I dare you...

[surritter]

Bookcat,

Since you repeated it twice. . . I think it appropriate to highlight the “(my words)” aspect of the following:

Because what Cardinal Ratzinger actually said was “I wouldn’t want to be fussy about that,” and it was in a response to an interview question (if you are indeed referring to the source that I suspect).

My point is that perhaps we ought not take from this answer that the Cardinal (now Pope) is advocating neutrality on the question but rather equanimity. Perhaps, while not fussing over it, the Holy Father may yet recommend one over the other, perhaps even move towards one over the other.

However, Verbum – let’s see which side is making a “fuss.” So far in this thread we have seen comments such as:

“it is great to set such an example of piety”

“how can we ‘touch’ such a GOD?”

“Kneeling to receive my God on the tongue shows due reverence to the Sacrament”

These comments in themselves are fine! But you and I have seen on other threads how they can be worded to “gang up” on those devout Catholics who still likes receiving in the hands. So there is nothing wrong with reminding readers of the legitimacy of BOTH methods. Yes, the pope has stated his preference, and that is indeed a reason to consider receiving on the tongue. But at the same time I think bookcat’s point is equally valid.

 

[NPC]

I was wondering…is getting communion on the tongue much different than receiving it in the hand? I mean, I hear people say it’s a lot different, like…it seems different. I don’t know, people always say that it’s better than receiving in the hand, which I don’t know why. I wonder if someone who receives on the tongue can explain?

So, I might want to try it. Are there any hand receiver to tongue receiver converts out there? Did you feel awkward your first time walking up to the priest and sticking your tongue out? I’m just afraid of looking awkward. I mean, I know a lot of people do it, but, since I would be new and all…

I bought a small book recently called The Catholic Sanctuary and the Second Vatican Council by Michael Davies & published by TAN Books. While the author does not focus on the practice of receiving Communion on the tongue v Communion in the hand, he does note how similar some post-Vatican II “innovations” are to the practices introduced by the 16th century Protestant reformers. The main point is that the Protestants got rid of anything that gave any sense of the “Lord’s Supper” being a sacrifice - it was merely a meal. To quote from page 15 & 16:

The line of demarcation between Catholic and Protestant worship was laid down clearly at the Reformation. The most striking differences were as follows: The Catholic Mass was celebrated in Latin; the Protestant Lord’s Supper in English. Much of the Mass was celebrated in an inaudible tone; the Lord’s supper was spoken audibly throughout. The Mass began with the Psalm Judica me, in which the priest stated specifically that he was going unto the altar of God, and ended with the sublime Last Gospel; in the Lord’s Supper the Judica me and the Last Gospel and many traditional prayers were abolished, particularly the sacrificial Offertory Prayers. The Mass was celebrated on a sacrificial altar facing the East; the Lord’s Supper was celebrated on a table facing the people. In the Mass, Holy Communion was placed on the tongue of the communicant by the annointed hand of a priest; in the Lord’s Supper it was placed in the hand of the communicant. In the Mass, Holy Communion was given to the laity under one kind only; in the Lord’s Supper it was always administered under both kinds.

This clear distinction between Catholic and Protestant worship remained unchanged for four centuries (until the Second Vatican Council), making it clear, as John Henry Cardinal Newman expressed it, that Catholicism and Protestantism are two different religions, and not two ways of expressing the same faith.

Now, the Church has given the right to individual bishop’s conferences to decide if Communion may be given in the hand, and so I respect that. I certainly don’t dispute the reverence with which one can receive the Body of Christ into their hands. However, the contrasts which Mr Davies has drawn between Catholic and Protestant worship in the 16th century are very striking - today, they seem to be mere parallels rather than contrasts.

As for myself, I have mentioned it a few times here on CAF that I did have a moment of “conversion” from Communion in the hand to Communion on the tongue. It occurred on All Souls Day 2007 - I remember it well. As usual, I went to Holy Mass at the cathedral, at Communion time I went up to the altar rails and knelt to receive with reverence, Communion in the hand. I consumed the Body of Christ and then returned to my place. However, when I knelt to pray, I noticed that there were some tiny fragments of the Sacred Host stuck to my hand. I consumed them, but was greatly troubled by the fact that I could have let the Body of Christ fall to the floor through my own carelessness - theoretically as many times as I had received Holy Communion over the years. Some might say that I was being overly scrupulous - but one could not but be troubled by such a thing if they truly believe that they are receiving the Body of Christ.

So, if you feel moved to receive Communion on the tongue - go for it! There’s nothing to be nervous about - say “Amen” and then stick out your tongue (further than you might imagine!). The priest will do the rest - just don’t close your mouth too early; you’re there for Holy Communion, not his fingers

 

[Bookcat]

I ordinarily receive on the tongue…though at times I receive in the hand.

Both are valid and good ways. And as Cardinal Ratizinger (now Pope Benedict XVI of course noted…(my words) people should not get into a fuss about it…

Communion in the hand is very ancient…going back to the beginning…and was the way the Early Christians received…and communion on the tongue too is venerable…and ancient.

both are permitted in the Catholic Church. both in the USA .Though the communion in the hand may not be in some areas of the world …depending on the pastoral decision of the Bishops.

so you may decide one way one day and one way the next…both can be very edifying ways to receive Jesus Christ the Lord. Both reverent. both ancient.

 

[Bookcat]

Bookcat,

Since you repeated it twice. . . I think it appropriate to highlight the “(my words)” aspect of the following:

Because what Cardinal Ratzinger actually said was “I wouldn’t want to be fussy about that,” and it was in a response to an interview question (if you are indeed referring to the source that I suspect).

My point is that perhaps we ought not take from this answer that the Cardinal (now Pope) is advocating neutrality on the question but rather equanimity. Perhaps, while not fussing over it, the Holy Father may yet recommend one over the other, perhaps even move towards one over the other.

VC

I think he also noted…at least in one place …the early Christian origins of it.

In any case…where both forms are permitted. both are well…permitted.
and both remain ancient and venerable.

 

[Bookcat]

However, when I knelt to pray, I noticed that there were some tiny fragments of the Sacred Host stuck to my hand.

I would think …yes one may then consume any possible particles…which are rare with the hosts today…

however I draw attention to these words of Jimmy Akin the author of Mass Confusion and the chief apologist of Catholic Answers…

from his blog:

“It depends on the size of the crumb. If it’s a particularly large crumb–something you would look at and think “That’s a piece of bread” then the Real Presence would remain. If it’s a particularly tiny crumb, something you would look at and think “That’s a speck of wheat dust” then the Real Presence does not remain. If it’s an ambiguously sized crumb then it is doubtful whether or not Christ is really present.”

and:

“In obvious cases, though, (e.g., this is clearly cornbread or this clearly looks like a speck of wheat dust) then the Real Presence is not presumed and we are NOT TO SCRUPLE ABOUT THIS.”

of course it is quite natural and good to be concerned when one sees particles…I know that I just then consume them…

take care of course out of reverence…but we need to not scruple over them…

 

[aspirant]

Growing up as a non-Catholic, Episcopalian, I received kneeling every Sunday… It was only when I became a Catholic that I began receiving standing as that is the norm… And, it doesn’t make one bit of difference to me… Both are *approved *postures. If the Church changes the rubrics and allows only one or the other, fine, I will do it whichever way the Bishops establish as the norm or requirement.

Agreed.

emotion (love)

Agape is not an emotion. It is wonderful when it is accompanied by emotions, but it is not an emotion.

 

[NPC]

I would think …yes one may then consume any possible particles…which are rare with the hosts today…

however I draw attention to these words of Jimmy Akin the author of Mass Confusion and the chief apologist of Catholic Answers…

from his blog:

“It depends on the size of the crumb. If it’s a particularly large crumb–something you would look at and think “That’s a piece of bread” then the Real Presence would remain. If it’s a particularly tiny crumb, something you would look at and think “That’s a speck of wheat dust” then the Real Presence does not remain. If it’s an ambiguously sized crumb then it is doubtful whether or not Christ is really present.”

and:

“In obvious cases, though, (e.g., this is clearly cornbread or this clearly looks like a speck of wheat dust) then the Real Presence is not presumed and we are NOT TO SCRUPLE ABOUT THIS.”

of course it is quite natural and good to be concerned when one sees particles…I know that I just then consume them…

take care of course out of reverence…but we need to not scruple over them…

It is hardly scrupulous in the least when one knows that a tiny fragment came from the Sacred Host - of course it would be different if one merely came across a “speck” of “something”, one could not possibly know if it was the Body of Christ. I knew that the particles on my hand were from the Sacred Host which I had received and thus knew that they must be afforded no less reverence than I had given to the Host.

When one knows that such a tiny fragment is in fact part of the Consecrated Host it should be treated with greater care than one would treat gold or jewels, as St Cyril says - it is the same Body of Christ as the Hosts which are consumed and just as efficacious.

St Cyril of Jerusalem:

Be careful that you do not lose anything of the Body of the Lord. If you let fall anything, you must think of it as though you cut off one of the members of your own body. Tell me, I beg you, if someone gave you kernels of gold, would you not guard them with the greatest care and diligence, intent on not losing anything? Should you not exercise even greater care and vigilance, so that not even a crumb of the Lord’s Body could fall to the ground, for It is far more precious than gold or jewels?

Tertullian:

We suffer anxiety lest anything from the Chalice or the Bread fall to the ground.

St Ephrem:

Jesus filled up the Bread with Himself and the Spirit and called It His living Body. That which I have now given you, says Jesus, do not consider bread, do not trample underfoot even the fragments. The smallest fragment of this Bread can sanctify millions of men and is enough to give life to all who eat It.

If there is no doubt, as in my case, that the particles are the Sacred Body of our Lord, then we most certainly should do whatever we can to prevent the Body of Christ being lost or trampled underfoot.

 

[donanobis]

As a young person who grew up receiving on the hand I can’t speak enough for the personal advantages of receiving on the tongue…

I started doing this as a reparation. When I receive the Eucharist from a Priest, it is on the tongue. From laity or deacon, in the hand. It is a penance, esp. when just about everyone else is receiving in the hand. I am also in the “sorry, but once I kneel when I get up I may keel, crowd”, but if I could I would.

JUST as important as HOW it is received, is how *you are disposed *to receive Jesus.

Are your hands CLEAN?
Did your BRUSH your teeth?
Is your clothing appropriate?
Are you praying or daydreaming on the way up to the altar?
Did you make an act of contrition?

dona

 

[Bookcat]

It is hardly scrupulous in the least when one knows that a tiny fragment came from the Sacred Host - of course it would be different if one merely came across a “speck” of “something”, one could not possibly know if it was the Body of Christ. I knew that the particles on my hand were from the Sacred Host which I had received and thus knew that they must be afforded no less reverence than I had given to the Host.

When one knows that such a tiny fragment is in fact part of the Consecrated Host it should be treated with greater care than one would treat gold or jewels, as St Cyril says - it is the same Body of Christ as the Hosts which are consumed and just as efficacious.

St Cyril of Jerusalem:

Tertullian:

St Ephrem:

If there is no doubt, as in my case, that the particles are the Sacred Body of our Lord, then we most certainly should do whatever we can to prevent the Body of Christ being lost or trampled underfoot.

Yes take care…but do not scruple that was my point. One must distinguish as to what one means by crumbs…crumbs are different than specks as Jimmy would point out.

But in any case…take care.

 

[NPC]

Yes take care…but do not scruple that was my point. One must distinguish as to what one means by crumbs…crumbs are different than specks as Jimmy would point out.

But in any case…take care.

Absolutely…Look, we all agree on the reverence which is due to the Most Blessed Sacrament. Needless to say, I (nor anyone in their right mind, I imagine) would not set my eyes upon a speck of something and boldly assume that it is the Body of Christ. That said, we speak of the Real Presence only remaining as long as the appearence of bread remains - one must remember, as in my own case which I related earlier, the “appearence of bread” in not necessarily only applied to the visual aspect, but to a person’s rational mind, knowledge of the situation &c., &c. After all, we don’t - or rather, we can’t - rely on our eyes alone when it comes to the Eucharist. As Aquinas’ hymn says, we must allow faith make up for what is lacking in the senses, Praestet fides supplementum sensuum defectui.

 

[Bookcat]

Absolutely…Look, we all agree on the reverence which is due to the Most Blessed Sacrament. Needless to say, I (nor anyone in their right mind, I imagine) would not set my eyes upon a speck of something and boldly assume that it is the Body of Christ. That said, we speak of the Real Presence only remaining as long as the appearence of bread remains - one must remember, as in my own case which I related earlier, the “appearence of bread” in not necessarily only applied to the visual aspect, but to a person’s rational mind, knowledge of the situation &c., &c. After all, we don’t - or rather, we can’t - rely on our eyes alone when it comes to the Eucharist. As Aquinas’ hymn says, we must allow faith make up for what is lacking in the senses, Praestet fides supplementum sensuum defectui.

I refer you back to Jimmy Akin for follow up…

 

[ProVobis]

So therefore there should not be crumbly bread.

No such thing. Even the molecules of plastic come off with friction.

 

[ProVobis]

from his blog:

“It depends on the size of the crumb. If it’s a particularly large crumb–something you would look at and think “That’s a piece of bread” then the Real Presence would remain. If it’s a particularly tiny crumb, something you would look at and think “That’s a speck of wheat dust” then the Real Presence does not remain. If it’s an ambiguously sized crumb then it is doubtful whether or not Christ is really present.”

And how large exactly are we talking about here? What about someone like me who can’t see the person in front of me without glasses?

And these aren’t crumbs but accidents of the Body and Blood of Christ. I don’t need to see accidents or feel accidents for me to be receiving.

 

[ProVobis]

JUST as important as HOW it is received, is how *you are disposed *to receive Jesus.

Are your hands CLEAN?
Did your BRUSH your teeth?
Is your clothing appropriate?
Are you praying or daydreaming on the way up to the altar?
Did you make an act of contrition?

dona

:thumbsup:Yes, many people only think in terms of fast and being free from sin. Improper disposition could also be an angry state of mind, such as that just after having an argument with your spouse or having someone cut in front of you in the communion line.

By the way, an act of contrition isn’t enough if you’re in a state of unconfessed mortal sin.

 

[ProVobis]

…both can be very edifying ways to receive

Let me ask you something. When you go to a wedding and see the couple cutting the cake and feeding each other, don’t you ever ask yourself why they do that? Well, it represents something special and dependence on each other. You can’t tell me that CITH and COTT have exactly the same meaning.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

And these aren’t crumbs but accidents of the Body and Blood of Christ.

PV,

Nitpick: those accidents of bread and wine are not the accidents of the Body and Blood of Christ.

VC

 

[surritter]

PV,

Nitpick: those accidents of bread and wine are not the accidents of the Body and Blood of Christ.

VC

Well then what are they, the substance?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Well then what are they, the substance?

No, they are not substances, but true and real accidents. But those accidents of bread and wine (whiteness, crumbliness, roundness, etc.) are accidents that don’t inhere in any substance at all. They don’t inhere in Christ, and they don’t modify Him – and therefore are not the accidents of the Body and Blood of Christ.

VC

 

[ProVobis]

No, they are not substances, but true and real accidents. But those accidents of bread and wine (whiteness, crumbliness, roundness, etc.) are accidents that don’t inhere in any substance at all.

That’s a good way of putting it, as long as we don’t believe (as the Lutherans do) that after consecration there are substances of both bread and the Body of Christ. (Of course, the Lutherans don’t have a valid consecration, but that’s another topic.)