Eucharist on the tongue

[ProVobis]

Actually, you do have to accept what your Bishop says, as ultimately, he has more authority over you than does the Vatican. And if your Bishop is part of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, then he has accepted communion in the hand as part of the Committee on Divine Worship’s teaching about the liturgy. Aren’t you saying that he is wrong, if you choose to hold to a belief that runs contrary to what he himself upholds? usccb.org/liturgy/girm/bul5.shtml

That’s interesting. Consider this.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

That’s interesting. Consider this.

You really need to ignore this link. It’s to the Bayside apparition website. ProVobis should not have posted it. Also, the information is inaccurate.

 

[choy]

I personally don’t care if my Bishop said it was ok to throw a football during Mass, it doesn’t mean I HAVE to accept it and think it’s ok because he said it’s ok. And where did I say I didn’t have respect for my Bishop? He is, after all, MY local Bishop, so how do you know whether or not I have respect for him?

your bishop knows about matters of the faith than you, and you should be submissive to his decisions. he is the shepherd and you are just part of the flock. there is a reason he’s a bishop and you’re a layperson. Jesus called him, not you. his opinion matters more than yours in this regard

sorry to put it down so harshly, but thats the harsh reality

 

[choy]

I’m pretty much appalled by your disrespect towards your local Bishop, and all of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, who have approved “CITH” as an acceptable practice. Really, who are you to say that your Bishop is wrong???

just a minor correction or addendum, but CITH is approved by many bishop conferences around the world. places i have been to, Philippines, Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore, all allow CITH. so it not purely in the US

 

[mommamaree]

Okay, I am going to ask another question that will probably get me in trouble here, but I hope you will have pity on me and overlook my ignorance. In the Gospel account of the Last Supper, did Jesus place the bread he broke on the tongue of the disciples, or did he pass or hand it to them?

just bumping up my post in hopes that someone will actually answer my question…

 

[ProVobis]

just bumping up my post in hopes that someone will actually answer my question…

Bible doesn’t say.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

just bumping up my post in hopes that someone will actually answer my question…

As has been noted, the Bible doesn’t say. Communion in the hand was, however, an Apostolic and Patristic practice.

 

[boatbearer]

Well, good for you, Betty!!! It is the only way to receive it because priests’ hands are consecrated so the Eucharist went from consecrated hand directly into you - without defiling Jesus by having him in your hand before your mouth. Think about it: this IS the very body and blood of Jesus we’re talking about. I am so very happy for you that you are now receiving it properly. Once a person fully understands this it seems rather insulting to God to do otherwise, doesn’t it?

It’s not the only way to receive.

I hope you never have to receive from a concelebrating Byzantine Catholic priest as their hands are not consecrated…

To suggest you can “defile” Jesus with your hands and not your mouth is ridiculous.

Once someone understands that receiving communion in hand or on the tongue is purely a personal preference (where allowed) with one method not being better than the other, they will then cease being insulting to God’s faithful.

 

[CatholicOf94]

Ask your priest to have patens. There is a reason why there were made: TO PREVENT THE HOST FROM FALLING! I salute you for choosing to receive on the tongue. You really feel more comfortable, and glad that you received it in the way it should be taken. And don’t worry, 99.9% of the time, the Host just sticks on the tongue.

The .1% is if you have a priest that is afraid of your tongue.

 

[boatbearer]

Ask your priest to have patens. There is a reason why there were made: TO PREVENT THE HOST FROM FALLING! I salute you for choosing to receive on the tongue. You really feel more comfortable, and glad that you received it in the way it should be taken. And don’t worry, 99.9% of the time, the Host just sticks on the tongue.

The .1% is if you have a priest that is afraid of your tongue.

I don’t think patens have much value in terms of actually keeping hosts from falling. That’s particularly true of those “patens on a stick” when they are wielded by kids. In fact I think their use is more apt to cause a dropped host than to keep one from being dropped.

On the other hand I do think they have a very important sign value. Their proper use does suggest that care is being expressed which is always important.

I think anyone who is hyper-concerned about a host falling should consider receiving communion in their hands where it it permitted.

 

[callmeChris]

It’s not the only way to receive.

I hope you never have to receive from a concelebrating Byzantine Catholic priest as their hands are not consecrated…

To suggest you can “defile” Jesus with your hands and not your mouth is ridiculous.

Once someone understands that receiving communion in hand or on the tongue is purely a personal preference (where allowed) with one method not being better than the other, they will then cease being insulting to God’s faithful.

Whoa,Whoa, frickity Whoa!!! Calm down, no reason to be hostile.:slapfight: You need to see it from a theological perspective. Throughout the Church’s history, Priests, Theologians, Popes and saints alike have recommended this practice.

Consider the words of 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.” - ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, Summa Theologica**

There is no reason to pull the trigger on an innocent person who was simply commending the one who posted this thread. If you don’t like communion on the tongue, let alone on bended knees than that’s YOUR agenda, not mine.

With sincere love, Christian

 

[PJM]

=BettyM;6567935]I have just started receiving the Eucharist on the tongue and it definitely feels more reverent. It makes you stop more and think about what is happening at the moment and what you are receiving.

It’s a little frightening, though. I am afraid it might fall and I won’t know what to do. It will upset the whole Mass. In my area the churches are packed so it’s a very long line of people.

Any suggestions for receiving on the tongue safely.
Has anyone had it fall before and what did you do?

I’ve seen the priest drop the host twice in over fifty-years. Never a concern. Simply open you’re mouth and allow Jesus to be placed in you’re mouth.

IT IS MORE REVERENT:

Receiving Jesus on the tongue is just that: RECEIVING JESUS.

Taking Jesus in you’re hand is just that; TAKING JESUS! a HUGE theological diference.

And as a FYI…

Receiving on the tongue continues tio be the International NORMAL Practice.

NOTE; IF, God forbid, the Sacred host drops; allow the priest to pick it up and consume it.

Love and prayers,

 

[Tartini]

Congratulations in being aware of such a holy act.

The difference is important, but a rather difficult “argument” can be applied to it. The principal matter is that one realizes exactly what is going on.

Communion in the hand is valid, it just lacks a certain level of reverence. One can and is free to choose the way they receive, but I find it a great thing that many (if not all) EF Masses will not give Communion in the hand.

Obviously, a personal definition of what is “reverent” seems to be the issue. It is an open sign of the attitude towards many things of the modernistic dominated times we live in. Some (not all) who usually lack a full belief in the Real Presence wholly accept it as a norm. One should bear in mind that a sin is only committed in full knowledge of the act being sinful-as one who receive the Sacred Species in an unworthy manner.

I am aware of CITH only coming into effect after V2, but also that it was a practice of very early Christians. One must take into account the many practices of the early Christians are not the practices of what we do today. Time changes method, but not intent. It is rather a mystery as why CITH was done at all, but I have my suspicions.

Social mirroring seems to be the argument that is used most, and a great deal of New Mass practices seems to gear towards a more primitive attitude of worship that resembles a protestant bent, thus attracting new converts from other sects and denominations. There are reasons for this that is full of conjecture (depending on one’s point of view here), but very evident none the less. When the practice of hand reception was first “instituted” it was done by some in rebellion, which is for the wrong reason. Human social traditions (those that are brought about by common social situations of the time they are instituted) can too often self-interpretative to the point of rendering confusion for some individuals.

The full understanding of the Eucharist should be the very consideration as to what the proper reception should be. When one understand this, there is no longer any question as to what is considered reverent, not necessarily valid.