Fr. Z: Don't Receive Communion in the Hand

[brigid12]

I very much prefer to receive on the tongue - it makes me feel like a baby bird receiving sustenance from it’s parent, just what is happening (a spiritual baby receiving food from it’s spiritual parent). That said, when in a parish where everyone receives in the hand, I will do that - when in Rome… I certainly don’t want to be the cause of people feeling that I feel what they are doing is inferior!

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Simply put, the Church allows both communion on tongue and in hand at least in the USA. To suggest the Church allows (by indult or not) one method that is inferior to another is absurd. . . . The Church allows communion-in-hand at least in the USA. NO WAY would the Church allow an “inferior” method, anywhere. No “argument” needed – the Church has given us direction on this matter. Finis.

Perhaps you’ve never read any of the Church’s documents on sacred music. Take this snip from Pius X’s Tra le Sollecitudini:

“On these grounds Gregorian Chant has always been regarded as the supreme model for sacred music, so that it is fully legitimate to lay down thefollowing rule: the more closely a composition for church approaches in its movement, inspiration and savor the Gregorian form, the more sacred and liturgical it becomes; and the more out of harmony it is with that supreme model, the less worthy it is of the temple.” (emphasis mine)

That does not mean, however, that only Gregorian Chant is allowed. Rather, polyphony also possesses chant’s qualities “in an excellent degree,” so it is allowed, and after that other modern music is also allowed. Of course, I don’t think one has to point out that since these are not chant they are, by Pius X’s rule, inferior insofar as they depart from the Gregorian form. You may find reality absurd, but the reality is that the Church allows inferior options.

Another example would be the 1958 instruction Musica Sacra which says:

“The more noble form of the Eucharistic celebration is the solemn Mass because in it the solemnities of ceremonies, ministers, and sacred music all combine to express the magnificence of the divine mysteries, and to impress upon the minds of the faithful the devotion with which they should contemplate them.” (emphasis mine)

If you simply read through the Church’s disciplinary documents, you’ll find that no one seems to have been under the impression that the Church and all her children are bound to consider every licit option perfectly equal to every other licit option. You’ll actually find quite the opposite - that sometimes the Church tells us that a licit option is inferior to another licit option.

So take a deep breath, relax, and get used to the idea of the Church showing preference among her disciplines.

As a sacristan at my local parish, I can assure you that there are plenty of crumbs involved.

Anyone who has worked as a sacristan can corroborate this.

I do, and I can.

 

[I_Believe]

Also, the moral breakdown in Western society has been due cultural changes brought about in the technological, information age of rapid social change. The invention of reliable birth control methods, womens movement, civil rights movement, jet travel leading to cross-cultural pollenization at an unheard of rate, the list of this also goes on and on.

I think it’s more a lack, or loss, of Faith that enable society to corrupt our morals.

**
"A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God. In our churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them. Like Mary Magdalene, weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask, “Where have they taken him?” -Pope Pius XII **

Bishop Ranjith, who may very well be in the news again here soon, has spoken concerning CITH vs KOTT. He argues that kneeling, on the tounge, is indeed more reverent. And shouldn’t that be enough reason ? He reasons, that which builds faith is what is important.

Perhaps the TLM can indeed build better Faith, and thus more faithful Catholics. There is more Doctrine in the TLM, and it can be argued that the TLM holds our focus on God. Don’t roll your eyes just yet …

You know those shocking polls we see from time to time ? The ones that indicate a level of luke warm Catholicism ?

I’d like to see a poll taken of tradititionalist communities specifically, and put them alongside those other polls for comparison. There certainly would be a striking difference. Why ?

I’d venture to guess that it’s because they are getting a better catechesis. If not solely from the TLM, then certainly from the pulpit. These priests are not only embracing the TLM, they are embracing Tradition, and teaching essential Catholicism.

They are not satisfied with accepting changes that, even though they aren’t inherently non - catholic, don’t do a better job at building Faith. If they are not better ways of teaching, then why abandon what has worked for centuries ?

We’ve lost too many of the little signs that Catholicism is special. Signs that HMC isn’t just another denomination. It may sound absurd to suggest that the discarding of traditional habits by nuns can hurt vocations, but it can perhaps. Children are curious by nature. I would imagine that when most nuns wore traditional habits, it was a sign to young girls that there was something different about these women. This surely led to questions from girls about the nuns, which would have a possitive effect in some cases. Vocations.Today, nuns who don’t wear traditional habits can sit in a pew at Mass unnoticed. I’d venture to say most young catholic girls today would describe a nun as a teacher who has vowed not to marry.

Imagine a young boy who has only seen altar girls serving Mass. There are parishes where this is so. This can form an opinion that serving Mass is something girls do, in that young boys mind. Traditionally, boys served the Mass in order to foster a discernment of the priesthood. It was, and still should be, a way to make sure that at least young boys knew it was an option. It opened the door to discernment of a vocation. Why discard that ? And why settle for allowing girls to serve, when it can’t go any further than that ? Just because the boys aren’t asking to serve ? A better approach would be for priests to invite them to serve. Let them know that that is what boys have done, traditionally.

Returning to the TLM and Traditional Catholicism can’t cure all the worlds problems, but it can indeed build Faith. It can cure lukewarm Catholicism, and that results in a stronger Catholicism. And that is very important in our battle against this filthy world.

No one has found a better way in the last 45 years. And no one can blame traditional Catholicism for the current crisis.

**Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.” - St. Athanasius, AD 373 **

We’ll never know unless we try.

 

[snhs]

Please let me know your thoughts on Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger words below.

Anyone who reflects on this will recognize that on this point it is quite wrong to argue about this or that form of behavior. We should be concerned only to argue in favor of what the Church’s efforts were directed toward, both before and after the ninth century, that is a reverence in the heart, an inner submission before the mystery of God that puts himself into our hands. Thus we should not forget that not only our hands are impure but also our tongue and also our heart and that we often sin more with the tongue than with the hands. God takes an enormous risk–and at the same time this is an expression of his merciful goodness–in allowing not only our hand and our tongue but even our heart to come into contact with him.

To begin with the quote is taken out of context, it refers back to “this”, what the reflection is on. This makes it rather difficult to comment on it. (I’m in a different timezone hence why no response has came earlier.)

Now he says that we are not “to argue about this or that form of behaviour”. However he also says that we should argue for what the Church’s efforts were directed towards i.e. receiving Communion as reverently as possible, ensuring belief in the Real Prescence, and ensuring that the proper respect is shown to even the smallest fragment of Our Lord. Hence if we consider one way more conducive to that than another or believe that one means is inherently ‘better’, because of its reinfocing effect on the Church’s efforts, then it is right that we argue for it and express that view to others, as His Holiness requests.

Now the second part is quite right, we are impure, we are only purified through him. However to physically enter our bodies he must pass through our mouth, there is a clear argument there that out of respect for Him we should not put Our Lord in a position where he is held by anything impure for longer than is absolutely necessary. This part could also be directed towards Priests/Deacons who due to their position must hold Our Lord in their hands in order that His people can receive Him which would in fact support my initial statement. It could also apply to EMs who only serve in the abscence of an Ordinary Minister, that is an exception not the rule. I don’t think any of this can be taken as a support of Communion in the Hand, if anything the arguments which have been made for Communion on the tongue are reinforced by it as they are predominantly made from a standpoint of what the Church’s efforts were and are directed towards.

 

[wow]

…that out of respect for Him we should not put Our Lord in a position where he is held by anything impure…

“Lord I am not worth to receive You, but only say the word and I shall be healed.”

This part could also be directed towards Priests/Deacons who due to their position must hold Our Lord in their hands in order that His people can receive Him which would in fact support my initial statement. It could also apply to EMs who only serve in the abscence of an Ordinary Minister, that is an exception not the rule.

I bolded your use of the word “could”. Doesn’t this mean possibly?

I still think if the Holy Father will give Communion either way, either way is acceptable and is not something the laity should pass judgement on.

Again, if the Pope decrees differently I will obey.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

There are several problems with receiving on the tongue, that occur to me.

1. Receiving on the tongue should really be done in a kneeling position, and therefore at an Altar rail. Many will cavil and say not so, or not necessarily, but that is how it was meant to be done originally, and if restored, should be done again. Unfortunately Church’s aren’t built with this in mind any more, nor are Cathedrals in many parts of the world, not to mention the US.
2. Receiving on the tongue in the past tradition, was always coming from a priest with a server holding a patten to collect any possible crumbs. There is no question in anyones mind that there are simply not enough priests to distribute communion today, so EEMs would still be required in this scenario. That EEMs would be distributing Holy Communion with unconsecrated hands would seem to be at cross purposes with communion on the tongue for the rest of the community. There would be tensions rising up due to that dichotomy.
3. When communion was received on the tongue, people didn’t receive Holy Communion as often as they do now. People went to confession far more often than they do now, and there was a more strict fast before receiving Holy Communion. All of these facts meant that fewer people received at Mass than now.
4. The situation with receiving Communion on the tongue, make it less likely that the congregation will be offered the consecrated Wine. So there would most likely be a need to discontinue offering Holy Communion under both species as it is done now. There is just not a simple scenario, in today’s church where Communion on the tongue can be given as well as the Wine.

In sum, the issue of Communion on the tongue is really an issue of turning back the clock to Tridentine formulas and customs. That is why this is in reality a BATTLE CRY for TLMs, and other Tridentine formulas being restored.

There is no simple way to restore communion on the tongue in today’s church, without taking into account, church architecture, the restoration of infrequent communion, a discontinuation of reception of Communion under both species, a resurgence of vocations to the priesthood and many other things to make this something that solves more problems than it creates.

It’s not just a simple matter of restoring “reverence” and appreciation for the Real Presence. If it were, those ideas could easily be adapted to receiving Communion in the Hand, if there was a concerted effort, which there has been of late. (such as the bow that is now required before reception.)

BTW, I’m an EEM, and I have never failed to notice the solemnity and reverence of the communicants. I have never seen the disregard, negligence or worse, that everyone wrings their hands over. So I have to assume that these are isolated cases, which would no doubt exist with Communion on the tongue as well.

 

[japhy]

There are several problems with receiving on the tongue, that occur to me.

1. Receiving on the tongue should really be done in a kneeling position, and therefore at an Altar rail. Many will cavil and say not so, or not necessarily, but that is how it was meant to be done originally, and if restored, should be done again. Unfortunately Church’s aren’t built with this in mind any more, nor are Cathedrals in many parts of the world, not to mention the US.

There was never any directive (from Vatican II or from the post-conciliar documents) to remove altar rails; their removal was most likely done in places practicing Communion in the hand illegally, or was done to instigate Communion in the hand, or was done after Communion in the hand had been granted (so why should they cater to those Catholics who still wished to receive kneeling, on the tongue?).

I also have no idea how standing became the “tradition” or “custom” in the Roman Rite in some countries after Vatican II.

1. Receiving on the tongue in the past tradition, was always coming from a priest with a server holding a patten to collect any possible crumbs. There is no question in anyones mind that there are simply not enough priests to distribute communion today, so EEMs would still be required in this scenario. That EEMs would be distributing Holy Communion with unconsecrated hands would seem to be at cross purposes with communion on the tongue for the rest of the community. There would be tensions rising up due to that dichotomy.

The Church prefers the use of the paten still today! (Cf. Redemptionis Sacramentum, n. 93) And it could very well be that Communion on the tongue kneeling at the rail is a more efficient method. However, reasons for preferring Communion on the tongue do not only stem from the prevailing mindset (shortly after Vatican II) that only a priest should handle the consecrated hosts.

1. When communion was received on the tongue, people didn’t receive Holy Communion as often as they do now. People went to confession far more often than they do now, and there was a more strict fast before receiving Holy Communion. All of these facts meant that fewer people received at Mass than now.

Why don’t people go to confession as much? As for the fasting rules, in 1964 the three-hour fast was reduced to one-hour, yes.

1. The situation with receiving Communion on the tongue, make it less likely that the congregation will be offered the consecrated Wine. So there would most likely be a need to discontinue offering Holy Communion under both species as it is done now. There is just not a simple scenario, in today’s church where Communion on the tongue can be given as well as the Wine.

Intinction! That’s the easiest way to a) distribute the Host on the tongue, and b) receive under both species!

Now, I’ve noticed you’re talking about receiving on the tongue in the past tense. Perhaps you don’t know that it – and NOT receiving in the hand – is the UNIVERSAL NORM of the Church. It is still permitted, always and everywhere; receiving in the hand is not. Receiving in the hand is only permitted by indult, which is a way of permitting a practice which is ordinarily not permitted (i.e. illegal, prohibited, forbidden).

In sum, the issue of Communion on the tongue is really an issue of turning back the clock to Tridentine formulas and customs. That is why this is in reality a BATTLE CRY for TLMs, and other Tridentine formulas being restored.

Vatican II never considered Communion on the tongue changing. It’s not a “battle cry for the TLM”, it’s a battle cry for the hermeneutic of continuity, for remaining faithful to the centuries-old tradition of the Church.

There is no simple way to restore communion on the tongue in today’s church, without taking into account, church architecture, the restoration of infrequent communion, a discontinuation of reception of Communion under both species, a resurgence of vocations to the priesthood and many other things to make this something that solves more problems than it creates.

That’s a bit of a defeatist attitude! The problem, of course, is that it’s far easier to BREAK things than to FIX them. It’s easier to remove altar rails and make the sanctuary level with the nave than to reverse the process.

 

[snhs]

“Lord I am not worth to receive You, but only say the word and I shall be healed.”

I bolded your use of the word “could”. Doesn’t this mean possibly?

I still think if the Holy Father will give Communion either way, either way is acceptable and is not something the laity should pass judgement on.

Again, if the Pope decrees differently I will obey.

If my feet are sore on going up to Communion you don’t put the Host on your feet why should it be any different for hands? If I have a headache I don’t place the Host on my forehead before placing it in my mouth, why should that be different from the hands? By receiving on the tongue Our Lord is physically present inside us, he can heal and purify our hands, feet, head or soul just as well from there as if we passed him over every area of our body which had a slight tinge of pain.

I use “could” because you failed to provide a proper context for it, lacking that I can’t go further than that. The Pope does not, in the quote provided, give an explicit indication of his meaning. You had just put it down to suggest that my statement was in contradiction to what His Holiness had written on it, implying that it someone how proved your point. Unlike you however I don’t presume to think that His Holiness thinks as I do. There are several ways to interpret the passage, most of which are more supportive of Communion on the tongue than in the hand.

As I demonstrated in the first part of my analysis if anything His Holiness seems to be telling us to argue for something if we consider it more supportive towards what the Church’s efforts are directed to. That means those who believe Communion on the tongue is better for the Church’s efforts have a duty to argue for it. Now if you feel that there is a similarly worthwhile case to make for Communion in the hand being better then make it, all you’ve done so far is build your view on it being allowed and a slightly tenuous suggestion that all of those receiving in the hand are doing so in hope of being healed.

 

[East_and_West]

Fr. Zuhlsdorf argues that the practice of receiving in the hand is, objectively speaking, a failure to offer due reverence to the Eucharistic species:

wdtprs.com/blog/2008/04/oldie-podcazt-51-communion-in-the-hand/

This podcast might serve as a starting point for a civil discussion about whether the traditional practice is indeed more inherently reverent and respectful. I think Fr. Z’s argument is compelling. In particular, the arguments about the likelihood of fragments of the Eucharist falling or being profaned.

He also addresses the historical roots of receiving on the hand, along with the document of St. Cyril often cited by those who support the practice.

I get bliters in my mouth alot. I have been told that its a virus (not herpes guys. LOL). If its a virus, wouldn’t recieving communion on the tongue put others at risk for this?

 

[snhs]

1. Receiving on the tongue in the past tradition, was always coming from a priest with a server holding a patten to collect any possible crumbs. There is no question in anyones mind that there are simply not enough priests to distribute communion today, so EEMs would still be required in this scenario. That EEMs would be distributing Holy Communion with unconsecrated hands would seem to be at cross purposes with communion on the tongue for the rest of the community. There would be tensions rising up due to that dichotomy.

I don’t think that is such a problem as you are making out. Bishops can still choose to institute Acolytes, that would remove the need for lay EEMs entirely. I think most Parishes have enough Altar servers that they could get by, if need be others can be recruited to hold the paten.

 

[lovesMary]

I get bliters in my mouth alot. I have been told that its a virus (not herpes guys. LOL). If its a virus, wouldn’t recieving communion on the tongue put others at risk for this?

I’ve had more than one priest tell me that they prefer communion in the hands because people don’t stick their tongues out far enough and it’s unsanitary. I can sympathise with that!

 

[wow]

If my feet are sore on going up to Communion you don’t put the Host on my feet why should it be any different from my hands? If I have a headache I don’t place the Host on my forehead before placing it in my mouth, why should that be different from the hands? By receiving on the tongue Our Lord is physically present inside us, he can heal and purify our hands, feet, head or soul just as well from there as if we passed him over every area of our body which had a slight tinge of pain.

I use “could” because you failed to provide a proper context for it, lacking that I can’t go further than that. The Pope does not, in the quote provided, give an explicit indication of his meaning. You had just put it down to suggest that my statement was in contradiction to what His Holiness had written on it, implying that it someone how proved your point. Unlike you however I don’t presume to think that His Holiness thinks as I do. There are several ways to interpret the passage, most of which are more supportive of Communion on the tongue than in the hand.

As I demonstrated in the first part of my analysis if anything His Holiness seems to be telling us to argue for something if we consider it more supportive towards what the Church’s efforts are directed to. That means those who believe Communion on the tongue is better for the Church’s efforts have a duty to argue for it. Now if you feel that there is a similarly worthwhile case to make for Communion in the hand being better then make it, all you’ve done so far is build your view on it being allowed and a slightly tenuous suggestion that all of those receiving in the hand are doing so in hope of being healed.

What I take from Cardinal Ratzinger’s message is that we be concerned with, “…a reverence in the heart…” not which way we decide to receive as long as the way is allowed by our Church.

I will admit that these documents can be interpreted in different ways according to each individual. Because of this, I think we as laity shouldn’t argue the point but trust that the Holy Spirit is going to guide the Church in it’s decision. When the Church decrees that one way is to be used I will obey and pray all others accept the decision.

During Mass, I would hate to think that reverence is simply diminished because someone’s observation of how others choose to receive. What I mean is that if someone is thinking of me or my reverence because of how I receive Communion, are they fully focused and showing the utmost reverence to our Lord during the Mass?

I apologize you misinterpreted my defense of receiving Communion in the hand. When I stated, “Lord I am unworthy to receive you, only say the word and I shall be healed”, I was trying to convey that by our faith, the Lord heals us from sin and allows us to accept Communion…in either way as allowed by the Church.

I’m not saying taking Communion on the tongue is wrong or superior just as I believe receiving Communion in the hand is not wrong or inferior. With the proper reverence in our hearts, either way is equal.

Peace…

 

[japhy]

I get bliters in my mouth alot. I have been told that its a virus (not herpes guys. LOL). If its a virus, wouldn’t recieving communion on the tongue put others at risk for this?

Ideally, the fingers never touch the tongue. True, it happens sometimes (as Eilish Maura will tell you) but I would say rarely.

The “proper” method of placing the host on the tongue of a kneeling communicant is that the host is held diagonally: the part being held (we’ll call this the “back”) is higher than the part facing the communicant (we’ll call this the “front”). The “front” is placed far enough onto the tongue that the “back” can be let go and the host will fall gently and rest on the tongue completely.

This is harder to do when the communicant is standing, of course.

 

[japhy]

I’ve had more than one priest tell me that they prefer communion in the hands because people don’t stick their tongues out far enough and it’s unsanitary. I can sympathise with that!

Heaven forbid those priests catechize their flock on how to receive on the tongue properly!

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Japhy:

AmbroseSJ:

In sum, the issue of Communion on the tongue is really an issue of turning back the clock to Tridentine formulas and customs. That is why this is in reality a BATTLE CRY for TLMs, and other Tridentine formulas being restored.

Vatican II never considered Communion on the tongue changing. It’s not a “battle cry for the TLM”, it’s a battle cry for the hermeneutic of continuity, for remaining faithful to the centuries-old tradition of the Church.

You said it much better than I did!
Still, it is a Battle Cry more than anything else, and it is not so simple to “go back” to Communion on the tongue as everyone likes to suggest. It raises more issues and problems than it is supposed to solve.

Japhy:

Intinction! That’s the easiest way to a) distribute the Host on the tongue, and b) receive under both species!

As far as intinction goes, that is not allowed currently in the RCC, so you are suggesting yet another indult to restore Communion on the tongue. Even if it were given an indult, there would be the problem with those people not wanting to receive under both species “automatically” as would be the case in that scenario.

 

[PKinsale]

Heaven forbid those priests catechize their flock on how to receive on the tongue properly!

I receive on the tongue all the time and must admit this is often a problem for me. I often catch myself not sticking my tongue out far enough.

… And I’m waiting for someone to say they prefer to receive in the hand because they hate to stick their tongue out at Our Lord!

 

[japhy]

Still, it is a Battle Cry more than anything else, and it is not so simple to “go back” to Communion on the tongue as everyone likes to suggest. It raises more issues and problems than it is supposed to solve.

I’d say Communion in the hand raised/created more issues and problems, but that’s just my perspective.

As far as intinction goes, that is not allowed currently in the RCC, so you are suggesting yet another indult to restore Communion on the tongue. Even if it were given an indult, there would be the problem with those people not wanting to receive under both species “automatically” as would be the case in that scenario.

Incorrect. *Self-*intinction is absolutely prohibited, but intinction by a priest (or deacon?) is absolutely 100% permitted; chronologically:

• [En reponse a la demande (http://www.ewtn.org/expert/answers/communion_in_hand.htm) (letter attached to Memoriale Domini), n. 6: “In the case of communion under both kinds by way of intinction, it is never permitted to place on the hand of the communicant the host that has been dipped in the Lord’s Blood.”
• [Liturgicae Instaurationes (http://www.adoremus.org/LiturgicaeInstaurationes.html), n. 6c: “The method of having the communicants pass the chalice from one to another or having them go directly to the chalice to receive the precious blood does not seem advisable. Instead of this, communion should be by intinction.” (Sadly, this didn’t “catch on”.)
• GIRM, nn. 191, 245, 249, 285, 287
• Norms for Communion Under Both Kinds, n. 24: “In practice, the need to avoid obscuring the role of the priest and the deacon as the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion by an excessive use of extraordinary minister might in some circumstances constitute a reason either for limiting the distribution of Holy Communion under both species or for using intinction instead of distributing the Precious Blood from the chalice.” (see also nn. 49-50)
• [Redemptionis Sacramentum (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html), nn. 103-104: “The norms of the Roman Missal admit the principle that in cases where Communion is administered under both kinds, ‘the Blood of the Lord may be received either by drinking from the chalice directly, or by intinction, or by means of a tube or a spoon’. As regards the administering of Communion to lay members of Christ’s faithful, the Bishops may exclude Communion with the tube or the spoon where this is not the local custom, though the option of administering Communion by intinction always remains. If this modality is employed, however, hosts should be used which are neither too thin nor too small, and the communicant should receive the Sacrament from the Priest only on the tongue. // The communicant must not be permitted to intinct the host himself in the chalice, nor to receive the intincted host in the hand. As for the host to be used for the intinction, it should be made of valid matter, also consecrated; it is altogether forbidden to use non-consecrated bread or other matter.”

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Japhy:

Self-intinction is absolutely prohibited, but intinction by a priest (or deacon?) is absolutely 100% permitted

Yes, that’s what I meant. But if a priest were to distribute communion, on the tongue, with intinction, the priest would supposedly hold the ciborium and the host; Who would hold the chalice? And who would hold the patten? As you see, in this scenario, we have possible 3 people going to each communicant. What about those people that prefer no intinction? How would today’s congregation be able to receive in a timely manner, considering a Priest must be distributing Communion by intinction? You see, the more you look into the matter, the more difficult it becomes in today’s church.

Japhy:

I’d say Communion in the hand raised/created more issues and problems, but that’s just my perspective.

I can appreciate your opinion, but from my perspective it appears that the problems and issues with communion in the hand are almost all catechetically related whereas communion on the tongue raises issues of real and immediate importance, such as the practice of receiving Communion under both species, and the other logistical demands of distributing communion on the tongue in today’s Church, i.e. the shortage of priests, prevalent church architecture, the great percentage of communicants at Mass, the current usage of EEMs etc.

 

[Dauphin]

There are several problems with receiving on the tongue, that occur to me.

1. Receiving on the tongue should really be done in a kneeling position, and therefore at an Altar rail. Many will cavil and say not so, or not necessarily, but that is how it was meant to be done originally, and if restored, should be done again. Unfortunately Church’s aren’t built with this in mind any more, nor are Cathedrals in many parts of the world, not to mention the US.
2. Receiving on the tongue in the past tradition, was always coming from a priest with a server holding a patten to collect any possible crumbs. There is no question in anyones mind that there are simply not enough priests to distribute communion today, so EEMs would still be required in this scenario. That EEMs would be distributing Holy Communion with unconsecrated hands would seem to be at cross purposes with communion on the tongue for the rest of the community. There would be tensions rising up due to that dichotomy.
3. When communion was received on the tongue, people didn’t receive Holy Communion as often as they do now. People went to confession far more often than they do now, and there was a more strict fast before receiving Holy Communion. All of these facts meant that fewer people received at Mass than now.
4. The situation with receiving Communion on the tongue, make it less likely that the congregation will be offered the consecrated Wine. So there would most likely be a need to discontinue offering Holy Communion under both species as it is done now. There is just not a simple scenario, in today’s church where Communion on the tongue can be given as well as the Wine.

In sum, the issue of Communion on the tongue is really an issue of turning back the clock to Tridentine formulas and customs. That is why this is in reality a BATTLE CRY for TLMs, and other Tridentine formulas being restored.

There is no simple way to restore communion on the tongue in today’s church, without taking into account, church architecture, the restoration of infrequent communion, a discontinuation of reception of Communion under both species, a resurgence of vocations to the priesthood and many other things to make this something that solves more problems than it creates.

It’s not just a simple matter of restoring “reverence” and appreciation for the Real Presence. If it were, those ideas could easily be adapted to receiving Communion in the Hand, if there was a concerted effort, which there has been of late. (such as the bow that is now required before reception.)

BTW, I’m an EEM, and I have never failed to notice the solemnity and reverence of the communicants. I have never seen the disregard, negligence or worse, that everyone wrings their hands over. So I have to assume that these are isolated cases, which would no doubt exist with Communion on the tongue as well.

Although all the things you describe would be wonderful, none of them are necessary to introduce reception on the tongue as mandatory. Hopefully, the “Tridentine” practice will return to universality in the Church, but this simply isn’t essential. Everyone could be required to receive on the tongue today without any architectural or logistical difficulties, and the fruits would be enormous.

 

[japhy]

But if a priest were to distribute communion, on the tongue, with intinction, the priest would supposedly hold the ciborium and the host; Who would hold the chalice? And who would hold the patten? As you see, in this scenario, we have possible 3 people going to each communicant. What about those people that prefer no intinction?

There are sacred vessels designed for a single priest to hold both paten and chalice. And an altar server could hold a communion plate for safety. I don’t know offhand what to do about those who would prefer not intinction, but I’m sure they wouldn’t be left out in the cold.