Is kissing the host before consuming ok?

[Gidge]

Receiving on the tongue is the normative and preferred method.

While receiving in the hand is allowed, it is practices like this that were warned against (causing scandal) when said permission was granted.

 

[ajecphotos]

Receiving on the tongue is the normative and preferred method.

While receiving in the hand is allowed, it is practices like this that were warned against (causing scandal) when said permission was granted.

In the hand is fine. I am sure the most important aspect of it all is that we actually receive the communion in a state of grace and full of love of God. I dont think Jesus will be too concerned if people took it in the hand or the mouth!

 

[maryjk]

A singular picture doesn’t really prove anything; it could simply be an anomaly. For certain reasons I was staying in Rome and went to mass at St. Peter’s numerous times, including for the closing of a general synod; in the time I spent there I never saw anyone receive in the hand. I’m stating simple fact, no preference (I will say however Latins generally receive the Lord in the left hand and I don’t feel it necessary to explain what that hand is known for use in Semitic culture).

It proves that you may receive in the hand, in places outside the US.

Now, in terms of kissing the host I’m very cautious with adding such gestures; if you must ask if it’s OK that would already raise a red flag to me (why would one tread into territory where one knows they might be acting disrespectfully). It’s always important to discern if one is doing it solely for reverence or perhaps novelty or any other factor which should dissuade one from doing it.

I couldn’t imagine doing anything but consuming Christ.

 

[Lormar]

Absolutely not. The moment of adoration is just prior to receiving the host. We honor the Eucharistic Lord with a profound bow or going down on our knee(s). Once the host is placed in our hands, it MUST GO INTO THE MOUTH IMMEDIATELY.

 

[Timothysis]

I was taught at the time of my First Holy Communion that the laity…was forbidden to touch it with ones hands because the laity’s hands were not Consecrated.

That may be what you were taught but it doesn’t mean it is correct. The priest himself is consecrated to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass; his hands are simply anointed. A deacon does not have his hands anointed yet he is an ordinary minister Holy Communion.

 

[DAML72]

Idk I’d just rather receive Him on my tongue, instead of my non-consecrated hands.

Me too. I’m a fresh convert, and it’s quite intimidating to receive on the tongue when the vast majority are receiving in hand. A few times, I have gotten the courage to do so, and am going to make it my practice. I really wish it were more common practice, however.

 

[R_C]

Absolutely not. The moment of adoration is just prior to receiving the host. We honor the Eucharistic Lord with a profound bow or going down on our knee(s). Once the host is placed in our hands, it MUST GO INTO THE MOUTH IMMEDIATELY.

 

[R_C]

Me too. I’m a fresh convert, and it’s quite intimidating to receive on the tongue when the vast majority are receiving in hand. A few times, I have gotten the courage to do so, and am going to make it my practice. I really wish it were more common practice, however.

The universal practice to receive Holy Communion is on the tongue, kneeling.

According to the Instruction on the Manner of Distributing Holy Communion Memoriale Domini:

Thus the custom was established of the minister placing a particle of consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicant. …]

This method of distributing holy communion must be retained … not merely because it has many centuries of-tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful’s reverence for the Eucharist. …]

Further, the practice which must be considered traditional ensures, more effectively, that holy communion is distributed with the proper respect, decorum and dignity. It removes the danger of profanation of the sacred species…Lastly, it ensures that diligent carefulness about the fragments of consecrated bread which the Church has always recommended …]

[T]he Holy Father has decided not to change the existing way of administering holy communion to the faithful. The Apostolic See therefore emphatically urges bishops, priests and laity to obey carefully the law which is still valid and which has again been confirmed.

Communion in the hand and/or standing is present in countries to which the Holy See granted a special dispensation upon request. Still quoting Memoriale Domini:

Where a contrary usage, that of placing holy communion on the hand, prevails, the Holy See—wishing to help them fulfill their task, often difficult as it is nowadays—lays on those conferences the task of weighing carefully whatever special circumstances may exist there …]

the letter…which is sent to hierarchies who ask for and are granted permission to introduce the practice of holy communion on the hand…laid down the following regulations:

1. The new method of administering communion should not be imposed in a way that would exclude the traditional usage …]

With regards to the United States, the General Instruction of the Roman Missal 2011 establishes very clearly:

The norm established for the Dioceses of the United States of America is that Holy Communion is to be received standing, unless an individual member of the faithful wishes to receive Communion while kneeling. …] The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant. …] The communicant replies, Amen, and receives the Sacrament either on the tongue or, where this is allowed, in the hand, the choice lying with the communicant. As soon as the communicant receives the host, he or she consumes the whole of it.

Therefore let nobody believe that the ordinary form is to receive in the hand, standing. It is simply not so - although doing so (where allowed) is not at all illicit and not to be taken as a sign of lesser reverence.

 

[FAB]

I was at Mass today and during communion I saw a young lady receive the host in her hand from the priest, step to the side, then she brought the host to her mouth, kissed it and then ate it.

I happened to be sitting in the second pew, which is why I was able to observe this.

Anyway, I thought it was quite a touching practice, but was not sure if this is something that is permitted by the Church as a private practice.

Any thoughts, or better yet, documents you can refer me to would be appreciated.

The Body of Christ is to consumed immediatly upon recieving him. No kissing, no making a sign of the cross etc.
As far as documents I would try the GIRM.

 

[Cailte]

A singular picture doesn’t really prove anything; it could simply be an anomaly. For certain reasons I was staying in Rome and went to mass at St. Peter’s numerous times, including for the closing of a general synod; in the time I spent there I never saw anyone receive in the hand. I’m stating simple fact, no preference (I will say however Latins generally receive the Lord in the left hand and I don’t feel it necessary to explain what that hand is known for use in Semitic culture).

Now, in terms of kissing the host I’m very cautious with adding such gestures; t.

I certainly agree that kissing the host is totally unacceptable behaviour. But I have to say that I spent this past month of June in Rome and received communion at Mass in St Peter’s a few times and it was always in the hands.

 

[holyfamily1]

I certainly agree that kissing the host is totally unacceptable behaviour. But I have to say that I spent this past month of June in Rome and received communion at Mass in St Peter’s a few times and it was always in the hands.

That’s not supposed to be happening at the Vatican.

 

[paperwight66]

That’s not supposed to be happening at the Vatican.

Who says? Do you have a source for that?

Are you perhaps mixing it up with the preference of the Pope to give COTT so as to prevent anyone keeping the Host as a souvenir, among other reasons?

 

[ATeNumquam]

And, by the way, If you travel to anywhere outside the US, you will find Communion on the tongue to be the norm, and in most places, the priest will refuse giving Communion into someones hands…and that includes the Vatican!

Well, you haven’t been to Australasia then. Communion in the hand is definitely the norm Down Under. And as far as I can gather, the same is true in the UK.

Secular, heathen countries, eh?

 

[otjm]

I’ve not read one good religious reason to change to the modern (pseudo-ancient) way. I expect this practice will die out eventually once our clergy wake up to the symbolism and the effect it’s having on the laity. Hopefully, some future Pope will definitively forbid it.

The symbolism of hands versus tongue, kneeling versus standing, as a means of receipt, should be obvious.

So, a history of about 1800 years of the practice (and the most recent starting in the 1200’s and continuing on to today) is “psuedo-ancient”?

Interesting…

 

[otjm]

I was at Mass today and during communion I saw a young lady receive the host in her hand from the priest, step to the side, then she brought the host to her mouth, kissed it and then ate it.

I happened to be sitting in the second pew, which is why I was able to observe this.

Anyway, I thought it was quite a touching practice, but was not sure if this is something that is permitted by the Church as a private practice.

Any thoughts, or better yet, documents you can refer me to would be appreciated.

Well, the topic is off the track (and I probably didn’t help it get back on track). However, to answer your question: Brother JR is correct; we are told “Take and eat”, not “Take and kiss”.

The Church does not unnecessarily make a list of “Don’d do this” and “Don’t do that”. You are not going to find any prohibition against kissing the Host (and therefore someone will say “Well, then, you are perfectly within your rights to do so”). And given that the Church is centered in the Mediterranean, and the Mediterranean philosophy of law can be somewhat encapsulated by the phrase “What is not prohibited is allowed”, they might have a bit of an argument that since it is not prohibited…

However, the common sense answer is that one is to consume the Host, not kiss it first. I can understand the symbolism (with a nod towards QuestingKnight) of kissing the Host.

The short answer is that there is no written law prohibiting it. And the question simply would not have come up 55 years ago. The better practice would be to immediately consume it, not only because a rather private act of adoration should remain private (instead of in front of the whole congregation), but also because it is possible in doing so to drop the Host.

But the very bottom line is there is no specific rule against it.

That is, unless one accepts the rule of common sense.

And we all know what Voltaire had to say about that.

 

[CantareVivace]

Absolutely not. The moment of adoration is just prior to receiving the host. .

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE JUST GO WITH THIS ANSWER and just receive it on your tongue! Just be safe. IF YOU MUST, you can always show up to mass early and pray a private devotion and align your desires with that of Christ’s. Ask Him to help you and to assist you to be more devout in everything you do so that you can do everything according to God’s will. I have the feeling that this is better than kissing the host only because I am not well versed in Canon Law. On top of that, by you kneeling before receiving the host, that is a gesture of SIGNIFICANT devotion. God bless! Please pray for me and know that I pray for you!

 

[QuestingKnight]

So, a history of about 1800 years of the practice (and the most recent starting in the 1200’s and continuing on to today) is “psuedo-ancient”?

Interesting…

Yes. It was banned for the laity for hundreds of years. People started doing it again because … they wanted to get back to an imagined past where Christianity is ‘better’ the nearer you get to the Last Supper i.e. Their version of what that Supper was like i.e. what they simply want to do.

So proponents cherry-pick whatever scraps of precedent they can find. A dodgy quote from St. Cyril of Alexandria versus umpteen from clergy throughout history. Never mind the simple (im)practicalities of CITH. Or, most important, the message you are sending.

Imagine the Naboob of Ningnong, a tribe of DunFishinLand in Africa, decided to rip out their old altar and replace it with a plain table, let non-priests in street-clothes into the holy place and dropped their sacred songs of time immemorial, replacing them with pop ballads. And then, they start dishing out the Sacred Doodad like it was sandwiches.

One would say they’d lost the plot, shake one’s head and move on.

 

[otjm]

Yes. It was banned for the laity for hundreds of years. People started doing it again because … they wanted to get back to an imagined past where Christianity is ‘better’ the nearer you get to the Last Supper i.e. Their version of what that Supper was like i.e. what they simply want to do.

So proponents cherry-pick whatever scraps of precedent they can find. A dodgy quote from St. Cyril of Alexandria versus umpteen from clergy throughout history. Never mind the simple (im)practicalities of CITH. Or, most important, the message you are sending.

Imagine the Naboob of Ningnong, a tribe of DunFishinLand in Africa, decided to rip out their old altar and replace it with a plain table, let non-priests in street-clothes into the holy place and dropped their sacred songs of time immemorial, replacing them with pop ballads. And then, they start dishing out the Sacred Doodad like it was sandwiches.

One would say they’d lost the plot, shake one’s head and move on.

Well, actually, it is not an imagined past. It is a real one.

As to Christianity being “better” the nearer you get to the Last Supper, it was and remains clearly the will of the Church to look back authentically to the early Church, in part to determine how many layers had been added since then that would work to a tendency to obscure the message the Apostles went forth with.

It may be that some proponents cherry pick; however, it is fairly well known that opponents do the same. A prime example is your picking on St. Cyril as if he were the only one to have said anything about CITH.

Frankly, it bothers me not in the least that you prefer COTT, and I am sure that you have never said a disparaging remark concerning CITH. I do tire, however, of the judgemental gossipy comments that border on outright slander and libel as to the attitude of those who receive CITH. It truly amazes me that so many opponents of CITH have the unbelievable ability to see into the hearts and minds of so many other Catholics.

Sacred Doodad, hunh? I will have to remember that one.

 

[QuestingKnight]

As to Christianity being “better” the nearer you get to the Last Supper, it was and remains clearly the will of the Church to look back authentically to the early Church, in part to determine how many layers had been added since then that would work to a tendency to obscure the message the Apostles went forth with.

The problem with this is that it says that the work done from 200 AD to 1970 was basically wrong. So much so that we needed to rewrite the mass, change the altar, even drop the vestments and hymns. A rough analogy is when people find an antique and give it a good clean; they don’t realise they are destroying value.

The message of the Apostles is very clear. If anything, modern clergy are obscuring it by over-emphasing the Super over the Sacrifice and Mercy over Judgement.

It may be that some proponents cherry pick; however, it is fairly well known that opponents do the same. A prime example is your picking on St. Cyril as if he were the only one to have said anything about CITH.

His is the only ‘pro’ quote I’ve ever read about CITH from a saint. And that quote is suspect. It’s extraordinary to change to treating the Sacred Matter, Christ, this way, at a public mass, with lay people participating and no state oppression in place.

I’ve ignored the rest of your remarks.

 

[GangGreen]

If anything, the communion in the hand was never done like it is today. The concept was that the person would receive it in their hand, bow themselves over to their hand and receive at that point without ever touching the Eucharist with their fingers or moving it to their mouths. Lay people were never to be able to move the Eucharist or touch it with their fingers… only the priest had the right to do so.

What is done today is completely contrary to that.

IMO, kissing the Host should not be done for the same reason why it shouldn’t be taken in the hand. Kissing the Host will leave particles on the lips. Particles that can easily fall off the lips and onto the ground. Receiving the Host on the hand leaves particles on the hands, particles that can easily fall off the hands and onto the ground. This is one of the major reasons why CITH was banned to begin with.

The whole is equal to the part. Each small little particle (even those that you cannot see!) of the Eucharist is the whole of Christ.