Question about receiving on the tongue

[Feanor2]

Gosh guys,

why argue? My OP was not meant to spur discord. I just have a preference to receive from a Priest if I can.

I know that EMHC can be overused- but in my crowded parish they probably aren’t. In any case the Sacrament is the same. Normally we aren’t the ones who decide if or how many EMHC’s are used- that’s just the reality now.

So much on CAF seems to turn into arguments or strongly worded disagreements.
Why not just “chill” and receive how you want from who you want?

In any case I have received help from this thread so thanks!

 

[Newbie2]

Gosh guys,

why argue? My OP was not meant to spur discord. I just have a preference to receive from a Priest if I can.

I know that EMHC can be overused- but in my crowded parish they probably aren’t. In any case the Sacrament is the same. Normally we aren’t the ones who decide if or how many EMHC’s are used- that’s just the reality now.

So much on CAF seems to turn into arguments or strongly worded disagreements.
Why not just “chill” and receive how you want from who you want?

In any case I have received help from this thread so thanks!

Well, argue, discuss, tomato, tomahto

I think it’s theologically relevant if someone thinks that the validity or effectiveness of the sacrament is dependant on who is administering it, and as such, it’s important to address it. If it’s merely a matter of preference and not a misunderstanding about the Sacrament, it doesn’t matter, and we’ll chill.

 

[Feanor2]

Well, argue, discuss, tomato, tomahto

I think it’s theologically relevant if someone thinks that the validity or effectiveness of the sacrament is dependant on who is administering it, and as such, it’s important to address it. If it’s merely a matter of preference and not a misunderstanding about the Sacrament, it doesn’t matter, and we’ll chill.

I guess I could see how theologically receiving from the Priest may be sort of a more “perfect” manifestation of the role of the priesthood and it’s intimacy with the Eucharist.

Maybe how the Church says that offering the Body and the Blood is a more complete theological expression than only the host- but both are %100 appropriate and complete.

 

[Sancto_Spiritu]

I guess I could see how theologically receiving from the Priest may be sort of a more “perfect” manifestation of the role of the priesthood and it’s intimacy with the Eucharist.

Maybe how the Church says that offering the Body and the Blood is a more complete theological expression than only the host- but both are %100 appropriate and complete.

Whoa whoa whoa!

Each distinct species- the Body of Christ and the Blood of Christ- contain and are the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ.

Only receiving the Host is perfect, as is only receiving the Blood. There is nothing “better” or “more complete” about receiving both.

 

[Feanor2]

Whoa whoa whoa!

Each distinct species- the Body of Christ and the Blood of Christ- contain and are the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ.

Only receiving the Host is perfect, as is only receiving the Blood. There is nothing “better” or “more complete” about receiving both.

The Church has said it is a more fitting expression as Christ offered both. Of course both are complete in and of themselves, and of course it’s not required- just as receiving from a priest is not required and receiving from an EMHC is perfectly fine. .

I don’t look things up though so I can’t provide a source. It shouldn’t be hard to find though. It may be in the VII documents or in the rubrics, but it’s not a priest’s opinion or anything. Sorry but I dont get that serious about posting. I’m assure you, I’m not making it up though.

 

[PJM]

=Newbie2;5672428]

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?

***You will not, and that was not the point. the point is to try to get a better understanding of the Majesty, the simple Awesomeness of God. But while your there you may wish to think about Chapter 16: verses 7-10

By the way, to whom was Christ speaking when He instituted the Eucharist and mandated “do this in memory of Me?”***

Love and prayers friend,

 

[Sancto_Spiritu]

The Church has said it is a more fitting expression as Christ offered both. O course both are complete in and of themselves, and of course it’s not required- just as receiving from a priest is not required and receiving from an EMHC is perfectly fine. .

I don’t look things up though so I can’t provide a source. It shouldn’t be hard to find though. It maybe in the VII documents or in the rubrics, but it’s not a priest’s opinion or anything.

You don’t look things up? That’s silly. Wouldn’t you want to gain a deeper knowledge of the subject at had? I mean, I’m not trying to be snarky, but frankly “I heard it somewhere” isn’t really convincing. You may be correct in your post, but I certainly wouldn’t feel comfortable espousing a belief whose truthfulness I didn’t know absolutely.

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by Feanor2
The Church has said it is a more fitting expression as Christ offered both. O course both are complete in and of themselves, and of course it’s not required- just as receiving from a priest is not required and receiving from an EMHC is perfectly fine.

***Friend allow me to clarify your position.

We aew speaking of Jesus Christ, the Son of God responsible for our Creation right:shrug:***

And we speaking here not of a sign, a mere symbol, BUT the Very Real Presence of God: Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity!

And you, on waht basis, what Theological ground hold that there is “no difference” in you and “Ordinary” Minister of Christ and the Priest, who has been called and annointed by God Himself.

Dear God help us! No wonder we can’t get more Priest:blush:

Please don’t bother responding, I’m signing off this string.

Love and prayers,

 

[Feanor2]

You don’t look things up? That’s silly. Wouldn’t you want to gain a deeper knowledge of the subject at had? I mean, I’m not trying to be snarky, but frankly “I heard it somewhere” isn’t really convincing. You may be correct in your post, but I certainly wouldn’t feel comfortable espousing a belief whose truthfulness I didn’t know absolutely.

I heard it on BCTV but the priest was reading an official church document or rubric. Sorry I can’t remember the book that outlines the mass- maybe the Sacramentary or something.

My memory is good- I may be lazy but on this and other forums I do post that “I heard this” or “I remember reading”- I’m not in the busicess of decieving anyone that’s just how far I take my internet posting.

I have done my share of reading VII documents, the Catechism, and even the Code of Cannon Law. I used to want to be a priest and that was my “hobby” sort of. I guess church stuff still is in a way. I don’t mean spirituality- only the nuts and bolts stuff.

No- I don’t think your snarky.

God Bless- I swear- it’s out there- OH GOSH- MAYBE I’LL LOOK IT UP!!!. . .

 

[Feanor2]

***Friend allow me to clarify your position.

We aew speaking of Jesus Christ, the Son of God responsible for our Creation right:shrug:***

And we speaking here not of a sign, a mere symbol, BUT the Very Real Presence of God: Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity!

And you, on waht basis, what Theological ground hold that there is “no difference” in you and “Ordinary” Minister of Christ and the Priest, who has been called and annointed by God Himself.

Dear God help us! No wonder we can’t get more Priest:blush:

Please don’t bother responding, I’m signing off this string.

Love and prayers,

Umm. . . ok. . .

 

[Feanor2]

OK OK.

THat wasn’t so bad. I hope this links right. I am not always so great with this sort of thing. I tried to just cut and paste the precise citation but. . . ALAS!

archmil.org/resources/userfiles/Questions%20on%20Reception%20Under%20Both%20Species.pdf

Tell me if that worked. I think it ooks pretty clear.

Again- I know the Body and the Blood both contain the “body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ.”

And I understand that offering the host is entirely acceptable.

 

[Newbie2]

***Friend allow me to clarify your position.

We aew speaking of Jesus Christ, the Son of God responsible for our Creation right:shrug:***

And we speaking here not of a sign, a mere symbol, BUT the Very Real Presence of God: Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity!

And you, on waht basis, what Theological ground hold that there is “no difference” in you and “Ordinary” Minister of Christ and the Priest, who has been called and annointed by God Himself.

Dear God help us! No wonder we can’t get more Priest:blush:

Please don’t bother responding, I’m signing off this string.

Love and prayers,

Now if someone says that they prefer to receive from a priest, only if for personal preference, that’s theologically sound.

And if someone says that there is a distinct difference between the laity and clerics in their respective roles, that too in general is theologically sound.

And if someone says that EMHCs are in general “overused”, depending on the particular parish and circumstances, they’re probably on pretty sound theological ground for suggesting such.

But there is no theological basis on which to suggest that receiving the Eucharist from a regular minister of Holy Communion i.e. Priest or Deacon or from an Extrodinary Minister of Holy Communion is any different in it’s sacramental character or efficacy.

 

[EasterJoy]

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.

“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

I can see your point, too. Besides, when personal preference is allowed, personal preference doesn’t need any apology. No one really needs to have a particular reason to do one or the other. You could decide it seems more right to receive on the tongue when the vestments are gold or white and in the hand when they’re red or green, or that you feel more right recieving on the tongue when there is organ music or chant and receive in the hand when guitar music is what is provided, and nobody could really argue with your reasoning, provided it does not lack charity. One would hope you pick the one that you find the most edifying, but as long as you are properly disposed in whatever way you do receive, it is up to you.