Receiving the Host on the tongue

[otjm]

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.

Maybe you should too. I have. Don’t presume that because you have attended one of the 22 or so other rites, that they are all alike.

 

[otjm]

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.

Actually, it was ignored by the Dutch bishops, since this is where it originated.

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.”

Actually, rules for Communion on the tongue (as opposed to in the hand) started before 1000, but there is reputable evidence that people were still receiving in the hand into the 10th century.

No one has said that receiving on the tongue is unholy. No idea where you scraped that one up from, but it is a non-issue, aka a red herring.

As to mutation, the norm is universally in the Latin rite, on the tongue, and in the hand is by indult. We can all agree on that, and there is no “mutation”. Practically speaking, it would appear that in areas the indult is granted, the majority to the large majority receive in the hand. and that is their choice, granted by the Magisterium.

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.

Most people were never catechized that they could not impart a blessing; it is the subject of at least one other thread and should remain there. and I would bet dollars to donuts if you asked people who do so, that they do not consider themselves ordained; they simply were never catechized that they could not impart a blessing. Slight difference.

There may be a couple of people on these boards who are confused as to who is the priest and who isn’t; other than that I have yet to meet anyone so “confused”.

 

[otjm]

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

zenit.org/article-23028?l=english

No, he did not reintroduce it. It was the norm all along.

And for those who presume that because the Pope follows the universal norm that means that the indult is going out, you don’t understand norms. One would expect that the Pope would follow the norm, not the indult.

 

[diggerdomer]

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.

I believe the reference was clearly to Eastern Catholics, not Orthodox. There’s a big difference.

 

[diggerdomer]

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.

Of course the documents of Vatican II didn’t address this. I never claimed they did. But the Church, following the direction of the Council, reformed the liturgy, which changed a lot of practices compared to liturgical practices just prior to the Council.

I don’t believe the Church caved in to abuses.

 

[diggerdomer]

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…

Of course it was and is. I never said otherwise. The method of receiving communion varies among different Christians. Each particular Church or ecclesial community decides the norms. Obviously norms have changed over time, to some degrees. Receiving kneeling and on the tongue was a norm, for many, for quite a while, yes. So?

 

[ProVobis]

I don’t believe the Church caved in to abuses.

Can you think of a better word?

 

[truevaticanii]

Of course it was and is. I never said otherwise. The method of receiving communion varies among different Christians. Each particular Church or ecclesial community decides the norms. Obviously norms have changed over time, to some degrees. Receiving kneeling and on the tongue was a norm, for many, for quite a while, yes. So?

My point is that it is still the norm universally, and is still the remaining norm in more places than not… Communion in the hand is merely a norm for individual areas around the norm, but the faithful still hold the right to receive on the tongue wherever they go…

 

[diggerdomer]

My point is that it is still the norm universally, and is still the remaining norm in more places than not… Communion in the hand is merely a norm for individual areas around the norm, but the faithful still hold the right to receive on the tongue wherever they go…

Of course. For Roman Catholics anyway, I’m not familiar enough with Eastern Catholic practices to know whether or not communion in the hand is the norm in the same way.

 

[Brendan]

Of course the documents of Vatican II didn’t address this. I never claimed they did. But the Church, following the direction of the Council, reformed the liturgy, which changed a lot of practices compared to liturgical practices just prior to the Council.

I don’t believe the Church caved in to abuses.

Well, the Council debated the issue of Communion in the Hand and voted against allowing it.

So this was NOT one of the practices that the Council saw fit to allow.

 

[diggerdomer]

Well, the Council debated the issue of Communion in the Hand and voted against allowing it.

So this was NOT one of the practices that the Council saw fit to allow.

Really? When did they do that? I never recall reading that in any accounts of the Council Sessions. Appreciate the reference, thanks.

 

[ProVobis]

Well, the Council debated the issue of Communion in the Hand and voted against allowing it.

So this was NOT one of the practices that the Council saw fit to allow.

Brendan, I think you meant the poll that was taken by Paul VI.

Therefore in 1968 Pope Paul VI graciously sent out a questionnaire to all the bishops of the world asking if there should be a prudent change in the Church’s practice on how Communion would be distributed. The poll numbers came back overwhelming against Communion in the hand. Hence the Vatican concluded: “The answers given show that by far the greater number of bishops think that the discipline currently in force should not be changed. And if it were to be changed, it would be an offense to the sensibilities and spiritual outlook of these bishops and a great many of the faithful” (Memoriale Domini).

Nonetheless the disobedience continued and some of these dioceses petitioned Rome to officially permit Communion in the hand. A year later, in 1969, Pope Paul VI gave an indult to the French bishops permitting each bishop to decide the question in his own diocese (En réponse a la Demande). An indult is a special permission for a particular situation, rather than a universal norm. Nonetheless eventually the majority of dioceses in the world took advantage of the indult and simply permitted the practice.

Why did the Pope allow it? Perhaps it can be best summed up by the words of Our Lord about why divorce was allowed in the Old Testament: “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives” (Matthew 19:8). Their disobedience had reached such a point that it would have been difficult to have them return to the traditional practice.

Nonetheless some countries like Sri Lanka did not use the indult, and maintained the long held tradition of receiving only on the tongue. Recently there have also been dioceses around the world such San Luis, Argentina and Lima, Peru that have returned to the traditional practice and no longer permit Communion in the hand. …

When Rome did give the indult to the French bishops in 1969 it stated, “The new manner of giving Communion must not be imposed in a way that would exclude the traditional practice.” Therefore Communion on the tongue is still the common practice for the universal Church. While both practices are permitted in most dioceses, I encourage parishioners to give prayerful consideration to following Pope Benedict XVI’s lead by receiving Holy Communion on the tongue in the New Year.

catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=31755