Pastor only allowing communion onto tongue

[ProVobis]

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

With those large wheat ones that barely fit the mouth, you do have a point. Traditionally they were designed to fit your tongue. I believe the FSSP even uses very thin ones which almost melt on your tongue. I know the Polish oplatki are thin and can melt in your mouth.

 

[corsair]

I congratulate the priest. Wish more of them had the courage to do this.

 

[Brendan]

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.

In all fairness, the ‘traditionalists’ are only noting what the Church teaches. A person can not be denied to option to receive Holy Communion while kneeling and on the tongue.

As noted in previous posts, other options may be restricted at various times and places.

Since Popes John Paul II and Benedict chose not to offer Holy Communion on the hand due to profanation, I would be hesitant in calling such a threat an irrational fear.

 

[thistle]

I congratulate the priest. Wish more of them had the courage to do this.

It has nothing to do with courage. The priest has no discretion in this. It is up to the communicant to decide if they want to receive on the tongue or in the hand. It is not up to the priest to deny the rights of the communicant.

 

[Brendan]

It has nothing to do with courage. The priest has no discretion in this. It is up to the communicant to decide if they want to receive on the tongue or in the hand. It is not up to the priest to deny the rights of the communicant.

I would say that we do not know enough about the situation

As noted, when the Eucharist is offered Intincted, the recipient does not have a right to receive in the hand.

Also, according to R.S 92. Holy Communion is not to be offered in the hand when there is a danger of profanation. We saw that with both +John Paul II and +Benedict. They denied no one any rights when they offered Holy Communion on the tongue exclusively.

I would say that it is questionable for a pastor to exercise his right to determine the level of risk of profanation in such a way that restricts the mode of reception. But no more so than a pastor who elects to have EMHC’s at every Mass.

 

[ProVobis]

It has nothing to do with courage. The priest has no discretion in this. It is up to the communicant to decide if they want to receive on the tongue or in the hand. It is not up to the priest to deny the rights of the communicant.

As mentioned above, there are conditions which must be met to allow or to continue to allow CITH. Besides it is not a universal right as it is only allowed in those countries where it’s been approved by 2/3 of its bishops.

 

[janeway529]

Is this not the decision of the Bishop and not individual priests?

Usually, the bishop leaves it up to the priest. The bishop doesn’t want to micromanage his priests.

 

[Ohana]

So has anyone here actually seen anyone steal a consecrated host. If so, what did you do? What should one do? I do know of people who have taken a one home, but that was a husband who took communion to his invalid wife with our priests permission/cooperation. I dropped a host once, but just picked it up and consumed it - and apologized to Jesus.
If this is off topic, just ignore.

 

[pnewton]

Is this not the decision of the Bishop and not individual priests?

I found this in the USCCB indult making it the choice of the communicant.

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.

old.usccb.org/liturgy/current/norms.shtml

and:

Those who receive Communion may receive either in the hand or on the tongue, and the decision should be that of the individual receiving, not of the person distributing Communion.

usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/order-of-mass/liturgy-of-the-eucharist/the-reception-of-holy-communion-at-mass.cfm

It is supposed to be up to the communicant, at least in the U.S. I guess this kind of belies the misconception about abuses being a one way street. Usually it is a priest refusing to give communion on the tongue that is the issue.

I often wonder how many of these issues are legitimately theological and how many are a matter of personality, over-controlling priest or rebellious parishoner.

 

[thistle]

Usually, the bishop leaves it up to the priest. The bishop doesn’t want to micromanage his priests.

It is not up to a priest. It is exclusively up to the communicant how they receive.
Its possible the OP has not given us enough information but if this is a Mass in Church then the priest has no right to deny the communicant.

 

[Sunbreak]

Well, despite whatever it says in any documents, my parish priest announced when he first came a few years ago that he would only distribute communion on the tongue. I don’t know how he gets away with it, although it is an ethnic parish. We also receive at the communion rail which has always been customary at this parish.

 

[Joannm]

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

Actually it doesn’t. If a person receiving on the tongue does not do it properly there is more of a chance of the host dropping. Why do you think they needed patens?

 

[Lapey]

So has anyone here actually seen anyone steal a consecrated host. If so, what did you do? What should one do? I do know of people who have taken a one home, but that was a husband who took communion to his invalid wife with our priests permission/cooperation. I dropped a host once, but just picked it up and consumed it - and apologized to Jesus.
If this is off topic, just ignore.

I have, several times. Each time I followed them until I got their attention and simply said, either consume or return. They have always chosen to consume. Typically it has been people who just do not know and should not be receiving but have never been taught better. Only once I can say it appeared to be dubious intent involved.

 

[Lapey]

It is not up to a priest. It is exclusively up to the communicant how they receive.
Its possible the OP has not given us enough information but if this is a Mass in Church then the priest has no right to deny the communicant.

This is the mistake we make, keep this in mind. If communion is offered by both methods, then it is up to the communicant. If a bishop or priest, pastor, chooses after seeing the need to limit reception to the tongue, then that is how the communicant will receive. Remember the bishop is the “boss” and if he leaves this to his pastors then it is not available and the communicant will receive as it is offered or go to another parish.

The communicant is not the authority as to how communion will be distributed, only how they will receive by what is available. If a person wishes to receive on the hand and this method is not available then we must obediently receive on the tongue and if we so choose, write the bishop for an explanation and/or change in the pastor’s policy. Other than that, communicants have no recourse.

Again, the documents sited in several posts here do not authorize the communicant to be above the priests and/or bishops. The pastor is the authority over his parish in obedience to the bishop and Rome & Mother Church, not the communicant.

 

[Lapey]

Well, despite whatever it says in any documents, my parish priest announced when he first came a few years ago that he would only distribute communion on the tongue. I don’t know how he gets away with it, although it is an ethnic parish. We also receive at the communion rail which has always been customary at this parish.

I wish it were the same for my parish. Altar rails were never authorized by Vat II documents to be removed. I think that is quite beautiful to watch souls coming to receive the Lord in such a posture of surrender and humility.

 

[Brendan]

So has anyone here actually seen anyone steal a consecrated host. If so, what did you do? .

I did. It was at St. Louis Cathderal in New Orleans. I was in N.O. on a business trip and got up early to go to daily Mass.

A person received Holy Communion and did not consume it immediately. Myself and several others noticed him put it in his pocket. A lady who was close to an usher informed the usher, and he chased after that person and retrieved the Host.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Actually it doesn’t. If a person receiving on the tongue does not do it properly there is more of a chance of the host dropping. Why do you think they needed patens?

Needed? We still need them. They can be used in all cases, but unfortunately, rarely are.

 

[malphono]

This is the mistake we make, keep this in mind. If communion is offered by both methods, then it is up to the communicant. If a bishop or priest, pastor, chooses after seeing the need to limit reception to the tongue, then that is how the communicant will receive. Remember the bishop is the “boss” and if he leaves this to his pastors then it is not available and the communicant will receive as it is offered or go to another parish.

The communicant is not the authority as to how communion will be distributed, only how they will receive by what is available. If a person wishes to receive on the hand and this method is not available then we must obediently receive on the tongue and if we so choose, write the bishop for an explanation and/or change in the pastor’s policy. Other than that, communicants have no recourse.

Again, the documents sited in several posts here do not authorize the communicant to be above the priests and/or bishops. The pastor is the authority over his parish in obedience to the bishop and Rome & Mother Church, not the communicant.

Admittedly I haven’t read through this entire thread, but it seems to me that it’s really not a matter of the communicant being “above” the bishop and/or priest. Even the US GIRM is quite clear that the choice is that of the communicant (emphasis added):

1. If Communion is given only under the species of bread, the Priest raises the host slightly and shows it to each, saying, The Body of Christ. The communicant replies, Amen, and receives the Sacrament either on the tongue or, where this is allowed, in the hand, the choice lying with the communicant. As soon as the communicant receives the host, he or she consumes the whole of it.

From that, it’s evident that, even in the US, communion is always available on the tongue, but not necessarily in the hand. That choice is up to the bishop and, by extension, the pastor. But if CITH is available in a given parish, the communicant does have the option for COTT, as reiterated in Redemptionis Sacramentum (emphasis added):

[92.] 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]

 

[Brendan]

It is not up to a priest. It is exclusively up to the communicant how they receive.
Its possible the OP has not given us enough information but if this is a Mass in Church then the priest has no right to deny the communicant.

Redemptionis Sacramentum

[92.] Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice, 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**.

To whom to you feel that the Vatican is giving the right to determine the level of risk of profanation?

 

[Lapey]

Admittedly I haven’t read through this entire thread, but it seems to me that it’s really not a matter of the communicant being “above” the bishop and/or priest. Even the US GIRM is quite clear that the choice is that of the communicant (emphasis added):

From that, it’s evident that, even in the US, communion is always available on the tongue, but not necessarily in the hand. That choice is up to the bishop and, by extension, the pastor. But if CITH is available in a given parish, the communicant does have the option for COTT, as reiterated in Redemptionis Sacramentum (emphasis added):

You and I are in 100% agreement. Where COTH is available there is a choice left up to the communicant; however, if the pastor has made only COTT available the communicant does not have the right to go up and receive on the hand. The communicant does have the right to petition the pastor and the bishop to change, but that is all.