Do bishops have authority to prohibit Communion on the tongue?

[MagdalenaRita]

Do we want to face our Savior and tell Him: “Lord, I did not receive you because they would not deliver you the way I wanted”?

I would not want to say to him, I handled your precious body and blood with my unconsecrated hands

Again the sacrament we should be concerned about most during this time is the sacrament of penance.

 

[po18guy]

Well, his precious body and blood go into your sinful digestive tract.

I don’t get it.

 

[graciew]

“Non dominant.”…Thanks for that…I didn’t know how it was called in English. I never stop learning here, that is great.

 

[gracepoole]

We touch the door, the pew, the missals (wow how nasty are these), the seat, etc…

I think there is something wrong in this thinking of prohibiting communion on the tongue when there are so many other ways just as dangerous or more so.

Something is absolutely not right.

My thought is the safety of priests, deacons, and others distributing the Blessed Sacrament. The priest, for example, comes in contact more with mouths and hands than he has to with missals and pews. And if a priest gets sick and must be quarantined, the faithful are without all sacraments. That seems more significant to me than the COTT vs COTH issue.

 

[gracepoole]

po18guy:

Do we want to face our Savior and tell Him: “Lord, I did not receive you because they would not deliver you the way I wanted”?

I would not want to say to him, I handled your precious body and blood with my unconsecrated hands

Again the sacrament we should be concerned about most during this time is the sacrament of penance.

I understand this kind of personal view – but the Church says COTH is licit. Why wouldn’t I be okay with meeting Christ and telling Him I accepted Him according to the laws of His Church?

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Well, his precious body and blood go into your sinful digestive tract.

I don’t get it.

Consecrated hands are the hands given the privilege of handling the host.

My thought is the safety of priests, deacons, and others distributing the Blessed Sacrament. The priest, for example, comes in contact more with mouths and hands than he has to with missals and pews

yes, but my thought is as we touch these things we bring the germs to the priest when we receive.

I understand this kind of personal view – but the Church says COTH is licit.

It is not just a personal view, the Church has traditionally had the laity receive on the tongue. We only receive in the hand now because of an indult. If there are those who do not want to participate in the indult and continue to receive on the tongue there is nothing wrong with that. For some it is stressful to receive in the hand and with that the best thing to do is make a spiritual communion

St. Thomas Aquinas:

because out of reverence towards this Sacrament, nothing touches it but what is consecrated, hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament. Hence it is not lawful for anyone else to touch it, except from necessity, for instance, if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency.

 

[Soubirous1]

nothing is wrong with that You can receive in your hand.

 

[pnewton]

Doesn’t it touch the tongue? I would say on cannot receive communion without physical contact with the host. The whole consecrated hand thing seems full of logic holes, at least to me.

In any case, if the priest gets sick through giving communion on the tongue, no one will get to go to Mass. Ours quit shaking hands as well. He does not want to be unkind. He wants to make sure he can continue to say Mass without illness.

 

[gracepoole]

po18guy:

Well, his precious body and blood go into your sinful digestive tract.

I don’t get it.

Consecrated hands are the hands given the privilege of handling the host.

My thought is the safety of priests, deacons, and others distributing the Blessed Sacrament. The priest, for example, comes in contact more with mouths and hands than he has to with missals and pews

yes, but my thought is as we touch these things we bring the germs to the priest when we receive.

I understand this kind of personal view – but the Church says COTH is licit.

It is not just a personal view, the Church has traditionally had the laity receive on the tongue. We only receive in the hand now because of an indult. If there are those who do not want to participate in the indult and continue to receive on the tongue there is nothing wrong with that. For some it is stressful to receive in the hand and with that the best thing to do is make a spiritual communion

St. Thomas Aquinas:

because out of reverence towards this Sacrament, nothing touches it but what is consecrated, hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament. Hence it is not lawful for anyone else to touch it, except from necessity, for instance, if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency.

If you live in a place where the indult is given (I’m assuming you do as I do), it is acceptable to receive in the hand. The Magisterium has the final word here, not the laity. If it’s a choice between not receiving Christ and receiving Him in the hand according to the indult, why would any Catholic choose not to receive Him? Maybe I’m not understanding “for some it is stressful to receive in the hand.” What does that mean, specifically?

 

[stpurl]

Try to imagine that you were told that from now on you MUST receive on the tongue, kneeling, when your whole life’s experience had been to receive in the hand. When you had been told from the first time you received that receiving in the hand was the ‘original’ way. When you had been conditioned from the get go about the 'bad old days" where people were so ignorant and passive that they had to kneel as if the priest was some big deal, and stick out their tongues like babies. When for decades even you just felt so warm and happy ‘making a throne for Jesus’, when all the material you read extolled the practice, when everyone in your family did this. . .for decades.

And then suddenly BAM! You were told to receive in a totally unfamiliar way which you had had years of being told was silly, elitist, insanitary, rad-trad, ignorant. . .when you would feel silly and stupid receiving that way–when your family and everybody around you acted like this was just crazy.

And yet you were told to ‘suck it up buttercup’, you were told that everything you’d done before, that was the real stupidity. You were sneered at for falling victim to ‘stupid revisionism’.

Now, imagine that you were just a ‘plain Catholic’ who had, over decades, received one way, found it a reasonable way, then later received the other way and just found it better. You didn’t then find the first way wrong, or stupid, you just found the second way to be ‘better’. It’s a subjective thing but it isn’t wrong, is it? If you like vanilla better than chocolate, you still like chocolate too, don’t you?

But imagine if instead of people simply leaving you alone and saying fine, two ways, both OK, choose what you like–you went through years and years of people sneering at you for choosing CITT.

And now–NOW–not only are you being sneered at, you’re being told that IF YOU DON"T TAKE IN THE HAND YOU’RE BEING DISOBEDIENT. You can’t even make a spiritual communion because, “How can you NOT CHOOSE JESUS?”

This is a dang crazy world.

 

[gracepoole]

Try to imagine that you were told that from now on you MUST receive on the tongue, kneeling, when your whole life’s experience had been to receive in the hand. When you had been told from the first time you received that receiving in the hand was the ‘original’ way. When you had been conditioned from the get go about the 'bad old days" where people were so ignorant and passive that they had to kneel as if the priest was some big deal, and stick out their tongues like babies. When for decades even you just felt so warm and happy ‘making a throne for Jesus’, when all the material you read extolled the practice, when everyone in your family did this. . .for decades.

And then suddenly BAM! You were told to receive in a totally unfamiliar way which you had had years of being told was silly, elitist, insanitary, rad-trad, ignorant. . .when you would feel silly and stupid receiving that way–when your family and everybody around you acted like this was just crazy.

And yet you were told to ‘suck it up buttercup’, you were told that everything you’d done before, that was the real stupidity. You were sneered at for falling victim to ‘stupid revisionism’.

Now, imagine that you were just a ‘plain Catholic’ who had, over decades, received one way, found it a reasonable way, then later received the other way and just found it better. You didn’t then find the first way wrong, or stupid, you just found the second way to be ‘better’. It’s a subjective thing but it isn’t wrong, is it? If you like vanilla better than chocolate, you still like chocolate too, don’t you?

But imagine if instead of people simply leaving you alone and saying fine, two ways, both OK, choose what you like–you went through years and years of people sneering at you for choosing CITT.

And now–NOW–not only are you being sneered at, you’re being told that IF YOU DON"T TAKE IN THE HAND YOU’RE BEING DISOBEDIENT. You can’t even make a spiritual communion because, “How can you NOT CHOOSE JESUS?”

This is a dang crazy world.

Except that’s not what’s happening here. No one is permanently ending COTT. This is a temporary solution so we can still receive the Sacrament.

 

[stpurl]

I didn’t say it was permanent, did I?

 

[OraLabora]

And then suddenly BAM! You were told to receive in a totally unfamiliar way

I just don’t get it. I was brought up to receive kneeling and on the tongue. Changing to in the hand just doesn’t seem a big deal to me. Personally I find sticking out my tongue more irreverent than receiving into my palm. But that’s just me. Outside this emergency, nobody is going to take away your choice.

And if the Holy Mother Church decreed we all must kneel and receive on the tongue again, as a good Benedictine I’ll simply obey, though I hope they’ll give this 61 year old carcass something to grab to get back up

Honestly, again, the best thing I ever heard considering liturgy is “it’s not all about me”. ISTM a bishop’s decree in an emergency is worthy of respect and compliance.

I would not want to say to him, I handled your precious body and blood with my unconsecrated hands

Is your tongue consecrated?

“I am not worthy to receive You” applies to all of me. Sinful hands, sinful tongue, sinful person.

Tongue or hand won’t change our basic unworthiness.

 

[TMC]

Do we want to face our Savior and tell Him: “Lord, I did not receive you because they would not deliver you the way I wanted”?

I wish I could “heart” this 100 times.

 

[gracepoole]

I didn’t say it was permanent, did I?

No, you didn’t. But I think it’s suggested in the scenario you laid out, isn’t it? As far as I know, no one is saying this:

And then suddenly BAM! You were told to receive in a totally unfamiliar way which you had had years of being told was silly, elitist, insanitary, rad-trad, ignorant. . .when you would feel silly and stupid receiving that way–when your family and everybody around you acted like this was just crazy.

I have great respect for COTT. But if it’s a choice between me receiving the Blessed Sacrament or not receiving? There’s no choice. I’m going to receive. Especially given that all of this isn’t permanent.

 

[TMC]

Yes the Bishops were sent by Christ, and thankfully we have Bishops out there like Bishop Schneider who have made it very clear that this current ruling constitutes an abuse of authority.

I keep reading statements like this and, frankly, they astound me.

If your own bishop is giving direction, and the majority of the bishops in your country give the same direction, and the Cardinals and even the Pope are clearly OK with that teaching, why instead give weight to the contrary teaching of an auxiliary bishop who has no teaching authority over you and is instead over 6,000 miles away?

In those circumstances, one must seriously consider whether one is seeking the best teaching, or merely seeking the teaching one prefers.

 

[stpurl]

I would appreciate it actually if instead of responding to what you think I suggest, you address what I say.

Again, you speak of choice. That is fine. I respect your choice. But I think to be truly Christian, you should respect the choice of others. One does not ‘have to’ receive the Blessed Sacrament at every Mass. And if one chooses as a penance or as an offering to God to forego the Eucharist, then that is a perfectly legitimate choice. It might not be your choice, but it isn’t a wrong choice. It doesn’t make your choice ‘right’ and that other choice wrong. It makes your choice yours and the choice of another which differs from you that person’s choice.

 

[po18guy]

Communion in the hand (CITH)
Communion on the tongue (COTT)

COMMUNION.

Who is dividing us?

Who?

NOT accusing. Just wearying of it all.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

If it’s a choice between not receiving Christ and receiving Him in the hand according to the indult, why would any Catholic choose not to receive Him?

Whenever we receive Christ, no matter how we receive Christ we should recieve Him worthily. I would rather adore Him and worship Him than touch Him with my unconsecrated hands as Catholics have done throughout the decades. There is a history behind the indult, Pope Paul VI and the bishops he asked about it did not want to grant it but some U.S. bishops chose otherwise. Pope Paul VI said he would grant it to those countries already recieving in the hand and the U.S. was not one.

We also should not have the attitude that just because Christ is offered to us we should not miss the opportunity to receive but rather examine ourselves to be sure we should be receiving.

When one is unable to receive Christ in the Eucharist we can receive Him in a spiritual communion.

He (Jesus) told Blessed Jane of the Cross that each time she communicated spiritually, she received graces of the same kind as those received in sacramental Communion

Follow the Saints: Make a Spiritual Communion

The benefits of union with Christ every day. Nov. 20 issue feature.

www.ncregister.com

Is your tongue consecrated?

St. Thomas says consecrated hands have the privilege to handle the host. That does not include me.

Also, if we go by the thought that my mouth is unconsecrated, so what’s the difference, what would you say to the Catholics from the all the past years that followed the Church when they were not to touch the host with their hands and since we only have an indult giving us the allowance to receive in the hand, that means the Catholic way has traditionally been and still is to receive on the tongue. What should I say to the Church? Well, hey my tongue isn’t consecrated, so what you have always taught is wrong?

 

[gracepoole]

I would appreciate it actually if instead of responding to what you think I suggest, you address what I say.

Again, you speak of choice. That is fine. I respect your choice. But I think to be truly Christian, you should respect the choice of others. One does not ‘have to’ receive the Blessed Sacrament at every Mass. And if one chooses as a penance or as an offering to God to forego the Eucharist, then that is a perfectly legitimate choice. It might not be your choice, but it isn’t a wrong choice. It doesn’t make your choice ‘right’ and that other choice wrong. It makes your choice yours and the choice of another which differs from you that person’s choice.

I’m sorry, @stpurl – I do respect that we all have a choice to make. I guess I’m trying to understand why someone makes a choice not to receive when it’s still possible to do so.