Why Are Some People Strongly Opposed to Communion on the Tongue?

[Cat]

I just want to hear one good reason to continue CITH despite dropped Hosts and spilled Precious Blood.

Just one. That’s all I’m asking. One answer that will make me see how wonderful CITH is and how that reason renders enabling these accidents to continue justified. CITH by it’s nature increases the chance of these accidents happen.

Surely there is an answer other than the early Church did it before certain Doctrines were set in place, or simply to save our precious time.

Make me a believer.

I can give you one very good reason–the bishop says it’s OK.

The bishop is an apostle of Christ, and unless he is advocating sin or heresy, then we as Catholics should respect him, even if we disagree personally.

(Our bishop is Bishop Thomas Doran, in case you are wondering. He’s supposedly one of the orthodox, conservative bishops in the U.S., and we have had TLM in our diocese since the mid 1980s, long before the Motu.)

Another reason–for many people in the U.S., receiving Communion on the tongue makes them feel self-conscious. Many of us in the U.S. have been taught all our lives, from childhood, that sticking our tongue out is a rude act (similiar to giving someone the middle finger), and it is very hard for us to ignore this social taboo, especially in the Mass in the Presence of Jesus Himself!

If you haven’t been raised with this taboo, then of course you won’t understand it, but if you want to try to understand, try this–as you approach the priest in the Communion line, stick up your middle finger at him. How does this make you feel? That’s kind of the way some of us feel when we stick our tongue out at the priest. We feel rude. Even though it isn’t rude to receive on the tongue, we can’t shake the feeling that we are committing a rude gesture.

Another reason is that we are trying to follow what St. John said in his gospel–“He must increase and I must decrease.” When we approach the priest (or EMHC) to receive Jesus, we shouldn’t be thinking about ourselves and our appearances and postures (or thinking about others in the line ahead of us and behind us). We should be thinking entirely about Jesus and His awesome sacrifice on the Cross, and His Body and Blood. If receiving in the hand makes it easier to forget about one’s self and concentrate on Christ than receiving on the tongue, then it would be better to receive on the hand, and vice versa, of course.

And I disagree that receiving the Lord in the hand increases the chance of accidents happening. I personally am much more insecure about receiving the Lord on my tongue than in my hand (but I can’t receive Him in my hand when I have crutches!)

I think that the Lord knew well when He established the Eucharist that we flawed human beings would occasionally be clumsy and spill and drop His Body and Blood. I honestly think that if this is done unintentionally, that the Lord is merciful and forgiving. You might point to the example in the Old Testament when Uzzah was struck dead after touching the Ark of the Covenant. (II Samuel 6)Well, perhaps there is truth in this, but the Scripture says that Uzzah was killed because of his irreverence, not for touching the ark–the Lord knew his heart. The loving hands that took Jesus off the cross and prepared Him for burial were not struck dead for touching Him. Same for Mary, who embraced Him when she saw Him after His resurrection. (John 20)–she didn’t die because the Lord knew that she was reverent.

I think that had the Lord been so concerned with miniscule portions of His Body falling to the floor, He would have thought of something else! Yes, of course we should be as reverent and caring as possible of the Lord’s Body and Blood,

As for saving our precious time, this has nothing to do with it. Perhaps it would be best to be more charitable in your assumptions about other Catholics. Many of us would love to linger in the Lord’s Presence forever.

If you don’t see Communion in the hand as wonderful, that’s OK. It’s not up to you.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Cat. Fifty-seven years a Catholic - receiving Communion for 50 years. Bottom line - particles from the Host existed 50 years ago before they started messing with the receipes. There was an altar rail. The altar rail was covered by a Communion cloth. The Ladies Altar Society had specific instructions on how to wash said Communion cloth. One knelt at the Communion rail. One placed one’s hands under the Communion cloth. The altar boys had patens which were placed under one’s neck.

I quote from my 1962 St. Joseph’s Missal. I quote the rubrics. “He then purifies the chalice with a little wine, saying”. The priest first cleaned the patens of all particles of the Precious Body.

“What has passed our lips as food, O Lord, may we possess in purity of heart, that what is given to us in time be our healing for eternity.”

He then purifies “his fingers with wine and water” and says:

“May Your Body, O Lord which I have eaten, and your Blood which I have drunk, cleave to my very soul, and grant that no trace of sin be found in me, whom these pure and holy mysteries have renewed. Who live and reign, world without end. Amen.”

He purifies the chalice. He took the patens and insured that the particles of the Precious Body were removed to the chalice. He then washes his fingers with wine and water over the chalice…why? Because they might have particles of the Precious Body attached to them. There is even a special sink in each sacristy in which the ciborium and chalices are cleaned. This sink does not go into the municipal waste-water system but straight to the ground. Any fragrments of the Precious Body and Precious Blood are deposited to the Earth. Earth to earth. Ashes to ashes. Dust to dust.

The Holy Father has granted an indult for reception of Communion ITH. I submit to the magesterium. But as for me, I hold fast to that which I was taught. I make no judgments. I submit to you, however, that the Eucharist is the most precious object on the face of the Earth and worthy of our complete and utter reverence. That’s what I was taught and I hold fast to that teaching to this day…warts and all.

 

[ElizabethPH]

Hi Cat,
I have seen people stick their tongues out in a rude way. It doesn’t even come close to what we do in recieving the Blessed Sacrament. And if that is truely a reason why people don’t do it they would only have to receive that way a couple times to get over themselves about it. And further more about receiving in the hand I have watched folks take the Blessed Sacrament into their hands it immediately goes into their mouths VERY rarely have I ever seen them look to make sure there is any part of the host left in their hands.

 

[gallagherbecca]

Our original catechism taught that we are to practice piety — (receiving the Eucharist kneeling, on the tongue) This was changed improperly and hurriedly by the Vatican II.

Furthermore, once the faithful were effectively forced to stand for Holy Communion and the practice of receiving in the hand became the norm, lay people were then invited to come up to the altar and distribute Holy Communion.

We were originally taught that only what has been consecrated should touch the Blessed Sacrament. Your neighbor, your local pharmacist and you DO NOT have consecrated hands - so why is it ok for you or them to touch the Eucharist?

I do not believe that it is ok to change tradition to appease people or to make mass quicker or easier. I do believe that this and other changes have caused confusion and division among many Catholics.

Mother Teresa reportedly said, “Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.”

I truly believe that this practice should be returned to its former place of prominence — not only for the greater glory of God but for the salvation of souls.

 

[Pug]

And further more about receiving in the hand I have watched folks take the Blessed Sacrament into their hands it immediately goes into their mouths VERY rarely have I ever seen them look to make sure there is any part of the host left in their hands.

I think people don’t look because they don’t know to look. It is not part of how they are trained as a child to receive. There is no line of instruction to check their hands before sitting down. I can tell you that I received for years on the hand and it never once crossed my mind that particles might be clinging to my hands. No one ever suggested it to me, and those hosts look like solid little circles, nothing to suggest crumbs. It was only after one shattered upon being placed on my palm that I realized about the possibility of crumbs.

Also, once I had experience handling a host in some context besides receiving communion did I realized just how many particles they put off routinely. Very few lay persons have done anything with a host except receive it in the communion line. They just have no idea about particles on the hand. That is why they don’t look. This problem could be remedied with instruction.

 

[I_Believe]

.

I can give you one very good reason–the bishop says it’s OK.

Another reason–for many people in the U.S., receiving Communion on the tongue makes them feel self-conscious.

Another reason is that we are trying to follow what St. John said in his gospel–“He must increase and I must decrease.”

Ok, fair enough. I can’t reconcile the second two reasons though.

 

[I_Believe]

Our original catechism taught that we are to practice piety — (receiving the Eucharist kneeling, on the tongue) This was changed improperly and hurriedly by the Vatican II.

Furthermore, once the faithful were effectively forced to stand for Holy Communion and the practice of receiving in the hand became the norm, lay people were then invited to come up to the altar and distribute Holy Communion.

We were originally taught that only what has been consecrated should touch the Blessed Sacrament. Your neighbor, your local pharmacist and you DO NOT have consecrated hands - so why is it ok for you or them to touch the Eucharist?

I do not believe that it is ok to change tradition to appease people or to make mass quicker or easier. I do believe that this and other changes have caused confusion and division among many Catholics.

Mother Teresa reportedly said, “Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.”

I truly believe that this practice should be returned to its former place of prominence — not only for the greater glory of God but for the salvation of souls.

Well said.

 

[Charioteer]

I can give you one very good reason–the bishop says it’s OK.

The bishop is an apostle of Christ, and unless he is advocating sin or heresy, then we as Catholics should respect him, even if we disagree personally.

(Our bishop is Bishop Thomas Doran, in case you are wondering. He’s supposedly one of the orthodox, conservative bishops in the U.S., and we have had TLM in our diocese since the mid 1980s, long before the Motu.)

Another reason–for many people in the U.S., receiving Communion on the tongue makes them feel self-conscious. Many of us in the U.S. have been taught all our lives, from childhood, that sticking our tongue out is a rude act (similiar to giving someone the middle finger), and it is very hard for us to ignore this social taboo, especially in the Mass in the Presence of Jesus Himself!

If you haven’t been raised with this taboo, then of course you won’t understand it, but if you want to try to understand, try this–as you approach the priest in the Communion line, stick up your middle finger at him. How does this make you feel? That’s kind of the way some of us feel when we stick our tongue out at the priest. We feel rude. Even though it isn’t rude to receive on the tongue, we can’t shake the feeling that we are committing a rude gesture.

Another reason is that we are trying to follow what St. John said in his gospel–“He must increase and I must decrease.” When we approach the priest (or EMHC) to receive Jesus, we shouldn’t be thinking about ourselves and our appearances and postures (or thinking about others in the line ahead of us and behind us). We should be thinking entirely about Jesus and His awesome sacrifice on the Cross, and His Body and Blood. If receiving in the hand makes it easier to forget about one’s self and concentrate on Christ than receiving on the tongue, then it would be better to receive on the hand, and vice versa, of course.

And I disagree that receiving the Lord in the hand increases the chance of accidents happening. I personally am much more insecure about receiving the Lord on my tongue than in my hand (but I can’t receive Him in my hand when I have crutches!)

I think that the Lord knew well when He established the Eucharist that we flawed human beings would occasionally be clumsy and spill and drop His Body and Blood. I honestly think that if this is done unintentionally, that the Lord is merciful and forgiving. You might point to the example in the Old Testament when Uzzah was struck dead after touching the Ark of the Covenant. (II Samuel 6)Well, perhaps there is truth in this, but the Scripture says that Uzzah was killed because of his irreverence, not for touching the ark–the Lord knew his heart. The loving hands that took Jesus off the cross and prepared Him for burial were not struck dead for touching Him. Same for Mary, who embraced Him when she saw Him after His resurrection. (John 20)–she didn’t die because the Lord knew that she was reverent.

I think that had the Lord been so concerned with miniscule portions of His Body falling to the floor, He would have thought of something else! Yes, of course we should be as reverent and caring as possible of the Lord’s Body and Blood,

As for saving our precious time, this has nothing to do with it. Perhaps it would be best to be more charitable in your assumptions about other Catholics. Many of us would love to linger in the Lord’s Presence forever.

If you don’t see Communion in the hand as wonderful, that’s OK. It’s not up to you.

Very well said. There are only three legitimate reasons for choosing CitH over CotT and vice versa. Here they are in the order of their authority:

1. Your local bishop excludes one or the other. Right now in my diocese, communicants do not have the “right” to receive CotT (even during the EF) based on a documented directive from our bishop which came about due to the current swine fever scare.
2. The rite of a given Mass (such as the EF) specifies only one method or the other.
3. Personal preference.

The rest is really nothing more than personal preference noise that stems from #3.

 

[Charioteer]

Our original catechism taught that we are to practice piety — (receiving the Eucharist kneeling, on the tongue) This was changed improperly and hurriedly by the Vatican II.

Furthermore, once the faithful were effectively forced to stand for Holy Communion and the practice of receiving in the hand became the norm, lay people were then invited to come up to the altar and distribute Holy Communion.

We were originally taught that only what has been consecrated should touch the Blessed Sacrament. Your neighbor, your local pharmacist and you DO NOT have consecrated hands - so why is it ok for you or them to touch the Eucharist?

I do not believe that it is ok to change tradition to appease people or to make mass quicker or easier. I do believe that this and other changes have caused confusion and division among many Catholics.

Mother Teresa reportedly said, “Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.”

I truly believe that this practice should be returned to its former place of prominence — not only for the greater glory of God but for the salvation of souls.

Who are you to suggest what is pious and what was “improperly and hurriedly by the Vatican II.” That merely your own personal opinion. I will also add that you are mistaken.

The Church does not teach that unconsecrated hands may not touch the consecrated hosts. You are also wrong about that. I care nothing about your opinions about “tradition” – I care only what the Church teaches and directs.

Not that Mother Teresa ever said what you claim she said but again I follow the Church not Mother Teresa.

Just follow the Church…

 

[brotherhrolf]

Very well said. There are only three legitimate reasons for choosing CitH over CotT and vice versa. Here they are in the order of their authority:

1. Your local bishop excludes one or the other. Right now in my diocese, communicants do not have the “right” to receive CotT (even during the EF) based on a documented directive from our bishop which came about due to the current swine fever scare.
2. The rite of a given Mass (such as the EF) specifies only one method or the other.
3. Personal preference.

The rest is really nothing more than personal preference noise that stems from #3.

Oh, I wish I could post a YouTube video of PDQ Bach’s “I’m the village idiot”…
Alas such a video does not exist. It should consist of a “villege idiot” stumpin across stage chanting “I’m the village idiot. I don’t have anything to do with this pathetic little opera…I’M just passing through.”

Charioteer? I’m 57, grew up before Vatican II, have always received communion on the tongue for some 50 years. I’m not dead yet. Graduated from a Catholic high school in 1969 and have spent the last 40 years disgruntled because I have seen the Church of my childhood become something else. You sit there and espouse platitudes.

I went through Vatican II as a committed Catholic who was perfectly content with HMC as she existed in 1966. Whoah! Shocking! Yes, Charioteer, there were people who were perfectly content with HMC before Vatican II but we were loyal sons and daughters of HMC who submitted to the magesterium.

Before you pontificate, I would suggest that you explore the feelings of us baby boomers who grew up before Vatican II, are still alive, and remember. My parents were marginalized but I am not my parents.

 

[Charioteer]

What’s your point?

I don’t see “People Strongly Opposed to Communion on the Tongue.” I see people who prefer to receive CitH. The two are not the same thing, not by a long shot.

This thread was nothing more than a platform to attack the practice of CitH. A far more honest question would have been to ask about individuals’ personal issues with CitH. I don’t think I would even have read the thread had it been labeled in that manner.

The big difference this time is that a handful stood-up and challenged the veracity of the original question. They also rejected the multitude of “reasons” to limit communion to CotT which largely boil down to personal opinion.

Outside of a prohibition by the Church (be it the Holy See, the USCCB or one’s local bishop), the only reason to choose one method over the other is personal preference. People have desperately tried to sell their preference of CotT-only for reasons other than what the church directs – such as the black-glove syndrome and they have been rebuffed because the claims appear to be disingenuous.

If claims like the black-glove syndrome had any real merit, the Church would NEVER allow CitH. In the end please feel free to receive communion in any manner you want – just don’t try to sell me your opinion of why my own choice for myself is not the right one.

Oh, I wish I could post a YouTube video of PDQ Bach’s “I’m the village idiot”…
Alas such a video does not exist. It should consist of a “villege idiot” stumpin across stage chanting “I’m the village idiot. I don’t have anything to do with this pathetic little opera…I’M just passing through.”

Charioteer? I’m 57, grew up before Vatican II, have always received communion on the tongue for some 50 years. I’m not dead yet. Graduated from a Catholic high school in 1969 and have spent the last 40 years disgruntled because I have seen the Church of my childhood become something else. You sit there and espouse platitudes.

I went through Vatican II as a committed Catholic who was perfectly content with HMC as she existed in 1966. Whoah! Shocking! Yes, Charioteer, there were people who were perfectly content with HMC before Vatican II but we were loyal sons and daughters of HMC who submitted to the magesterium.

Before you pontificate, I would suggest that you explore the feelings of us baby boomers who grew up before Vatican II, are still alive, and remember. My parents were marginalized but I am not my parents.

 

[I_Believe]

People have desperately tried to sell their preference of CotT-only for reasons other than what the church directs – such as the black-glove syndrome and they have been rebuffed because the claims appear to be disingenuous.

Great thing about this is, despite your claim, there are posts in this thread that prove otherwise.

I’ve totally disregarded the black glove point. Doesn’t matter, I don’t need proof to convince me that the Church wasn’t wasting Her time with the patens you yourself deemed useless.

Doesn’t matter, because the conditions of the indult itself back up why those of us think CITH is a bad idea from the start.

And have those conditions been met ? No. If they were, we would not be discussing Hosts corrupted by mishandling.

Who is being disobedient or displaying a passive attitude (these attitudes are mentioned in the conditions of the indult ) toward the lukewarm concern for dropped Hosts ?

The ones defending COTT or those defending CITH ?

Since you agree with Cat’s post, which she is entitled to offer, how do you reconcile these two reasons she offered in defense of continuing the practice of CITH despite the recurring mishaps ?

cat:

Another reason–for many people in the U.S., receiving Communion on the tongue makes them feel self-conscious.

Another reason is that we are trying to follow what St. John said in his gospel–“He must increase and I must decrease.”

One centers on the individual’s needs, and one, from Gospel itself ,places our needs quite a bit further down the ladder. I’m not singling out Cat, but this is a perfect example of the “attitudes towards the Eucharist” mentioned in the conditions of the indult.

The conditions are not met in far too many parishes, and this is due to precisely these attitudes.

charioteer:

I am also aware that communion patens can be used with either method of communion – although they are largely useless

Great example. One can only make that kind of statement for one of two reasons.

• ignorance, which is not true in this case
• the attitudes foreseen by those who granted the indult after careful consideration have manifest

"A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God. In our churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them. Like Mary Magdalene, weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask, “Where have they taken him?” -Pope Pius XII

Those of us who are shocked (another fear the conditions of the indult touched on), are not making this stuff up.

The fact is, not a single person here can justify the toleration of dropped Hosts. Every reason offered is in direct contradiction of the Gospel verse Cat offered.

Rave on and promote the attitudes the conditions of the indult were put in place to prevent. God have mercy on those who side with you. Ignorance beyond their control would be their only excuse.

 

[brotherhrolf]

What’s your point?

I don’t see “People Strongly Opposed to Communion on the Tongue.” I see people who prefer to receive CitH. The two are not the same thing, not by a long shot.

This thread was nothing more than a platform to attack the practice of CitH. A far more honest question would have been to ask about individuals’ personal issues with CitH. I don’t think I would even have read the thread had it been labeled in that manner.

The big difference this time is that a handful stood-up and challenged the veracity of the original question. They also rejected the multitude of “reasons” to limit communion to CotT which largely boil down to personal opinion.

Outside of a prohibition by the Church (be it the Holy See, the USCCB or one’s local bishop), the only reason to choose one method over the other is personal preference. People have desperately tried to sell their preference of CotT-only for reasons other than what the church directs – such as the black-glove syndrome and they have been rebuffed because the claims appear to be disingenuous.

If claims like the black-glove syndrome had any real merit, the Church would NEVER allow CitH. In the end please feel free to receive communion in any manner you want – just don’t try to sell me your opinion of why my own choice for myself is not the right one.

Well then, I’m just a wild eyed hysterical pre-Vatican II altar boy who lied and who has been agonizing over the last forty years. Nope, I just hit the electric Kool Aid with Father before Mass and those tiny white particles on the paten were fig-newtons of our collective kool aid driven perspectives.

I’m also a card-carrying member of the "we submitted to the magesterium of HMC forty years ago only to find out that we, not our colleagues, are the ones on electric kool aid all these forty years.

Pardon me, sir. Are you or are you not strongly opposed to what I hold to be a practice of HMC for over 1500 years? Excuse me. The world changed in 1967. Doesn’t mean we all liked it - we submitted to the magesteriuum.

I just love it. Father Z presents evidence in black and white which I could have provided in gold and white. We go - behold, observe! and sit back and take our lumps because we are making a mountain out of a mole hill. Uh, huh. Please, instruct me. Just which of us is treating the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ so cavalierly? Please instruct us why you,sir, are so strongly opposed to Communion on the tongue.

 

[Cat]

Cat, you can twist my words all you want, but nevertheless, if you’ll send me an address, I’ll send you a T-shirt that says “It’ll All Good”, and you can wear that to Mass.

I_Believe, I’m sorry to bug you about this. I know that it’s Sunday and you’re busy…

I just hoping you’ll find some time to get back to this.

I asked in another post what “It’ll All Good” means.

I honestly have no idea what this means? Is it an old Catholic expression? Please keep in mind that I was raised evangelical Protestant, so I don’t have the background. I would love to hear the explanation of this expression and why it applies to me when you have time.

Thanks so much. Cat

 

[Cat]

Well then, I’m just a wild eyed hysterical pre-Vatican II altar boy who lied and who has been agonizing over the last forty years. Nope, I just hit the electric Kool Aid with Father before Mass and those tiny white particles on the paten were fig-newtons of our collective kool aid driven perspectives.

I’m also a card-carrying member of the "we submitted to the magesterium of HMC forty years ago only to find out that we, not our colleagues, are the ones on electric kool aid all these forty years.

Pardon me, sir. Are you or are you not strongly opposed to what I hold to be a practice of HMC for over 1500 years? Excuse me. The world changed in 1967. Doesn’t mean we all liked it - we submitted to the magesteriuum.

I just love it. Father Z presents evidence in black and white which I could have provided in gold and white. We go - behold, observe! and sit back and take our lumps because we are making a mountain out of a mole hill. Uh, huh. Please, instruct me. Just which of us is treating the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ so cavalierly? Please instruct us why you,sir, are so strongly opposed to Communion on the tongue.

brotherhrolf, all of us are sympathetic to what happened to you during your youth, when the Church was ripped away from you with no warning. That is very sad and we feel for you and other Catholics who went through those dark days (ironic, because the announcement was made that the "windows were now opened).

I am especially sympathetic because a similiar thing happened to me while I was Protestant–my husband and I were kicked out of our Protestant church. A tribunal was held, witnesses (that we didn’t even know) were brought in, we were condemned and asked to leave, and from then on, we were shunned by our former church. (The “charges” were falsehoods trumped-up by a jealous woman pastor, who was fired a year later after she was caught in a lie.)

I’m sure you will understand when I say that “my world was shattered.” Did you feel this way, too? All of my worldview revolved around my church, and I had only known love and acceptance in the church. When those in charge treated us like this, it was horrific. I think that’s how you felt, too–totally disoriented and confused and angry and sad. It was as if someone had died, which indeed, is what happened–the church of our childhood was gone, never to return.

But what does this have to do with charioteer’s comments?

**Nowhere has charioteer expressed opposition to Communion on the tongue. ** (And neither have I.)

He/she (and me, too!) is trying to make it clear that the opposition to Communion in the Hand is based on personal preference, not Church teaching. There are some “myths” going around among the “Communion on the tongue” adherents: 1) that only “consecrated hands” can touch the Lord’s Body and 2) that Mother Teresa made a statement to the effect that Communion in the hand is a tragedy.

Both of these are myths. They are not true. The first myth is NOT an official teaching of the Catholic Church. The second myth cannot be proven–there is no document recording this supposed quote from Mother Teresa.

If some of you want to argue in favor of Communion on the tongue, that’s fine and very interesting. But please don’t use myths. (That’s what Jack T. Chick does, and we all don’t trust him, do we?)

brotherhrolf, if you prefer to receive Communion on the tongue, that’s fine. charioteer and I and others aren’t trying to tell you that you’re wrong and we aren’t trying to take this privilege away from you and others.

However, many on this thread are trying to tell those who receive on the hand that they’re wrong. And that’s just not true. That’s NOT what the Catholic Church teaches. We are trying to uphold the truth of the Church here!

BTW, I have been receiving Holy Communion on the tongue for a month and a half now. Frankly, I don’t understand the fuss over the issue. It’s really not a big deal. I haven’t decided what to do once my foot is healed and I don’t have a crutch anymore. Threads like this are interesting to me, but I will say this–**when the Communion in the Tongue adherents attack those who prefer to receive in the hand and use myths and personal opinion to back up their claims, then I am much more inclined to go with the Communion in the hand people who can point to their BISHOP and to the SCRIPTURES as their basis for receiving in the hand. **

This whole business of unconsecrated hands bothers me especially. As far as I’m concerned, my TONGUE is probably the foulest, most sinful part of my body–that passage in James was written all about my tongue. Why doesn’t the tongue have to be consecrated? You see, the theology just isn’t there–this teaching about “consecrated hands” is not Catholic teaching and it doesn’t hold up. Let’s see the Catechism–oh, wait–I forgot. The current Catechism of the Catholic Church is not valid, right? C’mon people! Think about what you’re saying. You’re tearing down the Catholic Church, telling us that our bishops can’t be trusted, our Catechism can’t be trusted, our priests can’t be trusted, that most of the people who receive Holy Communion can’t be trusted (because they receive Holy Communion in the hand instead of the “right way” on the tongue). But YOU are to be trusted. No, I don’t think so.

Sorry, brotherhrolf, most of this post isn’t about you at all. I do trust you and enjoy hearing about the Church that you attend and the Catholic faith that is real to you everyday.

 

[rciadan]

But surely you see that these things could happen if Communion were offered only to those who receive on the tongue? People could receive the Lord’s Body on their tongue, step away, take Him out of their mouth, and desecrate His Body later.

Several of the incidences that you describe above are almost devilish-sounding. Why would an entire family try to hide the Lord’s Body to take Him home? It almost sounds like some kind of superstitious practice, perhaps a “charm” or occult ritual. But again, a family who is doing this could do it just as easily by receiving Him on the tongue. So could the man who grabbed the Hosts. These kind of people aren’t going to be thwarted in their attempts to desecrate the Lord. It’s very disturbing, but I don’t think the answer is receiving Him on the tongue only, and I don’t think the answer is better catechesis about the True Presence. It’s obvious that these people BELIEVE strongly enough in the True Presence of God Himself to want to steal Him and have His Power in their homes (at least, that’s what they think). Or perhaps they are anti-Catholics who want to prove that the Host is not Jesus–well, they can steal Him on their tongue as easily as they can steal Him in their hand.

Possible yes, likely or anywhere near as easy, no. At the Latin Mass Communion is administered by a Priest who is behind the altar rail. It would be nowhere near as easy for someone to walk up and “grab a handful”. The first warning would be when they did not kneel.
And yes some of these events have been devilish. We have a full witches coven operating not that far from our parish in this town. All the more reason to take appropriate steps to ensure it is not so easy! We even have “watchers” who are looking for this kind of thing.
Can one make sure it never happens? Of course not. That does not mean you take no measures to avoid it!
The instances of this kind of thing happening has greatly increased since Communion in the hand was introduced.
Besides this, you are only referring to the dramatic instances. I mentioned other kinds of abuse that would* never* happen at a Tridentine Mass…

 

[I_Believe]

What does “It’ll All Good” mean?

Sorry, typo. It’s all Good

I_Believe, I’m sorry to bug you about this. I know that it’s Sunday and you’re busy…

I just hoping you’ll find some time to get back to this.

I asked in another post what “It’ll All Good” means.

I honestly have no idea what this means? Is it an old Catholic expression? Please keep in mind that I was raised evangelical Protestant, so I don’t have the background. I would love to hear the explanation of this expression and why it applies to me when you have time.

Thanks so much. Cat

You missed my reply right below the first time you asked.

It’s a common phrase these days. Same as “no problem”. I was being sarcastic, and I apologize.

 

[I_Believe]

Personally, I now receive Communion on the Tongue while kneeling and I have never had any serious problems (i.e. the Priest/EMHC ‘missing’ as it were and the Host ending up on the floor or something). I admit it feels a little weird, especially having to compensate for the forward motion of dropping to my knees (sometimes I feel like I get too close to the Priest when I kneel), but it is not a problem.

Why are some people so against receiving on the Tongue? I think I understand why many Traditionalists are against receiving in the Hand (personally, I see no problem with it since it is allowed these days, although I will continue to receive on the Tongue).

Have you gotten your answer yet ? What do you think after reading these replies ?

 

[I_Believe]

This whole business of unconsecrated hands bothers me especially. As far as I’m concerned, my TONGUE is probably the foulest, most sinful part of my body–that passage in James was written all about my tongue. Why doesn’t the tongue have to be consecrated? ** You see, the theology just isn’t there–this teaching about “consecrated hands” is not Catholic teaching and it doesn’t hold up.**

Wow. Cat, do you have any idea of why we received on the tongue for so long a period in Church history ? The reasons are indeed based on Catholic teaching. Based on Doctrines actually.

 

[Cat]

Wow. Cat, do you have any idea of why we received on the tongue for so long a period in Church history ? The reasons are indeed based on Catholic teaching. Based on Doctrines actually.

But what exactly IS the doctrine? Is it the “doctrine of consecrated hands?” What doctrine demanded that Christians receive on the tongue?

I have been taught that this is a “discipline” or a “practice,” not a doctrine, and that disciplines and practices can and do change over time, and this this not sinful.

And is the doctrine that requires reception of the Holy Communion on the tongue only described in the Catechism of the Catholic Church? We just finished a two-year study of the Catechism, and I don’t remember this. Of course I could have missed the class where we discussed this. I just now scanned through the paragraphs about Eucharist, and I saw nothing about “consecrated hands” touching the Eucharist.

Again, this goes back to what I said earlier–if most of the people in the Catholic Church are doing Communion “wrong”–actually transgressing the teaching of the Church, and the bishops are going along with this–it’s monstrous!

You told me that the Catholic Church remains the Catholic Church, even if the shepherds sin, even if they keep a stable of young boys. Yes, I understand that and accept that individual men sin. But what you’re saying is that most of the parishes in the U.S. are practicing a grave sin, a desecration against the very Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Himself!

I certainly don’t mean to underrate the horror of the sexual abuse of children and teenagers by priests. But IMO, if all of the Christians who receive the Lord in their hand are truly supposed to have “consecrated hands,” then they are desecrating the Lord’s Body and Blood and that’s more awful, more horrific, and possibly blasphemy.

And I honestly can’t accept that the Lord’s ordained apostles would knowingly participate in this outrage and allow so many Christians in the U.S. to continue offending the Lord Jesus by touching Him with “unconsecrated hands.”

I can’t accept that. Sexual sin is one thing, and it is understandable, as men (and women) are weak and easily tempted by the pleasures of the flesh. But for the bishops to allow so many Christians to sin and sin monstrously against the Lord is devilish! And that’s what you are saying that our bishops are doing!

No, I won’t accept that our bishops are collectively guilty of such evil. Either they are right or you are right. Sorry, I_Believe, I’m going with the bishops. I certainly respect your right to receive the Lord Jesus on the tongue and I appreciate the various reasons why people prefer to receive on the tongue, but I do not think that it is a “doctrine” or theology that all Christians must adhere to. I think our bishops would have picked up on that by now if it were doctrine.