Taking the eucharist on the tongue

[Seanache]

I have heard a lot of people say this is more proper and I have started doing this more often instead of taking it in the hand, and I would just like to know why it is considered more correct?

 

[NPC]

As far as I know the idea that receiving on the tongue is more proper than receiving Christ into one’s hands is normally merely a case of one’s personal opinion. I’m sure someone has more definite information than I have at the moment, but the ‘universal’ Church teaching does not specify how Holy Communion should be received - except that it must be done in a reverently and that the communicant must be in a state of grace. I have heard on this forum that there are some parishes (& dioceses?) which now require people to receive on the tongue, and there has been speculation that the Holy Father Benedict wants to make Communion on the tongue the norm. People point to photographs of him giving Communion at St Peter’s Basilica where he has had a kneeler placed in front of him for communicants and they receive on the tongue.

The guiding factor - as long as one still has the choice - should be profound reverence for Whom one is about to receive. While I don’t pass judgement on those who choose to receive Christ into their hands, I have not done so for about the past year. For me, it did come down to issues of reverence: on the feast of All Saints last year I knelt at the altar rail and received the Eucharist, as usual, into my hands. When I returned to my seat to kneel and pray, I noticed that there were two or three tiny particles of the Sacred Host on my hand. I consumed them, but was so troubled because I had never noticed something like this before. I was genuinely upset by what I had discovered as I thought of the hundreds of times that I had received Holy Communion and could have let Christ fall to the floor. I decided that, for me, that I could receive Christ most reverently by receiving on the tongue - the Church, from the beginning and the writings of the Early Church Fathers, has taught that we must show reverence to even the smallest part of the Host - the smallest particle has become the Body of Christ as much as the large Host that the priest consumes: He is completely and truly present.

 

[Seanache]

yes that is what my logic lead me to believe as I have never seen people drop a host at my church, I have heard of such a thing happening, where as on the tougne the host and any particles of it would stick, unless ur tougne is like totally dry I guess

 

[PhilotheaZ]

It can also be thought of as an act of humility. We are being FED by Christ, as a parent feeds an infant; we passively RECEIVE, rather than TAKING.

But receiving in the hand or on the tongue are both acceptable, as long as you do it with reverence. Until the Church says differently, do whichever seems right to you.

 

[japhy]

I have heard a lot of people say this is more proper and I have started doing this more often instead of taking it in the hand, and I would just like to know why it is considered more correct?

I received Communion in the hand until a couple years ago. (I just turned 27, to give you some perspective.)

Receiving in the hand was the (only) way I was taught in CCD as a kid. It had only been permitted (legally, that is) in the US since about 1977; I received my first Holy Communion around the age of 7 or so, so it was an 11-year-old practice (as far as its legality goes) in the US at that point. Sure, I saw people receiving on the tongue on occasion, but I didn’t really give it a second thought. Then again, I had no idea that the Mass I went to was only a decade or so older than I was! (And no one really told us about the older liturgy.)

So why have I changed to receiving on the tongue (except in some rare cases)? See my next post.

 

[japhy]

See my next post.

1. Tradition

Although Communion was received in the hand in the early Church, it was not done quite how we do it today. We don’t have consistent records about the practice. Some mention that women had to have a special white cloth over their hands when they received. Some mention that we are to make a cross with our hands, receive the Host there, and then lift it up to our mouths (or bring our mouths down to it). One of the sources advocating receiving Communion in the hand also advocated touching it to our sensory organs (and doing the same with the Precious Blood)!

In (most of?) the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church, Communion is received via “intinction”: the consecrated bread is mixed with the consecrated wine, and the communicant receives it into his mouth by means of a small spoon. (It might sound goofy, but it’s not really.) This is a very old practice for them.

In the Western Rites of the Catholic Church, Communion in the mouth was established towards the end of the first millennium. There was a (local, I am assuming) synod in Rouen, France in 878 which forbade the practice of the laity receiving the Host into their hands and required it to be placed in their mouths.

2. Circumstances

Vatican II never once mentioned reverting (or “restoring”) this practice. The manner in which Communion in the hand was permitted again in the Church over the past 40 years is deplorable. Long story short:

Some priests and bishops began promoting the practice illegally (i.e. without permission from the Holy See) probably even before Vatican II. In 1969, the Church finally officially responded. Before 1969, however, the Church had already started permitting non-ordained faithful to help distribute Holy Communion. This meant that the long-standing discipline of only letting the priest (and the deacon when necessary) touch the Host – and only then when he absolutely needed to (since priests who were not celebrating Mass had to receive on the tongue as well) – had to have exceptions made. But since these lay faithful were allowed to hold the Host to give it, why shouldn’t they be allowed to hold the Host to receive it?

Fast forward to 1969. The Pope stated the following: 1. Communion on the tongue must be retained, even if Communion in the hand is permitted. 2. Communion in the tongue does not lessen the dignity of the communicants. 3. All the faithful (ordained or not) are urged “to obey carefully the law which is still valid and which has again been confirmed”. 4. BUT in those places where “a contrary usage … prevails” (i.e. receiving in the hand, contrary to the law of the Church), the Conference of Bishops with jurisdiction in that area should come together to decide if they want to petition for the practice to be made legal for them (i.e. an “indult”); their decision would have to be ratified by the Holy See. In other words: The indult for Communion in the hand (which basically says to each bishop of the conference: “this practice, which is otherwise illegal, is legal in your diocese if you so choose”) was only given out in places where the illegal practice was already occurring. It was not given to the whole Church, only those Conferences of Bishops who requested it.

You can see the simple loophole. Step 1: Promote the illegal practice. Step 2: Petition Rome. Step 3: Illegal practice = legal practice.

See the Instruction Memoriale Domini for the record of this.

3. Belief

I agree with the opinion of the Church that receiving Communion on the tongue “ensures, more effectively, that holy communion is distributed with the proper respect, decorum and dignity. It removes the danger of profanation of the sacred species, in which ‘in a unique way, Christ, God and man, is present whole and entire, substantially and continually.’ Lastly, it ensures that diligent carefulness about the fragments of consecrated bread which the Church has always recommended: ‘What you have allowed to drop, think of it as though you had lost one of your own members.’” (Memoriale Domini, preface)

I also agree with the opinion of the Church, that receiving Communion in the hand “carries certain dangers with it which may arise from the new manner of administering holy communion: the danger of a loss of reverence for the august sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine.” (Ibid.)

Yes, I am of the opinion that receiving Communion in the hand can, for many people, lead to a lessening of belief in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.

I am also of the opinion that receiving in the hand (along with the ubiquitous practice of Communion under both kinds, which has an equally deplorable history in the United States) is a pseudo-ecumenical gesture whose intent was an act of compromise, either a) to make the Catholic Church more in line with Protestant “communion theology”, or b) to make the Catholic Church more appealing to Protestants (most of whom would regard receiving “communion” on the tongue as patently absurd).
That is why I practice and promote reception of Communion on the tongue.

 

[muffinmojo]

If you go to a Church that uses patens, you might want to ask to see them after Mass sometime, before they are cleaned. Even recieving on the tongue, the Hosts shed tiny particles all over everything.

When that gets on your hands, unless you go wash up in the sacristy, Christ gets smeared all over everything. Plus, if you ever hear of a Host being dropped, 99% of the time it will be receiving inthe hand.

Plus, the above reasons of tradition, theology, and symbolism. However, if you continue to receive in the hand, just try to call to mind the true meaning of Communion, and not to feel as if you deserve or are entitled to Holy Communion-no one is, it is a gift.

 

[Shlomey]

I read on some Catholic website before that Mary spoke against reception of the Communion with the bare hands. She said that only the consecrated priest may be allowed to do this and that many priests and bishops are in purgatory for this sin.

 

[thistle]

I read on some Catholic website before that Mary spoke against reception of the Communion with the bare hands. She said that only the consecrated priest may be allowed to do this and that many priests and bishops are in purgatory for this sin.

That is rubbish and private revelations cannot speak against the Church or its priests. If they do they are clearly false.
The official Church position is that we may receive on the the tongue or in the hand and the choice is ours and not the priest who is distributing.

 

[brigid12]

To me, when I receive His Body on the tongue it just seems as if I’m showing more reverence. Now, I’m not saying that noone is reverent who receives on the hand. Not at all. Only that IMHO it seems that way is more reverent for me. Another reason that I do this is that it seems as if I’m a baby bird receiving Him in this humble manner, not the pig-headed, rebellious, irritable, prideful person that I usually am.

 

[Shlomey]

That is rubbish and private revelations cannot speak against the Church or its priests. If they do they are clearly false.
The official Church position is that we may receive on the the tongue or in the hand and the choice is ours and not the priest who is distributing.

Is there any definitive ruling on this that is binding?

 

[IrishAm]

I’m not sure if this is just my own “quirkyness”, but after years and years (and years) of ONLY receiving in the hand, I find that for the last several years I have received on the tongue when a priest or deacon is distributing communion. And I try as much as possible to receive from a priest. If a lay person is distributing, I receive in my hand.

Frankly, I’m not sure when or why I made this transition . . . but I have. At one of my daughters’ parishes – a very modern parish – I thought the priest was going to drop the host before he “figured out” why my mouth was open and my tongue stuck out! Bless his heart, he recovered quickly, however.

 

[Wayfarer]

When there is a question which is clearly and authoritatively answered by the Church, our opinions, in most cases, are probably irrelevant. Redemptionis Sacramentum says this:

[90.] “The faithful should receive Communion kneeling or standing, as the Conference of Bishops will have determined”, with its acts having received the *recognitio *of the Apostolic See. “However, if they receive Communion standing, it is recommended that they give due reverence before the reception of the Sacrament, as set forth in the same norms”.[176]
[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]

Right now, this is all I need to know about tongue vs. hand, even though there have been several posts which offer good, relative information. I particularly like the one who expressed the feeling of “taking” in the hand, preferring instead to “receive” on the tongue. That’s the reason I switched. Maybe also because I remember with a sigh of nostalgia when we lined up along the communion railing with our hands under a white “table cloth” to receive on the tongue. with the server holding a paten under our chins.

 

[japhy]

I read on some Catholic website before that Mary spoke against reception of the Communion with the bare hands. She said that only the consecrated priest may be allowed to do this and that many priests and bishops are in purgatory for this sin.

That web site was probably “tldm.org”; the Marian apparitions spoken of on the web site have not been recognized as authentic by the Church.

 

[Ding]

Hello everyone,

Just a lot of thoughts Please bear with me.

Having been educated in a Catholic school, I too grew up receiving Communion by the tongue.

We can actually argue both ways. And sometimes there are other side issues that come to mind (e.g., Can we chew or munch the Host or should we just let it melt in our mouth? Are we not being short-changed receiving only the Body and not the Blood when not both species are given?)

Whether by tongue or by hand, I guess what is most important is what is in our hearts. That is to say that our hearts must be pure before reception of the Body and/or Blood of Christ. No mortal sin, thus we have the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

As an EMHC (Eucharistic Minister of Holy Communion; more commonly known as “Lay Minister”), I know that it is now both acceptable to receive the host by the tongue or by the hand. But of course always with utmost reverence. (Here in the Philippines, some even bow - while in line - immediately before receiving the host.)

If by the hand, the proper way to do it is to place the left palm over the right palm; receive the host on your left palm then take it with your right hand to consume it. (Of course you need to make sure that you consume all of it, including crumbs if any). There must be the actions of Giving (by priest/deacon/EMHC) and Receiving (by parishioner) - thus you cannot take (or should not) take Host by yourself.

As an aside, here in the Philippines we also have “ushers cum watchers” who stay by the side of the communion line to make sure that the host is consumed right there and not brought to the pews/seats. (I do not know if this added precaution is also practiced in your churches).

If I remember right, the reception by the hand - at least in this part of the world - became more acceptable when the SARS virus was around Asia and reception by the mouth/tongue was discouraged for fear of spreading the virus via saliva or air.

As an EMHC, I can say that reception by the hand has some practical advantages too. Many a time, people do not open their mouths properly or do not extend their tongues rightly and giving them Communion becomes a problem (sometimes the Host falls - does not stick to the tongue, or my nails/fingers get bit when mouths are closed too early).

That is not to say that I advocate reception by hand. I just give it according to people’s options. Again, the key is utmost reverence by the recipient (be it by tongue or hand). If you ask me, it’s really a matter of preference. Most older people (conservatives you may say) prefer to receive it by the tongue while younger ones (liberals) prefer to receive it by hand.

(For EMHCs, it becomes a problem when people raise their palms/hands and open their mouths at the same time. It becomes multiple-choice and good judgment. Hehe.)

---

One poster made reference to Lay Ministers (EMHCs). Just want to assure the poster that EMHCs are commissioned by the Archdiocese. There are requirements to be one. One goes through training and formation and are blessed/anointed for this task. (Same thing goes for Lectors and Commentators). Certificates/memberships are renewed yearly and formation is continuous. All are issued IDs duly signed by the Archdiocese.

Before I became an EMHC, I actually did the same thing - always received Communion from a priest, never from a Lay Minister.

I guess the introduction of EMHCs/Lay Ministers is a result of the scarcity of priests and the growing number of parishioners. The Philippines is a predominantly Catholic country. Imagine giving Communion to say a hundred or two hundred people with only one priest. Sometimes, in the absence of EMCHs, the priest asks for nuns in the congregation to assist especially during Sunday masses. (As a rule, EMHCs serve only in their designated parish or Community; in other places, they cannot present themselves to assist, unless the priest asks them).

The point am driving at is that the priest, deacon, or EMHC/lay minister are mere instruments. The sanctity/real presence of the Body and/or Blood of Jesus does not diminish on who gives them.

---

That’s all for now.

God bless us all.

 

[thistle]

Is there any definitive ruling on this that is binding?

GIRM

1. If Communion is given only under the species of bread, the priest raises the host slightly and shows it to each, saying, Corpus Christi (The Body of Christ). The communicant replies, Amen, and receives the Sacrament either on the tongue or, where this is allowed and if the communicant so chooses, in the hand. As soon as the communicant receives the host, he or she consumes it entirely.

 

[japhy]

ometimes there are other side issues that come to mind (e.g., [1] Can we chew or munch the Host or should we just let it melt in our mouth? [2] Are we not being short-changed receiving only the Body and not the Blood when not both species are given?)

As for question 1, that’s a personal decision. I don’t chew it, I know others who do.

As for question 2, the answer is a resounding no.

As an EMHC (Eucharistic Minister of Holy Communion; more commonly known as “Lay Minister”)…

EMHC stands for “Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion”. If only that were how they were more commonly known. All these other titles don’t adequately describe their function: “Eucharistic Minister”, “Special Minister of Communion”, “Lay Minister”, etc. They’re either too vague or simply inaccurate.

Many a time, people do not open their mouths properly or do not extend their tongues rightly and giving them Communion becomes a problem (sometimes the Host falls - does not stick to the tongue, or my nails/fingers get bit when mouths are closed too early).

If people are instructed, and if Communion patens are used, these accidents and mistakes are drastically reduced.

One poster made reference to Lay Ministers (EMHCs). Just want to assure the poster that EMHCs are commissioned by the Archdiocese. There are requirements to be one. One goes through training and formation and are blessed/anointed for this task. (Same thing goes for Lectors and Commentators). Certificates/memberships are renewed yearly and formation is continuous. All are issued IDs duly signed by the Archdiocese.

That’s how your (arch)diocese operates. Not all dioceses are so rigorous. I highly doubt my parishioners who are EMHCs have ID cards or certificates of membership. I’d assume the bishop is notified of their selection, but I don’t know how much formation and training they receive.

I guess the introduction of EMHCs/Lay Ministers is a result of the scarcity of priests and the growing number of parishioners. The Philippines is a predominantly Catholic country. Imagine giving Communion to say a hundred or two hundred people with only one priest.

I don’t see a problem with that picture. Sure, it might take a little longer (and it would be under only one species, or else via intinction by the priest), but that’s not the end of the world. Masses in the Extraordinary Form don’t seem to have a problem with one (or two) priests giving Communion.

 

[Ding]

Yup, Japhy. E for Extraordinary. I stand corrected.

God bless.

 

[nicolep]

I received on the tongue until the host was dropped on the floor. I will only receive on the tongue if a paten is being used, which has only happened once at my parish. I’ve not seen the host dropped while receiving on the hand, but it has happened several times to those of us who receive on the tongue.

Honestly, I think it was the priest. He just kind of tossed it into our mouths. Since the host hit the floor while I was receiving, I am extremely paranoid about receiving on the tongue. I’ll do it kneeling with a paten or in the hand.