Do bishops have authority to prohibit Communion on the tongue?

[OraLabora]

What should I say to the Church? Well, hey my tongue isn’t consecrated, so what you have always taught is wrong?

Disciplines can and do change.

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

Deacons are given the same privilege yet their hands are not consecrated.

What am I missing here? That the Church is also wrong to let deacons handle the Eucharist? Since when do we laity get to believe we know better that the Church?

Consecrated hands get to confect the Eucharist.

 

[stpurl]

Wow. How about, “Lord I want to receive you in the way which is the norm for the entire Latin Church and in which countless saints received you. Since this way is temporarily refused in my particular diocese, rather than disobey the bishop in any way, and rather than run the risk that I personally see in receiving on the hand though I certainly acknowledge that it is valid and licit to receive that way, I choose to offer you a spiritual communion, and to refrain from receiving you sacramentally at this Mass, and I offer this sacrifice in petition for those who are ill, that they be restored to health.”

It isn’t always about disobedience and preference and wah I can’t get my way. . .sometimes it’s about making prudential judgments and sacrifices. . .

 

[gracepoole]

gracepoole:

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.

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| National Catholic Register

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 that thought, 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 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?

I totally agree about receiving worthily. It sounds like you’re saying that the practice of receiving in the hand violates prior teachings. Yet the Church permits it, albeit with an indult. I think it comes down to this for me (speaking as someone who respects COTT and traditional practices): if I believe the Church is mistaken in allowing receiving in the hand, I must also believe She is spreading error.

 

[stpurl]

Sacrifice. I’m older than you, and I still remember the nuns in habits telling us to ‘offer things up’.

 

[Soubirous1]

for anyone having anxiety over receiving in an unfamiliar way just try to remember Jesus’s anxiety on the cross.

 

[otjm]

Can anyone say with certainty that any bishop has said no one is to receive on the tongue? Or on the hand? Meaning, not some pastor said - but actual information from a bishop in the US?

Some priests have, in the past, said or done some things contrary to the Church, so I am not interested in what they may say; any rule (as opposed to a suggestion) needs to be specifically set out and obtainable from the diocesan website.

I have not heard of anything specific; only chatter on this website, which seems to amount to “what if”.

In the Archdiocese of Portland, the Archbishop has stopped the Kiss of Peace. He has suggested, but not ruled, that the Cup may be withdrawn; in my parish it is offered to those who still wish to receive that way. And as far as I can tell, he has made no comment about COTT/CITH

The Archdiocesan website has a letter from the USCCB concerning changes to the liturgy, including the possibility of the bishop granting a general dispensation from the obligation to attend Sunday Mass. Nothing therein suggests any changes to either COTT/CITH.

This whole discussion seems to be an example of Telephone Tag.

 

[gracepoole]

Sacrifice. I’m older than you, and I still remember the nuns in habits telling us to ‘offer things up’.

You may be older than me but I still have relatives who are nuns in habits, and I often tell my children to offer things up. Sacrificing luxuries is one thing, or accepting pain, but the Church does not ask me to sacrifice the Blessed Sacrament. Quite the opposite.

 

[stpurl]

I’m sorry, I don’t know how to be clearer. One can indeed offer up even great good. Sure, it’s easy to offer up the stuff that isn’t so good, but it was never, “I’ll offer up only my sufferings for Jesus”, it was always, “ALL for Jesus”, the good, the bad, the indifferent.

 

[pnewton]

We should not attempt to judge others and the struggles they have based on our own perspective. Thank you for describing it so well.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Since when do we laity get to believe we know better that the Church?

Exactly my point.

Deacons are given the same privilege yet their hands are not consecrated.

What am I missing here?

The diaconate is part of the Holy Orders. Deacons are allowed to distribute Holy Communion as necessary.

I think it comes down to this for me (speaking as someone who respects COTT and traditional practices): if I believe the Church is mistaken in allowing receiving in the hand, I must also believe She is spreading error.

I didn’t say that the Church is in error. I am saying I do not want to participate in the indult some countries, but not all, have. I would rather follow the traditional practices and the normative way of reverencing the Eucharist and to not receive in the hand unless it is absolutely necessary.

I don’t like the thought that just because He is offered to me I must receive. Someone once did that to me right after I had finished eating. I was visiting someone in the hospital. She offered a host to me like she was offering a piece of gum. Her words, “would you like one?” as she held it out to me.

 

[gracepoole]

I’m sorry, I don’t know how to be clearer. One can indeed offer up even great good. Sure, it’s easy to offer up the stuff that isn’t so good, but it was never, “I’ll offer up only my sufferings for Jesus”, it was always, “ALL for Jesus”, the good, the bad, the indifferent.

“ALL for Jesus” includes giving up Jesus Himself? I’m struggling with that idea.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Just my own perspective, I have no intention of receiving communion at all (I don’t do CITH) until the pandemic is over, at least not at a crowded Sunday Mass. If it comes to the point that I will risk not being able to make my Easter duty, I shall just assist at a small weekday Mass and receive COTT. I am very robust and keep myself in good health (take a handful of dietary supplements a day, which horrifies my family), but it is just not a chance I am willing to take.

As I have said, and many others have echoed this, we never have to receive communion, aside from making one’s Easter duty.

 

[gracepoole]

I just want to be clear that I respect you and your choices — truly. I apologize if I seemed overly argumentative. I genuinely only want to understand.

I do not believe you think the Church is spreading error. That’s why I was confused by your position on receiving in the hand. Either way, God knows each of our hearts and I think that’s a good place to leave it. God bless.

 

[stpurl]

Well you know, in Lent we fast and abstain from things which are perfectly good. Why not fast from the Eucharist? Offer up not receiving the Eucharist in solidarity and communion, as it were, with the many people who cannot receive.

I’m not saying this would be permanent, but if you have no trouble understanding why Catholics would abstain from meat on Friday or fast on other days, then a fast from the Eucharist on a given Sunday should make sense as a sacrifice of penance.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Thank you and I understand why you were asking and didn’t think you were being argumentative.

You’re right. God knows our hearts.

God bless.

 

[po18guy]

I am no longer certain what I posted in this thread, or why.

 

[savedbychrist]

Can anyone say with certainty that any bishop has said no one is to receive on the tongue? Or on the hand? Meaning, not some pastor said - but actual information from a bishop in the US?

I’m not sure about the US, but it is indeed a thing in other dioceses. Take this as an example:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Article 2.9)

It was cleverly worded in the English version, saying that COTT is “traditional”, and stressing it is only “a temporary measure”. The Chinese version, which is the common one we read in Hong Kong, has different set of wordings:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

“全體教友暫停口領聖體，只用手領聖體。” is literally translated as “All the faithful pause to receive Communion on the tounge, but only receive Communion in the hand.”

At the beginning of the guidelines, it is stated that “All priests, liturgical ministers, and the faithful are required to observe these guidelines”.

These are the evidence you required for a bishop formally banning COTT.

 

[savedbychrist]

And I found out how everyone is stressing about obedience to the Bishop or not, when no one is saying that he/she would continue receiving on the tounge. That wouldn’t be possible as well, since the priests would not allow so when it is banned. Jesus submitted to Pilate to obey the Father, so there’s not a reason for us not to submit to a Bishop to obey the Son.

All I see is dissatisfaction instead of disobedience, and I don’t think the virtue of obedience does not allow personal opinions. If there is any actual disobedience here, it would be the Bishops disobeying the Holy See to ban COTT, despite Redemptionis Sacramentum says no. The Vatican hasn’t spoken, but we can’t just take it as the Vatican approves of this.

 

[Minks]

And I found out how everyone is stressing about obedience to the Bishop or not, when no one is saying that he/she would continue receiving on the tounge. That wouldn’t be possible as well, since the priests would not allow so when it is banned. Jesus submitted to Pilate to obey the Father, so there’s not a reason for us not to submit to a Bishop to obey the Son.

All I see is dissatisfaction instead of disobedience, and I don’t think the virtue of obedience does not allow personal opinions. If there is any actual disobedience here, it would be the Bishops disobeying the Holy See to ban COTT, despite Redemptionis Sacramentum says no. The Vatican hasn’t spoken, but we can’t just take it as the Vatican approves of this.

Sorry, but this time I must disagree with you. A few hours ago, shortly before 5:00 PM, Eastern Time Zone in the US, the Vatican announced that all Holy Masses were suspended until further notice in Rome, then—a short time later—throughout Italy.

Pope Francis is extremely intelligent, as well as cognizant of the enormity of protecting his flock worldwide. There’s no way that he would say it’s okay for Italy to completely suspend Masses, then castigate any bishops or archbishops for trying to protect their flocks. Ain’t gonna happen!

Please, Folks! Let’s give the COTT/COTH debate a respite, huh? At least, until this nasty disease is relegated to the history books? This constant harping is unbecoming and beneath our dignity. Let’s devote our time to more productive activities, such as discussing other topics, or praying and sacrificing for the benefits of the sick.

 

[Usagi]

Exactly! We literally have God Himself on record, saying that His rules about holy things — the Sabbath, the tithes, all the things He rightly claims from us as His own — are less important to Him than that we look after each other’s well-being.

We serve the Lord who said “I desire mercy rather than sacrifice,” and who when He walked among us as a man was kind of annoyed that we didn’t already understand that of course even the Sabbath — and even “the Temple bread, which was lawful only for the priests to eat” — took second place to human well-being.

And yes, those holy things were not the Holy One, the precious body and blood of Jesus Himself. But then we also know that He became a man for the express purpose of letting sinful men not merely touch but mutilate His flesh and shed His blood — something that no amount of handling at Communion time can do.

I respect those of you who choose, as a matter of personal piety, to receive on the tongue as a rule, and I would never want to see that taken away from you under ordinary circumstances. But I don’t think it’s a stretch to believe that we have the Lord’s stated opinion on whether being scrupulously careful about holy things and our ritual obligations is more important than the well-being of ourselves and other people. If you honestly fear that He would frown on you at the Judgment for being slightly less reverent toward His sacramental presence in the name of both obedience and the health of your brothers and sisters, then I think your concerns are misplaced.