Pastor only allowing communion onto tongue

[thebookofesther]

I don’t really think there’s much of a reason for the faithful not to receive communion on their hands… This is how St. Cyril (and, for instance, myself) sees it.

I believe that’s the right way to do it. Those who know what they have on their hands have a true and pure understanding of the weight of it, and will respect it properly.

You may want to watch this and everyone that agrees with this. youtube.com/watch?v=Jii6NCfTW68

 

[agnes_therese]

A laity doesn’t have consecrated hands.

Neither does a deacon, but deacons are considered ordinary ministers of the Eucharist.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Caught me while was editing.

The fun of posting from one’s phone

never!

 

[agnes_therese]

At a new church I went to today for an ethnic party, I learned that the pastor will only allow the communion to be placed on one’s tongue. Apparently, the pastor said that he ruled this to prevent problems like taking home the host.

Is this allowed? Could someone give me a reference?

According to the GIRM, #160
"The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant."

So the question real may be, can the Bishop give an individual priest the right to override this?

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

That may or may not be true. If it is, do you imagine that stealing the Host only started happening with the introduction of CITH?

how do you imagine that Hosts were obtained before the 1970s. when it was communion on the tongue only?

Exactly. The nuns back in the 50’s told us the same stories about satanists (and Masons) stealing hosts to stick pins in them.

 

[VanSensei]

This lessens the possibility of Jesus being dropped on the floor or desecrated, so good for the priest.

 

[Starrsmother]

I’m 62 and thus began receiving communion back when folks only received it under the 1 species (the host) and when you always received it on your tongue, while kneeling, and with an altar boy accompanying the priest and holding the patton under your chin. Frankly, I would prefer to receive Communion on my tongue still and I think kneeling would show far more respect and humility–which everyone should feel when they accept Our Lord and God into our mortal bodies. However, in my current parish, I think all the people would be a little shocked if I insisted on receiving communion on my tongue–much less kneeling to do so. It would interrupt what is the norm here today–and I don’t want to cause anyone trouble or to interrupt the service. My mom, now dead, once told me a story when I was young about a supposed remark that a protestant made about the Eucharist— which of course he didn’t believe was the true Body and Blood of Christ. I don’t know if this really happened or if it’s just an old wife’s tale, but my mom was the daughter of a Baptist preacher who converted to Catholicism when she married my Dad. Anyway, she told me that a protestant man was taking courses in the Catholic faith with the thought of converting. He did okay in accepting all the laws and beliefs of our church until he got to the part about the Consecration during Mass, resulting in the transubstantiation of simple bread and wine into the true Body and Blood of Jesus. Supposedly, his inability to accept this doctrine resulted in him dropping out of the course and deciding to remain protestant. BUT, when he dropped out, he told the priest that not only could he not believe that such a miracle could occur on a daily basis, but that he found it unlikely that even most Catholics really believed it happened either. His words were these: “If I really believed that bread and wine could actually turn into the actual, real Jesus, I would be crawling to the altar on my very hands and knees every single day in adoration and awe and with tears in my eyes --not traipsing merrily up to the front of the church and only on Sundays, all the while looking at everyone I passed and greeting human friends.” As I said, I’m not sure this is a true story, but if so, it certainly gives one pause to think.

 

[thistle]

At a new church I went to today for an ethnic party, I learned that the pastor will only allow the communion to be placed on one’s tongue. Apparently, the pastor said that he ruled this to prevent problems like taking home the host.

Is this allowed? Could someone give me a reference?

The method of receiving is down to the sole choice of the person receiving and not the priest.
When someone receives on the hand it is the responsibility of the priest or EMHC distributing to watch and ensure that the person receiving puts the host in their mouth before walking away. Nobody should be allowed to walk away with the host in their hand. If they do then the priest or EMHC are at fault.

 

[rcn1]

I’m 62 and thus began receiving communion back when folks only received it under the 1 species (the host) and when you always received it on your tongue, while kneeling, and with an altar boy accompanying the priest and holding the patton under your chin. Frankly, I would prefer to receive Communion on my tongue still and I think kneeling would show far more respect and humility–which everyone should feel when they accept Our Lord and God into our mortal bodies. However, in my current parish, I think all the people would be a little shocked if I insisted on receiving communion on my tongue–much less kneeling to do so. It would interrupt what is the norm here today–and I don’t want to cause anyone trouble or to interrupt the service. My mom, now dead, once told me a story when I was young about a supposed remark that a protestant made about the Eucharist— which of course he didn’t believe was the true Body and Blood of Christ. I don’t know if this really happened or if it’s just an old wife’s tale, but my mom was the daughter of a Baptist preacher who converted to Catholicism when she married my Dad. Anyway, she told me that a protestant man was taking courses in the Catholic faith with the thought of converting. He did okay in accepting all the laws and beliefs of our church until he got to the part about the Consecration during Mass, resulting in the transubstantiation of simple bread and wine into the true Body and Blood of Jesus. Supposedly, his inability to accept this doctrine resulted in him dropping out of the course and deciding to remain protestant. BUT, when he dropped out, he told the priest that not only could he not believe that such a miracle could occur on a daily basis, but that he found it unlikely that even most Catholics really believed it happened either. His words were these: “If I really believed that bread and wine could actually turn into the actual, real Jesus, I would be crawling to the altar on my very hands and knees every single day in adoration and awe and with tears in my eyes --not traipsing merrily up to the front of the church and only on Sundays, all the while looking at everyone I passed and greeting human friends.” As I said, I’m not sure this is a true story, but if so, it certainly gives one pause to think.

Starsmother, paragraphs are your friend.

You can always find or invent a quote or a story to support any position you want to take. What this comes down to, is that the church makes the rules about how communion may be received. Either you respect their authority to make these rules, or you don’t. Communion in the hand is allowed in the US (and I’m pretty sure that an individual priest can’t overrule that), and that’s that.

Now, it’s true that there is no rule forbidding receving on the tongue. Some people do that without distracting others. Some people insist on genuflecting in the communion line. That’s not forbidden, but it’s not required, and it’s a bit of a distraction to others. And some say they insist on kneeling. (which I have never ever seen in person) Now that’s a big distracton to others, and I think common sense says there’s no reason for it.

 

[Gia_B]

According to the GIRM, #160
"The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant."

So the question real may be, can the Bishop give an individual priest the right to override this?

You know what the funny thing is about this? Had this been a tread where someone bemoans the fact that he isn’t allowed to receive on the tongue (not an uncommon thread in the “traditional” forum), this quote from the GIRM would appear in four of the first five posts, instead of on the second page. In fact, there would be considerable outrage that the priest wasn’t allowing people to receive the way they wanted to. Instead we irrational fears of the unlikely event of a satanist attack and questions on why anyone would want to receive in the hand anyway.
Gotta love traditionalists and their double standards.

 

[grotto]

." Instead we irrational fears of the unlikely event of a satanist attack and questions on why anyone would want to receive in the hand anyway.
Gotta love traditionalists and their double standards.

---

Your remarks make me ask why you dismiss one’s concerns regarding receiving the Holy Eucharist in the hand when it has been clearly pointed out that the danger of abuse is greatly increased? I do not agree that receiving Holy Communion in the hand, tongue, kneeling or standing makes one have “double standards”. Labeling people belongs to politicians and the IRS.

 

[Cavaille-Coll]

Communion in the hand was introduced into the liturgy under false pretenses by certain American bishops as a long-standing custom in the United States, which it certainly was not. It is currently permitted by the Church, but I believe that for the majority of Catholics who receive in this manner, it has diminished their sense of the Real Presence. Like the “folk Mass” and liturgical dance, it has outlived its experimentation phase and should be phased out.

 

[CompSciGuy]

I am very sympathetic toward that priest’s point of view, mainly because, as a former EMHC, I have had to chase down people who just took the host and walked away. However, if I understand correctly communion in the hand is supposed to be an option for all Latin-rite Catholics… however I may be wrong about this. Also relevant is to know what rite was the church you were attending. This past Sunday I was at a Maronite parish and I saw one lady go up and hold her hands held open in front of her expecting to receive the communion in the hand, the priest explained briefly that this is not how they do it. In such a case, the Maronites are their own church, they have a right to their own liturgical practices.

 

[fnr]

According to the GIRM, #160
"The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant."

So the question real may be, can the Bishop give an individual priest the right to override this?

Here’s the section of the General Instruction on the Roman Missal.

1. …]
   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.

1. If Communion is given only under the species of bread, the priest raises the host slightly and shows it to each, saying, Corpus Christi (The Body of Christ). The communicant replies, Amen, and receives the Sacrament either on the tongue or, where this is allowed and if the communicant so chooses, in the hand. As soon as the communicant receives the host, he or she consumes it entirely.

Here is a quote from 283:

In all that pertains to Communion under both kinds, the Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America are to be followed (see nos. 27-54).

Here is the relevant section of the 2001 document, Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America:

1. Holy Communion under the form of bread is offered to the communicant with the words “The Body of Christ.” The communicant may choose whether to receive the Body of Christ in the hand or on the tongue. When receiving in the hand, the communicant should be guided by the words of St. Cyril of Jerusalem: "When you approach, take care not to do so with your hand stretched out and your fingers open or apart, but rather place your left hand as a throne beneath your right, as befits one who is about to receive the King. Then receive him, taking care that nothing is lost." (51)

I also looked in the English edition of 2004’s Redemptionis Sacramentum:

1. **Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice,178 if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. **However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. **If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.**179

1. The norms of the Roman Missal admit the principle that in cases where Communion is administered under both kinds, “the Blood of the Lord may be received either by drinking from the chalice directly, or by intinction, or by means of a tube or a spoon.”191 As regards the administering of Communion to lay members of Christ’s faithful, the Bishops may exclude Communion with the tube or the spoon where this is not the local custom, though the option of administering Communion by intinction always remains. If this modality is employed, however, hosts should be used which are neither too thin nor too small, and the communicant should receive the Sacrament from the Priest only on the tongue.192

1. The communicant must not be permitted to intinct the host himself in the chalice, nor to receive the intincted host in the hand. As for the host to be used for the intinction, it should be made of valid matter, also consecrated; it is altogether forbidden to use non-consecrated bread or other matter.

With all this in mind, it seems to me that the only valid times for denying all communicants the reception of the Body in the hand is during a service where the communion is provided in both kinds through intinction – the dipping of the Body in the Precious Blood. It seems to me that unless the priest is performing intinction, there is no valid basis for denying a communicant reception of the Body by the hand.

Redemptionis Sacramentum includes an exception, noting that where there is a risk of profanation, then holy communion should not be given by hand. However, to extend a blanket “risk of profanation” to every service and communicant seems to me to be stretching this exception into a rule. There is always a “risk of profanation,” but there are other means by which priests and EMHCs are instructed to prevent them (by watching and ensuring full consumption). To me, it seems that, unless this pastor offers communion of both kinds by intinction in every mass, there is no reasonable basis for denying communicants the Body by hand.

 

[fnr]

I am very sympathetic toward that priest’s point of view, mainly because, as a former EMHC, I have had to chase down people who just took the host and walked away. However, if I understand correctly communion in the hand is supposed to be an option for all Latin-rite Catholics… however I may be wrong about this. Also relevant is to know what rite was the church you were attending. This past Sunday I was at a Maronite parish and I saw one lady go up and hold her hands held open in front of her expecting to receive the communion in the hand, the priest explained briefly that this is not how they do it. In such a case, the Maronites are their own church, they have a right to their own liturgical practices.

Actually, according to this about.com article, the regulations in the Latin Rite on “intinction” are based on the Maronite Rite, where apparently the practice is a common way to distribute communion of both kinds.

 

[Discerning13]

When people assume that people who simple want people to have reverence towards the Eucharist are traditionalists.

 

[Angel_Bradford]

A laity doesn’t have consecrated hands.

Neither do Deacons.

 

[Brendan]

Redemptionis Sacramentum includes an exception, noting that where there is a risk of profanation, then holy communion should not be given by hand. However, to extend a blanket “risk of profanation” to every service and communicant seems to me to be stretching this exception into a rule. There is always a “risk of profanation,” but there are other means by which priests and EMHCs are instructed to prevent them (by watching and ensuring full consumption). To me, it seems that, unless this pastor offers communion of both kinds by intinction in every mass, there is no reasonable basis for denying communicants the Body by hand.

I would say that we do not know if any attempts at profanation have occurred at this parish.

As I mentioned earlier, Pope John Paul II began offering Communion on the tongue only when he was informed that there were instances of people retaining Holy Communion as a souvenir.

So there is precedent of restrictions happening at every Mass.

And, I suppose, if one presumes that the pastor would have the authority to determine that the conditions on the use of EMHC’s are met at any given Mass, then the pastor would have similar authority on the reception of Holy Communion on the hand.

 

[estesbob]

One could easily remove the host from their mouth after receiving. i dont see COTT stopping desecration at all

 

[ProVobis]

You know what the funny thing is about this? Had this been a tread where someone bemoans the fact that he isn’t allowed to receive on the tongue (not an uncommon thread in the “traditional” forum), this quote from the GIRM would appear in four of the first five posts, instead of on the second page. In fact, there would be considerable outrage that the priest wasn’t allowing people to receive the way they wanted to. Instead we irrational fears of the unlikely event of a satanist attack and questions on why anyone would want to receive in the hand anyway.

There still are conditions on communion in the hand. Less so on communion on tongue.

1. The new manner of giving communion must not be imposed in a way that would exclude the traditional practice. It is a matter of particular seriousness that in places where the new practice is lawfully permitted every one of the faithful have the option of receiving communion on the tongue and even when other persons are receiving communion in the hand. The two ways of receiving communion can without question take place during the same liturgical service. There is a twofold purpose here: that none will find in the new rite anything disturbing to personal devotion toward the Eucharist; that this sacrament, the source and cause of unity by its very nature, will not become an occasion of discord between members of the faithful.

1. The rite of communion in the hand must not be put into practice indiscriminately. Since the question involves human attitudes, this mode of communion is bound up with the perceptiveness and preparation of the one receiving. It is advisable, therefore, that the rite be introduced gradually and in the beginning within small, better prepared groups and in favorable settings. Above all it is necessary to have the introduction of the rite preceded by an effective catechesis, so that the people will clearly understand the meaning of receiving in the hand and will practice it with the reverence owed to the sacrament. This catechesis must succeed in excluding any suggestion that in the mind of the Church there is a lessening of faith in the eucharistic presence and in excluding as well any danger or hint of danger of profaning the Eucharist.

1. The option offered to the faithful of receiving the Eucharistic bread in their hand and putting it into their own mouth must not turn out to be the occasion for regarding it as ordinary bread or as just another religious article. Instead this option must increase in them a consciousness of the dignity of the members of Christ’s Mystical Body, into which they are incorporated by baptism and by the grace of the Eucharist. It must also increase their faith in the sublime reality of the Lord’s body and blood, which they touch with their hand. Their attitude of reverence must measure up to what they are doing.

1. As to the way to carry out the new rite: one possible model is the traditional usage, which expresses the ministerial functions, by having the priest or deacon place the host in the hand of the communicant. Alternatively, it is permissible to adopt a simpler procedure, namely, allowing the faithful themselves to take the host from the ciborium or paten. The faithful should consume the host before returning to their place; the minister’s part will be brought out by use of the usual formulary, The body of Christ, to which the communicant replies: Amen. [Note: Rome later forbid the Communicant to take the Host themselves.]

1. Whatever procedure is adopted, care must be taken not to allow particles of the eucharistic bread to fall or be scattered. Care must also be taken that the communicants have clean hands and that there comportment is becoming and in keeping with the practices of the different peoples.

1. In the case of communion under both kinds by way of intinction, it is never permitted to place on the hand of the communicant the host that has been dipped in the Lord’s blood.

1. Bishops allowing introduction of the new way of receiving communion are requested to send to this Congregation after six months a report on the result of its concession."

ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_in_hand.htm