Receiving the Host on the tongue

[Flos_Campi]

I have no problem with receiving the host on the tongue, but I would like to ask when this was first instituted , by which Pope and why ?

Is it due to the Host can only be administered by the priest,?

Thanks

 

[FightingFat]

I found this, which doesn’t really answer your question, but you may find interesting in any case: -

[91.] In distributing Holy Communion it is to be remembered that “sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who seek them in a reasonable manner, are rightly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them”.[177] Hence any baptized Catholic who is not prevented by law must be admitted to Holy Communion. Therefore, it is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing.

[92.] Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice,[178] if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.[179]

[93.] The Communion-plate for the Communion of the faithful should be retained, so as to avoid the danger of the sacred host or some fragment of it falling.[180]

[94.] It is not licit for the faithful “to take . . . by themselves . . . and, still less, to hand . . . from one to another” the sacred host or the sacred chalice.[181] Moreover, in this regard, the abuse is to be set aside whereby spouses administer Holy Communion to each other at a Nuptial Mass.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

Also this, which might be a bit more relevant to your question:

ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/COMUNION.TXT

From this ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWMEMOR.HTM it looks like it was introduced at Trent, and the practise of taking communion in the hand was allowed again after Vatican II.

 

[bpbasilphx]

I normally receive Communion on my tongue.

However, I can imagine circumstances where I would receive in my hand, such as certain ancient liturgies where this is directed by rubric.

 

[brotherhrolf]

How quickly we forget that Communion on the tongue was the norm until the 1970s. It really wasn’t until the 80s that this became commonplace. An awful lot of us grew up with Communion on the tongue as the norm. Large numbers of us are not dead yet.

 

[FightingFat]

How quickly we forget that Communion on the tongue was the norm until the 1970s. It really wasn’t until the 80s that this became commonplace. An awful lot of us grew up with Communion on the tongue as the norm. Large numbers of us are not dead yet.

The Pope’s just reintroduced it as the norm now hasn’t he brother?

zenit.org/article-23028?l=english

 

[bpbasilphx]

How quickly we forget that Communion on the tongue was the norm until the 1970s. …

But it wasn’t always.

In some LIturgies still used by the Catholic Church, it never was the norm.

 

[truevaticanii]

The Pope’s just reintroduced it as the norm now hasn’t he brother?

zenit.org/article-23028?l=english

[92.] Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice,[178] if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. HOWEVER, SPECIAL CARE should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that NO ONE goes away CARRYING the EUCHARISTIC SPECIES in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should NOT BE GIVEN IN THE HAND to the faithful.[179] -

[93.] The Communion-plate for the Communion of the faithful should be retained, so as to avoid the danger of the sacred host or some fragment of it falling.[180]

Redemptionis Sacramentum:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

The norm for reception of Holy Communion for the Church has remained on the tongue and while kneeling… the Conference of Bishops in the US (currently the USCCB) hag asked for the norm to be changed to in the hands while standing for some strange reason… their request was granted by an indult supposedly granted by H.H. Pope Paul VI, though I have heard that it may have been granted merely by another from the Holy See… I have no proof of either H.H. Pope Paul VI actually being the one who allowed this… and i have no proof that it was not him…

 

[otjm]

I have no problem with receiving the host on the tongue, but I would like to ask when this was first instituted , by which Pope and why ?

Is it due to the Host can only be administered by the priest,?

Thanks

Historically, it appears that Communion in the hand was still spordically in some areas occuring up into the 10th century. The history of Communion distribution moving to on the tongue is a bit checkered; information has appeared on other threads and you may want to do a search. There are those who would have it as an absolute earlier than the 10th century, but evidence seems to be otherwise as an absolute practice.

I am sure there are also reasons given, although I have never seen a compliation for the various times that Communion on the tongue has either been suggested, required or some variation between. As a universal absolute, though, it did not come in all at one time and change completely; it was a more gradual transition from receiving in the hand. In fact, it is not clear that receiving in the hand was ever an absolute; there just is not that much evidence. Evidence is often lacking where there is not a dispute; something that is accepted in several forms does not make for much evidentiary reporting.

 

[diggerdomer]

I have no problem with receiving the host on the tongue, but I would like to ask when this was first instituted , by which Pope and why ?

Is it due to the Host can only be administered by the priest,?

Thanks

We don’t know exactly when it was instituted, though communion in the hand has ALWAYS been legitimately practiced by Catholics.

As to why, it seems it was a practice the evolved in the later Middle Ages due to a perceived appropriate sign of reverence.

And it was and is not due to anything regarding only being administered by the priest.

 

[truevaticanii]

receiving Holy Communion on the tongue has also always been legitimately done… when you use your hands, you still have to receive Communion on your tongue–except by your own hand in that case.

 

[Monty61]

As to why, it seems it was a practice the evolved in the later Middle Ages due to a perceived appropriate sign of reverence.

And it was and is not due to anything regarding only being administered by the priest.

When I was a kid (I’m 48 now) being prepared for first Communion, we were taught that only a priest could touch the consecrated Host (with his hands), and that was because the priest’s hands were specially annointed.

Also, I recently went to a first Mass for a newly ordained priest of the FSSP. He gave blessings to everyone there, and the custom was to kiss the hand of the priest after he blessed you.

At the EF, when the priest blesses the deacon before the deacon chants the Gospel, the deacon kisses the hand of the priest.

So, there is a tradition of only the priest being able to administer Communion, and obviously other sacraments as well. And, it is regrettable, IMHO, that the other marks of “perceived reverence” both for the consecrated host and for the priest’s hands have fallen into disuse.

Having everyone permitted to handle the host with their hand detracts from the respect for the priest’s hands because it promotes the idea (consciously or unconsciously) that everyone is the same as the priest.

 

[diggerdomer]

When I was a kid (I’m 48 now) being prepared for first Communion, we were taught that only a priest could touch the consecrated Host (with his hands), and that was because the priest’s hands were specially annointed.

Also, I recently went to a first Mass for a newly ordained priest of the FSSP. He gave blessings to everyone there, and the custom was to kiss the hand of the priest after he blessed you.

At the EF, when the priest blesses the deacon before the deacon chants the Gospel, the deacon kisses the hand of the priest.

So, there is a tradition of only the priest being able to administer Communion, and obviously other sacraments as well. And, it is regrettable, IMHO, that the other marks of “perceived reverence” both for the consecrated host and for the priest’s hands have fallen into disuse.

Having everyone permitted to handle the host with their hand detracts from the respect for the priest’s hands because it promotes the idea (consciously or unconsciously) that everyone is the same as the priest.

I understand, that was a common teaching/perception prior to Vatican II. But we’re post-Vatican II now, so we need to accept Church teaching.

 

[otjm]

When I was a kid (I’m 48 now) being prepared for first Communion, we were taught that only a priest could touch the consecrated Host (with his hands), and that was because the priest’s hands were specially annointed.

Also, I recently went to a first Mass for a newly ordained priest of the FSSP. He gave blessings to everyone there, and the custom was to kiss the hand of the priest after he blessed you.

At the EF, when the priest blesses the deacon before the deacon chants the Gospel, the deacon kisses the hand of the priest.

So, there is a tradition of only the priest being able to administer Communion, and obviously other sacraments as well. And, it is regrettable, IMHO, that the other marks of “perceived reverence” both for the consecrated host and for the priest’s hands have fallen into disuse.

Having everyone permitted to handle the host with their hand detracts from the respect for the priest’s hands because it promotes the idea (consciously or unconsciously) that everyone is the same as the priest.

This amounts to selective rule discussion, since in the Eastern rite, the reception of Communion in the hand has been around longer than in the Latin rite from which it fell out of favor by somewhere in the mid 10th century. Some people discuss the rule as if it were a doctrine, which it obviously is not. In addition, the discussion of only the priest being able to touch the Host because his hand are anointed flies in the face not only of current tradition (Eastern rites) and prior tradition (Latin rite), but also ignores the fact that the deacon also distributes Communion, and while he is primary to the distribution of the Cup, he also can distribute the Host and his hands are not anointed.

In essence, we have an act - the anointing of the hands of the priest - being raised up to something it was not intrinsically connected to - touching the Host. In other words, someone was embellishing things.

And the bit about promoting confusion between the priest and the laity is hooey. If people are confused, it is because either they were not properly catechized to begin with, or someone with an agenda is coming along and confusing them by saying things that are not true. Christ said “Take and eat… Take and drink”; not “Open your mouth and eat; Open your mouth and drink”. Receiving it in the hand from the priest is no more confusing than receiving it in the hand directly from Christ Himself. No one is going to confuse themself with Christ; neither is there any reason to confuse oneself with the priest by receiving it in the hand, if one has any clue as to what a priest is. And if they don’t, perhaps they should not be receiving in any fashion until they learn something about their faith.

 

[Monty61]

This amounts to selective rule discussion, since in the Eastern rite, the reception of Communion in the hand has been around longer than in the Latin rite .

This is simply not true. My wife is Orthodox and I go to church with her all the time. The laity receive the bread and wine mixed together from a spoon. The spoon is only touched by the priest. In the Eastern rite, even the ordained Deacon is not permitted to distribute communion.

I have noticed that people who want to justify post VII practices (standing for Communion, etc) frequently cite the Eastern Rites as justification. Be careful what you use to justify yourself. The following are practices of Eastern Rite: (and I refer to the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, which I suspect is the most widely used Eastern rite)

-The priest celebrates ad orientem; not only facing the altar and not the people, but behind a wall. The wall has a central door equipped with a curtain and most priests close even th e curtain during the consecration.

-There are no guitars allowed at Eastern liturgies, In fact, no instruments of any kind. All singing is a capella.

-There are no “extraordinary mininsters of communion.” In fact, as noted above, not even the Deacon is allowed to distribute communion.

-Women have zero role in the liturgy (except for being in the choir, located outside the altar). In fact, women are not even allowed to enter the altar, not even outside the liturgy to clean or maintain the altar area. Obviously altar girls are not even a consideration.

So, who is using selective rule discussion? And the “Eastern” rule you have selected is not true. If you are going to use the Eastern tradition to justfy post VII practices, maybe go and actually witness an Eastern liturgy first.

 

[Monty61]

And the bit about promoting confusion between the priest and the laity is hooey. If people are confused, it is because either they were not properly catechized to begin with, or someone with an agenda is coming along and confusing them by saying things that are not true. Christ said “Take and eat… Take and drink”; not “Open your mouth and eat; Open your mouth and drink”. Receiving it in the hand from the priest is no more confusing than receiving it in the hand directly from Christ Himself. No one is going to confuse themself with Christ; neither is there any reason to confuse oneself with the priest by receiving it in the hand, if one has any clue as to what a priest is. And if they don’t, perhaps they should not be receiving in any fashion until they learn something about their faith.

I agree that people with agendas come along and say things that are not true. For example, that receiving in the hand is the norm, as someone above has already posted the Church teaching that it was not. It was a special permission initially denied by the Pope but ignored by the American bishops.

Christ told us WHAT to do at the last supper; not HOW to do it. The entire Mass is full of examples of this. The HOW evolved over time through sacred tradition. Someone here cited the 10th century as the approximate time for receiving on the tongue. I have no proof against this, so I will agree that the 10th century until the 20th century the practice was on the tongue. So for 1000 years or so, this was Church tradition. The Pope has said that what was once holy, cannot be declared unholy. So a practice that evolved over centuries has changed within a couple of years; that is not “organic evolution” it is mutation! Pope Benedict has referred to the departure from what has organically evolved as the “hermaneutic of rupture.”

And as far as people not confusing themselves with priests, what about the EMHCs imparting blessings? They are not priests, they shouldn’t be doing this. They are not ordained or trained for it. I even saw one give a left-handed blessing last Sunday
At best, this practice is meaningless and gives the “blessee” no actual blessing; at worst it promotes the very confusion I was talking about.

 

[brotherhrolf]

But it wasn’t always.

In some LIturgies still used by the Catholic Church, it never was the norm.

Good Bishop, we shall have to agree to disagree. I have acknowledged that I am aware that the Eastern Rites have done things differently. I am not Eastern Rite. I am of Irish, Scot, French, English, and Bavarian ancestry. I made my First Holy Communion in 1958. We were reminded over and over and over again that it was sacrilege to profane the host with our hands.

Intellectually, as an anthropologist, I can make the mind shift to understand that the Eastern Rites and our Orthodox brethren do things differently. But as an anthropologist, I must remind you that cultural/religious norms need to be understood within the context of the culture in which they developed. If the Eastern Rites are OK, so too are the Western Rites which have done things differently in the past.

Just because 1967 occurred doesn’t mean that the Western Church can collectively ignore our cultural patrimony. There are too many of us still alive who remember…

There is that old shibboleth “When in Rome, do as the Romans”. I have no problems with Eastern Europeans or our Orthodox brethren receiving the Holy Eucharist as they have done for centuries. I see no problems with my trying to hold onto my own ethnic practices.

I am not a Protestant. I have not received in the hand for some 58 years. I receive on the tongue standing because the communion rails were removed from my cathedral parish in 1967. If I could kneel, I would. Domine, non sum dignus means something to me personally and as an anthropologist.

We simply cannot throw out Western European history or culture. Receiving kneeling and on the tongue is part and parcel of that history and culture.

 

[ProVobis]

I understand, that was a common teaching/perception prior to Vatican II. But we’re post-Vatican II now, so we need to accept Church teaching.

Vatican II had nothing to do with communion in the hands. Or maybe you could point us to the document that expicitly says otherwise? And the Church’s teachings have not changed, unless you want to call reluctantly caving in to abuses teachings.

 

[ProVobis]

And the bit about promoting confusion between the priest and the laity is hooey. If people are confused, it is because either they were not properly catechized to begin with, or someone with an agenda is coming along and confusing them by saying things that are not true. Christ said “Take and eat… Take and drink”; not “Open your mouth and eat; Open your mouth and drink”.

In Holy Communion, we receive the Word-made-Flesh. When Ezekiel received the word of God, in a wonderful yet lesser manner than do we, it was as follows:

And [the Lord] said to me: . . . “But you, son of man, hear what I say to you; be not rebellious like that rebellious house; open your mouth, and eat what I give you.” And when I looked, behold, a hand was stretched out to me, and, lo, a written scroll was in it . . . And He said to me, “Son of man, eat what is offered to you; eat this scroll, and go speak to the house of Israel.” So I opened my mouth, and He gave me the scroll to eat “And I opened my mouth, and He caused me to eat that book” - Vulgate]. And he said to me, “Son of man, eat this scroll that I give you and fill your stomach with it.” Then I ate it, and it was in my mouth as sweet as honey. (Ezek. 2:1,8,9; 3:1-3, RSV).

It does not say that the prophet stretched out his hand, but that he opened his mouth. And is this not very fitting, since we are to receive the word as little children, whether it be the bread of doctrine or the Bread come down from Heaven.

In another place, in a psalm with clear prophetic, Eucharistic overtones, which is used in the Office of Corpus Christi, the Lord says to us, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you from the land of Egypt. Open wide your mouth and I will fill it . . . . But Israel I would feed with finest wheat and fill them with honey from the rock.” “I will fill it,” not “fill it yourselves.”

Now admittedly, this is not in itself a proof. But it points us in a certain direction.

Again, it is certainly eminently scriptural to refrain from touching something as a sign of reverence (and not only scriptural, but even universally human). In the case of the Ark of the Covenant, it was absolutely forbidden to touch it, under pain of death. Even when it was “necessary” to do so, as it seemed to one unfortunate ark-bearer, it was still forbidden. And the fellow paid the supreme price for his temerity in reaching out to steady the ark: “When they came to the floor of Machon, Oza put forth his hand to the ark of God and took hold of it because the oxen kicked and made it lean aside. And the indignation of the Lord was enkindled against Oza, and He struck him for his rashness and he died there before the ark of God” (II Sam. 6:6,7). We have greater than the Ark of the Covenant here.

1. The Last Supper

But surely the apostles received Communion in the hand at the last supper? It is usually presumed that this was so. Even if it were, though, we would point out that the apostles were themselves priests, or even, bishops.

But we must not forget a traditional practice of middle-eastern hospitality, which was practiced in Jesus’ time and which is still the case: one feeds one’s guests with one’s own hand, placing a symbolic morsel in the mouth of the guest. And we have scriptural evidence of this as well: our Lord dipped a morsel of bread into some wine, and gave it to Judas. Did he place this wet morsel into Judas’s hand? That would be rather messy. Did he not perhaps extend to the one whom he addressed later in the garden as “Friend” the gesture of hospitality spoken of above? And if so, why not with Holy Communion, “giving himself by his own hand.”

1. Take and eat . . .

Did not our Lord say of Holy Communion, “Take and eat”? Yes, but these words were addressed to the apostles and not to all Christians indiscriminately. Further, even if these words had been addressed to all the faithful, they are not verified in our standardized way of receiving Holy Communion. Literalism here would require that the priest or other minister merely hold the ciborium while the faithful “took” and ate. But this practice is forbidden. (It has been practiced here and there in violation of liturgical law.)

More at catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp

 

[ProVobis]

HISTORICAL CHURCH PRACTICE
Reviewing available evidence from Church history and the writings of the Church Fathers does not support the claim that Communion in the hand was a universal practice that was gradually supplanted and eventually replaced by the practice of Communion on the tongue. Rather, the facts seem to point to a different conclusion.

Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461), already in the fifth century, is an early witness of the traditional practice. In his comments on the sixth chapter of the Gospel of John, he speaks of Communion in the mouth as the current usage: "One receives in the mouth what one believes by faith." (Serm. 91.3) Furthermore, in the ninth century the Roman Ordo clearly shows that Communion on the tongue was the manner of reception. The oft-quoted reference of St. Cyril of Jerusalem is quite suspect, because what follows his famous quote is odd, superstitious, and even irreverent to Catholic thought. This has led scholars to question the authenticity of the text, that perhaps the saint's successor was really responsible for this odd statement, the Patriarch John, who succeeded St. Cyril. But this John was of suspect orthodoxy, which we know from the correspondence of St. Epiphanius, St. Jerome, and St. Augustine. So if the quote is genuine, it most likely is attributed to the Nestorian Patriarch John, which would explain the oddity of the text. The fact that St. Cyril is quoted to the exclusion of Pope St. Leo the Great, Pope St. Sixtus I, the Council of Trent, and centuries of Church tradition, is a prime example of the historical revisionism and dumbing-down of the modernists. Just a sampling of reliable historical evidence is enough to demonstrate the consistent position of the Church regarding Communion in the hand:

Pope St. Sixtus I ( 115-125): “it is prohibited for the faithful to even touch the sacred vessels, or receive in the hand”;

Origen (185-232 A.D.): “You who are wont to assist at the divine Mysteries, know how, when you receive the body of the Lord, you take reverent care, lest any particle of it should fall to the ground and a portion of the consecrated gift (consecrati muneris) escape you. You consider it a crime, and rightly so, if any particle thereof fell down through negligence.” (13th Homily on Exodus);

St. Basil the Great (330-379), one of the four great Eastern Fathers, considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault (Letter 93);

The Council held at Saragozza (380), it was decided to punish with excommunication anyone who dared to continue the practice of Communion in the hand;

The local council at Rouen, France (650) stated, “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywomen but only in their mouths”;

The Council of Constantinople (692) which was known as in trullo (not one of the ecumenical councils held there) prohibited the faithful from giving Communion to themselves. It decreed an excommunication of one week’s duration for those who would do so in the presence of a bishop, priest or deacon;

Council of Trent: “To omit nothing doctrinal on so important a subject, we now come to speak of the minister of the Sacrament, a point, however, on which scarcely anyone is ignorant. The pastor then will teach, that to priests alone has been given power to consecrate and administer the Holy Eucharist. That the unvarying practice of the Church has also been, that the faithful receive the Sacrament from the hand of the priest, and that the priest communicate himself, has been explained by the Council of Trent; and the same holy Council has shown that this practice is always to be scrupulously adhered to, stamped, as it is, with the authoritative impress of Apostolic tradition, and sanctioned by the illustrious example of our Lord himself, who, with His own hands, consecrated and gave to His disciples, His most sacred body. To consult as much as possible, for the dignity of this so August a Sacrament, not only is its administration confided exclusively to the priestly order; but the Church has also, by an express law, prohibited any but those who are consecrated to religion, unless in case of necessity, to touch the sacred vessels, the linen or other immediate necessaries for consecration. Priest and people may hence learn, what piety and holiness they should possess who consecrate, administer, or receive the Holy of Holies.” (Council of Trent, Session 13, Chapter 8)

tldm.org/news2/cih.htm

 

[truevaticanii]

I understand, that was a common teaching/perception prior to Vatican II. But we’re post-Vatican II now, so we need to accept Church teaching.

If you read my first post, it was also a practiced DURING Vatican II and is still practiced after Vatican II… receiving in the hand isn’t practiced everywhere in the world…