Receiving the Host on the tongue

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lampo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
kleary said:
It is because Communion in the hand started as a liturgical abuse back in the 1960’s in order to mimick the practice done by Protestants.

When you look at how communion in the hand has now “become the norm” (even though it is currently an indult), I mean the history of it…how it was banned in the early Church and then reintroduced by Protestants to show their disbelief in the Real Presence and the Sacrament of Holy Orders…and how it started happening in the Catholic Church- as an abuse, and how the Church tried to stop it to no avail…

When you learn about where this practice has its roots…like “The Reform of the Liturgy” from Annibale Bugnini…then you can see why we “traditionalists” have a problem with it.

“The way we worship expresses our belief”. The Protestants demanded “Communion in the hand” in their “Lord’s supper” to express a belief- or rather a disbelief in the Real Presence and the Ministerial Priesthood/Sacrament of Holy Orders.

In 1977 I remember the nuns teaching us “It is sacreligious for anyone but the priest to touch the Sacred Host with their hands” - “The priest’s hands are consecrated for this very purpose, to touch the Sacred Host”.

At my parish lay people are STRICTLY FORBIDDEN to touch the Sacred Host. It is considered a GRAVE SACRELIDGE to do so. It is even considered sacreligious for anyone to even touch the Sacred Vessels such as the chalice or ciboria…even the Sacristan must wear gloves.

Ken
Click to expand...
That’s scary the more I read about how these changes came about the more frightened I get. One does have to ask themselves what exactly do we get out of allowing to recieve the Host with our hands? It serves no benefit to us, why allow it? Between this and the reasoning as to why women stopped wearing head coverings I just kind of sit around in shock. Why can’t our Bishops’ and more importantly the Pope see how absurd it is allowing ten different ways for recieveing Holy Communion is? Why not just come up with one standard and that’s it? What was wrong with on the tongue? It seemed to work for quite a while.

How come Vatican II was able to essentially wipe away 1,000 years of tradition in a few years, yet now the Church is completely immoveable on seemingly simple things?
 
Ecce_homo said:
How come Vatican II was able to essentially wipe away 1,000 years of tradition in a few years, yet now the Church is completely immoveable on seemingly simple things?
Click to expand...
Vatican II was not able or responsible. It was the progressive liberals who were dissobedient to Vatican II and went ahead with more aggressive changes than the Council called for. They claimed that Vatican II did not go far enough.

Ken
 
kleary said:
Vatican II was not able or responsible. It was the progressive liberals who were dissobedient to Vatican II and went ahead with more aggressive changes than the Council called for. They claimed that Vatican II did not go far enough.

Ken
Click to expand...
If that’s the case didn’t they win? Is the Church now a slave to the liberal or modernist agenda? Looking at the current state it appears that way.
 
I just don’t get the “the early church did it.” idea.
They had Holy Mass in caves. Should we do that to
Click to expand...
NO doubt the day will come when Mass is celebrated at the International Space Station, on Mars, on other satellites and on missions here-there-to thought inconceivable.

But for all that, there will still be the ‘Real Presence’. There will still be the need for the upmost reverence, and I for one, should I live to see it, will still receive Him on the tongue
 
Sixtus said:
NO doubt the day will come when Mass is celebrated at the International Space Station, on Mars, on other satellites and on missions here-there-to thought inconceivable.

But for all that, there will still be the ‘Real Presence’. There will still be the need for the upmost reverence, and I for one, should I live to see it, will still receive Him on the tongue
Click to expand...
You mean you won’t sip a pulverised mix of Body and Blood of Christ out of one of those sippy tubes? That’d take all the fun out of being in space 😉 (jk)
 
kleary said:
It is because Communion in the hand started as a liturgical abuse back in the 1960’s in order to mimick the practice done by Protestants.
Click to expand...
There is no credible evidence that this was to mimic Protestants.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
There is no credible evidence that this was to mimic Protestants.
Click to expand...
Who else was doing it?

All this talk of “the early Church did it” doesn’t hold muster, the early Church did a lot of things we as Catholics don’t do, or now do differently. This idea of getting “back” to the early Church is what Protestants have been trying to for 500 years, they haven’t gotten there yet no matter how hard they try.

I guess what I want to know is, what was gained by allowing these different ways of receiving aside from creating animosity? I haven’t seen anyone give a good answer as to the motivation behind receiving in the hand, it would seem to mimick the protestants as was the motivation in a lot that was done in the “spirit of Vatican II”.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
Formally since the 8th or 9th century.

It’s a liberty granted by the Church where the Indult for it runs. We should leave each other alone about it.
Click to expand...
My dear friend, my nine year old was attacked on the forums for receiving on the tongue.
 
netmil(name removed by moderator) said:
My dear friend, my nine year old was attacked on the forums for receiving on the tongue.
Click to expand...
I hope I can only say this in a most respectful manner. I read that thread and I’ll agree that your child was “taken to task” for the practice of receiving on the tongue. However, I think the person was not trying to be intentionally malicious to your kid but instead interpreted your statements about receiving on the tongue as being that it makes one a “better” or “more pious” Catholic. I’m not saying that was your intent, but rather that is how it may have appeared to the other poster.

As to receiving on the tongue versus receiving in the hand, I do both. I receive on the tongue whenever I need to carry my child to Communion with me. In the alternative, I receive in the hand. The Church has decided this is appropriate Catholilc practice. I will not cry if they decide otherwise and I am not going to argue with their decisions. However, I see no problem with people attempting to change matters of discipline. I hope that I am receiving the Lord with the proper amount of reverence regardless of what method I choose. One problem I run into is that I occassionally go to a Byzantine church on Sundays. Sometimes I forget when I should have my tongue out and when I need to leave my tongue in when I receive Communion.
 
pig_boy said:
I hope I can only say this in a most respectful manner. I read that thread and I’ll agree that your child was “taken to task” for the practice of receiving on the tongue. However, I think the person was not trying to be intentionally malicious to your kid but instead interpreted your statements about receiving on the tongue as being that it makes one a “better” or “more pious” Catholic. I’m not saying that was your intent, but rather that is how it may have appeared to the other poster.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry.
This is what the poster responded to
Netmil(name removed by moderator):
I personally do not receive in the hand. When I go to a parish that does, I will do it for Unity, but my daughter (9) will not. God Love her!
Click to expand...
If the other poster or yourself got the idea of a “better Catholic” from these words, perhaps someone is seeing things between the lines that are not there. It evidently is a mother’s pride for her child being strong in her convictions.

And I do love your screen name. St. Patrick, right?
 
Ecce_homo said:
Who else was doing it?

All this talk of “the early Church did it” doesn’t hold muster, the early Church did a lot of things we as Catholics don’t do, or now do differently. This idea of getting “back” to the early Church is what Protestants have been trying to for 500 years, they haven’t gotten there yet no matter how hard they try.

I guess what I want to know is, what was gained by allowing these different ways of receiving aside from creating animosity? I haven’t seen anyone give a good answer as to the motivation behind receiving in the hand, it would seem to mimick the protestants as was the motivation in a lot that was done in the “spirit of Vatican II”.
Click to expand...
Some posters takes refuge in accusing the post-conciliar Church of mimicing Protestants. There is no objective, credible evidence that can lead one to that conclusion, ie
“we’re doing it to please Protestants.” He makes the accusation, it’s up to him to prove his point.
 
netmil(name removed by moderator) said:
My dear friend, my nine year old was attacked on the forums for receiving on the tongue.
Click to expand...
She shouldn’t have been. But let me ask you, Netmil(name removed by moderator), in the forums (I assume you mean THESE? I don’ t know), how often is one attacked for receiving in the tongue? How about receiving in the hand? Which practice (and thus, by extension, those who practice it) is constantly held up to denigration?
 
I was a Lutheran until I joined the Church in 2005. That is about 35 years of my life and every time I received Communion in the Lutheran church (usually once a month) it was on my knees, at an altar rail, on the tongue. I never once received it in my hand…not until I joined the Catholic church. I actually miss kneeling at an altar rail, but I will gladly trade that for the opportunity to recieve Christ’s REAL Body and Blood. If SOMEDAY, the Church decides to go back to that method…I’ll be even happier that I am now.

Dave
 
I used to recieve in the hand until one day… I live in Brooklyn, NY, and I usually take the subway about 25 minutes into Manhattan to attend mass at the Capuchin Franciscan monastery with the shrine to St. Pio… I held the rail that 8,000,000 people hold on the train, I touched all sorts of doors, and didn’t happen to have any hand sanitizer or access to a bathroom… after recieving in the hand I noticed a crumb of the Sacred Host in my hand… I had to lick the crumb off my germy hand…

I never want to lick my germy hand again, and I’m sure the body of Christ deserves better… 😃
 
The problem seems to be that cradle Catholics do not understand Protestantism, the reformation and the psychological warfare waged on Catholicism by the protestant heretics. Yes, I used the word heretic. I wished I had the quotes handy, but I do not; I agree with an earlier post as being historically accurate in the statement that communion in the hand was introduced by Protestantism as a method of decreasing belief in the Real Presence.
Well, it has been successful. The numbers are staggering within Catholicism that displays the current lack of belief in the Real Presence. Certain post Vatican II abuses (not to blame VII in and of itself) are not immediately seen as abuses because of the general lack of understanding of Protestant visceral abhorrence of Catholic thought and dogma.

All this coming from a Protestant of 26 years recently converted, so take it for what it is worth. History, however, seems to bear witness to my remarks.
In defense Christ and His Church,

Jesse
 
Receiving the Host on the tongue
Click to expand...
As time has gone on, I have been growing more and more uncomfortable to touch our Blessed Lord. Has reached a point now, where I have gone back to the old tradition.

Neither will I receive from unconsecrated hands 👍
 
I even genuflect when I see something on TV where at Mass, the Priest holds up the Body of Christ.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top