Receiving Holy Communion

[Scout]

I know there have been discussions on whether or not it is acceptable to receive Holy Communion in the hand. However, I would like to know some reasons why it would be preferable to receive Holy Communion on the tongue as opposed to in the hand. I understand part of the reason is to prevent the possibility of abuse to the Host, but what are some of the other reasons?

I would also like to know some personal reasons as to why you may choose to receive Holy Communion on the tongue or in the hand. Thanks.

Scout :tiphat:

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Scout:

I know there have been discussions on whether or not it is acceptable to receiving Holy Communion in the hand. However, I would like to know some reasons why it would be preferable to receive Holy Communion on the tongue as opposed to in the hand. I understand part of the reason is to prevent the possibility of abuse to the Host, but what are some of the other reasons?

I would also like to know some personal reasons as to why you may choose to receive Holy Communion on the tongue or in the hand. Thanks.

Scout :tiphat:

I recieve in the way that the Church teachings is acceptable.

I do so in obedience to the Church. No way is more reverent than another. It is as the Church says it is.

 

[Scout]

ByzCath:

I recieve in the way that the Church teachings is acceptable.

I do so in obedience to the Church. No way is more reverent than another. It is as the Church says it is.

Yes, but if the Church teaches that both are acceptable, which do you choose…and why?

Scout :tiphat:

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Hi Scout-

I have received both ways for relatively long periods of time. I received on my tongue as a child, in the hand as a young adult, and have reverted back to the tongue in the last few years.

When we were told that it was OK to receive in the hand, I dutifully did so in order to conform with church teaching (it was presented in our diocese as more in keeping with the SPIRIT of the original church, after all), and also to conform with the practice of the majority. No more altar rails, no more Latin, a more “active participation” in the Mass–what wasn’t to like?

I still have no problem per se with communion in the hand for any given individual. After all, thousands and thousands of people grew up with the practice, it IS legitimate practice. I won’t go into how it makes me “feel” because feelings are very subjective things, and one should not use one’s feelings alone, or primarily, to dictate one’s choices in supernatural, spiritual matters.

But, for myself, I find communion on the tongue, in my <considered, reasoned and prayerful decision> to reflect both the humility I strive for, the respect I have for Almighty God, and a practice which lessens, or could lessen, abuse of the sacrament. Others might equally claim the same things for in receiving communion in the hand.

I think we find here a very good example of two equally appropriate ways of thinking about the sacrament (i.e., communion on the tongue OR communion in the hand) which people can have a preference for one or the other disparging the one they themselves do choose.

I hope this isn’t disrespectful, but consider a big Mac and a Whopper. They are very similar in their content, but some people (vociferously) prefer the one, and some the other, and most people will not get too rabid over calling the big Mac guy a heretic for preferring prefab pan burgers, or calling the Whopper guy an elitist who would rather take in carcinogens with the “flame broiling”, and pay too much money on top of it.

When it comes right down to it, they’re both burgers, they both taste OK if you happen to like fast food, and unless you’re a vegan who doesn’t want to eat meat at all, or you’re a food purist who wants everybody to eat only organic meat, you really don’t give two hoots as to whether your neighbor eats one or the other. You care about your preference for you, but you don’t spend your life telling your Uncle George that he should eat whoppers–right?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Scout:

I would also like to know some personal reasons as to why you may choose to receive Holy Communion on the tongue or in the hand.

Dear Scout,

Although I’m a cradle Catholic, they started this “in the hands” business while I was at college and not going to Church, so at first I felt strange taking it in the hands because somehow I didn’t feel properly trained.

Then when lay EMs started to be more common, at first I avoided them, but then I started going to them and taking it in the hand, but on the tongue if from a priest. No really good reason except that it seemed so, well, personal to dangle my tongue in front of a peer.

Since then I’ve started receiving in the hand more often, because I think even if it’s a priest and even if he’s seen it all, why subject him to my big fat open mouth and tongue – and possibly breath in his face while I’m at it – when it isn’t required?

I have no idea how they (EMs) feel about it, but based on the Golden Rule I think I’d rather hand people a bunch of hosts than look at their gross tongues and perch hosts on them and try not to get slimed in the process, so I return the ostensible courtesy.

Now that I’ve gotten used to it, receiving in the hands in more within my comfort zone. Either way it’s the same Sacrament, so there’s really no spiritual benefit I can see for stepping out of that zone.

Alan

 

[puzzleannie]

you have to realize that a lot of us spent the last 30 years in dioceses or parishes where if not actually forbidden, certainly not encouraged to receive on the tongue, or even turned away for refusing to receive in the hand, we have therefore become conditioned, and it is just as hard to change back as it was to adopt the habit in the first place. same with genuflecting, lots of us come from places where a tabernacle has not been in the sanctuary for years, hidden in a back room or separate chapel, with ne sign or direction on how to find it, so there has been no reason to genuflect when entering church, so we have stopped doing it. don’t assume that we are not ligurgically correct because we don’t always assume the posture.

 

[RichT]

I have received both ways, but prefer to receive in the hand. I guess maybe I feel more a part of the process, or maybe it’s the feeling of actually holding Jesus before receiving him, an extra little touch. The times I have received on the tongue have been when I am holding one of my children, and my hands are full.

Now as an EMHC, I do find it a little difficult at times when the person standing in front of me wishes to receive on the tongue. Quite often they just don’t stick their tongues out far enough. Then again, being able to receive either way sometimes causes confusion. Sometimes the person really doesn’t give a clear signal which way they are going to receive. They stand there with their mouth closed and their hands by there side till the last second. Or even more difficult are the children who just received first communion and think you are supposed to pour the Precious Blood into their mouths for them.

 

[space_ghost]

when receiving in the hands was new, i wasn’t totally sure, as is the case with most change…

it’s my favorite way now… i would probably feel awkward to go back to the tongue, but if the church swung back that way i could handle it… just like most other changes… i just go with the flow if approved by Rome…

Peace

 

[Scout]

I’m only used to receiving in the hand. I think if I had to receive in the tongue I would struggle with the idea. I’m just not comfortable with the idea of someone being that close to me. It just bothers me. Does this make sense? Scout :tiphat:

 

[OhioBob]

I am more used to receiving in the hand now, and I think more EMHCs are comfortable with it that way. Since it is permitted by the Church I don’t see any reason not to do it. It certainly doesn’t diminish the reverence I feel toward the Eucharist.

I will occasionally receive on the tongue if I’m in a Priest’s line. But since they did away with the servers who held the communion plate under the communicant’s chin, I’ve become less comfortable with communion on the tongue due to the chance of dropping the host.

When I occasionally attend the Byzantine liturgy, I receive on the tongue, but they use intinction - and communion plates held by servers.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Scout:

Yes, but if the Church teaches that both are acceptable, which do you choose…and why?

Scout :tiphat:

Actually it is only in the Latin (or Roman) Catholic Church where there is an option.

I am a Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic and I attend a Melkite Greek Catholic parish. There is no option as the Eucharist is given by way of intinction so it is on the tongue for everyone but the priest and deacon.

When I do attend Mass I usually take it in the hand as most people do but I am not against, and have done it my self, recieveing on the tongue.

 

[Scout]

OhioBob:

I am more used to receiving in the hand now, and I think more EMHCs are comfortable with it that way. Since it is permitted by the Church I don’t see any reason not to do it. It certainly doesn’t diminish the reverence I feel toward the Eucharist.

I will occasionally receive on the tongue if I’m in a Priest’s line. But since they did away with the servers who held the communion plate under the communicant’s chin, I’ve become less comfortable with communion on the tongue due to the chance of dropping the host.

When I occasionally attend the Byzantine liturgy, I receive on the tongue, but they use intinction - and communion plates held by servers.

I am almost always in the Priest’s line. I really don’t feel comfortable receiving from anyone else-but that’s just me. I know there’s nothing wrong with it, but I’m just not comfortable with it.

People at our parish receive Holy Communion both ways-some in the hand, others in the tongue. However, there is no server with priest with a communion plate under the receiver’s chin to make sure that the host doesn’t fall to the ground. Should there be?

Scout :tiphat:

 

[bear06]

I receive on the tongue because I don’t feel worthy to hold Him in my hands. It’s just my personal feeling. I don’t deny that it’s acceptable either way. There shouldn’t be any question on whether or not it’s acceptable to receive in the hand. The Church says it is. It was bad when they were doing it before that was approved.

I know some people have had a different experience but I’ve noticed a far more amount of people “bobbling” the Host in the hand than on the tongue. You’ve, of course, already mentioned the fact that those who would like to commit a sacrilege with the Host usually take it in the hand. I think it would be a little more obvious to take it on the tongue and then pull it out of you mouth without someone noticing. I’ve known several people who have actually caught somebody trying to leave with the Host (and not to take it to the sick).

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

bear06:

You’ve, of course, already mentioned the fact that those who would like to commit a sacrilege with the Host usually take it in the hand.

I am sorry but this is an unproven statement.

I do not think more sacrilege has been occuring since allowing communion in the Hand.

This was done by the early Church.

I think those wishing to commit a sacrilege would take it on the tongue because people would think that they are not going to do so. also they would appear more “reverent” and thereby make their sacrilege all the more worse.

 

[OhioBob]

Scout:

…However, there is no server with priest with a communion plate under the receiver’s chin to make sure that the host doesn’t fall to the ground. Should there be?

Scout :tiphat:

My understanding is that the revised GIRM did away with the communion plate requirement except in cases where intinction is used:

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.

 

[bear06]

ByzCath:

I am sorry but this is an unproven statement.

I do not think more sacrilege has been occuring since allowing communion in the Hand.

This was done by the early Church.

I think those wishing to commit a sacrilege would take it on the tongue because people would think that they are not going to do so. also they would appear more “reverent” and thereby make their sacrilege all the more worse.

I just plain have to disagree with you here. First of all, in the early Church they took greater precautions to make sure that sacrilege wouldn’t happen. People were actually appointed to watch out for it which was a deterent in an of itself. Besides this, just from personal knowledge, the sadly many friends of mine who have caught people trying to steal the Host for unsavory acts have all been Communion in the hand. Thank heaven for the alert! I get distracted easily so I try not to pay attention to what’s going on around me. They either stuck it into their pockets or kept it in their hands. Maybe the stats are different but I’m going on what’s happened in our community and elsewhere.

 

[Mysty101]

I did have another thought on this. It does seem that these problems are far more frequent in the shrines and Cathedrals or Bascilicas, which are also tourist attractions. I would imagine some non-Catholics also receive Communion. I don’t know if this is done, but perhaps an anouncement could be made—I have heard this done at funerals --something like “Practicing Catholics may now come forward to receive Holy Communion”

Many non-Cathoics do not know that we must have certain beliefs and attend Mass regularly to receive. It is just a matter of ignorance, which may be prevented with a little instruction.

I offered the Precious Blood at a Confirmation Mass last night. I was standing about 12 feet from the priest distributing the Body. One 10-12 year old was still holding the host as she passed me. I grabbed her coat and told her to consume it, which she did—no problem. The woman behind her said as she walked by, “I could use about a gallon of that” To me this was far worse.

The most serious concern with sacrilege is taking consecrated hosts for use in Black masses or other sacriligous worship. This could be done no matter how the host was received.–just keep it in your mouth and walk out the nearest door.

A more common problem is irreverence, and this can be, no matter how the Host is received. It is often seen in Masses for special situations—Holidays, Funerals, Weddings and other sacraments, when many people who are not regular practicing Catholics are attending.

 

[Georgie_Stevens]

Receiving on the tongue, I believe, shows more reverence for the Blessed Sacrament, less handling. It also elevates the position of the priest, one who has been ordained to consecrate and handle the bread as opposed to a lay person.

Also, I have heard from my brother and have had it confirmed but without any clarification of details from the EWTN Q&A, that the practice of receiving communion in the hands came about as an unallowed abuse of privilege. The US bishops then received an allowance from the pope because it became so widespread.

Growing up we were taught that you could not touch the Blessed Sacrament and then all of a sudden you could receive in your hands so I did. But once I had babies in my arms I got into the practice of receiving on my tongue and have stuck with it. At this point I am trying to do anything to show as much reverence for the Blessed Sacrament as I can and wish we still received at altar rails so that the moment of reception wasn’t such a jostled time of getting up next, making a reverent bow and then quickly getting out of the way. Wouldn’t it be nice to get your spot at the altar rail after it’s vacated, have a few moments of preparation prayer before the priest gets back to you and then spend a few seconds alone with Jesus before popping up to get back to your pew! I’m praying this returns!!

 

[jimmy]

ByzCath:

I recieve in the way that the Church teachings is acceptable.

I do so in obedience to the Church. No way is more reverent than another. It is as the Church says it is.

Don’t you recieve on the tongue? I thought all Byzantine Catholics recieved on the tongue because all there churches do intinction, don’t they?

 

[jimmy]

I used to recieve in the hand but lately I have been recieving on the tongue because I do not feel I am worthy to touch the host with my hands. It is out of respect for the body of Christ that I recieve on the tongue.