How do you receive Communion?

[phil19034]

To those asking what the catechist said, I’m not entirely sure. She spent much of the lesson berating me, so I found it hard to concentrate. Clearly there are other issues here. She also said we are not allowed to kneel. I’m just going to talk to the priest, but thank you again for the help. This has at least provided much-needed context.

This is very disappointing and disturbing. A Catechist should never berate a candidate. It is not their place, nor do they have the authority.

2nd, it’s against Canon Law to prohibit someone from receiving Communion on the tounge while kneeling.

God Bless

 

[ClearWater]

Does anyone have information on how to receive Communion? Our RCIA class breezed through that lesson. Since I am about to be received into the Church, I need to know precisely what to do. Just to be clear, I’m not asking for the theology of the Eucharist. I am asking what specific actions one performs when receiving communion.

1. What is the normal way to receive communion?
2. How do I let the priest know I want to receive on the tongue?

Thank you.

1. What’s normal also depends on your location. Here in Mexico, “normal” is on the tongue, standing. In the US, “normal” is in the hand, standing. I normally receive on the tongue, kneeling, but there’s only one priest I do that with.
2. I would clasp my hands together in prayer to show I wanted to receive on the tongue. Others might have a better idea, though.

 

[tee_eff_em]

1. How do I let the priest know I want to receive on the tongue?

Fold/clasp your hands together. Do not in any way give the impression of presenting your open hand to receive the host. (It can help to already be holding something – A small child, perhaps, or a hymn book, missal, missalette, bible, or similar)

Because I am a taller person, and I follow the direction of the USCCB to receive standing rather than kneeling, if the minister is shorter than I am, I stoop a bit as I open wide, tilt my head back a bit, and present my tongue.
(Yes, it would be easier for the short ministers if I were to kneel, but I didn’t ask the episcopal conference to make it more difficult for them to administer the sacrament to me )

tee

 

[otjm]

You kneel down, close your eyes and stick out your tongue. The priest will place the Host on your tongue.

You should NOT be receiving Communion in the hand. This was an abuse that was later permitted by the Church when it should never have been. St Thomas Aquinas wrote:

Out of reverence towards this Sacrament, nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this Sacrament. Hence, it is not lawful for anyone else to touch it except from necessity, for instance, if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency” (Summa Theologiae, III, 82, 3).

Your hands are not consecrated like the priest’s, so you should not be touching the Sacrament.

According to BrJR. who has been a contributor to these forums, you are incorrect on a number of counts.

According to him, a number of centuries ago, the Franciscans applied to Rome and received permission to (again) receive in the hand, and that has continued up until Rome gave permission for Communion in the hand, subject to the local bishop’s approval.

In addition, reception in the hand goes back to documentation in the early Church, and continued for a number of centuries, until the Church granted wider permission. So, according to him, the matter was not done (starting in Europe) as an abuse; while the norm was reception on the tongue, reception in the hand not only was not specifically prohibited, but in fact was allowed in a very limited set (the Franciscans).

Quoting St Thomas has its penalties; and those are that if one does not know well the teachings of the Church, one can stumble onto parts of St. Thomas’s commentary which is contrary to Church teaching. St Thomas was a theologian, not a pope; and all theologians (him included, which he widely and openly acknowledged) speak of theological matters, but the Magisterium decides them. He was also wrong in some of his theological writings, for example, concerning doctrinal matters about Mary.

It may be your personal opinion that the Church should not have allowed, it, but your reasoning is wrong, and submission to the Church appears to be a matter of importance (per the Catholic Catechism of the Church).

And corporals are not consecrated. Not now, and not then. Furthermore, back when churches had altar rails, the cloth which was flipped over the rail at Communion time was not even cleaned (as a corporal is even now), but simply flipped back behind the rail.

 

[otjm]

To those asking what the catechist said, I’m not entirely sure. She spent much of the lesson berating me, so I found it hard to concentrate. Clearly there are other issues here. She also said we are not allowed to kneel. I’m just going to talk to the priest, but thank you again for the help. This has at least provided much-needed context.

Unless otherwise determined by the bishop, standing to receive is the norm. Obviously, if the parish has altar rails and people kneel there, there is permission.

However, the matter of kneeling when the norm is standing went to Rome, when (in at least one circumstance) in a parish where everyone stood to receive, an individual chose to kneel, and the priest refused to give Communion.

Rome’s reaction did not give permission to anyone to kneel in such circumstance; what they said was that the priest had no authority to deny Communion.

Contrary to popular commentary in some circles, that does not equate to permission to kneel, contrary to established norm. Rome is eminently capable of saying that kneeling is permissible, and they most definitely did not say that - they said the individual was to be “counseled” (and anyone with common sense would understand such counseling is not to take place during Communion).

The short of it is that if the norm is in place, then one is to follow the norm. Reception of Communion is not the time nor the place to make one’s own personal piety the factor overriding the established norm. On occasion, we are called to submit our will to the will of the Church, and as expressed by the bishop.

Nor should any catechist be making an example of anyone in class. That is completely wrong. Anything they had to say to you should have been done in private, and should have been done charitably. I am sorry you were subjected to that. Certainly not all catechists are like that.

 

[paperwight66]

If by hand,

Bow close to top of line, before reaching Priest

Left hand over right hand,
extend hands to Priest
Priest says ’ The Body of Christ’
you say ’ Amen’
Communion wafer is placed in your hand
Step to side, put wafer in mouth,
cross yourself,

Are you doing blood of Christ too?

Actually, crossing yourself after receiving is only a pious custom, not part of the discipline. In other words, you do not have to do it…

Watch the priests when they receive. I’ve never seen one cross themselves.

 

[otjm]

This is very disappointing and disturbing. A Catechist should never berate a candidate. It is not their place, nor do they have the authority.

2nd, it’s against Canon Law to prohibit someone from receiving Communion on the tounge while kneeling.

God Bless

While Canon Law prohibits priests from refusing to distribute Communion to someone kneeling, if standing is the norm, then it is the norm. It is amazing how many people are rapid fire ready to fire off with “Abuse! Abuse!” for anything they don’t like, and yet are stuff necked when it comes to following the norm instead of following their own preferences. Submission of the will to the legitimate request of the bishop appears to be optional when I don’t personally like the request.

 

[alphomega]

Its worth noting that the indult granted to receive in the hand came with several provisions or conditions. Included in these conditions are that no irreverence, sacrilege, or loss of faith occur as a result of Communion in the hand.

It would be difficult to argue these are met considering the current condition of the Church in the USA

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

This thread is about how to receive communion, not a debate on communion in the hand versus on the tongue.

For the OP, the important thing to know is that the Church has given permission to receive either way. If you prefer one or the other, then that’s the way you should receive communion. Your opinion matters for yourself and perhaps for your children. For the wider Church it’s up to the bishops to make decisions, not the laity.

 

[AugustTherese]

By going to Mass?

Hopefully in a state of grace.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Actually, crossing yourself after receiving is only a pious custom, not part of the discipline. In other words, you do not have to do it…

Watch the priests when they receive. I’ve never seen one cross themselves.

Pious custom, was it pre Vat 11? It is from my childhood, no doubt.

The mission over the next 10 days - how many Religious, Laity and Clergy cross themselves post taking the Body and Blood of Christ.

 

[Voltrael]

I prefer to receive by hand, but frequently my hands are occupied preventing my three year old from running around the church, so I receive by tongue.

 

[Mary_Ellen]

HobbitShoe,

BTW, Welcome to the Catholic Church!

As with all families, you can see there’s a lot of bickering around the table but there’s a lot of love here, too. Welcome home.

 

[Horton]

This thread is about how to receive communion, not a debate on communion in the hand versus on the tongue.

For the OP, the important thing to know is that the Church has given permission to receive either way. If you prefer one or the other, then that’s the way you should receive communion. Your opinion matters for yourself and perhaps for your children. For the wider Church it’s up to the bishops to make decisions, not the laity.

This ^^^ Receiving in the hand or on the tongue are both right, both correct. Neither is better than the other or more pious than the other. It is a personal preference only.

Regarding the kneeling to receive, it is not the norm in the US and from what I could see in the several Masses I attended in Italy (including one at St. Peter’s celebrated by Pope Francis) and in Paris, kneeling is not the norm there either. In fact most of the bigger churches, Basilicas and Cathedrals, don’t have kneelers so very few kneel at any part of the Mass. As far as receiving there, most received in the hand also.

My point being, Saturday night you are entering fully into a community of fellow brethren, the family of God. As long as what your family is doing during Mass and reception of the Eucharist is licit and permitted, then join your family. Don’t try to out-Catholic your family of God, it’s not a competition.

 

[ChikaisHis]

youtube.com/watch?v=qdGkTdv4Dt4

I second this video; it’s great!

Welcome home!

 

[peter26]

Kneeling on the tongue or not at all for me. In the Ordinariate, this is normative in any event.

 

[thistle]

You kneel down, close your eyes and stick out your tongue. The priest will place the Host on your tongue.

You should NOT be receiving Communion in the hand. This was an abuse that was later permitted by the Church when it should never have been. St Thomas Aquinas wrote:

Out of reverence towards this Sacrament, nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this Sacrament. Hence, it is not lawful for anyone else to touch it except from necessity, for instance, if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency” (Summa Theologiae, III, 82, 3).

Your hands are not consecrated like the priest’s, so you should not be touching the Sacrament.

This is absolutely incorrect and you should not be telling anyone that especially someone in RCIA. You are putting yourself above the Church by saying that.

Receiving on the tongue and in the hand are BOTH VALID ways to receive.

Communicants, including you, may choose which way they want to receive but it is disobedience to the Church claiming receiving on the hand is an abuse and should not be done. It is not an abuse.
This is the official position of the Church.

 

[Phemie]

Your hands are not consecrated like the priest’s, so you should not be touching the Sacrament.

The Deacon’s hands are not consecrated either but he is an ordinary minister of Holy Communion.

 

[JakeWI]

In our Parish, it seems to be 50/50 between tongue and hand. I used to receive in my hand, but eventually felt the pull to receive on my tongue. I have received in the hand when sick, and not wanting to get other sick, and once after the host was dropped (when I was trying o receive on my tongue) from a flustered Eucharistic Minister at a Parish I visited.

Either way, you may do what is most comfortable between those to options and what you feel “called” to do. I have rarely seen people kneel, but it has happened and they still were able to receive.

 

[FrDavid96]

Yes, an indult was granted by Rome in 1977 (under dubious circumstances) for those in the United Sates wishing to receive in the hand . The preferred way to receive the blessed sacrament is on the touge while kneeling. This according to Cardinal Sarah prefect of the congregation for divine worship and the discipline of the sacraments.

There is much information on this subject for anyone who cares to research it.

.

Its worth noting that the indult granted to receive in the hand came with several provisions or conditions. Included in these conditions are that no irreverence, sacrilege, or loss of faith occur as a result of Communion in the hand.

It would be difficult to argue these are met considering the current condition of the Church in the USA

I am curious how you would respond:

Pope St John Paul II granted an indult for the celebration of Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal of St John XXIII. This was done, in part, because of a number of abuses whereby certain priests and laity rejected the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl Pope Paul VI. Pope Benedict XVI then changed the law to allow Masses using the Roman Missal of 1962.

What was once done by indult is now permitted by the law itself.

If our criteria for judging whether or not an act is legitimate is to say that if it was previously being done by way of an indult which was granted in response to abuses, then how should we view the current day use of the 1962 Roman Missal?

It would seem to me, that following the logic of your posts, we should be mobilizing to end the use of the Extraordinary Form.