Eucharist on the tongue??

[maryelizabeth1]

I was wondering for those of us who like to receive the Eucharist on our tongue does it ever seem that the priest is reluctant to give it to you?
Today I was at mass and I watched the priest wipe his hand on his side after giving the Eucharist to this man. I was a little taken a back and wondered if that was normal. I sometimes feel like I shouldn’t receive the host on my tonuge.

Thanks for your thoughts!

Mary Elizabeth

 

[Brian_C]

I have had the most reassuring feeling about my parish after our pastor gave a lecture on the Eucharist to the RCIA folks, urging them to try both in the hand and on the tongue.

I’m not sure our liturgist feels the same way, though. When I went thru Easter Vigil, he instructed everyone that we all had to receive in the hand AND take the Precious Blood.

 

[LittleRose]

I don’t think it’s reluctance, so much as it is awkwardness. I mean, since many parishes where the hand is the most common method do not use the paten, they sometimes have to practically put their fingers in one’s mouth to administer the sacrament without risk of dropping anything. That’s awkward.

Lack of practice would probably add to the awkwardness described above. I mean, what’s the mouth-to-hand receiving ratio these days? whe

 

[maryelizabeth1]

Little Rose:
I can see your point. I would be mortified if I dropped the Body of Christ on the ground.
This particular priest seems to automatically hold the Host lower so that it would be a little bit of a challenge in order to receive on your tongue. We have three priests and one Monsignor at my parish so I adjust the way I do things according to the priest. =) Maybe I’m just being picky.

 

[scylla]

Most of the liberal priests get bothered when they see people who try to be reverent. This makes them feel guilty for their irreverance and sometimes they react in negative ways.

This is similar to the feminists when they burned veils to symbolize their rejection of “male dominance”.

Or Bishop Weakland speaking against Mother Angelica as she reminded him of how fidelity to Christ bothers those who identify themselves with progressive ideals, with Weakland this could be seen in his eventual resignation.

I wouldn’t worry about the negative reactions you get when you try to be faithful or even more reverent at Mass.

I was told today that we should ignore the tabernacle as it “takes away from the Altar.” This from a lady who is for women priests. So should I listen to her?

Focus on your fidelity to Christ and don’t worry about negative reactions, as you become more faithful you will see more and it will become harder. People are not bothered when you don’t stand up for what is more reverent or what is right.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[rwoehmke]

As one of the very early combo lector/song leader/EMHC’s in my diocese, I distributed only on the tongue for some time. It works well when people know enough to really open wide and get that tongue out there. It is then easy to just flip the host in there. When they don’t the distributer ends up with spitty fingers trying to get the host in far enough so it wouldn’t drop on the paten. I gave up all three roles well over a decade ago, but give me Communion in the Hand any day if I am going to be the EMHC.

 

[scylla]

All you do is turn your hand over and it is easy to place the host in the mouth. If you do it palm up you do run the risk of spitty fingers.

I dread every Sunday when I have to distribute Eucharist as my parish does not need EMHC’s and it is an abuse. I would much rather the Priest or Deacon distribute, or an Acolyte but our diocese promotes the liberal use of EMHC’s.

I always receive on the tongue as our Lord deserves the respect and the less handling of his Body by the non-ordained the better. I don’t care about what other people do as my primary concern is my salvation and they are allowed to receive however they want.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[thistle]

Most of the liberal priests get bothered when they see people who try to be reverent. This makes them feel guilty for their irreverance and sometimes they react in negative ways.
In Christ
Scylla

That is just a stupid and uncharitable comment, unworthy of a Catholic.

CCC 2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:

• of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
• of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;
• of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

CCC 2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.

CCC 2479 Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one’s neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity.

 

[Fr_Ben_Hawley]

in an earlier post on this subject i said that for me the fundamental principle is reverence for the Eucharist. several years ago i belonged to a large prayer group in which one priest was quite elderly and legally blind. people coming to him to receive the Precious Body tried to receive on the tongue. but since he couldn’t see their tongues, they tried to move their tongues to the Precious Body in his hand. the result was a “dance” that for me robbed the moment of the fundamental reverence due the Lord’s Presence.

i have discussed this matter with a number of priests over the years, and there is general agreement among us that, as edifying and respectful it might see to the laity to receive on the tongue, it is quite disedifying for us priests to see our parishoners the same way their dentists do. it may be that this problem did not exist when laypeople received kneeling at the altar rail.

in addition, no amount of experience in offering the Precious Body prevents the priest’s getting saliva on his fingers. this is unsanitary both for the priest and for those following later in the communion line.

some writers in the forum have said that the Host should not be touched by unconsecrated hands. i have heard this but never seen a formal statement from the Magisterium on it. there may well be one, and i would be interested in any references anyone could give me.

 

[Goblin_Taters]

Originally Posted by Fr. Ben Hawley:

in addition, no amount of experience in offering the Precious Body prevents the priest’s getting saliva on his fingers. this is unsanitary both for the priest and for those following later in the communion line.

some writers in the forum have said that the Host should not be touched by unconsecrated hands. i have heard this but never seen a formal statement from the Magisterium on it. there may well be one, and i would be interested in any references anyone could give me.

Fr., with all due respect, I do not believe that the priest placing the host on someone’s tongue is any less sanitary than other activities which are common in the Catholic Church. Just think of the hundreds of people who, during the cold season, place their germ-filled fingers into the holy water font, one person after the other, only for all to shake the infected hands of one another and minutes later to place those same digits near the mouth later when receiving the Eucharist.

If there are extraodrinary ministers, they too might get infected with the saliva of the priest, after he consumes the presentation Host and uses his fingers to distribute the rest for the ministers.

Catholics should be happy that they no longer have the kiss of peace, which is horribly unsanitary!

I am not aware of any document which says that unconsecrated hands should not touch the Host. Extraordinary lay ministers in particular cases are allowed to distribute the Eucharist, so obviously there is a tacit acknowledgment that lay people can touch the Eucharist. However, I know that the documents on Eucharistic commuion stress the reverence to be given the Eucharist, and the dangers of having the Eucharist given any less respect than due to God. So, I’m sure the Church does not want individuals to receive (nor distribute) who do not believe the Eucharist to be Jesus Christ, Body Blood Soul and Divinity.

God Bless!

 

[palmas85]

in an earlier post on this subject i said that for me the fundamental principle is reverence for the Eucharist. several years ago i belonged to a large prayer group in which one priest was quite elderly and legally blind. people coming to him to receive the Precious Body tried to receive on the tongue. but since he couldn’t see their tongues, they tried to move their tongues to the Precious Body in his hand. the result was a “dance” that for me robbed the moment of the fundamental reverence due the Lord’s Presence.

i have discussed this matter with a number of priests over the years, and there is general agreement among us that, as edifying and respectful it might see to the laity to receive on the tongue, it is quite disedifying for us priests to see our parishoners the same way their dentists do. it may be that this problem did not exist when laypeople received kneeling at the altar rail.

in addition, no amount of experience in offering the Precious Body prevents the priest’s getting saliva on his fingers. this is unsanitary both for the priest and for those following later in the communion line.

some writers in the forum have said that the Host should not be touched by unconsecrated hands. i have heard this but never seen a formal statement from the Magisterium on it. there may well be one, and i would be interested in any references anyone could give me.

And of course the legally blind priest could see the communicants hands just fine huh? Or would the movement of the hands be considered for this purpose, I assume they had to move their hands as well for this, liturgical dance of some sort?

 

[Goblin_Taters]

On the legally blind priest, I don’t see how receiving in the hand would be any easier. When the priest can’t see, there is the risk that the communicant and the priest’s hands collide, the host falling to the ground or being broken.

I don’t see why a deacon (or even altar boy) could have helped guide the priest’s movements to make it more effective, even though there problems would still exist.

 

[Windmill]

some writers in the forum have said that the Host should not be touched by unconsecrated hands. i have heard this but never seen a formal statement from the Magisterium on it. there may well be one, and i would be interested in any references anyone could give me.

Hi Fr.

God bless you in your ministry.

Here are some references to start out with:

“To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained.” (Dominicae Cenae, sec. 11) - John Paul II

"To avoid creating confusion, certain practices are to be avoided and eliminated where such have emerged in particular Churches:
— the habitual use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion at Mass thus arbitrarily extending the concept of “a great number of the faithful”. (*ON CERTAIN QUESTIONS REGARDING *THE COLLABORATION OF THE NON-ORDAINED
FAITHFUL IN THE SACRED MINISTRY OF PRIEST) - The Supreme Pontiff, in Audience of the 13th of August 1997 approved in forma specifica this present Instruction and ordered its promulgation. (for those who don’t know, “forma specifica” means this documents is given the weight of Canon Law)

These quotes do not say that non-ordained hands cannot touch the Sacred Species, but that it should be a rare, or extraordinary, thing.

As far as the above debate on communion in the hand, something to keep in mind is that this is not the norm in the church. The canonical norm is receiving on the tongue. We Americans are allowed communion in the hand as an indult (or “rescript”) which allows us to veer from the norm. If the Holy See revoked this indult tomorrow (like they did with the indult allowing lay EMHC’s to purify vessels after Mass), then we could not do it any more. We don’t have the “right” to this. It is a concession that was made in response to those who were receiving in the hand in disobedience to episcopal authority.

 

[Windmill]

Oh yeah, and I’m a dentist

I should clarify a couple of things:

1. Though the Holy See was originally against this practice, Paul VI gave the bishop’s conferences the right to choose to allow Communion in the Hand (with certain restrictions and with provisos allowing for the privilege to be revoked). Those who take advantage of this indult are doing so LEGALLY. By receiving in the hand, you are not condoning those things the Holy See was against. Don’t have a big moment of conscience, but just realize that Rome was not all that excited about this. In fact, if you go to St. Peter’s Basilica, there is a sign that says no matter where you are from, you will receive Communion on the Tongue in St. Peter’s.
2. In those dioceses where both ways are allowed, you cannot force the Faithful to receive in one way only. They have a legitimate choice under the indult.

 

[LeahInancsi]

As one of the very early combo lector/song leader/EMHC’s in my diocese, I distributed only on the tongue for some time. It works well when people know enough to really open wide and get that tongue out there. It is then easy to just flip the host in there. When they don’t the distributer ends up with spitty fingers trying to get the host in far enough so it wouldn’t drop on the paten. I gave up all three roles well over a decade ago, but give me Communion in the Hand any day if I am going to be the EMHC.

Amen! You took the words out of my mouth. One of these days, I’m going to start sounding like a dentist, “Open wide.”

 

[otjm]

And of course the legally blind priest could see the communicants hands just fine huh? Or would the movement of the hands be considered for this purpose, I assume they had to move their hands as well for this, liturgical dance of some sort?

Well, considering that the tongue often is stuck out no more than an inch, giving at best about 1 1/2 to 2 square inches so matter, and the hand is about 6 to 8 inches long and about 3 to 5 inches wide, thus giving about 18 to 40 square inches of matter, it is entirely possible that if he is legally blind, he could not see the tongue but coud see the hand 18 inches away from his eyes.

Perhaps you should learn a little bit more about legal blindness. I have a friend who is legally blind, and to make a bad pun, it was an eye-opener for me.

 

[Fr_Ben_Hawley]

i believe i am right in saying that sarcasm is inappropriate in these posts and responses, according to the Forum’s guidelines.

as you correctly point out, a priest who cannot see an open mouth will not be able to see open hands. but a blind priest can hold out the Precious Body and a layperson can cup his or her hands under the priest’s hands, touching his hands as a signal that the priest may now safely and gently place the Precious Body in the layperson’s hands. these gestures are simple and reverent and so appropriate to the distribution of the Precious Body. in their simplicity and reverence i find them preferable to the alternatives.

recent posts from rwoehmke and leahnancsi, using such phrases as “flip the host in there” and “get that tongue out there” capture well my reservations about offering the Precious Body on the tongue.

 

[Mattapoisett64]

some writers in the forum have said that the Host should not be touched by unconsecrated hands. i have heard this but never seen a formal statement from the Magisterium on it. there may well be one, and i would be interested in any references anyone could give me.

My own thought would be that there isn’t such a statement in this literal sense. The GIRM clearly identifies the deacon as an ordinary minister of Holy Communion, but of course at a diaconal ordination a deacon’s hands aren’t consecrated /anointed as a priest’s are. I think the quote from John Paul II is closer to the issue in referring to ordained hands vs. consecrated hands.

 

[scylla]

That is just a stupid and uncharitable comment, unworthy of a Catholic.

CCC 2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:

• of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
• of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;
• of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

CCC 2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.

CCC 2479 Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one’s neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity.

Were you accusing yourself?

I did not single anyone out and I just explained how sinful people do not like exposure and prefer the company of sin rather than the exposure of their own sinful behavior.

I am quite stupid,and also unworthy, yet I don’t think that it is very charitable to single a person out on this forum and attack them.
Projection?

May God bless you and please in the future refrain from the personal attacks.
Scylla

I stand by my statements as I am quite familiar with sinful people, myself included.

 

[rwoehmke]

All you do is turn your hand over and it is easy to place the host in the mouth. If you do it palm up you do run the risk of spitty fingers.
In Christ
Scylla

That is true if they open up. But some pucker their tongue up like a little trough and the host sits high. They pull in the old tongue and sweep it off with their upper lip. I am also very sceptical of the notion that receiving in the hand has anything to do with the lack of knowledge and belief in the real presence. I would leif believe that it has more to do with the pathetic catechesis many of our young folks got after Vatican II.

We are also stuck with people who never learned to receive properly on the tongue and than take the notion that its more reverent and decide to do so with not so nice results. Actually I have no real preference when I receive for myself. Just want to partake of the Sacrament one way or the other. I wouldn’t have any qualms about bringing back communion rails and the whole shebang, but I think I will be long with the Lord above before that happens.