Eucharist on the tongue

[johnstown_johnn]

I agree with you. And I believe there will be a schism and we can see the beginnings of that schism now. The Pope needs our prayers now more than ever.

I am gladdened that some here can envision a schism; they will NOT be caught by surprise. I believe when that day arrives the Holy Spirit will guide us in the direction in which to go and continue on with the True Church.

Lacklustre attitude concerning the Eucharist is a clear sign of people that have lost step. The Eucharist is ACTUALLY the Body, Soul and Divinity of Christ Himself. We should approach It with that as central to our humility.

 

[dbacks5439]

I was in grammar school in the 1980s. I remember being disciplined for trying to receive Communion on the tongue. I remember being told it was “not allowed”, “forbidden”, “the old way”, “not what the Church wanted”.

Such was only one of several issues about which I was told lies in the 1980s, and beyond.

Communion in the hand may be permitted by indult, but it has a questionable history since the late 1960s. For some reason it seemed to require lies about reception on the tongue as part of its package.

Well, before Vat.II, there were a lot of people who felt “repressed” theologically speaking. After Vat.II, those same people used the council as an excuse to further their theological agenda. Fact of the matter is, the council never said that reception on the tongue is forbidden. In fact, there is no mention of it anywhere in the documents. I just started to receive on the the tongue and even genuflect before reception. It really adds to the spirituality and reality of the Eucharist.

 

[laudamus_te]

I am gladdened that some here can envision a schism; they will NOT be caught by surprise. I believe when that day arrives the Holy Spirit will guide us in the direction in which to go and continue on with the True Church.

Lacklustre attitude concerning the Eucharist is a clear sign of people that have lost step. The Eucharist is ACTUALLY the Body, Soul and Divinity of Christ Himself. We should approach It with that as central to our humility.

It’s funny how the ones who defend optimum respect for the Eucharist are treated with such contempt. Yet the bishops who promote, if not demand, the least respectful methods of reception are not so much as questioned. It’s diabolical disorientation, as Sr. Lucy warned so many times.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

It’s funny how the ones who defend optimum respect for the Eucharist are treated with such contempt. Yet the bishops who promote, if not demand, the least respectful methods of reception are not so much as questioned. It’s diabolical disorientation, as Sr. Lucy warned so many times.

“Contempt” is an outward sign of one’s belief in the Presence. I believe the instructors that teach First Holy Communicants only in the hand are guilty of omission. Bishops are the ones that bear most of the responsibility of these omissions.

[Edited by Moderator]

 

[KatholikosMercy]

Who said I was doing so to set a trend?

No one did. Does you conscience tell you that? If you do it from true reverance kudos to you.

It’s also pride to need to be accepted by the community - i.e. to do something “because everyone else is doing it.”

No its not.

1Co 1:10 Now I exhort you, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that you all say the same thing, and there be no divisions among you, but you be united in the same mind and in the same judgment.

Php 3:16 Yet as to where we have arrived, walk by the same rule, being of the same mind.

I don’t know why you take such offense at my defense of kneeling for Communion.

I take no offense at it at all. I’m glad to see it. It however is not the norm of the Roman missal. Check the cannon.

Did I say you were “blasphemous” or disobedient? No. I am not trying to shame you or anyone. I have never called into question your reverence. I just find it extremely sad that a Catholic can say that they have never witnessed other Catholics kneeling for Communion!

Re-read my words. Not directed toward you. Consider this, that you find it sad what others do, you are to concerned with them and not enough with yourself.

That is just another indication of the deplorable state of our Church.

I find it sad that you would think your own church is deplorable, especially one in which you have some chioces.

By the way, keep in mind that the devil has no knees.

Oh yes he does, AND he is also an angel of light. Be it kneeling or bowing we must make sure we do it for the love and reverance of God with hearts and minds raised to God lest either be done in vain.

Can I get an Amen = “I believe” with a sign of the cross while conscious of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost?

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Please don’t make personal comments, people. It only distracts from the discussion and leads to threads being closed. Thank you.

 

[laudamus_te]

“Contempt” is an outward sign of one’s belief in the Presence. I believe the instructors that teach First Holy Communicants only in the hand are guilty of omission. Bishops are the ones that bear most of the responsibility of these omissions.
[Edited by Moderator]

Agreed. Remember St. John Crystostom said "“The floor of Hell is littered with the skulls of dead bishops and priests.”

 

[laudamus_te]

1Co 1:10 Now I exhort you, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that you all say the same thing, and there be no divisions among you, but you be united in the same mind and in the same judgment.

Php 3:16 Yet as to where we have arrived, walk by the same rule, being of the same mind.

Yes, that’s a lovely verse. But being “united in the same mind and in the same judgment” does not mean “do what others do in order to fit in.”

I take no offense at it at all. I’m glad to see it. It however is not the norm of the Roman missal. Check the cannon.

Perhaps you can quote to me from the canon where it says that kneeling is not the norm.

Re-read my words. Not directed toward you. Consider this, that you find it sad what others do, you are to concerned with them and not enough with yourself.

Not true. I am not concerned with what others do for their own sake, but what they do as it affects Our Lord. Would you not defend Our Lord if you saw what you considered to be abuse? That is what I am doing. If you don’t like it, that’s fine. But I will not go to my judgment day knowing that I did not speak up when I thought Our Lord was being abused. And particles of His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity falling to the ground and being trampled upon (and if you see the pictures of Communions at World Youth Day events, you ought to be truly scandalized) is abuse of Our Lord.

I find it sad that you would think your own church is deplorable, especially one in which you have some chioces.

I do not find my Church deplorable. Conditions in the Church today are deplorable. You should be able to see that there is a distinction.

 

[KatholikosMercy]

Yes, that’s a lovely verse. But being “united in the same mind and in the same judgment” does not mean “do what others do in order to fit in.”

I never said it was “JUST to fit in” That we’re there recieving is whats required. After that its a matter of personal relationship with God. If your reverence exceeds mine then so be it.

Perhaps you can quote to me from the canon where it says that kneeling is not the norm

I’d have to research it. It doesn’t say exactly that the norm ISN’T kneeling. What it does say is that “it recommends a bow as a sign of reverance”. Nothing about kneeling at all.

Not true. I am not concerned with what others do for their own sake, but what they do as it affects Our Lord. Would you not defend Our Lord if you saw what you considered to be abuse?

Ah, so you consider people NOT kneeling to be abusive? Let me ask you then, where is the malace in all these people toward the lord for not kneeling. Is it culpable or from their own neglect?

That is what I am doing. If you don’t like it, that’s fine. But I will not go to my judgment day knowing that I did not speak up when I thought Our Lord was being abused.

This is a public and open forum. You have ever right to speak freely here so long as you do not break the rules of the forum and loose the privilage.

And particles of His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity falling to the ground and being trampled upon (and if you see the pictures of Communions at World Youth Day events, you ought to be truly scandalized) is abuse of Our Lord.

I haven’t seen such pictures. I would understand a problem of logistics there yes. Aer you aware that there are particles of the Lord put into the ground after ever Mass. We wipe and clean the tools used at Mass but the final rinse ends in the ground. Neither is intentional.

I do not find my Church deplorable. Conditions in the Church today are deplorable. You should be able to see that there is a distinction.

No conditions are not deplorable. The Church is Jesus, I admire and love the church. (I find the world and her influence deplorable). I support her and do not dissent from what she teaches. Though changes may confuse me I bite the bullet and follow my Bishops to the best of my ability. I have never regretted it. This is NOT to say kneeling is wrong of course, (and I do agree its more reverant) but neither is a bow wrong or deplorable. Its all part of the growth of the church.

 

[laudamus_te]

I’m sorry. I won’t sidetrack the thread any longer. I’ve said what I need to say, and it’s obviously only going to continue to be twisted and misinterpreted.

God bless.

 

[bear06]

This carried over from another thread.

Laudamus te said:

These are fragments that you won’t see, they are tiny. But even the smallest fragment contains Our Lord, as you know.

Again, my arument was against fragments we cannot see containing Our Lord. This is not Catholic teaching.

From the Summa:

Quote:

An accident can be corrupted in another way, through the corruption of its subject, and in this way also they can be corrupted after consecration; for although the subject does not remain, still the being which they had in the subject does remain, which being is proper, and suited to the subject. And therefore such being can be corrupted by a contrary agent, as the substance of the bread or wine was subject to corruption, and, moreover, was not corrupted except by a preceding alteration regarding the accidents.

"Nevertheless, a distinction must be made between each of the aforesaid corruptions; because, when the body and the blood of Christ succeed in this sacrament to the substance of the bread and wine, if there be such change on the part of the accidents as would not have sufficed for the corruption of the bread and wine, then the body and blood of Christ do not cease to be under this sacrament on account of such change, whether the change be on the part of the quality, as for instance, when the color or the savor of the bread or wine is slightly modified; or on the part of the quantity, as when the bread or the wine is divided into such parts as to keep in them the nature of bread or of wine. But if the change be so great that the substance of the bread or wine would have been corrupted, then Christ’s body and blood do not remain under this sacrament; and this either on the part of the qualities, as when the color, savor, and other qualities of the bread and wine are so altered as to be incompatible with the nature of bread or of wine; or else on the part of the quantity, as, for instance, if the bread be reduced to fine particles, or the wine divided into such tiny drops that the species of bread or wine no longer remain.

If you can’t see it, Our Lord is no longer there.

I was only addressing you comment above. I was not addressing fragments you could see.

Regardless of how one receives, a paton should be used to catch any visible particles. That said, the “microscopic” or particles you cannot see arguments don’t wash.

 

[KatholikosMercy]

I’m sorry. I won’t sidetrack the thread any longer. I’ve said what I need to say, and it’s obviously only going to continue to be twisted and misinterpreted.

God bless.

This dialogue is exactly on the topic of the thread I think. There is no need to consider differing points of view as twisting and we can work out and misinterpretations as we go.

Let me explain something, I am a reverted Catholic who came back to church about 11 yeas ago now after being raised in parochial school. When I did so, I began to devour everything ancient and traditional I could get my hands on. I used to kneel all the time before communion though I could never bring myself to actually kneel at the priest while recieving as I felt embarassed to do that as it seemed likely to draw undue attention on myself if I did. I have only felt comfortable doing that maybe a couple times at different retreats.

I am also an extrodinary minister of holy communion which has brought me stuggle over this topic as well. Since understanding that my hands were not consecrated and I was recieving on the tongue should I then avoid EMHCs so as to only recieve from a priests hands on the tongue when I mayself were tasked with helping distribute communioni? If I was to do this then shouldn’t I then cease being a EMHC which I love to do? Thus the delema. I needed to seek peace. I found peace in doing what I feel most comfortable with. That just happens to be what the majority of the faithful do. I do not do it becuase they are. When I approach communion and fail to kneel my heart and mind are in the same state of reverance as if I did. Am I then only kneeling to edify others? If thats the case is that really my place? I used to think that was maybe the case but do not any longer. Its between the faithful and God. He knows everyones hearts. The form the Mass takes is up to our bishops and I have to hold to whatever they find acceptable I cannot fault.

 

[CarmelG]

I prefer to receive the Eucharist on my tongue because if it is placed in my hand, there is a possibility that little pieces of it will be deposited in my hand. Each of those little “crumbs” are completely Christ’s body as well. So in order to be as respectful and reverential as I can, I receive on my tongue. That way I am as sure as I can be to get every little piece.

I’m sure if one is careful, receiving in the hand is just as respectful (or else the Church wouldn’t allow it), but for me, I prefer to receive on the tongue.

The problem I see most often is people going up with other things in their hands and still wanted to receive Him on the hand. Or people holding Him after they have received and make the sign of the cross with Him. It really bothers me. I always think they are going to drop Him or break him or whatever. And that bothers me.

When I was young (about 7 or so) when there was an accident and the priest dropped the Eucharist, He was immediately picked up and a cloth was put over the spot on the floor so no one would step on that spot. I don’t think they do that anymore. This was way before anyone could receive in the hand. I kind of miss the old days, especially the practices and traditions that set us apart from Protestants. Now, we look a lot like Protestants sometimes. Not that that is a bad thing – Protestants are good, loving, and dedicated people. But it’s not being Catholic, if you know what I mean.

 

[dkoinzan]

When I was young (about 7 or so) when there was an accident and the priest dropped the Eucharist, He was immediately picked up and a cloth was put over the spot on the floor so no one would step on that spot. I don’t think they do that anymore. This was way before anyone could receive in the hand. I kind of miss the old days, especially the practices and traditions that set us apart from Protestants. Now, we look a lot like Protestants sometimes. Not that that is a bad thing – Protestants are good, loving, and dedicated people. But it’s not being Catholic, if you know what I mean.

I witnessed a priest have that much reverence for Jesus not to long ago. A person receiving in the hand, dropped Jesus and the priest stopped everything and gave Jesus the respect of loving picking him up and cleaning the floor where he fell. It was awsome to see how he loves Christ! It brings to mind the Eucaristic Miracles. There was one where the Eucharist was in two pieces. Both pieces weighed the same as one piece individually. I will have to look that up again.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

I have wondered about this for a long time and I think that I finally came to an conclusion.

Taking the Eucharist on the tongue is probably the way (at least in our culture) since it shows great reverence towards Christ who is present form of bread. It shows how much we feel unworthy to stand before the body of the King of kings - in fact to actually place it into our mouth and swallow it. In addition I believe it can help to preserve the believe in the Real Presence and true reverence which is often missing.

That being said, receiving Communion in the hand is not wrong. You can’t simply argue that this particular way is wrong. First, the Church allows it and second, as far as I understand it, the very early Church was not practicing Communion on the tongue. I also haven’t really seen anyone arguing that the Apostles weren’t allowed to touch their bread during the Last Supper. So, while Communion in the hand is not wrong, I don’t think it’s the best way to receive the Eucharist.

For this reason I would love if the Church would revert back to the old ways and make it an obligation.

In the Church where I started kneeling after a friend of mine started doing it as well (and it made me very happy). I feel a bit weird, but I know that my priest would never refuse such thing and I guess it’s also a form of a witness. But I’m not strong enough to do it in any other church. I would be afraid of being refused or that too much attention would be drawn to me (especially since there I would be a stranger).

 

[BobP123]

That’s actually not Cathoic teaching. Microscopic particles no longer contain Our Lord.

No way. A Host is comprised of microscopic (however small you define them) and billions of molecular particles.

(Actually the accidents are.)

And how long they remain Our Lord depends on which theologian you ask.

 

[LilyM]

No way. A Host is comprised of microscopic (however small you define them) and billions of molecular particles.

(Actually the accidents are.)

And how long they remain Our Lord depends on which theologian you ask.

That’s easy - as long as they retain the accidents of bread and wine (ie once they break down in the stomach they are no longer Our Lord). A microscopic (not visible to the naked eye) particle loses at least some of these accidents, and therefore is no longer Our Lord.

And I can assure you, any precaution you care to name, whether patens or receiving on the tongue may prevent the VISIBLE crumbs, but there’s nothing that will completely eliminate the microscopic fragments, so you’d better HOPE they’re not Our Lord as well.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Jesus cut his own disciples some slack by saying “take and eat”.

Does He cut anyone slack anymore?

 

[laudamus_te]

In the Church where I started kneeling after a friend of mine started doing it as well (and it made me very happy). I feel a bit weird, but I know that my priest would never refuse such thing and I guess it’s also a form of a witness. But I’m not strong enough to do it in any other church. I would be afraid of being refused or that too much attention would be drawn to me (especially since there I would be a stranger).

Your feelings of discomfort are natural, but you should fight those feelings. Don’t forget that avoiding religious practices for the motive of human respect is a sin against the First Commandment. Many (including myself) have a problem with saying Grace in public restaurants for this reason.

dkoinzan:

I witnessed a priest have that much reverence for Jesus not to long ago. A person receiving in the hand, dropped Jesus and the priest stopped everything and gave Jesus the respect of loving picking him up and cleaning the floor where he fell. It was awsome to see how he loves Christ! It brings to mind the Eucaristic Miracles. There was one where the Eucharist was in two pieces. Both pieces weighed the same as one piece individually. I will have to look that up again.

That’s so good to hear!

There is a well-known Eucharistic Miracle (I will have to look it up) in which the Precious Blood dried and separated into several pellets. Each pellet singly weighed as much as all together. This was part of the same miracle in which the Precious Host was transformed into flesh. It was tested, and found to be human heart tissue.

 

[down_under]

Of course it is a valid practice, no one is disputing that fact. But how did it become valid? That is a question to consider. And yes, it is certainly possible to receive in the hand in a reverent and respectful manner. No one is disputing that fact. But it is not always done so, you must admit, and I would venture to guess that a large majority of in-the-hand communicants do not receive in the reverent manner as described. If you really think about it, it is not the optimum manner to receive Our Lord, is it? Or do you deny (or just dismiss thinking about) the reality of the fragments which are dropped? Or does that not matter to you?

The tone can be dropped now thank you. On the tounge and in the hand are equal positions for recieving in. The kind of fragments you are talking about being dropped will be dropped anyway. You cant stop every molicule. The hosts we are using just dont break up into pieces in a manner that it would matter between the hand or in the mouth. There is the problem of dropping the host, but that is a problem no matter what way you do it. The problem we ar having is that people are not recieving with reverance that they should. Probably because they are not made to recieve with reverance. Many don’t care. to many go to church with there wives and children on sunday and go visit there girlfriends at work on monday. IT is a trend of immorality that we need to break. How they treat the host is only an extension of how much they care about there religion in general.