receiving communion on the tongue

[ConstantineTG]

Tell me, if you were in a Communion line, and the choices of people you could recieve Holy Communion from were from Christ Himself, or from me as an EMHC, should I take offense if you went into Christ’s ‘line’

The Church doesn’t teach it this way. You’re over exaggerating the scenario, sorry.

 

[Arkadin]

I would love the Communion kneelers to come back.

 

[JimG]

This is awfully close to saying that receiving from a priest is better, more holy, etc. than from a Deacon or EMHC, no?

I’m not saying that receiving from a priest is “better,” in that we receive the same Jesus, whether from a priest or an EMHC. But I recall that up until the late 1960’s or early 1970’s only a priest was allowed to touch the consecrated host. A layperson could not touch the host, or even the chalice.

When communion in the hand was first allowed, our parish gave instructions on it for three consecutive Sundays, before beginning the practice. Now, receiving in the hand is nearly the universal custom; but, as pointed out in Father’s column, casualness and disrespect for the sacred species has increased.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

There is no right or wrong when it comes to receiving on the tongue or in the hand if its allowed in your diocese. But it is wrong if you let other people dictate which way you receive. The Church gave us 2 choices, its up to us to choose, not someone else. Do what you think is right and don’t worry about what other people may think. As long as you are not violating any rule of the Church then you are fine.

Amen…as long as either is done as reverently as possible.

 

[Lapey]

Tell me, if you were in a Communion line, and the choices of people you could recieve Holy Communion from were from Christ Himself, or from me as an EMHC, should I take offense if you went into Christ’s ‘line’

Sometimes obedience calls us to do something WE would rather not do, but it is still required. The Church is not to be in line with your teaching, you are to be in line with Her teaching; on this subject your theology is off and could cause major problems if everyone was of the same mindset as you.

In the moment of distribution of Communion, the difference in the ministers is not what is important, it is the discernment of the presence of Jesus, and the fact that you are encountering Jesus face to face and bringing Him into your body, not whether you are receiving from the priest of EMHC.

The Church teaches and so it is, the EMHC is proper theology if you really want to get to the roots, go read the accounts of the Last Supper; “…Jesus took and broke and handed to the Apostles…”

Did He walk around and hand them all the Eucharistic bread and then after His Blood? No they passed it to each other.

If we spend more time trying to point out the abuses in the mass, or going through our personal devotions like this you describe, we will miss the mass. Please just go to mass and worship God as He asked us to do.

If the Church changes Her teaching as says to receive Communion on the foot while standing on your head, then do it.

If you insist on your personal devotion to the priest, please make it a habit to sit in the section where he will always distribute then just pray mass and all will work out; but if you cause a distraction to others by always crossing over, then you need to truly discern what is right, worship and reception of Jesus as community, or your personal quirks. Just a thought.

I hope my comments don’t sound harsh, it is meant in charity to remind us what’s important, which is worship as community of our Lord.

 

[ProVobis]

Did He walk around and hand them all the Eucharistic bread and then after His Blood? No they passed it to each other.

The Church specifically says we are not to do this so why do you try to justify it?

 

[ProVobis]

This is awfully close to saying that receiving from a priest is better, more holy, etc. than from a Deacon or EMHC, no?

But this whole thread seems to imply that people who receive communion are holier than those who don’t. So if it’s a matter of the degree of holiness that’s involved, then it becomes a private and subjective decision on what other choices we make.

 

[Newbie2]

But this whole thread seems to imply that people who receive communion are holier than those who don’t. So if it’s a matter of the degree of holiness that’s involved, then it becomes a private and subjective decision on what other choices we make.

Well, that’s exactly the point, isn’t it? We are not more or less holier nor is the Eucharist more or less holier depending on who we receive it (him) from. If a person feels more holy, reverent, respectful, whatever, that’s fine. But theologically it makes no difference, [edited]

 

[MiserereMeiDeus]

I love Father Z’s blog!

Check this one out. A little something I’m trying to start. Let me know what you think .

ourcatholicidentity.blogspot.com/

 

[Lapey]

The Church specifically says we are not to do this so why do you try to justify it?

What??? I am not trying to justify anything, simply demonstrating absurdity by being absurd; nothing more nothing less.

 

[Lapey]

Well, that’s exactly the point, isn’t it? We are not more or less holier nor is the Eucharist more or less holier depending on who we receive it (him) from. If a person feels more holy, reverent, respectful, whatever, that’s fine. But theologically it makes no difference, just like it makes no difference if one had received from a priest, for example, who had just the previous day sexually abused a child.

Very bad example to bring up…please don’t use it again.

 

[ProVobis]

But theologically it makes no difference

Only to the extent where no risk to profanity (or indifference, for that matter) exists. Profanity is against divine law. There was a reason why the Church condemned the practice of the laity touching communion and still does in some places.

 

[Brendan]

Sometimes obedience calls us to do something WE would rather not do, but it is still required. The Church is not to be in line with your teaching, you are to be in line with Her teaching; on this subject your theology is off and could cause major problems if everyone was of the same mindset as you.

What was it that I said that was outside of Church teaching? The Church teaches us that the priest during Mass is in persona Christi, that is Christ, by a positive act, is present as the High Priest within the person of the priest.

The Church also tells us that the ordained priesthood differs from the common priesthood in both Nature and Degree. ( LG 21)

So it is in full recognition of the Churches teaching that I recognize that there IS a difference in the Minister. When we recieve the Eucharist from the hands of the priest, we recieve from the hands of Christ.

Yes, the Church teaches that EMHC’s may be legitimately be used, I have never denied that.

Likewise, if the Church teaches that one is required to present oneself to an EMHC, then I will, of course, give full consent and obedince to such a directive. But the Church has not issued such a directive.

As far as sitting on the priest’s side at Mass, I do that. Or more specifically, I am fortunate that, at my parish, the pastor and the elderly priest who lives in our rectory both come out to distribute Holy Communion at each Mass, and that it is given intincted at the Communion rail, so no EMHC’s are needed or used.

The parish deacon, when present, will offer Eucharist to those who are elderly or invalid and cannot come to the rail. That too is also fitting, as that is the role of the Deacon in the early Church, to bring the Eucharist to those who are sick or invalid ( Justin Martry, Apologies)

 

[centurionguard]

Well catechized Catholics can receive reverently on the hand. I’ve heard of a story of a mom who gave a piece of the Host from her mouth to her child, so I don’t see how COTT could have prevented that.

Well catechized Catholics can receive reverently on the hand.

True; receiving on the hands became an acceptable form under the auspices of Vatican II

And to be honest it didn’t become a common practice until the mid 1970’s to the best of my recollection.

I did most of my catechetical years as a kid during the 1960’s until 1973.
Demographically depending where one lived by the mid 1970’s Catholic parochial schools made the steady decline and by 1985 many had pretty well disappeared into oblivion.

When I was a kid Nuns in habits told us that only a priest had consecrated hands to touch the host. While the main theme of this truth holds true today it seems to mean very little when it comes to the laity.

I would have always wanted communion distributed on the tongue because of what the consecrated Eucharist represents with Jesus being fully and substantially present in invisible form. My Lord, My God, and My Savior

I don’t know…it just seems to me that many Catholics today have become like Doubting Thomas saying (“I will not believe unless I can put my finger in the holes of His hands, feet and side”).

Peace
Chris

 

[ProVobis]

When I was a kid Nuns in habits told us that only a priest had consecrated hands to touch the host. While the main theme of this truth holds true today it seems to mean very little when it comes to the laity.

This is a good point.

Holiness aside, I feel the priest’s right to touch the Host is his natural right as he, being of the order of Melchizedech, is the one who today as persona Christi is performing the actual sacrifice to God. Nothing should undermine or belittle his right to touch the Victim or Host.

 

[Elizium23]

True; receiving on the hands became an acceptable form under the auspices of Vatican II

I don’t believe Vatican II had much to do with it directly; it was an indult that came somewhat later and not as a result of anything decided in the council. Furthermore, it’s only permitted in a limited area (Just the USA?) so it did not affect the universal Church.

When I was a kid Nuns in habits told us that only a priest had consecrated hands to touch the host. While the main theme of this truth holds true today it seems to mean very little when it comes to the laity.

Those nuns were somewhat inaccurate, because the deacon has always been allowed to handle the sacred species; as an ordinary minister of Holy Communion that is his ministry. But a deacon’s hands are not consecrated. Consecrating hands doesn’t have anything to do with being able to handle the sacred species.

 

[paperwight66]

I don’t believe Vatican II had much to do with it directly; it was an indult that came somewhat later and not as a result of anything decided in the council. Furthermore, it’s only permitted in a limited area (Just the USA?) so it did not affect the universal Church.
.

Wherever I’ve been in the world, CITH has been the practice. True, there was a poster earlier who said that it was not the custom in Latvia., and I think there is a diocese in Latin America where it is not permitted, and a parish in Rome (but not the whole of Rome).

But a year ago (IIRC) in this forum we had a roll-call of countries where it was permitted, based on personal experience through travel, or information from official websites, and it seemed to be more-or-less worldwide, including Poland.

 

[PAboy57]

Well, that’s exactly the point, isn’t it? We are not more or less holier nor is the Eucharist more or less holier depending on who we receive it (him) from. If a person feels more holy, reverent, respectful, whatever, that’s fine. But theologically it makes no difference, just like it makes no difference if one had received from a priest, for example, who had just the previous day sexually abused a child.

Dear Newbie2,

Why would you reduce yourself to rubbish by bringing up such a disgusting example. You have over 6,000 posts on here and certainly should know that this statement would ruffle some feathers. Please be generous enough to offer an apology for reducing this thread to the gutters. Let it go and remember the Church is under the influence of the Holy Spirit even though some members have been overcome by evilness.

I am ashamed and disgusted for such a remark by someone with your tenure.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Wherever I’ve been in the world, CITH has been the practice. True, there was a poster earlier who said that it was not the custom in Latvia., and I think there is a diocese in Latin America where it is not permitted, and a parish in Rome (but not the whole of Rome).

But a year ago (IIRC) in this forum we had a roll-call of countries where it was permitted, based on personal experience through travel, or information from official websites, and it seemed to be more-or-less worldwide, including Poland.

Right. It did start from a limited number of countries but truthfully many dioceses and Episcopal Conferences apply for the indult every year from the Vatican.

 

[Padraig1972]

You know, i have asked my parish priest about this and he says it is an individual choice we are allowed to make. I have to admit that recieve it on the tongue would be best, i have not had the guts to do it yet.

So guys, girls…please dont be hard on me. I have only been home in the catholic family for two small months and im learning as the days fly by.