Quick help needed - proving it's okay to receive on the tongue

[Elzee]

Tomorrow in RCIA the topic is receiving the Eucharist. Based on past experience, our RCIA Director will more than likely tell our candidates/catechumens that “since Vatican II receiving in the hand is the preferred method. Receiving on the tongue is strongly discouraged.”

I know this isn’t true, but would like to be able to tactfully bring the issue up for discussion to let our candidates/catechumens know they really do have a choice, and I would like to be able to back it up with some ‘official’ documentation and even some stats on if it’s the norm to receive on the tongue in most places other than the U.S. (I’ve heard this said, but never have seen anything official).

Can anyone help me on what to say and what I can cite to back it up? Thank you!

 

[BobP123]

Tomorrow in RCIA the topic is receiving the Eucharist. Based on past experience, our RCIA Director will more than likely tell our candidates/catechumens that “since Vatican II receiving in the hand is the preferred method. Receiving on the tongue is strongly discouraged.”

I know this isn’t true, but would like to be able to tactfully bring the issue up for discussion to let our candidates/catechumens know they really do have a choice, and I would like to be able to back it up with some ‘official’ documentation and even some stats on if it’s the norm to receive on the tongue in most places other than the U.S. (I’ve heard this said, but never have seen anything official).

Can anyone help me on what to say and what I can cite to back it up? Thank you!

Nothing will prove to these liberals anything. They have their own set of values and always will find someone on their side in Rome or France they can quote to show what’s “preferred” to suit their agenda.

 

[Brendan]

Cardinal Arinze’s letter to the US Bishops

Sometimes, however, the high number of communicants may render it inadvisable for everyone to drink from the
chalice (cf. Redemptionis Sacramentum, no. 102). intinction with reception on the tongue always and everywhere
remains a legitimate option, by virtue of the general liturgical law of the Roman Rite

usccb.org/liturgy/innews/October2006.pdf

And the US Bishop’s Norms on the Distrubution of Holy Communion

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

usccb.org/liturgy/current/norms.shtml

 

[Swiss_Guard]

Reception of Holy Communion on the tongue is the norm in the United States according to the 2003 GIRM.

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. (emphasis mine)
   usccb.org/liturgy/current/chapter4.shtml

I would print this out and bring it to RCIA tomorrow. This is tangible proof that not only is reception of Holy Communion on the tongue allowed, it is the norm for the United States.

Nobody is forced to receive Holy Communion in the hand. Notice it doesn’t say “where it is allowed” with regards to receiving on the tongue. It only says “where it is allowed” with regards to receiving in the hand.

I would be suspicous of an RCIA program that is telling catachumens and candidates an outright lie.

 

[Swiss_Guard]

Nothing will prove to these liberals anything. They have their own set of values and always will find someone on their side in Rome or France they can quote to show what’s “preferred” to suit their agenda.

This is why I linked the 2003 GIRM from the USCCB. Modernists can’t use the tired old line that Rome is “out of touch” with America. They can’t say the American Church “strongly discourages” receiving on the tongue.

You’re right, they have their own agenda. As I said in my last post, I’d be very suspicious of an RCIA program, or even an instructor, who is telling me an outright lie.

 

[Swiss_Guard]

Here’s what the GIRM says about kneeling to receive Holy Communion:

1. The priest then takes the paten or ciborium and goes to the communicants, who, as a rule, approach in a procession.

The faithful are not permitted to take the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them from one to another. The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm. (emphasis mine)

Nobody can be denied Holy Communion because they kneel to receive the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

I like the line about “proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm” with regards to receiving Holy Communion standing. What catechesis exists that tells us to be less reverent when receiving Our Lord in Holy Communion?

 

[teachccd]

Did they receive Christ’s Body and Blood on the tongue at the last supper? How about when the early Christains broke bread in their homes?? In the letter of James he notes in the third chapter how the tongue can defile the whole body. ( James 3:6)

Just like in the Sacrament of Reconciliation, where we have the choice of “face to face” or “behind the screen”, we have the choice of receiving the Eucharist on the tongue or in the hand.

Our Blessed Mother held the “Bread of Life” in her hands before and after He died. She was His first and best disciple. God Bless

 

[teachccd]

I was flip flopped on the OP’s question in my last response. Anyway, both the tongue and hand are acceptable ways to receive the Eucharist. I’m pre-vatican 2 with the altar rails and all. I would have to mention that reception on the tongue eliminates many of the problems that we see with those receiving in the hand; not immediately consuming, dropping the Host, particles remaining on the hand, etc.

Anyhoot, sorry about that but I was merely exhibiting the pros for both acceptable modes of receiving our Lord. God Bless

 

[Elzee]

Thank you all so much!

 

[teachccd]

Thank you all so much!

Good luck tomorrow. As religious educators we have a tremendous responsibility to pass on the faith correctly. A lack of proper catechesis is evidenced in some of our directors and coordinators and that is dangerous. People view us as “authoritative” in our roles and take our information and guidance to heart. Everyone is human and open to error. However we need to minimize this in every way possible. Anyway I can’t change much about this here. God Bless you and fight the good fight…

 

[Swiss_Guard]

Did they receive Christ’s Body and Blood on the tongue at the last supper?

The Apostles were the first bishops of the Church. This reason for Holy Communion in the hand blurs the distinction between the sacramental priesthood and the priesthood of the faithful.

How about when the early Christains broke bread in their homes?? In the letter of James he notes in the third chapter how the tongue can defile the whole body. ( James 3:6)

St. James wasn’t talking about Holy Communion. He was talking about how what we say can defile the whole body. You took this out of context to prove your point. It’s very disingenuous of you.

Just like in the Sacrament of Reconciliation, where we have the choice of “face to face” or “behind the screen”, we have the choice of receiving the Eucharist on the tongue or in the hand.

Our Blessed Mother held the “Bread of Life” in her hands before and after He died. She was His first and best disciple. God Bless

Our Blessed Mother is also immaculate. Are you saying you’re without sin too?

Your arguments for Holy Communion in the hand are very weak. You distort Sacred Scripture and use the Apostles, the first bishops, and the Blessed Mother, who was conceived without sin, to defend a practice that was stopped in the early Church and only brought back 30 years ago.

Do you know that every particle of the host contains the entire body, blood, soul, and divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ? Do you know that if you wipe your hands without removing all the particles you have just wiped off our Lord on a piece of clothing? Where is the reverence in that?

Receiving Holy Communion in the hand is allowed, but is it a good practice? We have a majority of Catholics who no longer believe in the Real Presence. Anyone telling me it has nothing to do with allowing Holy Communion in the hand will have to explain why this happened after receiving in the hand was allowed.

Coincidence? I don’t think so.

BTW, this is my 400th post!

 

[kangnamdragon]

Tomorrow in RCIA the topic is receiving the Eucharist. Based on past experience, our RCIA Director will more than likely tell our candidates/catechumens that “since Vatican II receiving in the hand is the preferred method. Receiving on the tongue is strongly discouraged.”

I know this isn’t true, but would like to be able to tactfully bring the issue up for discussion to let our candidates/catechumens know they really do have a choice, and I would like to be able to back it up with some ‘official’ documentation and even some stats on if it’s the norm to receive on the tongue in most places other than the U.S. (I’ve heard this said, but never have seen anything official).

Can anyone help me on what to say and what I can cite to back it up? Thank you!

Someone like that should not be teaching RCIA.

 

[Swiss_Guard]

Thank you all so much!

Good luck tomorrow and don’t let them bully you. You have the facts. All they have is an agenda to make the Catholic Church in their own image and likeness.

Please let us know how things turn out. I’ll be praying for you!

 

[BobP123]

Did they receive Christ’s Body and Blood on the tongue at the last supper? How about when the early Christains broke bread in their homes?? In the letter of James he notes in the third chapter how the tongue can defile the whole body. ( James 3:6)

Just like in the Sacrament of Reconciliation, where we have the choice of “face to face” or “behind the screen”, we have the choice of receiving the Eucharist on the tongue or in the hand.

Our Blessed Mother held the “Bread of Life” in her hands before and after He died. She was His first and best disciple. God Bless

Christ’s Apostles were our first bishops/priests, and as such, their consumption of the flesh and blood of the sacrificed operates under a different context than the congregation’s. (Orare fratres makes a distinction between the priest’s sacrifice and ours.)

On our end, if we truly believe we receive the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, then I think we should do it in a much more appreciative and humble gesture, don’t you? I fail to see how taking the Host from a Eucharistic minister and just chewing it as we walk out of the Church shows the utmost respect for what we actually receive.

 

[BobP123]

The Apostles were the first bishops of the Church. This reason for Holy Communion in the hand blurs the distinction between the sacramental priesthood and the priesthood of the faithful.

St. James wasn’t talking about Holy Communion. He was talking about how what we say can defile the whole body. You took this out of context to prove your point. It’s very disingenuous of you.

Our Blessed Mother is also immaculate. Are you saying you’re without sin too?

Your arguments for Holy Communion in the hand are very weak. You distort Sacred Scripture and use the Apostles, the first bishops, and the Blessed Mother, who was conceived without sin, to defend a practice that was stopped in the early Church and only brought back 30 years ago.

Do you know that every particle of the host contains the entire body, blood, soul, and divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ? Do you know that if you wipe your hands without removing all the particles you have just wiped off our Lord on a piece of clothing? Where is the reverence in that?

Receiving Holy Communion in the hand is allowed, but is it a good practice? We have a majority of Catholics who no longer believe in the Real Presence. Anyone telling me it has nothing to do with allowing Holy Communion in the hand will have to explain why this happened after receiving in the hand was allowed.

Coincidence? I don’t think so.

BTW, this is my 400th post!

You said it better than I said it. Congrats on #400.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Christ’s Apostles were our first bishops/priests, and as such, their consumption of the flesh and blood of the sacrificed operates under a different context than the congregation’s. (Orare fratres makes a distinction between the priest’s sacrifice and ours.)

quote]

It was, nonetheless, the practice of those apostle/bishops/priests in Apostolic/Patristic times to give the Blessed Sacrament into the people’s hands. The practice has historical antecedents and the Church allows for both, WHERE she allows it (though I personally receive on the tongue).

To the OP: Don’t let your RCIA director run rough-shod over her students. Be polite, but be firm. Call your priest in, if you have to do so. I sponsored a candidate in a program in New Mexico where there was a lot of “‘splainin’” to do to one’s candidate after the sessions. The lady in charge was a Native American lady who was bent on a lot of inculturation. She attempted to make us engage in a devotional that included praying to the “Four Sacred Directions.” I flatly refused, it was brought to the attention of the pastor, who was also the vicar general, and she had to drop the idea. She described me to my candidate as being the “typical white male Catholic with a pre-Vatican II mindset!”

They can’t get away with it if you’re firm (but polite) because in the end, it simply isn’t factually right.

 

[teachccd]

The Apostles were the first bishops of the Church. This reason for Holy Communion in the hand blurs the distinction between the sacramental priesthood and the priesthood of the faithful.

St. James wasn’t talking about Holy Communion. He was talking about how what we say can defile the whole body. You took this out of context to prove your point. It’s very disingenuous of you.

Our Blessed Mother is also immaculate. Are you saying you’re without sin too?

Your arguments for Holy Communion in the hand are very weak. You distort Sacred Scripture and use the Apostles, the first bishops, and the Blessed Mother, who was conceived without sin, to defend a practice that was stopped in the early Church and only brought back 30 years ago.

Do you know that every particle of the host contains the entire body, blood, soul, and divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ? Do you know that if you wipe your hands without removing all the particles you have just wiped off our Lord on a piece of clothing? Where is the reverence in that?

Receiving Holy Communion in the hand is allowed, but is it a good practice? We have a majority of Catholics who no longer believe in the Real Presence. Anyone telling me it has nothing to do with allowing Holy Communion in the hand will have to explain why this happened after receiving in the hand was allowed.

Coincidence? I don’t think so.

BTW, this is my 400th post!

This is my 408th post. Got you beat!!

So Joseph never held the baby Jesus?? And all those in the homes where they broke bread in the first century were bishops??

You also didn’t comment on my following post where I describe in detail the problems with receiving in the hand. You are distorted , my friend, to be so angered at what the Church teaches as being acceptable. Do you not know that the Church is the incarnate Christ left with His authority on earth??

I never said that James was speaking on communion. This was just an observation concerning the parts of our bodies.I have no arguments for communion in the hand as many times I receive on the tongue. I truly acknowledge the Real Presence and the reverence due to our Lord present body, blood, soul and divinity.

Count to ten. Take a deep breath and lose some of that anger. You’re preaching to the choir…God Bless

 

[Swiss_Guard]

This is my 408th post. Got you beat!!

So Joseph never held the baby Jesus?? And all those in the homes where they broke bread in the first century were bishops??

You only mentioned the Blessed Mother. Do you know the difference between Christ’s physical presence on earth and his scaramental presence in the Eucharist?

You also didn’t comment on my following post where I describe in detail the problems with receiving in the hand. You are distorted , my friend, to be so angered at what the Church teaches as being acceptable. Do you not know that the Church is the incarnate Christ left with His authority on earth??

I didn’t know the Church is the incarnate Christ. Pope Benedict XVI doesn’t know this either. The Church is the mystical body of Christ.

I know Christ left his authority with the Church. I never said that receiving Holy Communion in the hand isn’t allowed. I said the opposite. What I said was I question allowing this practice to continue.

I never said that James was speaking on communion. This was just an observation concerning the parts of our bodies.I have no arguments for communion in the hand as many times I receive on the tongue. I truly acknowledge the Real Presence and the reverence due to our Lord present body, blood, soul and divinity.

The way you used the passage in St. James chapter 3 inferred that you were speaking about reception of Holy Communion, since it is the topic at hand (no pun intended )

Count to ten. Take a deep breath and lose some of that anger. You’re preaching to the choir…God Bless

I wasn’t angry at all. I may have been mildly upset, but I wasn’t angry.

I also realize after reading your next post that you aren’t someone who advocates Holy Communion in the hand. I apologize for my error.

God bless.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I also realize after reading your next post that you aren’t someone who advocates Holy Communion in the hand. I apologize for my error.

God bless.

Let us all pray that we become as gracious as you have, Swiss Guard…as we age (Happy B-day, incidentally)!

 

[Elzee]

Good luck tomorrow. As religious educators we have a tremendous responsibility to pass on the faith correctly. A lack of proper catechesis is evidenced in some of our directors and coordinators and that is dangerous. People view us as “authoritative” in our roles and take our information and guidance to heart. Everyone is human and open to error. However we need to minimize this in every way possible. Anyway I can’t change much about this here. God Bless you and fight the good fight…

*From Swiss Guard (sorry - i dont’ know how to do multiple quotes!) Good luck tomorrow and don’t let them bully you. You have the facts. All they have is an agenda to make the Catholic Church in their own image and likeness. Please let us know how things turn out. I’ll be praying for you!
*
Thank you. I’ll let you know how it goes. If you’ve read some of my other posts about RCIA you’ll realize some of the many problems with our program. I have been picking my battles so to speak all year, making sure I research the topic of the week well so if I decide to comment, I’ll have my facts. The most ‘volatile’ discussion was when our priest told everyone that no religion has a monopoly on the truth and we all need to compromise our beliefs in the spirit of ecumenism. Even though it was a priest, I just had to comment. I think I did it in a respectful way, and luckily, I had the Vatican II documents on ecumenism with me to quote from. I have never been more nervous in my life.

I’m going to pray hard on this tonight because I know this is a very touchy topic with our RCIA Director for some reason.

Please keep me in your prayers tonight and tomorrow morning that I will have the right words and know the right time to speak them.