Received on the tongue for the first time today

[soflochristmas]

Let me put it another way. Two people go to Communion. One kneels and receives the Eucharist on the tongue, but is still angry over an argument they had the evening before. The other person has examined their conscience before communion and has asked God’s forgivness for any wrongs they have done then goes up standing and receives the Blessed Sacrament in their hand. Who has given God the greater honour and reverence?

Pat

Are you going to start judging now people’s hearts who receive? Good grief. The question is quite simple…ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUALL (ie. if you want to judge the receivers hearts, pretend they are equal) then which gives greater honor and glory to God?

 

[soflochristmas]

Anyway, who is this “CITH Crowd”? a wee bit condecending there Savienu, dont you think

The people who receive CITH is the CITH crowd I would suppose. What’s condecending about that? I didn’t take it as such. Is it just me or is there a patern here about certain people being sensitive about symantics/words and others being sensitive about reverence for the True Presence?

 

[soflochristmas]

Would outlawing CITH raise belief in the Real Presence? Dont you think that things go deeper than that?

It wouldn’t hurt. Can’t think of anyone who might think less of the True presence as a result.

 

[SHW]

While I do think that at times there were (and still are) many priests and bishops who did not teach the Catholic faith emphatically enough and who were lax in regfard to discipline and catechesis I do not believe that all the blame can be put on their shoulders. Surely the laity bears some responsibility as well? If we don’t care enough about the faith to pay attention to what priests and bishops do teach, or try and educate ourselves outside of the Mass or just think that too many of the rules of the CC are too burdensome for us to follow then should we be exempt from any blame? It is just too easy to pass on blame these days.
Personally I do know several priests who do spend time each day praying in front of the Blessed Sacrament. A few who take every spare moment they have during the day, which in most cases is pretty rare. in prayer of one kind or another. The pastor of my parish is a good example. Since I’m an early riser, I usually get to the church for Daily Mass half and hour or more before Mass begins in the mornings. Father is always already there, invariably on his knees in front of the Tabernacle or once in awhile kneeling before the huge crucifix on the wall behind the altar. He never stops his prayers until only a few minutes before Mass and he has to go and vest. I live only a block from the church and often will just pop in for a few moments in the afternoon. More than a couple of dozen times I’ve popped in only to find our pastor prostrate in front of the Tabernacle. When this occurs, I usually just sit for a few moments at the back of the church so as not to disturb him. It is very humbling to see a man so deep in prayer.
We have lost parishoners at my parish since our pastor arrived a little over a year ago. He doesn’t mince words and is not afraid of telling the truth and preaching about any of the topics you mentioned. If they left because they didn’t want to hear the truth, I can’t say. I don’t believe it can be because of Father himself as he is one of the kindest, friendliest men I know. He is also the holiest priest I have ever met. I don’t say that lightly having had several uncles and cousins who were/are priests and who were all good holy priests themselves.
I agree that we do need to pray and pray long and hard for our priests. We have to care enough to do our part as well and not be content to leave everything up to the clergy. We also are called upon to go out and preach the Gospels.

I don’t put all the blame on the bishops’ and priests’ shoulders, but they should take the lead. This is their main job: to preach Christ’s Gospel and to teach us to observe all that He commanded.

You are very fortunate to have a holy priest and have relatives who are also.

 

[SHW]

No…I have stated several times the Church allows both. Which way you receive has nothing to do with dissenting from the Church or its teachings.

Thank you for the clarification. Some of your posts “seem” to show otherwise.

 

[savienu]

Don’t expect, from what I"ve seen here, a reasoned response Savienu.

Yeah, I figured it was a shot in the dark, but I was hoping…so far all I’ve gotten is “It doesn’t matter if it increases reverence or not.” sigh

 

[avpadriga]

You’re still here? I’ll say again:

You can use the whole “you disagree with me and speak your mind frankly, so you are evil/mean/going to hell/judging me.”

Yawn.

Communion on the tongue is superior to Communion in the hand.

(Oh, and “slander” is untruthful speech. Since you take Communion in the hand, and since it is disrespectful [as there are particles that drop to the ground that would not, had you taken on the tongue], what I said was not slander)

Judging and cursing with fellow Christians is not Christian way by itself.

Receiving Communion in any manner, by tongue or by hand, kneeling, sitting or standing if you are not worthy to received the body of our Lord then your action is worthless, so there’s nothing to ague with. We people just can see and judge with the actions but God sees the intention in our heart.

Christian can be distinguish by the love of each other that we can show not by the opinion that could lead to a selfishness of once ego.

Your brother in Christ

 

[Mel_Stones]

I joined the Church five years ago and have been receiving on the tongue for the past couple of years because I feel it is more respectful to do so. It bothers me somewhat that there is no patent but I always clasp my hands at chest level and feel I could react quickly enough if the host itself fell.

An interesting point I saw in this thread is the mention of the small particles left on one’s fingers after receiving and what to do about it. I agree that receiving on the tongue with a patent takes care of this problem but it is unlikely to change back at least not anytime soon. I serve as a Eucharistic minister and recently found that when returning to my seat after communion I had a few particles of Host on my fingertips. I felt no qualms about simply licking my fingers.

 

[avpadriga]

No…you’re not a dissenter because you prefer to receive the Sacred Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in your hand. Did I every say that? I thought we were discussing other differences between the two ways to receive OTHER than what is “legally” allowed. That’s what I was discussing anyway. I call that putting words in my mouth.

The only legal way of receiving communion is that “we must be worthy”, worthy without any mortal sins or any kind of unworthiness within our self upon receiving the Body and Blood of our Lord. What is it if you extend your tongue as long as you could or have your hand as clean as you could if deep in you is full of “@#%^&)$#@!+” it will just lead you to hell of condemnation.

Your brother in Christ

 

[avpadriga]

I joined the Church five years ago and have been receiving on the tongue for the past couple of years because I feel it is more respectful to do so. It bothers me somewhat that there is no patent but I always clasp my hands at chest level and feel I could react quickly enough if the host itself fell.

An interesting point I saw in this thread is the mention of the small particles left on one’s fingers after receiving and what to do about it. I agree that receiving on the tongue with a patent takes care of this problem but it is unlikely to change back at least not anytime soon. I serve as a Eucharistic minister and recently found that when returning to my seat after communion I had a few particles of Host on my fingertips. I felt no qualms about simply licking my fingers.

Keep up the way you do, God knows your heart.
I was once a Eucharistic Minister but I tried not giving the Eucharist on the hand. We have a community in Cebu, Philippines that we dip the Eucharist into the Wine and that way communicant will not received communion by the hand because the host is soak with wine and we served with the paten. It was permitted in our Diocese, I never seen anything like that anywhere in the U.S.

Your brother in Christ

 

[avpadriga]

The only legal way of receiving communion is that “we must be worthy”, worthy without any mortal sins or any kind of unworthiness within our self upon receiving the Body and Blood of our Lord. What is it if you extend your tongue as long as you could or have your hand as clean as you could if deep in you is full of “@#%^&)$#@!+” it will just lead you to hell of condemnation.

“Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive communion in the hand.”
– Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta

Your brother in Christ

 

[RazzsMom]

---

I have seen many Masses on TV and via other media. As of yet --I have not seem anyone actually check their hands for any loose particles which may be left behind. The Sacred Host is placed in the palm of the recipient --from there the Sacred Host is taken via the other hand and place in the mouth and the person goes on their way–without given a second look to their hands.

Did you read my post #109? I have never been on TV, so you would never have seen me receive the Eucharist. However, I stated just what you say you have never seen happen - an examination of one’s hands after holding the Body of Christ, to check for particles. And I am not alone - I have witnessed many persons in my parish who do the same thing. In the RCIA group that was received just this past Easter, we talked about receiving in the hand and I was pleasantly surprised to hear from every Catholic present that they also look at their hands! (There is another reason I look at my hands - see my post.)

What is it about touching the Body of Christ that so frightens people? Aside from the fragment argument, I have read many people who seem afraid of appearing irreverant if they receive in the hand b/c they do not feel they should touch the Body of Christ. Jesus asked everyone to come to Him, even lttle children. He did not pull away from touching the most diseased leper or darkest of sinners in order to heal them. Would Jesus want you and me to feel that we cannot touch Him? He longs for us to come to Him! Jesus did not differentiate between the persons who touched His Body (as did Thomas to the point of placing his hand into Jesus’ side!) and the persons who felt they could only touch His clothing (as did the woman who was healed of a hemmorhage). What I mean to say is that Jesus invites all of us to come to Him and receive Him and His healing in any way possible! What was asked, nay DEMANDED, was FAITH. If I, in true Faith and Love, receive His Precious Body in the hand, am I not loved and healed as much as the person who receives on the tongue who receives also in true Faith and Love? Was the woman not healed as much as was St. Thomas? The woman healed of body and St. Thomas healed of disbelief.)

I think we also should refer to the Bible passages of Luke 22:17-20. (Refers to the discussion here of ECD and Jewish tradition, seders, etc.) Nowhere in the Last Supper ( a seder meal at Passover and the first Eucharistic meal) does it say Jesus fed the disciples. It says they were to “take…and eat”. (And isn’t that what the priest says at every consecration?) If one “takes” and eats, one is not being fed – he is feeding himself. THe passage does not say Jesus walked around the table and fed each disciple. He passed the Cup and the Bread around for each one to take a drink for himself and a piece of bread for himself to eat. The Jews would tear a piece of bread for himself, and pass the loaf around for each man to tear his own piece from the common loaf.

*"Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and said, “Take this and share it among yourselves; for I tell you [that] from this time on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the Kingdon of God comes.” Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.” *(NAB version)

I want to also add that to my mind, the argument of reception in the hand vs reception on the tongue, is similar to the Pharisees’ amazement that Jesus did not perform the ritualistic washing prior to taking a meal. Jesus said to them:

“Oh you Pharisees! Although you cleanse the outside of the cup and the dish, inside you are filled with plunder and evil. You fools! Did not the maker of the outside also make the inside? But as to what is within, give alms, and behold, everything will be clean for you.”

(Luke 12:39-41 NAB)

Isn’t this what we are arguing about here? (Hands = outsides of cup, eg., sinful and Tongue = inside, eg., holy) For what Jesus said is that it is the faith within that makes one holy!

Peace be with you!

 

[SHW]

Keep up the way you do, God knows your heart.
I was once a Eucharistic Minister but I tried not giving the Eucharist on the hand. We have a community in Cebu, Philippines that we dip the Eucharist into the Wine and that way communicant will not received communion by the hand because the host is soak with wine and we served with the paten. It was permitted in our Diocese, I never seen anything like that anywhere in the U.S.

Your brother in Christ

Intinction (dipping Host /Body into Wine/Precious Blood) is to be done by the priest only and communicants must then receive the Sacrament on the tongue administered by the priest only in order to be following GIRM in the Latin Rite.

Since as a child, my parents taught me that we should never stick out our tongues at others since it is a sign of disrespect, I found that receiving Communion by sticking out one’s tongue to be a contradiction.

I can see that receiving on the tongue using a Paten may reduce lost Particles, but teaching that Communion on the tongue is a greater sign of respect and a much more worthy manner to receive than receiving this Precious Gift in my hands just does not make sense to me. Usually, when one gives a gift, it is given from hands to hands.

 

[Mel_Stones]

I’ve gone back to receiving on the tongue and if the EMHC is nervous, that’s just the way it is and we’re just going to have to deal with it.

~~ the phoenix

I’ve even surprised a priest when I’ve received on the tongue but most everyone (Eucharistic ministers and priest alike) I’ve seen recover quickly. Usually if the minister/priest sees that I haven’t opened my hands, he looks to my face and sees my tongue sticking out. Besides, at my parish at least, the ministers are taught to look out for anyone who may receive on the tongue.

My dad (who is also a convert to the Church) says “I get to do something most people always wanted to do - walk up to a priest and stick my tongue out”. He’s joking of course but my point here is everyone should find the way within the rules of the Church THEY are most comfortable with to receive. Receiving the Body of Christ should not be uncomfortable.

 

[Pat_the_elder]

You consider Traditional Catholic Teaching downcast? I’m sure you do not, but please clarify.

And to clarify my own thoughts, I am not advocating a “turning back of the clock.” I am advocating that which the Society has always stood for: The interpretation and implementation of the Council according to Traditional Catholic belief.

The Council did not recomment nor ask for what the new liturgists have given us.

Enjoy your dinner and have a peaceful night’s rest.

Not downcast at all. It was just that you say that it is the only way forward. I can’t agree with that. I think that there’s much in the modern church to be commended

 

[savienu]

Not downcast at all. It was just that you say that it is the only way forward. I can’t agree with that. I think that there’s much in the modern church to be commended

Such as?

 

[Pat_the_elder]

Such as?

The Mass in the verncular, the way in which it has engaged with my wife - now a convert. We as a family (me, my wife, 22yo son 18 yo son 14 yo daughter and 8 yo daughter) feel a part of a vibrant community…

Pat

 

[savienu]

The Mass in the verncular, the way in which it has engaged with my wife - now a convert. We as a family (me, my wife, 22yo son 18 yo son 14 yo daughter and 8 yo daughter) feel a part of a vibrant community…

Pat

I’m glad the Mass engaged your wife and helped towards her conversion. Has she experienced a TLM as well? Also, I’m not opposed to some vernacular (and neither was the Council), what I’m not a fan of is the whole thing being in the vernacular, AND it being a completely new Mass. I feel like a part of a very vibrant, spiritual community assisting at the TLM every week as well. And I love how it brings me up towards God, and I get to experience something otherworldly and supernatural.

 

[SHW]

The Mass in the verncular, the way in which it has engaged with my wife - now a convert. We as a family (me, my wife, 22yo son 18 yo son 14 yo daughter and 8 yo daughter) feel a part of a vibrant community…

Pat

The Eastern Churches also can have Mass in the vernacular and they are vibrant churches. I was a member of a Byzantine Catholic Church (when I lived where there was one close by) and the Divine Liturgy was beautiful in English.

I personally think it would have been better if the new vernacular Mass had kept the same words as the Latin Mass, but simply translated them into English, which is what the Eastern Churches did.

 

[savienu]

The Eastern Churches also can have Mass in the vernacular and they are vibrant churches. I was a member of a Byzantine Catholic Church (when I lived where there was one close by) and the Divine Liturgy was beautiful in English.

I personally think it would have been better if the new vernacular Mass had kept the same words as the Latin Mass, but simply translated them into English, which is what the Eastern Churches did.

I agree, that would be a step in the right direction. However, Vatican II called for SOME vernacular in certain places, but for Latin to be primacy of place. Also, the Eastern Churches, while SOME of them have SOME parts in the vernacular, have several parts of the Mass in their native tongue (whether that be Arabic, Aramaic, Greek, what have you.) The Maronite and Melkite rites come to mind, and the Maronite has more vernacular than the Melkite does. The Melkite Rite only have vernacular for the reading of the Gospel and the Homily.