Receiving the Host on the tongue

[Defensor_Fidei]

signumcrucis.net/cih.htm

I wrote this two years ago with regard to the practice over the course of Church History. Rev. Mc Donald’s article on the subject has been misused by Traditionalist and Rev. McDonald wrote me an apology after reviewing my critique.

Originally when I wrote the essay, I wondered and even thought that Rev. Paul McDonald might be a phantom or a ghost writer for some neo-traditionalist trying to push a cause, I received a communication from Rev. Paul McDonald himself commenting on my essay. In my original essay I accused Rev. Paul J. McDonald for proof texting and spinning, which I now stand corrected. I apologize for my comments and will take his explaination for his errors in his article that he was not intentional in his errors.

It is clear that when you read through the course of Church History and take in consideration the development of the Liturgies; our practices become an extremely powerful apologetic for the Catholic Church. Rather than shy away from the developments in our Liturgies to prove an assumed superior practice, we should embrace what all this testimony means to Catholics.

I love this topic as it creates very deep disturbing problems for protestants to explain away.

-Ted

 

[patrick457]

Is receiving on the hand the norm there in America?
Because we were taught to receive by the mouth; the hand’s just an option.

 

[Defensor_Fidei]

It is an indult granted. The problems it has created is far greater that the good they thought would come of it.

I really think the Bishops here in the States are in denial over the whole issue. Reception on the hand all by itself is not the whole problem. Also coupled with the fact that the Mass keeps getting increasingly layisized (spelling?) and the caual attitude toward the Litugy in general, makes reception in the hand a bad idea.

 

[Chancellare]

It is an indult granted. The problems it has created is far greater that the good they thought would come of it.

I really think the Bishops here in the States are in denial over the whole issue. Reception on the hand all by itself is not the whole problem. Also coupled with the fact that the Mass keeps getting increasingly layisized (spelling?) and the caual attitude toward the Litugy in general, makes reception in the hand a bad idea.

This goes way back to Real Presence and how the celebrant and the ministers reflect this belief in their body language. One who believes in the Real Presence will show utmost reverence and take every extra care possible that no spills, crumbs, etc happens. The rest will follow.

 

[InnocentIII]

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.

Jesse

I agree with Jesse. I was raised Congregationalist and well remember being told stories of how Catholics had to vomit into hankies etc etc and how it was all a superstitious belief in the Host being Christ’s Body. Receiving a piece of bread in the hand was all about declaring our non-belief in Christ’s presence. I was a memorial and the left over bread was just thrown away once the communion service was over.

Without impugning the motives of those who introduced the practice into the Catholic Church the reality has been a decline in belief in the Real Presence even among church going Catholics. One has only to watch (and as a server I get to watch a lot) the flippant and casual way that people treat the host when they receive it in the hand. Again some I know do it very reverently but at least 50% of those at Sunday Mass treat it with less respect than I used to see in the Congregational church.

Without some constant reminder of what it is that they are in fact doing too many simply treat it as part of the ‘service’.

 

[Uxor]

This is the same decision I made for my first, in 2000. I had wanted to know the “best” way, since I saw people taking it on EWTN on the tongue, and in the church, almost everyone took by hand. I asked the priest, and he would only tell me that both ways were approved by the Church. So I had to decide. I didn’t want to draw attention to myself, and also taking it on my tongue seemed so humiliating and undignified. I decided the latter wasn’t a good enough reason against it. Also, I could call “humiliating” “humbling” instead). It came down to communion on the tongue seeming the most respectful.

Although I wished the priest had told me what was the best choice, I had to think and choose for myself what was best.

In contrast, last year I went to our Tabernacle to pray, not expecting anyone to be there. But a deacon was giving instruction to some RCIA candidates, and telling them at that moment how to recieve Our Lord in the Eucharist (only he didn’t make any reference to it being Our Lord, or holy, or important - not anything like that) and he told them that 95% of the people recieve it on the tongue, and (I am paraphrasing from memory) that this was the best way, that it was kind of gross or unsanitary to recieve it on the tongue. His strong bias against the tongue was loud and clear, and in his position of authority he seemed to be presenting the proper way to do things.

What contrast to how I was told! I thought of those candidates, and how it would take a huge act of will for them to take it on the tongue now that that option had been presented as the great social gaff.

I wish I had interrupted at that moment. I did have an impulse to. But I decided the most charitable thing to do was address this deacon directly, and I did, later. But I do not think it was so fruitful, I think he has his mind made up about things and the door is shut tight.

The old parish I belonged to, the Priest would wipe his fingers on his vestment after giving each person Holy Communion on the tongue.

 

[Sixtus]

Yeah, there was a case of something like that with John Paul II. A guy on eBay was selling what he claimed to be a Eucharistic Host that was Consecrated during a papal Mass. The winning bidder was a Catholic who just did it to protect the Host, and eBay changed its policies and banned that sort of thing.

That is shocking. I have seen communicants present then walk away without apparently consumming the Host and continue walking right out of the rear door!

If it were up to me, I would run after them and challenge but I am told ‘that is not the correct thing to do, one must leave it up to God’! Sorry but that aint good enough for me!!!

Even if they were genuine catholics, no one should receive if they intend to leave the building without paying due respects after receiving. So even for a practicing catholic, it is in my view unnacceptable to receive then immediately leave the building.

It is ok for others to receive in the hand. I have no problem with that, but for an unworthy wretch like me, I do not deserve to even be in the church where the consecration takes place much less so receive the Sacred Host. But if my Lord considers me worthy then the least I can do is to avoid touching Him. I prefer to receive on th etongue and refuse to receive in the hand or to receive from unconsecrated hands

 

[PatienceAndLove]

I’m wondering, what did the priest or bishop do to the person taking the Eucharist and trying to steal it? Did he yell at the guy? Did he take the Eucharist back? Did he do anything else?

When I went through Extraordinary Minster training, we were told to watch for individuals trying to take the host without consumming it. If we saw this occur, we were to leave our “station” and take the Body back from the person, hold it in our hand, and consume it after the Lord was distributed.
I don’t recall getting the priest/bishop involved, but that would make sense.

 

[Margaret33]

As an RCIA Candidate who has stayed for a few Masses, I notice that the congregation does it both ways. Some accept it in the hand, and some in the mouth. Since receiving in the mouth seems to show more respect, that is the way I’ll do it next Easter Vigil. Thank you for the heads up:thumbsup:

Upon returning to the church I noticed that it was very rare to see someone take it on the tongue, and so I felt strange and did what everyone else did. Now, I take it on the tongue regardless… Still feel a little like ‘the odd man out’ but I’m forcing myself to overcome it. It just doesn’t feel natural taking communion in the hand, it didn’t work for me.

 

[mdstanzel]

I prefer to receive in on the tongue. It is pretty difficult to receive it in the hand with a toddler or a 5 year old anyway. But it seems more respectful. I take it in my hand once in a while because I feel pressured into it for some reason - like I’m being judged.

 

[Margaret33]

I prefer to receive in on the tongue. It is pretty difficult to receive it in the hand with a toddler or a 5 year old anyway. But it seems more respectful. I take it in my hand once in a while because I feel pressured into it for some reason - like I’m being judged.

Weird… the judgment thing… to be judged for doing things the way they were intended… as opposed to conforming, and just doing what others deem to be ‘socially acceptable’ or for the sake of modernizing something which had no need to be modernized… wish it were easier for me anyway not to care so much about what others thought! Also glad to hear there are others like me out there struggling with this issue a bit and not giving in

 

[Defensor_Fidei]

This goes way back to Real Presence and how the celebrant and the ministers reflect this belief in their body language. One who believes in the Real Presence will show utmost reverence and take every extra care possible that no spills, crumbs, etc happens. The rest will follow.

I guess where I differ is that because of the excessive layisization (spelling?), The priests feel that the layity have been properly trained. I have posed to priests that if we took the batallion of lay people who serve at the altar and gave them a test about the Eucharist, most would fail.

The Priests in most cases reall give our lay servers far too much credit on their formation.

 

[kangnamdragon]

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

I wish all churches were like this.

Sometimes I get in line for communion to receive from the priest to avoid the extraordinary ministers to receive on the tongue. I don’t less point in receiving on the tongue from a nonordained minister. Any comments?

 

[kangnamdragon]

After reading this thread, I don’t think I could ever be an extraordinary minister again. How could I do that if I believe people should receive on the tongue and I have to place Him in their hands? And, I am not a priest so I have no right to touch the Host.

 

[Defensor_Fidei]

I wish all churches were like this.

Sometimes I get in line for communion to receive from the priest to avoid the extraordinary ministers to receive on the tongue. I don’t less point in receiving on the tongue from a nonordained minister. Any comments?

If you were dying and you could receive the Eucharist just before death from nonordained hands since a priest or Deacon was not available, would you refuse?

Once the host is consecrated do you believe it stops being the Body Blood soul and divinity of our Lord because non ordained hands are distributing our Lord?

Christ ate with sinners, ordained and nonordained hands both go to confession, both are motal and both sin. Are you implying that the power of Christ in the Eucharist is compromised because nonordained hands touch Him?

Their lack of reverence will not keep me from Him.

 

[kangnamdragon]

If you were dying and you could receive the Eucharist just before death from nonordained hands since a priest or Deacon was not available, would you refuse?

Once the host is consecrated do you believe it stops being the Body Blood soul and divinity of our Lord because non ordained hands are distributing our Lord?

Christ ate with sinners, ordained and nonordained hands both go to confession, both are motal and both sin. Are you implying that the power of Christ in the Eucharist is compromised because nonordained hands touch Him?

Their lack of reverence will not keep me from Him.

Of course I would receive from an extrtaaordinary minister in extraordinary circumstances. However, 10 people at Mass with 3 extraordinary ministers is not the right time to have extraordinary ministers.

 

[Defensor_Fidei]

Of course I would receive from an extrtaaordinary minister in extraordinary circumstances. However, 10 people at Mass with 3 extraordinary ministers is not the right time to have extraordinary ministers.

You are preaching to the choir on this one, but how about Sunday? You know when there is a full house at 5 Masses in a parish of 4000 families?

For all the complaining, I have to ask my fellow Catholics…If you are married, how many children do you have? Are you willing to give any up for a vocation? Are you open to vocation discussion with your children?

The US has historically been very poor in fostering Vocations among it’s own population. Importing priests has been a binge diet American Catholics cannot get enough of. Even when all we had was the 62 Missal we had to import priests because we (the US) sucked at fostering home grown vocations.

We have a problem on our hands (no pun intended) and it goes much further than how one receives the Host.

 

[LilyM]

If you were dying and you could receive the Eucharist just before death from nonordained hands since a priest or Deacon was not available, would you refuse?

Once the host is consecrated do you believe it stops being the Body Blood soul and divinity of our Lord because non ordained hands are distributing our Lord?

Christ ate with sinners, ordained and nonordained hands both go to confession, both are motal and both sin. Are you implying that the power of Christ in the Eucharist is compromised because nonordained hands touch Him?

Their lack of reverence will not keep me from Him.

NO-ONE, ordained or not, has any sort of RIGHT to touch the sacred species at any time - nor to receive him, be it via hand or tongue! It is a gift of Christ’s grace that he allows us to do so.

While I agree that in a lot of circumstances EMHCs are overused, such does not diminish the nature of the Eucharist. Nor does reception in the hand.

You may feel more comfortable receiving on the tongue, and more power to you. I will cheerfully fight for your right to do so. Spare a thought for those like me who feel the total opposite to you. I received on the tongue as a child and felt extremely awkward and disrespectful, like I was poking out my tongue at the priest or at Christ himself or something.

 

[Uxor]

You are preaching to the choir on this one, but how about Sunday? You know when there is a full house at 5 Masses in a parish of 4000 families?

For all the complaining, I have to ask my fellow Catholics…If you are married, how many children do you have? Are you willing to give any up for a vocation? Are you open to vocation discussion with your children?

The US has historically been very poor in fostering Vocations among it’s own population. Importing priests has been a binge diet American Catholics cannot get enough of. Even when all we had was the 62 Missal we had to import priests because we (the US) sucked at fostering home grown vocations.

We have a problem on our hands (no pun intended) and it goes much further than how one receives the Host.

Two in my family became Priests from the 62 Missal. How many in yours?

 

[Defensor_Fidei]

Two in my family became Priests from the 62 Missal. How many in yours?

One priest and a couple of nuns under the 62.

My brother went to a pre-seminary run by a couple of gay Camelite priests. My mother did not want me to go to the high school seminary and thought I should make that decision after High School. I later found out she was concerned about the living arrangements in the dorms.

I have 4 children, two are boys and I would be thrilled if one or both choose a vocation to the priesthood.