Pastor only allowing communion onto tongue

  • Thread starter Thread starter fnr
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lapey said:
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.
Click to expand...
:cool: 🙂
 
How is it so difficult to understand, at least on a practical basis, that:

-In the USA Holy Communion may be received either on the tongue or, because the bishops asked for it several decades ago, in the hand.

-However, if there is a risk of profanation, the celebrant priest has a right, nay, a duty, to only offer the Host on the tongue.

?
 
Well, this seems a bit unpastoral on the part of the priest. I’ve never seen anyone take Communion via Tongue in person and I doubt most Americans under a certain age would actually know how to do so. It really isn’t natural for people to stick out their tongues to receive an object. I imagine that there would be even more mistakes… quite a bit of spitting up or choking on Jesus. When I received First Communion, I know that we practiced how to receive it via hand so there wouldn’t be any mistakes. I couldn’t imagine a priest just showing up one day and deciding to ban a certain type of Eucharist reception. Most people would be unable to receive Communion.
 
Lapey said:
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.
Click to expand...
So if the Priest decided only CITH will be allowed you have to live with it?
 
illinidiva said:
Well, this seems a bit unpastoral on the part of the priest. I’ve never seen anyone take Communion via Tongue in person and I doubt most Americans under a certain age would actually know how to do so. It really isn’t natural for people to stick out their tongues to receive an object. I imagine that there would be even more mistakes… quite a bit of spitting up or choking on Jesus. When I received First Communion, I know that we practiced how to receive it via hand so there wouldn’t be any mistakes. I couldn’t imagine a priest just showing up one day and deciding to ban a certain type of Eucharist reception. Most people would be unable to receive Communion.
Click to expand...
I agree, illinidiva. I suspect in the case of our parish at least, an awful lot would simply transfer to another parish as we are blessed with several within reasonable travelling distance. I realise that not everyone is so lucky as to have more than one parish to choose from.
 
estesbob said:
So if the Priest decided only CITH will be allowed you have to live with it?
Click to expand...
That would be a violation of Vatican instructions.
[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.
Click to expand...
The Vatican has given the right, under limited circumstances, for the pastor to ban CITH

Who, do you feel is the Vatican giving the authority to determine of the level of risk of profanation has been met?
 
estesbob said:
So if the Priest decided only CITH will be allowed you have to live with it?
Click to expand...
Well you can stand up in the front of the line and argue, but would this be enjoyable or productive? Probably not. The only option is to speak with the priest, pastor and if felt to be justified the bishop. But if the responsible person for the parish, pastor, with knowledge of the bishop says tongue only, then that is what it is and the communicant cannot claim he/she has a “right” to disobey the pastor because of a document. This is quite simple actually.
 
malphono said:
No, absolutely not. A re-read of the GIRM and Redemptionis Sacramentum references should clarify.
Click to expand...
This is incorrect, the documents sited do not give authority to the communicant to tell the pastor how he will distribute communion. Please read these documents in context.
 
Ohana said:
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.
Click to expand...
I have, in London. I don’t know exactly what happened, if she received from an EMHC and they told the Priest or what, because she was back in her seat when the Priest approached her. He asked her to consume the consecrated host or return it. She refused. A couple of people blocked the exit for a bit and she had a rant. They eventually stood aside and she left. Can you hold someone legally for this? I have no idea.

Perhaps she was mentally disturbed or she was a satanist, it’s hard to know.
 
Lapey said:
This is incorrect, the documents sited do not give authority to the communicant to tell the pastor how he will distribute communion. Please read these documents in context.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say that. Not at all. The norm is COTT. This may not be denied. Even where generally allowed, however, CITH may be restricted by the bishop or, by extension, pastor. That’s why I posted those quotes and their respective links in the first place.
 
paperwight66 said:
I agree, illinidiva. I suspect in the case of our parish at least, an awful lot would simply transfer to another parish as we are blessed with several within reasonable travelling distance. I realise that not everyone is so lucky as to have more than one parish to choose from.
Click to expand...
In that case, would a layperson have any recourse? And not just with the Communion reception, but with the tenor and tone of the priest and worship services in general? I don’t want to get in a debate over this but everyone has different spiritual needs. I am currently moving so I am doing a bit of parish shopping and would empathize with those who didn’t have that choice.
 
malphono said:
I didn’t say that. Not at all. The norm is COTT. This may not be denied. Even where generally allowed, however, CITH may be restricted by the bishop or, by extension, pastor. That’s why I posted those quotes and their respective links in the first place.
Click to expand...
Please forgive me, I misread the post you commented on…sorry!:o
 
:confused: This is what comes from being a “Cafeteria Catholic” - you get people who want to have this and want to have that, etc. 🤷
 
YoungTradCath said:
How is it so difficult to understand, at least on a practical basis, that:

-In the USA Holy Communion may be received either on the tongue or, because the bishops asked for it several decades ago, in the hand.

-However, if there is a risk of profanation, the celebrant priest has a right, nay, a duty, to only offer the Host on the tongue.

?
Click to expand...
And as we should know, there is a lot of wiggle room in that word “risk.” (It doesn’t state high or low risk.) Just saying.
 
illinidiva said:
It really isn’t natural for people to stick out their tongues to receive an object.
Click to expand...
But no doubt you’ve seen it at weddings where the bride and groom feed each other directly into the mouth, no?

There appears to be a lot of symbolism in that tradition.
 
ProVobis said:
But no doubt you’ve seen it at weddings where the bride and groom feed each other directly into the mouth, no?

There appears to be a lot of symbolism in that tradition.
Click to expand...
And get lots of cake all over each others face. In fact, most is smeared on the face from what I’ve seen.

I’m just saying from my experience that I had to practice taking Holy Communion so we knew how to do it. I’m assuming that the same practice is necessary for reception by tongue through a priest or Eucharistic minister that is obviously not as intimate as a spouse. Again, I’ve never seen anyone take it via tongue in person and I’m assuming most don’t know how to. Not to mention they would likely be upset with the priest for bringing back pre-Vatican II practices.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top