Question about receiving on the tongue

[Feanor2]

Hello everyone,

Over the past month I have began to receive on the tongue and have enjoyed it. I have received on the tongue when in Europe traveling.

In any case I try to sit on the side of the church where the priest positions himself so that I can receive from him. But I know that I will often not be able to do this.

I think I would feel “funny” receiving this way from an EMHC for some reason. I guess I am thinking, “He/she is touching the host but I am not- why is that?”

I makes sense to me with the priest but seems odd to do this with a layman. What do others do. Do you feel funny- if not how do you explain this to yourself so that it makes sense.

BTW I don’t receive on the tongue because I believe it is more “right” or more “holy.” I just like it that way and I guess I appreciate that I am receiving in the same way as most of the world does.

Thanks for your replies

 

[revert_jen]

Hi Feanor–

It’s funny, for a while I’ve wondered whether I was the only one who received on the tongue if it’s from a priest or deacon, but in the hand if it’s from a lay person. I always receive from a priest or deacon if I can. It is a better symbol for me.

I agree, it seems basically pointless to me to receive on the tongue from an EMHC.

Of course if you go to an extraordinary form (Tridentine) Mass, the issue doesn’t come up. It may not be against the rules of the Church to receive in the hand or to have EMHCs in a EF Mass (I really have no idea), but I’ve never seen it happen, either.

–Jen

 

[Feanor2]

Yeah I’m really only talking about the OF- not to de-rail the thread.

 

[EasterJoy]

I agree, it seems basically pointless to me to receive on the tongue from an EMHC.

It seems to me that either the EMHC is not needed, in which case a EMHC isn’t kosher no matter which way you receive, or that the EMHC is needed, in which case you are only receiving from someone who would not be touching the Blessed Sacrament if it were not necessary to do so. By receiving on the tongue, you don’t have to.

This is just IMHO, but is seems that the decision on which way to receive should depend on how you are disposed, not on your judgement of how worthy the minister is. As long as the minister is licit, judging that should be the furthest thing from your mind, don’t you think?

Of course we are all bound to do what is licit, within our ability–we have to admit that there are places where illicit things go on too often to avoid all of them, lest we go without the Eucharist entirely–but sometimes we also have to make concessions to whatever scruples we have, too. If it is an obstacle to receive from a EMHC, then it is well to seek out a situation where you only receive from an ordinary minister. If what I’m calling a scruple (for want of a better word, because that sounds more negative than what I mean) comes out of a spiritual fault (meaning: a true case of scrupulousness), OTOH, then it probably wouldn’t hurt to approach the EMHC at every opportunity, until it is defeated. I think for most, though, it is a matter of what is the most edifying. It would seem to me that this is best approached by paying attention to yourself only.

 

[Newbie2]

It seems to me that either the EMHC is not needed, in which case a EMHC isn’t kosher no matter which way you receive, or that the EMHC is needed, in which case you are only receiving from someone who would not be touching the Blessed Sacrament if it were not necessary to do so. By receiving on the tongue, you don’t have to.

I missed that. Are you saying that receiving from an EMHC is not licit or valid if they aren’t really needed i.e. if the priest just likes to have a lot of “extra” help around?

And do you mean “By receiving on the tongue from a priest or deacon, you don’t have to.”? I read that if you receive on the tongue from an EMHC, you don’t have to receive from someone who would not be touching the Blessed Sacrament if it were not necessary to do so.

Did I misunderstand your meaning?

 

[Zea_mays]

tongue from priest.
hand from emhc.

 

[Newbie2]

tongue from priest.
hand from emhc.

Why?

 

[revert_jen]

It seems to me that either the EMHC is not needed, in which case a EMHC isn’t kosher no matter which way you receive, or that the EMHC is needed, in which case you are only receiving from someone who would not be touching the Blessed Sacrament if it were not necessary to do so. By receiving on the tongue, you don’t have to.

I think what you are saying is that if the EMHC is needed, s/he needs to touch the Sacrament, but I don’t because I could receive on the tongue. So there is a difference between me receiving in the hand (unnecessary touching) and the EMHC presenting the Sacrament to me (necessary touching). Which would be a great argument except for a couple of things:

1. Frequently in the US, EMHCs are used when they aren’t necessary. Surely I can’t be the only one who has been at a daily Mass where it seems like half the congregation is serving as an EMHC? And parishes in the US have perhaps underestimated the amount of time it’s fair to ask people to wait for communion to be finished. The guidelines aren’t really all that clear (probably intentionally). But would it really kill anyone if they had to pray quietly for 10 minutes about the great gift they have just received instead of 5? These are just my opinions, so I haven’t ever tried to impose them on anyone else, but surely I’m allowed to let them affect my own behavior. It doesn’t mean that I think the EMHCs are not licit, more that I think it is unwise to use so many.
2. For me (as for the Church in former times) the point wasn’t necessary vs. unnecessary touching, it was touching by an ordained minister vs. touching by a lay person.

This is just IMHO, but is seems that the decision on which way to receive should depend on how you are disposed, not on your judgement of how worthy the minister is. As long as the minister is licit, judging that should be the furthest thing from your mind, don’t you think?

“It is a better symbol for me.” and “I agree, it seems basically pointless to me to receive on the tongue from an EMHC” were not intended to indicate that I am making a judgement of the worthines of the EMHC. I have never in my life tried to judge anything about the spiritual state of either an EMHC or an OMHC when approaching for or receiving the Sacrament. I am not a Donatist, and anyway I don’t generally have any personal knowledge of the EMHC whatsoever.

But in the same way that it is perfectly acceptable for someone to decide that they prefer to attend the Ordinary Form of the Mass, I should think it was acceptable for a person to decide that they preferred to receive the Eucharist from its Ordinary Minister. And likewise, it seems to me that in the same way that a woman might prefer to wear a head covering (which is not required) when attending the Extraordinary Form Mass, which she would feel was pointless to wear at the Ordinary Form, a person might receive on the tongue (which is not required) from an Ordinary Minister, which she would feel was pointless from an Extraordinary Minister.

I always assume that EMHCs are godly people who wish to serve the Church.

–Jen

 

[Sancto_Spiritu]

Even though the use of EMCs is outlandish - they’re used when you’ve got 5 people attending Mass these days, I will still kneel to receive Communion on the tongue from them. Jesus isn’t any less present in the Host just because I’m receiving Communion from a non-priest.

That said, I will always try to get into the priest’s line if I can.

Here is my hierarchy of desires

1. Find an EF Mass. If I can’t…
2. Go to an OF Mass.
3. Try to get in priest’s line for communion. If I can’t …
4. Kneel in front of a confused EMC.

 

[paperwight]

Even though the use of EMCs is outlandish - they’re used when you’ve got 5 people attending Mass these days, QUOTE

Really? Or is this a huge exaggeration, akin to an untruth?

QUOTE I will still kneel to receive Communion on the tongue from them. Jesus isn’t any less present in the Host just because I’m receiving Communion from a non-priest. QUOTE

Neither is He less present if you stand. Surely you will have been already kneeling to express adoration during and just after the consecration?

Why this wish to be dfferent from everyone else when receiving, that is, kneeling when all or most are standing?

 

[Sancto_Spiritu]

Even though the use of EMCs is outlandish - they’re used when you’ve got 5 people attending Mass these days, QUOTE

Huh? No, it’s not. I’ve been to extremely small Masses in which EMCs are used.

I will still kneel to receive Communion on the tongue from them. Jesus isn’t any less present in the Host just because I’m receiving Communion from a non-priest.

Neither is He less present if you stand. Surely you will have been already kneeling to express adoration during and just after the consecration?

Why this wish to be dfferent from everyone else when receiving, that is, kneeling when all or most are standing?

Um … that makes no sense. He’s also just as present if you throw the Host on the ground and step on it. You can be president of the the “I’m not going to show due reverence to Christ” club, but I’m going to keep kneeling for Communion as the Holy Father and the Vatican recommend.

 

[Zea_mays]

Why?

personal preference.

 

[Mel_Stones]

I may be really odd but I receive on the tongue except for when I serve as EMHC in which case I receive in the hand. Actually with my old pastor I always received on the tongue even when EMHC - (Why I don’t now is complicated and not related to this thread). Basically I receive on the tongue because I feel it is more reverent. When I am EMHC it isn’t an option but that doesn’t make receiving in the hand less reverent.

How big is your parish and how well do you know your fellow parishioners? I ask because I am part of a fairly small (well perhaps I am on the ‘inner circle’ because we aren’t that small) parish and know pretty much all the other EMHC. At this point they know I receive on the tongue and would think it odd if I did not when receiving from them. It isn’t that I care what my fellow parishioners think of me, it is that I am comfortable with the fact that we must have EMHC and I occasionally must receive from them.

If it were up to me I’d always receive from a priest, on the tongue, while kneeling. But I recognize a need in my parish (we often need to have EMHC ‘jump’ - fill in at last second when those scheduled don’t go up) and fulfill it to the best of my ability.

 

[BlyssfulDreamer]

Here is my hierarchy of desires

1. Find an EF Mass. If I can’t…
2. Go to an OF Mass.
3. Try to get in priest’s line for communion. If I can’t …
4. Kneel in front of a confused EMC.

 

[Timothysis]

…but is seems that the decision on which way to receive should depend on how you are disposed, not on your judgement of how worthy the minister is. As long as the minister is licit, judging that should be the furthest thing from your mind, don’t you think?

Amen.

 

[Feanor2]

Yes, these posts are helpful,

I will continue to attempt to receive from the priest and still receive on the tongue from an emhc and work on focusing on the Eucharist which is really that which is important.

 

[PJM]

=Feanor2 -Hello everyone,

Over the past month I have began to receive on the tongue and have enjoyed it. I have received on the tongue when in Europe traveling.

In any case I try to sit on the side of the church where the priest positions himself so that I can receive from him. But I know that I will often not be able to do this.

I think I would feel “funny” receiving this way from an EMHC for some reason. I guess I am thinking, “He/she is touching the host but I am not- why is that?”

I makes sense to me with the priest but seems odd to do this with a layman. What do others do. Do you feel funny- if not how do you explain this to yourself so that it makes sense.

BTW I don’t receive on the tongue because I believe it is more “right” or more “holy.” I just like it that way and I guess I appreciate that I am receiving in the same way as most of the world does.

Thanks for your replies

Receiving “on the tongue” remains the “Ordinary” [Normal] way to receive Chrsit in the Universal Catholic Church.

Might I respectfully suggest you sit further bach in Church and simply move to the line wehre Father, is fulfilling his priestly obligation.

Love and prayers,

 

[Newbie2]

personal preference.

Fair enough.

I just get a kick out of those who think the sacrament is somehow “more valid” or “more effective” when given from a priest or deacon. I’m guessing that there are a few out there that would rather receive from a priest than a deacon for the same reason.

 

[PJM]

=Newbie2;5671966]Fair enough.

I just get a kick out of those who think the sacrament is somehow “more valid” or “more effective” when given from a priest or deacon. I’m guessing that there are a few out there that would rather receive from a priest than a deacon for the same reason.

***Friend,

your lack of understanding gives screaming testimony of how the understanding of the Sacredness of the Ordained Priesthood has fallen into the trap of ordinarriness. How very sad!

This, I fear is a natural consequecne of Ordinary lay] Ministers of Christ Body and Blood. Further, it gives evidence of a lack of Proper understanding of who and what God are. Perhaps you might spend some time in the Old Testament? Reread Exodus for example.***

Love and prayers friend,

 

[Newbie2]

***Friend,

your lack of understanding gives screaming testimony of how the understanding of the Sacredness of the Ordained Priesthood has fallen into the trap of ordinarriness. How very sad!

This, I fear is a natural consequecne of Ordinary lay] Ministers of Christ Body and Blood. Further, it gives evidence of a lack of Proper understanding of who and what God are. Perhaps you might spend some time in the Old Testament? Reread Exodus for example.***

Love and prayers friend,

Not in the least. I would counter by saying that anyone who thinks that the sacrament is “more valid” or “increased in efficacy” depending on whether it is received by an EMHC or a priest or deacon “gives screaming testimony” on the understanding of the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

Where might I find in Exodus the differentiation of the reception of the Eucharist given by lay or clergy?