Eucharist on the tongue

[slewi]

Does anyone know when this particular indult expires? The option of receiving in the hand? I would love to see this go the way of EMHC’s purifying vessels…

 

[February]

I am an EMHC at my parish. Please don’t throw stones at me, but I really would rather NOT place the Host on a tongue. I can not tell you how many times my fingers have been “licked” and how close the Host has come to falling out of the mouth of those receiving in this way. And Yes, I was trained in the proper way of placing the Host on the tongue.

Also, though he does it because some prefer Communion on the tongue, our priest prefers placing the Host in the hand and would Really rather NOT have anyone genuflect in Communion Line, this is dangerous to those around that person. I watched (I am the Sacrastin) those receiving one day and a lady genuflected, the person behind her had a cane which got tangled up in her leg. Thanks to the quick action of those around this man with the cane, he was literally held up until his balance returned.

I tell those in my parish, if my bishop says that we can Only receive on the tongue, then that will be the way I receive–no questions asked or arguments given, but as long as the Church gives me the option, I will continue to receive on my hand.

i will try not to throw stones…maybe a pebble…j/k

dropping the host does not solely happen by receiving on the tongue; last sunday i witnessed a man nearly dropping the host by receiving in the hand. people don’t always hold their hands properly; people have unsteady hands; people may be concerned that they really should NOT be receiving in the hand and touching the body of our Lord, and therefore hold it gingerly (me)

i have found that most EMs look at you rather strangely and most get confused when you try to receive on the tongue. for instance, a couple months ago i went to communion with my hands FOLDED…had my tongue out…the EM didn’t even look at me, but forced the host into my folded hands.

so, on the occasion that i cannot go up to the priest to receive, i receive in the hand from the EM. and i feel bad about it…i don’t think it’s right. i am a relatively young person and feel that i was never really taught to show reverence when receiving, and i think this is sad. it’s almost as if candy is being passed out; i hate to use that example, but it’s true.

p.s. dropping the host would be much less likely to happen if churches would use the paten(? correct term for the plate the servers hold underneath while people receive on the tongue). seriously, even if things were arranged so that the people who want to receive on the tongue could go solely to the priest and they use the paten…

 

[Sixtus]

Personally, I don’t feel worthy enough to hold Christ’s body in my hands.

A THOUSAND ‘AMEN’S’! Neither do I, that is why I don’t!

surprised at the same time that this isn’t practiced anymore

It is practiced a lot as lots of folk feel the same way. So too genuflecting before receiving Him.

 

[Pong]

I’m still really unclear on why so many people feel “unworthy” to hold Christ in their hands but see no problem with having Him placed on their tongues.

 

[Rawb]

I’m still really unclear on why so many people feel “unworthy” to hold Christ in their hands but see no problem with having Him placed on their tongues.

The hands of the priest have been consecrated. Mine have not. There’s also the fact that, IMHO, recieving on the tongue is recieving. I’m not taking the host from the priest, and then taking it from my hand and putting it into my mouth. After reading Theology of the Body for Beginners, the the act of recieving Christ (and not taking Him) is very important, to me at least.

 

[Lorrie]

The hands of the priest have been consecrated. Mine have not. There’s also the fact that, IMHO, recieving on the tongue is recieving. I’m not taking the host from the priest, and then taking it from my hand and putting it into my mouth. After reading Theology of the Body for Beginners, the the act of recieving Christ (and not taking Him) is very important, to me at least.

 

[Angels_Watchin]

From Redemptionis Sacramentum:

93.] The Communion-plate for the Communion of the faithful should be retained, so as to avoid the danger of the sacred host or some fragment of it falling.[180]

The paten is SUPPOSED TO STILL BE USED. Tell your pastor and priests. It is MUCH more important to be sure the host doesn’t fall on the floor (using the paten) than it is to receive the Precious Blood from the chalice (because you have received the sacrament in its entirety in the consecrated host). Those people should be holding a paten instead of a chalice.

There IS an agenda going on here.

 

[February]

From Redemptionis Sacramentum:

93.] The Communion-plate for the Communion of the faithful should be retained, so as to avoid the danger of the sacred host or some fragment of it falling.[180]

The paten is SUPPOSED TO STILL BE USED. Tell your pastor and priests. It is MUCH more important to be sure the host doesn’t fall on the floor (using the paten) than it is to receive the Precious Blood from the chalice (because you have received the sacrament in its entirety in the consecrated host). Those people should be holding a paten instead of a chalice.

There IS an agenda going on here.

Interesting…I would have never known they are still in use (and supposed to be used) until I visited my brother’s church in Virginia. I’m in my late twenties and have gone to numerous churches in my area and have never seen one.

 

[AHapka]

I am an EMHC in my parish, and if you want to come and receive on the tounge, that’s fine with me. I have always had the attitude (since I was asked by the Priest to be an EMHC) that I am here to serve God and the Parishoners, not the other way around.

If someone receiving on the tounge results in my hands getting wet, slobbered, or whatever then that is part of my service. If Jesus could wash the disciple’s feet, then I can get a little spit on me. Which has not happened to date, BTW. That’s why I have an immune system, and if I get sick serving the Lord, then isn’t that a blessing, too? Didn’t Saint Peter say that it is better to suffer for doing good, if that be the will of the Lord? As long as my spiritual leader of my parish asks me to serve in this manner, I will serve. If he asks me to step down, or we are no longer needed (which would not be a bad thing) then I will.

Though I must say that I agree with those who come up to receive on the tounge with their hands clasped together. It makes it abundantly obvious how that person would like to receive. The confusing ones are where a person holds their hand out and opens their mouth…then I have to figure out how they would like to receive.

Andy

 

[NewGuyInChurch]

If someone receiving on the tounge results in my hands getting wet, slobbered, or whatever then that is part of my service. If Jesus could wash the disciple’s feet, then I can get a little spit on me.

If only all EMHCs felt this way. A person who is afraid of getting a little bit of spit on their fingers should not volunteer or agree to be an EMHC.

Thank you for your generous service

 

[LilyM]

The hands of the priest have been consecrated. Mine have not. There’s also the fact that, IMHO, recieving on the tongue is recieving. I’m not taking the host from the priest, and then taking it from my hand and putting it into my mouth. After reading Theology of the Body for Beginners, the the act of recieving Christ (and not taking Him) is very important, to me at least.

But you’re not worthy to receive Christ’s body on your tongue either - neither am I nor any of us!

That’s why we all, priest included, can rightly say ‘Lord I am not worthy to receive you’ at each and every Mass. It’s Christ’s gracious gift that makes it possible, not our supposed ‘worthiness’. And receiving in the hand is still most definitely receiving.

If we stuck our hands in the ciborium ourselves that would be ‘taking’ rather than ‘receiving’

 

[Rawb]

Note what I said:

There’s also the fact that, IMHO, recieving on the tongue is recieving.

I feel that to recieve in the hand is too close to ‘taking’ for me. I accept that HMC has said one may recieve in the hand. I am uncomfortable doing so, so I don’t. The symbolism of this act is more true to what it represents, IMO, through recieving on the tongue. The fact that the priest’s hands have been consecrated is, again, to me, very important in this situation.

Also, I most definitally did NOT say I was ‘worthy’ or ‘more worthy’ if or because I recieve on the tongue. I know to my core how unworthy I am! (My priest does too, ). Worthiness, as you rightly said, has nothing to do with it.

Sorry if that sounds angry or defensive, it’s not supposed to. I just want to be very clear that I know I’m not worthy (I suffer from pride enough without borrowing more! )

 

[Pong]

The hands of the priest have been consecrated. Mine have not. There’s also the fact that, IMHO, recieving on the tongue is recieving. I’m not taking the host from the priest, and then taking it from my hand and putting it into my mouth. After reading Theology of the Body for Beginners, the the act of recieving Christ (and not taking Him) is very important, to me at least.

Not sure I follow your logic. Anything that is placed into the hands is taken, but anything placed on the tongue is recieved? Kinda makes me want to review my whole gift recieving behavior.

 

[NewGuyInChurch]

Kinda makes me want to review my whole gift recieving behavior.

Well it would sure make birthdays more interesting

I haven’t really made my concrete decision on this yet. I read a very persuasive article FOR reception on the tongue the other day but I’ve also heard arguments for in-hand as well…

 

[otjm]

Of course on the tongue because there is less handling and you are truly receiving the Body of Jesus, not giving it to yourself.

Christ said “Take and eat”; Take and drink"; not “Stick out your tongue”, or “Be fed”. One is not giving it to oneself; one has received when it is handed to them. Just as it was done for centuries in the Church.

It seems the less belief that it is truly Jesus the more emphasis there is on handling Him by everyone as a meal, as a universal priesthood, we are all the same kinda thinking.

The issue is not universal priesthood; the issue is that the Church did this for centuries, and it is what Christ commanded. Further, we are commanded by Christ to take and eat; that is a meal. It is a sacred meal, not a party; but the issue of the sacred meal was so thoroughly repressed prior to changes in the Mass that it was proper that that element again have some place in the Mass also. We can argue all day about whehter it is too emphasized, but it is part of the Mass. Communion in the hand has nothing to do with universal priesthood, was not re-introduced under that basis, and is simply a comment made by those who don’t like it to try to paint it as somehow not proper. It came from Christ and was the practice of the Church for centuries. You don’t have to receive that way, but please don’t denigrate it as if it was some new-fangled idea.

Yes we are all part of the universal priesthood yet in humility we should acknowledge and show our reverence for that which is above us, or else it is just pride asserting ourselves.

And it is not humility to receive as Christ distributed the Eucharist, as the Apsotles did, as the Fathers of the Church did, and as the Church practiced for centuries? Or is it hjust that you don’t like it?

(the agenda is a minimization of the importance of the clergy and an assertion of power which is implied by trying to participate in all actions of the Priest, that is why liberals like words “full participation” so much)

Receiving in the hand is not about full participation. Full participation has to do with what the Popes, since Pius 12th, have wanted, which was to have the congregation sitting like bumps on a log having the Mass done to them, while many said their rosary or said other pius pryaers having nothing to do with the Mass. The agenda of Communion in the hand has absolutely nothing to do with minimizing the importance of the clergy, unless you are saying that for centuries the Church promoted minimizing the importanace of the clergy because everyone received in the hand. You will have a hard time proving that point.
You can make full participation mean anything.

 

[cue]

Christ said “Take and eat”; Take and drink"; not “Stick out your tongue”, or “Be fed”.

It may seem like a small detail, but there were no lay people at the first Mass; Jesus was speaking to his apostles (bishops) who would offer the sacrifice. The Eucharistic discourse in John 6 makes it clear that receiving, eating is the universal imperative. You may apply the “Take and eat” imperative to all, but not in the same way as it applies to priests and bishops.

One is not giving it to oneself; One has received when it is handed to them. Just as it was done for centuries in the Church.

While it is true that communion in the hand was practiced (relatively) briefly early on in some places (cf. Cyril of Jerusalem), it continues to be a practice that has never been a norm in the Church.

 

[Digitonomy]

While it is true that communion in the hand was practiced (relatively) briefly early on in some places (cf. Cyril of Jerusalem), it continues to be a practice that has never been a norm in the Church.

This seems a bit contradictory. Can you clarify what the status of this practice was in the early Church, since you are confident it was not a norm?

 

[cue]

This seems a bit contradictory. Can you clarify what the status of this practice was in the early Church, since you are confident it was not a norm?

In the first five centuries of the Church, Cyril’s quote is the only one I’ve seem which indicates the practice of communion on the hand. Whereas others (Pope St. Leo) in other places (Rome) reference what the Church holds from Apostolic tradition, communion on the tongue. So from the example that communion in the hand was practiced by one particular church (this means a diocese) it is quite a leap to say that entire Church practiced this, especially since Trent specifically said otherwise.

 

[Sixtus]

The hands of the priest have been consecrated. Mine have not.

AMEN

 

[otjm]

It may seem like a small detail, but there were no lay people at the first Mass; Jesus was speaking to his apostles (bishops) who would offer the sacrifice. The Eucharistic discourse in John 6 makes it clear that receiving, eating is the universal imperative. You may apply the “Take and eat” imperative to all, but not in the same way as it applies to priests and bishops.

While it is true that communion in the hand was practiced (relatively) briefly early on in some places (cf. Cyril of Jerusalem), it continues to be a practice that has never been a norm in the Church.

There is sufficient eveidence that it was the norm early on that it is not worth disputing. Further, it was practiced for a number of centuries. The point that it was only the Apostles in the room is absolutely meaningless in the context, as it is what the Apostles then did, and we have the Fathers of the Church writing about how one receives in the hand.

Personally, I don’t care which way someone else receives; what I care about is someone who chooses to receive one way dissing the other. Comments about receiving in the hand emphasizing universal priesthood are just hogwash. And anyone who wants to go down the path of “people are less reverent (or, fewer people believe in the Real Presence) since Communion in the hand started, therefore it is due to that” are playing post hoc, ergo propter hoc to the hilt.

The great majority of my parish receives in the hand. My parish has also had Perpetual Adoration for well more than 10 years now. One is not in opposition to the other. I get really tired of what comes across as a “holier than thou” bit from some who choose to receive on the tongue. Receiving on the tongue is the norm and receiving in the hand is an indult. The vast majority of negative comments I see are by those who wish to diss the indult.