Communion on the Tongue

As a Catholic since birth, and than receiving Holy Communion, we always received it on the tongue. I know now we are short of priest,and lay people help, but I always go to the priest side and receive Holy Communion. Here are some statements from Popes, Saints and Church Counicils.

       St SixtusI -  The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord.
       St Basil the Great-  The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is only  in

the times of persecution. St Basil the Great considered Communion in the hand so Irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.
Pope John Paul II - To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained.
Pope Paul VI - The method (on the tongue) must be retained. (Memoriale Domini)
The Council of Trent - The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.
Now we see how Important it is that we pray that other men will become priest.
God helps us,as we pray for more priest. :bible1:

JohntheBaptist, our Church allows both today and that’s the way it is.

Also, perhaps this will help you. One day, a few years ago, on Catholic Answers Live, I heard Fr. Vincent Serpa comment on this very topic in general and specifically about only going to the priest to receive Holy Communion. I never forgot what he said…Fr. Vincent said that if Our Lord is humble enough to be handled by Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist, we should be humble enough to receive Him from them.

I also am a 1950’s cradle Catholic. Because we are allowed to receive in the hand, I love being able for a split second to adore Jesus in the Eucharist before consuming his Body and Blood (when receiving both species). The disciples received in the hand at the very first Eucharist and we are their descendants. In our archdiocese at least you have the option, so if you feel so strongly that reception should only be by mouth, continue as you are. I do hope you allow yourself the privilege of receiving his Precious Blood when the opportunity occurs no matter who the minister, extraordinary or priest, offering the Precious Blood. While Jesus is fully present in either and both, you don’t miss out, except that, in my mind, the disciples received both and through the Grace of God, we are allowed to also.

God be with you always.

The comment that made me think the most is your mouth isn’t consecrated.

So are you saying that JPII was wrong because he completely supported the Deacons as Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion?

So are you saying that the Popes and Bishops that follow the apostolic tradition are wrong because priests that do not have consecrated hands are allowed to be Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion?

Pope Benedict XVI…then Cardinal Ratizinger…said on this very topic: "No matter how or from whom we receive the Holy Eucharist (standing, kneeling, in hand or on tongue)…


"God takes an enormous risk."


God Is Near Us: The Eucharist, the Heart of Life [Paperback]
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

**Banquet of the Reconciled–Feast of the Resurrection **
The Proper celebration of the Holy Eucharist…pg 71.

He called for tolerance…accept the Church’s wisdom.

Pax Christi

Note: The book is incredible…a series of talks/lectures he gave in late 70’s up to early 90’s.

Actually CITH was quite the norm in the Church until around the time of the Great Schism. The Byzantine Rite has practiced CITH from the earliest days. The use of Liturgical Spoon came about in the 800s and only in the 1200s where it became uniform to give Communion using the Spoon. But for anyone not using the Spoon, it was CITH until that time.

I’ve read somewhere that Cardinal Humbertus, famous as the major Latin player in the Great Schism, hurled as one of the accusations of “innovations moving away from tradition” against the Byzantines is the fact that they have moved from CITH to the Spoon. an indication that at 1054AD, Rome was still using CITH.

Nor your esophagus. Nor your stomach.

That quote. That quote…

God bless you and your home for sharing this, Lancer. I’ll be spending some with that one line this evening.

So will I.

“God takes an enormous risk.”

Nor is the gastric acid that breaks down the accidents of the Host.

I do go too a lay person if necceary,but I go to Latin Mass ofen,so that I can receive,Holy Communion the way I did when I was longer, but at very Mass I do go up too receive Jesus.

I think your humor is funny, but remember, once the Holy Wafer of the Body and Jesus is on your tougue, it is goes inside of you were Jesus lives inside of us, for our bodys are the temple of God.

To be honest, I really wish intinction would become the norm for the Latin Rite… it makes so much more sense than receiving Christ any other way. :thumbsup:

The way I’ve always treated it is “who am I to receive the Lord in my hands? With these hands that know only to sin”. I always receive on the tongue. I know both ways are valid, but I think it shows Christ a LOT more respect by not “handling” Him with our hands.

Which is why you receive on the tongue. There are others who do not see this as being true and see receiving in the hand as being very reverant and so receive in the hand.

I am all for communion on the tongue, that is how I receive, but I think it is important to recognize (this is not aimed at you SaintPatrick, but just people generally) that receiving in the hand does not necessarily mean that the person receiving communion is being less reverent. Reverence is an interior state. Yes, it is shown through exterior signs, but it is only shown through the exterior signs which a person connects with reverence. So if a person doesn’t see receiving on the tongue as being more reverent than receiving in the hand there is no reason for them to have to receive on the tongue and they are not being less reverent by receiving in the hand. Just food for thought.

And people’s tongues never sin?

I think we should take a step back. If he uses his hands as a symbol of the fact that he sins and so sees receiving on the tongue as being more reverent that is totally fine. So long as he also recognizes that for other people receiving on the tongue is not necessarily more reverent. He has not here said anything which implies this and we should not make assumptions about his opinions.

Receiving on the tongue is the norm. Receiving in the hand is the exception, allowed in the US by vote of the USCCB.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit