Eucharist on the tongue

  • Thread starter Thread starter Harpazo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JKirkLVNV said:
Not so, unless you can cite an authoritative source! The exception has to be regarded as itself a part of the discipline, as does the exception regarding the risk of profanation. Both are part of the discipline and thus equally protected.
Click to expand...
If they were both equally protected—communion in the hand could not be withdrawn—but as you can see–just the “risk of profanation” is grounds for withdrawing it. The universal norms–communion on the tongue and kneeling–are still protected by the Church.
 
My “quibble” is that negative infallibility and the endless harping on it by some here as the answer to almost every conceivable problem in the liturgy is not helpful, not useful, indeed quite unhelpful.

Communion in the hand was not called for by Vatican II. It was introduced in some areas illicitly in the late 1960s, and finally…over a decade later…recognized as a concession under indult ex post facto. It has something of a history in early Christian antiquity, though somewhat less than crisply clear. It had been abandoned for well over a millenium by the time the enlightened Catholics of the 1960s (at least some of them) decided to restore it; soon enough not a few clergy were actually saying the normative method for receiving (on the tongue) was now the forbidden practice.

If the priest gives someone Communion in the hand, and they go and desecrate the host by shoving it in a hymnal, then indeed giving them the host in the hand led them into impiety. If it were given on the tongue, and the person spit it out on the floor and stepped on it, then giving it to them on tongue ALSO led them into impiety.

So let’s stop it with the Trent negative infallibility. It doesn’t mean that various things the Church allows cannot ever lead us into impiety. Church disciplines aren’t magical.
 
From the General Instruction on the Roman Missal

Manner of Receiving Communion

#160:2: The faithful are not permitted to take up the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice themselves, and, still less, hand them to one another. The norm for the reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the USA is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm. When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head as a gesture of reverence and received the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received on the tongue or in the hand at the discretion of the communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood.
 
Walking_Home said:
If as you say–our tongue is not any more holy than our hands—then by that reasoning—it is not enough that our Lord passes thru one unholy place (our mouth) that we feel the need to do that to Him twice by placing Him in our hands first.
Click to expand...
You can’t possibly be making the error of reason that our tongue alone is HOLY, there’s no evidence for that. And the Host goes other places after the tongue as well (I mean why not via tube directly into the stomach, thus putting the Eucharist straight into its final destination and bypassing all intermediate destinations).

The point is NEITHER Hand NOR Tongue is UNholy per se. Not unless we receive unworthily. And if you think your hand or any other part of you is UNholy (not in a state of grace) you certainly shouldn’t be receiving at all!
 
KatholikosMercy said:
From the General Instruction on the Roman Missal

Manner of Receiving Communion

#160:2: The faithful are not permitted to take up the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice themselves, and, still less, hand them to one another. The norm for the reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the USA is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm. When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head as a gesture of reverence and received the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received on the tongue or in the hand at the discretion of the communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood.
Click to expand...
You may not be familiar with the following clarification from Rome to what you posted above.

catholic.com/library/liturgy/kneeling_1.asp

Congregation de Cultu Divino et Disciplina Sacramentorum

…
The Congregation in fact is concerned at the number of similar complaints that it has received in recent months from various places, and considers any refusal of Holy Communion to a member of the faithful on the basis of his or her kneeling posture to be a grave violation of one of the most basic rights of the Christian faithful, namely that of being assisted by their Pastors by means of the Sacraments (Codex Iuris Canonici, canon 213). In view of the law that “sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who opportunely ask for them, are properly disposed and are not prohibited by law from receiving them” (canon 843 ¶ 1), there should be no such refusal to any Catholic who presents himself for Holy Communion at Mass, except in cases presenting a danger of grave scandal to other believers arising out of the person’s unrepented public sin or obstinate heresy or schism, publicly professed or declared. Even where the Congregation has approved of legislation denoting standing as the posture for Holy Communion, in accordance with the adaptations permitted to the Conferences of Bishops by the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani n. 160, paragraph 2, it has done so with the stipulation that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds.

In fact, as His Eminence, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has recently emphasized, the practice of kneeling for Holy Communion has in its favor a centuries-old tradition, and it is a particularly expressive sign of adoration, completely appropriate in light of the true, real and substantial presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the consecrated species.
Given the importance of this matter, the Congregation would request that Your Excellency inquire specifically whether this priest in fact has a regular practice of refusing Holy Communion to any member of the faithful in the circumstances described above and - if the complaint is verified - that you also firmly instruct him and any other priests who may have had such a practice to refrain from acting thus in the future. Priests should understand that the Congregation will regard future complaints of this nature with great seriousness, and if they are verified, it intends to seek disciplinary action consonant with the gravity of the pastoral abuse.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Jorge A. Cardinal Medina Estévez
Prefect

+Francesco Pio Tamburrino
Archbishop Secretary
 
LilyM said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
If as you say–our tongue is not any more holy than our hands—then by that reasoning—it is not enough that our Lord passes thru one unholy place (our mouth) that we feel the need to do that to Him twice by placing Him in our hands first.

You can’t possibly be making the error of reason that our tongue alone is HOLY, there’s no evidence for that. And the Host goes other places after the tongue as well (I mean why not via tube directly into the stomach, thus putting the Eucharist straight into its final destination and bypassing all intermediate destinations).

The point is NEITHER Hand NOR Tongue is UNholy per se. Not unless we receive unworthily. And if you think your hand or any other part of you is UNholy (not in a state of grace) you certainly shouldn’t be receiving at all!
Click to expand...
Originally Posted by LilyM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unitas
I recieve on the tongue because Jesus’ hands are holy and venerable. It therefore follows that for the duration, when acting in persona christi, the priest’s hands, too, are holy and venerable. My hands aren’t.

That’s just my own personal reason.

Neither is your tongue, though. Your hands certainly aren’t less holy and venerable than your tongue.

So your reason isn’t a reason, it’s a personal preference. Which is fine, you have every right to receive as you prefer, as long as it’s permitted by the church, but don’t say it’s based on reason when it should be acknowledged as a preference, which is what it truly is.​

Actually LilyM—I was following your lead. I included above the post I responded to. Unitas stated his hands are not holy and venerable. Your response --“Neither is your tongue etc.”.

So If Unitas hand are not holy and his tongue is not holy—then by what you said–it its not enough that our Lord passes thru the mouth–but we add another (not holy) place for Him to reside in–the hand.
 
Walking_Home said:
Actually LilyM—I was following your lead. I included above the post I responded to. Unitas stated his hands are not holy and venerable. Your response --“Neither is your tongue etc.”.

So If Unitas hand are not holy and his tongue is not holy—then by what you said–it its not enough that our Lord passes thru the mouth–but we add another (not holy) place for Him to reside in–the hand.
Click to expand...
My mistake - I was thinking of an earlier comment about the priest’s hands being ‘specially sanctified’ - not just holy.

Certainly our hands aren’t ‘specially sanctified’ in the way a priest’s are, but neither are our tongues nor any other part of us. I don’t believe, if we are in a state of grace, that tongue or hand makes a difference.
 
LilyM said:
My mistake - I was thinking of an earlier comment about the priest’s hands being ‘specially sanctified’ - not just holy.

Certainly our hands aren’t ‘specially sanctified’ in the way a priest’s are, but neither are our tongues nor any other part of us. I don’t believe, if we are in a state of grace, that tongue or hand makes a difference.
Click to expand...
That seems to be the current thought—whats the difference—its only God.
 
Walking_Home said:
You may not be familiar with the following clarification from Rome to what you posted above.

catholic.com/library/liturgy/kneeling_1.asp

Congregation de Cultu Divino et Disciplina Sacramentorum

…
The Congregation in fact is concerned at the number of similar complaints that it has received in recent months from various places, and considers any refusal of Holy Communion to a member of the faithful on the basis of his or her kneeling posture to be a grave violation of one of the most basic rights of the Christian faithful, namely that of being assisted by their Pastors by means of the Sacraments (Codex Iuris Canonici, canon 213). In view of the law that “sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who opportunely ask for them, are properly disposed and are not prohibited by law from receiving them” (canon 843 ¶ 1), there should be no such refusal to any Catholic who presents himself for Holy Communion at Mass, except in cases presenting a danger of grave scandal to other believers arising out of the person’s unrepented public sin or obstinate heresy or schism, publicly professed or declared. Even where the Congregation has approved of legislation denoting standing as the posture for Holy Communion, in accordance with the adaptations permitted to the Conferences of Bishops by the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani n. 160, paragraph 2, it has done so with the stipulation that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds.

In fact, as His Eminence, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has recently emphasized, the practice of kneeling for Holy Communion has in its favor a centuries-old tradition, and it is a particularly expressive sign of adoration, completely appropriate in light of the true, real and substantial presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the consecrated species.
Given the importance of this matter, the Congregation would request that Your Excellency inquire specifically whether this priest in fact has a regular practice of refusing Holy Communion to any member of the faithful in the circumstances described above and - if the complaint is verified - that you also firmly instruct him and any other priests who may have had such a practice to refrain from acting thus in the future. Priests should understand that the Congregation will regard future complaints of this nature with great seriousness, and if they are verified, it intends to seek disciplinary action consonant with the gravity of the pastoral abuse.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Jorge A. Cardinal Medina Estévez
Prefect

+Francesco Pio Tamburrino
Archbishop Secretary
Click to expand...
I am completely aware of it. Thank you. I would never suggest that:

“it has done so with the stipulation that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds”

which I do not feel is contrary to:

GIRM 2000,

#160:2: . . . . **The norm for the reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the USA is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. **Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.

When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head as a gesture of reverence and received the Body of the Lord from the minister.

The consecrated host may be received on the tongue or in the hand at the discretion of the communicant. (This must remain at the communicants discresion).

When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood.

As I have stated in previous comments that I personally see kneeling as more revernent and a sure sign of devotion.

That said I cannot then side against the USCCB norm either. Which is not to say, to kneel is to do that at all. But neither is not to kneel to be viewed as an abuse lest one be critical of our own bishops.

Watch a Mass on TV from the Vatican with the Pontif distributing communion and see if you see one person kneel to recieve from him. The majority of Romans also recieve in the hand. Its the NORM, not a requirement.

What were dealing with here is inordinate scruples. The Lord calls us to peace and obedience.
 
Be careful, “KatholikosMercy”.

“Norm” is a legal term in liturgy (Latin norma).

The NORM is receiving on the tongue.

Various indults have been extended for an exception to the NORM, namely receiving in the hand.

Reception in the hands is not normative.
 
KatholikosMercy said:
I am completely aware of it. Thank you. I would never suggest that:

“it has done so with the stipulation that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds”

which I do not feel is contrary to:

GIRM 2000,

#160:2: . . . . The norm for the reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the USA is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.

When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head as a gesture of reverence and received the Body of the Lord from the minister.

The consecrated host may be received on the tongue or in the hand at the discretion of the communicant. (This must remain at the communicants discresion).

When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood.

As I have stated in previous comments that I personally see kneeling as more revernent and a sure sign of devotion.

That said I cannot then side against the USCCB norm either. Which is not to say, to kneel is to do that at all. But neither is not to kneel to be viewed as an abuse lest one be critical of our own bishops.

Watch a Mass on TV from the Vatican with the Pontif distributing communion and see if you see one person kneel to recieve from him. The majority of Romans also recieve in the hand. Its the NORM, not a requirement.

What were dealing with here is inordinate scruples. The Lord calls us to peace and obedience.
Click to expand...
Just be aware—that norms allowed by indult do not supercede the universal norms.
 
Walking_Home said:
That seems to be the current thought—whats the difference—its only God.
Click to expand...
Correction - it is God (and never ONLY God) by whatever method you choose to receive Him. He, fortunately, is not the subject of the dispute.

The dispute is only about the minor distinction of our unsanctified tongues versus our unsanctified hands. as the method of reception.

The Blessed Sacrament is liable to abuse either way, sadly - EQUALLY liable to the by far most common abuse of being received unworthily (in a state of sin) either way.
 
It’s good to be reminded of the difference between indults and norms. Some people on these fora like to refer endlessly to the Novus Ordo Missae as “normative”, as opposed to the Tridentine indult. Fine. Let’s then also remember that any vernacular Mass in the USA is ALSO an indult. The “normative” Mass is the 2002 Missal in LATIN, yes, with Communion on the tongue.

The VAST majority of American Catholics enjoy an indult Mass.
 
LilyM said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
That seems to be the current thought—whats the difference—its only God.

Correction - only God ***on your unsanctified tongue ***versus God in your unsanctified hand. Liable to abuse either way - EQUALLY liable to the by far most common abuse of being received unworthily (in a state of sin) either way.
Click to expand...
Correction–by what you say–it is only God placed in your unsanctified hand --then you use the other unsanctified hand to place God in your unsanctified mouth.
By this actions–you are actually adding 2 other unsanctified places— to the one (mouth).
 
Walking_Home said:
Correction–by what you say–it is only God placed in your unsanctified hand --then you use the other unsanctified hand to place God in your unsanctified mouth.
By this actions–you are actually adding 2 other unsanctified places— to the one (mouth).
Click to expand...
Well as I said earlier, if it’s such a concern to you then why not put the Eucharist via feeding tube directly into your stomach, thereby bypassing all other intermediate unsanctified destinations???
 
LilyM said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
Correction–by what you say–it is only God placed in your unsanctified hand --then you use the other unsanctified hand to place God in your unsanctified mouth.
By this actions–you are actually adding 2 other unsanctified places— to the one (mouth).

Well as I said earlier, if it’s such a concern then why not put the Eucharist via feeding tube directly into your stomach, thereby bypassing all other intermediate unsanctified destinations??? Where does the nitpicking end?
Click to expand...
It wouldn’t be feasible. As I said prior–the current thought is— it doesn’t really matter if it is 1 or 3 unsanctified destinations–it is only God.
 
AlexV said:
Be careful, “KatholikosMercy”.

“Norm” is a legal term in liturgy (Latin norma).

The NORM is receiving on the tongue.

Various indults have been extended for an exception to the NORM, namely receiving in the hand.

Reception in the hands is not normative.
Click to expand...
Ah thanks.

I seem to have transfered teh word norm from talking about kneeling: GIRM 2000,

#160:2: . . . . The norm for the reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the USA is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm

When I actually meant recieving in the hand is much more common than on the tongue. I realize its an indult and not the norm. I would ask though for how much longer will it be indult if the vast majority of the faithful recieve that way? Maybe it should never be the norm but either way as long as its an indult its still up to the communicate to choose. Are there any other cases of indults becoming norms from history? Seems like a liberty of the canon law but obviously one allowed. Many people I respect have denounced it but the Magisterium has not. I don’t know why that is.
 
Walking_Home said:
If they were both equally protected—communion in the hand could not be withdrawn—but as you can see–just the “risk of profanation” is grounds for withdrawing it. The universal norms–communion on the tongue and kneeling–are still protected by the Church.
Click to expand...
The above isn’t so, Walking Home. WHATEVER the discipline of the Church is is the discipline that is protected. By your reasoning, the Apostles and the early Fathers, in practicing communion in the hand, did not know better than the latter Church, who repressed it. The latter Church was more on the ball than those that walked with Christ or were taught by His apostles? With respect, that’s the slippery slope to modernism. What is eternal is not the discipline, but the authority to impose the discipline and the fact that the imposed discipline cannot lead the faithful to impiety.

I don’t argue that there may be grounds for withdrawing it. Some pope in the future may well decide to withdraw the indult. Some pope in the future may well decide to make it the universal norm. The point is that whatever discipline is imposed is protected. It isn’t infallible in that it cannot be changed, it’s infallible in that at the least it cannot be called impious. It cannot of itself lead to impiety. That the important distinction, because it touches on the authority of the Church.
 
Walking_Home said:
It wouldn’t be feasible. As I said prior–the current thought is— it doesn’t really matter if it is 1 or 3 unsanctified destinations–it is only God.
Click to expand...
It is not unfeasible, depending on how it’s done, and would avoid even one unsanctified destination. Of course as you say (and I never said) it’s only God 🙂 so avoiding the unsanctified tongue doesn’t matter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top