Why Are Some People Strongly Opposed to Communion on the Tongue? - Page 2

barb finnegan · #16 May 1, '09, 1:34 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElizabethPH

I think that perhaps that is because they are out of the practice; if they are older they more then likely received on the tongue and kneeling before VII; when it rolled around they fell into the habit of taking the most Blessed Sacrament in their hands along with everyone else. Thus now they would be uncomfortable receiving the old way.

Most everyone takes in the hands. And they don't want to stand out.

With regards to the last comment: NOT EVERYONE takes in the hands. I never have, except during a couple of retreats when it was 'forced', and that when the paten was passed around and all 'self-communicated' [a liturgical 'no-no'].

Who cares if you stand out? In this case, don't go along with 'the crowd'!

Charioteer · #17 May 1, '09, 2:27 pm

I don't think very many are "Strongly Opposed to Communion on the Tongue." That's really nothing more than a canard used to tacitly gig those who don't share your choice of how to receive. I think they simply prefer to receive in their hands because:

* Some prefer the ancient practice. It was the early church practice.

* Choose to safeguard the Blessed Sacrament as best they can by receiving communion in a manner that best insures it will not be dropped on the floor.

* Interpret "TAKE this all of you and eat it..." quite literally.

* Take Saint Bail's writings quite seriously.

* Insecure about showing teeth/gums/tongue

* Uncomfortable receiving on tongue.

* Potentially more hygienic for both the distributor and receiver of communion. Many archdioceses/dioceses have officially limited communion to in-hand during this swine flue problem.

Just as it would be wrong to OPPOSE communion on tongue, OPPOSING common in hand is every bit as misplaced and wrong.

Charioteer · #18 May 1, '09, 2:32 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElizabethPH

I think that perhaps that is because they are out of the practice; if they are older they more then likely received on the tongue and kneeling before VII; when it rolled around they fell into the habit of taking the most Blessed Sacrament in their hands along with everyone else. Thus now they would be uncomfortable receiving the old way.

Most everyone takes in the hands. And they don't want to stand out.

I don't think the question asked by the OP is really valid. I don't think many people are opposed to CoT. I think about the same number are opposed to CiH but they are just far more vociferous here on CAF.

It's also disingenuous to in any way infer that one method is better or worse than the other. They are not. One or the other might be preferred by a given person but one technique is not better or worse than the other -- so long as they are approved by the Church.

Cat · #19 May 1, '09, 3:07 pm

I agree with charioteer. I don't think people are opposed to Communion on the tongue. I certainly am not. In fact, in the last few months, I have received Holy Communion on the tongue because I've been using crutches.

I don't think most Catholics care one way or the other. Good heavens, when we are on our deathbed, there is a good chance that we will receive our last Holy Communion on the tongue, right?

But I do think people are opposed to those who oppose Communion in the hand. I am. As long as the U.S. has the indult, then it is not our place to oppose the practice that has been approved by the local bishop.

And I'll be honest--I expected some kind of mystical eye-opening feeling or rush of emotions when I first received Holy Communion on the tongue. It didn't happen. I honestly think that the reason why so many people prefer to receive Holy Communion on the tongue is that they were raised that way. Same for people who receive in the hand.

Interestingly, I discovered something while I've been convalescing. Obviously, I cannot kneel at all in this CAM boot. I tried, and it got stuck under the kneeler and it was quite embarrassing! So I sit. But I don't just sit up straight. I found myself returning to the practice that I grew up with in the Protestant churches--sitting in the pew, hiding my head in my hands and leaning on the pew in front of me. If you drop by evangelical church services, you will see many of the faithful doing this.

I just kind of did it because I didn't want to sit up straight in the pew and interfere with the people behind me who were kneeling. I also wanted to be reverent in the Presence of the Lord Jesus.

It's amazing--the EMOTIONS that flooded through me when I assumed this childhood posture, this posture that I was used to for so many years! I was crying. It seemed like every prayer of the priest was so very intense, even though the liturgy was the same liturgy of the Mass (OF) that I have experienced since becoming Catholic. But I found it easier to pay attention, to truly PRAY the Mass, in this childhood position, this "Protestant" position--because it's what I was raised doing.

Ever since I have become Catholic, I have had a hard time with kneeling because I wasn't raised with it. It doesn't seem reverent to me, to kneel and keep the back straight and the head up and the eyes open! It doesn't seem like a "prayer position", at least to me!

So re-discovering my "Protestant" prayer position was quite an awakening! I truly understand now what it means to "pray the Mass."

So I can sympathize with those who wish to receive Holy Communion the way they were raised to receive. In the future, I will very likely continue to pray during Mass the way I was raised to pray in church--sitting, with my head hidden in my hands and leaning on the pew in front of me. One thing about this position--there is NO WAY that someone will stop and chat with me!

I don't know if it's a correct posture for Catholics during Mass. I don't think that there is a "correct" way to pray; from what I have seen, the rubrics make allowances for those who cannot kneel.

And I'm certainly not going to tell all the rest of the Catholics that they should try my Protestant prayer position! It's not what they were raised with!

I_Believe · #20 May 1, '09, 4:20 pm

-There are reasons for kneeling to receive - Adoration being one
-There are reasons to receive on the tongue - the Doctrine of Persona Christi being one. After all Priests administer the Blessed Sacrament
-There's a reason to use a Communion Paten - to assure the Host does not fall to the ground and to catch any precious particles

Knowing these reasons, I find it hard for one who truly believes in the Real Presence could argue against any of these reasons, or to argue the reasons given for receiving in the hand, especially standing, could possibly outweigh the reasons given for receiving on the tongue from a priest, while kneeling.

And considering the practice of receiving in the hand, and the use of EMHC is Not a practice introduced by Rome, but rather a privilege granted by Rome after some parishes and priests took it upon themselves to rewrite the rubrics without proper authority, the arguments against receiving in the traditional manner are weakened further.

So yes, the Church does now give us a choice. But it's important that even though those who prefer receiving in the hand, to be aware it is a novelty. The fact that early Liturgies once used this practice isn't a very good argument because the Church was young and forming Her identity. Once the Church determined that the (now) traditional manner was best due to solid reasons of Faith and Doctrine, this stood for a very long time.

The EMHC ministry has been deemed acceptable by the Church, and we accept must it, whether we agree or not. This does not change the fact that it too is a sort of novelty. Again, it is a practice born out of what some felt "was a good idea". Not a practice or ministry introduced or encouraged by Rome after careful consideration.

H.H. JPII on the matter..

Quote:

Examine Handling of Body And Blood
It is from this admonition that the priest’s attitude in handling the bread and wine which have become the body and blood of the Redeemer should draw its inspiration. Thus, it is necessary for all of us who are ministers of the Eucharist to examine carefully our actions at the altar, in particular the way in which we handle that food and drink which are the body and blood of the Lord our God in our hands: the way in which we distribute Holy Communion; the way in which we perform the purification. All these actions have a meaning of their own. Naturally, scrupulosity must be avoided, but God preserve us from behaving in a way that lack respect, from undue hurry, from an impatience that causes scandal. Over and above our commitment to the evangelical mission, our greatest
commitment consists in exercising this mysterious power over the body of the Redeemer, and all that is within us should be decisively ordered to this. We should also always remember that to this ministerial power we have been sacramentally consecrated, that we have been chosen from among men “for the good of men.” We especially, the priests of the Latin Church, whose ordination rite added in the course of the centuries the custom of anointing the priest’s hands, should think about this.

Receiving in the Hand or on the Tongue
In some countries the practice of receiving Communion in the hand has been introduced. This practice has been requested by individual episcopal conferences and has received approval from the Apostolic See. However, cases of a deplorable lack of respect towards the eucharistic species have been reported, cases which are imputable not only to the individuals guilty of such behavior but also to the pastors of the church who have not been vigilant enough regarding the attitude of the faithful towards the Eucharist. It also happens, on occasion, that the free choice of those who prefer to continue the practice of receiving the Eucharist on the tongue is not taken into account in those places where the distribution of Communion in the hand has been authorized. It is therefore difficult in the context of this present letter not to mention the sad phenomena previously referred to. This is in no way meant to refer to those who, receiving the Lord Jesus in the hand, do so with profound reverence and devotion, in those countries where this practice has been authorized.
http://www.myfathershouse.com/pdf/Po..._Eucharist.pdf

To those who prefer to receive in the hand, I ask, what reasons can you give for the practice of using EMHC and receiving in the hand, other than the time saved ?

And is the time saved, along with any reasons you may add, of benefit to us or God ?

PaulinVA · #21 May 1, '09, 5:07 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by I_Believe

To those who prefer to receive in the hand, I ask, what reasons can you give for the practice of using EMHC and receiving in the hand, other than the time saved ?

And is the time saved, along with any reasons you may add, of benefit to us or God ?

My answer to this is that you need to address your concerns to the USCCB.

Do not harangue faithful Catholics who participate in the Mass in the way that it is being provided by the parish priests and local Bishop.

Yes, I agree that the EMHC are overused. Yes, I agree that the priests and deacons should be the only ones that are distributing communion. But, it is what it is. I can not change anything. Neither can you. It is up to the ordained to bring things in line.

I_Believe · #22 May 1, '09, 5:17 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulinVA

My answer to this is that you need to address your concerns to the USCCB.

Do not harangue faithful Catholics who participate in the Mass in the way that it is being provided by the parish priests and local Bishop.

Yes, I agree that the EMHC are overused. Yes, I agree that the priests and deacons should be the only ones that are distributing communion. But, it is what it is. I can not change anything. Neither can you. It is up to the ordained to bring things in line.

Did you even read my entire post ? If so, why are you telling me "But, it is what it is. I can not change anything. Neither can you." Didn't I say we must accept it ?

What do you mean " harangue" ? If it were my intention to do so, why would I post a quote from H.H. JPII where he says ...

Quote:

This is in no way meant to refer to those who, receiving the Lord Jesus in the hand, do so with profound reverence and devotion, in those countries where this practice has been authorized.

?

PaulinVA · #23 May 1, '09, 5:41 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by I_Believe

Did you even read my entire post ? If so, why are you telling me "But, it is what it is. I can not change anything. Neither can you." Didn't I say we must accept it ?

Yes, you said we must accept it. But then you went on to trash it.

Quote:

What do you mean " harangue" ? If it were my intention to do so, why would I post a quote from H.H. JPII where he says ...

To give your harangue credibility. Your post was a harangue against EMHCs and Communion in the Hand.

Quote:

Or does the word "novelty" bug you ? Why would it when both H.H. BXVI (while Cardinal Ratzinger), and Cardinal Arinze both have used the word "banal" when describing the Novus Ordo ?

Well, yes, the word "novelty", when used derisively when referring to what occurs weekly at Mass, does bug me. It is disloyal. As for banal? How can something accused of being full of innovations and novelties at the same time be lacking in originality?

ElizabethPH · #24 May 1, '09, 5:55 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by barb finnegan

With regards to the last comment: NOT EVERYONE takes in the hands. I never have, except during a couple of retreats when it was 'forced', and that when the paten was passed around and all 'self-communicated' [a liturgical 'no-no'].

Who cares if you stand out? In this case, don't go along with 'the crowd'!

Hi

I should have said everyone but not all. By saying most everyone I thought was the same.
I don't care, and I do agree; 'don't go along with the crowd'.

I_Believe · #25 May 1, '09, 6:03 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulinVA

Yes, you said we must accept it. But then you went on to trash it.

To give your harangue credibility. Your post was a harangue against EMHCs and Communion in the Hand.

Well, yes, the word "novelty", when used derisively when referring to what occurs weekly at Mass, does bug me. It is disloyal. As for banal? How can something accused of being full of innovations and novelties at the same time be lacking in originality?

No, it was a presentation of facts for those who don't realize the two practices are innovations tolerated by Rome versus being introduced by Rome.

The quote from JPII was to back up my claims, not to "trick" anyone. If I had edited the sentence in question out, you would have grounds to consider I did so with an agenda. Nice try though.

Save your keystrokes on the debating of the NO. I saw you signed off after I posted and removed that last comment. I did so as to not hijack the thread.

We did however determine you have no answer to offer to the question I asked.
"To those who prefer to receive in the hand, I ask, what reasons can you give for the practice of using EMHC and receiving in the hand, other than the time saved ?"

Thanks for being honest.

**brotherhrolf** · #26 May 1, '09, 6:05 pm

I am hesitant to jump into this fray. I am 57 years old and have never received in the hand. I would like to kneel if I could and if the truth be known. Why?

I made my First Communion in 1957. We knelt. There was a communion cloth over the altar rail and the altar boys had patens to place under our necks. We were receiving the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. When Our Lord was reserved in the tabernacle, we genuflected when we passed in front of said tabernable.

The practice of kneeling at the communion rail continued well into the 1970s. I am a product of 13 years of Catholic education. The sisters and brothers so instilled into our hearts such a profound reverence for Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament that, for me, I would not profane Him by recieving Him in my mortal hands. I am dead serious about this. Don't mean anything against y'all, it's just me and how I was taught and how I was brought up.

I am more than aware of the practices of the early church and the arguments for receiving in the hand. OK. But, for centuries reaching back into the Middle Ages and beyond, it wasn't the practice. It wasn't the practice for my Irish, German, French, English (Catholic) ancestors or for my Italian, Sicilian, Puerto Rican Catholic in-laws.

As a member of a cathedral parish, I have seen our young First Communicants ........I don't even want to think about it. I had to make special effort to instill in my two sons something of the reverence and the sheer privelege that my Lord should receive me.......Domine, non sum dignus. I can see in my mind's eye the cavalier treatment that one of my fellow chorister's son made upon making his FHC.

I have seen Our Lord all over the floor of the cathedral...........something I never saw years ago before Vatican II.

It's my decision. I conform to that which I was taught. I was raised before Vatican II and I am not dead yet.

I_Believe · #27 May 1, '09, 6:13 pm

Thank you for your thoughts and recollections brotherhrolf

PaulinVA · #28 May 1, '09, 7:19 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by I_Believe

We did however determine you have no answer to offer to the question I asked.
"To those who prefer to receive in the hand, I ask, what reasons can you give for the practice of using EMHC and receiving in the hand, other than the time saved ?"

Thanks for being honest.

I will repeat what I said, and hopefully you will be able to realize this is an answer to your question:

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulinVA

My answer to this is that you need to address your concerns to the USCCB.

Do not harangue faithful Catholics who participate in the Mass in the way that it is being provided by the parish priests and local Bishop.

Yes, I agree that the EMHC are overused. Yes, I agree that the priests and deacons should be the only ones that are distributing communion. But, it is what it is. I can not change anything. Neither can you. It is up to the ordained to bring things in line.

So, my answer is that I don't have to defend the fact that I receive Holy Communion in the manner that my pastor and Bishop instruct me to.On a related note, if the pastor and Bishop said that we would receive on the tongue while standing, I would embrace it. If the altar rail reappeared and I could receive kneeling on the tongue, I would be overjoyed.

I don't want to be argumentative. Actually, I find many things discussed on the Traditional forum very compelling. I am teaching myself latin, as an example. I just think that we need to be obedient, or we are no different from the sandlistas (the liberals from the 60s) who openly and loudly disagree on the other end of the spectrum.

Jimzz12 · #29 May 1, '09, 8:30 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by nsper7

Why are some people so against receiving on the Tongue?

Because they are clouded by pride and they let Satan guide their action.

**Holly3278** · #30 May 1, '09, 8:37 pm

I have no idea why some people are so strongly opposed to receiving on the tongue. However, I consider myself to be a traditionalist Catholic but I receive in the hand. I feel weird receiving on the tongue. It just kind of makes me self-conscious. The reason being that I have a couple of very crooked teeth in my mouth that you can only see if I smile real big or something. So yeah, I'm a bit self-conscious when it comes to receiving on the tongue. I received on the tongue once and I enjoyed the experience but I am not sure that I want to do it again.

That said, the disciples received in the hand. So why is it so wrong for us to receive in the hand?