A Question

[Sojourner]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Sep 15 2004, 02:48 PM'] I have belonged to a number of parishes. Have been involved and knew/know the priests quite well. I also know the the people who clean up the pews afterwards and have myself, cleaned the pews, picking up the misallettes, printed song sheets, bulletins. I have NEVER seen or heard of people finding the Eucharist in the pews. [/quote]
Yeah, I'd never heard of it either. The parish I was visiting was one of the larger ones in Indianapolis. It otherwise has a decent reputation, so I was surprised to hear the priest make this announcement.

I can't imagine it would be a common problem among parishes, though.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Sep 15 2004, 12:48 PM'] I have belonged to a number of parishes. Have been involved and knew/know the priests quite well. I also know the the people who clean up the pews afterwards and have myself, cleaned the pews, picking up the misallettes, printed song sheets, bulletins. I have NEVER seen or heard of people finding the Eucharist in the pews. [/quote]
I used to attend Mass at a parish in Concord, CA, where hosts were found on the ground outside the Church building.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]The fact is that there would not be a sacrilege against Our Lord which is ongoing, all other things aside. The fact that the Blessed Sacrament would be left anywhere other than the Tabernacle is evil and sacrilegious. To receive Holy Communion in the state of mortal sin is one of the most evil things that can be done, of course, but it certainly can be worse to have Our Lord trampled because of the fact that someone has not consumed the Blessed Sacrament. The problem is poor catechesis, sure, but that does not change the fact that hand Communion facilitates sacrilege, either intentionally (your church's situation) or unintentionally (particles from the Sacred Host falling onto the ground, one's hands, one's clothing, etc; I think this is the biggest problem of all with hand Communion because then everyone who is coming afterward, trying to receive Communion reverently, is stepping on Our Lord because of the Sacred Particles the same as if He were present in a large Host, c.f., the Church's doctrine on the whole and entire change of Transubstantiation). God bless.[/quote]

God Bless, Adam!

I think we may be entering into the realm of unnecessary legalism here. Everyone here knows (I hope) that I try to be absolutely reverent to the Blessed Sacrament. I absolutely agree that the laity as a whole is in great need of proper catechisis. However, I do not maintain that reception in the hand facilitates sacrilege, while reception on the tongue does not.

Both reception in the hand AND reception on the tongue necessitate "sacrelige" if it is understood as above, for particles of the Host are constantly breaking off and falling to the ground [i]even in the period of time that the priest is placing the Host on one's tongue[/i], just as they fall off when one receives in the hand. In both cases, the Blessed Sacrament is being caused, in some small part, to be trampled upon.

Now, in light of this, it seems that the argument goes as follows: Reception of the Blessed Sacrament in the hand causes [i]x[/i] number of particles of the consecrated host to fall to the ground, while reception on the tongue causes [i]y[/i]. [i]y[/i] is less than [i]x[/i] and so [i]x[/i] is sacreligious (and perhaps a mortal sin) while [i]y[/i] is holy and advisable.

I view the above paragraph as a terrible form of legalism. The ultimate reality is that very tiny pieces of the consecrated host [i]will[/i] fall to the ground, this cannot be avoided. However, I maintain that we are not culpable for this fact (whether we receive in the hand or on the tongue) as long as we receive reverently. What is important is that we understand the True Presence, and that we show as much reverence as is proper.

PS, in case you are wondering, I receive on the tongue.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[jasJis]

The original question was whether or not receiveing on the tongue was okay.

The answer is receiving in the hand and tongue are okay.

We have devolved into something else. We may have preference about either way and the Church may have a preference (I would like to see documentation on that), receiving in the hand is not "wrong" or even "new" or reserved for a priest. Please reference Church Documents "[url="http://www.nccbuscc.org/liturgy/current/norms.htm"]Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America[/url]" (clickable link), paragraph 41 [quote]41. Holy Communion under the form of bread is offered to the communicant with the words "The Body of Christ." The communicant may choose whether to receive the Body of Christ in the hand or on the tongue. When receiving in the hand, the communicant should be guided by the words of St. Cyril of Jerusalem: "When you approach, take care not to do so with your hand stretched out and your fingers open or apart, but rather place your left hand as a throne beneath your right, as befits one who is about to receive the King. Then receive him, taking care that nothing is lost." (footnote 51. Cf. ibid., no. 73.)[/quote][quote]St. Cyril of Jerusalem
Bishop of Jerusalem and Doctor of the Church, born about 315; died probably 18 March, 386. In the East his feast is observed on the 18th of March, in the West on the 18th or 20th. Little is known of his life. We gather information concerning him from his younger contemporaries, Epiphanius, Jerome, and Rufinus, as well as from the fifth-century historians, Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret. Cyril himself gives us the date of his "Catecheses" as fully seventy years after the Emperor Probus, that is about 347, if he is exact.
[/quote]

Edited September 15, 2004 by jasJis

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Sep 15 2004, 12:59 PM']Both reception in the hand AND reception on the tongue necessitate "sacrelige" if it is understood as above, for particles of the Host are constantly breaking off and falling to the ground [i]even in the period of time that the priest is placing the Host on one's tongue[/i], just as they fall off when one receives in the hand. In both cases, the Blessed Sacrament is being caused, in some small part, to be trampled upon.

Now, in light of this, it seems that the argument goes as follows: Reception of the Blessed Sacrament in the hand causes [i]x[/i] number of particles of the consecrated host to fall to the ground, while reception on the tongue causes [i]y[/i]. [i]y[/i] is less than [i]x[/i] and so [i]x[/i] is sacreligious (and perhaps a mortal sin) while [i]y[/i] is holy and advisable.
[/quote]
That is why, in connection with the possibility of profanation of the sacrament while receiving communion on the tongue, the Congregation for Divine Worship recently indicated that the use of "[t]he Communion-plate for the Communion of the faithful should be retained, so as to avoid the danger of the sacred host or some fragment of it falling." [CDW Instruction [u]Redemptionis Sacramentum[/u], no. 93] Thus, reception on the tongue, properly administered with the Communion-plate, does protect the Lord's Eucharistic presence from being profaned. Communion in the hand necessarily involves certain problems in connection with the profanation of the sacrament.

Now to receive Communion in an unworthy condition is of course a sacrilege, whether received on the tongue or in the hand, but to receive it in the hand while in an unworthy state and then to dispose of it, opening up the sacrament to further acts of profanation, increases the gravity of the sin already committed.

As far as Communion in the hand is concerned, I fully accept that the Magisterium has the authority to allow this practice, but I don't think that the request made by the U.S. Bishops for this form of reception of Communion, nor the permission granted by the Vatican, were necessarily prudent.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Sep 15 2004, 01:35 PM'] qfnol, it is a Tradition of the Church (according to Saint Basil the Great) that outside of persecutions, Holy Communion may not be received in any means other than on the tongue. He said that such an act (by a layman) is absolutely forbidden other than times of persecution (Early Church included, of course). In any event, what I stated are the current norms for receiving Holy Communion in the Roman Catholic Church (at least in the Latin Rite): kneeling with no option of standing and on the tongue with no option of hand Communion. Those are the norms of the Latin Rite currently in 2004. [/quote]
First of all, it's not a Tradition but a tradition. I know that sounds bad, but it is something that can be changed, Traditions cannot. It isn't fundamental to our belief. Next, the current Pope can change all statements that are not infallible of the previous Popes as long as it doesn't contradict our Faith. Here it obviously does not contradict it. The current Pope stands. If you want to disagree with this, then go take it up with a Jesuit. By your argument, they've been suspended perpetually since about 1780.

I also believe that the GIRM is opposed to what you say. It has been approved by the Pope and the norms for us are that which we do, and I think that the Pope said "either, or" is fine in his most recent encyclical.

[quote]Here is the big question: with all the abuses of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, why would any faithful Catholic support the usage of them at all if they are not the norm of the universal Church (or even the Church in America) and if they are so often abused? Being an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion is by no means a right and is unprecedented in Church history. No layman had ever distributed Holy Communion at any time during Church history until this practice (as an [b]abuse[/b]) began occuring. Once the Vatican realized that the abuse could not be stopped, it was allowed "in order to keep the faithful from committing the sin of disobedience" with ristrictions. Even the restrictions are not followed today. Seeing the historical reasoning behind this practice and its currently abused from, not to mention the fact that there is no right to be an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion, and the fact that it confuses and misguides the faithful insofar as they are given the impression that they have a "right" to act in this manner, why should any Catholic support the practice at all? The fact that it is currently a practice is not a good reason; I would really like to here some kind of philosophical or logical reasoning behind this. The worst that could happen: Communion takes a little bit longer and we are forced to spend extra time in prayer. I think this is certainly a good thing, and if priests would preach the fact that 'Catholics' who do not believe all that the Church teaches and Catholics not in the state of Grace and Catholics who are not obeying the Church's norms for marriage cannot receive Communion, then I think the lines would be so short that there would never be a need for Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. Is there any logical defense for the practice in general?

N.B., please do not respond that acting as an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion is simply a layman's "way of serving the Church" or some similar statement. The Church does not teach that this is an acceptable reason to have an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion. They are only permitted in cases when there are so many faithful that it would be a "grave burden" for only the Sacred Ministers to distribute Communion. Further, the Church also says that the faithful may receive under both Sacred Species [i]only [/i]when the number is small enough that it would not prolong the Mass. How can it be, then, that there are Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion who distribute Communion from the chalice?[/quote]

I agree with this for the most part, and and dumbfounded why we have so many when it's just to communicate under both Species, something that doesn't have to be done.. I do not care for the use of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion and do not like their excessive use. But that's another story for a different day.

[amarkich]

Sorry, I don't have much time to reply, but I will say one thing to Jeff.

Jeff, thanks for the response. I did not think of the number of sacrileges. I was simply stating that receiving on the tongue (at least if done properly) will not be any sacrilege at all, especially if there is a paten and only the priest distributing Communion. Also, the priest keeps his index finger and thumb together at all times when particles of the Blessed Sacrament could be on his fingers (anytime after the Consecration until the Ablutions). In the Old Mass, I say that there is no sacrilege except those that are a result of carelessness by an altar boy or priest. This may have occured sometimes, but it is certainly not the norm and the Mass itself had norms which were established so that no sacrilege at all could occur (not only that there would be fewer sacrileges). In any event, I could never receive Communion in right conscience at a Novus Ordo Mass unless it were the first Mass of the day and no one received in front of me (even on the tongue, there are certainly some particles because the priest does not keep his fingers together usually and there is usually no paten). In any event, it is true that 1 sacrilege is not as evil as 10 sacrileges, but they are both evil. I could not attend a Mass where I know there is a sacrilege. Also, in light of what I have said (as far as the means by which sacrilege can be prevented), it would seem that those who trampel Our Lord [i]would[/i] be culpable beacause they are not doing all that is necessary to prevent it (because, at least theoretically, it is possible to prevent sacrilege in all cases). God bless.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Communion in the hands and on the tongue are both allowed.

If it be public interest, I receive on the tongue and have since I realized several things:

1. As an Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist, I felt very honored, but somewhat unworthy of my role.

2. Small fragments could drop.

3. Not dealing with all the hand motions allows us to receive the Body of Christ with more passive body language.

4. It reminds me more of my place as a child of God being fed by God instead of a person being given spiritual Food by God for me to eat.

Both are allowable and completely fine, but I prefer to receive on the tongue.

[Edit: I was informed that EME is the improper term, which I knew, but it was the term my diocese used when I was one, so I used it.]