on the tongue or in the hand?

[LaVada]

Hi, all:
Interesting reading! One can always be grateful for something. (smile) Several years ago Communion in the Hand was introduced in a Parish where I lived. Not long after, age and a problem arose in which a “cane” become necessary. Problem solved re my distaste for receiving in the hand. Receiving our Lord on the tongue became the only option and I was grateful. The Church says either way is permissible, so we say Amen and go on but I am still grateful.
Did I miss someone stating that Rome would like to see the “Paten” return to use. Now there is another “job” for those eager to serve and would take care of any fumbling fingers. Giggle. Oh, please don’t all throw a trantrum! Just a little humor from an ole lady. I use two canes now.
Peace on earth to men of good will.
LaVada

 

[deogratias]

Did I miss someone stating that Rome would like to see the “Paten” return to use. Now there is another “job” for those eager to serve and would take care of any fumbling fingers. Giggle. Oh, please don’t all throw a trantrum! Just a little humor from an ole lady

I would like to see the Paten used too but can you imagine how many people will now be involved. A dozen or more EMHC plus a dozen altar servers to hold the patens.

I tell you what I would like to see and that is not exercising the option to use the precious blood (it is an option to use it or receive it).

This could almost eliminate the need for EMHC at many Masses. Since Christ is totally present in both species, this would not be needed.

Oh I know someone is going to jump in and tell me that people with Celiac disease can’t receive the host, blah blah blah.

Well that is not a problem at Tridentine Masses - the priest is notified if such is the case and after all have received the host he serves the precious blood to those persons.

Incidentally at the Tridentine Masses there are no EMHC. Usually two priests can distribute communion to 400 people in about the same time as it takes a bevy of EMHC’s to serve both species to the same amount of folks and so I know this would be possible at a Normative Mass as well with a priest or two and a Deacon or two, or installed Acolytes.

 

[Brian_Crane]

LaVada:

Did I miss someone stating that Rome would like to see the “Paten” return to use.

From Redemtionis Sacramentum, 2004

[93.] The Communion-plate for the Communion of the faithful should be retained, so as to avoid the danger of the sacred host or some fragment of it falling.[180]

The paten, in my experience anyway, is not being used. I don’t know why since the most recent instructions on the liturgy seem to be pretty clear about this.

 

[James1_27]

Here (Canary Islands) I have found no problems doing it either way.

 

[Toni]

On the tongue… I have many friends who have received on the hand and several times we would get into a discussion why I chose the tongue over the hand. The strangest thing happened from both these discussions the next day both of them were at Mass and as the Priest placed our Lord in there hands it broke… They were both devastated. And thankfully loved Christ enough to lick there hands instead of simply wiping it on there pants.
Correct me if I’m wrong but it seems to me the custom of receiving in the hand was done years ago when the lepers were given communion they would place a doily in there hands to place our Lord, so they did not have to fear the leoparsy.
Also it disturbs me when I watch children pick there noses, etc. throughout Mass and put out there hands to receive our Lord.

 

[misericordie]

Toni:

On the tongue… I have many friends who have received on the hand and several times we would get into a discussion why I chose the tongue over the hand. The strangest thing happened from both these discussions the next day both of them were at Mass and as the Priest placed our Lord in there hands it broke… They were both devastated. And thankfully loved Christ enough to lick there hands instead of simply wiping it on there pants.
Correct me if I’m wrong but it seems to me the custom of receiving in the hand was done years ago when the lepers were given communion they would place a doily in there hands to place our Lord, so they did not have to fear the leoparsy.
Also it disturbs me when I watch children pick there noses, etc. throughout Mass and put out there hands to receive our Lord.

This is excellent. I totally agree with all the truth you state here. May Our Lord bless you for loving Him so much, He who is really present in the Host.
Excellent.

 

[misericordie]

Today I recieved Christ in Holy Communion in Mass on the tongue, I thank you Lord. I will always recieve you on the tongue, in any Mass, in any Catholic Church around the world.

 

[misericordie]

Has anyone here ever read the life of Blessed Imelda, and her Eucharistic experience?

 

[deogratias]

Why not start a new thread for this? This one is long enough as it is without introducing another topic.

And it probably should go in a section other than liturgy. Thanks.

 

[misericordie]

deogratias:

Why not start a new thread for this? This one is long enough as it is without introducing another topic.

And it probably should go in a section other than liturgy. Thanks.

You are right.
By the way, I like the quolt you have as your “signature” of Dr. Alice Von Hildebrand. My teacher of Philosohy in College, for a course entitled: Augustine’s Confessions, was the great Dr. William Marra. Ph.D who told the class many a times how much he admired the great Von Hildebrand (the husband of Alice Von Hildrand). Dr. Marra was one if not the best teacher I had in college, in my philosophy minor. May he be enjoying God’s presence together with the other greats : St. Augustine, Saint Thomas Aquinas, etc.:tiphat:

 

[misericordie]

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.

This is the very best and objective post here as of yet. Thank you so very much for sharing this with us, it is so true. Truth is truth, and hence right, false is false, and hence wrong.
Again, bravo:clapping:

 

[Tax_Collector]

I am not going to pretend that I have read all three pages of posts. because I have not. Those that I have seen, all seem to be in favour of Receiving on the tongue.

Can anyone explain to me why they think their tongue is more acceptable than their hand?

Can you really believe that your hands do things more sinful than your tongue?

Do you really think that whilst Jesus lived as a man, he did not get dirty, perspire, even suffer from B.O.? After all He lived in a hot climate, walked everywhere and did not have the advantages of modern plumbing.

O.K. Having said all that, I spent the first half of my life Receiving on my knees at an altar rail. These days I am also an E.M.H.C.
Most of those who come to Receive on the tongue just offer the tip of their tongue. It is impossible not to touch the tongue when placing the Host on it. That means that the next Host I pick from the ciborium is probably infected by any germs that I got on my fingers from the previous Communicant.

There is no suggestion, as far as I know, that at the Last Supper Jesus placed the bread in the mouth of the Apostles. Somewhere else on this Forum, I read a comment that the wine should taste like blood. Now I ask you, what can one make of a question like that?

Please do not put on Jesus, our “silly” ideas of what constitutes the correct way to Receive Him. To my mind the correct way is with a sense of wonderment that He will do such a thing. Let us just be grateful, that we can.

 

[Brian_Crane]

Tax Collector:

I am not going to pretend that I have read all three pages of posts. because I have not. Those that I have seen, all seem to be in favour of Receiving on the tongue.

Can anyone explain to me why they think their tongue is more acceptable than their hand?

Can you really believe that your hands do things more sinful than your tongue?

Do you really think that whilst Jesus lived as a man, he did not get dirty, perspire, even suffer from B.O.? After all He lived in a hot climate, walked everywhere and did not have the advantages of modern plumbing.

O.K. Having said all that, I spent the first half of my life Receiving on my knees at an altar rail. These days I am also an E.M.H.C.
Most of those who come to Receive on the tongue just offer the tip of their tongue. It is impossible not to touch the tongue when placing the Host on it. That means that the next Host I pick from the ciborium is probably infected by any germs that I got on my fingers from the previous Communicant.

There is no suggestion, as far as I know, that at the Last Supper Jesus placed the bread in the mouth of the Apostles. Somewhere else on this Forum, I read a comment that the wine should taste like blood. Now I ask you, what can one make of a question like that? …

The argument for receiving on the tongue has been explained in the other posts. But I will say for myself infection is not an issue. The issue with receiving in the hands is the potential for abuse (walking away without putting it in one’s mouth, irreverence, particles of the host getting on one’s unconsecrated hands etc.) Redemptionis Sacramentum, while acknowledging the right to receive in the hand, warns against these abuses. In Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas says:
“…because out of reverence for this Sacrament, nothing touches It but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands for touching this Sacrament. Hence, it is not lawful for anyone else to touch It, except from necessity, for instance, if It were to fall upon the ground or else in some other case of urgency.” (ST, III, Q.82, Art. 13)

Please do not put on Jesus, our “silly” ideas of what constitutes the correct way to Receive Him. To my mind the correct way is with a sense of wonderment that He will do such a thing. Let us just be grateful, that we can

People concerned with the correct way to receive Him, are concerned because it is **HIM, **and they are concerned that people receive Him with “wonderment” and awe, and reverence. You seem to denigrate those who favor receiving communion on the tongue. Yet surely, even you must think that there are limits to how we can receive him. Where would you draw the line? Would it be “silly” to reject, for instance, everyone grabbing their own host from a bowl at the altar like a cookie jar provided they had a sense of wonderment? At what point do “silly” ideas of what constitute the correct way to receive Him, become serious ideas?

 

[kwitz]

Brian Crane:

Where would you draw the line? Would it be “silly” to reject, for instance, everyone grabbing their own host from a bowl at the altar like a cookie jar provided they had a sense of wonderment? At what point do “silly” ideas of what constitute the correct way to receive Him, become serious ideas?

It doesn’t matter where Tax Collector or I draw the line at all. The Church has said it is allowed, end of discussion. If I was told tomorrow I had to receive on the tongue, I would, end of discussion. I’d question the decision I’m sure but the next time I received Communion, I’d have my hands folded and tongue out.

Kris

 

[Brian_Crane]

kwitz:

It doesn’t matter where Tax Collector or I draw the line at all. The Church has said it is allowed, end of discussion. If I was told tomorrow I had to receive on the tongue, I would, end of discussion. I’d question the decision I’m sure but the next time I received Communion, I’d have my hands folded and tongue out.
Kris

If I was told tomorrow I had to recieve in the hand, I would, end of discussion. But right now, we can choose. And we can debate as to which method is preferable. Tax Collector seemed to be saying, (and I’ve heard the argument before) that it doesn’t matter how one receives the Eucharist. The only thing that matters is that one has a sense of wonderment. My only point was that he/she considers this debate (hand vs. tongue) “silly,” yet I am guessing that he/she would favor some minimum guideline or discipline for receiving the Eucharist. He/she would draw the line somewhere in such a debate.

 

[misericordie]

Tax Collector:

I am not going to pretend that I have read all three pages of posts. because I have not. Those that I have seen, all seem to be in favour of Receiving on the tongue.

Can anyone explain to me why they think their tongue is more acceptable than their hand?

Can you really believe that your hands do things more sinful than your tongue?

Do you really think that whilst Jesus lived as a man, he did not get dirty, perspire, even suffer from B.O.? After all He lived in a hot climate, walked everywhere and did not have the advantages of modern plumbing.

O.K. Having said all that, I spent the first half of my life Receiving on my knees at an altar rail. These days I am also an E.M.H.C.
Most of those who come to Receive on the tongue just offer the tip of their tongue. It is impossible not to touch the tongue when placing the Host on it. That means that the next Host I pick from the ciborium is probably infected by any germs that I got on my fingers from the previous Communicant.

There is no suggestion, as far as I know, that at the Last Supper Jesus placed the bread in the mouth of the Apostles. Somewhere else on this Forum, I read a comment that the wine should taste like blood. Now I ask you, what can one make of a question like that?

Please do not put on Jesus, our “silly” ideas of what constitutes the correct way to Receive Him. To my mind the correct way is with a sense of wonderment that He will do such a thing. Let us just be grateful, that we can.

Okay everyone, here we go again, by a different poster.

 

[deogratias]

I am not going to pretend that I have read all three pages of posts. because I have not. Those that I have seen, all seem to be in favour of Receiving on the tongue.

Perhaps you should read all three pages, and if you still have a question after that someone might considering answering it. It is not fair of you to not read the entire 3 pages and expect somone to repeat whathas been said…and said…and said…again…and again…and again…

 

[Tax_Collector]

Perhaps you should read all three pages, and if you still have a question after that someone might considering answering it. It is not fair of you to not read the entire 3 pages and expect somone to repeat whathas been said…and said…and said…again…and again…and again…

My apologies, you are quite correct. I should have read all the postings. I now have and can see that many of the points I made have been covered.

I do not have a question, because I am happy to Receive in the hand or on the tongue. In Australia, or at least in the parishes I have been in, it is normal to Receive in the hand. This was also the case when I lived in England. I was living there when Reception in the hand started. It was claimed at the time that this was a reversion to the Sarum rite, which was the way of Reception pre-reformation. (I have heard suggestions that that fact is debatable, but we do not wish to debate it here).

On reading through all the previous posts, most of which concern the United States, the only two comments I would make are about sacrilege and fasting. As an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion(the correct title) I know that crumbs from the Host are usual. I cannot see that putting the Host on the tongue as opposed to the hand is going to stop this happening and even with the paten and kneeling at rails would necessarily prevent crumbs falling to the floor. Regarding fasting. I have always understood that once the Host loses the properties of being bread, then the Real Presence had gone. So, as I read somewhere else, Jesus is not “sloshing around in my stomach”.

I could be wrong, I often am, but I have always thought that Pope John XXIII reasons for calling the Vatican Council was to make the Church relevant in the changing world of the 50’s and 60’s. In that relevancy was the objective of getting rid of all those pious accretions that had gathered on the keel of the Barque of the Church thanks to all those holy medieval nuns etc. That does not mean I wish to see a “free for all” when going to Holy Communion. I understand and **believe **that it is Jesus I receive, but please, if we believe He was truly man, then let us get rid of this sanitised Man and stop worrying about Him being a crumb on the altar floor. If He is capable of changing bread and wine into Himself, I am sure He can take care of the odd crumb.

I do hope that I do not sound sacriligeous, because that is not my intention. My intention is to focus on what a wonderful gift the Eucharist is and what an aid it is in helping us towards our eternal salvation. Jesus said “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man you shall not have life in you”.

T.C.

 

[deogratias]

That does not mean I wish to see a “free for all” when going to Holy Communion. I understand and **believe **that it is Jesus I receive, but please, if we believe He was truly man, then let us get rid of this sanitised Man and stop worrying about Him being a crumb on the altar floor. If He is capable of changing bread and wine into Himself, I am sure He can take care of the odd crumb.

I do hope that I do not sound sacriligeous, because that is not my intention

But, yes it does sound that way to me. My mouth actually dropped open when I read that and I doubt the Holy Father would agree with you either.

In order to forestall at the very outset, the unworthy notion, that in the Eucharist we receive merely the Body and merely the Blood of Christ but not Christ in His entirety, the Council of Trent defined the Real Presence to be such as to include with Christ’s Body and His Soul and Divinity as well

Cyril of Jerusalem (Catech. myst. v, n. 21) obliged communicants to observe the most scrupulous care in conveying the Sacred Host to their mouths, so that not even “a crumb, more precious than gold or jewels”, might fall from their hands to the ground; how Cæsarius of Arles taught that there is “just as much in the small fragment as in the whole”; how the different liturgies assert the abiding integrity of the “indivisible Lamb”

 

[Guy]

I receive Jesus generally in the hand. This tradition actually goes back to around 350 AD with the catechesis of St. Cyril of Jerusalem. It is he who teaches us to make a throne with one hand for the hand which receives the King. I have no problem with receiving Jesus in the hand as long as it is done reverently and properly.