Received on the tongue for the first time today

[Layman]

Communion:
Standing;
In the hand;
From a laywoman;

vs:
Kneeling;
On the tongue;
From the consecrated hands of your priest;
With a paten held by a deacon to catch any crumbs.

I suppose in a community, where people will seriously argue that saying “for all men” is the same as saying “for the many”, these two forms of reception can be seen as being equally reverent, ‘interior disposition’ and all that.

By that logic, can it be very long before we have ‘host dispensing machines’ in our churches?

All I can see is a resurgence of that old sin, pride, which is now seen as an attribute to be fostered in the West, along with greed (‘greed is good’), lust (‘express your sexuality’), anger (‘let it all out’), and so on.

Humility; learn it by doing. Just a thought.

 

[SHW]

I suppose in a community, where people will seriously argue that saying “for all men” is the same as saying “for the many”, these two forms of reception can be seen as being equally reverent, ‘interior disposition’ and all that.

"Many" and “All” are sometimes used interchangeably in Scripture.

1 Corinthians 1:2
To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:

Matthew 22:14
For many are called, but few are chosen.

All who call on the name of the Jesus can be saved. God actually calls all, but not all inherit eternal life. He did not leave some persons out of His plan of salvation. They choose using their own free wills whether to accept Him or reject Him.

1 Timothy 2:4
who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Matthew 26:28
For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

1 Timothy 2:6
who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time,

---

Christ actually died for “all” men, not just “many” men for the remission of sins. But, not all men will accept His free gift of grace and “follow” Him into eternal life. And “many” will not actually inherit eternal life because the gate to eternal life is narrow and only a “few” find it.

Matthew 7:13-14
Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

It seems to me to be splitting hairs about “all” and “many” since this Mass was approved and still is approved by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church and both of these words are used interchangeably in Scripture when speaking of Jesus’ Sacrifice on the cross as being efficacious for all men, not just many men, even though only a few men (and women ) actually do inherit eternal life.

Since the ECF approved of CITH, I think we should not question their motives nor any Catholics these days who receive CITH. Judgment belongs to God.

Communion in the hand

catholicfaithandreason.org/fathersoneucharist.htm

Writing in 350 A.D. Theodore of Mospsuestia, in Homily XV wrote of communion in the hand, “do not approach with hands extended and fingers open wide. Rather make of your left hand a throne for your right as it is about to receive your King, and receive the Body of Christ in the fold of your hand, responding ‘Amen.’… Take care that you do not even lose one piece of that which is more precious than gold or precious stones.”

 

[Layman]

“Matthew 26:28
For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.”

That’s what I’m referring to. If that’s what’s in the Bible, why not say it in a key part of the most important rite in our Church? Looks to me like the Catholic Church invented dumbing-down and inclusive language 40+ years before it caught on in the wider society.

**Re: CITH.

I now think that what an obscure saint mandated 1600 years ago in his diocese is no excuse for dropping COTT from our rite.

Also, ever consider the idea that he could have been wrong?

Or that COTT, kneeling, is better?

Or that what was considered appropriate to that time is now, no longer?**

And before anyone chimes in about what Eastern Catholics do, I’m talking about the Latin Rite here. Dropping COTT, kneeling, makes no sense at all. It’s the most reverent and humble way I can think of to receive Communion, of all the rites I’ve heard of.

I think what has happened to the Novus Ordo post-Vat. II is crowd-pleasing and a failed attempt at didactics. It looks to me like what you’d get if you let a committee try to improve a work of art.

I wouldn’t mind if it was done as Paul VI intended. I think it’s telling that you could probably count on the fingers of both hands the churches where the N.O. is said ad-orientem, in Latin, with Gregorian chant. In the whole world.

 

[SHW]

CITH was the norm 1600 years ago, not just in one diocese.

 

[SHW]

“Matthew 26:28
For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.”

That’s what I’m referring to. If that’s what’s in the Bible, why not say it in a key part of the most important rite in our Church? Looks to me like the Catholic Church invented dumbing-down and inclusive language 40+ years before it caught on in the wider society.

I agree that this is what is in the Bible and I prefer it myself, but it does not make the present consecration invalid because Jesus shed His Blood for “all” men, not just for “many” men. Truth is still preserved.

**Re: CITH.

I now think that what an obscure saint mandated 1600 years ago in his diocese is no excuse for dropping COTT from our rite.

Also, ever consider the idea that he could have been wrong?

Or that COTT, kneeling, is better?

Or that what was considered appropriate to that time is now, no longer?**

This was the way that the whole early Latin Church received Holy Communion, not just some obscure saint. And, no, I do not think that he nor any of the other ECFs were wrong. Perhaps you can find the first written instance of COTT for us.

As for what is more “appropriate,” “opinions” differ. I have doctor’s orders to not kneel because my knee replacements cause extreme pain when I kneel. I do not think that this makes me more unworthy to receive HC than a person who has good knees and can kneel without pain. I think that people should be able to receive while kneeling and if this was possible for me, I would choose this also if it were allowed in my parish. But, if we are to receive on the tongue only, then I think that only a priest or deacon should be administering HC, not laypersons. But, these are my personal opinions only and the Church has the right to decide what is appropriate; it is my duty to obey Her directives.

I wouldn’t mind if it was done as Paul VI intended. I think it’s telling that you could probably count on the fingers of both hands the churches where the N.O. is said ad-orientem, in Latin, with Gregorian chant. In the whole world.

I thought that using the vernacular was the main reason for the N.O. change.

 

[SHW]

Food for thought:

Since I think that we all can conclude that COTT is the best way for everyone to receive HC in order to have the fewest opportunities possible for the Hosts to be used for sacrilegious purposes, why not have Masses said for this special intention “that God’s Will be done for the manner of receiving HC in our Church?”

Also, we can pray novenas, etc. and urge others to do so for this special intention. God knows how He prefers us to receive HC (regardless of current Church Law which He abides by since He gave the Church its power to bind and loose), so if we pray for His Will to be done, He will answer our prayers when enough of us pray.

I personally would like the Church to change the law back to reception of HC on the tongue only given by the priest only, and I also prefer the LTM over the NO and wish that the LTM was available in my parish. However, wishing will not change anything. And, until/unless the Church does change the current law, regardless of how CITH got started again since Vatican II, we are now all free to choose either CITH or COTT and we have to accept this without condemning those who do receive HCITH reverently. We have no idea of any person’s intentions and we should not make judgments by thinking that unless they are receiving COTT, then they are surely displeasing God.

We can make a difference by prayer to stop the sacrilegious abuses and perhaps also help to change current Church Law. The Mass is most efficacious of all.

 

[damooster]

Food for thought:

Since I think that we all can conclude that COTT is the best way for everyone to receive HC in order to have the fewest opportunities possible for the Hosts to be used for sacrilegious purposes

1. I don’t think everyone is concluding that COTT is the best way. I personally receive on the tongue but I find that most people around me receive CITH. Out of the 11 people at Mass this morning, only 4 received COTT. And this is at a more orthodox NO parish.
2. If the sole reason for receiving COTT is to prevent sacrilegious attempts, you can volunteer to be a guard at your NO parish. My parish has a person stand on each side of the communion rail and makes sure that everyone puts the Holy Communion in their mouth before they pass them. So, again, if you want people to receive COTT because you are worried about people running off with the Holy Communion, then post guards rather than take away an option that is currently offered.

Also, we can pray novenas, etc. and urge others to do so for this special intention. God knows how He prefers us to receive HC (regardless of current Church Law which He abides by since He gave the Church its power to bind and loose), so if we pray for His Will to be done, He will answer our prayers when enough of us pray.

I’m all for prayer, but this statement is kind of confusing to me. You seem to be suggesting that God “tolerates” things when I thought we were supposed to believe that God would not let the Church go “astray.” Maybe I’m wrong here and could use some additional teachings. And what if more people pray to make CITH the universal norm; if more people pray for that than COTT, what is going to happen then? You are apparently assuming to know what God wants and that he would grant what you pray for, and not others.

We have no idea of any person’s intentions and we should not make judgments by thinking that unless they are receiving COTT, then they are surely displeasing God.

I wish everyone felt this way. I find it amazing that so many people can accuse their fellow brothers and sisters of being sacrilegious for utilizing an option that the Church has given them; that they can think people are purposely being defiant and take it personally.

 

[SHW]

1. I don’t think everyone is concluding that COTT is the best way. I personally receive on the tongue but I find that most people around me receive CITH. Out of the 11 people at Mass this morning, only 4 received COTT. And this is at a more orthodox NO parish.
2. If the sole reason for receiving COTT is to prevent sacrilegious attempts, you can volunteer to be a guard at your NO parish. My parish has a person stand on each side of the communion rail and makes sure that everyone puts the Holy Communion in their mouth before they pass them. So, again, if you want people to receive COTT because you are worried about people running off with the Holy Communion, then post guards rather than take away an option that is currently offered.

I wish that all parishes would do this “policing.” This is my main concern. I think that good-intentioned people can personally receive HC reverently either way.

I’m all for prayer, but this statement is kind of confusing to me. You seem to be suggesting that God “tolerates” things when I thought we were supposed to believe that God would not let the Church go “astray.” Maybe I’m wrong here and could use some additional teachings. And what if more people pray to make CITH the universal norm; if more people pray for that than COTT, what is going to happen then? You are apparently assuming to know what God wants and that he would grant what you pray for, and not others.

I will give you an example:

Matthew 19:4-8
And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”
8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

Moses allowed divorce and God tolerated it because Moses was given God’s authority on earth for the Old Covenant. Jesus, however, does not allow divorce in His New Covenant. The Scribes and Pharisees succeeded Moses and had Moses’ authority, while Jesus was preaching, up until He made His New Covenant.

Here is another one:

Matthew 23:1-3
hen Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.

Luke 11:42
But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass by justice and the love of God. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.

The Scribes and Pharisees have God’s authority on earth (they sit in Moses’ seat), but they misuse it for personal gain.

I am saying that if all people would pray for “God’s Will to be done” rather than praying for their own wills to be done concerning COTT of CITH, then God will surely answer this prayer since we are asking “according to His own Will,” not ours. I think this is the best way to pray in order to get the best resolution which will surely please Him.

I wish everyone felt this way. I find it amazing that so many people can accuse their fellow brothers and sisters of being sacrilegious for utilizing an option that the Church has given them; that they can think people are purposely being defiant and take it personally.

I agree with you.

 

[damooster]

I am saying that if all people would pray for “God’s Will to be done” rather than praying for their own wills to be done concerning COTT of CITH, then God will surely answer this prayer since we are asking “according to His own Will,” not ours. I think this is the best way to pray in order to get the best resolution which will surely please Him.

Now I am on the same page as you and I completely agree. Thanks for clarifying!

 

[SHW]

You’re welcome!

 

[SHW]

Now I am on the same page as you and I completely agree. Thanks for clarifying!

You’re welcome!

 

[sabriner]

Yeah, I always receive on the tongue, but only from a Priest or Deacon, never an extraordinary minister of the Eucharist.

sorry for the little interruption, but i read a couple of people do this. why never from an extraordinary minister?

I thought that receiving in the hand was originally only by indult (sorry if this is mentioned earlier on the thread…it’s just so much to read!!). Or is that only “traditionalist jargon” (not to offend them… I’m probably a traditionalist myself).

 

[Layman]

As fair as I know, it was an indult, that got taken up with enthusiasm because it adds reverence at the Holy Sacrifice of The Mass.

Not.