on the tongue or in the hand?

[Minerva]

i’m with redkim. No disrespect to Mother Teresa, of course, but that statement shows an almost laughable lack of perspective. People are starving to death everywhere, the most dangerous place to live is the womb, terrorists want to destroy us all, and the WORST problem is people receiving communion in the hand, which is allowed by the church in the first place?!? I’m sorry but that’s going WAY off the deep end.

 

[misericordie]

patg:

My favorite Franciscan Theologian (my uncle) once told me that the mass is mostly the celebration of the last supper *which was a meal. *We eat with our hands and not with the server putting food into our mouths. By his logic, there is no reason not to take this spiritual nourishment into our hands and fully enter into the celebration and enjoyment of the meal (unless, of course, our hands are otherwise occuppied).

Pat

With all due respect to you and your uncle. That’s his PERSONAL opinion, and it wolud be nice if he had given the CHURCH’S OFFICIAL TEACHING. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, is ABOVE all, a SACRIFICE, and the “meal” aspect only to think about the last supper(by the way, in the Last Supper, the Apostles were not any lay person, but had received instruction from Jesus Christ Himself for three years, and at that point they were ALREADY Ordained to the priesthood, they were actually PRIESTS) not meant to make people believe it’s just a meal. Jesus Christ offers himself as the Lamb of God on the ALTAR (not just “table”) of sacrifice, just as he did on Mount calvary, without the BLOODY sacrifice.
Yes, again, communion on the hand is an INDULT(a special permission) it is NOT the NORM. The NORM is Communion on the Tongue, the OPTION(here in USA) is on the hand.
My friend the Canon lawyer, is Rome educated and he has heard all the liberal arguments, but objectivally states the RIGHTS of catholics to receive on the Tongue, and if they wish, kneeling. he is well read, is faithful to the Magisterium. Dgrees obtained by him: M.Div, Licentiate in Sacred Theology(the Angelicum) J.C.L.(Angelicum) J.C.D(Doctor of Canon Law: new Code of canon law) the Pontifical Saint Thomas University(the Angelicum, Rome).

 

[misericordie]

redkim:

This is patently wrong.

And it really ISN’T a tough cookies for them. If the EME or EMoHC gets flustered, there is a chance they may drop the Eucharist on the ground. That is to be avoided at all costs. As an EME or EMoHC, I am nervous about this. It almost happened to me once, but thankfully, the person put out their hands and avoided the drop.

I have since learned to anticipate who receives on the hand who receives in the mouth. A surprising number of people receive on the mouth and I have no problems with not administering it in the proper fashion.

Now, on to the business about “only the priest”. Not true. There should be no proliferation of extraordinary ministers, but that’s about it. Most parishes these days do not have enough priests but have plenty of people. In my parish, extraordinary ministers are used at almost every Mass on Sunday and are used at every Mass during the week because that is when the blood is administered.

Catholicism is not an individual religion. If you have a problem with extraordinary ministers, take it up with your pastor. Ask to see where it says they can be used at your parish. But do not take it upon yourself to determine that they are being incorrectly used at your parish.

Can I suggest you please read the LATEST Document on this by cardinal Arinze’ ? Thanks, .

 

[Brian_Crane]

Minerva:

i’m with redkim. No disrespect to Mother Teresa, of course, but that statement shows an almost laughable lack of perspective. People are starving to death everywhere, the most dangerous place to live is the womb, terrorists want to destroy us all, and the WORST problem is people receiving communion in the hand, which is allowed by the church in the first place?!? I’m sorry but that’s going WAY off the deep end.

Mother Teresa “shows an almost laughable lack of perspective.” Oooookay. But you’re not disrepecting her of course

Don’t you think her perspective is what makes her remark so telling? All of those things you mentioned: starvation, terrorism, abortion, are bad things . An atheist would probably agree that they are bad things. But they are things of this earth, and eliminating all of them would mean nothing if we do not also have a reverence for God especially when He is in our midst, as in Holy Communion. Mother Teresa correctly recognizes, IMO, that receiving the body of Christ in the hand has served to diminish the belief that one is actually receiving the body of Christ. In 2002, 70% of Catholics aged 18-44 did not believe in transubstantiation. 70%!!! This is truly sad.

 

[philjane]

My husband & I were emoe at one time so we used to receive communion in the hand—one time we were at mass when a newly ordained priest from the Legionnaires of Christ said Mass–he had a brother with him who was going to be ordained 2 years later & he rec’d communion on his tongue----we decided that if a brother who is going to be ordained in a short while receives communion on his tongue–so should we & have been doing so ever since–also refused to be an extraordinary minister of the eucharist ever since, even though i go to daily mass & get asked all the time-

 

[Minerva]

Brian,

Mother Teresa was a holy woman, but that doesn’t mean she was perfect and not subject to mistakes or errors in judgment. The fact that Mother Teresa said it still doesn’t change the fact that it sounds off the wall. Disbelief in the Real Presence is a great problem, but it is not as great a sin as murder, abortion, terrorism, etc. When one disbelieves in the Real Presence they are hurting themselves and their souls greatly, but they are not killing another innocent human being. If you think that not having correct doctrine is worse than murder, then I don’t think there’s much more I can say to you to convince you otherwise. Do you really think those virtuous people who happen to be Protestant, and thus don’t believe in the Real Presence, are WORSE than Osama and abortionists??

What also bothers me about this is the alleged implication that if someone receives on their hands, they don’t believe in the RP. That’s nonsense. Plenty of people on this thread receive on their hands and believe in the RP too. And once agian, it is allowed by the Church. We can certainly have a valid debate about whether this was a prudent decision by the Church, but ultimately it is a matter of discipline, not doctrine. To say that someone who disagrees with you about a matter of discipline is worse than a murderer is nothing short of ludicrous.

 

[misericordie]

Minerva:

Brian,

Mother Teresa was a holy woman, but that doesn’t mean she was perfect and not subject to mistakes or errors in judgment. The fact that Mother Teresa said it still doesn’t change the fact that it sounds off the wall. Disbelief in the Real Presence is a great problem, but it is not as great a sin as murder, abortion, terrorism, etc. When one disbelieves in the Real Presence they are hurting themselves and their souls greatly, but they are not killing another innocent human being. If you think that not having correct doctrine is worse than murder, then I don’t think there’s much more I can say to you to convince you otherwise. Do you really think those virtuous people who happen to be Protestant, and thus don’t believe in the Real Presence, are WORSE than Osama and abortionists??

What also bothers me about this is the alleged implication that if someone receives on their hands, they don’t believe in the RP. That’s nonsense. Plenty of people on this thread receive on their hands and believe in the RP too. And once agian, it is allowed by the Church. We can certainly have a valid debate about whether this was a prudent decision by the Church, but ultimately it is a matter of discipline, not doctrine. To say that someone who disagrees with you about a matter of discipline is worse than a murderer is nothing short of ludicrous.

Okay, lets try this agin Communion on the tongue is the NORM. By indult in the USA(a special permission granted, but which the Pope can STOP just by saying it will) Communion on the hand is the option. This is CHURCH Liturgical LAW NOW as it stands.

 

[misericordie]

Brian Crane:

Mother Teresa “shows an almost laughable lack of perspective.” Oooookay. But you’re not disrepecting her of course

Don’t you think her perspective is what makes her remark so telling? All of those things you mentioned: starvation, terrorism, abortion, are bad things . An atheist would probably agree that they are bad things. But they are things of this earth, and eliminating all of them would mean nothing if we do not also have a reverence for God especially when He is in our midst, as in Holy Communion. Mother Teresa correctly recognizes, IMO, that receiving the body of Christ in the hand has served to diminish the belief that one is actually receiving the body of Christ. In 2002, 70% of Catholics aged 18-44 did not believe in transubstantiation. 70%!!! This is truly sad.

This is not surprising, I even saw an EXTRA-ORDINARY minister of the Eucharist drop a crystal chalice full of the precious blood(the consecrated wine) while distributing. It is 70% of AMERICAN Catholics don’ believe in the real presence. Elsewhere, Latin America and Africa, Catholics BELIEVE in the real presence much more. I guess because over there the NORM of Communion on the tongue is the NORM.

 

[Brian_Crane]

If you think that not having correct doctrine is worse than murder, then I don’t think there’s much more I can say to you to convince you otherwise

Mother Teresa is not saying communion in the hand is “worse” than murder but that it makes her sadder than anything else. Understand where she is coming from. To paraphrase Jesus: Murder and murderers we will always have with us. Communion in the hand however, is a new development and has contributed to the loss of reverence and belief in the Real Presence by many Catholics. I believe that Mother Teresa felt this way, as well as her contemporary Saint Padre Pio. Mother Teresa served the sick, the poor, the wretched all of her adult life yet understood that we exist on earth to worship God and do his will. It made her sad to see people treat our Lord casually by touching HIM with unconsecrated hands. We must fast for at least an hour before communion, yet we can put our grubby hands on HIM. Does this make sense?

Do you really think those virtuous people who happen to be Protestant, and thus don’t believe in the Real Presence, are WORSE than Osama and abortionists??

Nope

What also bothers me about this is the alleged implication that if someone receives on their hands, they don’t believe in the RP.

Minerva, please believe me when I say that I don’t mean to offend you. On the contrary, I have no doubt you love God and believe in transubstantiation and are reverent. Many people who receive communion in the hand do, no doubt. However, I still maintain that communion in the hand is a modernist idea which has served to diminish the belief in the real presence of **many **catholics (especially Catholics who are not solid in their knowledge of the faith), not all catholics. The new “Instruction on the Manner of Distributing Communion” seems to be saying that as well. Consider some of the excerpts:

Thus, “let nobody . . . eat that flesh without first adoring it”[2] As a person takes (the Blessed Sacrament) he is warned: " . . . receive it: be careful lest you lose any of it."[3] “For it is the Body of Christ.”[4]

Later, with a deepening understanding of the truth of the eucharistic mystery, of its power and of the presence of Christ in it, there came a greater feeling of reverence towards this sacrament and a deeper humility was felt to be demanded when receiving it. 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, taking the present situation of the Church in the entire world into account, not merely because it has many centuries of-tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful’s reverence for the Eucharist.

Lastly, it ensures that diligent carefulness about the fragments of consecrated bread which the Church has always recommended: “What you have allowed to drop, think of it as though you had lost one of your own members.”

Furthermore, communion in the hand began in 1969 in order to legtitimize the actions of renegade bishops who were already authorizing this illicit (at that time) act. Pope Paul solicited the opinions of the bishops as to whether they favored receiving communion in the hand. Despite the fact that 1233 bishops did not favor it, while 533 did favor it, he instituted it anyway on a “limited” basis. So communion in the hand began on a “limited” basis, after centuries of it being disallowed, even though the vast majority of bishops did not favor it, and even though the Vatican’s instruction itself says that receiving on the tongue ensures “greater feeling of reverence,” “deeper humility,” and “diligent carefulness about the fragments of consecrated bread.”

 

[Fortiterinre]

In 1995 I received Holy Communion in the hand many times in St. Peter’s, once from the Pope himself. I’ve certainly seen it done throughout Western Europe, although on the tongue was more common. I think this is in part a generational controversy; even at 33 years old I am one of those who made his First Communion “in the hand” and since then have only received on the tongue via intinction, which is still quite rare. I believe everything there is to believe about the Real Presence, and still receiving in the hand is by far my preference.

 

[porthos11]

I receive on the tongue, although I used to receove on the hand (thanks in part to a 2nd-grade teacher who told us only dogs eat with their tongues) http://forums.catholic-questions.org./images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Anyway the main reason I receive on the tongue is to prevent accidental desecration of any Particles I may have missed.

 

[NM2]

Since on the tongue and in the hand are both licit in the U. S., I generally go with the flow of the other communicants, which in my parish is in the hand. Now when I had a broken elbow and my arm in a sling, then, of course, I received on the tongue. And if the Pope were to lift the indult, I would just receive on the tongue. No problems, no complaints - what I think or want means nothing compared to what the Church teaches.

 

[misericordie]

porthos11:

I receive on the tongue, although I used to receove on the hand (thanks in part to a 2nd-grade teacher who told us only dogs eat with their tongues) http://forums.catholic-questions.org./images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Anyway the main reason I receive on the tongue is to prevent accidental desecration of any Particles I may have missed.

Wow, really seems like that teacher had very little tolerance for anything really CATHOLIC. I wonder where she got her theological degree from?

 

[redkim]

Yes, but she’s not a Saint yet, so I wouldn’t really go by what she says or does. Or at least that’s what you said to me when I mentioned Dorothy Day on another thread. Who, by the way, has a cause taken up for beatification.

misericordie:

I am so happy she DID say this, and the opinion of a BLESSED of the Church who lived a PUBLIC Holy life as she did, is NOT to be taken lightly. I have heard even the Pope would ask her for advice on certain things.

 

[redkim]

I have. And nothing I said contradicts it.

misericordie:

Can I suggest you please read the LATEST Document on this by cardinal Arinze’ ? Thanks, .

 

[redkim]

Yeah, so? It’s by Papal Indult. Which means in the USA, as long as the Indult is granted, Catholics have the option of receiving in the hand.

If we were to take your seeming argument to it’s logical conclusion, then we could say that since the Latin Mass or Tridentine Mass is by Papal Indult in the US, it is somehow not as reverent or licit as the Novus Ordo Mass.

This, of course, is simply wrong.

misericordie:

Okay, lets try this agin Communion on the tongue is the NORM. By indult in the USA(a special permission granted, but which the Pope can STOP just by saying it will) Communion on the hand is the option. This is CHURCH Liturgical LAW NOW as it stands.

 

[redkim]

What does dropping the chalice have to do with not believing in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

Nothing.

It was an accident and only shows how the attitude of “tough cookies” is the wrong attitude to have when it comes to worrying about how the Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion (Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist is an incorrect term, btw) will give a person communion.

EMoHC have a serious role. It is of the utmost importance that we do not drop either the precious blood or the precious body. But accidents do happen. In our training, we are instructed on what to do in case of such emergencies.

And if 70% of Catholics in the US do not believe in the Real Presence then that is because of poor catechesis and we can blame parents, priests and catechists for that, not EMoHC’s.

misericordie:

This is not surprising, I even saw an EXTRA-ORDINARY minister of the Eucharist drop a crystal chalice full of the precious blood(the consecrated wine) while distributing. It is 70% of AMERICAN Catholics don’ believe in the real presence. Elsewhere, Latin America and Africa, Catholics BELIEVE in the real presence much more. I guess because over there the NORM of Communion on the tongue is the NORM.

 

[Deacon2006]

tcj:

I think Deacon2006 was simply suggesting that we ought not try to reason “why” the Church allows the various modes of reception. And a caution against drawing conclusions based on viewing the Last Supper as a “meal”, because that tends to underemphasize its real significance. (I think that’s what he meant.)

Yes

God Bless

 

[kmktexas]

I receive on the tongue, out of respect but also, I am almost ashamed to say, out of rebellion. When our diocese got the Indult in 1977, we were told to receive in the hand, that on the tongue was no longer an option. I was an EMHC then and we only distributed in the hand.

After many years of wandering, I came back to the Sacraments three years ago. I started doing tons of reading and was really angry when I found out that the option to receive on the tongue was never taken away!!! As I talked to many other Catholics of roughly my same age, many had the same experience. We were lied to. At that time, we would never have questioned the absolute authority of what our priests told us and wouldn’t have known where to look things up anyway (long before the internet).

Now before any of you blast me for having a bad attitude while approaching Communion, let me tell you that I don’t think about this *during * Mass but it was my reaction at the time. After lots of study and reading (still going on), I find myself on the Orthodox side of most issues so I probably would have reached the same conclusion (tongue) anyway.

I taught the First Communion CCE class last year and both my class and the other section taught all of the children to receive both ways (the first time this had been done). Many of our families travel to Mexico and not all parishes distribute in the hand there (as we found out on vacation in Cozumel). The kids mostly receive in the hand at Mass, as their parents do.

BTW, the only time I was refused Communion on the tongue was by a Priest in California. He kept the Host at waist level and I had to bend down to receive. Too sad.

One more thing,

to redkim: The indult for Communion in the Hand granted each Bishop the Opportunity to ask for permission to have Communion distributed in the hand provided there was correct Catechesis to the faithful and that there was no danger of sacrilage. Any bishop could revoke the permission in his diocese at any time. Not so with Communion on the tongue. Everyone, anywhere in the world, has the right to receive this way. They are not two equal options. One is permanent and global, the other is by exception, dioces by diocese, country by country. Just because the majority receive in the hand doesn’t make it the norm for the Church.

 

[redkim]

kmktexas:

One more thing,

to redkim: The indult for Communion in the Hand granted each Bishop the Opportunity to ask for permission to have Communion distributed in the hand provided there was correct Catechesis to the faithful and that there was no danger of sacrilage. Any bishop could revoke the permission in his diocese at any time. Not so with Communion on the tongue. Everyone, anywhere in the world, has the right to receive this way. They are not two equal options. One is permanent and global, the other is by exception, dioces by diocese, country by country. Just because the majority receive in the hand doesn’t make it the norm for the Church.

I know. Which is why I said that as long as we have the Indult, we have the option, just like in Papal Indult Tridentine Masses. They are here only by Papal Indult.