on the tongue or in the hand?

[system]

misericordie:

Brian Crane:

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.

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.

Ummm… “what” is not surprising? Your logic is hard to follow:

• What does communion-in-the-hand (Mother Teresa’s concern, although Brian may be misinterpreting it to justify his personal opinion) have to do with dropping a chalice?
• Accidents happen. Hosts and crumbs get dropped. Drops of the Blood get spilled. Don’t think for a minute that only EMHC’s get fumble-fingered, it happens to priests too. There are procedures to deal with accidents in a reverent manner. Everyone (priests, deacons, EMHC’s) are trained in them.

It is tiring to read - over and over - the unsupported claims that communion-in-the-hand, communion under Both Species and the use of EMHC’s are in ANY way connected to (questionable IMO) statistics of what Catholics do and don’t believe. Or to imply that belief is “better” in areas where these practices don’t exist. There is simply no way to prove cause-and effect.

The Church has allowed these practices in the US. Please stop denigrating them, and please stop arguing “norm” vs. “indult”. The combination of norms and Indults, are the permitted practices of the Church, and we MUST respect them without question!

(If I recall, the Tridentine Mass is only allowed under Indult… but no one uses that fact to imply that it should be avoided.)

 

[redkim]

tcj:

EXACTLY!

 

[quijote]

I was raised receiving in the tounge and, I guess out of habit, still do. I’ve never had any problem with a EM or a Priest.

Cheers.

 

[otm]

misericordie:

and I mentioned to him that canon law and liturgical law give all Catholics the right non only to receive on the tongue, but IT’S THIER choice if they receive KNEELING TOO!!!, and he agreed. It is a right!!!

What I love about conservatives; when a liberal viloates a liturgical rule it is an ABUSE!!!

When a conservative violates a liturgical rule, it is RIGHT!!!

I have read the GIRM and the subsequent commentaries concerning the psoture for Communion.

The liturgical posture for Communion is standing. Failure to follow the liturgical posture is disobedience, plain and simple. It is not punishable by denial of Communion, nor should it be. But it is still diobedience.

 

[Micki]

***I tried receiving on the tongue for awhile (which I prefer) but I’ve found that it tends to fluster the Eucharistic ministers. ***

So What???!!!

Micki

 

[redkim]

otm:

misericordie:

and I mentioned to him that canon law and liturgical law give all Catholics the right non only to receive on the tongue, but IT’S THIER choice if they receive KNEELING TOO!!!, and he agreed. It is a right!!!

What I love about conservatives; when a liberal viloates a liturgical rule it is an ABUSE!!!

When a conservative violates a liturgical rule, it is RIGHT!!!

I have read the GIRM and the subsequent commentaries concerning the psoture for Communion.

The liturgical posture for Communion is standing. Failure to follow the liturgical posture is disobedience, plain and simple. It is not punishable by denial of Communion, nor should it be. But it is still diobedience.

Can you quote where it says standing is the proper posture? The documents I’ve read haven’t said that. Or at least I did not see that.

 

[system]

Could we not resort to liberal/conservative name-calling, please.

redkim:

Can you quote where it says standing is the proper posture? The documents I’ve read haven’t said that. Or at least I did not see that.

It’s off the main topic of this thread… but here it is:


General Instruction of the Roman Missal
Including Adaptations for the Dioceses of the United States of America
*160. The priest then takes the paten or ciborium and goes to the communicants, who, as a rule, approach in a procession.

The faithful are not permitted to take the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them from one to another. The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.

When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the Sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood.

usccb.org/liturgy/documents/instructioneng.htm
*Instruction

Redemptionis Sacramentum, On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist

*90. “The faithful should receive Communion kneeling or standing, as the Conference of Bishops will have determined,” with its acts having received the recognitio of the Apostolic See. “However, if they receive Communion standing, it is recommended that they give due reverence before the reception of the Sacrament, as set forth in the same norms.”

**91. In distributing Holy Communion it is to be remembered that “sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who seek them in a reasonable manner, are rightly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them.” Hence any baptized Catholic who is not prevented by law must be admitted to Holy Communion. Therefore, it is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing.

 

[deogratias]

To summarize - RS says either standing or kneeling, depending on the decision made by the Bishops.

The faithful should receive Communion kneeling or standing, as the Conference of Bishops will have determined

In the U.S. the Bishops have determined that standing to receive communion is the norm (this would not apply at TLM by the way). If you are not in the U.S. you may have to check with your own conference of Bishops for the norm in your country.

In either case, Communion is not to be denied to one who kneels instead of stands and vice versa according to RS.

Therefore, it is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing.

Back on topic - Communion on the tongue is the Norm. Communion in the hand is by Indult only and in only some countries has this Indult been requested and granted.

Communion is not to be refused on either the tongue or in the hand however.

 

[S_Corda]

Brian Crane:

… “Mother, what do you think is the worst problem in the world today?” … "Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand

If I have to choose between the Vatican and Mother Teresa, then I would choose the Vatican.
No human is infallible when it comes to their opinions of what makes them sad. To me she is a saint, but even when she officially becomes a saint, no saint is infallible.

 

[S_Corda]

misericordie:

… I DON’T RECIEVE from any lay person in Mass, because the rules are clear, only the priests are to distribute the Body of Our Lord in Mass, UNLESS he is too old, alone(no other priests in the parish to come down to Mass to help him) or he is alone, offering Mass in a Mass with hundreds of people and maybe he is very sick and old. THEN, a lay person can help him, but if I were in that Mass, I would go ONLY on that priest’s line, even if I have to stand there 1/2 hour.

I guess the “liberals” are not the only cafeteria Catholics, picking and choosing among Church teachings (as some would have us believe).

Your description of “the rules” is not what the Church teaches (GIRM, Canon Law, etc.).

 

[deogratias]

S. Corda, last I heard, she is officially a saint

 

[deogratias]

I have seen the term “Eucharistic Ministers” used in several of the posts here and Redemptionis Sacramentum is quite explicit in stating that the only persons who are Eucharistic Ministers are Priests and Bishops (the term refers to those who can confect the Eucharist).

The Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion
[154.] As has already been recalled, “the only minister who can confect the Sacrament of the Eucharist in persona Christi is a validly ordained Priest”.[254] Hence the name “minister of the Eucharist” belongs properly to the Priest alone. Moreover, also by reason of their sacred Ordination, the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are the Bishop, the Priest and the Deacon,[255] to whom it belongs therefore to administer Holy Communion to the lay members of Christ’s faithful during the celebration of Mass. In this way their ministerial office in the Church is fully and accurately brought to light, and the sign value of the Sacrament is made complete.

[155.] In addition to the ordinary ministers there is the formally instituted acolyte, who by virtue of his institution is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion even outside the celebration of Mass. If, moreover, reasons of real necessity prompt it, another lay member of Christ’s faithful may also be delegated by the diocesan Bishop, in accordance with the norm of law,[256] for one occasion or for a specified time, and an appropriate formula of blessing may be used for the occasion. This act of appointment, however, does not necessarily take a liturgical form, nor, if it does take a liturgical form, should it resemble sacred Ordination in any way. Finally, in special cases of an unforeseen nature, permission can be given for a single occasion by the Priest who presides at the celebration of the Eucharist.[257]

[156.] **This function is to be understood strictly according to the name by which it is known, that is to say, that of extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, **and not “special minister of Holy Communion” nor “extraordinary minister of the Eucharist” nor “special minister of the Eucharist”, by which names the meaning of this function is unnecessarily and improperly broadened.

 

[maggiec]

I would rather receive on the tongue however no one at our mass receives on the tongue and I don’t feel I can challange this, funny huh?

 

[deogratias]

S. Corda - I think probably Miserere was referring to this paragraph in Redemptionis Sacramentum

158.]** Indeed, the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion may administer Communion only when the Priest and Deacon are lacking, when the Priest is prevented by weakness or advanced age or some other genuine reason, or when the number of faithful coming to Communion is so great that the very celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged**

Unfortunately there are a couple of undefinited variables “so great a number” and “unduly prolonged”.

 

[deogratias]

Maggie - it is not a challenge, it is your right to choose. The Post Vatican II Church has given us more choices than once we had.

We can stand or knee to receive.
We can receive on the tongue or in the hand (in some countries)
Post communion, we can stand, sit or kneel until the last person has received.

So some things are still “fixed” and some are choices.

 

[Magnificat]

I prefer to receive on the tongue at the Communion rail from a priest.
That being said, I actually often receive in the hand if it is a EM. Why? Because they often seems flustered and I just want to keep things smooth at the time of receiving Our Lord.
I know, it’s kind of pathetic. I try to keep it low drama.

Now that I am writing this I realize how ridiculous it sounds, and I am going to try to receive from EM’s and see what happens.

 

[redkim]

deo and tcj:

Thanks for the info! I can only imagine that standing is the norm because of the lack of communion rails and there is a greater chance for the body and blood to be spilled with a person kneeling on the floor.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the way I read that information is that while standing is the norm, that does not mean that kneeling is an Indult. IOW, I read “norm” in the normative sense: that that is how it is commonly received.

Do you agree?

Thanks!

 

[deogratias]

I read it as it says.

The norm can be standing or kneeling depending on the Bishops.

The U.S. Bishops have established that the norm in the U.S. is Standing. (i.e. this is the posture they would like to see the majority conform to when receiving)

However - there is no disobedience involved in kneeling, i.e. one cannot be refused communion if they kneel.

If you choose to kneel under these circumstances, be careful not to trip up the person behind you or cause an obstruction to the flow of communicants. I probably would not kneel because of that possibility.

There is no indult involved.

 

[redkim]

Just for kicks, I’d like to know their reasoning. I certainly have no problems with standing (I’ve stood my whole life, unless at a communion rail). Is there a place that gives their reasoning.

Oh yeah, is it just me or can we not give reputation points right now?

 

[system]

redkim:

I can only imagine that standing is the norm because of the lack of communion rails and there is a greater chance for the body and blood to be spilled with a person kneeling on the floor.

No, many churches still have rails. And in my experience, standing communion came many years before communion in both kinds became widespread.

But as Deacon2006 said earlier, let’s not worry about “why” the rules are what they are.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the way I read that information is that while standing is the norm, that does not mean that kneeling is an Indult.

RS 91 says “sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who seek them in a reasonable manner, are rightly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them. Hence any baptized Catholic who is not prevented by law must be admitted to Holy Communion”. “Reasonable manner” apparently includes both kneeling and standing, if one decides to ignore the standard set by his/her Bishops’ Conference.