Eucharist on the tongue

  • Thread starter Thread starter Harpazo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Comments about receiving in the hand emphasizing universal priesthood are just hogwash.
I would definitely agree. However, it is more priestly (in the sense of the ministerial priesthood). You cannot tell me that reception in the hand, coupled with lay extraordinary ministers approaching the altar and standing behind the priest, as concelebrants would, would not be a move toward blurring the line between clergy and laity. I am not saying that in itself, Communion in the hand contributes to this blurring, but it is the first step down that path.
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.
Despite the most pious intentions and dispositions on the part of the recipient, nothing can change that fact that reception in the hand IS more irreverent. This does not mean that the recipient himself is irreverent, but just that the he is participating in a less reverent way of receiving Communion than those who receive on the tongue. Why do I say this? By placing the Host in someone’s hand, the act of reception is delayed, offering more opportunity for irreverence. In other words, it extends the time that Christ is particularly vulnerable. This vulnerability is recognized most in particles. Particles of the Host do fall off. With reception on the tongue, particles that do not fall on the tongue fall onto the paten, which the Church prescribed should still be used. These particles fall into the chalice when the priest purifies the patens and they are consumed because they are the Body and Blood of Christ. With reception in the hand, these particles fall to the floor or into the pocket or wherever the hand goes. It is simply a more irreverent way of doing things, just it is more meaningful to give your wife a present in person rather then U.P.S. it.

Hence you see why the Church does not presribe or recommend reception in the hand. She has merely allowed bishops who have asked for such permission to grant it. The Church is perfectly able to decide what she wants in these matters. However, based on 2000 years of experience and trial and error, she has presribed reception on the tongue.

As for history, otjm, the “sufficent evidence” that has convinced you failed to convince the Church when at Trent she explained that reception on the tongue was an Apostolic tradition had been “always the custom.”
 
otjm, you do bring up a very true point. The devil will use whatever he can to tempt us into thinking uncharitably of our fellow man, even something as holy and intimate as receving the Blessed Sacrament. It is perhaps particularly satisfying for Satan if he can get someone to do that because than there is a sin against charity and of perverting a relationship with Christ, the end to which we all long, in this case used as a means to offend charity.

When this happens, it is a very real and pitiable tragedy that we must eagerly seek to remedy. However, this issue is about charity and prideful thoughts. When we boil it down, it is not about hands or tongues. The issue has more to do with thoughts, motives, and love and less with the manner of reception of Communion.
 
My parish has also had Perpetual Adoration for well more than 10 years now.
That is a tremendous act of worship. How large is your parish?What is the normal mass attendance?
How is it achieved? In shifts? agreed set periods?
I am genuinely interested to hear how Perpetual Adoration is achieved.
I get really tired of what comes across as a “holier than thou” bit from some who choose to receive on the tongue
I am sorry to disappoint you. I CHOSE to receive on the tongue only because I am totally UNWORTHY to touch His Sacred Body. This is my choice. It bothers me not how others receive Him. I know what is right for me.
 
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.
I have recently started receiving on the tongue, specifically because I’ve been noticing visible fragments of the Host in my hand lately, which caused me to make a bit of a scene (in my mind, anyway) as I tried consuming the fragments.

My hands have not been consecrated, but I still have the option to receive (not take!) the Eucharist into my hands. My tongue has never been consecrated, though, so why is it acceptable to receive on the tongue? I might receive in the hand in the future, but only if I’m receiving the circular Hosts, not the pieces from the Fraction of the priest’s Host.
 
That is a tremendous act of worship. How large is your parish?What is the normal mass attendance?
How is it achieved? In shifts? agreed set periods?
I am genuinely interested to hear how Perpetual Adoration is achieved.

I am sorry to disappoint you. I CHOSE to receive on the tongue only because I am totally UNWORTHY to touch His Sacred Body. This is my choice. It bothers me not how others receive Him. I know what is right for me.
At our Parish PEA is set up on an hourly basis. Each hour has an “hour leader” who is responsible for that hour for the entire week. People sign up for a set hour on a set day, others are welcome to come and go as they choose, but we have at least one scheduled adorer present each daylight hour. From 10pm to 6am our Pastor has asked that two men be scheduled for every hour due to safety concerns. Again, anyone is welcome at anytime but at least 2 men must be present every hour from 10pm to 6am.
 
Here is a quote from Memoriale Domini regarding Communion on the tongue:
Soon the task of taking the Blessed Eucharist to those absent was confided to the sacred ministers alone, so as the better to ensure the respect due to the sacrament and to meet the needs of the faithful. Later, with a deepening understanding of the truth of the eucharistic mystery, of its power and of the presence of Christ in it, there came a greater feeling of reverence towards this sacrament and a deeper humility was felt to be demanded when receiving it. Thus the custom was established of the minister placing a particle of consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicant.
This method of distributing holy communion must be retained, taking the present situation of the Church in the entire world into account, not merely because it has many centuries of-tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful’s reverence for the Eucharist. The custom does not detract in any way from the personal dignity of those who approach this great sacrament: it is part of that preparation that is needed for the most fruitful reception of the Body of the Lord.[6]
This reverence shows that it is not a sharing in “ordinary bread and wine”[7] that is involved, but in the Body and Blood of the Lord, through which “The people of God share the benefits of the Paschal Sacrifice, renew the New Covenant which God has made with man once for all through the Blood of Christ, and in faith and hope foreshadow and anticipate the eschatological banquet in the kingdom of the Father.”[8]
Further, the practice which must be considered traditional ensures, more effectively, that holy communion is distributed with the proper respect, decorum and dignity. It removes the danger of profanation of the sacred species, in which “in a unique way, Christ, God and man, is present whole and entire, substantially and continually.”[9] Lastly, it ensures that diligent carefulness about the fragments of consecrated bread which the Church has always recommended: “What you have allowed to drop, think of it as though you had lost one of your own members.”[10]
It seems that particularly the second paragraph connects reception on the tongue with belief in the Real Presence (or expression of belief in the Real Presence).
 
My hands have not been consecrated, but I still have the option to receive (not take!) the Eucharist into my hands. My tongue has never been consecrated, though, so why is it acceptable to receive on the tongue? I might receive in the hand in the future, but only if I’m receiving the circular Hosts, not the pieces from the Fraction of the priest’s Host.
Once again, as I said in a previous post, my post regrading how I recieve is my opinion. Maybe I should have spelled out In My Honest Opinion instead of using IMHO. If I made a worldwide judgement on those who recieve in the hand then it was inadvertent. I never condemned those who did so (I said I respected their choice to do so in my last post). The fact is Jesus expected us to recieve him on the tongue at the very least is obvious from the fact that he told us to “take this and eat”.
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.
If you’d read the post above your’s you’d have seen that I said 'the symoblism of this act is more true to me. I didn’t give a universal decree that only anyone who licks wrapping paper of their Christmas presents has truly recieved that present, but those worthless ingrates who use their hands clearly have lost all the true meaning of being given a gift.
 
It is not an American thing. I have been to Mass in many Asian countries and in all cases people can receive on the tongue or in the hand. The Church allows both and neither is more or less reverant than the other or it wouldn’t make sense to permit both.
Communion in the hand may be requested by the local Bishop’s Council, subject to approval by the Vatican.

While many countries have requested this indult, it is still FAR from universal.

Most Latin American countries, for example, do not have this indult.
 
I asked how to posture myself so as to NOT receive the Eucharist in my hand, but on my tongue.
I hold the baby with both hands. Pretty obvious that way. I don’t DARE take a chance of dropping the host while I’m holding the baby, so I always receive on the tongue when I have her. And I never receive the chalice while I’m holding her either, for the same reason, that there is a chance I may spill it if the baby jerks suddenly. If I don’t have her, I just clasp my hands together, look the priest/EMHC in the eye and stick out my tongue. I’ve never had one not get it.
 
is not an American thing. I have been to Mass in many Asian countries and in all cases people can receive on the tongue or in the hand. The Church allows both and neither is more or less reverant than the other or it wouldn’t make sense to permit
It dose appear to me there has been a certain amount of irreverence since receiving in the hand. I do not know if this is coincidence. I suspect not
 
So outside of the US, the standards are different? If I went to Mass in Italy, for example, would everyone be expected to receive on the tongue, and kneel?
I have watched several Masses on EWTN from Italy conducted by our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, and a majority of people accept Holy Communion from the Pope in the hand rather than placed on the tongue.

As of matter a fact, I was watching the Pope very attentively last week during such a Mass, and he often did not look up in the receiver’s eyes, but looked from the Chalice directly to the receiver’s hands. If no hands were present, he then looked to see if they were requesting by tongue. That’s what it looked like to me.

So this is NOT an American thing.
 
It dose appear to me there has been a certain amount of irreverence since receiving in the hand.
Perhaps it appears so to you because you wish to justify your position.
 
It occured to me during mass this evening that ‘it is better for a worthy communicant to receive in the hand than an unworthy one to receive on the tongue’ 🙂
 
I have watched several Masses on EWTN from Italy conducted by our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, and a majority of people accept Holy Communion from the Pope in the hand rather than placed on the tongue.
I think most of us remember that from the eBay incident (selling the Host from a Papal Mass).
So this is NOT an American thing.
It depends on what you mean. If you use the phrase “an American thing” to describe things that only happen in America, you are correct. However, I understood it as describing something characteristic about the Catholic American culture. We can see another example in secular life, materialistic consumerism. It is an American thing in that it describes a basic attitude of our culture. It’s American. It is also an attitude lived in Europe. It’s also European. The same holds true for reception in the hand; it is American, but also other things.
 
I think most of us remember that from the eBay incident (selling the Host from a Papal Mass).

It depends on what you mean. If you use the phrase “an American thing” to describe things that only happen in America, you are correct. However, I understood it as describing something characteristic about the Catholic American culture.
You’re right, I should have posted, “It’s not JUST an American thing”.

They should have ex-communicated the person that auctioned our Christ on ebay, and the person who bought him.
 
They should have ex-communicated the person that auctioned our Christ on ebay, and the person who bought him.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think they did that to themselves. No need for help from the Vatican.
 
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think they did that to themselves. No need for help from the Vatican.
Indeedy - in my books it’d count as desecration of the Eucharist, which incurs automatic excommunication.

Of course if the person wasn’t Catholic (somehow I’d bet they weren’t) they wouldn’t care. It’s not like the Church can excommunicate those of other faiths.
 
As a cradle catholic, I had always received on the tongue. Coming to Charleston, the church I attend has practically no-one who receives this way. I continued to receive on the tongue, but have recently caved. I’m very sad about it, moreso because I feel like I don’t have any options, and because I don’t think it should be this way where someone wants to continue to receive on the tongue is made to feel awkward for doing so.

The last few times I received on the tongue there was either a pause, a look of confusion, or just general discomfort between myself and whomever I went before to receive communion. I received my confirmation at the Easter Vigil and my teenage daughter received all her Sacraments at the same time. We both attended RCIA for two years to do so. During the entire time, the proper way to receive was never taught. During practice for the vigil, our priest merely explained the proper way to receive in the hand.

My daughter doesn’t feel comfortable receiving on the tongue, naturally, because she only sees the contrary during mass, and it was never even explained by the priest she could. So I guess I’m also sad because I feel she will grow up believing this is the only (proper) way. Just like everyone else in our parish apparently feels…
 
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think they did that to themselves. No need for help from the Vatican.
I think you are wrong.

IIRC the auctioneer was not Catholic to begin with. (At least, such was the case with one such auction) Correct me if I am wrong.

tee
 
I think you are wrong.

IIRC the auctioneer was not Catholic to begin with. (At least, such was the case with one such auction) Correct me if I am wrong.

tee
I was of course assuming that they were. I guess I should have been clearer for those who might not have realized that.

LilyM – That’s pretty much what I was thinking too 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top