J
jmcrae
Guest
How about washing your hands before going to Mass, so that they aren’t sweaty?
- Status
S
StillWondering
Guest
Thank you to all that replied.
As for why I receive on the hand. I would receive on the tongue, but there are some difficulties about this lately.
As for washing my hand, my palm sweat is not normal amounts of sweat. When I’m healthy I don’t sweat. But when I do sweat, it’s so wet, the flakes can start dissolving from the hosts. I carry a towel in my pockets to dry every so often but the residual wetness does not go away.
So slurping is out of the question. And licking is a maybe?
I should just be talking to the sacristan. It’s just that it comes and goes and I didn’t want to trouble anyone.
As for why I receive on the hand. I would receive on the tongue, but there are some difficulties about this lately.
As for washing my hand, my palm sweat is not normal amounts of sweat. When I’m healthy I don’t sweat. But when I do sweat, it’s so wet, the flakes can start dissolving from the hosts. I carry a towel in my pockets to dry every so often but the residual wetness does not go away.
So slurping is out of the question. And licking is a maybe?
I should just be talking to the sacristan. It’s just that it comes and goes and I didn’t want to trouble anyone.
C
cydonian
Guest
I don’t think that we who choose to receive on the tongue are “better than thou”, and I don’t see that attitude in the posters here today.
We passionately feel that receiving on the tongue is simply a more reverant way to receive our Lord.
Someone corect me if I am wrong, but I remember reading somewhere (I can’t find it at the moment) that communion in the hand started way back in the 4th or 5th century by those who denied the real presence. I also read somewhere that it got started in Europe in the 1960s for basically the same reason.
T
TEPO
Guest
OK… I was in the front pew, and i saw this chick DIP THE HOST IN THE WINE, and then eat it!!!
Is this normal?
Is this normal?
C
cydonian
Guest
It is called intinction, and we are not supposed to do it.
I believe a priest or deacon can do it and distribute, but the communicant is not allowed to ‘dip’.
T
TEPO
Guest
Thanks for the response… I felt appalled when I witnessed it… It seemed wrong.
T
TEPO
Guest
One other question… I was at this same Church, and when I opened my mouth to recieve communion and stuck out my tongue partially, after about 3 seconds -I looked down, and Father was holding the Host and flagging for me to put out my hands???
I was utterly flabbergasted…
Ever since then I have never tried to receive the Eucharist on the tongue, but have always wondered why Father refused to give it to me by my mouth… I wonder if it was because I was tall and he was short, but that still dosent seem right to me.
Any explanation?
I was utterly flabbergasted…
Ever since then I have never tried to receive the Eucharist on the tongue, but have always wondered why Father refused to give it to me by my mouth… I wonder if it was because I was tall and he was short, but that still dosent seem right to me.
Any explanation?
J
jmcrae
Guest
NO, it’s absolutely forbidden.
C
cydonian
Guest
I’m sorry to hear that this happened to you. Unfortunately it happens way to often.
We are allowed to receive either on the tongue or in the hand.
The priest, deacon, or any other extraordinary minister of communion is NOT to deny a communicant to receive either way.
“Still, universal Church law does not permit reception of the Sacrament in the hand, and John Paul II disapproves of the practice. The indult that allowed it specified that reception in the hand “must not be imposed” (CSDW, En réponse, 1969). Absolutely no priest or extraordinary minister of Holy Communion may refuse to administer the Eucharist on the tongue. Your right to determine which lawful manner you use is stated in the GIRM (Appendix for the United States, 240b).”
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Every parish I’ve been to follows the Holy See as well, which means receiving communion on the tongue or in the hand, in the United States. As the Holy See approves.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Of course not! It’s just obvious to me from Masses I attend that the vast majority receive in the hand. That’s a simple casual observation, not an obsessive focus for me or anything, and of course secondary to my own prayer at that time.
I’m not sure who the “We” is you are referring to, but how sad, that you experience a group doing something without permission from the Holy See. I am sorry to hear that. I guess I’ve been fortunate here in the U.S. in all the many parishes I’ve prayed at to never encounter that.
Thanks, but I’ll stick with Church teaching (and not unsubstantiated quotes attributed to Mother Teresa along with other personal opinions). Whoever wrote that article does not seem to be familiar with current liturgical law.
P
ProVobis
Guest
If it’s an indult, I would think the bishop could prohibit or restrict its use.
The_Reginator
Active member
What I find sad is that when my children were in school they were only instructed to receive standing and in the hand.
That, of course, is the norm in our parish. But I do feel that children should be better formed by their ‘Catholic’ teachers and parish priest.
I heard right from the priest at a meeting before their First Confession that Catholics were no longer “dinosaurs”!
D
diggerdomer
Guest
No, indults are approved by the Pope, an individual Bishop cannot on his own override them.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
How better to be formed than by the norms of your Church? What is better than the Church’s norms?
C
cydonian
Guest
I prefer the “norm” of receiving on the tongue has it was for 1900+ years.
And, just because we can do something - doesn’t always mean we should.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
I still think it’s more important to be formed by the Church’s norms than our own individual preferences.
P
ProVobis
Guest
You sure about that? A bishop wouldn’t be overriding a Church norm if he bans communion in the hand. He certainly can’t allow communion in the hand if it’s not approved or tolerated by the Pope AND approved by his synod.
But more to the point, the communion in the hand isn’t totally at universally equal status with the communion on the tongue, when communion in the hand is forbidden in some areas of the world.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
I would bet, though I could be wrong, that by this time it is NEAR universal. From EWTN, these statistics, as to how long these English-speaking conferences have had it. I’d bet more have applied and this list is somewhat antiquated (Poland took up the indult in 2007, by permission of the Holy See).
South Africa, 3 February 1970
Canada, 12 February 1970
Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), 2 October 1971
Zambia, 11 March 1974
New Zealand, 24 April 1974
Australia, 26 September 1975
England and Wales, 6 March 1976
Papua and New Guinea, 28 April 1976
Ireland, 4 September 1976
Pakistan, 29 October 1976
**United States, 17 June 1977
**Scotland, 7 July 1977
Malaysia and Singapore, 3 October 1977
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
There is absolutely no historical evidence that this is true. EWTN, an orthodox source, admits it was done in the early years of the Church:
“The authority of the Church to permit what in other centuries was freely done and which “by itself” is not contrary to the faith is not in question.”
It’s the “by itself” or rather, “of itself,” that we should concern ourselves with. When the Holy See promulgated the Indult, it gave strict instructions as to the catechesis the faithful should receive. It is in the area of catechesis, on this as on so many other things, that we in the Church have failed, rather miserably (the Church Herself being incapable of failing). There is nothing “ontologically” wrong with CITH, that is, it isn’t wrong “of itself.” Can it be wrongly done? Yes.
- Status