on the tongue or in the hand?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mikworld
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
OK with the “addressed pastorally” part since it hasn’t been struck down

The exact words are

**
Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm
Click to expand...
.**

This is not a disagreement either, but just curious if anyone has received this pastoral catachesis as I would most like to hear what are the reasons for this norm.
 
tcj:
Proof of what? Refuse to get what? There’s been no disagreement in this thread. So I hope your comments are not addressed to any of us.
  • TLM is by indult, and to be respected. (And “God help you” if you don’t.) Both masses to be respected and not questioned at all.
  • Communion in the hand is by indult in the US. It is equally as valid as communion on the tongue. Both options to be respected and not questioned at all.
  • Communion is to be given to all who “seek it in a reasonable manner”. The US norm, AND Rome has declared that kneeling is a “reasonable manner” therefore not in need of Indult. However, IN THE US those who insist on kneeling are to be “addressed pastorally”. The US Bishops make this distinction, I really don’t care. Rome has reminded us in RS that communion is not to be denied, but they are apparently OK with the “addressed pastorally” part since it hasn’t been struck down.
As I said, we’re all in agreement so if you have a different point to make, let’s hear it.
Click to expand...
I did not think anyone HERE would take it so personally, that OFFICIAL Church teaching is repeated here, as regards to the CANONICAL Right to receive Christ on the tongue,a nd kneeling. I am just repeating what’s already there, why re-invent the wheel? Let’s not be so sensitive here please.:tiphat:
 
It’s kinda funny, really, how different countries do it different ways. Through my RCIA and first seven years of being a catholic it was always on the hand. I never saw it done any other way.

Then, I did my training as an extraordinary minister and they told us about other methods. It was an eye opener! I’ve been an extraordinary minister fairly often - it’d be nice NOT to do it because there was more than one priest available. Some of the churches in Australia sometimes even have to share a priest between parishes - there is not enough to go around. Then, of course, ministers become compulsory.

I’m of the opinion that, while one method might be preferred, none of them are absolutely wrong - no point denying someone communion because of a matter of movement, I guess.
 
One more vote for on the tongue! I spent years receiving on the hand and then one day received on the tongue and have not gone back to in the hands. Now the Parish I attend uses Intinction and kneelers and I love it… I love receiving Our Lord in this way :love:
 
Mothers Boy:
One more vote for on the tongue! I spent years receiving on the hand and then one day received on the tongue and have not gone back to in the hands. Now the Parish I attend uses Intinction and kneelers and I love it… I love receiving Our Lord in this way :love:
Click to expand...
Excellent. I agree with you.
 
tcj:
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.

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.
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
40.png
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.
Click to expand...
Although my parish is not the norm, what I see is that almost all the children and teens recieve communion on the tounge, while the middle aged and some elderly take communion on their hands. I think one issue is many do not know of an option to recieve communion on the tounge.
 
40.png
JNB:
Although my parish is not the norm, what I see is that almost all the children and teens recieve communion on the tounge, while the middle aged and some elderly take communion on their hands. I think one issue is many do not know of an option to recieve communion on the tounge.
Click to expand...
Just like most of the middle-aged and elderly Catholics who like to CHAT in church. These are the ones who are still stuck in the late 1960’s and 1970’s, and who still remember the priests telling them they MUST recieve in the hand, they could talk in church, nothing is a sin anymore, all is relative. THE HOPE is in the YOUNG generation of Catholics, and the same goes for the priests and nuns. The ones over 50 seem for the most part the MOST liberal. Come on, we are in the year 2004, with a new Pope elected in 1978, and who is pushing for more tradition, lets all get with it.
 
I personally don’t think it matters either way. However, I would like to bring up the point that Jesus said “Take this and eat.” He didn’t place the host on his disciples tounges, he gave it to them and they ate it.

However, as I said, I don’t think it matters either way. =)
 
The last supper was the first ordination of the Apostles to the priesthood and concecration to being Bishops. So when they took the bread, their hands, unlike ours, were concecrated. At the last supper, the Apostles were no longer lay men. So in other words, that arguemnet doesnt wash.
 
I almost always receive on the tongue, and so the EMs don’t think otherwise and try to force it in my hand, I usually carry one of my children up with me so my hands are full!! 😉

Wish we had a communion rail! 😦 I always kneel first anyway.
 
40.png
Exalt:
I personally don’t think it matters either way. However, I would like to bring up the point that Jesus said “Take this and eat.” He didn’t place the host on his disciples tounges, he gave it to them and they ate it.

However, as I said, I don’t think it matters either way. =)
Click to expand...
That’s a good observation of you. HOWEVER:rolleyes: , please note that the apostles had been with Christ for 3 years learning directly from Him, and more importantly, the apostles at the point of the Last Supper had been ordained priests!!! They were PRIESTS, and hence had the RIGHT to “take and eat” His body with their hands.
 
40.png
deogratias:
For reasons not clear to me, however, Paul VI decided to grant an indult to those countries where it had become a common practice. Even stranger was the fact that the U.S., where the practice was not common or the norm, also solicited to have the Indult and even stranger yet, it was granted. Go figure.
Click to expand...
Paul VI decided to grant the indult, IMO, because he preferred to legitimize the illicit actions of so many bishops than to punish them and have to deal with all of the consequential fallout.

I think you are right about communion in hand being, actually, rarely found in the U.S. before the indult. It was a pet issue of Call to Action and similar groups beforehand but had not been introduced to any substantial degree like it had in Europe. The Vatican required that in order to grant the indult, it must be shown that the illicit practice of communion in the hand was already widespread. Cardinal Bernardin made attempts to get the necessary 2/3 majority vote for requesting the indult at the Bishops Conference in 1975, and 1976 but failed both times. In 1977, he and Bishop Quinn again bid to get the votes for the indult and failed once again. However, due to some procedural maneuver, for the first time ever, bishops in absentia were polled, after the conference meeting, and the votes materialized. The measure to request the indult thus passed.
 
40.png
JNB:
The last supper was the first ordination of the Apostles to the priesthood and concecration to being Bishops. So when they took the bread, their hands, unlike ours, were concecrated. At the last supper, the Apostles were no longer lay men. So in other words, that arguemnet doesnt wash.
Click to expand...
I think it was meant as an observation more than an argument, and I would toss in that I think we should be careful making temporal statements about when the Apostles were ordained and consecrated, etc. OF COURSE the sacrament of Holy Orders was instituted directly by Christ and directly to the Apostles, but “instituted” is the word Church documents use. If we start phrasing things in an overtly temporal way (“then Christ ordained them, then He consecrated them”) we run the risk of concluding too much (“then they purified the vessels and reflected on the first liturgy!”) 😃
 
40.png
deogratias:
One body, many agendas (or would that be agendae?😃 )
Click to expand...
Panagendic?

I think it is not best to try to guess at motives behind actions of someone not able to defend oneself (Paul VI).
 
40.png
misericordie:
I did not think anyone HERE would take it so personally
Click to expand...
If your comments weren’t directed towards us here, then I misunderstood the intent. But who ARE they directed toward? I guess toward people who aren’t here, who can’t see them nor respond? What is the point of that?

I just don’t see the need to throw comments like “Some REFUSE to recognize the color green as green, or that the world is round.” up in the air, simply to see if anyone takes offense.
 
40.png
JNB:
Although my parish is not the norm, what I see is that almost all the children and teens recieve communion on the tounge, while the middle aged and some elderly take communion on their hands. I think one issue is many do not know of an option to recieve communion on the tounge.
Click to expand...
If they see “almost all” the children and teens doing so, how could they not know?

I think perhaps you are over-generalizing. I can’t imagine the breakdown you describe, simply based on age.
 
I think it is not best to try to guess at motives behind actions of someone not able to defend oneself (Paul VI).
Click to expand...
Did I do that? I thought I merely wondered and someone else guessed.

Actually there is more opinion than fact tossed around in the forums, don’t you think.

On another forum I visit there is a section called Speculation, which is just for that.

They also have a section called Doctrine - and that is not for opinion but only documented Church Doctrine.

Or maybe we could precede each post with the word

FACT - if it was documented Church teaching

and OPINION - if it was just one thought

But this is just my OPINION 😃
 
My apologies deogratias, I was not refering to you, but to 7 posts back that addressed Pope Paul VI.

As to the what you were thinking, I assure you I am not clairvoyant, but rather quotation challenged.

Now Brian Crane might have read your mind. Not that I am accusing him of witchcraft, but… nevermind. Wrong century.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top