Traditional Baptism and Holy Communion?

[Rawb]

We’ve all seen or heard the arguments between those who say Communion ought to be restricted to the tongue again only and those who are for the hand. Tongue-Communers (sometimes) say that the hands of the priest have been consecrated and theirs have not, and hand-Communers reply that neither has the tongue.

Someone recently said on another forum that in the traditional rite of Baptism, the tongue WAS consecrated. Is this true and does it change the arguments any in favor of, not only tongue-Communion, but also utilization of the Traditional Rite of Baptism (or a reform of the Novus Ordo Baptism?

 

[AJV]

It seems to me that this explanation, that the application of blessed salt consecrates the tongue, is slightly novel.

The rite regards it as the “salt of wisdom”, it is placed in proximity to an exorcism, and other explanations of it do not mention any form of consecration e.g. the Catechism of Trent:

To the exorcism are added other ceremonies, each of which, being mystical, has its own clear signification. When, for instance, salt is put into the mouth of the person to be baptised, this evidently means that, by the doctrines of faith and by the gift of grace, he shall be delivered from the corruption of sin, shall experience a relish for good works, and shall be delighted with the food of divine wisdom.

Furthermore, consecrations in the Traditional rites are usually accompanied by the application of chrism.

Another objection may be that a deacon was an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, yet his hands were not consecrated.

 

[NeedImprovement]

I remember hearing a guest speaker to a prayer group saying (in favor of receiving Holy Communon on the tongue) that our tongues were purified in the sacrament of Reconciliation…can’t say I’d heard that one before or ever again (it was quite a few years ago)…haven’t finished thinking it through myself either.