Holy Communion in the hand or on the tongue ?

[hotpink]

On 8/31/2016 at 7:23 PM, <3 PopeFrancis said:

People act like they are skived to give and receive The Body and Blood of Jesus on the tongue; but St. Paul says [paraphrasing] "... should the cup be poisoned it shall not affect me.  I believe this strongly because He is Our Lord and He will not harm us.  

Well, some of this is that America is not a Catholic strong country, and in general, sticking out the tongue is considered a very rude insult.   In some Eastern, and some very Catholic countries, it's not the same.  With the smiley emoji and the influence of Japeneese culture (where even having an open mouth is considered childish and immature) we've made it a little more mainstream.  It's only really been in the past 5ish years that emoji's, memes and adults sticking out their tongue is in any way acceptable.

One has to remember that cultural influence has a strong bearing on what people find right.  I know that an elderly parishioner once told me that back in the 60 and 70's the school had some pretty brutal methods for making her Downsyndrome son keep his tongue in his mouth and not visible.

The Rolling Stones were considered disrespectful and inappropriate for sticking out their tongues and KISS was considered unredeemingly vulgar for their trademark tongue waggles.

So yeah, many generations of American children, especially since the uptight post WW2 "Leave it to Beaver" sort of times have been taught it is extremely disrespectful to put your tongue out for any reason.

On 9/1/2016 at 11:58 AM, dominicansoul said:

Kneeling, women veiled, sorrow in the heart for one's sins, free of mortal sin in the soul, thoughts lifted up to the Greatest Gift we could ever receive as unworthy and wretched as we are, all receive on the tongue.  

 

If this were the norm, I think we would change the world...

Still, that's an opinion.  Kneeling is a form of submission, but in American culture we don't kneel or bow when a person of importance comes in the room, we rise to meet them.  We no longer "recline" at table, but we sit upright. Posture must come from a deeply cultural understanding, not just a brute knowledge of tradition.  In our country kneeling has little meaning.

Veiling has a very negative connotation in general, stemming from the abusive control of many of those who practice it from other religions.

And again, there's the tongue thing.  While I every now and then indulge in a "  " emoji every now and then, my upbringing would never, ever allow me to stick my actual tongue out.  I don't think I could bear to do it in front of a Priest at Mass, just the thought sends me into a panic and makes me want to go to confession.  For those who don't understand, I'd say ponder this--lets say that it was considered "most respectful" to receive Jesus by sticking up your middle finger for the Host to be placed atop.  Would you really ever feel comfortable doing this gesture in front of a Priest.  Cultural gestures have alot of bearing on what is respectful and since God respects free will and personal autonomy, I feel it's a good thing that the Church does to, especially when it comes to gestures that carry such cultural significance.

[Nihil Obstat]

3 hours ago, Peace said:

Because I am right?

Thanks for playing. 

[Peace]

51 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Thanks for playing. 

My pleasure.

[Oremus Pro Invicem]

“Everything is lawful,” but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is lawful,” but not everything builds up." --1 Corinthians 10:23

[<3 PopeFrancis]

10 hours ago, hotpink said:

Still, that's an opinion.  Kneeling is a form of submission, but in American culture we don't kneel or bow when a person of importance comes in the room, we rise to meet them.  We no longer "recline" at table, but we sit upright. Posture must come from a deeply cultural understanding, not just a brute knowledge of tradition.  In our country kneeling has little meaning.

It perhaps is.  Kneeling, in my opinion, is a form of submission to Our Lord.  Many would this form to be as efficacious as possible within the Diocesan permission.

Edited September 3, 2016 by <3 PopeFrancis
mistake

[CountrySteve21]

21 hours ago, Kateri89 said:

I attend the EF the majority of the time and thus receive on the tongue while kneeling.  Even though we know we are receiving our Eucharistic Lord, it's our faith that perceives Him and not our senses.  With that being said, I try to imagine how I would respond if I saw Him in His human form and I can only imagine that I would fall prostrate before Him.  If I would show Him that reverence in such a situation, why should I be any less reverent when I encounter Him in the Eucharist?

 

I do wish that more OF parishes would at least use Communion plates.  I attended an OF Mass once where they were used and I was very impressed.  I won't object to what the Bishops recommend as regards posture during Holy Communion but if we truly know Him to be present in the Eucharist, shouldn't we take all measures to try to ensure that He isn't dropped on the floor to be trampled underfoot?

My O.F. Parish uses  Communion Plates. We even use some Gregorian chant  

20 hours ago, Peace said:

Well heck if that is a reason not to do something I don't see how you get to kneeling and on the tongue in the first place. It was introduced into the liturgy of the Church at some point, was it not?

Because that has never been practiced in the Latin rite? I dunno.

It seems the Vatican values  Holy Communion on the tongue and kneeling

http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/details/ns_lit_doc_20091117_comunione_en.html

May Christ's peace be with you.

 

 

[<3 PopeFrancis]

4 hours ago, Oremus Pro Invicem said:

 

“Everything is lawful,” but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is lawful,” but not everything builds up." --1 Corinthians 10:23

 

I think he means the state laws.

1 minute ago, <3 PopeFrancis said:

I think he means the state laws.

The Laws of God are Laws the psalmist says would be delightful if we 

5 minutes ago, <3 PopeFrancis said:

I think he means the state laws.

The Laws of God are Laws the psalmist says would be delightful if we 

love them and happy if we follow them [paraphrased].

[McM RSCJ]

 Scripture says:. Take and eat. Take is an active and egalitarian verb.  Trads cannot get around that. Take does not mean kneel, open your mouth, and stick out your tongue.

Moreover, none of the so-called "Trads" on this website appear willing to contemplate what it might mean to have the host shoved into one's mouth, when one is a woman, when the woman objects, and when the priest who knows better is, of course, male, and when the act causes severe pain.

I know what that is like.  And it is akin to oral rape.  Oral rape.  I do not say this lightly.  Bishop Schneider, with all your obsessions about irreverence to the host, please come listen to me.

i developed large cysts in my salivary glands, under my tongue.  These cysts grew at a great rate.  They quickly filled my mouth,  The doctor removed them surgically.  They grew right back.  My second oral surgery therefore required deeper surgery and "open" packing of the wounds, more than four yards of packing stuffed into the opening for ten days.  The smell was horrible. And the pain was terrible.  Only really close friends sat close to me when the odor was so strong.  I could only take liquid nourishment those long days.  Turns out you can put anything in a blender and swallow it, if you have to.  Meanwhile, the pain was unrelenting.  I was an elected delegate to my Religious' Order's Provincial Chapter.  I made my contributions, muffled, as best I could, over a microphone.  

Then came the Sunday Liturgy.  It was celebrated by a "trad" Monsignor, so certain he was protecting the Eucharist.

I put out my hands to receive the host.  He knew better.  He had his principles to uphold.  He shoved the host into my mouth.  I can still feel the pain and the violation.

Reverence?  The "better way"?  

No.

So all of you who are so convinced that "take and eat" means subservience, kneeling, women subordinated to men, and receiving Communion on the tongue, even if that means forcible penetration of a communicant's mouth against her/his will, I beg you to acknowledge other elements than your pious predispositions envision.  Start with these two questions:  

1)  What do you picture Jesus did, when he broke the bread and offered:  Take and eat.  Where they all kneeling?  Tongues out?  Obsessive about making sure there was not a single crumb? Or did they take the bread, break it further, share it among them, crumbs and all?

2) Would Jesus have forced the blessed bread of the Last Supper, his Body offered, broken, and given for us, into the mouth of a person suffering pain from open wounds of oral surgery, even when that person had put out her hands, reverently, to receive the host in a way she could manage with as little pain as possible?

It is a meal, in remembrance of his self-offering.  Take and eat.  Take and drink.

Thank God Vatican II scraped off the barnacles of pieties not backed up by the Gospels.  I hope that if you value kneeling and receiving Communion on the tongue, you will acknowledge that is a devotion that appeals to you.  But that is not, therefore, the practice of the world-wide Church for good reasons--and should not be, for important reasons rooted in the Gospels.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 4, 2016 by McM RSCJ
Error

[Nihil Obstat]

How distasteful.

[Maximilianus]

Great googly moogly.

Now that's what I call the "BOOM" of this thread.

[McM RSCJ]

What do you find distasteful?  That I wrote about it?  Or that this happened to me, was done to me?

You replied so quickly, and you have been so adamant for an opposite point of view that I wonder if you listened to me or wrote me off right away?

(Am I accurate in remembering you accused me of heresy the last time I posted?)

Edited September 4, 2016 by McM RSCJ
Missing characters

[Gabriela]

1 hour ago, <3 PopeFrancis said:

I think he means the state laws.

If by "he" you mean St. Paul, then no, he did not mean the state laws. He meant the religious laws. 

[Nihil Obstat]

7 minutes ago, McM RSCJ said:

What do you find distasteful?  That I wrote about it?  Or that this happened to me, was done to me?

You replied so quickly, and you have been so adamant for an opposite point of view that I wonder if you listened to me or wrote me off right away?

(Am I accurate in remembering you accused me of heresy the last time I posted?)

Did I 'listen' (read), or write you off right away? Both, if I am being honest.

Did I "accuse you of heresy" last time we spoke? I have no idea, and I do not recognize your screenname. But if your posts are usually like that one then it is not much of a stretch to imagine.

[Gabriela]

Well, @Nihil Obstat, to be fair, you do tend to accuse people of being heretics.

 

 

 

 

 

(When they actually ARE heretics...)

Edited September 4, 2016 by Gabriela

[Nihil Obstat]

It has happened, yes. Not lately.