Eucharist on the tongue

[cue]

When you give a child (or an adult for that matter) a hot dog, you would have us believe that it is not an action of nourishing, but more like giving someone a keepsake, that he can shove in his back pocket and take back to his room. I don’t buy it.

It is not a direct action of nourishing. Let’s say that this ‘Hot Dog’ situation takes places at the ballpark. Those who witnessed this might say, “Oh, he just bought his child a hot dog.” or “Dad, can you get me hot dog? That kid got one.” but not “That man is feeding his son a hot dog” unless he is actually feeding his son and not simply handing it to him. The act of receiving the hot dog is not the act of eating. They are two actions. Despite the motivation, they are two different actions.
There is similar stereo-typical situation. The father buys his son an ice cream cone. A scoop or two falls onto the ground and the kid begins balling. From this example, I return to the question: Is being fed different from being handed something? Of course it is.

 

[Cam-masta]

On Divine Mercy Sunday, someone wanted the Eucharist in the hands, but the EMHC refused, holding it up to her face! The lady shook her head in protest, and the EMHC then refused her Mercy Himself altogether… on Divine Mercy Sunday!! Incredibly, the lady had to move over to the priest where she received in the hands.

Personally, I feel that the rule should be on the tongue as to avoid all this confusion. The EMHC was dead wrong, however, this ugly situation could have been avoided if there was only one way you must receive. God help us!

 

[NewGuyInChurch]

On Divine Mercy Sunday, someone wanted the Eucharist in the hands, but the EMHC refused, holding it up to her face! The lady shook her head in protest, and the EMHC then refused her Mercy Himself altogether… on Divine Mercy Sunday!! Incredibly, the lady had to move over to the priest where she received in the hands.

Personally, I feel that the rule should be on the tongue as to avoid all this confusion. The EMHC was dead wrong, however, this ugly situation could have been avoided if there was only one way you must receive. God help us!

And then there are the many stories of people being refused when they want to receive on the tongue. Someone once told me a story of an EMHC refusing to give a homeless man the Eucharist on the tongue in Toronto a couple of years ago. This kind of thing could be avoided if EMHCs were trained properly, chosen based on their willingness to perform the duties entrusted to them in line with the Church’s requirements and if they were only used when needed – not automatically at every single parish.

 

[otjm]

Symbolically, receiving in the hand poses a problem. When Communion is received on the tongue, the action is an action of nourishing, feeding–Jesus is fed to us by himself (in the person of the priest or deacon) or by an EMHC.

OK, let’s go back to what the Gospels say: Christ said "Take it; this is my body’ (Mark); “Take and eat; this is my body” (Matthew); …and gave it to them, sayin,“This is my body”… (Luke); so if you want symbolism that actually reflects what the Gospels say, and what the early Church did, then receiving in the hand poses no problem at all. It is just that you siwh to focus on one aspect of being fed. It is somewhat akin to saying that only a three time full submersion really feflects the cleansing from sin that Baptism does, and pouring a dribble of water over the forehaed doesn’t.

The message communicated is “I entrust this to you” or “You have the power to do with this Host what you want” and not “I am feeding you.”

Which is to say that Christ didn’t really understand what He was doing?

Your concerns about desecration are easily handled by proper catechesis.

 

[otjm]

On Divine Mercy Sunday, someone wanted the Eucharist in the hands, but the EMHC refused, holding it up to her face! The lady shook her head in protest, and the EMHC then refused her Mercy Himself altogether… on Divine Mercy Sunday!! Incredibly, the lady had to move over to the priest where she received in the hands.

Personally, I feel that the rule should be on the tongue as to avoid all this confusion. The EMHC was dead wrong, however, this ugly situation could have been avoided if there was only one way you must receive. God help us!

It is just as easily resolved by proper catechesis, and without resorting to only doing it one way. The circumstances you describe are a one time incident, not a need to change everything for all Catholics who prefer one way or the other.

 

[cue]

otjm,
Your reference to the Last Supper describe Christ’s words to the first bishops, not the laity. ‘My’ emphasis on eating Christ’s Body and Blood is clearly expressed in the sixth chapter of the Gospel of St. John. The Council of Trent explicitly warns against applying Christ’s commands to the Apostles as applying literally to all of the faithful (Thus, Christ did not command everyone to always receive both species).

As for Baptism, in either emersion or pouring, the act of washing (cleansing) takes place. The details or specifics are different, but the action is the same - water running over a man’s head. It would not be the same action to hand the man a shell full of water three times.

Your point about catechesis is right on. Catechesis is the solution. We are instructed in the liturgy through symbols. That is why I am emphasizing the catechetical element of the symbol of reception in the hand. What message is this teaching the faithful? Reception in the hand obscures the message of the action of being fed. People misunderstand the reason for Communion and what it is and this leads to abuses and desecration.

 

[otjm]

otjm,
Your reference to the Last Supper describe Christ’s words to the first bishops, not the laity. ‘My’ emphasis on eating Christ’s Body and Blood is clearly expressed in the sixth chapter of the Gospel of St. John. The Council of Trent explicitly warns against applying Christ’s commands to the Apostles as applying literally to all of the faithful (Thus, Christ did not command everyone to always receive both species).

However, you are trying to weazle around the fact that the Apostles wnet and did likewise, as did those the ordained, and those… This has nothing to do with Trent’s exhortation. It has to do with a practice. And as to the words of John 6, the actual Greek means to gnaw on; not exactly the graphic of having someone put something on your tongue.

As for Baptism, in either emersion or pouring, the act of washing (cleansing) takes place. The details or specifics are different, but the action is the same - water running over a man’s head. It would not be the same action to hand the man a shell full of water three times.

don’t be dense. It is an analogy.

Your point about catechesis is right on. Catechesis is the solution. We are instructed in the liturgy through symbols. That is why I am emphasizing the catechetical element of the symbol of reception in the hand. What message is this teaching the faithful? Reception in the hand obscures the message of the action of being fed. People misunderstand the reason for Communion and what it is and this leads to abuses and desecration.

Reception in the hand does no such thing. You just don’t like it. That’s fine, but please, enough of the babyfood image. There is a little more to the symbolism than to which you want to restrict it.

The message to the faithful is that they are being fed; just as Christ commanded, and just as the early Church did.

And if you want to go to John 6; then let’s go there; before the discourse on the Eucharist He fed the multitude (which they failed to get; and certainly did not show the ability to “connect the dots”); He did not go around sticking bread into their mouths.

If you insist you cannot see the symbolism of being fed, so be it. I know so many who do, and so appreciate being able to receieve that way.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

otjm,
Your reference to the Last Supper describe Christ’s words to the first bishops, not the laity. ‘My’ emphasis on eating Christ’s Body and Blood is clearly expressed in the sixth chapter of the Gospel of St. John. The Council of Trent explicitly warns against applying Christ’s commands to the Apostles as applying literally to all of the faithful (Thus, Christ did not command everyone to always receive both species).

As for Baptism, in either emersion or pouring, the act of washing (cleansing) takes place. The details or specifics are different, but the action is the same - water running over a man’s head. It would not be the same action to hand the man a shell full of water three times.

Your point about catechesis is right on. Catechesis is the solution. We are instructed in the liturgy through symbols. That is why I am emphasizing the catechetical element of the symbol of reception in the hand. What message is this teaching the faithful? Reception in the hand obscures the message of the action of being fed. People misunderstand the reason for Communion and what it is and this leads to abuses and desecration.

 

[cue]

otjm,
In post number 83, you quoted Christ’s words from the Last Supper “Take and eat” and “Take and drink,” seeking to connect ‘Take’ with reception in the hand (if I misunderstand your point, I apologize). I pointed out that Christ was asking the bishops and priests of the Church to do this, not everyone who would receive him. I also mentioned the Council of Trent which taught that these commands of Christ to the Apostles do not apply literally to all of the faithful.
I mentioned the Bread of Life discourse in John six because the imperative ‘Take’ is not present, rather Jesus explains that

He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life.

‘Eat’ “not exactly the graphic of having someone put something on your” hand. My point is that neither mode of reception is explicit in Scripture. So no one can say one way is more fulfilling of Christ’s command than the other.

There is a little more to the symbolism than to which you want to restrict it.
(…)
If you insist you cannot see the symbolism of being fed, so be it. I know so many who do, and so appreciate being able to receieve that way.

I have never stated that the symbolism of feeding is completely absent from reception in the hand. It is delayed or obscured though. The Church (Memoriale Domini) explains that the customs of reception in the hand and taking the Host away from the Mass were ‘allowed’ in the early Church “so as to be able to give themselves Viaticum in case they had to face death for their faith.” However,

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.

So, when there was no longer a need for laymen to take the Host to people, there was no longer an advantage to reception in the hand. Reception in the hand did not express or aid personal reception but taking the Host elsewhere (being entrusted with the Host to take to others). Thus, in the eyes of the Church, reception in the hand is connected, not to enriching individual reception, but to being entrusted to take the Host somewhere. So a person who received in the hand might consume the Host or take it “from the place where the holy sacrifice was celebrated.”

I argued that reception on the tongue has more catechetical value than in the hand.

This reverence [reception on the tongue] 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,

The Church explains that reception on the tongue helps demonstrate and express a belief in the Real Presence.

 

[otjm]

otjm,
In post number 83, you quoted Christ’s words from the Last Supper “Take and eat” and “Take and drink,” seeking to connect ‘Take’ with reception in the hand (if I misunderstand your point, I apologize). I pointed out that Christ was asking the bishops and priests of the Church to do this, not everyone who would receive him. I also mentioned the Council of Trent which taught that these commands of Christ to the Apostles do not apply literally to all of the faithful.
I mentioned the Bread of Life discourse in John six because the imperative ‘Take’ is not present, rather Jesus explains that
‘Eat’ “not exactly the graphic of having someone put something on your” hand. My point is that neither mode of reception is explicit in Scripture. So no one can say one way is more fulfilling of Christ’s command than the other.

I have never stated that the symbolism of feeding is completely absent from reception in the hand. It is delayed or obscured though. The Church (Memoriale Domini) explains that the customs of reception in the hand and taking the Host away from the Mass were ‘allowed’ in the early Church “so as to be able to give themselves Viaticum in case they had to face death for their faith.” However,

So, when there was no longer a need for laymen to take the Host to people, there was no longer an advantage to reception in the hand. Reception in the hand did not express or aid personal reception but taking the Host elsewhere (being entrusted with the Host to take to others). Thus, in the eyes of the Church, reception in the hand is connected, not to enriching individual reception, but to being entrusted to take the Host somewhere. So a person who received in the hand might consume the Host or take it “from the place where the holy sacrifice was celebrated.”

I argued that reception on the tongue has more catechetical value than in the hand.

The Church explains that reception on the tongue helps demonstrate and express a belief in the Real Presence.

You and I read the quotes you have selected very differently.

 

[Maureen_Fiore]

It is much more easy to get the Host into the hand without dropping than it is to place it on the tingue. I was an altar boy prior to Vatican Two, and it was not unusual to have a Host drop off the communicant’s tongue; if we were lucky, it dropped onto the paten; but on occasion it fell to the floor. It was not a regular occurance, but would happen frequently enough that it was not a surprise.

For as long as I have seen Communion in the hand, I can only recall one instance of seeing a Host drop; it was picked up and consumed.

Well, I guess I just notice it more when the Host is received on the hand. Oh, and by the way the dropping of the Host is mainly because the priest does not place Jesus in the palm of their hands. Sometimes if there is a long line it seems that the priest is in such a hurry that they are placing the Host over to the side of the hand which causes it to drop. When you extend your tongue out for the reception of the Host it is placed directly on the tongue.

 

[cue]

Patens do caught Hosts that fall, however, they primarily catch the particles which frequently fall, no matter how it is received.

Speaking of Communion on the tongue, the Church says:

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.”

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWMEMOR.HTM

 

[jazzy_987]

I know people do take Eucharist on the tongue, but I think it is quite uncommon now. In fact, I have only seen people do it in pictures, I actually don’t think I saw anyone do it in real life at my church.

 

[brotherhrolf]

I know people do take Eucharist on the tongue, but I think it is quite uncommon now. In fact, I have only seen people do it in pictures, I actually don’t think I saw anyone do it in real life at my church.

I’m 55 and have never received the Eucharist except on the tongue. Uncommon? Hardly. Quite common down here in Catholic Louisiana. Mine is a cathedral parish and I would say 60% of us receive on the tongue.

 

[Pong]

And in my parish I would say 95% recieve in the hand. Here we go round in circles again…

 

[Margaret33]

I’m 55 and have never received the Eucharist except on the tongue. Uncommon? Hardly. Quite common down here in Catholic Louisiana. Mine is a cathedral parish and I would say 60% of us receive on the tongue.

I love hearing things like this!

Margaret

 

[jazzy_987]

I’m 55 and have never received the Eucharist except on the tongue. Uncommon? Hardly. Quite common down here in Catholic Louisiana. Mine is a cathedral parish and I would say 60% of us receive on the tongue.

I didn’t mean in general, I meant in what I have seen and to relate to my own personal experience; what is popular in my area. I guess I should have been more specific about what. Let me rephrase: I think it is quite uncommon in the area where I live, or at least my parish. I have never seen anyone receive the Eucharist on the tongue in the three churches I have attended during my whole lifetime.

By the way, there may be some people who do recieve on the tongue, I haven’t seen it, that is all.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Is it OK to be a Traditional Roman Rite Catholic and believe that the best way of receiving the Eucharist is on the tongue by intinction while kneeling?

 

[tee_eff_em]

Is it OK to be a Traditional Roman Rite Catholic and believe that the best way of receiving the Eucharist is on the tongue by intinction while kneeling?

Your opinion is your opinion.

As long as you don’t demand the Eucharist be so administered to you, I don’t think it is wrong to hold that particular opinion.

:twocents:
tee

 

[Coach]

Our Pastor has ecouraged us to receive Communion on the tongue and I’m fine with it. I think he is right to place emphasis on reverence when receiving this incredible sacrament and participating in this miracle.

But I have to tell you, I have been to mass all over the world, Sigapore, Hing Kong, various countries in Europe. And everyone I see takes the host in their hand. I may not be knowledgable enough to take part in a debate about what the church truly wants and what is legal or not. But if the Church’s preference is to have folks take the host on the tongue, there has been a world wide communications bust.