Holy Communion in the hand or on the tongue ?

[<3 PopeFrancis]

36 minutes ago, Peace said:

It seems like the two of you are talking past each other a little bit. I don't think she was saying that communion on the tongue is akin to rape generally, but only in the circumstance where a priest literally shoves the host into someone's mouth despite his clear indication that he did not want that.

Even that is extreme analogy and in my opinion blasphemous.

 

[Peace]

9 minutes ago, <3 PopeFrancis said:

Even that is extreme analogy and in my opinion blasphemous.

 

I dunno. It is a little tough for me to think that a priest would try to physically force a host into someone's mouth despite his clear intention otherwise. I mean, if I kept my mouth shut and the priest tried to do that, the host would probably just break into pieces. I find the story difficult to believe, but again, I was not there so I cannot say what did or did not happen.

But if priest did try to physically force someone to receive on the tongue, despite his knowledge that the person did not want that, it would seem to be some form of battery. I just have trouble seeing how that would occur.

[NadaTeTurbe]

Don't use the word rape when you're not speaking about rape, it's insulting for the victims of rape. It's not a complicated rule. 

[Amppax]

4 hours ago, LittleWaySoul said:

This makes me sad. Yet I think you may be right. People have been so quick to shut down in the face of disagreement and to demonize their opponents lately. It is so important for us to be better at engaging in meaningful dialogue without getting angry at one another over it. Personal attacks and anger do not help us, especially in this case, where, as I said previously, we are discussing something so holy. The grace of our reception of the Eucharist, in whatever way we receive Him, is effective; let's allow it to soften our hearts in order to show charity and love to those who disagree. 

 

Agreed. It seems that discourse is becoming more coarse online; at least that is my observation. 

[truthfinder]

I didn't exactly want to post here, but the recent ones about bad distribution of the host compels me to chime in with my own experience. And in fact, it's in some ways the exact opposite of McM RSCJ. I'm not wading into the debate over whether or not she's a religious or if this really happened, but rather that I've more frequently experienced the non-trads who can't nicely distribute communion on the tongue. I've been receiving on the tongue for well over a decade, so I've become pretty good at doing it so that it's most easy for the person distributing. One female EMHC, either due to her poor 'technique' and or her dislike that I was receiving on the tongue, rammed all of her fingers into my front teeth. Not painful, but not something I'd want to happen again. I've never had a problem with a priest in this manner. 

At my parish, very recently, we had a Mass in the EF but many people showed up who clearly don't frequently (or ever) attend this form (I think it had to do with the way it was advertised.) At communion, if anyone put their hands up, the deacon would quietly whisper "on the tongue" and they would then receive that way. Curiously enough, no one had to tell them to kneel.  And no one questions those who remain standing (actually there's some who kneel who clearly have difficulty doing it and I know it means so much to them). 

[Luigi]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

I dunno. It is a little tough for me to think that a priest would try to physically force a host into someone's mouth despite his clear intention otherwise. I mean, if I kept my mouth shut and the priest tried to do that, the host would probably just break into pieces. I find the story difficult to believe, but again, I was not there so I cannot say what did or did not happen.

But if priest did try to physically force someone to receive on the tongue, despite his knowledge that the person did not want that, it would seem to be some form of battery. I just have trouble seeing how that would occur.

I know someone who was slapped (lightly) by a bishop when she tried to receive communion in the hand. This happened in a European country; the bishop was committed to re-instating communion on the tongue as standard practice in his diocese; the communicant was not from his diocese; when the communicant extended her hands, the bishop lightly slapped her cheek, so she would open her mouth.

The communicant had a very bad experience - shocked; surprised; caught off guard; shamed; sort of ruined that communion for her. Later that day, she overheard two people talking about the very same incident - they had witnessed it, and they were talking smugly about what a wonderful job the bishop had done of "showing her." She won't go back to that church and has little good to say about that bishop.

I find it disappointing when sacraments get infected with theological politics rather than the minister focusing on ministry. That goes for bishops, for extraordinary ministers who don't/won't/can't give communion on the tongue (or in the hand), and also for communicants who bring their own agenda to communion.

[Spem in alium]

On ‎4‎/‎09‎/‎2016 at 10:28 PM, BarbaraTherese said:

In my parish, some receive on the tongue standing, others kneeling.  Some receive standing on the hand.  Other variation too at times - some receive on the hand and then kneel to actually receive. some kneel for a moment after receiving on the tongue while standing.  What I like about the diversity in our parish (and not only at Holy Communion) is that it speaks of what St Augustine is said to have stated "In essentials unity, in non essentials diversity and in all things love".  And the very fact that there is diversity in receiving Holy Communion without fuss and bother in our parish at all, either from our pp or any parishioners speaks of love and acceptance of diversity in our parish.

We do need to be accepting of diversity certainly in Australia since we are a multicultural society for sure and increasingly so nowadays.

And to date in our diocese, there is a certain diversity permitted by our Archbishop as there seems to be in all the diocese I know of anyway.  And if in some diocese, unity of posture etc. is an essential, then I would take that up were I in such a diocese.  And just as I had no difficulty whatsoever in my own personal motivation behind receiving standing and receiving in my hand, I would have no difficulty whatsoever in doing the same with receiving on the tongue (but would not be able to kneel due to physical disability).

In the parish I'm attending, for the last few weeks they have been publishing excerpts from the Ordo produced by LiturgyBrisbane. In there, it says that as the body of Christ united in the Mass and in our reception of Holy Communion, we should all receive in the same way: standing while receiving after making a reverent bow of the head, with the method of reception (on the hand or on the tongue) being up to the individual. I think it's a good point. 

15 hours ago, McM RSCJ said:

Oremus Pro Vicem,

You say the Monsignor could have "gently placed the host on my tongue" which you think I would have done anyway.  Well, my mouth was an open wound, literally.  

Let's the baseline question.  Was he acting "in persona Christi," when he forced the host into my mouth (open wound) when my hands were up to receive the Eucharist?

You say that your mouth was an open wound, implying that even if you received the Eucharist gently on the tongue (either from the hand of the monsignor or by your own hand) it would cause serious pain. My query is: why did you go to receive if you knew it would be difficult for you? Last year, I had all of my wisdom teeth removed. I was very swollen and could barely open my mouth for the first two days so was on a liquid diet. I was specifically told by my surgeon not to eat anything hard. I made the choice not to receive the Eucharist those two days. It was difficult but I think I made the right choice. I am not trying to attack you here, but am just wondering

 

[McM RSCJ]

To Peace and Nihil,

I now think I should not have shared what happened to me--certainly not on this Forum.  

For what it is worth, Peace, this incident did happen to me--though I understand you might find that hard to believe.  At the time I was shocked at what had just happened--as were others in my Order who witnessed it. 

What I wanted to stress was that there are good reasons for Church reforms in the modes of receiving Communion--some of which begin with a return to the Gospel:  Take and Eat.   But there are also other elements, having to do with human dignity, our equality around the Banquet Table, et cetera.  I should have kept my own personal worst case scenario to myself and trusted others. 

I experienced a horrible instance of when a priest's determination to uphold what he considered the only way overrode my dignity, caused physical pain, and denied my clear intent to receive Eucharist in my upturned hands.   I'll ask again:  Was he acting in Persona Christi?  

You are correct, Peace, in that I was saying only that one instance was "akin to rape."   But I see that others object to my making that analogy.   Yet the legal definition of rape, remember, includes "vaginal, anal or oral penetration by a body part or an object."  No I do  not believe the priest's intent was in any way sexual, but we have learned rape is not a sex act, but an act of violence.  Right? 

 

Dear Spem,
You asked, and so gently, why I went to Communion when my mouth was an open wound during that period of about 10-12 days?

As you said, you did not, when you had your Wisdom teeth out.

You may have made a better decision than I. 

But I was not staying home as one does when sick.  I was an elected Delegate of my Order's Provincial Chapter in preparation for our General Chapter.  That had been months in the planning.  I could only sip "blender-food" through a small straw during those days.  But I participated in everything (and Chapters can have long nights and early mornings, with Committee work et cetera.) 

We had Mass every day.  Every other day, I received Eucharist in my open hands.  And I figured it out.  If I had known that option would be forcibly taken away from me, maybe I would not have participated. 

[CountrySteve21]

6 hours ago, LittleWaySoul said:

Well-researched, my friend! I was going to say something like this too, but I forgot the particulars of this complex theology and wasn't sure I'd explain it well. I just learned this last spring in my Sacraments class.

This makes me sad. Yet I think you may be right. People have been so quick to shut down in the face of disagreement and to demonize their opponents lately. It is so important for us to be better at engaging in meaningful dialogue without getting angry at one another over it. Personal attacks and anger do not help us, especially in this case, where, as I said previously, we are discussing something so holy. The grace of our reception of the Eucharist, in whatever way we receive Him, is effective; let's allow it to soften our hearts in order to show charity and love to those who disagree. 

Well said;  its also nice to remember that non-Catholics can frequent the forums and when our conduct is good, it can help them. I know before I made the decision to convert, Catholic forums helped me a lot.

Pax.

 

[<3 PopeFrancis]

8 minutes ago, McM RSCJ said:

To Peace and Nihil,

I now think I should not have shared what happened to me--certainly not on this Forum.

The graphics really were not necessary.  I'm sorry if this happened to you.  It was way out of the way.  We are talking about The Holy Eucharist.

[McM RSCJ]

Gabriela,

You are right.  I shouldn't care whether or not you believe I am a Religious. 

In several posts on this site, I was being accused in quick succession of being a liar about my most fundamental identity, of being a blasphemer, of being a heretic, of having unseemly interest in trying to "prove" who I am, of not "chilling out" over one regrettable instance," and of "needing credit for being a Religious when any real Religious would not have that need. . . .  So, yeah, I see now those attacks all got to me.  I should not have responded. 

I regret those comments, which hit me like attacks (and "vitriolic" as Ortis said) got to me. 

I am glad you don't want me to contact you directly, and not just because, as you said, I might continue lying by using a fake email address.  (Not lying.  And using a fake email address is not in my repertoire.)   Rather, I now sense there is little chance of any exchange between us enabling genuine communication and clearing up of misunderstandings--whereas when I made the suggestion, I thought there might be. 

And, if you used to be "Curiousing," (you use the same image, I think, which is why I say that)  then, yes, I recall the way you took a great deal of trouble to unmask a poster on the Forum in the past. . 

In any case, if you are trying to finish your Dissertation and graduate by December, you have more than a full plate.  Best wishes with all of that. 

 

[Gabriela]

13 minutes ago, McM RSCJ said:

Gabriela,

You are right.  I shouldn't care whether or not you believe I am a Religious. 

In several posts on this site, I was being accused in quick succession of being a liar about my most fundamental identity, of being a blasphemer, of being a heretic, of having unseemly interest in trying to "prove" who I am, of not "chilling out" over one regrettable instance," and of "needing credit for being a Religious when any real Religious would not have that need. . . .  So, yeah, I see now those attacks all got to me.  I should not have responded. 

I regret those comments, which hit me like attacks (and "vitriolic" as Ortis said) got to me. 

I am glad you don't want me to contact you directly, and not just because, as you said, I might continue lying by using a fake email address.  (Not lying.  And using a fake email address is not in my repertoire.)   Rather, I now sense there is little chance of any exchange between us enabling genuine communication and clearing up of misunderstandings--whereas when I made the suggestion, I thought there might be. 

And, if you used to be "Curiousing," (you use the same image, I think, which is why I say that)  then, yes, I recall the way you took a great deal of trouble to unmask a poster on the Forum in the past. . 

In any case, if you are trying to finish your Dissertation and graduate by December, you have more than a full plate.  Best wishes with all of that. 

 

Thank you for your good wishes. I did indeed used to be curiousing.

If it's any consolation to you, when you talked about being an elected delegate of your order's provincial chapter in preparation for the general chapter, I got a little closer to believing you actually are a religious.  

(I never said a "real religious would not have the need to receive credit as a religious", though. I think plenty do, and it's terribly sad. That's not why one becomes a religious. Or at least it shouldn't be...) 

[McM RSCJ]

To Loves Pope Francis

(I love Pope Francis also.)

As I said, I am now sorry I posted my experience.  Why?  Although the event did happen, I see you think I am demeaning the gift of the Eucharist which we both treasure.  I see that Ampax thinks I am contributing to coarsening of dialogue.  (I suppose my posting of the legal definition of rape will only deepen Ampax's concern, but my when I said the incident was akin to rape, my belief has a basis in fact, not hyperbole.)

I would not share this experience again, primarily because I realize I assume this Forum comprises strangers (to me) who would, however, presume the good will of other posters.   That was a mistake (category error?) on my part. 

[EmilyAnn]

Some things never change...

[Peace]

27 minutes ago, McM RSCJ said:

To Peace and Nihil,

I now think I should not have shared what happened to me--certainly not on this Forum.  

For what it is worth, Peace, this incident did happen to me--though I understand you might find that hard to believe.  At the time I was shocked at what had just happened--as were others in my Order who witnessed it. 

What I wanted to stress was that there are good reasons for Church reforms in the modes of receiving Communion--some of which begin with a return to the Gospel:  Take and Eat.   But there are also other elements, having to do with human dignity, our equality around the Banquet Table, et cetera.  I should have kept my own personal worst case scenario to myself and trusted others. 

I experienced a horrible instance of when a priest's determination to uphold what he considered the only way overrode my dignity, caused physical pain, and denied my clear intent to receive Eucharist in my upturned hands.   I'll ask again:  Was he acting in Persona Christi?  

You are correct, Peace, in that I was saying only that one instance was "akin to rape."   But I see that others object to my making that analogy.   Yet the legal definition of rape, remember, includes "vaginal, anal or oral penetration by a body part or an object."  No I do  not believe the priest's intent was in any way sexual, but we have learned rape is not a sex act, but an act of violence.  Right?

Communion in the hand is perfectly fine by me. I usually receive on the tongue, but I would not force others to do the same or imply that on the tongue is better when the Church allows both.

The priest was still acting in the person of Christ, at least insofar as the theological/sacramental meaning of that term is concerned. You still received the sacrament.

But if you mean "was it a nice thing to do" then I would answer no.

As far as the analogy, perhaps you just made it without reflecting upon how some people might perceive what you wrote. It happens. But I don't think it is a very good analogy. If a parent or a doctor physically forces a child or a patient to swallow medicine, for example, people might think that it was not a nice thing to do, but I don't think that too many people would say "that is almost like rape". I dunno, that seems a bit extreme to me. But I don't know what your personal history is or what circumstances you might have faced in the past that would lead you to draw that type of connection.

I need to bail out of this thread for my mental health. Or what is left of it.

Peace