Denied reception on the tongue

[Don_Ruggero]

I thank everyone who advised to calmly and charitably speak with the pastor regarding this. I will approach it as if it was a mistake or an oversight.

The title of this post is accurate in that the EM **refused **to place the Holy Eucharist **on my younger daughter’s tongue **and told her “I only give in the hand…otherwise I’m blessing you.” He even went so far as to separate her “praying hands” in order to put the Host into her hands; even though her mouth was open the whole time to receive on the tongue.

He also told my older daughter, who was right behind her, “The Body of Christ” and seeing that her hands were in praying form and not receiving form he said, “You too,” and he proceeded to place the Host in her hands and not her mouth. All on the communion line…

This was not meant to be an argument about whether it was better to receive on the tongue vs. receiving in the hand. Everyone is entitled to receive either way. However, the Church holds we have a God-given right to receive on the tongue if we desire, despite the objections / personal preferences of the EM.

Peace.

+JMJ+

Then you should address your concern, calmly, to the parish priest.

And, technically, it is not a “God-given right” – it is a provision of ecclesiastical law, which in this instance derives from the Supreme Legislator…not God. Those are not unimportant distinctions when speaking in a civil tone to the parish priest.

 

[mommy_k]

I thank everyone who advised to calmly and charitably speak with the pastor regarding this. I will approach it as if it was a mistake or an oversight.

The title of this post is accurate in that the EM **refused **to place the Holy Eucharist **on my younger daughter’s tongue **and told her “I only give in the hand…otherwise I’m blessing you.” He even went so far as to separate her “praying hands” in order to put the Host into her hands; even though her mouth was open the whole time to receive on the tongue.

He also told my older daughter, who was right behind her, “The Body of Christ” and seeing that her hands were in praying form and not receiving form he said, “You too,” and he proceeded to place the Host in her hands and not her mouth. All on the communion line…

This was not meant to be an argument about whether it was better to receive on the tongue vs. receiving in the hand. Everyone is entitled to receive either way. However, the Church holds we have a God-given right to receive on the tongue if we desire, despite the objections / personal preferences of the EM.

Peace.

+JMJ+

Yes. You should address this nicely…for all you know the EMHC may have some condition that prevents them from coming in contact with saliva…like a weakened immune system.

Since you are new members, you may not know this…

 

[JimG]

Pardon my dramatic post as it was fresh from receiving the news. I’ve already accepted that my son, who just finished the church’s altar server training, was told he would not be allowed to receive communion on the tongue while serving and much less receiving kneeling, which he has done up till now.

Just got me frustrated that my children are now second-guessing whether or not they are allowed to receive on the tongue. We’ve never encountered this issue before.

I’ve since been able to regain my composure, but must tactfully address this issue, as we don’t want to be anxious come communion time during every Mass.

Peace.

+JMJ+

The first paragraph here puzzles me a little. In many parishes, the altar servers, before presenting themselves for communion, have already gotten the patens from the credence table, in preparation for assisting the priest and EMHC’s in communion distribution. So they are standing waiting to receive, holding a paten in one hand. It would be unwieldy to receive in the hand in that situation.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Yes. You should address this nicely…for all you know the EMHC may have some condition that prevents them from coming in contact with saliva…like a weakened immune system.

Since you are new members, you may not know this…

I suppose that is certainly possible.

I can tell you from my own experience that I always encouraged…I never said it was not the child’s option but I took it to the very edge of doing so by what I related…our First Communion children to receive in the hand and to make a throne for Jesus and then reverently place Him themselves in their mouth.

I did it for several reasons, actually.

I am tall and with a six year old child, they are much less than half my height. Their mouths are small and they often do not stick out their tongue far enough. (I think many of them, personally, hear their parents say “Don’t stick out your tongue at your [brother, sister, mother, father, etc.]!” and they apply that also to Father at Communion time.)

If the Host does not adhere to the tongue, It will fall…which is upsetting to the child and to me, too. For the child, it can be traumatic. This can also happen, frankly, when the child turns too quickly or makes a sudden move while the minister is trying to aim for a child’s tongue.

In all my years, I remember one time when the Host dropped because of receiving in the hand…and it was because the person kept moving instead of pausing and I was trying to hit a moving target…in every other instance that a Host fell, it involved receiving on the tongue.

Most dreadful were the people who tried to “help” me by leaning in as I was conveying the Host to their tongue…I could not always compensate for the sudden gesture and their tongue would run across my hand. I would stop distributing at that point and have the extraordinary ministers finish distributing Communion while I went to rinse my hand in the sacrarium in the sacristy.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

The first paragraph here puzzles me a little. In many parishes, the altar servers, before presenting themselves for communion, have already gotten the patens from the credence table, in preparation for assisting the priest and EMHC’s in communion distribution. So they are standing waiting to receive, holding a paten in one hand. It would be unwieldy to receive in the hand in that situation.

I haven’t presided at a Mass in a parish where patens have been used in many years.

 

[JimG]

I haven’t presided at a Mass in a parish where patens have been used in many years.

Maybe that is the situation here. In my own parish the patens are used every Sunday.

 

[jmj777]

The first paragraph here puzzles me a little. In many parishes, the altar servers, before presenting themselves for communion, have already gotten the patens from the credence table, in preparation for assisting the priest and EMHC’s in communion distribution. So they are standing waiting to receive, holding a paten in one hand. It would be unwieldy to receive in the hand in that situation.

Please note that this thread is not about my son who serves on the altar and how our church stated he could only receive in the hand while on the altar. That is NOT the issue or the focus in this thread. It was merely to show the differences in preference of reception of Holy Communion into proper perspective – our preference on the tongue and new parish prefers in the hand.

The main issue is reception of Holy Communion among the congregation, not while serving on the altar. It may have gotten lost in my attempts to elaborate.

Peace.

+JMJ+

 

[1ke]

Please note that this thread is not about my son who serves on the altar and how our church stated he could only receive in the hand while on the altar. That is NOT the issue or the focus in this thread. It was merely to show the differences in preference of reception of Holy Communion into proper perspective – our preference on the tongue and new parish prefers in the hand.

The main issue is reception of Holy Communion among the congregation, not while serving on the altar. It may have gotten lost in my attempts to elaborate.

Peace.

+JMJ+

Let us know what the pastor says after you talk to him.

I am sure you will handle it nicely, I did not take your “I’m livid” comment to mean you would go into a meeting with your pastor being disrespectful, rude, or demanding. I took it to mean you were upset and were here on CAF venting. While this should be a safe space to vent, I learned a long time ago it isn’t. Because people (and I include myself in “people”) bring their own perspective and agendas to any conversation and things go sideways from there. Just remember we are trying to be helpful, but YMMV.

I would try to have my child explain or demonstrate exactly what happened before I talk to the pastor, since you weren’t there obviously. Could it have been a misunderstanding or did the EHMC actually say something, etc. This hasn’t happened when you were there at mass, so maybe it was just one particular EHMC who either isn’t trained or something?

 

[jmj777]

Let us know what the pastor says after you talk to him.

I am sure you will handle it nicely, I did not take your “I’m livid” comment to mean you would go into a meeting with your pastor being disrespectful, rude, or demanding. I took it to mean you were upset and were here on CAF venting. While this should be a safe space to vent, I learned a long time ago it isn’t. Because people (and I include myself in “people”) bring their own perspective and agendas to any conversation and things go sideways from there. Just remember we are trying to be helpful, but YMMV.

I would try to have my child explain or demonstrate exactly what happened before I talk to the pastor, since you weren’t there obviously. Could it have been a misunderstanding or did the EHMC actually say something, etc. This hasn’t happened when you were there at mass, so maybe it was just one particular EHMC who either isn’t trained or something?

Post #39 describes the statements the EM made to the kids while on the communion line.
Peace.
JMJ

 

[1ke]

Post #39 describes the statements the EM made to the kids while on the communion line.
Peace.
JMJ

I missed that post.

So, no, not a misunderstanding at all.

I am so sorry that happened to your children. God bless you and them.

 

[1ke]

Maybe that is the situation here. In my own parish the patens are used every Sunday.

Yes, patens are very common in this neck of the woods.

 

[MarkInOregon]

Let us be crystal clear.

If anything or anyone has gotten confused, it is not me.

This poster wrote: ***Today, the Eucharistic Minister denied my children reception of the Holy Eucharist on the tongue (I attended a later Mass). The EM told them he only offers the communion in the hand and made them receive in the hand. ***

However, the post first contends the children were denied Communion then declares, in the very same sentence, that they were forced to receive Communion in the hand. Both are serious allegations – but both cannot be true. One must be a falsehood. That is point number one.

As I read the sentence you have quoted–what she states they were denied is “reception of the Holy Eucharist on the tongue”, not that they were denied Communion. Both assertions, as I read them, can be true: assertion 1: they were denied “reception of the Holy Eucharist on the tongue”, and assertion 2: the EM “made them receive in the hand.” I see no reason why one of these assertions must be a falsehood, I believe both of them to be true. (Even the title of the thread is “Denied reception on the tongue”)

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[MarkInOregon]

Let us be crystal clear.

If anything or anyone has gotten confused, it is not me.

Point number two is the subsequent post wherein the poster relates: I’ve already accepted that my son, who just finished the church’s altar server training, was told he would not be allowed to receive communion on the tongue while serving and much less receiving kneeling, which he has done up till now.

By the formulation, the poster has chosen to link this thought back to the original post and hence my statement that the solution is quite simple…the child should not serve, if the child or parent is unable to** enthusiastically embrace **this norm for liturgical service that receiving Communion standing and in the hand is in every way equal to receiving Communion kneeling and upon the tongue. This type of decision can properly be made for liturgical ministers by the one in charge of the liturgy, who have been granted the privilege of serving at the liturgy in the sanctuary.

In order to serve why does one need to “enthusiastically embrace” the norm for liturgical service of receiving in the hand while standing? I understand accepting it and obeying it–I am confused as to the additional requirement you impose of “enthusiastically embrace”. From my reading there are a number of saints who were obedient to their superiors, but I am not sure “enthusiastically embrace” could be used to describe their obedience–more of a believe that this is what God called them to and of a trusting of God. So I am curious as to the reason you require “enthusiastically embrace” as opposed to mere acceptance? Can one not accept that the two methods are equal, but still prefer one to the other all while being obedient to the norms for service at the altar? Thank you.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[pianistclare]

In order to serve why does one need to “enthusiastically embrace” the norm for liturgical service of receiving in the hand while standing? I understand accepting it and obeying it–I am confused as to the additional requirement you impose of “enthusiastic embrace”. From my reading there are a number of saints who were obedient to their superiors, but I am not sure “enthusiastic embrace” could be used to describe their obedience–more of a believe that this is what God called them to and a trusting of God. So I am curious as to the reason you require enthusiastic embrace as opposed to mere acceptance? Thank you.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

I think in this instance, since Father Ruggero is European, he likely means “fully accept and comply without hesitation” . Something akin to “obedience”.
Maybe I’m wrong, but American express themselves differently.

We tend to think everything depends on opinion, or vote.

 

[MarkInOregon]

I think in this instance, since Father Ruggero is European, he likely means “fully accept and comply without hesitation” . Something akin to “obedience”.
Maybe I’m wrong, but American express themselves differently.

We tend to think everything depends on opinion, or vote.

I believe Don Ruggero is usually pretty precise in the words he chooses and I am not aware of Europeans using the word “enthusiastically” to mean something different than we do (but I am open to correction on this). Given the precision with which he usually expresses himself–I am just curious regarding his inclusion of this requirement. Had he phrased it as you did above–I’d have no question for him regarding this.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[Don_Ruggero]

As I read the sentence you have quoted–what she states they were denied is “reception of the Holy Eucharist on the tongue”, not that they were denied Communion. Both assertions, as I read them, can be true: assertion 1: they were denied “reception of the Holy Eucharist on the tongue”, and assertion 2: the EM “made them receive in the hand.” I see no reason why one of these assertions must be a falsehood, I believe both of them to be true. (Even the title of the thread is “Denied reception on the tongue”)

The peace of Christ,
Mark

As I said, I offered my counsel to someone who came here, by their own words: quite livid, and tried to offer the benefit of having been, for years, a chancery official as well as a parish priest. Actually, perhaps I should not have offered any tempering suggestion at all, upon reflection.

In any event, the phrase “denial of the Eucharist” is a very pregnant phrase. Employing it, even if a lay person chooses to qualify it, has a very specific connotation. It is the equivalent of pulling an alarm bell, as any priest would tell you.

The priest who receives this declaration will have his alarm quickly resolved as he realises this is not a denial of Eucharist at all…someone was not given the option of receiving in their preferred manner…that’s an entirely different issue.

As I also said, this poster will take whatever action they choose…and they will get to live with the aftermath of it…and the ramifications

I also remark that no one else offering advice on this thread will have to do that.

 

[pianistclare]

I believe Don Ruggero is usually pretty precise in the words he chooses and I am not aware of Europeans using the word “enthusiastically” to mean something different than we do (but I am open to correction on this). Given the precision with which he usually expresses himself–I am just curious regarding his inclusion of this requirement. Had he phrased it as you did above–I’d have no question for him regarding this.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

Yeah, I’m sure he’ll say what he meant very shortly.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

In order to serve why does one need to “enthusiastically embrace” the norm for liturgical service of receiving in the hand while standing? I understand accepting it and obeying it–I am confused as to the additional requirement you impose of “enthusiastically embrace”. From my reading there are a number of saints who were obedient to their superiors, but I am not sure “enthusiastically embrace” could be used to describe their obedience–more of a believe that this is what God called them to and of a trusting of God. So I am curious as to the reason you require “enthusiastically embrace” as opposed to mere acceptance? Can one not accept that the two methods are equal, but still prefer one to the other all while being obedient to the norms for service at the altar? Thank you.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

My choice of the word is quite deliberate – when it comes to young people serving at the altar or a lay person engaged in a ministry.

This is not religious life, priesthood, or permanent diaconate where one is examining vocation…this is fulfilling a liturgical role. For which there are more people who want to be in that role than there are available slots.

I was not interested in accepting into altar service any young person who did not want, passionately, to be there – with all that entailed in terms of how s/he would participate. I met with the boy (or girl) applying to serve to discuss what about serving Mass motivated them…why did they want to be involved in that way in the parish…and issues or concerns as well as what they hoped to learn or in what way they hoped to grow liturgically.

If I had the sense they were doing this because their parents wanted them to be there, or if they showed by their deportment that they really were not highly motivated by this liturgical ministry, I suggested deferring their participation and told the parents, “no, this was not a good fit, at least not at the present moment – and besides we’re really oversupplied presently, anyway.”

That would be just as true if someone was not happy with some aspect of serving or being reader or being an Extraordinary Minister…if they preferred, for example, to kneel for Communion or to receive only one species – instead of conforming to the ceremonial of the parish – I would encourage them to take their place with their families and do just that.

There was no place in the sanctuary or sacristy of my parish for a reluctant person…we didn’t have that many slots and we had many people who very much wanted the chance to be part of the liturgical team and were very enthusiastic for the opportunity.

 

[jediliz]

Yes, patens are very common in this neck of the woods.

Not at my sister’s parish in Omaha. The altar servers are not used and communion on tongue is rare… in Lincoln, most parishes I’ve been to use them unless no altar server is available.

This post is why I dislike omaha…I’ve rarely been allowed to the receive from a priest at my sister’s parish…most of them are EMHCs and I’ve been forced to lean down to receive on the tongue if I go to a very short person (not by choice).

 

[MarkInOregon]

As I said, I offered my counsel to someone who came here, by their own words: quite livid, and tried to offer the benefit of having been, for years, a chancery official as well as a parish priest. Actually, perhaps I should not have offered any tempering suggestion at all, upon reflection.

In any event, the phrase “denial of the Eucharist” is a very pregnant phrase. Employing it, even if a lay person chooses to qualify it, has a very specific connotation. It is the equivalent of pulling an alarm bell, as any priest would tell you.

The priest who receives this declaration will have his alarm quickly resolved as he realises this is not a denial of Eucharist at all…someone was not given the option of receiving in their preferred manner…that’s an entirely different issue.

As I also said, this poster will take whatever action they choose…and they will get to live with the aftermath of it…and the ramifications

I also remark that no one else offering advice on this thread will have to do that.

And I have no objection with the wise advice you offered to her, especially since you are in a unique position to provide her with sound advice regarding this matter.

If I had any issue it was with a small part of post 36, which was not directed to the OP, where you claimed the OP said something she didn’t really say. You’ve nicely addressed above–why the OP should perhaps have phased her concern or should I say complaint differently–because of how it may be heard and for the alarm bells it may set off, but still I don’t think we should accuse her of saying something she didn’t actually say.

The peace of Christ,
Mark