, while underage, could not receive from the chalice, it would however be terribly incorrect for that parent to say, for example, it was better to abstain from receiving both species on the grounds that receiving only the Host was more traditional. That would also be wrong…even looking only to the theology of sign alone, without the other considerations, shows receiving under both species preferable to receiving under one species.

That is the sort of things that need to be corrected in catechesis and by the homilies of the priest. Both parent and child are each directly under the pastoral care of the parish priest.

In most of the instances where I have seen this sort of thing occur concerning administration of Communion, it is because of a misunderstanding and not because of ill will.

The modality of receiving is, literally, as nothing compared to actually receiving the sacrament. If one is presented with a situation where one has to receive in a non-preferred manner, it is something to offer up, receive the Eucharist, and then find the resolution AFTER the Mass…not in the midst of it.

Presuming, of course, the person is not thereby put in actual danger…such as if the minister is mistakenly trying to give a regular Host to a person in need of a low Gluten Host. That is a different issue.

Ministers attempting to distribute the Eucharist have my absolute sympathy. Today it is getting more complex as one accommodates those in need of low Gluten hosts as well chalices unaffected by cross-contamination for those who cannot tolerate even the low Gluten host and must receive from the chalice alone – and a chalice not exposed to the commingling rite.

For years, I was in an assignment where we had people from everywhere approaching for Communion. In Europe, we have a distinct gesture for non-communicants coming forward in the Communion procession to receive a blessing. The Americans, on the other hand, adopted a gesture which was not infrequently used by Eastern Christians in the posture they assumed when they came forward for Communion at a Latin Rite service…which resulted in the risk of not giving Communion to an Eastern Catholic who should receive or giving Communion to a non-Catholic who was trying to convey they only wanted a blessing. One had to be on one’s toes.

Verbal communication at the Communion station is very difficult. First, you’re not expecting it. Often enough there is music playing in the background. Many of us are older and hear less well. The person is typically speaking softly…and, one can only hope, in a language you can understand.

It is one thing if someone receiving asks me, in French, if I could see their mother in the wheelchair at the back receives Eucharist; gladly. If the request is made in Russian…well, all I can do is shrug my shoulders since I don’t understand Russian.

Finally, my lived reality as a priest is that many more people today receive in the hand than they do on the tongue. Just because something is a norm does not mean that is what most people actually do, as I see every time I am the Presider at a Mass with a congregation.

Thank you Father for your complete answer.

I asked this question because a family insists thier children receive on the tongue at Sunday mass, kneel, and so forth and they have snapped fingers to remind children to kneel… At school mass the same children have a different preferred posture, in the hand without kneeling when the parents are not there. When the parents are at school mass, they resume Sunday posture. I am a EMHC, not just a nosy person…

I know though, that a person does not have to recieve the same way consistantly.

 

[Adonia]

This is totally ridiculous that the EMHC refused to give your children the Holy Eucharist on the tongue. Good grief, what is this world coming to? Before Vatican II everyone received on the tongue (while kneeling no less!).

 

[Voltrael]

A lot of tangents in this thread. I think the main point in response to the original concern is that the Eucharistic Minister was wrong to insist on reception using hands and that the parent should in a fully diplomatic manor discuss this with the Pastor.

Edit: And I want to say that parents should be able to teach their kids how to do things as long as it is within the teachings of the church. Reception on the tongue is the traditional method for communion, so why shouldn’t it be taught as the preferred method for children? My wife, a Catholic convert, prefers that she and our daughter be veiled while mass is going on. This is a more traditional method for women, and I don’t see anything wrong with teaching that to our daughter (as an example).

 

[pianistclare]

Am I right in that he actually tried to part the child’s hands?

That is what she said, but it would seem a EMHC would have to put down the ciborium to do this. Highly unlikely.
But, we weren’t there.

 

[pianistclare]

A lot of tangents in this thread. I think the main point in response to the original concern is that the Eucharistic Minister was wrong to insist on reception using hands and that the parent should in a fully diplomatic manor discuss this with the Pastor.

Edit: And I want to say that parents should be able to teach their kids how to do things as long as it is within the teachings of the church. Reception on the tongue is the traditional method for communion, so why shouldn’t it be taught as the preferred method for children? My wife, a Catholic convert, prefers that she and our daughter be veiled while mass is going on. This is a more traditional method for women, and I don’t see anything wrong with teaching that to our daughter (as an example).

I don’t believe anyone has said that they couldn’t.
.

 

[Voltrael]

That is what she said, but it would seem a EMHC would have to put down the ciborium to do this. Highly unlikely.
But, we weren’t there.

Could have held the ciborium in one hand and tried to urge the hands into the right position with the other.

 

[Reuben_J]

And I want to say that parents should be able to teach their kids how to do things as long as it is within the teachings of the church. Reception on the tongue is the traditional method for communion, so why shouldn’t it be taught as the preferred method for children? My wife, a Catholic convert, prefers that she and our daughter be veiled while mass is going on. This is a more traditional method for women, and I don’t see anything wrong with teaching that to our daughter (as an example).

Fair enough post.

It should not be taught as all ends all; that it is the preferred method and nothing else.

That would be a wrong teaching and if a child will to live up with that knowledge, he/she will not know that it could be received in the hand. So they must be given full information so that they will have balanced knowledge.

The letter by Pope Paul IV in 1969 to the presidents of the various Conferences of Bishops specifically asked to teach this, “…so that the people will clearly understand the meaning of receiving in the hand …. This catechesis must succeed in excluding any suggestion that in the mind of the Church there is a lessening of faith in the Eucharistic presence.”

SACRED CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP, Letter “En reponse a la demande,” to presidents of those conferences of bishops petitioning the indult for communion in the hand, 29 May 1969: AAS 61 (1969) 546-547; Not 5 (1969) 351-353.

1. The rite of communion in the hand must not be put into practice indiscriminately. Since the question involves human attitudes, this mode of communion is bound up with the perceptiveness and preparation of the one receiving. It is advisable, therefore, that the rite be introduced gradually and in the beginning within small, better prepared groups and in favorable settings. **Above all it is necessary to have the introduction of the rite preceded by an effective catechesis, so that the people will clearly understand the meaning of receiving in the hand and will practice it with the reverence owed to the sacrament. This catechesis must succeed in excluding any suggestion that in the mind of the Church there is a lessening of faith in the Eucharistic presence and in excluding as well any danger or hint of danger of profaning the Eucharist. **

I do not have a problem with this but it seems to be so for those who do not want to receive in the hand. It is sad that receiving the Body of the Lord could bring more anxiety rather than peace and love for the communicants.

If children are taught that it would not make any difference in receiving by either method other than that it is an individual’s preference, they will be not confused and perhaps know how to handle such situation as told by the OP.

 

[Voltrael]

If children are taught that it would not make any difference in receiving by either method other than that it is an individual’s preference, they will be not confused and perhaps know how to handle such situation as told by the OP.

I understand this and generally agree. My problem is I feel a lot of people are trying to put the onus on the young child rather than the adult (EM) when it comes to being flexible about communion.

 

[Reuben_J]

I understand this and generally agree. My problem is I feel a lot of people are trying to put the onus on the young child rather than the adult (EM) when it comes to being flexible about communion.

Yes, I can’t really blame that, but that is in the ideal world. As all things human, that may not be possible all the times.

More importantly though for a Christian child to grow up wholesomely with balanced knowledge without feeding them our own personal preference as the teaching; but rather to let them know the whole picture, and then they will decide accordingly as they live on.

In other word, for things that can be helped and where there is no tangible difference, as far as possible it is not very positive to blame others for our problem.

 

[Brendan]

Yes, I can’t really blame that, but that is in the ideal world. As all things human, that may not be possible all the times…

True, but it should not be unreasonable to expect an EMHC to act in accord with Church teachings on the distribution of Holy Communion.

 

[Rosebud77]

OP how are the children, please? It must have been an upsetting experience.

 

[mommy_k]

I understand this and generally agree. My problem is I feel a lot of people are trying to put the onus on the young child rather than the adult (EM) when it comes to being flexible about communion.

Yes, however the EMHC first priority is to protect the Host. The details of why the EMHC did what he did is not clear.

What may seem like a denial, of reception on the tongue may not be an error. There are numerous reasons why this could happen…

The suggestion to ask about this nicely to the EMHC coordinator or priest should clear things up.

 

[mommy_k]

OP how are the children, please? It must have been an upsetting experience.

?

If a parent told the child, ok honey I will call and ask why this happened is not upsetting.

If a parent went on and on about it, then yes…it would be upsetting.

I don’t think the op did that. she just posted she was livid. .

 

[tomgosse]

I am happy for you that, from your subsequent post, you seem to have regained some of your self-composure from your previously “quite livid” state.

You are, of course, free to proceed in any fashion that you wish. I think you would do quite well to understand that the manner in which you proceed will reflect on you AND upon your family. There is great truth in the maxim that an action provokes an equal and opposite reaction…only some times, the reaction is not equal; it can be disproportionate

If you wish to labeled as a troublemaker and as someone to be put on the parish’s watchlist, by all means begin making allegations such as that you children were denied Communion when, in fact, they were not.

Contact immediately the diocese rather than first entering into a dialogue with the parish priest, if you wish, and you will see the result after the diocese contacts the parish priest and he informs them that you did not extend to him the courtesy of addressing the matter to him… As a now retired diocesan official, I will happily tell you, in detail, how such people who acted in such way were regarded and acted toward by me and by others in the chancery.

On the other hand, since you are new to the parish, this gives you an opportunity to make either a very good or a very bad impression upon your new parish priest, who will presumably have responsibility for shepherding you for even years to come. A very good first oppression, I never forgot. On the other hand, a very bad first impression, I never forgot either.

You should address your concern, in a calm and non-livid manner, to the parish priest.

Someone who wished to understand what happened, I was normally always very accommodating toward. Someone who called me at 9:01 a.m. on Monday morning, livid and hostile, demanding their rights, would receive their answer from me.

But Heaven help them if they ever came to me with any situation however small that was in the least within my discretion as parish priest that asked for even the tiniest variance of the law…they found the parish would not bend in their favour under any circumstance, in the slightest manner. They experienced the parish equivalent of the edict of the Lord: “with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”

Personally, I would not advise you to set yourself on a collision course with the shepherd of yourself and your children.

As for your specific question, I was not there. Neither were you. Neither was any one else on this board. I cannot make any discernment as to why whatever it was that really happened actually happened. Perhaps the minister erred. Perhaps s/he did not.

I famously remember one case in which the young people were making a solemn communion…they had made their first communion months before but the First Communion class was reconstituted to take part in a eucharistic procession. The organisers had the boys and girls wear gloves…which precluded them from receiving Communion in the hand. Whether they wanted to or not was immaterial…they had to receive on the tongue. Otherwise, their gloves would become sacred linen for having touched the Sacred Species.

Of course, none of them understood that but that did not matter.

Similarly, once a person commits to receiving Communion by intinction, they must receive by one means only.

Without knowing the specifics, it is beyond fruitless for me as a priest to offer commentary on something of which I am completely uninformed in any meaningful way.

Bless father,

Thank you for your well thought answer. The course of action that you recommend, and the actions that don’t recommend can be applied to almost anything in our life.

Receiving the Body of Christ, whether by hand or mouth, does not make it any less, or any more the Body of Christ. Be joyful and give thanks that you are receiving it! Don’t receive it in an unworthy way. *1 Cor 11:27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. * And remember, it’s the recipient that makes it unworthy, not the priest, and not the Eucharistic minister, but our hearts and minds.
-Thomas, a sinner.

 

[pianistclare]

Bless father,

Thank you for your well thought answer. The course of action that you recommend, and the actions that don’t recommend can be applied to almost anything in our life.

Receiving the Body of Christ, whether by hand or mouth, does not make it any less, or any more the Body of Christ. Be joyful and give thanks that you are receiving it! Don’t receive it in an unworthy way. *1 Cor 11:27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. * And remember, it’s the recipient that makes it unworthy, not the priest, and not the Eucharistic minister, but our hearts and minds.
-Thomas, a sinner.

Awesome.
Here’s praying that this closes the door on this thread. :grouphug:

 

[ProVobis]

Perhaps I shouldn’t be jumping into a tread this late, but I am curious about two things:

1. Some here have alluded to a right to receive Communion on the tongue. In what sense is this a right? Is it stated in canon law, for example?
2. I can understand to some extent preferring to receive the Eucharist directly from the concecrated hand of the priest. However, I don’t really understand that preference when EMs are involved - at that point, a layperson has already touched the host. Why the preference to receive on the tongue in such cases?

Good questions.

 

[Rosebud77]

?

If a parent told the child, ok honey I will call and ask why this happened is not upsetting.

If a parent went on and on about it, then yes…it would be upsetting.

I don’t think the op did that. she just posted she was livid. .

Excuse me? I was referring to what happened at Mass of course. That you took this as you did is revealing,

The OP as a mother has acted and spoken in an exemplary maternal and Christian way

To be treated like that at mass would be very upsetting for the child and so far most here seem to be blaming and arguing and not thinking of the children