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

[Anesti33]

Amen to that. I think their actions in these USA were indicative of a long-term cuddling up to government that’s been ongoing since I-don’t-know-when. The USCCB and other Catholic charities nationwide benefit monetarily from many government programs designed to support faith-based initiatives; this means that they can help lots of people, but it also means that the bishops and charities are beholden to the politicians who line their pockets. So we had the decision to put the entire nation under the interdict, and other such things that were not exactly to the benefit of the sanctification of souls.

 

[njlisa]

When I went through RCIA, our director told us to cup our hands together with the non-dominant hand on top. After the priest places the Sacred Host in the hand, we were to use the dominant hand to pick up the wafer. Then, we placed the Sacred Host in our mouths. I hope that helps.

 

[Anesti33]

When I had my First Holy Communion at 8 years of age, the catechist taught us to receive in the hand. Hold our non-dominant hand flat on top, cradled by the opposite hand. Say “Amen”. Receive the sacred host. Then we were instructed to take a step to the side so that the line flowed properly. Then we use our dominant hand to take up the host and consume it, cross ourselves, and continue in the procession.

I was always aware that receiving on the tongue was acceptable, and I more or less knew how to do it, but we didn’t receive training in doing it, unlike CITH. So I received CITH for many, many years, before and after leaving the Church. I even made off with the sacred host one time, just to see if I could. Yep, I could. (I did eventually consume it reverently, if not in a state of grace…)

I think a lot of people simply do what they’re taught, and most people are not thoroughly taught both methods, so there’s going to be some preference for the taught method by catechists and RCIA teachers everywhere.

 

[kikiki32]

It depends on the perspective you choose. I’m a simple layman without formal education in theology. Most people that receive communion are too. We believe in what the Church says, with obedience and humility. If the Church says communion in the hand is allowed… who am I to think otherwise or to discuss such matters? So if I have a doubt on how to (or if I should or not) receive communion when I can’t do so in the mouth, and the Church says I can do it in the hand, then from my point of view there’s no problem. My doubt is solved. I’m acting correctly. Things are simple.

However, if we start to think about how the exceptional rule is becoming normal, to what extent the inconvenience of receiving in the hand changes the sacrament or it’s effects or how should the situation be tackled… yes. There’s can be problem from that perspective. But I leave that to the people who are prepared to discuss it and who have the responsibility of taking decisions about this issue.

 

[Rau]

Your post is a bit confusing. At first you mention that it does not involve the discussion of the medical risks between COTT and CITH, but then again mention the assumed risk in the midst of a pandemic

There is nothing confusing there Brendan. The medical risk of COTT is the assumed circumstance that gives rise to the debate as to whether the Bishops act well in setting aside the rule.

Also, I never claimed that the rule was sacrosanct, only that a change would have to come from the CDWDS, not from any lower authority.

You claim that this rule must be slavishly followed even in the midst of a pandemic. Yes the rule can only be changed by the appropriate rule issuers. But the bishops have greater responsibilities than following a rule to the assumed detriment of their flock.

Or, as both you and Ora pointed out, the concern is really about inconviencinng other parishioners in case the minister must take additional time to follow the protocols.

Having a seperate line or waiting to the end would alleviate the inconvienience. The actual risk is no different.

I made no reference to inconveniencing anyone in that manner. I made reference to public health risks which is what motivates the bishops to act. A public health risk (from COTT) which following the rule accepts for the mere convenience of those preferring COTT.

 

[PatienceAndHumility]

Holy Communion has always and everywhere been administered on the tongue, whether in the Greek Church or the Latin, in all documented history, there has never been a prohibition or even a lapse in the practic

Not true- the early church practiced CITH widely

 

[Rau]

Not true- the early church practiced CITH widely

The first supper comes to mind…

 

[DaveBj]

Not true- the early church practiced CITH widely

Yes. I am nearing the end of my years-long wade thru the writings of the Church Fathers. Currently I’m in the 4th century, and I have yet to see the first reference to the presbyter or the bishop placing Holy Communion on the congregant’s tongue. On the other hand, I have seen plenty of references to the congregants’ handling the sacred mysteries.

D

 

[springfield]

Normally, people receive communion on the tongue while kneeling when the communion is administered by a priest. I am wondering… do they also kneel and receive on the tongue when the communion is administered by layperson (extraordinary minister)? What is the norms with receiving communion from the layperson?

Do people always kneel and receive on the tongue regardless if the host is given by a priest or layperson?

thanks

 

[Montrose]

Normally, people receive communion on the tongue while kneeling when the communion is administered by a priest. I am wondering… do they also kneel and receive on the tongue when the communion is administered by layperson (extraordinary minister)? What is the norms with receiving communion from the layperson?

Do people always kneel and receive on the tongue regardless if the host is given by a priest or layperson?

thanks

I think you will find that normally people receiving on the tongue do not kneel. The norm is receiving on the tongue while standing.

 

[Brendan]

While this is admirable, under normal circumstances would work. But not in the middle of a pandemic that requires quick decision-making.

Priests (and, even moreso, bishops) made, and continue to make, game-time decisions. Some have said no receiving on the tongue. That’s it. Anyone faulting a priest or bishop for that is mistaken. People can elect not to receive at all if not on the tongue in those areas.

When the pandemic is under control, things will return, it’s not a forever change.

Deacon Christopher

Deacon, that might have been true for the first week or two of the pandemic, but this is the modern age, and Rome can be consulted with just a phone call or email.

I am sure, that as a Deacon, you might encounter a situation where you would have to go against the express instructions of your bishop. But if the situation would endure, possibly for months, would you not seek clarification from the Chanceroy on if your course of action was permitted?

Spur of the moment decisions I can certainly understand, but on going practices in defiance of your bishops direct instructions might be a bit problematic, would you not agree.

And the same would hold true for bishops and their decisions vis a vis Rome.

 

[Brendan]

The first supper comes to mind…

The First Supper was Christ among bishops, a bishop a Mass will recieve directly from the communion paten, just as Christ offered.

While I fully support the Church’s indult on CITH, that really cannot be used as Scriptural evidence to support it. At least no more than the Command “Do this in memory of me” entitles the faithful to consecrate the species. Just because something happend at the Last Supper, does not meant that it applies to everyone.

 

[Brendan]

The medical risk of COTT is the assumed circumstance that gives rise to the debate as to whether the Bishops act well in setting aside the rule.

And again, what medical risk, the equality of the risk was already outlined in +Sample’s letter. And I already posted protocol to mitigate that risk.

Why not follow the protocols instead if acting unjustly to the faithful?

You claim that this rule must be slavishly followed even in the midst of a pandemic. Yes the rule can only be changed by the appropriate rule issuers. But the bishops have greater responsibilities than following a rule to the assumed detriment of their flock

Again, there is not detriment if the protocols are followed, if there are assumptions being made, is there not a requirement that the assumptions be validated before violating the laws of the Church?

. I made reference to public health risks which is what motivates the bishops to act. A public health risk (from COTT) which following the rule accepts for the mere convenience of those preferring COTT.

Again, what specific public health risk? Again, I quote from the evaluation from the Archiocese of Portland - "“They agreed that done properly the reception of Holy Communion on the tongue or in the hand pose a more or less equal risk. The risk of touching the tongue and passing the saliva on to others is obviously a danger however the chance of touching someone’s hand is equally probable and one’s hands have a greater exposure to germs.” "

You are making claims that are not backed by evidence.

 

[Brendan_64]

The first supper comes to mind…

Where does it say in scripture that Communion at the Last Supper was in the hand?

 

[Rau]

And again, what medical risk…

The debate about whether the rule must be followed requires the context of assumed greater risk with COTT otherwise, if there is no Greater risk, of course the rule is to be followed. And there would be no debate. Are you being intentionally obtuse Brendan?

 

[Rau]

You are making claims that are not backed by evidence.

I am making no medical claims. I am saying that given greater medical risk of COTT, the bishops would be (and are) right to set aside the rule.

I sense you are coming around to that view also and now prefer to debate the medical risk (on which I make no claim) rather than continue to argue the indefensible about who has authority to act in the public good…

 

[Rau]

Where does it say in scripture that Communion at the Last Supper was in the hand?

Where in the words do you get the sense that “take this” implied something unusual like COTT?

 

[Anesti33]

Brendan:

Also, I never claimed that the rule was sacrosanct, only that a change would have to come from the CDWDS, not from any lower authority.

While this is admirable, under normal circumstances would work. But not in the middle of a pandemic that requires quick decision-making.

Priests (and, even moreso, bishops) made, and continue to make, game-time decisions. Some have said no receiving on the tongue. That’s it. Anyone faulting a priest or bishop for that is mistaken. People can elect not to receive at all if not on the tongue in those areas.

When the pandemic is under control, things will return, it’s not a forever change.

Deacon Christopher

Rome was consulted during a previous pandemic, and Rome said “no you may not ever never never prohibit Communion on the Tongue, period.” It used to be the case that Roma locuta est, causa finita est but I guess this is a more collegial way of ignoring norms, I mean, exercising authority.

 

[Rau]

Rome was consulted during a previous pandemic, and Rome said “no you may not ever never never prohibit Communion on the Tongue, period.”

Exactly. Perhaps such a response explains why so many bishops are willing to set that rule aside… It fails to come to grips with the issue.

 

[Diaconia]

The First Supper was Christ among bishops, a bishop a Mass will recieve directly from the communion paten, just as Christ offered.

The Apostles were (and still are) of greater rank than a current bishop. A bishop is a successor to an Apostle, but they were greater.

No one has any idea of whether Jesus handed the bread to them, passed it on a plate, or if they all had a piece of bread in front of them at the time. There are no living eyewitnesses to that. Were there particles or crumbs that fell from the loaves? Very likely.

Some people also believe that John’s account of the Last Supper points to the use of leavened bread.

The belief that we can only receive the Eucharist from one with consecrated hands is contrary to information from St. Justin Martyr, who wrote his First Apology around 153 - 155 AD:

Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands.

And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to ge’noito [so be it].

And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

Deacons distributed the Eucharist to those in attendance, and then took portions to those who were not there. Deacons do not have their hands consecrated at ordination.

Communion in the hand is ancient, accepted, and historic. There is nothing wrong with receiving from a deacon (whose hands are NOT consecrated), in fact, that is what we see in the earliest days of the Church.

As I said before, when the pandemic is over, everyone can go back to receiving as they wish. This is not a permanent change. PLEASE just do as your priest or bishop requests. They love you and care for you.

Deacon Christopher