Eucharist on the tongue

[KatholikosMercy]

Spare me your arrogant tone. Spare me your condescension.

You spent plenty of time quibbling with those of us who pointed out the NORM is reception on the tongue, and the INDULT is reception in the hand.

And let’s remember…that indult was granted on the condition there be no danger of disrespect to the Eucharist. Quite a high bar.

It appears you think the indult is disrespect. Have I misunderstood?

Do you have any documentation that shows the Norm as on the tongue. Why do I not see the indult plastered all over this thread?

But there is this:

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.

 

[AlexV]

The indult says there must be NO DANGER of disrespect to the Eucharist. Permission to receive in the hand is only granted if and only if there is no danger of disrespect.

Once again, I simply stated what the indult says.

 

[KatholikosMercy]

The indult says there must be NO DANGER of disrespect to the Eucharist. Permission to receive in the hand is only granted if and only if there is no danger of disrespect.

Once again, I simply stated what the indult says.

The norm for the reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the USA is standing.

The consecrated host may be received on the tongue or in the hand at the discretion of the communicant.

 

[AlexV]

You’re obstinate in avoiding the thread’s topic, which isn’t standing or kneeling…if you want to discuss that (I’d be happy to), start a new thread.

The NORM is on the tongue. The INDULT, granted in 1977, is in the hand, provided there is no danger of disrespect. Reception on the tongue, the universal norm, carries no proviso or caveat. A priest can indeed refuse to give Communion in the hand if he thinks there would be danger of disrespect.

End of story.

 

[KatholikosMercy]

You’re obstinate in avoiding the thread’s topic, which isn’t standing or kneeling…if you want to discuss that (I’d be happy to), start a new thread.

The NORM is on the tongue. The INDULT, granted in 1977, is in the hand, provided there is no danger of disrespect. Reception on the tongue, the universal norm, carries no proviso or caveat. A priest can indeed refuse to give Communion in the hand if he thinks there would be danger of disrespect.

End of story.

Ok, the GIRM says:

The consecrated host may be received on the tongue or in the hand at the discretion of the communicant.

Can you provide reference to the text of the indult from 1977?

 

[down_under]

---

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.

now you are headed into levels of ridiculousness we dont need to go there. If you are not worthy to be interpentrated by the divine being then it does not matter if you touch him with your hands first or your toung first the piont is reverence. If you don’t feel your own unworthyness then you have a problem. God wants to share space with you for a short duration of time. He wants to interpentrate you and build you up by his divine presence. It is reverence that is important. They are ireverent no matter how they recieve. They do not know what they are recieveing and we should be asking why there is such confusion. Of course I have heard my own priest refer to the euchrist as the “sacrment of love” as a way of down playing the real presence. and I am certain he is not alone.

 

[AlexV]

I see in obstinacy you’re still quibbling over the fact that Communion on the tongue is the universal norm, and reception in the hand by indult.

You ought to read Paul VI in “Memoriale Dominum” from 1969. He states Communion on the tongue “is more conducive to faith, reverence, and humility.”

Notitiae of June 17, 1977 printed:

“In reply to the request of your conference of bishops regarding permission to give communion by placing the host on the hand of the faithful, I wish to communicate the following. Pope Paul Vl calls attention to the purpose of the Instruction Memoriale Domini of 29 May 1969, on retaining the traditional practice in use. At the same time he has taken into account the reasons given to support your request and the outcome of the vote taken on this matter. The Pope grants that throughout the territory of your conference, each bishop may, according to his prudent judgment and conscience, authorize in his diocese the introduction of the new rite for giving communion. The condition is the complete avoidance of any cause for the faithful to be shocked and any danger of irreverence toward the Eucharist.”

Note the pope refers to 1969 and his document of that year. Communion on the tongue, according to Rome, is more conducive to reverence, etc. Not my opinion. Rome’s.

 

[laudamus_te]

So, it DOES matter what most of the people are doing and just as importantly what they WANT to do. Else we wouldn’t have an indult in the first place. You see the opinion of the majority is the opinion of the church.

No, not so. The “opinions” of the laity do not govern the Church, or determine the laws of the Church. The Church is not a democracy. Wherever did you get this idea?

I find it interesting that those who advocate against this indult also advocate against the norm of recieving while standing.

I don’t see why that would be surprising. Remember, that receiving on the tongue while kneeling is the norm.

 

[AlexV]

It is astonishing that “KatholikosMercy” thinks the opinion of the majority is the Church’s opinion.

I wonder what the majority of Catholics think about artificial contraception. Hmm…

 

[LilyM]

I don’t see why that would be surprising. Remember, that receiving on the tongue while kneeling is the norm.

Kneeling ISN’T the norm in the US - the norm in the US is standing, although those who kneel cannot be refused communion for doing so.

 

[laudamus_te]

It is astonishing that “KatholikosMercy” thinks the opinion of the majority is the Church’s opinion.

I wonder what the majority of Catholics think about artificial contraception. Hmm…

I don’t even want to go to where her statement leads…

 

[JKirkLVNV]

The word in bold is the key one to keep in mind when talking about “negative infallibility” of disciplinary laws of the Church. In order to carry this infallibility, a law must be imposed upon the faithful. If it is merely a recommendation or permission, it is not imposed, hence error is not being imposed. Communion in the hand is a permission.

Please provide a citation that negative infallibility is only applicable to that which is imposed, not permitted.

 

[Walking_Home]

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.

now you are headed into levels of ridiculousness we dont need to go there. If you are not worthy to be interpentrated by the divine being then it does not matter if you touch him with your hands first or your toung first the piont is reverence. If you don’t feel your own unworthyness then you have a problem. God wants to share space with you for a short duration of time. He wants to interpentrate you and build you up by his divine presence. It is reverence that is important. They are ireverent no matter how they recieve. They do not know what they are recieveing and we should be asking why there is such confusion. Of course I have heard my own priest refer to the euchrist as the “sacrment of love” as a way of down playing the real presence. and I am certain he is not alone.

---

That is where you missed the mark—it not about our worthiness–we are just creatures. It is about Him–our Lord, God and savior. Yes it is reverence that is of upmost importance-so why then do we pass our Lord from hand to hand to hand to mouth as if He were some common food.

 

[laudamus_te]

Please provide a citation that negative infallibility is only applicable to that which is imposed, not permitted.

What connection is there between the discipline of the Church and her infallibility? Is there a certain disciplinary infallibility? It does not appear that the question was ever discussed in the past by theologians unless apropos of the canonization of saints and the approbation of religious orders. It has, however, found a place in all recent treatises on the Church (De Ecclesiâ}. The authors of these treatises decide unanimously in favour of a negative and indirect rather than a positive and direct infallibility, inasmuch as in her general discipline, i.e. the common laws imposed on all the faithful, the Church can prescribe nothing that would be contrary to the natural or the Divine law, nor prohibit anything that the natural or the Divine law would exact.

newadvent.org/cathen/05030a.htm

How can something that has not been “imposed” be considered law?

 

[KatholikosMercy]

I see in obstinacy you’re still quibbling over the fact that Communion on the tongue is the universal norm, and reception in the hand by indult.

You ought to read Paul VI in “Memoriale Dominum” from 1969. He states Communion on the tongue “is more conducive to faith, reverence, and humility.”

Notitiae of June 17, 1977 printed:

“In reply to the request of your conference of bishops regarding permission to give communion by placing the host on the hand of the faithful, I wish to communicate the following. Pope Paul Vl calls attention to the purpose of the Instruction Memoriale Domini of 29 May 1969, on retaining the traditional practice in use. At the same time he has taken into account the reasons given to support your request and the outcome of the vote taken on this matter. The Pope grants that throughout the territory of your conference, each bishop may, according to his prudent judgment and conscience, authorize in his diocese the introduction of the new rite for giving communion. The condition is the complete avoidance of any cause for the faithful to be shocked and any danger of irreverence toward the Eucharist.”

Note the pope refers to 1969 and his document of that year. Communion on the tongue, according to Rome, is more conducive to reverence, etc. Not my opinion. Rome’s.

And Mother Teresa said communion in the hand was a tragedy. So why has the church allowed the indult and disposed of the patents?

 

[KatholikosMercy]

No, not so. The “opinions” of the laity do not govern the Church, or determine the laws of the Church. The Church is not a democracy. Wherever did you get this idea?

I will admit that opinion may not have been completely thought out however we are all members of the one body in Christ so that idea comes from the Bible itself. I can site the verses if you like where Paul says not to divide ourselves over trivial things and to be like minded if you would like.

I don’t see why that would be surprising. Remember, that receiving on the tongue while kneeling is the norm.

Its my understanding the NORM is on the Tongue while Standing.

The GIRM 2000 says:

The consecrated host may be received on the tongue or in the hand at the discretion of the communicant and that the NORM is to be standing.

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.

Can you provide reference to the text of the indult from 1977 that says the norm is either on the tongue or kneeling?

 

[Walking_Home]

I will admit that opinion may not have been completely thought out however we are all members of the one body in Christ so that idea comes from the Bible itself. I can site the verses if you like where Paul says not to divide ourselves over trivial things and to be like minded if you would like.

Its my understanding the NORM is on the Tongue while Standing.

The GIRM 2000 says:

The consecrated host may be received on the tongue or in the hand at the discretion of the communicant and that the NORM is to be standing.

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.

Can you provide reference to the text of the indult from 1977 that says the norm is either on the tongue or kneeling?

---

The universal norms are communion on the tongue-- kneeling. Standing is the exception to universal norm of kneeling so is communion in the hand. In truth they are two ways of receiving—kneeling or standing. As you can see below—Rome is more than willing to take action towards a priest who refuses communion to someone who kneels.

catholic.com/library/liturgy/kneeling_1.asp

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.[/C[/COLOR]OLOR]

 

[KatholikosMercy]

---

The universal norms are communion on the tongue-- kneeling. Standing is the exception to universal norm of kneeling so is communion in the hand. In truth they are two ways of receiving—kneeling or standing. As you can see below—Rome is more than willing to take action towards a priest who refuses communion to someone who kneels.

catholic.com/library/liturgy/kneeling_1.asp

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.[/C[/COLOR]OLOR]

Are you ignoring what the General Instruction of the Roman Missal that all our Priests use as a guide states that “standing” is the Norm?

The GIRM 2000 says:

The consecrated host may be received on the tongue or in the hand at the discretion of the communicant and that the NORM is to be standing.

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.

The reason the Vatican takes action against refusal is because its right there in this same law clear as day.

So if you want to be in the strictest sence of the rule then recieve standing on the tongue. But fortunately you have options. You can kneel and recieve in the hand if you wish.

 

[Walking_Home]

Are you ignoring what the General Instruction of the Roman Missal that all our Priests use as a guide states that “standing” is the Norm?

The GIRM 2000 says:

The consecrated host may be received on the tongue or in the hand at the discretion of the communicant and that the NORM is to be standing.

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.

The reason the Vatican takes action against refusal is because its right there in this same law clear as day.

So if you want to be in the strictest sence of the rule then recieve standing on the tongue. But fortunately you have options. You can kneel and recieve in the hand if you wish.

---

Are you ignoring Rome—whose authority supercedes the bishops and can at anytime clarify the GIRM.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

[14.] “The regulation of the Sacred Liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, which rests specifically with the Apostolic See and, according to the norms of law, with the Bishop.[34]

[15.] The Roman Pontiff, “the Vicar of Christ and the Pastor of the universal Church on earth, by virtue of his supreme office enjoys full, immediate and universal ordinary power, which he may always freely exercise”[35], also by means of communication with the pastors and with the members of the flock.

[16.] “It pertains to the Apostolic See to regulate the Sacred Liturgy of the universal Church, to publish the liturgical books and to grant the recognitio for their translation into vernacular languages, as well as to ensure that the liturgical regulations, especially those governing the celebration of the most exalted celebration of the Sacrifice of the Mass, are everywhere faithfully observed”.[36]

 

[KatholikosMercy]

Are you ignoring Rome—whose authority supercedes the bishops and can at anytime clarify the GIRM.

Rome has done no such thing. So the norm is standing and on the tongue.

I am in agreement that kneeling and on the tongue may appear more reverant to some people but it is NOT the norm as your insisting it is.

Standing is the norm and I would hazard a guess that it will remain that way from now on. I would also hazard a guess that on the hand will eventually become the norm.

Pax and Gods speed.