Received on the tongue for the first time today

[maurin]

---

As can be seen maurin --there already is a grievous error being promoted. This is not the first time I have seen this “belief”. Here I will say --I am not attribution this error to pnewton —but communion in the hand does in a way --speak to it.

pnewton doesn’t address the arguments against his position, such as why did the Church develop the precautions of Reception on the tongue, the use of the paten, and why the discipline not just changed but did an 180–as did the Belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. He doesn’t address the shift of focus issues. He ignores them. Oh wait, I forgot that “because it happened after this, it doesn’t mean because of this.”

 

[pnewton]

---

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.

Dead serious. I do. Every time. I always worry about crumbs. I am very slow and deliberate. My FIL used to stick his tongue to his hand to be safe. Of course now he receives only on the tongue.

The day the Church changes, I will change. When I see a real danger of desecration I will change. I am not stubborn on this point and that is why I take offense at being accused of being "incredibly disrespectful. It is a horribly untrue thing to say.

 

[mezzapinta]

There have been some very interesting discussions and opinions going on here! I first read this thread a couple of days ago, but didn’t have time to respond then. I was amazed at all the additions in the short amount of time.

From the time of my First Holy Communion on June 1, 1985 until nearly 2 years ago, I had received in the hand. Prior to my “turning point”, I had begun to notice more and more there were particles of the Blessed Sacrament remaining on my palm, which I always took great care to consume right away. (The hosts my parish uses do not have sealed edges, which vastly contributes to the particles.) My “turning point” came at the funeral of my great-aunt. For some reason, I felt compelled to receive on the tongue that day–and have been ever since. I felt something different when I began to receive on the tongue, something I can’t quite explain. What I can explain, though, is that I feel more “secure”, knowing that I no longer need to worry about whether or not I’d be dropping even the smallest piece of Jesus’ Body.

I do not by any means feel that people who receive on the tongue are “holier” or “more devout” than those who receive in the hand. Each person has their own preference for reception and are entitled to do so, just as each person has a preference whether or not to receive under both forms. I am a EM in my parish and I know many people who truly believe in the Real Presence and very reverently receive in the hand. On the contrary, there are probably many out there who receive on the tongue, yet do not believe. We are in no place to judge others’ beliefs solely based on how they receive Communion. Judgement of any kind is reserved for Our Heavenly Father.

However, I do believe that many of the profanations performed by satanists, wiccans, atheists, etc. when they somehow obtain the Blessed Sacrament could be avoided if the practice of “tongue only” were reinstated,

 

[pnewton]

pnewton doesn’t address the arguments against his position, such as why did the Church develop the precautions of Reception on the tongue, the use of the paten, and why the discipline not just changed but did an 180–as did the Belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.

I do not know the why’s of Church discipline being changes other than what little I have gleaned. I just know what is (in some cases, what was). It is my understanding that communion in the hand was banned somewhere in the fifth or sixth century because it was being received that way in protest of the real presence by pagans (like the rainbow-sashers of today). I have never questioned the paten or the Real presence in crumbs.

 

[pnewton]

FYI - For those newer posters, I will post again why I prefer to receive on the hand. It is cultural for me to maintain reverence with a bowed head. Just like some of you can not imagine receiving the Lord with out kneeling, I do not like to approach the altar without my head bowed. This is just the way I was raised. I also like to bow during all the consecration, prayers and every other time reverence is called for. It feels disrespectful to me to lift my eyes at the altar and toward persona Christi holding before me the Creator of Heaven and Earth so that I can receive on the tongue.

I know that there no good, universal reason for my decision (or uneasiness). I do not defend any rightness in my choice, only my attitude. If I see compelling evidence to change, I will. Other wise, as long as I am allowed (by the Church ) I will approach with the most reverence I can, considering my Church background.

 

[Walking_Home]

I do not know the why’s of Church discipline being changes other than what little I have gleaned. I just know what is (in some cases, what was).** It is my understanding that communion in the hand was banned somewhere in the fifth or sixth century because it was being received that way in protest of the real presence by pagans **(like the rainbow-sashers of today). I have never questioned the paten or the Real presence in crumbs.

---

Given the choice between receiving the Sacred Host on the tongue or in the hand. Why choose the method that speaks to the horrendous error as was shown prior and below . You would be surprised how far and wide this hideous error has been taken.

ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=420836&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2004&Author=&Keyword=crumbs&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=1&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

Breaking Sacred Host
Question from on 12-03-2004

Our priest raises the large Sacred Host high over his head when he breaks it. I explained to him that I fear that crumbs could scatter and be trampled upon. He explained to me that Christ is not present in the crumbs. I felt very deeply hurt at his disbelief. Am I in error?

 

[pnewton]

---

Given the choice between receiving the Sacred Host on the tongue or in the hand. Why choose the method that speaks to the horrendous error as was shown prior and below .

That is a good question. Because I do not live in a century or place where receiving communion in one’s hand has any extra meaning or agenda. In the sixties, one might (if they had very poor taste) where a rainbow tie to Mass. Now that would take on new meaning. At one time communion had to be restricted to one species to teach the faithful that the body and blood of Christ are fully present in just the host (or just the cup). This is not an issue today. It might be an issue again in the future and the Church will have to adjust.

In my parish, the Real Presence is a dogma that is positively drilled into parishoners during the homily all the time. We are constantly being preached at about the proper way to approach the altar, receive communion. I have seen my priest even pause at a communicant and do a little one on one if needed. Twice in ten years, I have seen the Precious Blood spilled. I tell you everyone better prepare to stay a few minutes later because both times everyone stopped and we reverently attended to it. I would not be in favor of the Cup if this happened often, but as it was a uniquie event, it highlighted our dogma of the Real Presence in spades. It is against this backdrop that I see no danger that my receiving the Lord in hand will be misunderstood.

 

[Walking_Home]

Originally Posted by Walking_Home View Post
Given the choice between receiving the Sacred Host on the tongue or in the hand. Why choose the method that speaks to the horrendous error as was shown prior and below .

---

No --you do not live in a past century --but you do seem to live in a bubble. For today–we are in the process of re-living those past times–therefore the Chalice and communion in the hand --today —do have the “extra meaning/agenda”

I have provided evidence of denial of our Lords presence in the crumbs–now I will provide you with the following. And again --you would be surprised how far and wide --this type of “belief” is held.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=337087&highlight=Blood

Hi,

I was just wondering - I go to mass on Sunday morning, and when we go up to receive communion half the people go straight back to their seats. In two side chapels they offer the blood of Christ - I always go to receive it, but it seems many do not. Why on earth would anyone not want to participate in the full sacrament? Hygiene? Some urgent need to get back to their seat? I have to say I would feel somewhat ‘cheated’ if I went to communion and only received the Body and not the Blood also.

 

[pnewton]

---

No --you do not live in a past century --but you do seem to live in a bubble.

And again --you would be surprised how far and wide --this type of “belief” is held.

Perhaps. I guess one can never know what it is that one doesn’t know. We are all bound by a bubble of sorts that limits our knowledge. I guess that conversation is best suited to philosophy or spirituality though.

However to your second point. Yes, I have been surprised by the post like the one you post. I do not know how widespread such ignorance is though. If it statements like that come from new Catholics or those new to practice of their faith, I understand it. I have heard a lot sillier questions. If however such a belief is wide spread, then I would understand the Church once again changing reception of communion (as I noted). As a side note, the recent flu scare had us receiving under one species for a while. Sure enough, it provided a teaching moment as to what we believe and don’t believe about the Eucharist.

 

[Walking_Home]

Perhaps. I guess one can never know what it is that one doesn’t know. We are all bound by a bubble of sorts that limits our knowledge. I guess that conversation is best suited to philosophy or spirituality though.

However to your second point. Yes, I have been surprised by the post like the one you post. I do not know how widespread such ignorance is though. If it statements like that come from new Catholics or those new to practice of their faith, I understand it. I have heard a lot sillier questions. If however such a belief is wide spread,** then I would understand the Church once again changing reception of communion (as I noted).** As a side note, the recent flu scare had us receiving under one species for a while. Sure enough, it provided a teaching moment as to what we believe and don’t believe about the Eucharist.

---

Like I mentioned prior --it would surprise you to know how wide spread the errors are. But in the mean time–until the Church acts–Given the option–why continue with a method(s) that give credence to those errors.

 

[savienu]

---

Like I mentioned prior --it would surprise you to know how wide spread the errors are. But in the mean time–until the Church acts–Given the option–why continue with a method(s) that give credence to those errors.

Especially when the method STARTED as an abuse?

 

[SHW]

I’m interested in *your *perspective, SHW, what the correlation is between the Jewish Passover and Our Lord’s Passion.

Our Lord’s Passion is the fulfillment of the Jewish Passover. Jesus becomes THE Paschal Lamb and no other Blood Sacrifice is ever needed again since His Sacrifice is perfect. Jesus fulfills all the Scriptures concerning Him in the Old Testament and makes the Old Covenant obsolete when He becomes the testator of His New Covenant by His death.

For my own 8 page explanation on the Holy Mass:

members.cox.net/studyhisword/HolyMass.pdf

 

[maurin]

Dead serious. I do. Every time. I always worry about crumbs. I am very slow and deliberate. My FIL used to stick his tongue to his hand to be safe. Of course now he receives only on the tongue.

The day the Church changes, I will change. When I see a real danger of desecration I will change. I am not stubborn on this point and that is why I take offense at being accused of being "incredibly disrespectful. It is a horribly untrue thing to say.

I’m not sure if anyone had been singling you out personally as "being ‘incredibily disrespectful’ ", but I must admit that I feel a little bad that we’ve put you in the position of defending yourself. Your own personal reverence for the Blessed Sacrament is not being questioned. It is the practice itself that is being questioned, in light of the desecrations and irreverence that have and do occurr. I am sorry (sincerely) that you felt put upon like this. mea culpa.

I do not know the why’s of Church discipline being changes other than what little I have gleaned. I just know what is (in some cases, what was). It is my understanding that communion in the hand was banned somewhere in the fifth or sixth century because it was being received that way in protest of the real presence by pagans (like the rainbow-sashers of today). I have never questioned the paten or the Real presence in crumbs.

 

[SHW]

Fr. Mitch was interviewing an expert in this area. They received in the hand for very different reasons, and in very different ways. But whatever, I’ve long since given up that anyone here wants to listen to the truth.

In Church history, Communion was given in the hand first and then on the tongue later for various reasons. What difference does it really make? What “truth” are you trying to get across? I wonder if the “expert” had read the ECF who explained how to receive our Lord worshipfully in the hand? If so, then this expert should definitely have mentioned this fact, don’t you think?

I have read many so-called experts who claim that the idea for Communion in the hand hatched in the bowels of hell, etc. This is simply untrue and any “experts” who claim this, lack credibility when you can read the ECF’s writings for yourself and see in black and white that the early Christians received Communion in the hand.

I know of another “expert” who claims that God the Father abandoned Jesus, His only begotten Son on the cross because Jesus stated, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me.”

In truth, the Father was right there beside His Son while Jesus was praying Psalm 22:1 which is a good thing to do (pray) when suffering.

Scripture states that God will never leave us nor forsake us. I believe that His own Son is included in His promise for mankind since Jesus is also Man. (Deuteronomy 31:6, 8; Joshua 1:5, Hebrews 13:5)

 

[maurin]

Our Lord’s Passion is the fulfillment of the Jewish Passover. Jesus becomes THE Paschal Lamb and no other Blood Sacrifice is ever needed again since His Sacrifice is perfect. Jesus fulfills all the Scriptures concerning Him in the Old Testament and makes the Old Covenant obsolete when He becomes the testator of His New Covenant by His death.

For my own 8 page explanation on the Holy Mass:

members.cox.net/studyhisword/HolyMass.pdf

Ok, thank you for answering. I read your paper and congratulate you on your hard work, and for your love of the Mass that lead you to write it. Is that also your blog, or are you just a contributor?

My question now is, according to your understanding, what is the correlation between the Jewish Passover and the Mass? (I ask because, if you remember, you have used the ECF’s knowledge of the Jewish Passover as a reason for CITH.)

 

[SHW]

Ok, thank you for answering. I read your paper and congratulate you on your hard work, and for your love of the Mass that lead you to write it. Is that also your blog, or are you just a contributor?

My question now is, according to your understanding, what is the correlation between the Jewish Passover and the Mass? (I ask because, if you remember, you have used the ECF’s knowledge of the Jewish Passover as a reason for CITH.)

Thank you for your kind words. I have more writings on various topics on my website: members.cox.net/studyhisword

For the record: I personally prefer the Latin Tridentine Mass and I have no problem with receiving Communion on the tongue and if there was a Latin Mass near me, I would only attend that Mass because I prefer the Latin Liturgy with the priest facing the altar rather than the people.

Who knows if CITH would have eventually again become a part of this Mass, if this Mass had not been practically outlawed and therefore frozen in time? My point is that it is unfair to label people as less holy if they prefer to receive CITH. We cannot judge hearts and we cannot know a person’s intentions unless they tell us what they are.

The correlation:

It seems to me that the Apostles did not mandate nor practice Communion on the tongue because there was no precedent for it in the Jewish Passover Feast. Most of the Apostles were Jews, perhaps all, so if receiving on the tongue was necessary, then they would have mandated it and their successors would also have practiced it, including the ECFs.

Also, we (I) do not know for sure whether some of the ECFs were Jewish converts to Christianity or not. But, if they were, they still approved of CITH.

Perhaps we should explore how a Seder meal is eaten:

The Seder table is traditionally set with the finest place settings and silverware, and family members come to the table dressed in their holiday clothes. There is a tradition for the person leading the Seder to wear a white robe called a kittel.[4][5] For the first half of the Seder, each participant will only need a plate and a wine glass. At the head of the table is a Seder Plate containing various symbolic foods that will be eaten or pointed out during the course of the Seder. Placed nearby is a plate with three matzot and dishes of salt water for dipping… (the dipping being a sign of royalty and freedom, while the salt water recalls the tears the Jews shed during their servitude).

from: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passover_Seder

There are dishes of salt water for dipping bread and vegetables and these dish(es) are shared by more than one person, but each person dips his own bread or vegetable into the dish and then puts the bread or vegetable into his own mouth. (Matthew 26:23, Mark 14:20)

I hope that I have answered your question satisfactorily.

 

[maurin]

Thank you for your kind words. I have more writings on various topics on my website: members.cox.net/studyhisword

For the record: I personally prefer the Latin Tridentine Mass and I have no problem with receiving Communion on the tongue and if there was a Latin Mass near me, I would only attend that Mass because I prefer the Latin Liturgy with the priest facing the altar rather than the people.

The Priest faces East, along with the people.

Who knows if CITH would have eventually again become a part of this Mass, if this Mass had not been practically outlawed and therefore frozen in time? My point is that it is unfair to label people as less holy if they prefer to receive CITH. We cannot judge hearts and we cannot know a person’s intentions unless they tell us what they are.

Noone has labeled anyone less holy, so it would be better that this straw man is laid to rest. It is the practice which is rightly labeled irreverent in light of the abuses and sacrileges which it paves the way for. Belief in the Real Presence has plummeted since this was not only instituted but normalized and preferred by renegade Bishops in defiance of Paul VI’s own teachings.

The correlation:

It seems to me that the Apostles did not mandate nor practice Communion on the tongue because there was no precedent for it in the Jewish Passover Feast. Most of the Apostles were Jews, perhaps all, so if receiving on the tongue was necessary, then they would have mandated it and their successors would also have practiced it, including the ECFs.

Also, we (I) do not know for sure whether some of the ECFs were Jewish converts to Christianity or not. But, if they were, they still approved of CITH.

Perhaps we should explore how a Seder meal is eaten:

from: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passover_Seder

There are dishes of salt water for dipping bread and vegetables and these dish(es) are shared by more than one person, but each person dips his own bread or vegetable into the dish and then puts the bread or vegetable into his own mouth. (Matthew 26:23, Mark 14:20)

I hope that I have answered your question satisfactorily.

You have answered my question, but your answer is far from satisfying. I am trying to understand why we should explore how a Seder meal is eaten. Are you saying that the Sacrifice of the Mass is a Seder meal? And that it’s rituals are Catholic?

 

[Pat_the_elder]

so sensitive…nothing like this was said. How is it dissenters can see what isn’t there so clearly but can’t see the pink elephant in front of their face?

Oh This is good! I used to think I was a Catholic. Turns out I’m a Dissenter. Although it may not have been plainly spoken, I perceive that running through this thread is an air of “my way is correct, your way is wrong” whether or not the Church has said so. Its Sunday morning her in Scotland and I’ve two doors to paint before going to Mass and “dissenting” a wee bit more LOL
Pat

 

[Pat_the_elder]

The Priest faces East, along with the people.

I’m not suggesting you are wrong but since I read this I’ve looked at 5 churches in this area. Only one of which has an east-west layout the rest are roughly north-south. All but one of the churches predate Vatican2

Pat

 

[SHW]

The Priest faces East, along with the people.

Yes, I was aware that “East” is the direction. “Toward Liturgical East.”

Catholic worship is patterned on Synagogue worship, but with necessary changes to reflect the New Covenant differences.

“The re-shaping so far described, of the Jewish synagogue for the purpose of Christian worship, clearly shows – as we have already said – how, even in architecture, there is both continuity and newness in the relationship of the Old Testament to the New. Expression in space had to be given to the properly Christian act of worship, the celebration of the Eucharist, together with the ministry of the Word, which is ordered toward that celebration.
Plainly, further developments became not only possible but necessary. A place set aside for Baptism had to be found. The Sacrament of Penance went through a long process of development, which resulted in changes to the form of the church building. Popular piety in its many different forms inevitably found expression in the place dedicated to divine worship. The question of sacred images had to be resolved. Church music had to be fitted into the spatial structure. We saw that the architectural canon for the liturgy of Word and Sacrament is not a rigid one, though with every new development and re-ordering the question has to be posed: what is in harmony with the essence of the liturgy, and what detracts from it? In the very form of its places of divine worship, which we have just been considering, Christianity, speaking and thinking in a Semitic way, has laid down principles by which this question can be answered. Despite all the variations in practice that have taken place far into the second millennium, one thing has remained clear for the whole of Christendom: praying toward the East is a tradition that goes back to the beginning. Moreover, it is a fundamental expression of the Christian synthesis of cosmos and history, of being rooted in the once-for-all events of salvation history while going out to meet the Lord who is to come again. Here both the fidelity to the gift already bestowed and the dynamism of going forward are given equal expression. _ Cardinal Ratzinger adoremus.org/0500-Ratzinger.html

**Bold **emphasis mine.

You have answered my question, but your answer is far from satisfying. I am trying to understand why we should explore how a Seder meal is eaten. Are you saying that the Sacrifice of the Mass is a Seder meal? And that it’s rituals are Catholic?

Sorry for the confusion. I was responding to Post #85 forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5425479&postcount=85

I can find no “proof” (from my research) to back up the assumption by certain Traditionalists that the “host of the Seder meal” always dips the bread into the wine and then puts it directly into the guest’s mouth. This is the alleged “proof” that they use as the prerequisite for commanding COTT as the “preferred” manner of receiving the precious Body and Blood of our Lord and some even go so far as to claim that their own personal preference (COTT) is the only “acceptable” way to receive HC and all who do not agree with them about COTT are on their way to hell.

However, I can only find references to “bread being dipped into salt water,” not wine, as I posted previously, and these persons are actually doing their own bread dipping into the salt water dishes during the Seder and placing their own salt-water dipped bread into their own mouths.

"……True, Our Lord established the new reality of Christian worship within the framework of a Jewish (Passover) meal, but it was precisely this new reality, not the meal as such, which He commanded us to repeat. Very soon the new reality was separated from its ancient context and found its proper and suitable form, a form already predetermined by the fact that the Eucharist refers back to the Cross and thus to the transformation of Temple sacrifice into the reasonable worship of God.”_ Cardinal Ratzinger adoremus.org/0500-Ratzinger.html

to be continued…