Receiving on the tongue

[Petertherock]

Anima Christi:

As to having a personal relationship with Jesus . . . just keep in mind that He is your Creator and Lord, and not your buddy or your “homeboy.”

No, you are wrong. God the father is my creator. Jesus is my Lord and Savior. Yes they are all one but they are also all seperate too.

 

[Petertherock]

Also, how did Jesus heal people? What did Jesus do to all the people he came across? He touched them! Again, how can Jesus heal us and be our friend if we are afraid to touch Him? You can have reverence and still recieve Him on the hand.

People have been stealing Eucharists before they received by hand. All they would do is just keep the Eucharist in their mouth until they got back to their pew or left the church. If someone intends to commit a sacrelige they will do it whether you recieve by hand or mouth.

 

[EJ79]

JP2Admirer:

I’ve never understood the logic behind saying that it’s better to receive on the tongue.

Number one, as far as I know, the Church says both forms of receiving are acceptable. Also, if you follow the logic that if you take it in your hand, parts of the Eucharist will end up in your pocket or purse, or whatever, then the same should be said for the priest. He should not be allowed to touch it either, once it becomes the Body of the Lord. He, too, could accidentally misplace some of the Eucharist, it could end up on the floor or otherwise. If this is true, then we would not be able to distribute the Eucharist.

Also, I don’t think Jesus is going to hold you responsible if parts of Him wind up in your pocket. You are not intending sacrilege, so you shouldn’t be culpable.

At my first communion, they showed us how to receive it with our hands. To be honest, I find it illogical to claim that receiving on the tongue is better than receiving by hand. Unless the Church says otherwise, I don’t think it is the “moral high ground” to receive on the tongue.

First of all, I respect your opinion, and nobody is claiming “moral high ground” on this issue - the consequences of Communion in the hand speak for themselves.

You might change your mind if you really knew how receiving communion in the hand was “reintroduced” and the heartache that it caused Pope Paul VI, who finally gave in and allowed it under pressure from some French, German, and Belgian bishops. Paul VI wrote an excellent defense and explanation of the Church’s decision (at the time it was the late 60’s) to only administer the Eucharist on the tongue of the communicant (too bad he gave in to pressure later on). It should be noted that Vatican II did not permit communion in the hand - it was experimented with by some groups after the Council, permission was NEVER sought for it - they just started doing it without the Pope’s knowledge of it, and then in the face of his disapproval of it.

The practice later caught on like wildfire in much of Europe, the U.S. and Canada, and the Pope later felt helpless to stop it.

The late Michael Davies wrote an excellent and fair analysis of the matter.

While both are now accepted, it is undeniable that Communion in the hand has led to widespread lack of belief in the Real Presence, as well as unfortunate incidents of sacrilege against the Eucharist. How many of us have witnessed the Host being dropped on the ground because of clumsiness in the way it’s handled?

Second, the priest is supposed to purify his hands with water (and wine as in the Tridentine rite) after he finishes distributing the Eucharist, to PURIFY his hands that have touched the Eucharist. This water is then supposed to be poured in the sacrarium in the sacristy.

Before it was universal that the altar server or acolyte would hold a paten under the chin of the communicant while the priest administered the Eucharist, to catch the Host if it were to fall and also to catch any particles of the Host that might dislodge. Many parishes all over the world still do this - and if others don’t, they ought to…

Anyone who can’t acknowledge honestly the negative consequences of Communion in the hand lives in the Twilight Zone… let’s be respectful of the legitimate preferences of others, but let’s not ignore reality either.

 

[EJ79]

msproule:

In absence of more specific instructions, the Bishops have allowed us to use our own judgement. It is acceptable to offer arguments in support of one’s opinion. Neither of the means for reception are wrong and there is historical evidence for both (Writings of Church Fathers).

You’re right, neither are “wrong” in and of themselves. I respect those that do choose to receive in this manner reverently, as the Church now allows it in most (but not all) places, it depends on the local bishop. I believe that there are many good, believing people who receive in this way, so please don’t misinterpret what I’m about to say, but it is undeniable that there is a clear logic as to why the Church over time decided it was best to only administer the Eucharist on the tongue. Read Paul VI’s instruction on the matter. If anyone knows the name of the document - please contribute.

Futhermore, the way the practice of Communion in the hand was reintroduced is quite unfortunate as it was initially the product of liturgical experimentation and disobedience. This is undeniable and it’s history, read up on it.

When Mother Teresa of Calcutta was asked by a journalist what saddened her most about the Church in our times, she replied simply “Communion in the hand.” Mother Angelica would refer to this frequently.

 

[JP2Admirer]

EJ79:

First of all, I respect your opinion, and nobody is claiming “moral high ground” on this issue - the consequences of Communion in the hand speak for themselves.

You might change your mind if you really knew how receiving communion in the hand was “reintroduced” and the heartache that it caused Pope Paul VI, who finally gave in and allowed it under pressure from some French, German, and Belgian bishops. Paul VI wrote an excellent defense and explanation of the Church’s decision (at the time it was the late 60’s) to only administer the Eucharist on the tongue of the communicant (too bad he gave in to pressure later on). It should be noted that Vatican II did not permit communion in the hand - it was experimented with by some groups after the Council, permission was NEVER sought for it - they just started doing it without the Pope’s knowledge of it, and then in the face of his disapproval of it.

The practice later caught on like wildfire in much of Europe, the U.S. and Canada, and the Pope later felt helpless to stop it.

The late Michael Davies wrote an excellent and fair analysis of the matter.

While both are now accepted, it is undeniable that Communion in the hand has led to widespread lack of belief in the Real Presence, as well as unfortunate incidents of sacrilege against the Eucharist. How many of us have witnessed the Host being dropped on the ground because of clumsiness in the way it’s handled?

Second, the priest is supposed to purify his hands with water (and wine as in the Tridentine rite) after he finishes distributing the Eucharist, to PURIFY his hands that have touched the Eucharist. This water is then supposed to be poured in the sacrarium in the sacristy.

Before it was universal that the altar server or acolyte would hold a paten under the chin of the communicant while the priest administered the Eucharist, to catch the Host if it were to fall and also to catch any particles of the Host that might dislodge. Many parishes all over the world still do this - and if others don’t, they ought to…

Anyone who can’t acknowledge honestly the negative consequences of Communion in the hand lives in the Twilight Zone… let’s be respectful of the legitimate preferences of others, but let’s not ignore reality either.

I admire your respect for the Eucharist, as I have the same respect, but why has the Church allowed reception in the hand if it is so disrespectful? If Pope Paul VI was so disheartened, why didn’t he just stop the practice? He was the Pope afterall.

Also, if I’m living in the “twilight zone” by the so called obvious abuses of the Eucharist, then why has the Church not changed its position? Why does it still allow the practice? If they are reluctant about it, why does it still happen? I think if the abuses were so obvious, the Church would stop the practice. After all, it does have the authority to do so. Do you know better than the Church on this issue?

This whole idea that “your way is the best way” is exactly what I was getting at when I said, “moral high ground.” I have a deep respect for the Eucharist, but I like to take it by hand, and you seem to be telling me that that is somehow disrespectful of the Lord, yet the Church says either way is okay.

All I meant by my previous post was that following the logic of the possiblity of the host being dropped, would lead to the conclusion that no one could touch it. Should there be Eucharistic ministers? Should they be able to touch the Host?

Also, I think to be guilty of sacrelige you have to intend sacrelige. I understand your feeling we have to respect the Eucharist, but honestly, I think this idea can be taken too far.

 

[msproule]

JP2Admirer:

All I meant by my previous post was that following the logic of the possiblity of the host being dropped, would lead to the conclusion that no one could touch it. Should there be Eucharistic ministers? Should they be able to touch the Host?

A priest is a Eucharistic Minister. Assuming you mean *Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, *I contend it would be most desirable to have none. This would imply that there are sufficient clergy to render Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion obsolete!

As a result of the situation in which we currently find ourselves, they have been allowed to fill this need through the authority of the Church. Until the day that we have enough priests, the EMHC should be able to touch the Host because that is what the Church has decided. Would I personally like to see less of them used? Absolutely! This allowance has certainly been abused and misused in my Diocese.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Lanciano:

Another thought is that no particles are lost from receiving on the tongue as in receiving in the hand. Into a man’s pocket or in a women’s purse or other ways that you can think of. All of the remaining particles are consumed by the priest when he cleans the vessels, or in some churches the when sacristan cleans the cups and the ciboria. Read John 6:12 which comes from an account of the loaves and fishes, Christ speaking…and when they were filled He said to His disciples: “Gather up the fragments that remain, lest they be lost.” (Douay-Rheims version)

This is as bad as proof texting on the part of Fundamentalist Protestants. You cannot pull from this passsage anything about the Fragments of the Host.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Anima Christi:

Can you think of one case where someone has actually caught a disease by receiving on the tongue? It’s very sad that someone would let their paranoia keep them from giving Jesus the reverence He deserves.
I truly do not understand how someone could think that one would be more likely to catch an illness by receiving on the tongue than in the hand. Think about it . . . during Mass, you shake a lot of hands during the sign of peace, and who knows where those hands have been? And you are transmitting the Host from your dirty, germ-ridden hand into your mouth. I also don’t understand how anyone who realizes that Jesus Christ Himself is in the Eucharist could be comfortable casually receiving on the hand . . . I’m sure it happens, I just don’t understand how. As to having a personal relationship with Jesus . . . just keep in mind that He is your Creator and Lord, and not your buddy or your “homeboy.”

First off, I generally rec. on the tongue. It is no more or less reverent to rec. on the tongue than on the hand. The Church permits both (watch tapes of the papal masses in April if you think this is only an American phenomenon). The priest’s hands are just as likely to be as contaminated as one’s own, as his washing of his hands at Mass is purely ceremonial…it never involves soap or a disinfectant of any kind. He has handeled the Sacramentary, greeted people at the Sign of Peace, etc. Your assertion that rec. in the hand is “casual” belies the faith of many very devout Catholics who elect for whatever reason to rec. in the hand. Their reception in the hand harkens back to the earliest practice of the ancient Church. It also doesn’t mean they have any less reverence or regard for Our Lord. I think people should be allowed what the Church allows: the choice.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

msproule:

Until the day that we have enough priests, the EMHC should be able to touch the Host because that is what the Church has decided.

Or deacons. I’d settle for deacons in this regard at least.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

gez722:

The Host was secreted and taken away for nefarious purposes, long before the practice of rec. in the hand was restored, by people who rec. on the tongue.

 

[Petertherock]

When I am talking about diseases I am talking specifically about bloodborn pathogens which can be transmitted through saliva. Think about it, the priest touches someone’s toung who has HIV, AIDS, HEP-B or another disease that is transmitted through body fluids and then he touches your toung.

Do we know if any diseases have been trasmitted in this way? No. There is really no way to tell. But on the other hand there is no way to prove this hasn’t happened either.

I think it’s interesting that they were telling people not to recieve holy Communion back when they had the flu shots “crisis” last winter. If there isn’t a danger of catching anything why would they be telling anyone this?

Regardless of your reason for recieving by hand or tounge, as others has said either way is acceptable by the Church. Since the Church has said recieving by the hand is acceptable I am not going to question the Church.

 

[TeriGator]

Petertherock:

I think it’s interesting that they were telling people not to recieve holy Communion back when they had the flu shots “crisis” last winter. If there isn’t a danger of catching anything why would they be telling anyone this?
.

Was this being done? In Florida, where we had a severe shortage of shots, and I did not get one even though I fall into the “needy” category, we were told to avoid the cup, not the Eucharist. I didn’t hear anything about instructions to avoid the Eucharist in other areas of the country.

 

[A.Pelliccio]

Oh cut that personal relationship with Jesus thing out. What are we going out dancing on a Friday night? This is the lord, King of Kings the most high we are not worthy of touching him. We must humble ourselves before our Savior, for we are sinners. Why do you thing we are taught to put our heads down after we view the consecration? We are shielding our eyes from the most holy miracle and sacrifice because we are not worthy. The Priest atleast makes a confession and physical washes his fingers with Holy Water.

Receiving the most holy body of Christ on your knees and tounge is acceptable and I do this ever week wether I am able to attend the TLM mass or not.

 

[Swiss_Guard]

Petertherock:

Also, how did Jesus heal people? What did Jesus do to all the people he came across? He touched them! Again, how can Jesus heal us and be our friend if we are afraid to touch Him? You can have reverence and still recieve Him on the hand.

People have been stealing Eucharists before they received by hand. All they would do is just keep the Eucharist in their mouth until they got back to their pew or left the church. If someone intends to commit a sacrelige they will do it whether you recieve by hand or mouth.

Then why has there been an increase since Communion in the hand was allowed? Why has this become an all too common occurance?

---

True, sacrileges can occur whether someone receives on the tongue or in the hand. However, using this logic, that people are going to committ a sacrilege regardless of whether they receive in the hand or on the tongue is the same logic used by those who support legalized abortion. Women are going to have abortions whether it is legal or illegal.

---

This logic can be applied to all sorts of behavior. If someone is going to drink and drive, no law will stop him from doing it. If a man wants to rape a woman, he’s going to do it whether or not it’s a crime.

---

We should all accept these behaviors because it’s going to happen and there’s nothing anyone can do about it.

 

[gez722]

JP2Admirer:

I’ve never understood the logic behind saying that it’s better to receive on the tongue.

I do it as a sign of respect for my Lord and Savior. I have to admit that I have a hard time looking at what appears to be a wafer and convincing myself that it is really Jesus. Even though I believe it completely, my senses fail me and I am prone to distractions. My own personal sign of reverence helps me to understand this great mystery a little bit more.

As I stated, it is my personal preference. I don’t think I’m better than people who receive in the hand. In actuality, I’m probably much less holy than many people who receive the Lord in their hand. It’s because of my unworthiness that I need this additional sign of reverence.

God Bless,
Gary

 

[gez722]

JKirkLVNV:

The Host was secreted and taken away for nefarious purposes, long before the practice of rec. in the hand was restored, by people who rec. on the tongue.

Agreed. But it’s still more difficult to sell a partially consumed, saliva covered Host on Ebay. Why should we make it easier for people to desecrate the Body of Our Lord?

God Bless,
Gary

 

[Swiss_Guard]

Petertherock:

Also, how did Jesus heal people? What did Jesus do to all the people he came across? He touched them! Again, how can Jesus heal us and be our friend if we are afraid to touch Him? You can have reverence and still recieve Him on the hand.

People have been stealing Eucharists before they received by hand. All they would do is just keep the Eucharist in their mouth until they got back to their pew or left the church. If someone intends to commit a sacrelige they will do it whether you recieve by hand or mouth.

Then why has there been an increase since Communion in the hand was allowed? Why has this become an all too common occurance?

---

True, sacrileges can occur whether someone receives on the tongue or in the hand. However, using this logic, that people are going to committ a sacrilege regardless of whether they receive in the hand or on the tongue is the same logic used by those who support legalized abortion. Women are going to have abortions whether it is legal or illegal.

---

This logic can be applied to all sorts of behavior. If someone is going to drink and drive, no law will stop him from doing it. If a man wants to rape a woman, he’s going to do it whether or not it’s a crime.

---

We should all accept these behaviors because it’s going to happen and there’s nothing anyone can do about it.

 

[Swiss_Guard]

**At the same time, however, the more complete sharing in the Eucharistic celebration of which sacramental communion is the sign, has prompted a desire in some quarters during the last several years to return to that usage whereby the Eucharistic bread is placed in the hand of the faithful, who communicate by putting the host into their own mouth.

Moreover such a rite has even been put into practice in some communities and locales, even though the Apostolic See’s approval has not been sought beforehand** and in some cases the necessary preparation of the faithful has not been provided.

It is quite true that ancient usage at times allowed the faithful to receive this divine food in the hand and to put it into their own mouth. It is also true that in the earliest years they could take the blessed sacrament away with them from the place of worship, principally in order that they might use it as viaticum in case they had to face danger for the sake of professing their faith.

But it is also true that the laws of the Church and the writings of the Fathers give ample witness to a supreme reverence and utmost caution toward the Eucharist. "No one…eats that flesh who has not first adored it; everyone receiving it is warned: “…Receive it with care that nothing of it be lost to you”; “For it is the body of Christ.”

The practice of receiving Communion in the hand came about from disobedience! Notice how the document states these “communities” decided to revive this practice WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE HOLY SEE! This is the same way altar girls, liturgical dancers and other “innovations” started.

---

This was an abuse that got approval. How many more abuses will get approval simply because “communities” take the intiative to thumb their collective noses at the Holy See?

---

**Also, how is it reverent to disobey the Holy See? I still haven’t heard a convincing argument for keeping Communion in the hand. The only argument presented is this is what I want to do. **

---

I want to make it clear that I believe if the Holy See decided to no longer allow Communion in the hand everyone posting on this forum would obey the directive. I’m not questioning anyone’s obedience to Rome, at least anyone who posts here. However, how many “communities” would continue to do it? Disobedience runs deep.

 

[Swiss_Guard]

JP2Admirer:

I’ve never understood the logic behind saying that it’s better to receive on the tongue.

Let me use an analogy to state my point. You are over at a friend’s house and he shows you the expensive crystal he and his wife just bought. He tells you how much it cost him and how much he and his wife love it. He says they only bring it out for special occasions and are very careful how they handle it. Would you handle the crystal or would you, out of respect for your friend and the crystal, just look at it and not touch it? I wouldn’t touch it unless my friend specifically let me touch it. If we would act this way with an inanimate object, how much more respect should be shown to our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament? How precious would the crystal be if your friend let everyone touch it? You would think it isn’t precious at all, especially if he let his kids and all the neighbor kids come in and handle it. How much more should we regard the Blessed Sacrament, which is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ.

JP2Admirer:

Number one, as far as I know, the Church says both forms of receiving are acceptable. Also, if you follow the logic that if you take it in your hand, parts of the Eucharist will end up in your pocket or purse, or whatever, then the same should be said for the priest. He should not be allowed to touch it either, once it becomes the Body of the Lord. He, too, could accidentally misplace some of the Eucharist, it could end up on the floor or otherwise. If this is true, then we would not be able to distribute the Eucharist.

The priest purifies his fingers after distributing Holy Communion. That is why there is a small glass container of water next to the tabernacle. At least there is supposed to be one. If not, the priest isn’t following the directives set by the Holy See. Then again, if a priest doesn’t purify his fingers, it leaves many questions in my mind.

JP2Admirer:

Also, I don’t think Jesus is going to hold you responsible if parts of Him wind up in your pocket. You are not intending sacrilege, so you shouldn’t be culpable.

What you have stated is objectively called the “fundamental option.” This is the heresy promoted by the late Fr. Karl Rahner and others which says that a sin is only a mortal sin if you intend to cut yourself off from God. In other words, I can fornicate all I want and it’s not a mortal sin as long as I don’t intend to cut myself off from God. The Church says for a sin to be mortal there must be three conditions: grievous matter, sufficient reflection and full consent of the will.

---

Now, someone who receives in the hand and does everything to purify his hands and fingers or unintentionally forgot to do it would not be guilty of a sacrilege. If someone decides out of negligence not to purify his hands, then that person could be culpable, provided the person knows it is sinful.

JP2Admirer:

At my first communion, they showed us how to receive it with our hands. To be honest, I find it illogical to claim that receiving on the tongue is better than receiving by hand. Unless the Church says otherwise, I don’t think it is the “moral high ground” to receive on the tongue.

Did they tell you that receiving on the tongue is the norm and that special persmission is needed to receive in the hand? Did they even inform you of the “option” to receive on the tongue? I didn’t think so.

---

It’s not about “moral high ground,” it has to do with reverence. As I stated in a previous post, Communion in the hand came about because of disobedience! I’ve yet to hear someone argue that disobedience is reverent.

 

[Swiss_Guard]

Oh cut that personal relationship with Jesus thing out. What are we going out dancing on a Friday night? This is the lord, King of Kings the most high we are not worthy of touching him. We must humble ourselves before our Savior, for we are sinners. Why do you thing we are taught to put our heads down after we view the consecration? We are shielding our eyes from the most holy miracle and sacrifice because we are not worthy. The Priest atleast makes a confession and physical washes his fingers with Holy Water.

Receiving the most holy body of Christ on your knees and tounge is acceptable and I do this ever week wether I am able to attend the TLM mass or not.

I agree A. Pelliccio. I put in bold the points I like best. We sometimes receive Holy Communion as if it’s something we do every Sunday. It becomes a habit. Let’s remember Who we are receiving. We should be humbling ourselves rather than trying to blur the line between the sacramental priesthood and the priesthood of the faithful.