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

[JKirkLVNV]

Find and bring a bunch of pictures of Catholics receiving on the tongue- in the U.S., and in other countries. I believe in some parts of Mexico (and maybe Poland as well- I’m not sure) it is considered sacrilige to receive the Eucharist in the hand.

In January, the Holy Father extended the indult for reception in the hand to Poland.

 

[m134e5]

In January, the Holy Father extended the indult for reception in the hand to Poland.

I’m not sure why. I still do not think it should be done- indult or not. That’s just me. I have yet to find a good argument in favor of allowing anyone to receive the Sacrament in the hand.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I’m not sure why. I still do not think it should be done- indult or not. That’s just me. I have yet to find a good argument in favor of allowing anyone to receive the Sacrament in the hand.

But the point is, it isn’t sacrilege. It enjoys same disciplinary infallibility that any discipline imposed or permitted by the Church enjoys. That doesn’t mean that people cannot DO something impious within that context. But the Host was secreted away for nefarious purposes before the indult for Communion in the hand was renewed (it is an ancient practice).

 

[Leeta]

There has been a development in our understanding of Christ’s bodily presence in the Holy Eucharist since the first century. Sure they received in the hand, so what? They had not thought through what His bodily and Real Presense mean, that in every particle He is present. So realizing this the Church mandated and still does as the norm, that Holy communion be received on the tongue.
The understanding and belief in His Real Presence has declined in the last 40 years, so that is why many feel that they must receive in the hand, since to most of them the Eucharist is merely a symbol. So what if He falls into the carpet and is trampled on! He understands us and is our brother, so He doesn’t mind being trampled by us. And He is God so we can’t really hurt Him!

They also did not go to Confession but once in a lifetime at one time in the early centuries, so what! The practice of frequent confession has been shown to help people grow in holiness and avoid serious sin. Archaeologism was condemned by a recent Pope, I believe Pius XII. This appealing to the practice of the early Church can only go so far. We can’t go back in our understanding of truth without great detriment ot souls.
Also, read Michael Davies, A Priviledge of the Ordained, for more references about Communion on the tongue.

 

[Uxor]

But the point is, it isn’t sacrilege. It enjoys same disciplinary infallibility that any discipline imposed or permitted by the Church enjoys. That doesn’t mean that people cannot DO something impious within that context. But the Host was secreted away for nefarious purposes before the indult for Communion in the hand was renewed (it is an ancient practice).

What happen to the discipline infallibility of banning Communion in the Hand before Vatican II? Was the Church in error before Vatican II?

 

[bear06]

What happen to the discipline infallibility of banning Communion in the Hand before Vatican II? Was the Church in error before Vatican II?

This is just silly. Of course the Church wasn’t in error. Are you saying it was in error when they allowed Communion in the hand in the early Church? No and the Church has not said it was. Have you heard of the mutability of disciplines?

newadvent.org/cathen/05030a.htm

IV. MUTABILITY OF DISCIPLINE
That ecclesiastical discipline should be subject to change is natural since it was made for men and by men. To claim that it is immutable would render the attainment of its end utterly impossible, since, in order to form and direct Christians, it must adapt itself to the variable circumstances of time and place, conditions of life, customs of peoples and races, being, in a certain sense, like St. Paul, all things to all men. Nevertheless, neither the actual changes nor the possibility of further alteration must be exaggerated. There is no change in those disciplinary measures through which the Church sets before the faithful and confirms the natural and the Divine law, nor in those strictly disciplinary regulations that are closely related to the natural or Divine law. Other disciplinary rules may and must be modified in proportion as they seem less efficacious for the social or individual welfare. Thomassin aptly says [Vetus et nova Ecclesiæ disciplina (ed. Lyons, 1706), preface, n. xvii]: “Whoever has the least idea of ecclesiastical laws, those that concern government as well as those that regulate morals, knows well that they are of two kinds. Some represent immutable rules of eternal truth, itself the fundamental law, the source and origin of these laws from the observance of which there is no dispensation, against which no prescription obtains, and which are not modified either by diversity of custom or vicissitudes of time. Other ecclesiastical rules and customs are by nature temporary, indifferent in themselves, more or less authoritative, useful, or necessary according to circumstances of time and place, having been established only to facilitate the observance of the fundamental and eternal law.” As to the variations of discipline concerning these secondary laws the same author describes them in these terms (loc. cit., n. xv): “While the Faith of the Church remains the same in all ages, it is not so with her discipline. This changes with time, grows old with the years, is rejuvenated, is subject to growth and decay. Though in its early days admirably vigorous, with time defects crept in. Later it overcame these defects and although along some lines its usefulness increased, in other ways its first splendour waned. That in its old age it languishes is evident from the leniency and indulgence which now seem absolutely necessary. However, all things fairly considered, it will appear that old age and youth have each their defects and good qualities.” Were it necessary to exemplify the mutability of ecclesiastical discipline it would be perplexing indeed to make a choice. The ancient catechumenate exists only in a few rites; the Latin Church no longer gives Communion to the laity under two kinds; the discipline relating to penance and indulgences has undergone a profound evolution; matrimonial law is still subject to modifications; fasting is not what it formerly was; the use of censures in penal law is but the shadow of what it was in the Middle Ages. Many other examples will easily occur to the mind of the well-informed reader.

While you’re reading this, I suggest reading the part of the article directly above on Disciplinary Power of the Church too and Disciplinary Infallibility is great too. Heck, the whole article is worth a read.

 

[Uxor]

This is just silly. Of course the Church wasn’t in error. Are you saying it was in error when they allowed Communion in the hand in the early Church? No and the Church has not said it was. Have you heard of the mutability of disciplines?

newadvent.org/cathen/05030a.htm

While you’re reading this, I suggest reading the part of the article directly above on Disciplinary Power of the Church too and Disciplinary Infallibility is great too. Heck, the whole article is worth a read.

I’ll read it…but I don’t think infallibility should be used to defend actions that bring harm to Christ…

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I’ll read it…but I don’t think infallibility should be used to defend actions that bring harm to Christ…

But it is only your subjective opinion that it brings harm to Christ. The Church, allowing the discipline, must feel differently.

 

[Uxor]

But it is only your subjective opinion that it brings harm to Christ. The Church, allowing the discipline, must feel differently.

Father Rutler of EWTN asked Mother Teresa of Calcutta what was the worst problem in the world today. She didn’t say famine, plague, disease, breakdown of the family, rebellion against God, world debt, nuclear threat etc, none of those. She said…

“Whereever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.”

I feel in good company with Mother Teresa.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Father Rutler of EWTN asked Mother Teresa of Calcutta what was the worst problem in the world today. She didn’t say famine, plague, disease, breakdown of the family, rebellion against God, world debt, nuclear threat etc, none of those. She said…

“Whereever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.”

I feel in good company with Mother Teresa.

Blessed Mother Teresa is a beatii and I pray that I live to see the day that she will elevated to the honors of the altar (really, Uxor, I rejoice that you are not one of those “traditionalists” who believe that Mother Teresa was a heretic for “espousing” universal salvation and natural family planning. Does my heart good!). She was not, however, a part of the magisterium of the Church, the ruling authority, whose disciplinary judgements enjoy at least negative infallibility. That was her prudential judgement. I, in MY prudential judgement, receive Holy Communion on the tongue. So we can both feel in “good company.” I think, however, that where the Church has granted a liberty, it would be better for us not to attempt to constrain the consciences of the faithful who exercise that liberty.

Here, again, is a very good read on the topic:

matt1618.freeyellow.com/communion.html

 

[Uxor]

Father Rutler of EWTN asked Mother Teresa of Calcutta what was the worst problem in the world today. She didn’t say famine, plague, disease, breakdown of the family, rebellion against God, world debt, nuclear threat etc, none of those. She said…

“Whereever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.”

I feel in good company with Mother Teresa.

Since we are talking about the Holy Eucharist. I’ve been threatened here by having my priviledges revoke because of two videos I posted because they didn’t fit within the guideline… The last video was clearly sacriledgious. I don’t want to belong to a supposive Catholic Forum that silences abuses, sacriledges, attacks the messenger and not the message and protects heretics. slán I asked before is this place runned by Cardinal Mahoney???

 

[Aramis]

Here’s a cut/paste from the USCCB document:

The first paragraph seems to imply on the priest can distribute via intinction, the second seems to possibly imply EMHC’s can also do this.
Does anyone know for sure?
Also, can a Bishop forbid intinction in his diocese?

Thank you!

From my EEM training, no, only clerics can intinct. Since clerics are, by definition, the ordained, that means Deacons, Priests, and Bishops only… the ordinary ministers of the Eucharist.

Looking at USCCB.org

The Liturgy of the Eucharist

1. If no deacon is present, after the Prayer of the Faithful is concluded and while the priest remains at the chair, the acolyte places the corporal, the purificator, the chalice, the pall, and the Missal on the altar. Then, if necessary, the acolyte assists the priest in receiving the gifts of the people and, if appropriate, brings the bread and wine to the altar and hands them to the priest. If incense is used, the acolyte presents the thurible to the priest and assists him while he incenses the gifts, the cross, and the altar. Then the acolyte incenses the priest and the people.

1. A duly instituted acolyte, as an extraordinary minister, may, if necessary, assist the priest in giving Communion to the people.100 If Communion is given under both kinds, when no deacon is present, the acolyte administers the chalice to the communicants or holds the chalice if Communion is given by intinction.

1. Likewise, when the distribution of Communion is completed, a duly instituted acolyte helps the priest or deacon to purify and arrange the sacred vessels. When no deacon is present, a duly instituted acolyte carries the sacred vessels to the credence table and there purifies, wipes, and arranges them in the usual way.

1. After the celebration of Mass, the acolyte and other ministers return in procession to the sacristy, together with the deacon and the priest in the same way and order in which they entered.

and

1. When Communion is distributed under both kinds,

1. The chalice is usually administered by a deacon or, when no deacon is present, by a priest, or even by a duly instituted acolyte or another extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, or by a member of the faithful who in case of necessity has been entrusted with this duty for a single occasion;
2. Whatever may remain of the Blood of Christ is consumed at the altar by the priest or the deacon or the duly instituted acolyte who ministered the chalice. The same then purifies, wipes, and arranges the sacred vessels in the usual way.

Any of the faithful who wish to receive Holy Communion under the species of bread alone should be granted their wish.

1. For Communion under both kinds the following should be prepared:

1. If Communion from the chalice is carried out by communicants’ drinking directly from the chalice, a chalice of a sufficiently large size or several chalices are prepared. Care should, however, be taken in planning lest beyond what is needed of the Blood of Christ remains to be consumed at the end of the celebration.
2. If Communion is carried out by intinction, the hosts should be neither too thin nor too small, but rather a little thicker than usual, so that after being dipped partly into the Blood of Christ they can still easily be distributed to each communicant.

1. If Communion of the Blood of Christ is carried out by communicants’ drinking from the chalice, each communicant, after receiving the Body of Christ, moves and stands facing the minister of the chalice. The minister says, Sanguis Christi (The Blood of Christ), the communicant responds, Amen, and the minister hands over the chalice, which the communicant raises to his or her mouth. Each communicant drinks a little from the chalice, hands it back to the minister, and then withdraws; the minister wipes the rim of the chalice with the purificator.

1. If Communion from the chalice is carried out by intinction, each communicant, holding a communion-plate under the chin, approaches the priest, who holds a vessel with the sacred particles, a minister standing at his side and holding the chalice. The priest takes a host, dips it partly into the chalice and, showing it, says, Corpus et Sanguis Christi (The Body and Blood of Christ). The communicant responds, Amen, receives the Sacrament in the mouth from the priest, and then withdraws.

usccb.org/liturgy/current/chapter4.shtml

 

[JKirkLVNV]

[Edited by Moderator]

Communion in the hand is not an abuse, as it is permitted by the legitimate authority of the Holy See. It’s not even a delict, it’s a legitimate discipline enjoying disciplinary infallibility. I VERY much doubt the CA forums could be remotely described as “silencing abuses, sacrileges” (again, neither of which applies to Communion in the hand, permitted by the Holy See and enjoying disciplinary infallibility) or “protecting” heretics. As for attacking the messanger, if you’re talking about my post, I didn’t even attack the message (you’ll recall, I rec. on the tongue) let alone the messenger. But if you have a problem, you can always hit the little triangle above each post and report it.

 

[Aramis]

[Edited by Moderator]

Communion in the hand is not an abuse, as it is permitted by the legitimate authority of the Holy See. It’s not even a delict, it’s a legitimate discipline enjoying disciplinary infallibility. I VERY much doubt the CA forums could be remotely described as “silencing abuses, sacrileges” (again, neither of which applies to Communion in the hand, permitted by the Holy See and enjoying disciplinary infallibility) or “protecting” heretics. As for attacking the messanger, if you’re talking about my post, I didn’t even attack the message (you’ll recall, I rec. on the tongue) let alone the messenger. But if you have a problem, you can always hit the little triangle above each post and report it.

Nor is it the default, church-wide.

It is permitted, but reception to the tongue is the normative, and if desired, must be given.

Further, if intinction is used, it is mandatory to receive on the tongue.

Sunday, of the about 100 people two whom I, through the grace of God, and the permission of the Pastor, was permitted to Distribute Communion to, only 2 chose to recieve to the tongue.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Nor is it the default, church-wide.

It is permitted, but reception to the tongue is the normative, and if desired, must be given.

Further, if intinction is used, it is mandatory to receive on the tongue.

Sunday, of the about 100 people two whom I, through the grace of God, and the permission of the Pastor, was permitted to Distribute Communion to, only 2 chose to recieve to the tongue.

Absolutely. If you read back through the post, I supported the OP’s complaint about the RCIA director who was trying to run communion in the hand rough-shod over people, and again, I receive on the tongue. I just REALLY have a problem with people attempting to constrain the consciences of the faithful where the Church has given a certain liberty of conscience, not to mention calling what the Church permits an abuse (by definition, it cannot be an abuse if it is permitted).

 

[bear06]

I’ll read it…but I don’t think infallibility should be used to defend actions that bring harm to Christ…

And the point would be that it’s not. Look at it this way. Anyone can profane the Host if they have a mind to do it. I’ve told this horrible story about a Host my husband found in the vestibule. With no priest in the vicinity, he picked it up and consumed it only to find out that it had already been in someone’s mouth. Small price to pay for Our Lord but extra gross none the less. The absolute best way to protect the Host and still allow people to receive it is to have ushers very carefully watch for people trying to abuse it.

 

[bear06]

Nor is it the default, church-wide.

It is permitted, but reception to the tongue is the normative, and if desired, must be given.

Further, if intinction is used, it is mandatory to receive on the tongue.

Sunday, of the about 100 people two whom I, through the grace of God, and the permission of the Pastor, was permitted to Distribute Communion to, only 2 chose to recieve to the tongue.

I totally agree and I receive only on the tongue, as does Kirk. I prefer it on the tongue, I think there’s less chance of an accident occurring with the Host, etc. And certainly, nobody, no-how, not ever should be denied Communion on the tongue. That said, accident and abuse can occur no matter how the Church chooses to allow it distributed.

 

[BobP123]

I’ll read it…but I don’t think infallibility should be used to defend actions that bring harm to Christ…

Tough to understand these liberals. Trent was not infallible but receiving in the hand is. What’s wrong with this picture?

 

[bear06]

Tough to understand these liberals. Trent was not infallible but receiving in the hand is. What’s wrong with this picture?

Oh Bob. Back to making referring to comments that weren’t made? Who said Trent wasn’t infallible? I just don’t think YOUR interpretation of it is. And just who are the liberals in this conversation?

 

[japhy]

I will be “trying” (I can’t think of a better word for it right now) receiving on the tongue this week, starting at Mass tomorrow morning. I’ve been receiving in the hand, and while I don’t have a problem with it, I recognize the possible dangers associated with it (which are results of lack of reverence to the Real Presence of Jesus). I will still receive from the Chalice.

(There have been two occasions, both within this Lent, when I noticed pieces of the Host that had broken off in my hand upon receiving; I made sure to consume them. This might be a factor in my decision to try receiving on the tongue.)

Note, however, that receiving on the tongue does not prevent the communicant from chewing the Host, which can lead to fragments of the Host being stuck in crannies of the mouth and getting discarded during brushing, flossing, spitting, sneezing, etc. I myself have only recently taken up the practice of letting the Host dissolve on my tongue to the point where I can swallow it; on some occasions, this ends up being after I have received from the Chalice as well (something to which I know no objection).

One question I’ve never gotten answered, though, is why the tongue is worthy to receive the Host. One might say the passage from James is taken out of context, but I disagree: the tongue is a common instrument of sin (just as our hands are), and with it we bless God and curse our fellow man (cf. James 3:5-9). Whatever the grace of the Penitential Rite is, does it not have the same effect on our sinful tongues as it does on our sinful hands? Clearly, the Host must be consumed somehow, and the mouth is where it must end up. But does that, in itself, make the mouth “worthy”? What about a person with halitosis or gingivitis or some condition of the mouth due to poor hygiene? How would that compare to a person with dirty fingers?