Do bishops have authority to prohibit Communion on the tongue?

  • Thread starter Thread starter savedbychrist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes it was. And not to argue, but just to make my point clear. It was very bad, but it does not justify the statement that I initially argued with: “This is not an unprecedented situation” made by @ConcernedConvert

And even if it did, it would be a really poor example of a precedent, as look how many people died.
 
You can think it’s unprecedented, that is fine. As far as I am looking at it, and from the research I have done. It is not.
Yes there are always minor differences between diseases or situations in the times. The big picture to me, is not unprecedented.

Especially if I look at the current statistics of this disease versus the different strains of flu that we see just about every year. The church has dealt with these problems before.
 
bigger population and way more international travel these days. the Church has not dealt with this before.
 
I have not kept up with all the posts in this thread. My personal understanding would be that, unless the Pope says otherwise, that communion on the tongue cannot be forbidden.

However at my parish, the rule (not sure if it’s been the rule all along or if it’s new) is that if an EM or EMHC touches any part of a communicant’s mouth or face, they must step out of line, presumably to go to the washroom and clean up. I do not know if they would get to come back. That is an inconvenience (minor yes, but irritating nonetheless) to those who were in that line.

I know that peoples’ hands can be more filthy as their mouths and I would hope people who receive in the hand are conscious of how the (lack of) cleanliness of their hands could be impacting the health of those who receive after them.

I will just say that receiving communion is, BY DEFINITION, a communal event. Regardless of however you wish to receive, please do so (or refrain from receiving) in a way that benefits the community!
 
or maybe the solution is as simple as separate lines for receiving. if you suggest this to your priest you may find he’s willing to work with you.
 
This directly affected me today… we were forced to receive in the hand.

I’m making the decision to make a spiritual communion instead of receiving the Host in the hand.

I have no problem with others receiving in the hand as it is permissible, but I will not do so myself.
 
Last edited:
No, the Church has never dealt with these problems before. That’s the whole reason it is unprecedended. The Church either a) did not know enough due to science to have to deal with a problem or b) in the case of 1918-1919 like the rest of the world had no idea a global pandemic was possible so did not know how to deal with it AND did not have any practice that changing would have made a difference.

These are not minor differences. Yes, the Church just glided through the pandemic in 2009, but the mortality rate was so low that it seemed like a really bad flu season (which is how almost all governments and society treated it). The mortality rate for coronavirus is likely 2 or 3 orders of magnitude higher than H1N1. How can that be minor? This is the first global threat where we know it is imperative to keep the number of cases low, to stop the spread with drastic measures.

The head in the sand saying comes to mind.
 
you’ll accomplish more by directing your views to your bishop than you will here.
 
To add onto this: I would prefer to not question whether or not the Bishops have authority to cease the receiving of the Host on the tongue and force receiving on the hand, but I do question that if it is so grave and serious in that locality, why are we holding Masses at all?
 
rf9661 said:
This directly affected me today… we were forced to receive in the hand.
Click to expand...
No one “forced” you to do anything. No one is forced to receive the Eucharist at any Mass. There are two perfectly acceptable licit choices, receive on the hand or abstain from receiving at all. All this talk about receiving on the hand not being licit, holy, reverent, pure, or whatever, is just an excuse to show one is more pious than others. I receive on the tongue normally because it feels right to me, however I am not going to sit in judgement of others who choose to receive on the hand.

In this period of time I will be obedient to my bishop and pastor and receive on the hand. I feel my obedience to my Church is desired far more by God than my righteous indignation to a standard that doesn’t exist.
 
From my Diocese own web site - full link beneath where a full statement on everything occurring in our area is:

Additional measures: Some parishioners have asked about suspending the reception of Holy Communion on the tongue. Under Church Law, it is not within the Bishop’s authority to eliminate receiving Holy Communion on the tongue.

www.ad-today.com

Coronavirus: Latest Updates - AD Today

www.ad-today.com www.ad-today.com
 
stpurl said:
Frequent reception is not the same as saying that one must receive if in a state of grace.

And nowhere does it state that offering up not receiving as a sacrifice is wrong.
Click to expand...
I shared that entry because, as I said, “it provides a good overview of the various views on receiving,” not to refute anything you said.
David_Catholic said:
Communion in the hand is a liturgical abuse. I’m not saying you can’t be a good Catholic and receive communion in the hand, but it’s still wrong. Why would we possibly want to risk particles of our Lord falling to the floor and being stomped on? It’s not a matter of being more Catholic than the Church, it’s a matter of imprudent bishops who think THEY are more Catholic than the Church.
Click to expand...
So the Church is permitting a liturgical abuse… :roll_eyes: YOU are not more Catholic than the bishops.
 
Not sure you read my full post… I clearly stated I don’t mind others receiving on the hand. It’s just not what I choose to do.

I’ve also stated that in order to follow my bishop’s instructions, I will instead be making a spiritual communion.

I feel it is extremely uncharitable to state that I do so out of a “holier than thou” attitude because it is truly not.
 
i imagine the Church will be forced to amend the current law of no refusal of on the tongue to include, unless this happens…
 
David_Catholic said:
I’m not a trad. Trads are Roman Catholic. I’m Byzantine.
Click to expand...
You’ve missed the point. Trad, Inc. is a group of Catholics on Twitter who believe they are more Catholic than…everyone. And they profit by thinking that way. You can belong to any rite and still be suckered into believing the bishops are all evil, you’re better off without them, you’re more Catholic than they are…
 
MagdalenaRita said:
40.png
gracepoole:
You can belong to any rite and still be suckered into believing the bishops are all evil,
Click to expand...
I haven’t met any Catholic yet who believes this, of any rite or theology
Click to expand...
Sadly, I have. Steve Skojec, founder of One Peter Five, recently said on Twitter that all the bishops need to be “laid low” and that none of them were salvageable. 😳
 
I have listened to many traditional Catholics and have yes heard them voice concerns about the bishops due to the crisis we are in and the sex abuse crisis but not one have I heard say all of them. So it is wrong to put all traditional Catholics in one boat.

Also yesterday at a novus ordos Bible study many non trad Catholics had great concerns about the bishops, are unhappy with the bishops and the crisis the Church is in now.

Just a thought to remember, the concerns are running through the whole Church.
 
Last edited:
I don’t think anyone here has said this is a belief held by all traditional Catholics. It’s not. But it’s definitely held by some. And that’s sad.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top