Eucharist on the tongue

  • Thread starter Thread starter Harpazo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Really? Than the Roman Catholic Church of whom your fathers and forefathers were members were being ‘disrespectful’ each time they followed the holy teachings of the church to kneel and receive the Eucharist in the mouth. The important thing here is to gadge where you are coming from. Nothing that is a holy act ever changes
Click to expand...
I never said it was disrespectful to kneel or receive on the tongue. I think receving on the tongue or hands is okay.

Holy acts change constantly! Morality never changes. How about the rosary as a prime example. The first time the “Our Father” was spoken, it wasn’t in the rosary. The first time the words “Hail, Mary, full of grace,” and “Blessed art thou among women” were spoken, it wasn’t in the rosary. They were put together and over time become the rosary we have now. And it was not until recently that Mary appeared and gave us the prayer “Oh my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, and lead us not into tempation but deliver us from evil.”

Look at how much Jesus changed when He came! Those were huge changes of what was holy and breaking from traditions! When did the sabboth become Sunday? When did Christmas become celebrated on December 25th? Holy things change and we keep getting new ones!

❤️
 
Holy things change and we keep getting new ones
Click to expand...
You are correct. Our Lord established the Mass at the Last Supper and the apostles learnt all that was handed down to them from Our Lord. The apostles did what they were told to do and that is why we the faithful are blessed to receive the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ at Holy Communion.

In breaking from tradition, we are witnesses today to all the new innovations that have replaced what the apostles have upheld and passed down from generation unto generation. In this modern age, we witness like never before the most shocking and bizzare happenings in most of the parishes throughout the world. The Holy Eucharist has been replaced by cookies of various shapes and sizes. Strange liturgical worship which is clearly non-catholic have become acceptable and holy to those who embrace it and the horrific list goes on and on. But I suppose as you see it, it makes it acceptable. Do you realise that many have lost the true faith and are being led by a deceiving spirit that makes what is sacriligeous and profane pleasing to the sight of men?
 
…you should find the thread concerning the rare but occasionally dropped Host of previous decades, and the remarkable and beautiful rite of retreival by the priest…
 
Look at how much Jesus changed when He came! Those were huge changes of what was holy and breaking from traditions!
Click to expand...
You might find a lot of disagreement here. The fact that God gave man a New Covenant was the thing that “changed.” God the Father still demands sacrifice that is pleasing to Him. In the Old Testament the high priest took the BEST of whatever he had (animal, even his own son in Abraham’s case) as a burnt offering to God, and consuming part of it himself as a part of that ritual. In the New Testament, God the Father has accepted the sacrifice of His own Son as that Sacrifice which is MOST pleasing to Him. He said so Himself. The priest sacrifices and we are there to assist/participate in that same (but unbloody) sacrifice every time at Mass. We do not take this lightly or non-chalantly. It’s serious stuff and it has been in the prayers since Mass began.
 
I am old enough to remember when you had to fast from Midnight before receiving Communion. At my Parish most people receive Communion in the hand, and usually bow before receiving the Eucharist. Our Pastor asked me if I’d like to become a Eucharistic Minister, but I told him that I had a problem taking the Host in my hand and would find it difficult to give it to other Communicants.
I might add that I often go downtown to a beautiful old Church in San Francisco, and they never have wine there. I believe it’s because we have so many beggars and homeless in our city.
I try to receive the Eucharist each day, and I truly believe, it is the one thing that keeps me going as my husband passed away several years ago and my children live far away.
 
laudamus_te said:
This is not true.

Here is Pope Benedict giving Communion in the Hand (to a Protestant, no less):
the-tidings.com/2005/0902/communion1.jpg

And here is Pope John Paul II:
geocities.com/Vienna/Strasse/5816/jp2-1.jpg
Click to expand...
Thank you. It’s amazing how uncritically some traditionalists seem to just assume that

a) Communion has always been on the tongue (it certainly wasn’t in the early centuries of the Church) and

b) the Vatican is somehow really really against the practice but was ‘hijacked’ into it by modernists and radicals totally against their will and without their approval.

Neither of these assertions are really true.
 
It’s amazing how uncritically some traditionalists seem to just assume that
Click to expand...
a) Communion has always been on the tongue (it certainly wasn’t in the early centuries of the Church)
Click to expand...
I think most know the early practices were not. But why that practice (of receiving in the hand) was discontinued is what should be asked.
and
b) the Vatican is somehow really really against the practice but was ‘hijacked’ into it by modernists and radicals totally against their will and without their approval.
Click to expand...
It’s a matter of how one looks at it. Since it wasn’t even discussed at Vatican II, I doubt if it was at the top of Vatican’s wish list. And I doubt if it was something the Pope thought of in the middle of the night and couldn’t wait to announce the next day. Or maybe someone knows something I don’t.
 
LilyM said:
Thank you. It’s amazing how uncritically some traditionalists seem to just assume that

a) Communion has always been on the tongue (it certainly wasn’t in the early centuries of the Church) and

b) the Vatican is somehow really really against the practice but was ‘hijacked’ into it by modernists and radicals totally against their will and without their approval.

Neither of these assertions are really true.
Click to expand...
Lily, I realize that the practice was different in the early centuries of the Church as well as I realize that the photo of Benedict giving Communion to Brother Roger, the founder of Taize is subject to further scrutiny since there are reports that years before he died he converted to Catholicism.

This “sword” cuts both ways. For me, personally, HMC says it’s OK to receive in the hand. Fine. But my spirituality was formed before Vatican II and we knelt and received Communion at a Communion rail well into the 70s after Vatican II.

What is being lost in this debate is that there are significant numbers of baby boomers like BarbG and myself who got left behind in the aftermath of Vatican II. Just like I never had long hair, never protested against the Vietnam War, never smoked pot, never liked rock music, etc. ad infinitum…I was never ready for the abrupt changes which came starting in 1967.

Domine, non sum dignus is drilled into the very heart of my soul. I am not worthy. Look, a few years ago, Father dropped the host for the choir member ahead of me. He gave her another host and indicated to me to pick up the host on the floor. I placed my hand over my heart and shook my head. He understood because Father is older than me.

I am not interested in being a liturgical Nazi. I do what I do because it is the way I was raised. I’m not dead yet. I just want to be able to practice that which I grew up with. I’m not asking you or anyone else to do this.

I’m a been there, done that traditionalist and we have been forgotten.
 
brotherhrolf, I certainly appreciate your testimony of the formation of your spirituality and your reverent attitude.

I’m from the opposite end of the spectrum. Not too many years ago, I was sitting in a pew (not kneeling or standing), eating chunks of Wonder Bread and drinking little shot glasses of Welch’s and calling it “communion.” Afterwards, the little shot glasses were thrown away, with the dregs of grape juice still in the bottom. I don’t know what happened to the bread. It didn’t matter, because it was all symbolic anyway.

I’ve seen Communion with Pepsi and Twinkies.

While you were taught “I’m not worthy,” I was taught “It’s just a symbol.”

Now that I’m Catholic, I find the Eucharist is amazing and I approach our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament with great reverence, awe, and just a little fear of God Almighty.

I try to concentrate entirely on the Lord, not on the people or the music or my aching foot. I try to devote all my being to Him. As Psalm 103 says, “All that is within me bless His holy Name.”

I was taught in RCIA that when we are going forward to receive the Lord, we are laying ourselves down on the cross, too, sacrificing our lives to Him. It is not a trivial moment for me at all. I am not frivolous. I believe entirely and passionately that the Lord is truly, miraculously present in the Bread and the Wine. I often cry during Holy Communion, I am so overwhelmed by the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.

I was also taught by our priests that it is perfectly acceptable to receive our Lord on the hand. We are to bow or make some gesture of respect before taking Him, then immediately consume Him, not carry Him back to our seats. We are to sign ourselves with the Sign of the Cross, then go back to our seat. We are allowed to chew Him with our teeth, as the word used in John 6 is “gnaw.” And when we return to our seats, we should kneel (or stand if we are at Children’s Mass), and contemplate our Lord now in us.

I was taught that others take our Lord on the tongue and that’s OK, too. I was taught that either way, we receive the entirety of our Lord, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, in the Eucharist. I do not receive less of Him because I receive Him in my hand.

Receiving in the hand is especially meaningful to me as I play the piano, and often play for Mass.

brotherhrolf, I respect and honor your choice to receive on the tongue and appreciate the background and training that you received.

All I ask is that you please respect me and my background, and especially my priests and bishop, who taught me that receiving the Lord in the hand is acceptable in the Catholic Church.

If you can do this, we’ll get along fine! If not, well, I encourage you to take the issue up with my bishop, not with me. I’m only obeying the Apostle that the Lord has set over me.

brotherhrolf, I don’t mean this post to be just to you. You seem very respectful and I appreciate that.
 
If the “early Church” is going to be used to back up communion in the hand----Why not “empurple” ourselves by pouring or smearing the Precious Blood on our bodies. After all—it was done in the “early Church” and we have St. John Chrysostom words on it.

John Chrysostom

“When you see the Lord immolated and lying upon the altar, and the priest bent over that sacrifice praying, and all the people empurpled by that precious blood, can you think that you are still among men and on earth? Or are you not lifted up to heaven?” (The Priesthood 3:4:177 [A.D. 387]).
 
ACHAIA said:
Really? Than the Roman Catholic Church of whom your fathers and forefathers were members were being ‘disrespectful’ each time they followed the holy teachings of the church to kneel and receive the Eucharist in the mouth.
Click to expand...
That is not what MariaGorettigrl wrote. Read it again.
ACHAIA said:
The important thing here is to gadge where you are coming from. Nothing that is a holy act ever changes - it is truly the attitude of the individual that makes it okay for him/her to receive as he pleases.
Click to expand...
Nothing that is a holy act ever changes - what do you mean by that? Any authentic study of liturgical history will show that there have been many changes of holy acts, if you mean liturgical acts. Perhaps you were using shorthand and your meanibng was not clear; but in respect to the Eucharist, there ahve been a number of changes over the centuries, and changes by basic liturgical traditions.
 
ACHAIA said:
In breaking from tradition, we are witnesses today to all the new innovations that have replaced what the apostles have upheld and passed down from generation unto generation. In this modern age, we witness like never before the most shocking and bizzare happenings in most of the parishes throughout the world. The Holy Eucharist has been replaced by cookies of various shapes and sizes. Strange liturgical worship which is clearly non-catholic have become acceptable and holy to those who embrace it and the horrific list goes on and on. But I suppose as you see it, it makes it acceptable. Do you realise that many have lost the true faith and are being led by a deceiving spirit that makes what is sacriligeous and profane pleasing to the sight of men?
Click to expand...
That seems to be a very large mouthful of what you perceive as wrong in the Church; but let’s keep it to the topic at hand, the Eucharist.

Cookies of various shapes and sizes? What ever is that meant to be? There has been talk of other than wheaten hosts used on rare occasions, and I have yet to meet anyone who actually witnessed such an act and can name a time and parish.

If you are talking about the shape of legitimate hosts, then perhaps you should do a bit of research as to what throughout history has been their shape and size, as I suspect you are referring to the paper thin hosts of recent but pre-Vatican 2 times. Other than that, your charge seems specious; perhaps you can give date and time to your charge, and be more specific?
 
Cat: I believe that I was both respectful and understanding that I was only representing what I grew up with. I understand more than you will ever know (and I don’t mean that to be disrepectful) just how much things have changed. I’m not being judgmental. Both of my sons receive in the hand. DW and I are of an age and we don’t. All I’m trying to point out is that there is still a significant number of us who grew up kneeling at the altar rail and receiving the Eucharist on our tongue.

Lily knows what I mean when I say “I’m not dead yet”. I’m 55 and, although my parents have passed on, I know far too many of my contemporaries whose parents are still alive. We’re been there; done that traditionalists. It’s not at all about making you “feel bad”. You were catechized properly but so was I.

You speak about “gnawing”. How many of us at my age were taught what would happen if the host stuck to the roof of your mouth as part of our preparation for First Holy Communion.

There is a bit of a double standard here. I’ve never said anything about receiving in the hand. I’ve only stated my own personal beliefs based upon the way I was raised. I’m not calling anyone into account. I’m simply saying that there are significant numbers of us who are not dead yet for whom the experience of receiving the Eucharist was a different experience. It is a statement of fact, I believe, and not an attack against the common practice of today.

I don’t see the problem here. I really don’t. There is a disconnect, that I will agree to.
 
Walking_Home said:
If the “early Church” is going to be used to back up communion in the hand----Why not “empurple” ourselves by pouring or smearing the Precious Blood on our bodies. After all—it was done in the “early Church” and we have St. John Chrysostom words on it.

John Chrysostom

“When you see the Lord immolated and lying upon the altar, and the priest bent over that sacrifice praying, and all the people empurpled by that precious blood, can you think that you are still among men and on earth? Or are you not lifted up to heaven?” (The Priesthood 3:4:177 [A.D. 387]).
Click to expand...
I see nothing in your quote that indicates that anyone smeared anything. To be empurpled is to be tinged with color, according to Merriam Webster, but that is also capable of being read as a poetic statement of being tinged with Christ’s Blood and having nothing to do with physical use of it to do so.
 
Walking_Home said:
If the “early Church” is going to be used to back up communion in the hand----Why not “empurple” ourselves by pouring or smearing the Precious Blood on our bodies. After all—it was done in the “early Church” and we have St. John Chrysostom words on it.

John Chrysostom

“When you see the Lord immolated and lying upon the altar, and the priest bent over that sacrifice praying, and all the people empurpled by that precious blood, can you think that you are still among men and on earth? Or are you not lifted up to heaven?” (The Priesthood 3:4:177 [A.D. 387]).
Click to expand...
All the people empurpled? You think all the people received? I think Chrysostom was possibly speaking metaphorically (at least for some of 'em).

I’m not saying that all the disciplines of the early Church were the best, but if permission is given to revert to some of them (as, for example, happens sometimes with married Anglican clergy who convert and are ordained in the Catholic church and are permitted to stay married) who are we to say it’s a bad thing?
 
otjm said:
That seems to be a very large mouthful of what you perceive as wrong in the Church; but let’s keep it to the topic at hand, the Eucharist.

Cookies of various shapes and sizes? What ever is that meant to be? There has been talk of other than wheaten hosts used on rare occasions, and I have yet to meet anyone who actually witnessed such an act and can name a time and parish.

If you are talking about the shape of legitimate hosts, then perhaps you should do a bit of research as to what throughout history has been their shape and size, as I suspect you are referring to the paper thin hosts of recent but pre-Vatican 2 times. Other than that, your charge seems specious; perhaps you can give date and time to your charge, and be more specific?
Click to expand...
I have had communion in the form of bread. Why does it matter as long as people receive communion. The word sacrilege is thrown around alot it’s a very subject call by any individual. We don’t know the shape of the bread at the last supper. Who cares about shape. It’s about our relationship with Jesus Christ and the community of believers. One post mentions the Pope gave communion to a Protestant. I wondered if this person was there? Did they hear the “Protestant” tell the Pope that they were not Catholic? It seems so silly to get so wrapped up in trivial matters. We need to focus on Jesus and his kingdom. We also need to be praying for peace. Why all the silly rules and regulations?
 
brotherhrolf, I really do appreciate your charitable attitude towards us newbies.

I honestly didn’t mean to imply that you have been ungracious. On the contrary, your’s is one of the most gentlemanly posts I’ve seen regarding this issue. I wish that all were like you!

As as I said, I respect and honor your background and choice, and I get the impression that you respect and honor mine.

(I’m 50, BTW, so pretty much the same generation as you. You probably remember the Beatles a little clearer than I do, but other than that, we both grew up with The Lucille Ball Show and Gunsmoke, andy perhaps you drank Tang when you were little, just like me.)
 
otjm said:
I see nothing in your quote that indicates that anyone smeared anything. To be empurpled is to be tinged with color, according to Merriam Webster, but that is also capable of being read as a poetic statement of being tinged with Christ’s Blood and having nothing to do with physical use of it to do so.
Click to expand...
Really now otjm—how does something become “tinged with color”. To tinge in color—one must have that something soaked --in said color. So you see–trying to make it out as poetic–does not really justify what St. John Chrysostom said.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top