Eucharist on the tongue??

  • Thread starter Thread starter maryelizabeth1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This would be easily solved with a small class after Mass about the faith covering different aspects, which would include how to receive the Eucharist.

Then you could also teach about the evils of contraception, what the Mass is about, and many other aspects of the faith that most Catholics missed out on being taught.

Most people who were taught Catechism correctly actually practiced receiving the Eucharist properly.

In Christ
Scylla
 
maryelizabeth1 said:
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
Click to expand...
Perhaps the person you saw receive communion didn’t stick his tongue out far enough, and the priest touched his tongue. I’ve watched people who go up for communion and just open their mouth and expect the priest to either toss the host in there, or reach in (which makes them nervous- they don’t know if they’ll get slobbered on or bitten or something).

You may always receive the Host on the tongue. I personally do not think anyone who is not ordained should touch the host with their hands- save only to protect it.
 
I think it has a lot to do with the fact that there are still significant numbers of us who made our First Communions in the days before and for several years after V II (early 70’s) before the communion rails were removed in large numbers of churches. I made my First Communion in 1958 and I have never received in the hand from that date.

The good sisters who catechized us stated that we should not profane the Lord with our human hands. Back then, as you probably won’t recall, the first line of “defense” against the host falling was the paten. The second line was the linen which was flipped over the communion rail. I can’t recall every seeing a host fall any further than the paten.

Likewise, we were told stories of martyrs who went to their deaths to prevent desecration of the host. In other words, we were taught to treat the host with absolute and utmost honor to the point where, unfortunately, many children back then were afraid to make their First Communion. I know I was.

Should the Eucharist ever fall, we were taught that no one should touch the fallen host save the priest. I’ve asked this question privately and publicly and there doesn’t seem to be a definitive answer either before V II or today as to where this came from save Eucharistic piety.

I attend a reverent NO parish which has large numbers of my parent’s generation still alive and us aging boomers. I would say that the proportions of those receiving on the tongue as opposed to those in the hand is 60/40. I don’t know of any parish here that I’ve attended either in Baton Rouge or New Orleans where receiving on the tongue was even remotely looked at askance.

Personally, I would like to kneel. I can do this at our next door parish but my cathedral had the communion rails ripped out back in the late 60s.

For those of us receiving on the tongue, Father and the EMHCs use the palm down method. And all of us watch like hawks for people palming the Eucharist. It has happened enough that we are extremely vigilant.
 
I really wish that as a child I was taught that receiving on the tongue was the norm and how to. However at the parish that I now attend all of the alter servers receive on the tongue while kneeling. Also, all of the first communicants received on the tongue kneeling. 😃 (They brought in a sort of kneeler for the first communicants.) This is at a N.O. Mass, too.
 
Fr_Ben_Hawley said:
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 leahinancsi, 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.
Click to expand...
Father,

I did not make the statements you quoted, but most of the people I serve who want it on the tongue, barely open their mouths and I mean barely part their lips. Forget sticking out their tongue. One man on this forum said that he had a small mouth. If his mouth were that small he would be living on liquids or would have starved to death. This is not sarcastic, it’s the truth.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask the communicants to make the ordinary or extraordinary ministers job a little easier especially considering the consequences. Fortunately, the precious Body of Christ has not fallen to the floor in my presence.
 
JohnPaul_2:

How blessed you are to be a memeber of such a great parish. I would love to be able to attend your mass!
😃
 
Windmill said:
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.
Click to expand...
In papal masses broadcast from the Holy See, people receive in the hand, even from the Holy Father himself.

To the OP: is it possible that the priest in question simply got saliva on his hand and was wiping it off?
 
JKirkLVNV said:
In papal masses broadcast from the Holy See, people receive in the hand, even from the Holy Father himself.
Click to expand...
I checked further into this, and I realize where my assumption was: JPII had a sign posted for priests celebrating Mass in St. Peter’s that said this. I was assuming that practice was continued. I guess they have changed that. However, it was JPII’s expressed wish at one point not to allow this practice in St. Peter’s.

Thanks for the update!
 
Windmill said:
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.
Click to expand...
Those two references are good for a start and relevant due to being so recent. the Church has long held the tradition that the faithful were to receive on the tongue and that only consecrated hands should touch the Eucharist.

groups.msn.com/DEFENDINGTRADITIONALCATHOLICISM/handcommunion2.msnw

Here is another link that poses some really thought provoking questions on the topic…

groups.msn.com/DEFENDINGTRADITIONALCATHOLICISM/wewanttoknowwhy.msnw

God bless,
Mike
 
Mike,

It forgot to add:

“Why are traditional seminaries that use the Tridentine Rite bursting at the seams and having to turn vocations away?”
 
An alert reader sent me a PM correcting me on a thread that is now closed. In discussing the distribution of Holy Communion by laymen, I quoted JPII who said that this privilege was for the ordained, which is true. I think the point of the Pope in saying this was to emphasize that fact that this is not a right of laymen to do so, nor should it be the norm. We should all pray for vocations to the diaconate and priesthood so that EMHC’s will TRULY be extraordinary as the Church labels them such.

The reader who PM’d me was kind enough to assume I had innocently taken JPII’s quote out context, which, as it turns out, I had. I am as guilty as the next person in not always going back and checking up on the original sources. After reading the context, I don’t think my orignal point was altered, but by giving it context, it will prevent unnecessary scandal by those who may think that the use of EMHC’s is inherently wrong. That I have never said, nor do I wish to imply. So I post the kind reader’s PM here:

In context, the Pope’s comments were:

“To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained, one which indicates an active participation in the ministry of the Eucharist. It is obvious that the Church can grant this faculty to those who are neither priests nor deacons, as is the case with acolytes in the exercise of their ministry, especially if they are destined for future ordination, or with other lay people who are chosen for this to meet a just need, but always after an adequate preparation.”

In my defense, I did not say that the Church was overstepping her bounds by saying that laymen could handle the sacred species, but rather, that it should truly be extraordinary. Sadly, this is not the case, and I think the document,
ON CERTAIN QUESTIONS REGARDING
THE COLLABORATION OF THE NON-ORDAINED
FAITHFUL IN THE SACRED MINISTRY OF PRIEST** (**Article 8) is an attempt by the Vatican to reign in this abuse.

If I implied that the legitimate use of EMHC’s is wrong, then I apologize. However, the habitual use of EMHC’s at Mass is something that Rome has called parishes to “eliminate”, and that should not be taken lightly.

I don’t think anyone here takes Rome lightly.

In the end, it is not the opinion of this lowly dentist that matters when it comes to the liturgy. That’s for the Holy See to hash out. We should listen to her decrees.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top