If communion in the hand is mandated what should those who normally receive on the tongue do?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PatienceAndHumility
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Usige said:
but if you had had it ingrained in your head that it was the height of impiety for unconsecrated hands to touch the Eucharist you might see it differently
Click to expand...
So true, that this mindset drives a lot of the discussion, but also true that mindset is part of the problem. In fact, it’s an error to believe that it is the height impiety for unconsecrated hands to touch the Eucharist. We need to be open to broadening our own sometimes narrow perspective
 
I receive in the hand. I normally don’t but the bishop has ordered it for the time being and I will obey.
 
Brendan said:
Seeking the reception of communion on the tongue is not an act of disobedience, refusing to offer Communion to a member of the faithful is such a way IS an act of disobedience.
Click to expand...
I would disagree with this… offering communion in the hand only considering the pandemic is an act of prudence and charity on the part of the Church. I am grateful for this action for our leadership.
 
If your bishop is mandating communion in the hand & you refuse to receive in the hand; then simply abstain from Communion until you can receive again.
  • However, if you have not received since before Easter, I would recommend that you receive at least once and then abstain after that.
Another option would be to attend an Extraordinary Form Mass (Latin Mass) nearest you. There, you will receive on the tongue, or the priest will not be giving out Communion, since one may not receive in the hand according to the 1962 rubrics.

My suggestion: don’t make a mountain out of a hill on this. When the virus crisis is over, if your bishop is still prohibiting Communion on the tongue, then write a letter. Otherwise, simply receive or abstain according to whichever you feel is personally best for your spirituality.

God bless
 
Last edited:
“Obedience”, in this context, can only refer to the ministers of Holy Communion. If they are ordered to distribute in that way only, then that is their mandate. The faithful are not ordered to receive Holy Communion, period, since this is always a matter of the recipient’s conscience. No one legitimately command someone to receive a Sacrament.

So, it would never be “disobedient” for the faithful to not receive Holy Communion (excepting, of course, the minimal, yearly requirement to receive…which itself has exceptions).

Dan
 
Last edited:
Let’s assume a priest obeys his superior and that any such mandate should be deemed as superseding law which applies in normal circumstances - is it wise for the faithful to place preference of reception over reception itself?
 
StudentMI said:
I receive on the tongue for personal reasons which are related to OCD and scrupulosity. I won’t be receiving if I can’t receive that way.
Click to expand...
I of course do not judge hearts- God will weigh peoples reasons for not receiving Him when they have perfectly legitimate method to do so.

Dear Brother/Sister in Christ, I would ask you whether you will try to overcome the reasons you have in order to receive Him? God bless
 
Usige said:
unconsecrated hands to touch the Eucharist you might see it differently.
Click to expand...
Are our tongues consecrated? Do we still “touch” Jesus in the Eucharist when we receive on the tongue?

Consecrated hands are more so relevant for the distribution of the Eucharist, not the reception of it.
Usige said:
While it might seem logical to you, for some the mere thought of receiving in the hand might make them feel like they are profaning the sacrament to the point it physically sicken them.
Click to expand...
I would point such brothers in the faith to consider the early church practice and also the fact that it is unarguably a licit form of reception. Does it trouble you equally therefore that the early church practiced this? And likewise does it trouble you equally that the church would legitimise such a profanation in your eyes? This is where the logic follows.
 
phil19034 said:
My suggestion: don’t make a mountain out of a hill on this.
Click to expand...
This is where I think this is indeed a mountain we must overcome… What reason to not receive in the hand could possibly be sufficient to justify not receiving our Lord? Do we not realise how much we need him in the Eucharist? Especially after months without him…
 
I prefer to receive on the tongue (I have on upcoming YouTube video pertaining to this topic), but, I have been receiving in the hand because of the pandemic. Better just not to risk it. If you can’t bring yourself to do so, just don’t receive.
 
PatienceAndHumility said:
If we are instructed to receive in a particular way, the church has asserted prudent judgement, irrespective of our opinions on the science
Click to expand...
Not true, as the Church itself, as it the Vatican, has given the right to choose the means of reception to EACH MEMBER OF THE FAITHFUL.

An individual bishop, no matter how well intentioned, does not have the authority to mandate a change.

Here is what was promulgated to the Bishops of the world.
[92.] Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice,[178] if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her.
Click to expand...
(emphasis mine)

Where does a Bishop recieve the authority to override this. Could you quote the Church document?
 
Brendan said:
Where does a Bishop recieve the authority to override this. Could you quote the Church document?
Click to expand...
I am not proposing a legalistic solution/argument here. The heart of the matter is simple. If bishops instruct priests to give communion in the hand only, based on their prudential judgement (let’s disregard the science etc.). And the priests obey bishops. Then is it right for the faithful to refuse to receive , simply due to their preference in method of reception?
 
Last edited:
PatienceAndHumility said:
40.png
phil19034:
My suggestion: don’t make a mountain out of a hill on this.
Click to expand...
This is where I think this is indeed a mountain we must overcome… What reason to not receive in the hand could possibly be sufficient to justify not receiving our Lord? Do we not realise how much we need him in the Eucharist? Especially after months without him…
Click to expand...
Look… the fact is we are only required to receive once a year. Until the 20th century, it was very common for Catholics to only receive 1-12 times a year. Nuns had to receive permission from their spiritual director to receive more than once a week.

If people don’t want to receive in the hand for pious reasons, please respect that.

Many people are always hammoring about how traditionalist should respect the fact that people want to receive in the hand, so I ask for equal respect.

Many people who only receive on the tongue do so because they do not feel worthy of the Eucharist, let alone to ever touch the Lord.

There are many Saints who have written about positives to infrequent communion. So while I agree that regular communion is good, infrequent communion can be a spiritual benefit to some too.

Point is: people have a right to receive in the hand or on the tongue. Whichever is better for their spirituality & brings them closer to God is what they should do. Same with frequent communion vs infrequent communion. If frequent communion brings you closer to God, then go for it. But if infrequent communion helps to make one appreciate the Eucharist more, then they should not be forced to receive Him.

Finally, we all must be in a proper state to receive. If the thought of receiving in the hand brings a person to sinful or uneasy feelings, then they should not be forced to receive.

Finally, just because you disagree doesn’t mean that others are wrong and you are right. The Church has taught that both practices are pious and have merit. That should be enough for each of us.

God Bless.
 
PatienceAndHumility said:
Then is it right for the faithful to refuse to receive , simply due to their preference in method of reception?
Click to expand...
If they are abstaining for pious reasons, yes.

If they are simply being disobedient or having a hissy fit, no.
 
Last edited:
They should receive at least once a year. There is no further obligation. For some of us a bit deal, although I don’t think it should be. Personally I think it Christ is worthy to be chewed in saliva and land in stomach acid, then receiving on the hand is no worse. But I do prefer tongue, since it’s a nice new symbol.
 
godisgood77 said:
In fact, it’s an error to believe that it is the height impiety for unconsecrated hands to touch the Eucharist. We need to be open to broadening our own sometimes narrow perspective
Click to expand...
I don’t necessarily disagree, but am merely pointing out what seems logical to one person assumes everyone is coming from the same frame of reference.
PatienceAndHumility said:
Does it trouble you equally therefore that the early church practiced this? And likewise does it trouble you equally that the church would legitimise such a profanation in your eyes?
Click to expand...
I never said I agreed with the stance, I was merely pointing out that you assume everyone works from your frame of reference which is incorrect. I was trying to help you understand why some might not want to receive in the hand so that you could approach the issue in charity to why they might think differently to you.

Strictly speaking, if a person insists on one way or the other then those who wish to receive on the tongue are the ones with the greater support of tradition and liturgical norms on their side. The Pope could decide tomorrow to remove the indult to receive in the hand as it, and not communion on the tongue, is the exception to liturgical norms. I suspect there would be tons of people that would have an issue if they spent 20 years receiving in the hand and then were told that starting tomorrow you may only receive kneeling on the tongue.

That is not to say it is wrong to receive either way, but it goes a long way to explaining why there are some that have an aversion to receiving in the hand.
 
Great reply Brother. You raise some excellent balancing points but I think we still arrive at the same heart of the matter.

Re frequency- indeed, and I would propose that those who deem their personal reasons as worthy enough to suspend reception (who knows how long this will last) must truly discern whether such a change in their norm is worth it. Perhaps infrequent communion is what Christ is calling some to do- we cannot see all ends and I do recognise that.

But I think that the liceity of communion in the hand should mean that a lot of us who receive on the tongue, can and should continue to receive Christ unless there is a major reason not to. God bless brother
 
PatienceAndHumility said:
The heart of the matter is simple. If bishops instruct priests to give communion in the hand only, based on their prudential judgement (let’s disregard the science etc.). And the priests obey bishops.
Click to expand...
Can a bishop legitimately order a priest to disobey the Church itself? Given the defintion of Obedience “Obedience is the Virtue by which we conform our Wills to the one who has the authority.” Is the priest bound to incur that sin?
 
Is the legal conclusion you propose therefore that each Bishop who makes such a mandate is breaking canon law?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top