Easy answer is to avoid the EMHC (Emergency Medical Hologram of Communion?)
This is one of the many situations where I take advantage of my disability and family situation to skirt liturgical controversies. 

If I’m fortunate enough to be at Mass early (which is rare), and there’s one available, I sit in the handicapped pew, and it’s usually the priest who comes down to give me Communion.  In *that* case, the trick is shaking my head in time to stop the EMC from giving me the chalice (though I will accept it in lieu of a “scene”, but I generally side with the GIRM and CDW’s preference that the Chalice only be given for special masses, small congregations or via intinction).

Otherwise, I usually either slip up after the EMCs so I’ll be first in line for Communion, or else I get in the very end of the line, and either way I just get in line for the priest.

In addition to my right hand being on the controller of my wheelchair, I usually have a kid in my lap, and an arm over the kid, so it’s *impossible* for me to receive by hand.

Just last week, though, I went out of necessity to a “life teen” Mass with the latter scenario—last in line, sleeping three year old under my arm—and the EMC felt compelled to try and slip the host *under* my occupied left hand.  Then she saw my mouth hanging open, shrugged in frustration, and gave me Communion on the tongue.

OTOH, our 8 year old receives by hand every week and by the chalice, in spite of her mothers’ and my admonitions, because that’s how she was trained.

Danielle, I can relate and a few months ago resorted to the same, if I receive Communion from an EMHC than I receive in my hand, but if I happen to receive from the priest then I recieve Communion on the tongue. My husband is an EMHC and is very honored to serve in the mass in this capacity, he was trained to distribute either way, but I have found, like you that most are not very comfortable placing the Eucharist on my tongue so I humbly chose the option that is least favourable to me. Glad I am not alone. 
God Bless.

Why not just not receive from Eucharistic Ministers?  If we sit in the wrong area, it means moving during that time in order to receive from a priest, but we always move in order to receive from a priest. My kids know the routine and it’s not that big of a deal.

To be clear, the problem isn’t laity who don’t know how to administer Communion, it is that they are doing it at all. HH Pope Paul VI should NEVER have given in on this abuse. So, if HH Pope Benedict XVI is not going to outlaw non-clerics from administering Communion, then do what I’ve done since I joined the Church on Easter of 1994—do NOT receive Communion from the non-Ordained. I circle around, tend to always sit on which side Father tends to administer Communion, walk outside the church and around… whatever it takes, and receive Communion from an Ordained (priest or a deacon) ONLY. Not only does this allow the author’s frustration to be avoided, but it serves as a talking point as some of my fellow parishioners who sometimes notice this and ask why, and it also allows me to visibly support my contention that only those whose hands have been consecrated by God to His service should touch Him. In the interest of disclosure, I have been involved in the Extraordinary Form for many years, but do this whenever I am attending the Ordinary Form.

I agree with the above commenters—just avoid the EMHCs.  With our running toddler, we always have to sit in the back anyway, so we just shift to the end of the line wherever the priest is.  I’ve even done it when I sit closer to the front—I just walk around the back and get in the proper line.

It saddens me enormously when I hear this debate.  Bread and wine are transubstantiated at the moment of consecration.  The reception of the eucharist, on the tongue or in the hands, neither adds to nor detracts from the real presence.  One is not holier or more proper than the other.  We are called to break bread together.  We are called to minister to each other, in love.  When we artificially add discriminators that the Church does not prescribe, we fail to build up the body of God.

While I think your decision is probably the right one, I would also recommend sending your pastor a polite letter mentioning the difficulty and suggesting that some additional training might be in order for the EMEs so the situation doesn’t repeat itself when somebody else comes up to receive on the tongue.

I believe that the King of Kings is present in body, soul and divinity and will not lower my reverence to HIM by recieving in the hand.  I also will not recieve from an EM.  I always either sit on the side of the Priest or quietly, without scandal, change lanes.  I believe that a Protestant said it best.  “If Catholics truly believed what they preach, that Our Lord is truly present in the Eucharist, why aren’t they crawling in His presence?”  The day I heard this, is the day I refused to bow to the irreverant and decided to bow to the King.  I am His lowly servant and I bow only to Him.  On the tongue for me!

I was also a ardent supporter of communion on the tongue until recently. I also had had many near misses as the EM either stuck their finger in my mouth or let go too early.  I could tell that the EM that serves our section most often was uncomfortable with placing the Host on my tongue. Then for a while, during the swine flu scare, our diocese asked us to receive on the hand temporarily.  I remembered back several years when I saw a group of ladies at a Marian Conference receive in their hands, give the Host a gentle kiss and ten use their tongues to consume the Host. I was so touched by their tenderness that I have adopted the same method and it has been very helpful to me in recognizing the Host as Who it really is.

I have found even some ordained ministers, priests and deacons, have trouble distributing on the tongue.  I was taught that after holding the host between your thumb and index finger, you press it on the communicant’s tongue using your thumb.  How hard is it to do this?  It seems ashame to give up piety because others don’t try to learn how to do this effectivly.  It also seems to me that if we give up this practice, we will hear things like, “No one recieves ont he tongue anymore.”

Yes, but what if the priest is not comfortable or makes the same mistakes?? I have found that to be the case at every single parish within a fifty mile radius (there are exactly five of those) from my home. The priests, all cradle Catholics, all ordained before Vatican II, while they don’t miss your mouth, they are clearly uncomfortable with congregants receiving on the tongue. I’ve had better luck with EMs honestly. So, yes, there is definitely an issue of training going on.

I think Danielle’s original instincts were correct, that receiving on the tongue is “the most appropriate way to recognize and respect Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist”, and that it is not something to be “political or righteous about”, nor should it be “this hard.”  And it is unfortunate that those who are distributing Holy Communion in her parish are making her reconsider her good instincts, and thereby leading her to the false conclusion that the ancient tradition of receiving Our Lord directly in the mouth is becoming “less reasonable” or “less respectful” for her or anyone.  Rather than being less confusing and distracting, communion in the hand is more so, as evidenced by the fact that confusion and distraction has only increased since its introduction, and forsaking the ancient tradition will only lead us further away from the truth of the mystery.

The fact is that incompetent ministers (or the incompetent people who “train” them) have politicized the issue (in some cases, even intentionally) by neglecting their sacred duties to distribute Our Lord reverently in the traditional manner.  I wish to encourage all Danielle’s readers to avoid being pawns in these acts of irreverence.  If you believe that someone intends to make you a participant in the abuse of the Sacrament, avoid this person by receiving from another or if that is impossible, forgo receiving sacramentally and instead make a spiritual communion.  But there is a better way: a simple (and even more reverent) way to rise above the politics and dismantle the whole problem.  Simply approach the Sacrament, close your eyes, tip back your head, and fully extend your tongue down over your teeth and lower lip.  (Since I am over 6 ft. tall, I occasionally also kneel or stoop so that my mouth can be reached by a diminutive minister.)  The advantage is that the ordinary or extraordinary minister cannot use body language or facial gestures to indicate to me their displeasure at my manner of reception, they cannot drop the host since it would only fall down safely into my upturned mouth, and it is more difficult to wipe their fingers on my tongue since it is curved away from their digits.  In this manner, I have never had a host dropped and only very infrequently have I had my tongue fingered.  The only sensation I have is of touch—the accidents of bread contacting my tongue—and of hearing—the contradictory words which say, “This is the Body of Christ”—leaving me to meditate on nothing else but the profound Mystery of Faith.

There is enough tom-foolery at my local parish to disturb my peace at Mass; no need to let communion in the hand take away my chance to reverence my God fittingly when He comes to me so intimately.

God sent His Son not to just any womb, but to the consecrated womb of a virgin; likewise, the Church has always reserved the handling of the Eucharist to consecrated hands; the present indult to receive on the hand is unprecedented in the history of the Church, and is clearly a concession made to those who were acting in disobedience, much as Moses permitted divorce because of the hardness of the people’s hearts.  In 2 Samuel 6, we read that Oza reached out to catch the Ark of the Covenant when it was in danger of falling, and was struck dead by God for irreverently touching it (though his irreverence clearly originated in well-meaning.)  God does not strike us dead today for our well-meaning irreverence when we receive the host on our hands, but the educated ought to know what choices they have, and which choices befit the holiness of the sacrament and which befit the hardness of hearts.

I use “Deacon” only to identify myself, not to stifle debate. And at the outset let me say it’s a valid debate to have, IMHO.

First, let me encourage those who prefer to receive on the tongue to continue to do so. Nothing wrong with a little personal piety at Mass, that’s for sure! 

I occasionally dip the tip of my finger into someone’s mouth, but to be honest, I have as much trouble with well-meaning parishioners who don’t know how to receive on the tongue.  They just open their mouths and wait for me to just drop it in.  Training would help ALL AROUND.

On the other hand, the practice that was being restored, when done properly, is as reverent as reception on the tongue. Forming a throne for the King with the left hand, and supporting it with the right, then tenderly moving the Body of Our Lord to one’s mouth, can be done very reverently and with great piety. If one approaches Our Lord in the Eucharist with the proper attitude, all will be well.

Conversely, when one approaches the Eucharist lackadaisically, or with a chip on one’s shoulder, it somehow diminishes the moment. And both are harmful, I believe.  Whether we receive Our Lord inattentively because we don’t care, or because we’re all stressed out about what Sverige else is doing, it diminishes our experience.

Just a couple of thoughts. God bless y’all!

Yes, the answer is not to slander EMHCs as inherently incompetent or to have the audacity to criticize the Pope and the bishops in permitting EMHCs.  After all, many priests likewise have trouble distributing on the tongue.

The answer is to politely approach the pastor or assistant who supervises the ministers and suggest some refresher training on how to do it.

But recipients could use some training too, to remember to sufficiently open one’s mouth and expose enough tongue in order to place the Host on it.  Will there be an occasional hitting the teeth or finger contact with the mouth?  Yes, it is inevitable that such might happen when one tries to put something not much larger than a quarter in someone’s mouth.  But that is no reason to reject receiving by mouth.

By the way, one reason to not receive by hand is that, unless you lick your hand afterwards, you will have minute particles of the Host on your hand.  True, most people don’t care much about walking around with dust-sized pieces of Jesus’ Body on their hand, but they are.

Why I receive Jesus on my tongue no matter what. One day I had just received the precious Body of my Lord on my hand and when I knelt down to pray quietly I noticed that I still had some pieces of my Lord on my hand, so many and so small. I wondered how many times that may have happened and I had failed to notice. I made a commitment from that point on that I would only receive Jesus on my tongue. Most times I can do so without incident, though there are times when I know the Eucharistic Minister is not quite sure what to do. It is usually at my daily Masses that this could be a problem but I find that most of them now know the way that I prefer to receive this most precious of all our Sacraments. I am blessed and Jesus watches over me and you!!

As a priest in a large parish I must say that 60% of tongue recipients don’t know how to receive it properly: Close eyes, head back, tongue out flat but relaxed.  Any other approach(biting, no tongue extended, grasping with lips or teeth, over extended tongue, tongue down ones chin, too much tension in the tongue, etc. Let’s do it the way Jesus did….take this and eat it. More fully communion….

Same experience here, Danielle.  I have even resorted to receiving in the hand just for EMHC and then on the tongue with the priest but that really doesn’t seem the right thing either.  But the spectrum of reactions of EMHC’s to people wishing to receive on the tongue is amazing.  Had never considered that they had not been trained but that makes a lot of sense.  Sometimes I have gotten a huge sort of awkward, embarassed smile from the EMHCs…don’t know what that means.

I only started receiving on the tongue when I started having babies. When one is holding a baby or a toddler, it is so much easier to stick out one’s tongue than to try to juggle a host in one’s hands. I feel much less secure about not dropping it. I don’t, however, like receiving from extraordinary ministers for the reasons you state, so I tend to shift to be in the line for the priest. Which is easy enough to do at our parish as usually there is the priest int he middle and an extraordinary minster on either side of him. Plus I prefer going to our priest when I have little ones with me as he pauses to give them a special blessing, which the ministers don’t do. however, if it will cause too much fuss to switch lines, I will receive from the extraordinary minister because I don’t want to make a huge production of it.

I’m with you Danielle.  Not to be self righteous, but I try really hard to receive from the priest, then I can receive on the tongue.  I have recently had two EMHC’s ram their hands into my mouth- because I wasn’t thinking and automaticly went to receive on the tongue.
I am a convert who grew up in the Episcopal church.  We had an alter rail for communion.  It was a much more efficient way to distribute communion, and not to be old-fashioned, but it would really solve a lot of issues in receiving Holy Communion in the Catholic Church (except for those churches that are in the round) 
It has gotten so bad at my parish (which is *wonderful*) that the ushers roll their eyes when a priest comes to distribute Holy Communion at the back of our church- where only the EMHC’s normally distribute! The priest always does it in the wrong order lol!

Sadly, the choice to not receive on the tongue, which is, by the way, the choice of the Church, should not be on you because the EEM is not being formed correctly.  The only reason we have communion in the hand is because of disobedient priests who kept doing it, even when they were told not too.  Like parents, the pope chose his battles and gave in, and this happened with alter girls, also.

Personally, I make sure I am receiving from a priest.  At our church it is easy, since he always is on the same side.

I have to say that we are blessed to have all our ministers and priests appropriately trained on how to distribute Holy Communion on the tongue.  Unfortunately, I have never been trained on how to properly receive on the tongue, but we seem to be doing okay so far.  (If anyone cane speak to the proper way, I would be so appreciative!)  After hearing on Relevant Radio that receiving on the tongue was “more preferred,” I made an effort to try and start receiving in this manner.  However, I’ve found that I can usually only do this consistently at our home parish—most other parishes don’t seem to have much experience otherwise, and I don’t want to risk dropping a host, etc.  Likewise, there is a nearby parish where the priest would prefer to distribute on the tongue, but the bread used for Communion is “homemade” and I’ve found that these small pieces of bread are very difficult to receive on the tongue.  Unfortunately, there tends to be small crumbs left on the hand afterward, too, so I make an effort to consume every piece I can.

I would love to see renewed catechesis on this matter.  For my part, I grew up in a very liberal archdiocese: my parish never had kneelers, it seemed like most anyone could receive Communion (non-Catholics), and so on.  I’m 30-something with small children and crave orthodoxy to instruct my family.

Perhaps it is time to speak to your pastor.  Obviously the training is not what it should be and yours and others choice has been taken away.  I know, from your articles, that your words would be very kind.  Christ’s peace.

I will receive my Lord on the tongue until the day I die. It’s one humble thing I can do for my King. Not caving into “peer pressure” ... I had a priest at communion during the LAST SUPPER at a CRHP tell me to take the Eucharist in my hand, we had a “discussion” at the time and I told him “no” and he told me “yes, you need to try it.” FINALLY, I did take the Eucharist in my hand, as there were people behind me and I looked at my priest point blank and said “don’t ever ask me to do that again, as I will not. I tried and didn’t care for it.” Needless to say, I was very disturbed about it. I forgave him for it.

How many people that receive Holy Communion on the tongue are EMHC?
Do our hands become sacred vessels, needing to be purified? Are the hands of every EMHC, having Particles left on their hands, need to be purified? What does the Church instruct?

It is interesting to note that in both forms of the Mass, the priest offers specific prayers and purifies both his hands and the vessels which will touch the precious body of our Lord.  Following Holy Communion, the priest once again purifies hands and vessels, to make sure not even a fragment of our Lord’s precious body is lost.  These actions are no more “symbolic” than our Lord’s presence in the Host…they are an acknowledgment of the True Presence.  As laity, we don’t have the option to “purify” our hands…only our hearts and souls.  I have, in the course of a Mass, had to wipe runny noses, change a dirty diaper, tie a shoe, or even, simply smooth a child’s rumpled hair.  When the vessels that hold the Body of Christ must be gold…when the hands that consecrate must belong to an Alter Christus and still must be purified…then it seems the next logical assumption that the “Lord, I’m not worthy to receive thee…”  must become real by the mode of our reception.  It doesn’t make me holier to receive in such a manner.  It DOES reverence our Lord and affirm, in a visible way, His True Presence.

We are a Church of externals…they do matter.  When they cease to matter, when we see them as just another obstacle to our own personal holiness, then we’ve lost the object, the very reason that Holy Mother Church has established this mode of reverence for the Eucharist. 

Our dear Holy Father has expressed that receiving communion while kneeling and on the tongue, is to be the preferred method.  A few quotes:

From our Holy Father:

“We Christians kneel before the Blessed Sacrament because, therein, we know and believe to be the presence of the One True God.” (May 22, 2008)

“Kneeling in adoration before the Eucharist is the most valid and radical remedy against the idolatries of yesterday and today” (May 22, 2008)

From the Council of Rouen 650 A.D.

“Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layperson, but only in their mouths.”

From the Congregation of Divine Worship:

“It is the mission of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Sacraments to work to promote Pope Benedict’s emphasis on the traditional practices of liturgy, such as reception of Communion on the tongue while kneeling.” July 22, 2009

From the Archbishop of Bologna Italy:

“Many cases of profanation of the Eucharist have occurred, profiting by the possibility to receive the consecrated Bread on one’s palm of the hand… Considering the frequency in which cases of irreverent behavior in the act of receiving the Eucharist have been reported, we dispose that starting from today in the Metropolitan Church of St. Peter, in the Basilica of St. Petronius and in the Shrine of the Holy Virgin of St. Luke in Bologna the faithful are to receive the consecrated Bread only from the hands of the Minister directly on the tongue.” (from his decree on the reception of the Eucharist, issued April 27, 2009)

There is an easier answer to this problem- no matter where I’m sitting in the Church, I get in the line where the priest is giving Holy Communion.
If he *is* giving Holy Communion, which, if he’s not, brings up a whole other sort of puzzling situation.
But I also have to add that I’ve never had this problem at Latin Mass.

I’m a communion-on-the-tongue recipient as well.  I’ve had a few awkward placements by ordinary and extraordinary communion ministers alike, but I’ve never come across the kind of problems Danielle describes here.  Maybe she’s not opening her mouth wide enough or sticking her tongue out far enough???  I’ve seen some people really stick their tongues out there, I’m sure to avoid some of these problems.

First, let me say that I myself am an EMHC.  I have to agree with what some have posted here that this is not about “who” you receive from, but more about “what” training one receives.  Doing anything well takes practice.  If I have 1% of communicants receive on the tongue, I would say that is a lot.  Distributing in such a way so infrequently can easily make one apprehensive, whether an Ordinary or Extraordinary Minister.  Also, I will echo what some have said that many don’t know how to receive properly on the tongue, which makes it all the more difficult.  I can assure you that I want to show reverence to our Lord in performing a ministry for His flock and I would feel awful if I were to be the cause of Him falling to the ground. 

Let me add that the implication by some (here and elsewhere) that what we do as EMHC is an abuse of the Sacrament hurts.  Additionally, the implication that we should be avoided when all we try to do is serve our Church, is also hurtful.  Do I think I am worthy to distribute His Body to His flock?  No.  But I am also not worthy to be His disciple or to even be in His presence.  His Church has asked me to serve, and I do the best that I can.

To more directly answer Danielle, I would not change what you do.  Instead, I would improve the situation.  I would approach your pastor and suggest more training.  These stories about people being forced to take one way over another is not how this should work.  Our Bishops have set the norm to be reception by the hand, but have made it perfectly clear that one should not be forced to do so.  A Communicant’s desire to receive on the tongue should be honored.  During an EMHC meeting, maybe they can practice on each other.  I, for one, would love to have 20 unconsecrated hosts and a willing tongue.  :)

It might depend on your area, or even your parish—I receive on the tongue, now as a mother partly for the reasons Melanie B describes.  Half the time, I can’t even manage a sign of the Cross until we make it safely back to the pew…. and so far, none of the EMC have seemed uncertain or annoyed and I haven’t had any problems.  Something to thank God for—thanks for reminding me of this blessing today!

As for communion rails and churches in the round—when I lived in London for a semester, I occasionally attended a little church near the Bayswater tube station.  It was very in the round—really only 4 or 5 pews deep, and circular with only the very “back” of the altar not surrounded.  But the communion rail also went almost all the way around, and was used (such smooth operation, once one observed how the flow goes!).  This parish was also the only place I’ve experienced the Novus Ordo ad orientam.

Very simple! Avoid receiving Holy Communion from an extraordinary minister at all. They do not have consecrated hands yet they are touching the Host. That is a real no-no for me. Raised with the Traditional Latin Mass prior to Vatican II, it was unthinkable to receive Holy Communion any other way than on the tongue directly from a priest’s consecrated hands and kneeling. In my opinion, the Vatican’s caving into the abuse of allowing extraordinary ministers to distribute Holy Communion was a grave mistake that should be abolished. It has led to a real loss of reverence.

So instead of requesting (if not demanding) that our EMCH’s be trained properly, we should give up receiving the Eucharist in the best way?

I agree with the comment about moving to the line where the priest is distributing Communion.  Even if it means going to the end of the line, I would be willing to do that rather than resort to receiving Holy Communion in the hand.  I have seen so many Eucharist Ministers who very irreverent in the manner that they “thrust” the Host in the receiver’s hand.  I was attending a parish for a while where it seemed as if I was the only one who received on the tongue.  I saw myself how unprepared the EM’s were for this.  So, my suggestion again is to move to the line to receive from the priest.  The parish I now attend does not use EM’s - only the priest and deacon distribute Communion.

Always the better solution is to report incidents of abuse or neglect. This in itself is an act of charity. It promotes necessary change, it diminishes gossip, it accurately promotes responsibility for an office held, and it helps those who are lesser outspoken to recieve the care they need within the church (the elderly and children).  The pastor is the person to change the problem.

Danielle, we are blessed with a parish that never uses EMs—but when we are at a parish that does, we do what many comboxers above have suggested: We make for the line with the priest or deacon.
 
The only time I receive from an EM is if I’m in a parish in which EMs are distributing communion under the species of wine. I will get in line for that.

The sad sad sad part is that your children are absorbing an abuse as the norm.  That is tragic.

#Ileana72. Your response supposes CITH is the best way, which history demonstrates it is not, and which the Holy Father subtly and not so subtly dissuades now by administering Communion on the tongue, kneeling only, as a matter of Papal protocol and behavior. Second, we can and should demand that lay people ought to know what they are doing before they are allowed to administer Communion at all, if lay people are going to continue to be allowed to be EMHCs.

#Bender, I am not audacious in saying the Pope was wrong to give into the abuse of CITH in the first place. It is a historical fact that individual bishops and priests started CITH without any authority or permission to do so in the early 1970s, and Pope Paul VI decided belatedly, even after much protesting and even begging by some cardinals and even Mother Theresa at the time, to allow CITH to continue (lawfully). As someone else said, the same thing happened with girl altar boys and Pope John Paul II in the 90s. It was never allowed, and yet individual priests and bishops just started recruiting and often forcing girls to serve, with the Holy Father giving in on it rather than offend or say no.

I am also not audacious or slandering lay EMs. Just because I said unconsecrated hands should not touch or handle Him, and that only those whose hands are consecrated should, doesn’t slander anyone. This has nothing to do with creatures; it has everything to do with the Creator.

If you believe that He who created the whole of existence, made Himself Incarnate for us, sacrificed Himself for us, and continues to bear the burden of our sins and our irreverence all around Him at Masses throughout the world each day through careless, haphazard, lukewarm or sinful reception of His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, and that He should be made to continue to accept handling by unconsecrated, unanointed hands because of our fickle preferences, self-aggrandizement and self-righteousness, so be it.  This is a matter of individual souls making the commitment to Him, and living that commitment by honoring Him and treating Him with the infinite respect He not just deserves, but demands.

You have to want to stop. It has to start in the will.

Holy things for the Holy, with perfection, purity and sanctity. One Holy Father, one Holy Son, one Holy Spirit. Blessed be the Name of the Lord for He is one in Heaven and on earth. To God be glory for ever.

Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.

Correct me if I’m wrong but, the correct term is Extra-ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion (EMHC), Not Eucharistic Ministers (EM).

As I read these comments it became evident that we are a people who think we are always correct.  Many seem to have forgotten that the Catholic Church is under the direction of the Holy Spirit who guides the Holy Father and the Bishops when they make decisions.  Vatican II was also under the direction of the Holy Spirit, so all directives that have come forth are blessed by the Holy Spirit.
Exodinary Ministers of Holy Communion are given their permission to serve by their local Bishop.  I am not comfortable giving communion to some people who wish to “receive on the tongue” because of the way they present their tongue.  No one is perfect and we should learn to live with the imperfections of each other and stop trying to be holier than the Church!

Here in Germany most receive in the hand but a few do receive on the tongue.Because we moved from the UK where our children had received on the tongue,our children when they had to join their class mates who were receiving their 1st Holy Communion aged 9 were used to show the others how to receive Our Blessed Lord on the tongue.All our 5 oldest children aged 6-14 receive on the tongue.The real problem is because German children don’t normally receive 1st Holy Communion before they are 9,is getting visiting Priests to give the youngers ones the Body of Christ.The Eucharistic Ministers do not give our children Holy Communion,only the Priests.

In all of the parishes that I have been in here they are referred to as “Eucharistic Ministers.”  I have never heard of them referred to as Extra-ordinary Ministers here.  Maybe it is a regional thing????

Oh, though so pious ones, how many of your children are priests? If we had the priests in the church, we would not need the EM’s.

Nope, they are called Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion and if there is a priest, I go to the priest or I pretend that I am sick and they are ministers to the sick and bringing me the HOST. Danielle, hold out. Let them learn because it is the right thing to do. And pray for priests, we need priests.

Reply to Sharon. Pope Benedict XVI changed the name to indicate that their position is not the ordinary position of the Eucharistic Minister.

The Sacrament is the same.

Go home and practice receiving on the tongue.

I received Holy Communion at an EF Mass and the priest was very irreverent with how he distributed Communion. He sort of slung Jesus in our mouths.  We were unfortunately at front of church and he barely gave us time to get to the Communion rail.  It was all very rushed and hardly the reverent Mass that EF people claim to have. Bottom line, we humans muddy the liturgical waters, even priests.

To the author (Danielle), I must say it sounds like you’re giving up on something that is worth fighting on for.  I understand the difficulties you face, as I face the same in my parish.  I am one of a few that prefers to receive Our Lord in tongue instead of my hand.  Our Pastor has said in the past that hands are “just as holy” as our tongues, and sometimes worse things come out of our mouths.  Although he makes a valid point, I do not fully agree with what he’s saying.  There is no disagreement about the true presence of our Lord whether we receive on the tongue or in hand, but what does matter to me is a little word called REVERENCE.  I have personally seen people that receive in hand try to walk away with the Eucharist.  In one parish, a priest found a Eucharist lying on a pew after Mass, so he forced all Masses he presided over to take communion on the tongue.  My daughter did her 1st Communion in 2008 and they force kids to receive in the hand to avoid confusion.  I will continue to receive the Eucharist on my tongue no matter what inconveniences it may cause – I think restoring/maintaining reverence in our Eucharistic celebration is worth it.  You can never be “too reverent” - on the other hand when you ease up there is a chance you will fall into a habit of not enough reverence.

Thought Extra Ordinary Ministers of the Eucharist were only to be used when a Priest was unavailable or there are vast numbers receiving?The other day we had two priests concellebrating Mass,Our Parish Priest sat down so an Extra Ordinary Minister of the Eucharist could take his place.I did moan about it to someone,seems to have worked,this week the Extra Ordinary Minister was not used!

I have given this issue a good thought and in the end decided to receive by tounge! Yes, the experience of finding a morsel of the host in my hand did alarm me before.
I think the best thing for anyone is to discern their individual feeling about this. This has nothing to do with whether you think EM’s are capable or not. I take pity on some of them standing on both sides of the priest waiting to minister to the communicants, but no one goes to them - because all are queuing to the priest.
Before going to mass, I sometimes practice opening my mouth for communion - so as to make it easier for a priest/deacon/EM to place the sacred host in my tongue!

A day after walking after a teenager who I saw put the host in her pocket then deny it when I asked her father to check.  In the hand is here for the near term realistically. The root cause is more in training emhc and firing those who can’t do the service and refuse to challenge those who walk offf before its too late.

1) Some parishes have gone to very small size hosts making it harder to receive without wetting the ministers fingers. Solution bigger hosts.
2) Whatever happened to having alter servers hold communion patens to catch particles or the entire host? Restart using communion patens.

At the Lavabo, the priest washes his hands. When do the extraordinary ministers wash theirs, if at all?

I feel more comfortable receiving in the hand but most of the times I am holding a baby so I receive on the tongue.  I too get distracted and have tried practicing at home.

When my husband died, someone gave me a statue of a child leaning into the palm of Jesus’s hand. [she said I was a child of Jesus & He would hold and protect me].  Receiving Jesus in the palm of my hands is asking him to receive me into His. The “hand” and the “heart” go together. We put our ‘hand’ over our hearts. We raise our ‘hands’ to Jesus. As earthly parents we raise our hands to receive and hug our children.  If I get to Heaven someday, I hope Jesus is there extending his hands to me, to come unto Him. The gesture of raising our hands to receive Jesus is beautiful. Somehow, sticking out our tongue is not.

I’ve started receiving communion on my foot. It’s my way of saying thanks to Jesus for helping our soccer team get to the finals.

@Hannah:  It could be that a foot is cleaner that a tongue that can be cruel and vicious.  Much more harm can be done “by the tongue”.  Remember that a person can be hurt physically, but when it is by the tongue, it is hard to forget.  I am sure Jesus is smiling by your soccer remark.  He does have a sense of humor.
Dec. 20, 1985 my husband died and Jesus held me in the palm of His Hands.  No other way could I have gotten through this sad time.

Also at this time: The picture of The Last Supper Comes to Mind

Todd Drain: regarding your “contention that only those whose hands have been consecrated by God to His service should touch Him…” Where did you get this idea? Scripture references? Scripture tells me we are all consecrated by God to his service, but your idea sets up a good argument for female priests. In his mortal life, who did Jesus allow to minister to him with hands? Jesus doesn’t hold himself aloof but invites us, sinners especially, to eat him and drink his blood. Where does he suggest we not touch him while doing this? I don’t get it. I believe God rejoices over everyone he is able to feed like this, even those who get it a bit wrong. I do appreciate the effort to make sure our liturgical actions reflect the awesome reality of our Lord’s presence in the consecrated blood and bread. We rejoice in Him.

It is sad to see how the “Spirit of Vatican II” could elicit a comment such as Hannah’s.  What have we come to?

As to tongue versus hand, I fear receiving on the hand has lead to many abuses.  For the safety of the Eucharist it is better that the Host be placed on the tongue and that someone watch to see that is is swallowed.  Several times I have found consecrated hosts stuck in hymn books or on the floor.  It is sad that it has come to this.  However, Christ did say that the “Gates of Hell” shall not prevail.  It seems the Gates are trying harder and harder to prevail.  I opt for Communion on the tongue.  I have confused many Extraordinary Ministers, but we must all learn to be flexible.  If training is poor, training must be improved.  Maybe we should go back to lining up at the altar rail and having a patten placed beneath our chins.  That was the most respectful of all attitudes.

This is a very interesting post, and while I did not take the time now to read all of the comments, I look forward to returning to them when I have more time to consider them carefully.

I have always received the Body of Christ in the hand because that was how I was taught and I never really gave it a second thought until the past few years when I began to read blogs.  At first, reading a post and comments like this would make me feel extremely guilty and I’d want to run off to confession for being so bold as to receive the Lord in my hands.  After speaking to my spiritual director about it, he told me not to worry about it, that the church allows either way and I should continue to receive in the way in which I feel the most comfortable.  When I was growing up, my mom used to always tell me to try to receive from the priest whenever possible and that has stayed with me, but I do receive Communion in the hand from him as well.

Reading as much as I have just now, the thought occurred to me: I hope that when I die, Jesus will not be the least concerned about throwing his consecrated arms around my sinful soul and pulling me close to His heart for all eternity, and if I believe that, why would He be any less concerned about someone devoutly placing His consecrated body into my sinful hands so that I may reverently place Him into my mouth myself?

Sometimes I think we Catholics are great at making a fuss about things that I hope won’t bother Jesus as much as they bother us.  Then again, maybe I just need to be better catechized and to develop more respect for the Sacredness of the Holy Eucharist.

It’s hard not to be sarcastic in replying to this. But I’ve never read such a fine example of scrupulosity as this article has generated. There is nothing wrong with receiving on the tongue or the hand. Both are just fine as far as respect for the Lord. To be all worked up over an incredibly unimportant issue as this is extreme scrupulosity, bordering on Obsessive-Compulsiveness. Can you seriously think that the Lord is insulted by someone receiving his Body in their hand? Do you actually think the Apostles received his Body and Blood on the tongue? Jesus became one of us physically. He certainly didn’t consider our bodies to be too disgusting to touch. This is a non-issue and should be treated as such.
Personally, I prefer Communion on the hand. It’s certainly much more sanitary.

Anne, your second-to-last sentence should’ve been your last. It is perfectly said. I have every faith that what we as a church are going to get scolded for most is how silly we were in letting all this nonsense become our idols. Jesus will say, “didn’t you hear anything I said?”

Below is a quote from Fr. Pat McCloskey, OFM [an answer to a question]

“When receiving Holy Communion standing, the communicant bows his or her head before the sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand at the discretion of each communicant.”

Your friend, a daily communicant, is free to receive Holy Communion on the tongue but can certainly not describe as “sacrilegious” what the Church has officially approved.

Unfortunately, some Catholics tend to condemn for others what they do not choose for themselves. In doing so, they risk turning Christ’s sacrament of unity into a sacrament of division. In 1 Corinthians 11:17-34, St. Paul rebukes those Christians for making the Eucharist a sign of division.

We do not know how the apostles received Holy Communion at the Last Supper, but I suspect that your sister is correct in suggesting it was in the hand. May all of us prepare well to receive Holy Communion and then cooperate generously with the grace of that sacrament!”

Gina Nakagawa: my contention has both Scriptural and Traditional references, principally in the manner and rule of sacrifice in the Old Testament, which was of course a pre-figurement of the Sacrifice of Christ, and also follows from the history of the Church and progression of doctrine and practice.  Once CITH was common in the West but was gotten rid of about a millenia ago specifically because of the sorts of irreverence and abuses going on now. People do not learn. The Church is simply reintroduced a problem that was solved in the past by going to the Host alone on the tongue. If you need something laid out specifically I can doing a post somewhere else and post a link to it here… it would be too long to post in the comments of NCR.

As for women priests let’s not muddy the water by confusing something like the priesthood of all believers with the Priesthood of the Church, or confusing the Anointing of a Deacon and Priest’s hands so that they may confect and/or touch the Sacred Species (Communion, Benediction, purification or preparation of vessels, etc) with the idea you can consecrate whatever you want to His service.  Nuns live the consecrated life. It doesn’t logically follow they should offer Mass. Also, when women such as Mary ministered to Him it was a ministration specific to His Person, not the general (Levitic) sacrifice which is a re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Calvary and a continuation of that Levitic priesthood in the Ordained Priesthood of the Church.

God is infinite in all His attributes, and thus both omnipotent and omniscient. Had He wished to perpetuate a coed Priesthood, He would not only have made the Virgin Mary the Rock upon which His Church was built and not Peter, but stretching back in time, He would had laid down the function of the tribe of Levi as a coed priesthood from the start. God isn’t a slave to fashion. Had He desired a coed Priesthood, there would be a coed Priesthood.  This is way off topic though… a discussion about equality vs differential equity of each gender. All souls are equal in the site of God, but that doesn’t mean they undifferentiated in purpose.

The handling of Him in the Sacred Species by non-clerics has a moral and a practical dimension, which we’ve been discussing.

Practically, it isn’t possible, and isn’t human nature, to expect that when you allow such latitude in a practice, as is done now with Holy Communion, that irreverence, inconsistency, and even sacrilege won’t occur.  Practically, it is a poor situation to allow so many different methods and people to administer Communion, which in addition to slack attitudes, dropping Him, spilling His Blood, there is the possibility of simply absconding Him. Just as bad as the cattle call that Holy Communion often turns into now is the remarkably short Confession lines each week, as compared to the long Communion lines. Laxity abounds, and He suffers for it by the lackadaisical manner in which people treat Him.

I watch Communicants every time I go to Mass. Even in my current, relatively conservative parish, people are irreverent sometimes when they don’t mean to be: distracted and looking around; rushing through the line—“Body of Christ—doink” (drop Him in the hand as quickly as possible) and move on; chewing on Him like He’s chewing gum; irreverent dress (yes, the casual attitude contributes to people not realizing they need to pay attention to how they dress when they go to Mass); yacking like He’s not even there after Mass (do you run your mouth like its Starbucks if you believe He is truly there?); no genuflection to Him before or after Mass; no acknowledgement of Him during Mass (in the tabernacle) by a sign of the cross or simple bow; and the list goes on. The whole ethos of a parish, and the totality of its problems, are a good indicator of how much this radical egalitarian idea behind CITH and EMHCs has degraded things.

Morally, the development of belief and enforcement of strict rules only naturally follows from our core belief and mission: God Almighty allowed His own Incarnate Son to be sacrificed on our behalf in order to fulfill the Law, and in turn He gave to us a physical method by which that Sacrifice would be perpetuated until the consummation of the world. He would make the sacrifice of old, the unleavened bread of Passover, the manna from Heaven, and the wine that made up the sacrifice of Melchizedek, into His Body and Blood. Since God cannot be divided, both species would be fully the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Almighty Godhead, and the priesthood of old would be perpetuated by spreading it to the Gentiles as a priesthood of adoption.

He chose 12 men to be the first bishops, so it stands to reason as the agents of perpetuating the Sacrifice, they would “take this and eat… take this chalice and drink of it…”  They in turn were sent to evangelize the whole world and spread His Gospel, His Church, and His Sacraments, and their hands would be the agents of both the Eucharist and Anointing of new hands to be priests, or bishops.

To any EMHC that does Him justice and treats Him with the loving reverence you should don’t be offended.  Just because I don’t believe you should be administering Communion doesn’t mean I think you are committing some intrinsically moral evil.  It is a practice that simply should never have been reintroduced.  And even you can’t control other’s behavior as they glad-hand Him and treat Him like a salteen.

If we were a strictly internet-based church we wouldn’t have this problem. We could all sit in front of our computers and watch Mass on the monitor. At communion time, we would receive e-hosts via e-mail. The elderly could get theirs via fax.

Dan M., in response to “Can you seriously think that the Lord is insulted by someone receiving his Body in their hand?”.One could say this about many of the Church’s practices such as “Can you seriously think that Our Lord would be offended if we didn’t genuflect each time we were in His Presence?” or “Can you seriously think that the Lord is offended because we miss mass once in a while?”. I was at a parish for a while where the lack of reverence got so bad people were bringing coffee to mass while being entertained by the liturgical dancers dancing to the bongos on the altar.
I receive on the tongue and just had a similar experience as Danielle, I actually had to grab the Host with my teeth to get the EM to let go. I was sitting in the front pew and most others receiving on the tongue had the same problem. I say stick it out and people will adjust.

“I actually had to grab the Host with my teeth to get the EM to let go.” Wow, Jeff, what an example of revenrence!

I agree with Dan M. It’s so silly that well-menaing Catholics are consumed with such trivialities. Don’t let this be your only answer when asked “when did you act according to my Son’s teaching?”

“If you believe that someone intends to make you a participant in the abuse of the Sacrament, avoid this person by receiving from another or if that is impossible, forgo receiving sacramentally and instead make a spiritual communion.”  This comment by Peter O. is incredibly sad!  Forgo communion?  I would rather die than miss a chance to receive my precious Lord into my body!  As far as I know, the only rule about not receiving communion is when one has a mortal sin on their conscience.  I think Jesus would be sad if we didn’t receive Him just because we were unhappy with how the person (who is simply a container for Christ-since He lives in ALL of us) distributes Him to the communicants.

And to the commenter who looks around at others to see whether or not they are being respectful when they receive Jesus (judge ye not lest ye be judged comes to mind)I wonder, wouldn’t the experience of receiving Jesus be more beneficial to you if you were to simply close your eyes while you kneel and offer your prayer of thanksgiving to your Savior who has just personally entered your body and soul instead of looking around to see what everybody else is doing? 

I have to stop reading comments now because many of these are killing my spirit of Gaudete that I have been trying so desperately to hold on to since that beautiful Sunday of Advent not so long ago.

I love the “can’t we all just get along?!” ... “isn’t all this diversity just great?!” sentiment as some attempt to use civility as a billy stick to beat those that might disagree with being laissez-faire about Holy Communion.

Our faith begins in our hearts, as an act of the mind, the will and the soul. How we act is a response to that will and our inward being and most importantly how you act in the presence of your Redeemer IS a big deal. Trying to blow everyone and everything off as “hey, i think this is much ado about nothing… can’t we all just let bygones be bygones ... to each his own” is relativistic hogwash.

I appreciate your relativism. Unfortunately, in a relative sense, your relativism is irrelevant.  Now, back to being relevant…

Good one, Todd. Funniest post so far.

Anne: I’m sorry my comments concern you. My preoccupation with how He is treated stems from serving Him on the altar, and being devoted to Him in His Sacred Heart—the object of which is reparation to Him for how others treat Him in the Blessed Sacrament.
I do close my eyes and pray. I do give thanks. I do meditate upon him. I also have four small children that don’t allow me to simply put my head down and ignore what is going on in the Communion lines all the time, as I keep my children up front so that they can learn to concentrate on the altar and the sermon.
My observations are the accumulation of years of seeing this, seeing that, and not always bending my head and heart down to pray at all the indifferences He suffers, daily.
If you think my foible, human attitude is severe about how He is treated, it should concern you how the Holiest of Holies views how everyone treats Him. All you who blow me off as severe, scrupulous, judgmental or negative, I would recommend you pray more about it that you might allow the Holy Spirit to enlighten you with Wisdom.

This is getting almost comical.  Come on people.  Reverence is within each and everyone of us, whether receiving on the tongue or in the hand. [some of you are even complaining of how it is placed on the tongue or in the hand]  If things in one’s church is getting too irreverent, then it is up to the Pastor to preach on it.  Some people forget, I guess. As to EM’s, as we called them, churches where I live now have huge congregations and the Pastor cannot do it all—remember shortage of priests——he needs help. Also as to all the gold and fancy vestments—that started way back around the 1300’s. When I lived in Virginia, my Pastor had a wooden Chalice and it just looked like something Jesus would use. I assure you, if the Church said I’d have to go back to receiving on the tongue, I would but I still agree with Fr. Pat McCloskey. Also, in some churches, if a person is handicapped or has a small baby with them or elderly, the front pews were reserved for them, so that the Priest or EM could walk up to them.

“...all the indifferences He suffers, daily.” Your focus here is misguided if the indifferences you speak of are acted out in church. That is all meaningless if we aren’t concerned, rather, about the indifferences he suffers, daily, in the way people on earth treat one another.

Thy kingdom come won’t be accomplished when everyone is abiding by your rules at Mass. It will come when we honestly embrace one anoter as Jesus told us to.

“And to the commenter who looks around at others to see whether or not they are being respectful…”
Anne, I agree. Seems like another sign of judgemental attitude and scrupulosity.  Pharisees acted like that, the publican who stood at the front of the Temple thanking God that he was “not like other men”. If you’re going to Communion and all you can think about is watching others, something is wrong. The great saints had a lot to say about those who constantly watch others to make sure they live up to their standards. They would never allow themselves to judge others. The great saints always assumed that others were most likely much better than they.

I hear you, Danielle, but please re-consider. Follow your heart and continue to receive Our Lord on your tongue. Blessed Mother Teresa was saddened about people receiving on the tongue.

God bless you and your beautiful family.

Merry Christmas!

Donna-Marie
www.donnacooperoboyle.com

Yes, Danielle, Donna-Marie is right. And if the EM isn’t distributing the host correctly, chomp down with your teeth and yank it out of his or her fingers, like Jeff does.

Having been a deacon for 3 years and a EMHC for many years prior to that, I am well experienced in presenting the Sacred Body and Blood to the Faithful, both on the tongue, and in the hands. What I have found is that many people who wish to receive, apparently on the tongue, don’t realize that they must STICK THEIR TONGUES OUT, and not cause the minister to stick his/her hand into their mouths in order to make a successful delivery. Also, there are many who feel they must TAKE the host in their fingers, rather than to RECEIVE it in their hands as they are supposed to do. The ministers should be correctly trained, but the receiving faithful must also be taught how to reverently receive the Body of Christ.

I like reading Todd’s comments.  He’s right whether you like it or not.

I have to say that in my last parish you could get in line for the priest and then an “Extraordinary” will come along and cut the line off somewhere. I mean even if there is only two or three people left.  It’s really annoying there (and many other places in this area) with annoying pushy personalities.  All these parish councils of pushy women run everything including the liturgy (by the way, very ordinary Extraordinaries are 98% women in my experience) and the priest is impotent or lets it be so because they want to be nice.  I find it a horrible and sad example for my children and any male child especially to see this whole mess.  Also there could be 15 people at a mass and 10 of them get up to be “ministers.”  Is no common sense a requirement for this “ministry” in our diocese, I wonder.

I wish there was a Latin Mass that I could go to.  I find I’m offering up much suffering just in Mass alone.  It’s bad enough with the Altar hogging “choirs”.
We the lowly people who work in the service industry (work weekends) or have no cars pretty much have to put up with whatever is nearest.

I really don’t have anything against this mission as it can help in places where there are few priests to bring Christ in the Eucharist to the homebound and such.  But we know the best situation is a priest as it is his very life to bring the sacraments to the laity.  So offer up as many of your Holy Communions as you can for more priests and solid ones, real men.  Real men are lacking everywhere.

BTW people, where was that Christ realy showed his anger…AT THE TEMPLE.

For Frank and others- I had to grab it with my teeth because it was going to fall to the ground otherwise. I did not rip it out of her hand. I was trying to describe an awkward moment in receiving on the tongue.

Jeff, please don’t feed the trolls.

Hopefully none of you who have an attitude about Eucharistic Ministers will ever need one in a hospital or when you are confined to a nursing home or to your sick bed at home.

Nobody ever NEEDS a Eucharistic minister. Sick people NEED the sacraments. Your comment displays the problem rather succinctly. Its not about you, its about the sacraments, which your hands have not been consecrated to distribute.

Oops, I left out a critical word in my comment above. I meant to say, “Blessed Mother Teresa was saddened about people NOT receiving on the tongue.” I’m sorry about that.

God bless!

Donna-Marie

@Sandmama: Correct, Sick people NEED the Sacraments, but it is the Priest and/or Eucharistic Minister who administers the Sacraments.

Head for the priest inasmuch as possible. Else, stick it out on the Cross as Jesus does. The two sides of Mass are sacrifice and resurrection. :-)

Thank you Sue for explaining to Sandmama that the Blessed Sacrament doesn’t just fly into the sick room by itself. 

Sorry Sandmama that I didn’t express myself correctly.  Of course you don’t need the EM in the hospital but people usually are grateful to have the EM bring in plain hands propelled by a dedicated heart what the Church entrusts the EM to bring.

I recall one of the most distracting/embarrassing moments on a Communion Line was from a priest. I closed my eyes, said Amen, opened my mouth to receive and spent what seemed like an eternity sticking my tongue out and waiting, waiting, waiting in a power struggle with the priest. I was distraught, distracted, and humiliated all at once. Apparently this priest decided to force me into reception in the hands. He eventually and reluctantly placed the Sacred Host on my tongue but I would never return to that church or forget that uncharitable inaction.

I am 5’9” and I used to end up with a EM who might have been 4’9”. I had to contort my body to receive on the tongue. I believe we have all had such moments. I am old enough to remember the Church promising us that there would always be a kneeler available after the altar rails were removed. Have not seen a kneeler since the late 60’s. It sure would beat the fantastic amount of reception postures I see even on EWTN.

When one receives Holy Communion in the hands, one must be particularlly careful, beacuse it was been proven that particles of the Sacred host stick to your hand, and fall to the floor anyway (if you’re not careful.
I would solve this problem by Receving from the Priest, or a Deacon if you could possibly help it.

To Henry:

It is true that we are often indifferent or unkind to people around us. Christ spent many times admonishing us to see Him in others.  However, this has been turned into another one of those “billy sticks” used to beat people into submission when it comes to criticizing clerical, liturgical, moral or theological abuses. I am quite capable of caring about those around me… God’s creatures; and simultaneously caring MORE—MUCH MORE—about He Who Created me, sustains me, gives me life, and hopefully gives me Eternal Life. We it not for the ever present will of the Holy Trinity, all would cease to exist and fall into nothingness. Trying to keep this in mind, I make myself always realize this when I come into physical proximity with this INFINITENESS each time I enter His churches and come close to Him, and I literally partake of the Godhead when I consume Him, or more accurately, He consumes me.

Sin is proportional to its object.

God is infinite, so indifference against Him is infinite, compared to indifference against one of His creatures, which though bad, is not even remotely infinite. The exception is when you specifically inflict indifference on another person precisely because you wish to be indifferent to God.

We are not immanentists. Creation, and creatures, should never be confused with or equated with its Creator.

Our God is a jealous God. The first three Commandments, and first seven choirs of Angels are dedicated SOLELY to Him and His concerns. Jesus is also quite clear later in His ministry, that He is the agent of our Salvation, that only by partaking of His Body and His Blood shall we have Him in us, and we in Him. Both hands to the plow at Mass, folks. First focus on Him. You know, the four ends: Adoration, Thanksgiving, Reparation, Petition.  Strange, those four ends make no mention of creatures. We come after Him. You put any human concern before Him and you have chosen something other than Him.

In fact, the charity you want me to display towards others exists solely because it is CHARITY - love of others for the sake of our love of God. I will have to humble, and ardently, disagree with you.

“Your focus here is misguided if the indifferences you speak of are acted out in church. That is all meaningless if we aren’t concerned, rather, about the indifferences he suffers, daily, in the way people on earth treat one another. Thy kingdom come won’t be accomplished when everyone is abiding by your rules at Mass. It will come when we honestly embrace one anoter as Jesus told us to.”

Quite the contrary. It is meaningless if you are concerned about indifference directed at creatures, and give yourself and everyone else a pass when indifferent towards our Creator, and how He is handled, approached, received, and consumed.  I am quite sad to see this persistent strain of apathy and relativistic indifference that I see on the responses of this article.

I understand now why the Holy Father’s personal mission has been to explain against, root out, and condemn the heresies and sins of relativism and indifference. It is the cornerstone of his pontificate, and now I better than ever understand why he believes it is such a profoundly virulent and pernicious cancer in the Body of Christ which is the Catholic Church.  If we cannot utterly humiliate and bring ourselves low in Adoration, Thanksgiving, Reparation and Petition when approaching the holy altar of the Lord, then we cannot bring ourselves to do anything else well.

I’m blessed, as is another poster up above, to have solid, orthodox, reverent Masses without EMHCs that I attend.  It’s not my neighborhood parish, but thank God I have a car to drive there.  Not everyone does and are “stuck” at their parishes, as poster Carol mentioned.

Danielle, I would suggest continuing to receive on the tongue but close your eyes while you do it.  If the EMHC is caught by surprise by your reception on the tongue, it’s because not enough parishioners are receiving this way.  What better way for her to learn eventually that this is a legitimate way to receive and SHE has to adjust, not you. If not, this is something to offer up. You are in my prayers.

As one who suffers from OCD/scrupulosity, I am troubled by those here who are trying to be “more Catholic than the Pope.”  The Church teaches that receiving on the tongue and in the hand are both valid, and EMHCs are a licit option.  Please don’t try to instill a false guilt in people for receiving in the hand or from an EMHC, when the Church has permitted them.  Years ago, before counseling and medication, some of these comments could easily have led me into almost debilitating guilt, doubt, fear, and anxiety, and I fear there are others who will be affected that way.

I’m sorry—I haven’t read all of the comments yet—but, Danielle, shouldn’t you speak up to your pastor at least?  Sounds like another solution (one that will affect your entire parish and not just you at communion time) is to re-train the EMHCs!

Why anyone would think recieving the Eucharist by the tongue instead of
the hand is more “appropriate” is beyond me. It even sounds superstitious.
When Jesus instituted the Eucharist he did not give the blessed bread
straight into the apostles mouths at the last supper. It would seem clear the apostles ate the Eucharist with their hands. The same applies
to the New Testament church. Nowhere is the practice of recieving the Eucharist straight into the mouth mentioned. Were adults,we can feed ourselves. As Vatican II reminds us “WE ARE THE CHURCH” the laity as well as the clergy. There is a priesthood of believers as Vatican II teaches in union with Peter who called believers a royal priesthood. As if Christ cares more about the hands than the person^s heart reciving him
in faith.

We are letting the fear of germs keep us from Christian behavior.  Not only is it making EM uncomfortable giving communion on the tongue but it is also affecting the sign of peace.  I can not tell you how many times people have not offered peace because they or my children had a cold.  We have to welcome people into our lives even if they have leprosy or a common cold.  You can always wash you hands!

Why am I not surprised to hear all these horror stories out there regarding the greatest thing in the Catholic Church (the Triune God in our Blessed Sacrament)? Read the book AA-1021 (the confessions of an anti-apostle)  There you will read about the infiltration of communist/free masons who deliberately went and became priests to destroy the Catholic Church from within.  Destroy the priesthood and its integrity, the sacredness of the confessional, the greatness of the Holy Eucharist.  I recently saw a program on a local Catholic channel an in it they stated that communion on the hand was at that time considered a HERESY and that the church authorities said that everyone should receive kneeling and on the tongue because….the belief in the true presence had pretty much left the minds of all catholics.  Well it is pretty much the same again.  Our vicar of Christ on earth, Pope Benedict must act soon.  The belief in the true presence has pretty much vanished.  The tabernacles are no longer the center of our churches.  People have started to worship each other instead of God and Jesus in the blessed sacrament which should be the summit and center of our faith.  When the priest faces the tabernacle…He and the people worship God.  It is a beautiful thing to see.  As that beauty fades and the loss of the true presence dwindles we continue to lose more and more catholics to the protestant sects.  As we continue to treat such a great gift from God in such an irreverent manner the world sees that we treat Him like it is NOT really HIM truly present in the Sacred Species.  Pope Benedict XVI must act and must act quickly before more damage is done by the freemasons.  Our priests are special that is why they are CHOSEN.  Chosen to give us the greatest thing we can ever receive.  Jesus (and where there is one so are the other two) THE TRIUNE GOD truly present in the Blessed Sacrament.  CITH SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN ALLOWED.  I have seen people dust off their hands after touching a bowlful of consecrated hosts.  I have seen people stand in the sacristy and eat consecrated hosts like they are potato chips.  I have seen so much abuse.  I have seen people chosen for such an important task as a Sacristan who treat HIM so irreverently (sadly even priests).  May God have mercy on the Catholic Church and upon its leaders.  Please pray for these people who forget that their example scream much louder than their words.  God Bless you all!

Kim, are you trying to illicit a particular response, or are you serious in your comment?  I find your comments disturbing for a Catholic, on several levels.

I’m sorry that you suffer from OCD, Buzz. I am not exclusively trying to “guilt” someone into not being an EMHC or receiving CITH. In a forum of answers like this, there isn’t a great deal of time to do what is called “consciousness raising” in rhetoric. I am simply trying to make people aware of the totality of what they are doing, and its effects, with EMHCs and CITH. It is a very big deal, and everyone needs to think about it more.

Scrupulosity is going to Confession every week and spending 30 minutes in the confessional when you haven’t even committed a grave sin. People who do not believe in Transubstantiation and the presence of the Living God in the Blessed Sacrament tend to accuse anyone who does believe of scrupulosity, superstition, judgmental-ism, being holier-than-thou, holier-than-the-Church, super-Catholics, or more-Catholic-than-the-Pope.

I’m sorry, I’ve seen all the different words thrown at me many times since I joined the Church 16 years ago, and I am immune to them, because they mean nothing… they are throwaway phrases that try to undermine legitimate argument, and legitimate discourse.

The Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar is the most important object in Creation, since it is not in fact creation anymore but the supersubstantial presence of the Creator within creation. God will not be mocked, and the lukewarm shall be vomited out on the Last Day.

I’m so glad this was bought up for discussion. Personally, when I was catechised in the early 70’s I was taught by humble and devout grandmothers to recieve reverently on the tongue. No other option. After returning to the Church in the late 90’s after a about a 10 yer exodus…I noticed people receiving in the hand. It seemed strange to me. Everything seemed strange. People other than priests doling out the Blessed Sarcrement, people taliking in Church, Churches with no statues or Tabernacles. etc. However, I tried it in the hand and it felt, at least to me, strange. I’ve heard all the arguments both ways and I feel the peer pressure to adapt. But as long as I’m allowed to, I’ll receive on the tongue. THe one arguement about “this is the way the Lord did it’, while may seem ‘biblically correct’, it doesn’t necessarily trump 2000+ years of legitimate Church history and organic growth. But its also not something I would judge my brother for either.

Look at the excessive number of comments this editorial got compared to IMPORTANT topics on this website. You people are all screwed up.

@Laura & others: I can hardly believe what you have seen in church! People actually eating the Host like potatoe chips? How do we worship each other in church? I have never heard of such things as you people talk about. Where is that “Chosen” Priest that you speak about. When I was in grade school, the Nuns taught us that the closest people to God on earth were priests.  Well I disagre with this. Priest may or may not have been “chosen” by God.  I have known devout priest and those that were not. I have seen priests who leave the priesthood because they got a woman pregnant or because they just wanted to get married because they were tired of being alone and lonely, and for other reasons. All I can say is, if all these things happen in your churches then your Pastor is to blame because he does not take a stand. I have been in a church where the Pastor had to “fight” the Pastoral Council, but in the end he was the leader of this church. A Priest is sent to a parish by the Bishop to LEAD.  So blame all this nonsense on your Pastor—-he is not doing his job!
Regardless of what you people say about “in the hand” or “on the tongue”, reverence comes from within. If you truly believe in the “True Presence” you will be reverent.  If not, your Pastor has a big job to do!
Also, things in past centuries were not all that great either. Don’t believe everything you read.  We CAN live in today’s world and be reverent, have respect and learn what Christ is all about. (Lax teachers?) Living in the past does not solve anything.

Preston… can you give a short list of what you think are important topics on the site? Thanks…

Thanks be to God, in our Church at St. Anthony, Temperance, MI, our priest always distributes Communion himself, with 2 Extraordinary Ministers distributing the Precious Blood of Jesus.  We have a small parish but adaquate attendance for 4 masses every weekend.  I have been to some churches where it takes so long for the priest to distribute Communion to the numerous EM’s that he could have given to several rows of people by that time.  I know that in big churches it may be necessary.  In those cases I walk to a line where a priest or decon is distributing.  As long as I am priveleged to recieve communion from the hand of a priest - I will always seek that out.

First, it’s not your problem if the EM cannot distribute on the tongue correctly.  You have a right to receive how you want and you already admitted: you prefer on the tongue.

Have you considered that God might be calling you to offer up the discomfort of the public attention of their mishandling of the eucharist when they distribute on your tongue?  If you can conclude that you might be called to received in the hand because of the confusion why not consider the idea that your physical witness - which includes the potential mishap - in receiving on the tongue is what God is calling you to do? Especially because you find it uncomfortable?  People who show this great reverence of the eucharist to the uncatechized who are at mass must be considered.

Also, please see this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiUqDa_Gzj0

I can’t help but recall the risen Christ tell Mary Magdalene - the very first human to hear the news of the resurrection! - “Do not touch me”.  And not too much later, He tells Thomas: touch me.  There’s a reason for the difference.  We are like Mary.  Priests are like Thomas. 

As for the “sanitary” concerns that one comment mentioned, the priest has at least run some water over his hands before his finger accidentally touches your mouth.  You just shook hands with strangers, some who are sick, others who just scratched themselves and have pieces of their dead skin under their nails, others who sneezed into their hands, or wiped their kids noses with their bare hands, etc. Those germs are now on your hands and you will ingest them.

I cannot believe the number of people on this blog who think that receiving the Eucharist from a priest is a privelege. THE “PRIVELEGE” IS RECEIVING THE “EUCHARIST”, the person who distributes the Eucharist is just God’s servant whether a Priest or a Eucharistic Minister or a Deacon. Some of you scurry to the Priest’s line? Are you honoring the Eucharist or the Priest?  [Is the priest the movie star?] Remember the Eucharist is the Body & Blood of Christ! How many people in our world today do not have the Eucharist. Some of our parishes in the U.S. do not have a priest. They do not have a Mass, they just have a Deacon or Eucharistic Minister serving the Eucharist to the parishioners.  Give thanks for what you have and don’t be so picayune.

It’s not the big deal you make it out to be, that is the solution is not, the rest is a big deal. Simple cue up in a line that ends with a priest. He may not want to serve you Communion on the tongue but he has to and he’s somewhat less likely to screw up like the majority of hopeless EMHC cases. You’ve no reason to give up the proper way. Use you head and your tongue. You’ll be fine and instead of wasting e-print you’ll be a good example to many people in person.

I am an EMHC and I have no problem at all with people receiving on the tongue.  I was commissioned by our Pastor on behalf of the Bishop to perform this ministry and I take it very seriously. As each person approaches, I place the Lord firmly into their hand (or on their tongue) and pray that God may grant them every grace and blessing.  After I place the ciborium back in the tabernacle, I rinse my fingers in the little receptacle of water that is placed there especially for this purpose, along with a small purificator cloth.  I do not take my ministry, nor my own reception of Holy Communion lightly.  As someone else stated here, I was asked to accept this ministry (by a priest who is retired and somewhat disabled and has a hard time navigating…)and I accept it in all humility asking for the assistance of the Holy Spirit each time.  It is quite a privilege and quite a responsibility, never to be treated irreverently. We are blessed beyond words to feast upon this sweet, holy Food that is Our Lord. What a beautiful sacrament.

I’m an EMHC.  Our training period is short, but it is clear and explicit.  It doesn’t take long to tell someone how to distribute the body and blood of Christ properly.  In the 15 years I’ve gone to this parish, we’ve had 3 priests (one for 13 of those years), and all have been very particular in how we handle communion.  There is no abuse.  The parishioners are very reverent.  We know what we are receiving.  We are reminded on a regular basis that communion is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. 

Only twice in 15 years have I seen a lack of reverence.  Both times from a teenage boy.  The first time, a boy grabbed the Eucharist and started to walk away, but the priest grabbed his arm and told him to consume.  The second time happened with me.  A teenage boy took the Eucharist rather forcefully from my hand rather than letting me place it in his hand.

I have nothing against EMHCs as long as they are trained well and have the ability to place the Eucharist on the tongue without being nervous or “grossed out” getting close to someone’s mouth.

The body and blood of our Lord, received in Communion, is the extraodinary gift left to us by our saviour.  it is his body and blood poured out for our redemption.  How do we honour that when we allow vitriol to enter the debate about consumption of same?  Don’t we fail to recognise that we are the receptacles of the in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit, also an extraodinary gift left to us by our saviour?  Of course reverence is due at communion, but reverence is also due to each other.  At this time, reception of the Holy Eucharist is permitted both ways.  It is also permissable for the Priest to face the congregation and for Mass to be said in the vernacular.  To vilify those whose choices differ from yours, but are no less directed by the Church, would seem to me to be Pharasical.  God only will judge.  My job is to see that I seek to honour the Lord in all I do.

I have never received communion on the tongue. I have been at Mass where most of the people attending have wanted communion on the tongue. By the time I got up to the Priest (not a lay person) his had was covered and dripping with saliva. That was not a good moment for me.
I don’t understand all the fuss about receiving it in the hand, for me it’s always been about how Jesus instituted this. I’m guessing he didn’t distribute his body and blood on the tongues of the disciples.

I’m with you Christine & Pete. Remember way back when, we did not take the Wine and all was fine. Then the Wine was introduced and most people accepted it. I don’t because, not only does wine make me ill, I don’t like drinking after anyone.  I do believe we should be careful with so many diseases that are around, aids, flu, t.b., etc. (I already know the answers to this one I will get on this one)  but I am a Great Depression child and my mother taught us NEVER to eat or drink after anyone, even amongst us siblings. As a result we were healthier.  Why do you think all the M.D.‘s offices have hand sanitizers all over, even the grocery stores. I have seen what the priest and EM do in the Sacristy and they are very careful about cleanliness.  I worked in the medical field and everyone is taught how to use the wash room, how to wash their hands and not touch the handle of the door with your clean hands, etc.  Some people don’t wash hands after using the bath room. I don’t shake hand either because of this but I do nod and wish the person next to me peace also because my hands are arthritic and it hurts to shake hands.  I think all these things are up to the individual person. Again, you can show reverence of the Blessed Sacrament in all kinds of ways.  I really believe that Jesus knows what is in one’s heart.

Dont give up Danielle. I receive on the tongue as well. And the reason behind it is that I feel that I am not worthy to touch the Body of Jesus with my unconsecrated hands - similar to what Jesus expressed to St. Mary Magdalene at His Ressurection. Obviously, that’s just me. The Church says receiving on the hand is fine. I partially agree with a recent poster, Jesus probably did not distribute Holy Communion on the Apostes tongues. However, the Apostles were consecrated followers of Jesus at that point so could take it in their hands, according to past Church teaching. As are all priests. Anyway, it is an honor for me to receive on the tongue, though I feel like a dying breed these days. Maybe Our Lord allowed this to happen to you to get others to consider back to the days when they received on the tongue, knowing that you are a writer..to make us all refresh our focus of what it is we are receiving.. to think more about His Sacrifice as opposed to how others might perceive us at Church..I dunno.

My family and I choose to receive communion only from the priest and only on the tongue. We seek out where the priest is distributing and go to him. First he blesses each of our children, who are no able to receive yet,(Extra Ordinary Ministers) don’t do that. Then he gives us (the parents) communion on the tongue. I don’t know if there are any or many others who receive on the tongue at my parish, I’ve yet to see them.

We go to a priest and receive on the tongue for many reason. First, we want to go to a priest so as not to have the situations that Danielle describes. We also want our children to see the priest come full circle with what he is doing during Mass…speaking the Word, consecrating the Word and distributing the Word made Flesh…he his in “persona christi”. We wait a little extra time to go to where the priest is. It’s our time to prepare. Our priority is to be as reverent as we can and to communicate that to our children. The emphasis on going to the priest and not touching the host other than to consume it focuses us and keeps the awesome reality of the body blood, soul and divinity of Christ front and center. The kids get that. They see the difference and so do we. We’ll be troubled to go out of our way because it’s worth the trouble.

Here is a WONDERFUL article from a fantastic, orthodox and quite funny priest, Fr. Richard Simon of Chicago, known as “Reverend-Know-It-All” and Host of “Go Ask Your Father” show on wonderful Catholic radio network www.Releventradio.com. It’s titled “Which is better, communion on the hand or on the tongue?” Please read. He has very good insights into this current dilemma.
http://www.rev-know-it-all.com/2008/2008—-02-03.html

Here is a WONDERFUL article from a fantastic, orthodox and quite funny priest, Fr. Richard Simon of Chicago, known as “Reverend-Know-It-All” and Host of “Go Ask Your Father” show on a wonderful Catholic radio network. It’s titled “Which is better, communion on the hand or on the tongue?” Please read. He has very good insights into this current dilemma.
http://www.rev-know-it-all.com/2008/2008—-02-03.html

Hey nutcases, Jesus doesn’t care how you receive him. It’s what you do after communion that concerns him. Read your Gospels.

Right on SteveH—I am with you on this:  Reverence is within each person—if you really believe that the Host is the Body & Blood of Christ, then you would be reverent. I still say it is up to the Pastor to give a good Homily on this subject of reverence for the Eucharist.  Remember, our Bishops were lax when it came to some(priests)in the past. SO PASTORS, TEACH YOUR CONGREGATION! Some of this starts with First Communicants. When I see them coming back from Communion with a sour, weird look on their faces, because they did not like the taste of wine, then why is it given to them? In the past, just the Host surficed?  Prepare these kids in the right way. We had an X-alcoholic visiting priest once and he let us know he was using grape juice.  Give the kids grape juice until they become adults or just the Host as in the past. Make First Communion a beautiful Sacrament for them.  Why is it so many in the world today, Church or Government have no common sense.  P.S. thanks Melissa, I found Fr. Simon on the internet, interesting, also he said the same thing about tongue or hand—it is the reverence that counts.

This is a copy of Fr. Simon’s conclusion—the whole article if very interesting.

Conclusion:
We have seen “Traditionalists” often misread history and misunderstand current practices. Some “Traditionalists” are more ignorant than others. Some real traditionalists will admit that yes, communion in the hand was a common occurrence traditionally and will also admit that liturgical law does allow the practice of receiving Our Lord by communion in the hand, but they just don’t like it being practiced the way that it is. This piece is not really aimed at those who make such admissions. However, in a too prevalent fashion some so-called “traditionalists” refuse to see the forest from the trees and ignore both history and real liturgical law. History shows that the practice of receiving communion in the hand was common. In both pre and even post-Nicene history people were allowed to carry it into their homes. There is no record of any Saint who forbade that or even hinted that it was an abuse to do such. We have records of Saints and Councils after the time of persecutions reporting on this without at the same time having any critiques of Our Lord being carried about in the hand by lay people who distribute Our Lord. Thus, in some sense there is more rigorousness now in the handling of Our Lord in the host now, than in the times of ancient Christian history. Where were the self-styled “Traditionalists” then? We have Saints and Councils permitting this, as we have seen. Those who call practice of receiving communion in the hand ‘vulgar’ call these Saints and Councils “vulgar”

Do we think that this practice is great in the way that it is practiced now? Not necessarily so, in light of some sense of the loss of the Sacred in our day. But the Church has undoubtedly granted this permission. Jesus said to both Peter and later of the apostles this: Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Mt. 16:18, 18:18). We have seen that Pope Paul VI granted this permission and Pope John Paul II has given further instructions which allows it. Liturgical law does allow this practice despite what some say. It is in not in our authority to forbid that which is permitted. Now of course both popes who have given this allowance have emphasized that this is to be done in a reverential fashion, and the practice of receiving on the tongue is and still must be an option for all who partake. We ourselves receive on the tongue. However, it is Pharisaical, and untraditional, to lambaste others who receive communion in the hand just because they receive Our Lord in that fashion. Any abuse that happens, we likewise condemn with the Holy Father. Nevertheless, it is a traditional practice, and one is permitted to do so, according to the explicit instructions of the Holy Father. In the United States it remains the option of the Communicant, per the instructions of the Holy Father, not the option of self-styled “Traditionalists” who tell us otherwise.

I simply have to ask: why are Catholics so dumb sometimes? For centuries and centuries Catholics have received on the tongue. Now, all of the sudden, in this modern age where people can’t even wash lettuce! they can’t figure out or manage even the simpliest task??? It isn’t rocket science people—thank God Catholics aren’t in charge of NASA or anything remotely important in the physical world because you would think moving a host to someone’s mouth is advanced physical chemistry.

Oh, dear Jesus—give us the strength to deal with such nonsense.

@ChaiMaiXiang: Not true—in the early Church some people kept the Eucharist in their own homes & some travellers took the Host with them.
People have taken on the tongue and in the hand at different times for centuries—-THE CUSTOMS FOR THE EUCHARIST WAS ACCORDING TO THE TIMES. Why do some Catholics hate “changes” in the Church. There is one religion today who still stone people, they will not accept change—they think sharia is good. (Christ was NAILED to the cross—heads were guillotined) We live in today’s world and how come at age 83 I can accept change; and most of you are definitely much younger and you cannot accept the changes the POPE has made.  The Pope, now said either way is right—-IT IS THE REVERENCE & WHAT IS IN YOUR HEART THAT COUNTS. Just obey the Pope (our leader on earth) and all will be fine. Chai, if you like receiving on the tongue do so, the Pope said it is okay. I prefer the hand and the Pope said that is okay too.  Yes Chai, I wash my lettuce because I do not trust big vats of washed lettuce and also NASA has made their mistakes even tho there may or may not be Catholics there. Hey, there are Catholics in Washington now who are making big boo-boos.

Danielle Bean really started something, and, by it “revealed the hearts of many.”  Truly great job, Danielle.

The posting from Father Richard Simon is the best of all.  How Christ distributed the Eucharist to the Apostles can’t be in question.  They were the first priests.

What is truly sad is that many Catholics have not idea what they are receiving.  I teach basic faith to Catholic adults.  When I speak of the Eucharist being the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, our Savior, the Son of God and God the Son, it is as if a burning bush had suddenly popped up in the classroom.  They express amazement.  They say, “I did not know that,” and they are not being facetious.  Perhaps the solution is for good priests to spend many Sundays on this subject until it penetrates the minds of the largest numbers.  I think there may be hope that attitudes and behaviors may change.
- Show quoted text -

On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 11:20 AM, National Catholic Register <webmaster@ncregister.com> wrote:

  Someone just responded to the entry you subscribed to at:
  Blogs

  The title of the entry is:
  Why I’m Giving Up Communion On the Tongue

  You can see the comment at the following URL:
  http://www.ncregister.com/blog/why-im-giving-up-communion-on-the-tongue/

  I simply have to ask: why are Catholics so dumb sometimes? For centuries and
  centuries Catholics have received on the tongue. Now, all of the sudden, in
  this modern age where people can’t even wash lettuce! they can’t figure
  out or manage even the simpliest task??? It isn’t rocket science
  people—thank God Catholics aren’t in charge of NASA or anything remotely
  important in the physical world because you would think moving a host to
  someone’s mouth is advanced physical chemistry.

  Oh, dear Jesus—give us the strength to deal with such nonsense.

  To stop receiving notifications for this comment, click here:
  http://www.ncregister.com/?ACT=2&id=36176

—
“I am the living bread which came down from heaven.  If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.”                                     

                            John 6:51-52 (Douay-Rheims translation)

Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.  But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice.  For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.
          1 Corinthians 11:27-29 (Douay-Rheims translation)

“I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity… It is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better.”
                                                        Martin Luther

Yours in Christ and His ever-Virgin Mother,

Gina Nakagawa

—Putting “traditionalists” in quotes throughout a response leaves something to be desired. It would be as if I referred to them only as “Father” in quotes, or referred to others following this thread as novus ordo “Catholics” (which I’ll remind you I attend both Masses, and recently more the new than the old) and it doesn’t seem right to refer to an entire demographic of the Church “in quotes.”
—I don’t like the word “traditional” or “traditionalist” anyway—I’m just Catholic. You wouldn’t have known me from Adam 75 or 175 or 575 or 1275 years ago.  On the word tradere—root of the word tradition. It is the Latin verb “to hand on that which has been handed to you” which last I heard was THE definition of a Christian.  Being Catholic IS being traditional, not liberal or conservative. Those are post enlightenment political terms; they aren’t Catholic.
—Most Catholics should be knowledgeable enough about Church history to know that a great number of things, including Communion under both species and Communion in the hand, were both norms in the early Church up through the first millennium. As the Church approached the end of the first millennium, however, the problems with both of these practices became increasingly evident, as witnessed by texts and histories of the time. In this time transubstantiation, as a definitive term, came into existence during the period of controversy that arose with Berengarius of Tours’ denial that the bread and wine at Mass was made into the true Body and Blood of Christ.  Later proto-Protestants began denying a person received Communion unless it was both species, after the Church stopped administering the chalice. This is the heresy of Ultraquism.
—Skipping to recent history—Cardinal Suenens of Belgium was the first to introduce Communion in the Hand, with complete contempt of rubrics issued by the Holy See. Pope Paul VI decided to allow it universally, instead of rebuking his brother bishop, but in doing so left it to each bishop whether to allow it or not.  Not surprisingly, as soon as Pope Paul allowed the OPTION, it became the de facto standard as diocese after diocese caved like dominoes and began allowing it.  This is a matter of history, not supposition.
—My contention is that defiance of Church law and practice does not constitute good fruit, and the COLLAPSE of belief in Transubstantiation to less than 25% by Catholics in the western world, with commensurate Mass attendance figures collapsing, gives witness that CITH is not good fruit and has been all but poisonous to the Body of Christ.
—I think Father Simon is ignoring the history of the practice’s reintroduction so that he can appeal to antiquarianism—that the Church did it in the past so therefore it is preferred and acceptable to do it now. It was a practice that existing for quite some time, and developed problems large enough to get rid of it, and now’s it’s back by an act of defiance.
— From Saint Thomas Aquinas: “The dispensing of Christ’s Body belongs to the priest for three reasons. First, because, as was said above, he consecrates in the person of Christ. But as Christ consecrated His Body at the Supper, so also He gave it to others to be partaken of by them. Accordingly, as the consecration of Christ’s Body belongs to the priest, so likewise does the dispensing belong to him. Secondly, because the priest is the appointed intermediary between God and the people, hence as it belongs to him to offer the people’s gifts to God, so it belongs to him to deliver the consecrated gifts to the people. Thirdly, because out of reverence towards this Sacrament, nothing touches it but what is consecrated, hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament. Hence it is not lawful for anyone else to touch it, except from necessity, for instance, if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency.”
—I’ll close this comment reiterating what I said before. It is my belief that anyone who diminishes the singular importance of the Triune God present in the Most Holy Sacrament of the altar, or to a much lesser degree tries to paint me and other Catholics as Pharisaical, judgmental, scrupulous, rigid, intolerant, holier-than-thou, more-catholic-than-the-pope, superstitious, or thinks that Jesus is just alright with whatever we do—— either “just doesn’t get it,” has a defective understanding of the Church’s belief, or knowingly denies the Truth.
—Another good article: http://www.ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/EXTRMIN.HTM

Please, eucharistic ministers, take a couple of minutes and read Memoriale Domini, which unfortunately gave you the right to distribute Holy Communion.  Please note that you have that right only in “extraordinary circumstances.”  Daily Mass is not “extraordinary circumstances.”  Please sit down and let Father do the heavy lifting. Hopefully he is trained to distribute Holy Communion reverently on the tongue, in which case this issue - which has exposed the Real Presence to irreverence worldwide - would for the most part go away where it belongs.

Oh, thank you for writing this.  I have had the same problem, the same thinking.  I feel like a hypocrite, and I would avoid Masses where I could not receive on the tongue, but, that is an insult to the Lord.

Unfortunately, most priests struggle with Communion on the tongue as well.  I think it may be the posture.  In the EF, we are kneeling.  When we stand, it makes it awkward to receive that way.  I used to kneel for our priest, but, he was in a scooter.  Most priests don’t stand for that.

I have had it even pop off my tongue and start rolling, me chasing it down the aisle, grabbing it and putting it in my mouth.  Much less dignified than receiving it in the hand.  Can’t anything be easy?

This is becoming a larger issue for faithful Catholics.  Unfortunately for many of us, the vast majority of priests and laity ignore the specific directions and instructions of the documents that allowed this indult in the first place, including Memoriale Domini and Immensae caritatis. I for one have come to believe that the Church is doing a miserable job of protecting the Real Presence.  For a quick read of what these documentss said, check out the “Rome” tab on www.communion-in-the-hand.org

distribution of Holy Communion on the tongue is simple.  Hold the host between your thumb and index finger.  Turn your wrist so that you turn over the host and your index finger in on top when placing the sacred host on the communicant’s tongue.  Simple and you never touch the communicant’s tongue.  So simple and yet so many EMHC miss that gesture and their trainers don’t even think of it because they are under the impression that the norm is to receive communion in the hand. NO….the norm has never changed….receive on the tongue.  It is up to us to say something.  Do not give up just because someone has not been trained correctly.

I read where one of the apparitionist from a well know Marian site, said Our Blessed Mother told her she would prefer we receive Her Son out of Respect for HIM on our Tongue.

That enough for me.  I am not going to let an EM change my mind for their sake.

Jesus is very offended when you receive Him in your hand, even though they say it is OK. You should receive communion from a Priest only ,there hands are consecrated by God not anyone else’s! John Paul ll stated this when he was alive!

The answer is to never receive from a eucharistic minister. I will receive only from a priest. An EM’s hands are not ordained. End of story.

The Dutch Bishops were responsible for starting the practice of Communion in the hand. That said, during the Protestant Reformation Cramer started Communion in the hand, as the Protestants did not believe in Tran-
substantiation and the consecration of the priests hands in Holy Orders.
Our Blessed Mother and many saints have revealed through private revealation that Communion in the hand is offensive to Our Lord.
It opens the door for many abuses, including particles of the host getting on ones person or the floor. Christ is in every particle of the host! Most Catholics today accept whatever the clergy come up with, unfortunately many are masonic or communists and are not for Christ!
How do you think the one world religion and the apostacy will come about?
One final thought:  Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion were to be used according to Pope John Paul II ONLY when the number going to communion were so large as to take an excessive time to give out communion. Obviously here in the US, the Bishops ignore Rome and have their cast of Thousands on the altar, which takes a lot of time to give communion to each one…..

PLEASE stop receiving from the Extra Ordinary Ministers! I make it a point to sit where I can easily cross over to receive from a Priest, a right we all have. Most of the time the Priest is distributing Communion in my isle & I thank my Guardian Angel for that but sometimes I must cross over, most people are very accomodating to let me cut in line.  Don’t give up on receiving on the tongue & STOP receiving from the Euchie’s!  They shouldn’t be there anyway!

It has been as source of some puzzlement to me for many years now why we even have Extraordinary Ministers at most Masses. For more than 40 years we have been told that the number attending Mass have fallen dramatically. If the priests could handle the “pre-fallen” number of communicants, why can’t they handle the much lower number now?

I have no hesitation in crossing the line to receive communion from a priest. And I am not alone in this. I have attended Mass in many parishes where there is a significant number of people who swap from the EMHC line to the one where the priest is distributing communion.

The original intention of having EMHC was for those occasions where the Mass would be unduly prolonged if there were not others to distribute communion. It was NEVER intended to become a daily occurrence. In fact, rather than shortening the Mass, it usually prolongs it because the priest has to sort out the EMHCs before being free to come and give communion to the regular faithful.

I still receive on the tongue from a priest and, God willing, will do so till i die.

I am in my mid 40’s.  A priest once told me to receive Communion on the tongue as an act of reparation against the offenses committed on the Holy Eucharist.  I have great respect for that priest.  It has been approximately 20 years that I have received solely on the tongue and I will continue to do so.  If I can receive from a priest, as many have stated, I will.  If not, I still receive on the tongue.  It is most important to me that Jesus is respected.

In my experience the EMHC’s actually do a better job of giving communion on the tongue than the priests do.
On another note:  One problem that the priest and EMHC has is that everywhere I go they are standing level with those who are receiving.  I was raised in the post V2 church, but in my youth and as an altar boy the priest was always one step above those who are receiving.  I was under the impression that this was done in order to keep the Holy Eucharist elevated above all (out of respect).  But I can also see where this would make communion on the tongue easier, since one is not placing sideways onto the tongue, but from above onto the tongue.

I don’t know if this has already been stated, but Pope Benedict himself has clearly stated that the Holy Eucharist should be received both kneeling and on the tongue.  Our actions help form our interior belief and faith - kneeling down and receiving on the tongue is a physical reminder of the immensity of the situation we are in every time we are privileged to receive Our Lord!

I was visiting a different parish Last Christmas and I was so thankful when Pope Benedict was safe after the incident that happened Christmas Eve, that I went up to the Priest, kneeled and stuck out my tongue to receive Holy Communion.  The priest refused to give me Holy Communion and told me that I would have to “go to the woman if I wanted to receive on the tongue”.  I can’t tell you how devistated I was that a Priest would do this to anyone.  It was embarrassing enough to humble myself to kneel, but then to be refused was horrible.  I got up, went to “the woman” and put my tongue out to receive the body and blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ.  Then I went home and prayed for the soul of that so called priest.

The whole idea of receiving Jesus in our hands has opened up many instances of abuse. Pocketing Jesus and walking out of mass with Him is the main abuse. I will receive on the tongue from an ordained priest or deacon. It’s not a matter of being “reasonable”, it’s about being reverent. No where did I see reverence mentioned in the article.

“On January 29th 1973, an Instruction was issued by the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship that authorised the introduction of Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist called Immense Caritatis. This document does not grant some revolutionary indult for any and every parish to permit lay people (including Nuns) to administer Communion, it authorises the use of extraordinary ministers in CASES OF GENUINE NECESSITY which are listed as:

* When there is no priest, deacon or acolyte. * When these are prevented from administering Holy Communion because of another pastoral ministry or because of ill health or advanced age. * When the number of the faithful requesting Holy Communion is such that the celebration of the Mass or the distribution of the Eucharist outside Mass would be unduly prolonged.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/extmin.htm

How bout a compromise: only the priest and deacon distribute. The peeps line up on an alter rail, and recieve either way…

My solution?

I only receive communion from the priest. If necessary I will move to the other side of the Church to get into the line that leads to the priest.

I am sick of the following from EMHCs:

Perfume on the hands, such that when you say AMEN you get a gulp full of scent in your mouth with the real presence. Yuck!

Also, I have seen the blessed sacrament lifted before my eyes by EMHC’s with the words, “The Body of Christ” and all I can see before me are the black grime embedded underneath the EMHC’s fingernails. Gross!

Or how about when I go to communion with by infant in my arms. After receiving the Blessed Sacrament, the EMHC gives the motions over my child of a blessing as if she were a priest or deacon able to give ministerial blessings.

So I have resolved to just get out of the line where there are EMHC’s and look for the priest.

Except, when we are at the local church where the pastor will refuse me communion on the tongue. There I look for the EMHC’s!

No compromise when it comes to the Real Presence, ever.  That’s how we got into this mess in the first place.  The Church must protect the Holy Eucharist,first and foremost, at all costs, and has failed miserably.  I encourage everyone to check out www.communion-in-the-hand.org - it’s all there.

Eucharistic ministers are only to be used if no priest is available. Period.

I live in Las Vegas. Churches are usually packed at every mass. We only have 29 priests here to serve us all. They’re doing their best. They always need assistance. And very VERY often, people are getting out of those lines and into the priest’s line. Man, I can’t begin to tell you how wonderful that is for me. So don’t give up hope yet! I am seeing so many veiled women in church as well! Just wonderful. There are EMHC’s who prefer to receive on the tongue themselves. They know what to do. Watch for them. But as others have said, their hands are not consecrated. So why go to them? People who make no thought of going to them are also the people who come into church very late, and leave immediately after getting their host. Like grabbing the ring on a Merry-Go-Round. It’s so sad!

Believe me, it is not just EMHC. I have had a priest to toss, yes toss, the sacred body of Christ into my mouth. It is tossed as you are tossing a biscuit to a dog. I generally receive Eucharist on the hand from this priest. Unfortunately, of our shepherds can use a little training in this area as well.

Who is it we receive in the Eucharist? Don’t put your reverence aside for Jesus. The communion in the hand started with the Dutch bishops telling Pope John Paul II in response to his letter asking them not to distribute communion in the hand-‘we will not serve.” The approved apparition in Japan at Kibeho Our Lady ‘s statue started bleeding from the hand and she informed the seer that it was because of the many offences of communion in the hand. Serve Our Lord not the Eucharistic ministers who are ‘extraordinary” and should not be there. They ususlly make us wait as they receive in the hand and then from the Chalice.Stick to your guns for Christ.

Well now, it seems that the Church believes that when the sperm fertilizes the ovum, life begins. LIFE GIVEN TO US BY GOD. I was told many years ago that our bodies were the Temple of the Holy Ghost (now we use Spirit). So if God created us what is the difference between the tongue and the hands. I take it in the hand, it goes on my tongue, it melts, I swallow, it goes through the esophogus and into the stomach and so on. The Host touches my whole insides.  I just do not understand this argument. REVERENCE IS THE ANSWER
There are many complaints about the hand, like dropping it or putting it in your pocket, etc. How about taking on the tongue and chewing it and getting it between your teeth.  REVERENCE IS THE ANSWER.  Evidently our Pastors do have a big job ahead of them.  I have never seen in my parish, what you people describe, and I have lived in 5 states.  How rude to your fellow parishioner to deliberately walk to the priest’s line. He has EM’s for a good reason. You are suppose to be a spiritual family in your parish. Don’t be rude to one another.  USE REVERENCE WITH ONE ANOTHER ALSO.

I also only go to the Priest for Communion.  An Extraordinary Minister was meant just for that, Extraordinary circumstnaces, when a Priest is not available, such as for the sick or homebound.

I woul not generalize and say that all Extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist, don’t know how to properly dispense Holy Communion on the tongue. It may be a problem unique to certain parishes where they are not properly trained or to individual persons who are nervous or whatever. I have been an EM since 1986 and have not seen this problem at my parish or any other local parish that I have been to, nor have I had this problem.

To the faithfilled receiver’s, As a Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion we are instructed by the pastor on how they wish us to distribute. Every where is different. My last pastor said the congregation need to receive by hand. If you don’t wish to recieve the Blood, the proper gesture is to take the cup and raise it up slowly and then down and back to the minister.It is the reverence shown that counts. It can be confusing. Also if I could put a plug in for reverencing the Tabernacle,when passing, If you cannot genuflect with your right knee, please stop and bow as you are walking by Jesus. Please mention this to your children and remind all in a loving way. We are on sacred ground when we enter a church. It is not the market place. I come to prepare myself for mass early and kneel before the Tabernacle. I am fortunate that I can drown out the fever pitch of talking that happens before mass.We should silence our hearts and listen for Jesus to speak to us. He will if you ask. You just have to be willing to listen for Him to answer.He Loves us more than we will ever know here on earth. Abundant Blessings. Keep coming to the Lord. He will never steer you wrong!

Why not become a Eucharistic Minister?  It changed my life!  Try it you will like it and in a serious moment of crisis,  that will be your strength

Why not become a Eucharistic Minister?  It changed my life!  Try it you will like it and in a serious moment of crisis,  that will be your strength.

Another reason I never go to communion when Unnecessary Ministers of Communion are present.  Often I’m the only one remaining behind in the pew.

At least the longing makes me attend daily mass more frequently where this kind of nonsense can be avoided

I also receive Holy Communion on the tongue and will seat myself so as not to receive from an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion. I prefer to recieve from the priest and have changed lines. When this causes an awkward situation I will receive in the hand and then check for any particles of the Eucharist that may remain there.Receiving in the hand has led to abuse and irreverence.

Re:  COMMUNION IN THE HAND:  Mother Theresa was asked one time what the greatest sin in the world was and she replied “COMMUNION IN THE HAND!”

In MEMORIALE DOMINE Pope Paul VI states that the traditional manner of receiving the host on the tongue should remain because of the dangers that would occur in giving the Host in the hands.  His instructuions were ignored,  Rev. Peter Stravinskas writes a column called The Catholic Answer in which he states that Pope John Paul II does not favor Communion in the hands for a variety of reasons, not least of which is, that the universal law forbids it.  He has done it himself on occasion to avoid controversy at the altar, but has made it clear to national hierarchies where he visits, of his desire for peoploe receiving from him, to receive on the tongue.  In the Vatican Newspaper, 1970, ‘OSSERVATORE ROMANO”, it stated that the U.S. Bishops did not give ‘Communion in the hands, a majrotiy vote and rejected it.  A referendum organized in St. Louis by diocesan Liturgical commission, 71% opposed Communion in the hand. 
INAESTIMABLE DONUM. .  It is not permited that the faithful should themselves pick up the Consecrated Host and the Sacred Chalice.  The Bishops have given us the option of receiving on the tongue or in the hand.  The resposibility and decision is yous.  For those having no prior knowledge of the Holy Father’s desire and of Our Lady to retain Communion on the tongue and not in the hand—remember Our Lady’s words ‘ASK PARDON AND DO NOT DO IT AGAIN’

Dear fellow Catholics, if you experienced a Eucharistic miracle you would change your minds about reception in the hand.
Read the book “Eucharistic Miracles of the World ” in which Carlo Acutis’ name is mentioned in the foreword by Cardinal Burke.

Viva Cristo Rey.

TW

DO NOT GIVE UP YOUR SPIRITUALITY… IF YOU PREFER OUR LORD ON THE TONGUE… RECEIVE IT…

Now why are you going to take communion in the hand Danielle?...to be humble?  I had a reconversion back to my beautiful catholic faith in 1975 and have never taken in the hand, not becase of pride, but because of research and finding that receiving on the tongue directly is the preferred way of our church for the faithful to take Holy Communion, and because I never felt the Holy Spirit directing me otherwise. You can look at this another way, “offer up” the aggravation when someone who should know how to give communion on the tongue properly, does not. The church allows both ways, do what you feel is the best for you, but I would not change because someone else is irreverant or ill trained. I don’t want to be judgemental, but some who give out communion do not look kindly on the ones that take communion on the tongue.  Maybe if more people took communion on the tongue, more EHMCs and some of our dear priests also would learn a bit faster how to properly distribute communion on the tongue….how hard can it be?  God Bless you and your family and Merry Christmas too.

This is for Sue:

It is true and I do know that even in the earliest days of the Church, communion was received in the hand. However, the long-standing tradition—and this is much longer than the practices at the very inception of the Church—is to receive on the tongue. It is a simple fact that this was the long-standing tradition. The reforms really brought so much confusion as to how to show a proper regard for Christ….you will know them by their fruits. That is why I cling fast to our traditions.

Believe me, I would not suddenly attack someone if I saw them receive on the hand—I know many good friends and family who do this, however, this does not negate the fact that I, in my humble opinion, (I am sorry I had a bit of a snide attitude in the earlier post) that the argument presented by Mrs. Bean that due to the fact that she has seen problems with communion on the tongue means that she is going to give it up is sort of like saying because it is painful when I give birth, I won’t give birth again OR because I cooked my husband dinner and I burned the stuffing that I won’t cook stuffing any more. What we need is education and a real effort to show respect and to have the greatest regard for our traditions as stated that we must in the Holy Scriptures.

In the end, Mrs. Bean gave us plenty to think about. I just would like to see Catholic be more robust and not wimp out because something appears a little too difficult. Christ could have said, I thought I was going up there on that cross, but I just decided it is just too much sweat and tears—something to think about.

I disagree.  Christ should be received on the tongue.  No compromises should be made for others’ inadequacies.  We should show Him the respect He deserves and receive Him on the tongue.

This is thought-provoking article and I thank you for writing it. I am very lucky to attend a parish at which all three, Dominican priests attend every mass to distribute communion and even when I do receive from an extraordinary minister, the Dominican priests have trained them very well. At my last university parish almost every single student received on the tongue and there was no problem.

One suggestion though that a lot of my friends use is to sit at a place in the church where you know you will be in the line that the priest is administering - if the priest can’t do it reverently, then I have no advice! :)

God bless you!

I once was in line behind a priest who received communion in front of me. He received it in his hand and after he did, he took the host and kissed it.  I thought how beautiful that was. So here is a great opportunity for us to give Jesus a kiss and so I now look at receiving communion in the hand as my opportunity to give Jesus a kiss.  It feels so wonderful to express my love for Him in this way.  This is something I wouldn’t be able to do if I received Him on my tongue.

To Janice: Mother Teresa never said that.

To everybody: priests make these same mistakes. It is not uncommon for me to get the priests hand or finger on my lip or tongue, and that feels very uncomfortable. One priest slammed the host into my teeth. And most parishes do not routinely provide an assistant to the priest to hold a paten under the mouth of a person receiving on the tongue.

Furthermore: exactly how are our sick to receive Holy Communion if we stop using EMHC? Our parish sends ministers to them in nursing homes, and they will go months without receiving if we cancel EMs.

Finally: have you heard our Holy Father state recently that he has both administered and received Holy Communion both ways—that includes in the hand? I really do not understand all the scrupulosity over this. Our mouths are far more contaminated, both literally and figuratively, than our hands, and for many centuries Catholics received in their hands. I can’t help but be reminded of the warnings about straining a gnat and swallowing a camel. Isn’t it supposed to be what’s in our heart?

Kudos Todd Drain.  Your explanation was right on!

Sue you need to educate yourself…you are clearly speaking from the flesh.  Continue on your search for the fullness of truth.

God Bless you all!

I wholeheartly agree with those who advocate getting in the communion line where the priest is. Also, after much reading of transcripts from “old school” exorcists, the demons have (under prayers & spiritual command)admitted that the evil one HATES it when we receive in the hand. I also strongly agree that we need to bring back the altar rails so we can KNEEL (satan hates that, too - by the way) when we receive on the tongue. AMEN!!!!!

This is a true story that happened to me during the summer of 2008.  I prefer receiving the Most Blessed Sacrament on the tongue; however, this particular weekend Mass was our new Pastor’s first weekend Mass.  I decided (foolishly) that I would receive our Lord’s Body Blood Soul and Divinity not on the tongue as usual, but rather in the hand.  I decided this so as not to “give away” my orthodox Catholic leanings to my new Pastor…I didn’t want him stereotyping me.  Bad bad decision.  Since I usually sit in one of the first two front pews for Mass, I’m often the first to get in line for Holy Communion and indeed I was first in line on this particular weekend.  At this Mass I approached the new Pastor with arms outstretched with the left hand cupped to receive the Eucharist.  After the Eucharist was placed in my left hand I used the right hand to retrieve our Lord, and bring Him to my mouth…only to find to my dismay, that the Holy Eucharist was nowhere in sight!  People were right behind me, eager for our Lord, and wanting to move on.  I quickly looked down to the floor and to my left/right…the Holy Eucharist was no where in sight.  I had to procede and return to my pew without partaking in Jesus’ real presence.  The Host was not on the floor and seemed to disappear into thin air….until it dawned on me…could it be possible that in transfering the Blessed Host from my hand to my mouth I had dropped the host via my cleavage space into my bra????  With great care so as not to draw attention to myself, I discretely assessed the situation by lowering my eyes….and sure enough, the Consecrated Host was nestled in my bra. “Yikes!”  I did not reach for it for obvious reasons…but I remember thinking “Oh My Lord Jesus, this is no place for you!”  I had to wait until the completion of the Mass, when I was sure I was alone, to retrieve the Holy Eucharist and consume it reverently.  And so, my attempt at the reception of Holy Communion by the hand truly backfired at that weekend Mass.  Now, I realize Our Dear Lord Jesus had many different places during His earthly lifetime to lay his sweet head and rest…a bed of hay in a manger in Bethlehem, in a fishing boat tossing and turning upon the wreckless storm waves; against a rock in the garden of Gethsemine…but one thing is certain…being dropped unintentionally into a woman’s bra is no place for Jesus!  I said to myself after that ordeal: “Teresa, that’s what you get for receiving Holy Communion in the hand…from now on, receive Him on the tongue.” So, while there is sure a lot of humor in this true story, I’ve decided I should not care whether or not my Pastor likes the idea of communicants receiving on the tongue or whethor or not he is “orthodox or liberal” or “left or right”...I should receive my Lord Jesus in the most reverent way and for me, that way is on the tongue.  God’s blessing to everyone.

Our Holy Father wants people to receive from him kneeling and on the tongue.  I believe he is inspired by Our Lord himself in this.  I have never ever felt comfortable receiving in the hand and never will.  I would just go to the priest or a different Eucharist Minister if this happened to me.  God bless you all.
Fran Sullivan

The most reverent way to receive the Eucharist in the Catholic Church, is, on the tongue, kneeling, and only off of the Priest. This is the way to show a Just Love for Jesus. Communion in the Hand was started by the Lutherans.

I’m disappointed in you Danielle.  Surrender should not be your option.  I, too, receive the Sacred Host on my tongue.  Why didn’t you speak to your pastor about those abuses.  If someone wants to be an EMHC (except for carrying Christ to the sick, an unnecessary ministry and just another Vatican 2 novelty introduced in the name of “ecumunism” to appease the Protestants like adding the Protestant ending to the Our Father), why haven’t they been trained on how to give Holy Communion on the tongue, which is, in fact, the normal method in the universal Church?

I’m glad to see you came to a sensible conclusion in your attitude to receiving the Eucharist. As Eucharistic Minister, I can tell you that trying to place a host on someone’s tongue is not always an easy thing. Some people do not open their mouth wide enough -am I supposed to “sneak” it in there?, they close their mouth too soon almost trapping our fingers, or risk contaminating our fingers with their excess saliva. It doesn’t matter one bit if a priest or an EM distributes Our Lord…it is still the Body and Blood of Christ. Oh, yeah BTW, about 10% of people actually respond with “Amen”. We are there simply to assist the priest so Communion doesn’t take an hour to distribute to the congregation. Stop being so “icky picky"on the form and worship the “Substance”.

The problem is that priests should give out communion, not Extraordinary Ministers. They are called “extraordinary” for that reason. Unfortunately they are too ordinary a part of the Eucharistic Liturgy in the Western Church; no wonder priestly vocations are a big problem in the Western Church. Why be a priest when you have the same privileges as a “Eucharistic Minister” without the sacrifice.

I haven’t had time to read all of the responses so forgive me if this has already been said, but why would anyone receive communion on the tongue from a Eucharistic minister in the first place? The idea of communion on the tongue is that the host is not touched by unconsecrated hands, not that it is simply more respectful to receive it on the tongue!

The Holy Father is setting the example. Follow him.

As Anne Roche Muggeridge mentioned in her book ” The Desolate City”, “Don’t let the !@#$% drive your out!”
Become an “aisle crosser.” I have, even if it means taking circuitous route to get to the priest.tg

I am an EMHC.  I am comfortable distributing communion on the tongue and routinely have a couple of dozen communicants in my line who receive communion on the tongue.  When I am finished distributing communion, I purify my fingers in the ablution bowl.  I wonder if the op can properly purify her hands after receiving communion on the hand? 

Haven’t you read that a prostitute cried on Jesus’ feet and wiped them with her hair?  Do you think our Lord loathes the touch of His children who are called to be EMHC?  I think you need to recall that we are a royal priesthood and that Our Father loves us all.  Also, we might try to be a little more forgiving when EMHC’s make mistakes.

Finally look at the life of Saint Tarcisius.  He was martyred taking communion to the sick.  Even the very early church had EMHC!  Blessings and peace to all.

Communion in the hand was the one innovation that most troubled Mother Teresa. 

By taking Communion in the hand, the person makes Jesus wait before being consumed.  Yes, that short amount of time between receipt in the hand and placing on the tongue makes Jesus wait.  I would ask, “Is it proper for a servant to make his King wait?”

Next, Jesus’ hands were nailed to the cross showing that our hands needed to be redeemed by His sacred wounds because people sin with their hands. Our hand are not clean because we still use them to sin in countless ways. Our hands are not consecrated either-only a priest’s hands are consecrated.  Thus, it is not proper to touch the Eucharist with unclean hands.

So, why would we want to honor the Jesus by receiving Him on our sin-stained hands, and making Him wait to sanctify us? 

If the early Church tradition was to receive on the tongue, we must ask, “What was a deep spiritual truth concealed in this practice? Why have we forgotten this today?  Has materialism grown to such an extent that we can no longer see this spiritual truth?” 

People and priests suffer in purgatory for both receiving and giving communion on the tongue.  Very soon this disrespectful practice will end once the conscience of humanity is illuminated by the Holy Spirit and the great error is recognized. 

My family receives communion on the tongue in reparation for sins committed against the Eucharist.

Do not receive from anyone but a holy priest. RC priests’ fingers are consecrated. This practice was banned around the first century. It may be licit; but it is a disrespectful practice. Receive on the tongue or go to an Easter Catholic Church; they preserve respect and do not put Our Lord in the hands of those unworthy or disrespectful; intentionally or otherwise. Do not confuse true respect: insist on receiving on the tongue by a priest; do not try to justify the erroneous practice of receiving from a lay person, especially when it is unnecessary. Don’t give pearls to swine, as it were.

Defend Our Lord! Not his captors!

This is sort of a footnote—(I am an ordinary minister of the Eucharist.)  When I am offering Communion to a hospital patient, I usually insist (through explicit instruction or gesture) that the host be received on the tongue.  There is a practical reason for this: Hospital patients are often so shaky that they can not transfer the Host from hand to mouth without running a substantial risk of losing the Host in the bedding or their clothes—and to recover the Host under those circumstances is difficult and, well, it gets me into too close a contact with the communicant, if you catch my drift.

After having the same experience of retrieving a host from the floor - also gave up and began to receive in the hand. Thank you Danielle for shedding light on this issue.

I have exactly the same problem here in my Parish.

This is a problem you must bring to your Pastor. The Holy Father has made it quite clear that it is the most respectful way to receive and the one desired by the Church.

If your Pastor has any empathy with you he will call a meeting and instruct those responsible for distributing the Host. Perhaps you would offer to become a trainer??

Please, please, please do not stop receiving this way.

To Christine, whom this debate ‘saddened,’ because Christ’s presence is real and this division among us wounds Him, and what does it matter whether He is received in the Hand or on the Tongue?’

Christine, you believe you feel the same and evidence the same reverence, but look around you and see the difference for others! Did you read the comment where the Extraordinary Minister dropped the Host on the floor, and just picked it up (no mention of what was done with It)? Is that the way one treats a King? Really? Does one walk up to a King and lay hands on Him?  Do you think the world benefits from losing this caution regarding a God? Has benefitted? You don’t see a link between casual treatment of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords during mass and people sitting in church before and after mass, in front of the the Blessed Sacrament in repose, and chatting as if it were their living room? I see a link. I think, in your breathless reverence, you wish to deny the reality of Who is Present here, and how we must act: different. I shake your hand. Him, I am not to touch lightly. Stop being such a protestant and help us in the struggle to restore the crown to Him!

Having problems with receiving the Eucharist in your mouth? Then go to an ordained person, priest or deacon. They are properly trained to give communion. The Blessed Mother said in one of her apparition that the Eucharist should be only be received from an ordained person, particularly a priest. Are you aware that the priest is the only person during the mass who washes his hands before giving out the Eucharist.

Do you know where the hands of the Eucharistic ministers or deacons were before communion? They might be picking their nose or held dirty objects. Think again. I know that my hands are not that clean, so I receive the Eucharist by mouth. Additionally, you are receiving the body of Christ and you should adore and show respect for it.

I had absolutely no training when I became a Eucharistic Minister.  I can understand how EM’s feel when distributing the Body of Christ.  There needs to be training and it is up to the Pastor or one of the assistants to see that EM’s are properly trained.

Manus, the word latin for hand, from which the word to manipulate is also derived, to hold to control.
It is Holy Mother Church, through Her Ordained priests who “Feeds” Her children directly , through the consecrated hands of the priest, which are washed and purified.
to receive in the hand is to say you personally take control and feed “Yourself”, A mother does not place into the hands of her child, who can manipulate or negate what is best as given by the Mother for its well being.
Just as the ancient Pelican symbol you see, the mother taking blood from her breast to give to her chicks
One needs to restore the Sacred, indeed how many families eat the family dinner without washing their hands first.
“Bethlehem”-signify house of Bread, pure , untarnished, whether shepherds or kings all come to first adore, the Living bread., come down from Heaven.
Many churches no longer have sanctuary walls allowing the faithful to kneel, adore and receive the Blessed Sacrament.
In so many other types of heretical movements, false religions, sects, so much emphasis is made on being clean, yet sadly in the loss of Catholic ritual following misinterpretations since Vat II, has given a sense of
reducing the Blessed Sacrament, to something so ordinary, from which so many abuses have arisen, even shoving Our lord apart to a side chapel. ghee for what reason do we go to our Church, is it not to see Our Lord, the centre of Life and centre of our lives, Who should take the pride of Place, for all to see and adore.
Come on USA, restore the Sacred… U niversal S acred A doration.
Communion on the Tongue is best without all the modern babble,  simple
and pure, and receive with conviction it is Holy Mother Church who feeds you. The extraordinary minsters should be called upon only in extreme necessity, but all should frequent the sacrament of confession , or the priest should absolve them before touching the Blessed Sacrament, and indeed they should publicly wash their hands. Though do bear in mind in many parts of Africa and Asia, people line up patiently to receive alone from the priest, so why does the West want a mcdonalds facility., as though it is ones “human right”, it is God´s Alone.

I understand what you are saying and that has happened to me as well. So I will continue to receive on my tongue because I am teaching them..now the Priest knows that I will have my mouth open and ready…the problem of confuesion comes when the person does not present himself clearly as to how he wants to receive Christ..Just be clear and maybe talk with the priest about teaching the ministers.

Communion on the tongue was a late development. Someone said that people sin with their hands, but surely there are great sins of the tongue as well.
I think it saddens Jesus greatly to see so much ado over practice rather than spirit.
We need to read over his admonishments to the Pharisees. Shouldn’t we be more concerned about how we bring Jesus, with out tongue and hands, to others, after we leave Mass?
I once experienced a Eucharistic miracle. As I was given the Host in my hands, I experienced movement, light and weight. As I looked down, I “saw” the Person of Jesus. That would never have happened if I had recieved on the tongue. He comes to us as Savior, Lord, King. It is our HEARTS that receive Jesus, whether by hand or by mouth.
Let’s stop the angelism, a heresy according to Tesesa of Avila!

We never receive from those people. We always move to the priest’s line, even if it means waiting until the end of the line, which it often does.

This is why we need to bring back the patens! Either way Our Lord would be protected from falling on the floor-and tthere is always enough people at Mass for someone to assist holding the paten at Communion.

Ever notice how the priest purifies his fingers after Communion when he is purifying the vessels?  That is because there are fragments. Receiving on the hand leaves fragments of the Precious Body, Blood Soul and Divinity of Our Lord- leaves Him on your hand, on your childrens’ hands, on the Extraordinary ministers hands…..carpet, etc.
Just go to the priest’s line instead of these well-meaning lay people.  Don’t give up on showing respect for the True Presence.  You need to set example for others and lead them also to deeper respect for the True Presence.  So what if it takes one extra minute to distribute Holy Communion to the people because more people want to receive from the priest- whose hands are ANOINTED?

The best solution by far - if available in your area, is to attend Mass where the Traditional Mass is said, instead of the Novus Ordo.  There were reasons (good reasons) why Holy Communion was given to the faithful on the tongue from a priest, who is assisted by an altar boy holding a paten, while one is kneeling at the altar rail. This way, the True Presence of Christ is given due respect and reverence, and there is very little chance of any particles falling to the floor (and thus being trampled on).  I think the modernist practices (Communion in the hands, while standing, often from a lay person) have contributed mightily to an appalling lack of belief in the Real Presence.

I personally like to pretend I am a baby bird in the nest and my Father is feeding me so I receive on the tongue as much as possible. Occasionally though I am in a position where I need to receive from an extraordinary minister and then I receive in the hand because of the same reason that they are uncomfortable giving me Holy Communion on the tongue as voiced here many times, it is still Jesus I am receiving and am so priviledged to receive him at all that it doesn’t bother me. I kind of have a problem with nit pickers on posture and such—-kneel or stand or…the proper posture is flat on our face in the dirt but none of us do that either—-also I am sure the Apostles received him in their hand and being that he made all things—-he made our hands, he does not mind.

The wrong solution to an atrocious problem.  Try my rule.  Communion always on the tongue and always from a priest.

Our actions have consequences.  By changing to the hand, the EM’s won’t learn anything.  And while the early Christians received in the hand, they did so reverently.  Sadly, the majority of those receieving in the hand today are doing so out of ignorance.  (I say that as one who used to be so.)
We took our son’s friends to a different church this past weekend. Two of the boys genuflected before receiving.  A young woman in front of us noticed, told my husband that she thought it was beautiful and decided to receive that way herself from then on.  They were a witness.

In your situation, I think you have to approach the priest, or the different EM’s and charitably educate them.  If your relationship isn’t good with your priest, make sure your reception is lovingly reverent, either way you receive.  Be a witness.

Communion by hand is by indult.  It is the exception to the norm.  In other words, communion on the tongue is the norm, but people have a right to receive by hand in this country.

If you must, avoid the EMHCs.  They shouldn’t be there anyway (only when the congregation is so large as to unduly prolong communion are they allowed, not every week).

Attending the Extraordinary Form of the mass is not the only way to receive on the tongue.  I myself attend the Extraordinary Form on Sundays, but during the week I attend the Ordinary Form.  I regularly receive on the tongue AND KNEELING from EMHCs, with no incident.

I was hesitant at times to receive in the hand but after a study of the Early Church Fathers I became more reassured that Communion in the hand was practiced in the Early Church.  I think this speaks to the proper posture that should be taken when receiving in this manner.   

The following quote is applicable:

“Writing in 350 A.D. Theodore of Mospsuestia, in Homily XV wrote of communion in the hand, “do not approach with hands extended and fingers open wide. Rather make of your left hand a throne for your right as it is about to receive your King, and receive the Body of Christ in the fold of your hand, responding ‘Amen.’.... Take care that you do not even lose one piece of that which is more precious than gold or precious stones.”

Source -  http://www.catholicfaithandreason.org/fathersoneucharist.htm

In my mind, these are just lame excuses. Did you ever consider getting in the line where the priest is distributing Holy Communion?

Perhaps if everyone received on the tongue, the EMHC will have plenty of practice!

I hope the EM’s are taking this in.  You are not supposed to be there except in “extraordinary circumstances”.  Read the documents (they’re everywhere on the Internet or go to www.communion-in-the-hand.org.)  I know you are well-meaning and wonderful people, but “feelings” don’t have anything to do with this whatsoever, so you “feeling good” about being there is meaningless.  Unfortunately for all of us, most Catholics no longer believe in the Real Presence, and one of the reasons is because you’re distributing communion when you shouldn’t be.  Your hands are not ordained.  Yes, the Pope says that “in principle” he thinks we can receive either way, but he also said - in the same book - to receive on your tongue kneeling is preferable by far.  Please read his latest book and follow him.  No matter what, we need to protect the Real Presence so that Catholics clearly recognize that God is God.

I think it has more to do with the entire environment, faith, and respect for the Holy Eucharist in God’s temple…and lack thereof.  I know that a few generations now have been introduced to God’s Real Presence with terms mostly having to do with an emphasis on earthly and finite descriptions - emphasis more on the “we are one body” or sharing a meal or purest wheat and grapes; the materials themselves rather than the mystical component in order, once again, to somehow make things closer to the finite and “understandable”.  There isn’t a lot of genuflecting left since tabernacles have been pushed from the center (that was mostly for churches that encourage tourism) and so now they are now seen as “storage bins” for “hosts”. Everything is for the practical.  And you can see by the allowable dress, non-preparation by a moment of prayer before mass, and the mostly late crowd - IOWs, those sometime complaints about the “old” way (where actually at least personal prayer was being said aside from the liturgical prayer) should apply to an even worse mechanically thoughtless card punching attitude of doing weekly time but not understanding the rest since, again, the spiritual and mystical background has been overtaken by an atmosphere of “duh”.  Our parish is now finally going to move the tabernacle back to the center and this is going to cost thousands of dollars.  “We get too soon old and too late smart”!  The trouble with the side tabernacles always made the concentration on God’s Presence in the temple rather lopsided and awkward.  And it loses the at least symbolic atmosphere of the Eucharist being the Center of the Faith.  This has had its repercussions obviously.  A whole portion of the faithful seem to be praying to the air/atmosphere (if praying at all), and of course, if genuflecting, placed themselves in one direction only to sit directed in a totally different direction ... and from a greater diagonal distance (psychological effect too).

So, the reception, in either manner, matters not so much if it’s only to fight for some kind of individual acknowledgement of the Sacrament’s due.  That “dilemma” appears to foster a focus more on an irritated attitude of mental distraction of the receiver when it ought to be the heart, in both cases, and how it’s formed for the mystical union, once that happens, period.  The current atmosphere continues to make that kind of necessary inner “silence” quite difficult…and even frustrating.

I come from a very large parish with many, many EMs and travel a good deal and visit many churches using EMs.  I have never had trouble receiving on the tongue.  I am influenced by his Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI to use this method.

The Holy Father has required all who receive from him to do so on the tongue and on our knees.  If it is good enough for him, it is good enough for anyone distributing Holy Communion.  I will never again receive in the hand (far a long list of reasons, the least of which is not reverence).  If anything, this is a lesson in why EMHC’s should be SEVERELY limited, and when it is deemed essential to have them, they must be properly trained.

Let us know celebrate the LAST advent using this horrid missal translation!

@Jason: You are correct about the cupping of the hands and to add to that,—-we were also taught that as soon as you receive the Host, you step to one side to make room for the next recipient. As you step aside, facing the Altar, you receive the Host into your mouth, then turn and walk to your pew. [we were taught this way when Communion in the Hand was first introduced many yrs. ago] I have seen people place the Host into their mouths as they are walking down the aisle and that is disrespectful.
The way we were taught Communion in a church with a large congregation is not ‘rushed’ this way. [which also helps in making the Eucharist & the whole of the Mass more Reverent and Respectful.  There is some truth to the fact that receiving on the tongue while standing, makes it difficult for the Priest or EM.
The kneeling is fine in a small church but it takes up a lot of time in a large church. [and it is always done so fast, some stumble]  We all have to remember that Priest as human also, they get tired, they say more than one Mass on Sunday.  As I mentioned before we have to be Reverent when receiving the Eucharist and Respectful to our fellow parishioners. Also, we should prepare ourselves before Communion with a prayer and not think of “what line am I going to be on, rushing here and there”.  Our EM’s were chosen because they are very good, religious people and should be shown respect.

We should receive the body of Christ only on the tounge and by the priest.

@Sue: Grape juice is not valid matter for the Eucharist.

That’s the same reason I stopped receiving on the tongue.  An extraordinary minister missed my mouth and the host ended up on the floor.  We were both horrified and embarrassed.  I have received in the hand ever since.

@cmm: Your experience when receiving the Eucharist in the Hand is so beautiful.  I noticed that no one responded to it.  A week before my husband died—I had him at home with me with the help of Hospice—-I also experienced a miracle with the Lord. I lived in a different state away from family, though I did have my son nearby. [this happened a week before he died] I felt very alone, disheartened & could not have felt lower when God spoke to me in His way that I was not alone.  I heard a voice say “you are not alone” and immediately I felt light in spirit and ‘good’. I cannot tell you what kind of a voice, maybe it was a ‘thought’ He put in my head—all I know is I heard it.  I mentioned this [experience?] to a priest and 3 other people and never got a response from them, therefore, I do not repeat it. After 25 yrs, it is very clear in my mind. Sad, that people should quibble over the “tongue & hand” and when someone like you, who has a true experience with the Lord, is ignored.  God had His reason for letting you “know”. [in the 25 yrs my loved one has been gone, I have always felt God close to me and watching over me—it is hard to explain] Thank you for telling me/us & maybe others will take heed.

There have been too many comments to read them all, so what I offer may be a repeat. I receive the Eucharist on the tongue. There are two ways various ministers have administered the Sacred Host to me, one more practical and much less clumsy than the other. Most of the time the minister grasps the Sacred Host with the thumb on the bottom and the forefinger (index finger) on top and inserts it into my mouth, but the effort to avoid touching my tongue with his/her thumb often results in an awkwardly rapid “forcing” of the Host into my mouth and quick withdrawal. THE FAR BETTER WAY IS FOR THE MINISTER TO TAKE HOLD OF THE HOST ON THE EDGE WITH THE THUMB ABOVE AND THE FOREFINGER BELOW AND GENTLY AND SLOWLY PLACE THE SACRED HOST ON/NEAR THE EDGE OF THE COMMUNICANT’S TONGUE. The moisture of the tongue keeps the Sacred Host in place and allows for a more reverent and non-clumsy reception of the Eucharist.

This is why I always go to the priest to receive Holy Communion.  You could also mention the situation to your priests in the parish and ask that extraordinary ministers be trained for giving Holy Communion on the tongue.
  I agree that all of your examples happen with lay people who distribute Holy Communion but I do not think this is reason enough to stop.  Mother Teresa said reception of Holy Communion on the tongue was THE only thing she was most saddened by and she is right. 
  We must do our best to encourage reception of Holy Communion on the tongue - even going so far as to ask for the use of the communion rail for kneeling (if your parish still has the rail).  The abuses of reception in the hand are widespread and disheartening.  However, gentle persistence, making our voices known rather than giving up is the answer.  We are not the second hand members of the Church.  There was a reason that the Church gave Holy Communion on the tongue.  We can recover what is lost.
  Merry Christmas!

Just for the record, when we EMs (or EMHCs if you prefer) give out the Eucharist, we use the Purell liquid hand wash before we go up to the altar, so our hands are almost sterile. Do you think Our Lord put a piece in the mouth of each apostle at The Last Supper? No, they used their hands, which are also a part of our very human body. Several EM teams distribute Communion at the local hospitals because it would be IMPOSSIBLE for a priest to do all that traveling. We are EMs because it is necessary. Have any of you “holy” people read any news in the last few years re the shortage of priests in the Church? You may choose to receive Our Lord anyway you wish, but DO NOT look down your nose and say YOUR way is the only way. If receiving in the hand were not acceptable, the Church would not allow it. Period. Would it make you happy to go back to the LATIN Mass where no one can understand anything?..or the Mass with the priest facing the wall? I thought so. Pray to the Holy Spirit for an enlightened mind.

What a ridiculous article and a ridiculous “debate.”  The entire Novus Ordo is even more of a sad joke now then when it was forced down everyone’s throats in the sixties.  Perhaps not in our lifetimes but sometime in the future a Pope will relegate that !@#$% liturgy to the ash heap of history where it belongs, along with all the other modernist errors like “extraordinary ministers”, altar girls, and communion in the hand.

How very sad, the devil is involved in this situation.  This woman should report the lack of training for the EM’s and let him no, respectfully, that it is her option to receive on the tongue.  The EM’s, and the lay people,DO NOT HAVE ANOINTED HANDS, such as all priests do, and EM’S SHOULD ONLY BE USED IN EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES, as dear Pope John Paul II said.

Does the Priest distribute Holy Communion? If so, why can’t this woman, and her children, sit on the side of the church where the Priest is distributing Holy Communion?  Do not abandon Jesus because of this, surely there must be a better solution than ‘GIVING IN” TO THIS ABOMINATION of receiving Jesus in one’s hands.

Come Holy Spirit
Fill the hearts of your faithful
and enkindle in them the fire and zeal
of Thy love
send forth Thy spirit
and Thou shall renew the face
of the earth!

Please pray for our leaders.  Offer up your frustrations for the salvation of their souls…they are still also on their journey.  Many are misguided and lead with the flesh and not the spirit.  Nevertheless they are in the positions where they are…who knows if we were there we could mess it up even worse.  Let’s pray that the Vicar of Christ on earth will have the strength to bring back the church from where many freemasons have taken her.  The loss of the sacred is a sad thing…and Our Mother Mary continues to weep.  God Bless you all!

At our RC church, I had the same issues receiving on the tongue.  Our EM’s looked at me like I was crazy.  Earlier this summer we began to attend the only Byzantine Catholic church in our area.  When it’s time to receive the host is placed in the cup and the Priest, or the Bishop spoons the Eucharist into our open mouths.  The entire congregation receives this way and it’s been a relief to no longer have to wonder if the wafer is going to hit my tongue or the floor.

I really appreciate ur situation, that is, the premise on which your argument for a possible decision to receive the Holy Communion on the hand. however, if I may ask, have discussed this with the priests in charge or bishop? this problem might not be peculiar to u alone. I think it is important to discuss this with the relevant authority because this is an issue that concerns your devotional life and faith in the Eucharist. it is not advisable to make a general conclusion from this your situation because perhaps many people can even take your conclusion without the same reason. thanks.

Gregory - Too late, buddy.  I already made the jump to a Latin Mass where we:  Understand everything, the priest faces east, and all of us receive reverently on the tongue while kneeling.  Pretty darn nice stepping outside the world, I highly recommend it.

@Laura: With all due respect to you and how you think and feel, I disagree with you wholeheartedly. Only God knows what is in my heart, not you or anyone else. I am very aware that God created me (I do not believe in abortion—go back to that which is going on in the Church today) Is all this abortion talk about “flesh” only or is it about God’s creation.  The Nuns taught me that my body was the Temple of the Holy Ghost which God created.  There is nothing wrong with the flesh, only what one makes it to be or how it is used.  God isn’t just in the air, or sky, He is everywhere, even within me and you, not just outside of me. He is in my heart and soul and spirit. I think I DO HAVE THE FULLNESS OF TRUTH—-yours is different from mine, I guess, since you did not explain your fullness of truth. I don’t explain things in an ecclesiatical way as some do on this blog—I explain it in my own human, simple way. I know the parable of Adam and Eve—I also know that God gave us freedom and it is what we do with that freedom that counts.  Why didn’t God create a lot of spirits instead of human beings.  You know, as much talk as there is today about anti-abortions, there was a time in our church when a woman who gave birth to a child, had to be “churched” because after birth she was considered unclean. I don’t believe that—I still believe that my body, my person, my spirit was created by God and we are to use it to His perfection.  Sure there are people who abuse the ‘flesh’, but that does not mean than anything ‘flesh’ is bad—-that is like saying a newborn baby is ‘flesh bad’—Jesus came to us as a flesh baby. Though God gave us “freedom” and created us perfect, He knew our weaknesses,[Adam & Eve] therefore, he also gave us Confession. When I receive Jesus in the Eucharist, for me, it is not just an action or custom, He is absorbed within my body that holds my spirit and my heart and my life. I am talking of the Spirit that leaves the body when one dies [my spirit]. (and I can go on and on)  So, therefore, Laura, I do not agree with anything you said @Sue.  God bless you also and have a Blessed Christmas.

I disagree with your thinking. You could just receive communion from the Priest, who should be able to place the Host on your tonque. When you receive communion in the hand small particles from the Host could fall anywhere and Christ is present in any particle of the Host,so on the tonque is most desireable. The problem is most people today do not understand this and the Church hasn’t trained people to this fact. I beleive you snould follow your first thought, that is on the tonque.

Receiving in the hand greatly increases the chance that a particle of our Eucharistic Lord will remain outside of our bodies…is it worth it to even allow for the chance that a small particle of our Dear Lord will remain on the hand? And although our Dear Lord desires for us to receive him and be united with His Sacred Heart, taking the initiative to receive in a sense places us in a mode of doing than of receiving…

Additionally, to receive on the tongue demonstrates our recognition and acknowedgment of our not being worthy to touch our Lord…even though, again, He desires to touch and heal us…

Mother Teresa herself evidently regards the practice of receiving int he hand in a negative light:

I will tell you a secret, since we have just a thousand close friends together, and also because we have the Missionaries of Charity with us, whom the Holy Spirit has sent into the world that the secrets of many hearts might be revealed. Not very long ago I said Mass and preached for their Mother, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, and after breakfast we spent quite a long time talking in a little room. Suddenly, I found myself asking her-I don’t know why-“Mother, what do you think is the worst problem in the world today?” She more than anyone could name any number of candidates: famine, plague, disease, the breakdown of the family, rebellion against God, the corruption of the media, world debt, nuclear threat, and so on. Without pausing a second she said, “Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.”

I made precisely the same decision many years ago. If there is no paten, I receive in the hand. Which is to say, I always receive in the hand now.

If you were to use a microscope at the communion rail, you would see thousands and thousands of infinitely small pieces of the host trail all around whether received on the hand or on the tongue. One could argue that if one can’t see these small pieces of host, then we are not culpable of disrespect. I know of a Catholic cult that uses special instruments to clean the floor because microscopic pieces could be left somewhere. This kind of Jansenistic legalism is similar to the impossible burdens that Jesus accused the priests as foisting on the people.
I have always noticed that when someone (including myself) becomes overly concerned with rubrics and regulations, it is usually time for confession. Let’s look at the beams in our eyes, folks. 
As an aside, I have recieved on the tongue and had the priest’s fingers touch my tongue. How many illnesses have been passed on this way unnecessarily? It is completely unsanitary and should be abolished if only for the sake of our dear children. Tuberculosis is pandemic at this time. It is time to return to the ancient and esteemed practice of communion in the hands.

My suggestion is if one attends only a true Mass, offered only by a true priest, these, along with other negative issues associated with the neo-modern elements within the Church will disappear.  God promised His Church would prevail against the gates of hell and it still does - just go find it and don’t settle for less.

Wow. This is a modern-day House of Babel, self-created by the Church by embracing and encouraging irreverance towards God.  We deserve what we’re getting and people are still walking out the doors. One out of every 10 Americans are ex-Catholics.  Communion-in-the-hand is one of the most visible signs of the meltdown.

The percentage of ex-Catholics is closer to 1 in 4, and alot of the ones I have met have done so because of the spirits of judgment, condemnation and legalism that have come into the church as a backlash against liberalism.

@Jeanne G:  “Grape juice is not a valid matter for the Eucharist”

Jeanne, it is when the Bishop gives permission.  The priest who used it at our Mass was an alcoholic—he had permission. He informed us of this matter before Mass.  As to my remark abt. giving it to children—First Communion is when they first experience the Eucharist and the Nuns teach Reverence, at least they did when I was seven and to take wine that is sour and they make faces, takes away from it. They are suppose to be concentrating on Jesus, not the taste of the wine. They are children. If the priest does not want to give grape juice, fine, then just the Host as they did for many, many yrs before introducing the Chalice.
Truthfully I really am getting tired of this communication—-no wonder people are leaving the Church—there is so much discension within the church between the Latin and the Vernacular, now the tongue or hand, wine or no wine, group confession verses singular.  When you really think of it, all these problems arose when our church expanded. I live in the Charlotte area and not too many yrs. ago, Catholics were almost nil, now we have huge Catholic churches with some having 6,000 people.  EWTN comes out of a Southern State.  We’ve grown, let’s not let a few rituals get in the way.

After 46 years of serving mass and stillseving, I have seen both ways to recieve Our Lord.
The best way is on the Tongue.
I would neve go back to a NO Mass again, forthe last 10 years I have only been attending the Traditional Latin Mass, and its much better and more reverent that the NO Mass (Novus Ordo)
I have seen two young boys take the Host from thier hands and THROW it in the trash can because they did not like the taste, and the pastor was told and talked to them.
Once its on your tongue, its very hard to remove and you swallow it, if its on your hands its easy to drop, toss and even throw its away,
Keep it on the tongue.

I receive the host in my left palm then pick it up with my tongue. I can’t bring my self to using my fingers.

@cmm:“I have always noticed that when someone (including myself) becomes overly concerned with rubrics and regulations, it is usually time for confession. Let’s look at the beams in our eyes, folks. 
As an aside, I have recieved on the tongue and had the priest’s fingers touch my tongue. How many illnesses have been passed on this way unnecessarily? It is completely unsanitary and should be abolished if only for the sake of our dear children. Tuberculosis is pandemic at this time. It is time to return to the ancient and esteemed practice of communion in the hands.”
I agree with you totally on this one.  I have always worked around hospital settings, as do all nurses, doctors and office workers.  I test POSITIVE FOR TB and therefore I am very careful abt. washing my hands and using wipes at the grocery store and at the doctor’s office.  People are very careless about cleanliness after using the bathroom also.  There are so very more people in the world today who travel all over our earth and we do have to be more careful. Things are different in the world today and it has nothing to do with modernism. We have to accept a certain amt. of change. Unfortunately some religions don’t and that has caused a great deal of trouble in the world today.

This article illustrates the complete confusion that reigns in the Roman Rite, and in every unfortunate soul who must attend the Novus Ordo. My solution was to flee to the Byzantine Rite about 15 years ago, where the scandals are few and far between.  I attend the Traditional Latin Mass whenever possible, but I avoid the “NO” mass like the pestilence it has become.

It’s not that big of a deal, Mrs. Bean.  You do not have to receive from an EMHC.  You can sit where you will get into the priest’s line, or you can get up and move into the priest’s line.  We (all 13 of us) do it when we are visiting a parish and end up in the “wrong” area for communion.  It’s really not that big of an issue!

Why would anyone want to propagate a lie by disguising their own ideas as the sayings of a holy person? Sin never advances the cause of truth. It is a kind of theft. The official Mother of Teresa of Calcutta Center has a whole page addressing this false attribution, noting that it doesn’t sound like her nor could they find any record of her saying anything like that. In discussing the issue with members of her orders, she did say..“as M.C.s, we have chosen to receive Holy Communion on the tongue. If questioned about [it], do not enter into discussion – “let every spirit praise the Lord” – but let us pray that all be done for the greater glory of God and the good of the Church.” I think I will follow her advice. I am done with this thread. Merry Christmas everyone.

find a Mass that only the priests give communion..easy..don’t give up..

Please don’t change because the EMHC doesn’t know what to do. Mention this problem to the priest. If the EMHC wants to take on this role, they should be fully aware of both options.

Why you would think anyone would care if you receive Holy Communion in the hand or on the tongue is beside me.  Having stated that, I believe you are using the lack of training and or experience of an EMHC as a cop-out to do what is easier for YOU.  Our Holy Father encourages us to receive on the tongue and when able kneeling. No one is worthy to receive Our Lord which makes it our responsibility to receive him in the most reverent way HE wants us to receive Him. You prefer to receive on the tongue so receive on the tongue!

@Dee:  Thank you Dee and I am with you and Mother Teresa and I also am finished with this thread. God knows what is in my heart and no one else.

Again: A Blessed Christmas to all.

I had to stop receiving on the tongue most of the time because of my delicate jaw and neck. I have been in several car accidents that left my jaw and neck so delicate that any pressure will cause pain for several weeks. Many times priests and eucharistic ministers tend to be rough when distriputing communion. I finaaly broke dowen and started receiving in the hand. If I know I priest is gentle, I will receive on the tongue.

After a few mishaps with a priest trying to place Jesus on my tongue and the Lord landing on the floor, I no longer receive on the tongue regardless of who is ditributing the hosts, unless there’s a paten.  This rule works just fine for me.

Hey Danielle, are you kidding?  You aren’t going to stand for ‘what should be everyone’s posture’.  You don’t want to be an example?  Do whatever it takes to continue your excellent tradition of Holy Communion on the tongue!  Go where the priest goes to distribute Holy Communion as many of your readers suggest.  How difficult can that be?  It’s an easy solution and I know many people that do that at mass.  I call it switching lanes.  In a perfect world, everyone would be kneeling and receiving on the tongue which is the most reverent.  All of us that have the grace to believe in the true presence need to do the best we can to be examples to others as long as we have a priest and/or a deacon distributing Holy Communion. Stay focused on what your posture represents.  Forget about all the other distractions, they are the devils playground.

I am sure I have read in the Apparition of Mary at Garabandal Spain, that Mary told the seer, her Son was very displeased with Communion in the Hand. I do not have time to look up the reference now, but perhaps those involved with this discussion should take the time to do so. I do believe we have lost reverence, and in many cases, belief, in the true presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist! There is no way we can be consistent in belief if the Priest has consecrated hands, purifies them and the Sared vessels after touching the Eucharist, and then we, as lay disributors, do not at least purify our hands afterwards. If any particle is truly Our Lord, how can this be? Unless, we are hoping that automatically, residual particles revert back to bread when they are outside of the intended reception. I do not believe this to be the case. The Holy Father is doing it right.  Amen!

Rome allows both methods and private revelations are not binding….end of story.  Do the one you prefer.  The Sermon on the Mount could not generate a combox this long.  Think about that.

Instead of giving up the Eucharist on the tongue, give up the Novus Ordo Mass. Receiving communion from a so-called EMHC is preposterous. I, too, was once an EMHC and I feel guilty about it. I realized I was too much a sinner to be handing out the body of Christ. Try to find a church with the Latin Mass to rediscover what reverence is all about.

A PRIEST’S HANDS RECEIVE A SPECIAL BLESSING
FOR HIM TO TOUCH THE EUCHARIST. SO WHO ARE WE
TO STICK OUT OUR HAND TO TOUCH GOD ? ESPECIALLY SINCE OUR HOLY FATHER, POPE BENEDICT THE 16TH HAS ASKED US TO RECEIVE ON THE TONGUE. I KNOW PARISHES FINd HOSTS ON
THE FLOOR UNDER THE BENCHES. THIS IS GOD !!!
LET’S PROTECT AND SHOw MORE LOVE FOR JESUS BY
RECEIVING HIM ON OUR TONGUES. GOOD EXMPLE GOES A LONG WAY.

Merton,
    Could you give us the Pope’s exact words in quotation marks and the source of those words as to written source?

In my diocese in France things are so bad that much of the flock has gone to the next diocese 25 kilometres away in search of greener pastures!!!! And this was confirmed to me in confession by a priest. The world is in chaos,and so the confusion and turmoil has entered the house of God.I kneel to recieve Jesus on the tongue.Where there is a will there is a way.I will only recieve from the hands of a priest.He is the spiritual doctor of my soul and I wish to fed by my beloved shepard. I love to kneel as an act of humility mindfull of my sin and Christs great mercy.It is my great joy to kneel before God.  Who wouldn,t want to fall to thier knees in the presence of God. Countless centuries record the saints, the martyers, visionarys recieving on the tongue. Things of God enter time eternal. We can recieve on our sick beds lying down. I do not concern myself in what others think,do, I leave this to God. It is not my business, I have only to to tread mine own spiritual path the best way I can, if I look at others I risk mine own fall. When I see abuses in the church I grieve,pray and weep.I weep for Christ crucified by intentional error. love is the solution. Adoration of the eucharist deepens our relationship with Christ.A priest only once demanded that I ‘Get Up’, the good Lord gave me the words ‘Please Father I beg of thee’, what a grace to beg for holy communion.I said this with the most tender love and reverance for his holy priesthood. So by the great grace of God he smiled and gave me my souls desire Jesus. Praise God, as Our Lady shows us Humility is a great spiritual weapon.

“One Holy Father, one Holy Son, one Holy Spirit. Blessed be the Name of the Lord for He is one in Heaven and on earth. To God be glory for ever.”

“Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us. “

Amen.

“The Sermon on the Mount could not generate a combox this long.  Think about that.”

Hostile, sarcastic, and probably untrue. If people are concerned about this what is that to you?

Thus the newly baptized at the end of the fourth centurywere directed to strech both hands making “the left hand a throne for the right hand, shich receives the King.” (Fith Mystagogical cathechesis of Cyril of Jerusalem; Saint John Chysostom, Homily 47) [Letter from the Holy See to the American Bishops, 8 November 2001]

Roma Locuta. The Holy See has given her approval, and the same letter stipulates that the faithful are free to choose how to communicate.

So if you like to receive in the tongue you can do it. If you want to receive in your hand (which is highly recomended by rhe Saints quoted in the letter) you can prepare a throne for Our Lord.

I hope this will help.

I wish you all a happy Christmas and let us prepare a throne for the new-born.

Pavel,
  Do you have Benedict’s exact words asking Catholics to receive on the tongue?  Merton may have left and he said Benedict asked Catholics to receive on the tongue.

No Turtle, I don’t have the Holy Father’s exact words. I’m not scholarly in any way. I was responding to what I took to be a dismissive and hostile reaction to people’s real concerns.

My wife receives in the hand, I receive on the tongue, and of the two of us she is almost certainly the better Catholic. I think I *need* to receive on the tongue. I probably ought to kneel too, except that I might creak a little when I stand up.

Father John Hardon, who is now deceased, was one of the greatest theologians of our time. He told me that communion in the hand was one of the worst things to happen to the Catholic Church.
I have never received communion in the hand, until an EMHC dropped the precious host that I was about to recieve on the tongue. Praise Jesus Christ, I caught the Holy Host before it fell to the floor.

Another time at a different Catholic Church in our area, a woman walked up to our 17 year old son and asked him if he would distribute holy communion at mass that day. She didn’t know him from Adam!!! He had enough common sense to decline, sadly, more than I can say for her.

We NO LONGER attend either of these Churches. We seek out those Catholic Churches that either have an official Catholic deacon assisting, or just the preist distributing communion. Having to travel farther is difficult, but well worth the holy reverence that these churches have to offer.

May God forgive us…...

Pavel,
    My concern is that in modern times, heresy comes from the liberal side of the Church usually but schism which is also mortal sin comes from the conservative side precisely by overstating the exact importance of something like this.  Both sins according to scholastic thinking are worse than sins of the flesh because they attack a value higher than temperance or chastity.  This type of fighting over an area in which the Church allows free choice is more dangerous than religious people think.  One must avoid occasions of lust but one must even more so avoid occasions of schism and pride both of which are worse than lust because they appertain to spiritual sins rather than carnal ones.

If your not sure of IN THE HAND OR TONGUE, please buy the book; “Get Us Out of Here!!”  Maria Simma speaks with Nicky Eltz about this very topic. Read pages 295-312 first. Then beginning of the book.

For now, if you are person who attends the same church, and same mass, you should be able to recognize, where the priests are handing out Jesus, in Communion. I always try and sit in that section of the Church that has the line going up to the priests.

Danielle: You have certainly opened up a can of worms. The purpose of the priest at Mass is to change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, who distributes it, is up to the Bishops and Priest with permission from the Pope. [at least that is what I was taught]  When the Altar was turned around in the early 60’s and Parish Council started, our Pastor was unhappy but said “All right have your Parish Council, but I still run this Parish”.  Unfortunately, people have forgotten that, they all have their opinions and want things done their way, without giving thought of their disobedience to their Pastor of Bishop. The same with teachers, the parents telling them “don’t reprimand MY child”.  We have lost our humility. What this blog shows me is the same as what is going on in the world today, discontent, disrespect in the home, church and in society as a whole. If one will read the history of the Church, Communion was distributed in many different ways—at one time left in the homes, at one time on the tongue and at another time in the hand.  If our Pope says either way is fine, then I go along with it. The church has tried to make the reception of Communion as reverent and at the same time comfortable for those who have disabilities or are aged.  The hand is more comfortable for some and the tongue for others.  We all have to pray on this. This whole blog is very sad.

“This whole blog is very sad.”

I think it’s encouraging that people actually care enough to disagree, so long as everyone is agreed that the Blessed Sacrament is the real body of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Pavel
  But a number are trying to control Danielle’s decision to their higher way with some implying that she is wimping out.
This is nuts.  I’m gone.  I regret peeking in on this right before Christmas.  I agree with Sue’ summary of this.

Danielle, I agree. When receiving from an EMHC I will not take Communion on the tongue due to the irreverence that may result. Furthermore, when I receive from an EMHC I make sure that I inspect my hand for Particles (not crumbs)so that I may consume them if present.

Having been an altar boy I can assure you that Particles do land on the paten and that is why the priest after communion sweeps the paten into the Chalice.

Of course if the recipient only sees receiving Communion as an external act and not a spritual engagement, they won’t understand nor care for the Particles of Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus.

In the early Church, the apostles told the disciples that it was not good that the apostles leave the word of God to serve tables and so asked the congregation to select seven men that the apostles might appoint for this work. This done, the apostles blessed them. People then received the bread in the hands just as it was done at the Last Supper. Special Ministers are selected and then blessed by the Bishop to do likewise. The tongus is not a holier part of the body than the hand. So whether we receieve on the tongue or in the outstreched hand it should be done with sincerity and respect. And remeber this: we are all priests.

When I found that some EM’s were chucking the host in my mouth like a frisbee in order to avoid touching my tongue, I felt that it was less distracting to receive in the hand, I could receive prayerfully and reverently, and I was still in obedience to the teaching of the Church, so I am at peace.

I never receive the eucharist in my hand.  I simply change lines so that I receive from the minister.  Sometimes that requires quite a bit of extra walking to go the long way around back to my seat rather than disrupt the procession, but it is worth it.  I will receive the chalice from an EM if I can do so without disruption, because the EM is not actually touching the precious blood.  But I insist on receiving the body of Christ from the consecrated hands of the ordained priest, or at least a deacon. Receiving from clergy only, and on the tongue not only shows reverence for the sacred body of our Lord, but also respect for the special charism of the priest and his hands which, by his power and intention, transform the bread into Christ’s body.

Tongue or hand, don’t let this subject decrease your faith, let it increase it. Use it to make you think of ways to be more reverent to Our Lord. Go to confession every month at a minimum, or as often as you need it. Then take you clean soul after receiving Holy Communion and offer it as a living, humble prayer to God for others on earth and in purgatory, for a world that struggles and needs His Blessing, and for those in purgatory who depend on them to make it to Heaven. No prayer is too big, if for the benefit of others, considering what Out Lord did for us. The power of prayer for others we dont even know, and we’ll probably never know how we impacted them - until God reveals it to us when we die. Pay a visit on occasion to Eucharist Adoration - an incredible opportunity to give your time and reverence to Jesus. Because you never walk out without grace of some kind, for Our Lord is never outdone in His Generosity.

I recieve Holy Communion in my hand. It doesn’t matter if you recieve it in your mouth or hand. When Jesus broke the bread and said “Do this in remembrance of me” the apostles recieved the bread in their hands not their mouths.
It’s the manner in which you recive it that counts.
It is sacred and you need to recieve it with reverence.

keep dreaming…

www.communion-in-the-hand.org tells you everything you need to know.  It doesn’t matter how you or I feel about it - it matters only what is historically accurate and true.

@cmm—what you say is preposterous.
-
For reference, I will speak of a Latin Mass only location (since there is only Communion on the tongue and no lay EMs, it would be the control group in an experiment) I challenge you to find a hint of Host particles anywhere… and if you’re counting dust, well that could just be dust.
-
In the aforementioned location, Hosts go from the large plastic containers in the sacristry, to the ciboria, to the priest’s right hand, to the mouth. They are touched by a max of two to three people from baking to consumption… probably just one - the priest. Machines probably handle the hosts after they are baked, and the priest most likely fills the ciboria before Mass.
-
If you hold a Host between index finger and thumb and slide your finger down slightly while pressing the back of the Host against the slightly outstretched tongue, no one will improperly administer, or slobber, on anyone. COTT existed for almost 1000 years until 1969—and never with your fallacious argument being made for switching to CITH exclusively. That’s where we’re at - black is white, right is wrong. In your mind, COTT is immoral and CITH is righteous.
-
And again, the invectives get pulled out—pharasaical, jansenistic (a new one), legalistic, superstitious, scrupulous, et al…  anyone that invokes them I usually suspect of no believing at all, or having a defective comprehension at best.
-
And invoking arguments against pestilence and “the children” ??? for shame. CITH was ancient, but hardly esteemed, otherwise it would never have disappeared almost 1000 years ago. As of 1968 CITH occurred no where I know of amongst Catholics or the Orthodox.
-
If anything other than COTT, we should adopt the Eastern way and use leavened bread co-mingled with the chalice and administered by the Communion spoon by flicking the species at the back of the mouth, and only by a priest or deacon as is the norm in the East.  I have no issue with that, and have received several times that way at Ukranian Catholic Liturgies.
-
Pharisee seems to get thrown around alot as a back-handed cuss word on this discussion. Let’s be clear, the Pharisees were guilty of imposing burdensome regulation and works of Jews, imparting sinfulness on many day-to-day activities, making actions that conform to the Law appear contrary to it (healing on the Sabbath, etc) and making it appear that one was justified before God by those works and not faith in YHWH. They weren’t even allowed to enter the Holy of Holies, much less touch the Ark of the Covenant, so there is no real comparison when you accuse someone who wishes to show the supreme Adoration, respect and deference for the Most Blessed Sacrament, with a Pharisee.
-
Supreme deference for the Supreme Creator cannot be minimized.

Danielle, You do a disservice to the Church writing this article.  You know or should know the Church teaching or at least where to find it and should be capable of doing what you learn is the right thing. You are just creating intrigue and hurting the the body of Christ.  Shame on you.

@Sue and others. Grape juice is never valid matter for consecration, even for an alcoholic. They are allowed to use a “mustum” which is a naturally fermented grape wine with very very low alcohol. No bishop; not even the Pope himself; is allow to wave this. It would be an unmitigated defect in matter. Remember too that arresting fermentation in grapes wasn’t even invented until the 20th century.
-
I have gotten into some VERY long and protracted (not heated, just long) discussions online over the years about this, and actually done a good amount of research on it, because the norms for the Host (wheat and water, or wheat leaven and water in the East) and wine (fermented wine of the grape alone, no raisin wine accept by Papal dispensation [in desert areas where normal wines would sour quickly it is sometimes allowed to reconstitute grapes from raisins and allow them to ferment into wine], no grape juice, the juice of no other fruit, no Ports above 18% alcohol, no sulfites, etc).
-
The priest in question may have inadvertently or inappropriately said that he was using grape juice, but if it’s Charlotte I’m fairly positive there’s NO WAY Bishop Jugis would allow something other than a mustum. Even then, an alcoholic priest must have two chalices - a mustum for his consumption and regular Sacramental wine for the congregation. The norm for the USCCB is intinction, not a mustum.
-
Reference article on wheat and wine, including the letter from the Vatican dicastery in 1996 outlining what is and isn’t permitted: http://www.celiac.com/articles/285/1/Celiac-Disease-and-the-Catholic-Churchs-Position-Regarding-Communion/Page1.html

I sense that what we a hearing in this discussion is a sort of general dissatisfaction with the form, tempo, manner of the present ritual post-Vat II, which is felt to be insufficiently reverent and imperfect in other ways. People may or may not be able to articulate exactly what it is they are dissatisfied with, but they are dissatisfied. This expresses itself as a debate about the properly reverent way to receive, but the issues are much larger.

Telling people they ought to shut up is no way to approach this matter.

I have NO RIGHT to touch the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ with my hands.  Period.

Don’t let the devil lead you into a confused state. Please try alway’s to receive our Blessed Lord in the Eucharist on the tongue. Can you alway’s receive from the Priest? I carefully as is possible and without trying to be obvious receive from the priest. Some of the following might be helpful. If you are regular to a particular church, position your self so as to receive from the priest, that is if you know what part of the sanctuary that he usually serves from. When visiting a new Parish I usually sit at the back and wait till almost last to see where Father is serving from. In my experience I have found it better to say nothing but to just quietly go about trying to position yourself as best as you can. I have found these approaches less stressful and keep me focussed on Our Lord. So far no one has commented any contrary to me. I hope this helps please try alway’s to receive on the tongue!!!!  Kindest regards Barry.

The issue seems to be the overuse of EMC’s.

Personally I would suggest that the Priest stops using EMC’s as receiving communion is the most important part of the mass and it seems to me when an EMC is used it is only for the purpose of getting through the most important part of the mass as quickly as possible. At the church that I attend mass numbers vary between 20 - 50 Weekdays and 300 + on a Sunday and yet our Priest will distribute communion himself to everyone.

Kudos to Chris and Anne. We need to remember who and what it is we are receiving. To receive the Holy Eucharist by someone other than a priest (Consecrated hands) is to say to receive Christ with dirty hands, wether it be our own or that of a Eucharistic minister. I believe we need to rid of these ministers and go back to the traditional stand in line and wait with reverence till our time is up to receive from the hands of a priest. During this time of wait we can prepare ourselves further more to receive Christ who is fully present in The Eucharist.

It’s obvious no one has stopped to think about how stupid they sound before they post something. If your Lord is offended by something like this, then you should get a “bigger” Lord. Consecrated hands only? I wonder which little boy those so called consecrated hands were touching just prior to touching your Lord?

Merry Christmas to you Bob. May the Lord enlighten your mind and life.

Distributing the Sacred Host on the tongue may be considerd more reverent by by those receiving It but for the distributor it is less reverent due to many who do not put out their tongues far enough so that the fingers are made wet with their lower or upper lip saliva or lipstick and one cannot wipe ones fingers inbetween one person and another. Placing It on the hand is dry and more reverent from the distribution point of view. I also receive in the hand as there is time to adore the Host before consuming It. The act of bodily adoration asked for by the Church I give by a genuflection immediately behind the one receiving at that moment so no one is held up. It is the hamburger-queue that has brought in irreverence since there is not that tiny time we used to have before and afterwards for recollection. The reason the hamburger queue came in was that the word Parish or Parishioner mean ‘one in exile’ - Christians were part of but not ‘of’ the world. Since roman soldiers had a lunchbox called “viaticum” [bread for the way] and ate it while marching someone had the bright idea that since we were ‘exiles’ on pilgrimage to Heaven then we should eat walking for our Bread on the Way to remind us that we are wayfarers in this world. Noble as the sentiments might be there are problems with this walking up and having no recollection time at this most sacred of moments and they are (1)We always did walk up to the altar rail anyway: 2)almost nobody knows why it was introduced so do not think of their exile status in this world: 3)it has removed all reverence and 4) we are not Roman Soldiers eating lunch on their way to the next garrison. The Polish Church in Bromham has got it right - those who want to kneel across where the altar rail used to be go up first and kneel (sometimes three rails full) and those who want to stand come up after them and queue in the middle: everyone is happy and no one is ever held up.

How about:
1) The priest distributes Communion
2) While kneeling around the altar
3) On the tongue
4) With an altar boy standing adjacent with a paten to catch the Host if it may fall

I know. Our mass culture has gotten us to desire a quick trip at this time. But cannot people wait to see what the Kardashians are up to? There will be a re-run.

I am an EMHC and have been for the past six years.  I have had some members of the congregation come to me to receive communion on their tongue.  I never had a problem giving communion out this way; when I was much younger that was the way we received communion.  I respect the right of each person to receive communion either in their hand or on their tongue.  It appears that when training to be an EMHC the option the parishoners have to receive communion on their tongue should be covered. I wouldn’t object to going back to kneeling at the alter to receive communion. I guess I’m just an old traditionalist in my Catholic faith.

It’s spelled “altar.”

After reading this and the comments on here and being a Eucharistic Minister for so many years…I’m so glad that I haven’t had a chance to “serve” since having small children….boy oh boy…reverence towards our Lord is MUCH more important than me serving as a Eucharistic Minister…I can serve Him by being a good example to my children and receiving in the tongue!  Thanks for the reality check, Danielle!

I feel for you Danielle, but more importantly I admire your charity toward both EMHCs and the Eucharist.  Hang in there help is on the way

@Todd Drain:  About the grape juice.  All I know that before Vatican II we had a visiting priest and he told us he was using WHITE grape juice because he was an alcoholic and that he had a hard time finding the WHITE GRAPE JUICE at the time & finally found it in Krogers.

So maybe he was sinning?

@Bob on Friday, Dec 24, 2010 3:42 AM (EST):
Let me echo Chris, Merry Christmas and may God enlighten your mind with the fullness of His revelation, which is in the Catholic Church. She is comprised of many sinners; some of them happen to be priests. It changes not essentially at all their sacred character as God’s minister.

@Frank on Friday, Dec 24, 2010 12:08 PM (EST):
I find that you, as a non-ordained minister of Holy Communion, are mystifying to me. You wish for a return to kneeling at the altar rail. Great! But why? The primary reason should be out of reverence for the Sacred Species. Which is also the reason we give for avoiding the “extraneous” ministers and receiving on the tongue. Pardon my advocacy for the verrrryyyyy long-standing practices of reception of Communion but these ‘legis orandi’ have originated in common sense: This is the all-loving God Almighty condescending to come down to commune with us physically. . .we should approach as a child, even as an cognizant infant, with fear and trembling to be fed our spirtual sustenance at the hands of his ordained ministers. 
Hmmmmm really hard to express these points in one paragraph.  .  A Blessed Christmas to all, including “EMHC’s”

http://www.stcLatinMass.com

THE WINDS OF GOD

The winds of God came wandering
Along what shore I did not see,
The winds of God were thundering
Because there was no charity

Among the pleasures to and fro
The searching winds of honor spoke
But who was there to hear and know?
Along the shore the groundswell broke

The winds of God went hunting for
Truth and trust and sacrifice,
But far away the sea wind roared
The bitter oceans seized with ice

Thunder in the air drew near
And all the forests bent with grief,
For only wood and earth could hear
And only sorrow was in leaf

I thought I heard an infant cry
Among the beasts in humble cover,
And there were doves and there was I
To listen to the wind pass over

          Pavel
          December 24, 2010

Years ago, I had an experience of having the host placed on my tongue like the priest thought it would fall off.[received from a priest.] No one had ever smacked it down that hard so I decided to have it given to me in the hand.

If a person feels more comfortable the other way, that’s good too!  Maybe if you know the extraordinary minister well enough, that might help. Talk to someone after mass.

The Church says that Holy Communion can be received on the hand or tongue, and I accept this teaching. So, therefore criticize neither approach, because we are in line to receive Our Lord. I don’t proclaim to know the history of this, only the decision. And, though I would prefer to receive on the tongue from a priest, I rarely get out of line because an EHMC was the luck of the draw. I have never had any problems with receiving from an EMHC or been made to feel that I present a problem, and I respect their service to Our Lord. If anything, they are always smiling warmly and eagerly wish to help in this Honor, hand or tongue. I guess I’m lucky or blessed for this where I live, but I suspect this is the case with 99.9% of those who serve. And I thank them for visiting hospitals and homes to bring Our Lord to the sick - what a noble service. And it is noble because Catholic Church teaching from Rome allows this service.

We must also remember however that we are not equal to priests, we are followers of Jesus, like St. Mary Magdalene. Priests are ordained as members of the Body of Christ. For this reason, they can offer up Mass, and we cannot. They are blessed with special spiritual gifts by God at their ordination, for they give themselves completely to Him. Please do not forget this. They are never to be attacked wrecklessly and verbally with our words and no evidence, for this is a serious sin.

On the morning of the Resurrection, Jesus asked St. Mary Magdalene to “Touch Me not, for I have not yet ascended to the Father”. And, as someone just like all of us us at this time before she became a great saint, she respected His wishes. One week later, Jesus invited St. Thomas to place his fingers in the wounds on His Hands, and in His Side, and “do not persist in your unbelief, but believe”. Jesus had not yet ascended to the Father at that time either. There is a difference, and my theory is St. Thomas was already an ordained Apostle of Jesus, a priest, and therefore could touch the Glorified Body of Christ. If you have a better one, please follow in kindness.

Merry Christmas to all of you.

Hail, and blessed be the hour and moment at which the Son of God was born of a most pure Virgin at a stable at midnight in Bethlehem in the piercing cold.

Hail, and blessed be the hour and moment at which the Son of God was born of a most pure Virgin at a stable at midnight in Bethlehem in the piercing cold.

Hail, and blessed be the hour and moment at which the Son of God was born of a most pure Virgin at a stable at midnight in Bethlehem in the piercing cold.

Our Lord should never be recieved in the hand, and should only be recieved by the hands of a consecrated Priest. I use to recieve our Lord in Holy Communion, in the hand, and one day when I recieved Him in the hand, I went to put Him in my mouth, and noticed that a particle of our Lord fell to the ground. It broke my heart, knowing that people were walking on Him, and after that I decided to recieve Him only on the tongue. I did not want to be a part of disrespect to our Lord, by walking on Him, and have others walking on Him. To those who recieve Him in the hand, PLEASE think of who you are recieving, and have enough respect for Him, that you do not want to be a part of this disrespect. We need to follow the example of the Holy Father, (Pope Benedict XVI) He will not give Communion to anyone, unless they recieve on the tongue, and also on their knees. Someday I Pray that He makes this a mandate in the Catholic Church, once again. We often wonder why Holy Church is suffering so much, well, just look at the irrevence, and disrespect of how we recieve our Lord. Please think about this, and recieve Him properly. Thank You, and God Bless.

Dear Sue,

Grape juice does not and can not become the blood of Christ. Bishops are not allowed to abrogate universal rules decided by universal councils.

Don’t give us that nonsense about “alcoholism.”  The priest can emulate Byzantine Catholics who use intincture.  (That is, he can dip the host in the wine and take it out of the chalice slowly.)  When he receives,  there won’t be even be a trillionth of a tea-spoon of wine on the chalice.  Anyone that thinks someone can get drunk on so minute an amount of wine is just plain out of touch with reality.  It’s like the folk that believe in “second-hand smoke” at outdoor stadiums during a hurricane.  Reality does not work that way.

Out of Christian love, I have refrained from using the obvious word—insanity.  Let’s just say that reality doesn’t work that way.

I too am done with this thread.  It boils down to the ones who obey and the rebellious ones.  This whole thing started with rebellion and continues as rebellion.  Those who think that “they are priests” and are “entitled” to everything the priests do.  The only one who can put a stop to this insanity is the Vicar of Christ on Earth—Pope Benedict XVI.  But unfortunately the one’s below him are rebellious also.  We live in a sinful world and pride is a sin that got Satan (a former arch-angel) brought down from his rank.  Pride continues in our church today, sad to say.  People who continue to walk around in disobedience to church teachings.  They make up their own rules as they go along and want to change the church and make it in their own image.

Sue:  Read St. Paul’s letters about someone who lives in the flesh and those who live in the spirit.  What those who live in the flesh do and what those who live in the spirit do.  That is what I meant.  Buy yourself the Navarre Bible and read it and the explanations according to the way the Church interprets it.  It will be very enlightening.  People will receive things as they are disposed to receive them.  Those who receive in the hand just don’t have the grace of the belief of the true presence in the Holy Eucharist.  EVERYTHING IS GRACE!  Don’t get upset at each other if they don’t do it…it is because they don’t have the grace but most importantly they haven’t asked for it.  Merry Christ-mas!

Jan and Laura - Reading these responses leads to one conclusion: a lot of folks here don’t care about facts, they only care about what they think or feel.  It doesn’t matter that EM’s are only to be utilized in “extraordinary circumstances”. Some on this forum brush that off like, well, crumbs. They simply don’t care. Ditto for grape juice.  But by bringing it up, you are legalistic, uncharitable and bound in the past.

The fact that, depending upon which poll you accept, up to 70% of Catholics no longer believe in the Real Presence, doesn’t seem to bother any of them.  A thinking person would ultimately ask, why… right?  Could it have anything to do with the irreverent way the Real Presence is mishandled so frequently and at so many churches?  Doesn’t cross their minds, or doesn’t occur at their church. And reading some of these posts, they really don’t care.

The Pope, they write, says its okay to receive either way. He also said, receiving on the tongue is preferable for a number of very specific reasons.  They skip that part. No interest.

Thankfully, a significant percentage of people on this forum are all in favor of protecting the Real Presence and receiving reverently. I am grateful for every one of them. I hope Danielle, who is obviously reading every one of these posts, reconsiders her article and does so publicly. 

In our Catholic Church of today, Danielle, the Real Presence needs all the champions it can get.  Too many Catholics are more than willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater… without a second thought, and without researching anything.  Strange thing is that with the Internet, the information is just a few clicks away… but they won’t.

@ I Believe: “The Pope, they write, says its okay to receive either way. He also said, receiving on the tongue is preferable for a number of very specific reasons.  They skip that part. No interest.”

Ah, but there is interest - can you send a link to where the Pope lists his thoughts and reasons?

Thank You.

Catholic - Pope Benedict has said in a new book that he is not opposed to the practice of receiving Communion in the hand. However he goes on to explain that he wants to encourage the reception of Communion on the tongue, kneeling, out of respect for the Real Presence in the Sacrament.

In a long interview with German journalist Peter Seewald, which is being published in a new book: ‘Light of the World’, out this Tuesday, the Holy Father says: “I am not opposed in principle to Communion in the hand; I have both administered and received Communion in this way myself.”

But, he explains: “The idea behind my current practice of having people kneel to receive Communion on the tongue was to send a signal and to underscore the Real Presence with an exclamation point. One important reason is that there is a great danger of superficiality precisely in the kinds of Mass events we hold at Saint Peter’s, both in the Basilica and in the Square. I have heard of people who, after receiving Communion, stick the Host in their wallet to take home as a kind of souvenir.

“In this context, where people think that everyone is just automatically supposed to receive Communion — everyone else is going up, so I will, too—I wanted to send a clear signal. I wanted it to be clear: Something quite special is going on here! He is here, the One before whom we fall on our knees! Pay attention!

“This is not just some social ritual in which we can take part if we want to.”

Hi Pavel, thanks for the spell check.  Also, I enjoyed your post on the “Winds of God”.  Hi Jacobus, I just feel like it would be more reverent approaching the altar and kneeling in the presence of Our Lord.  I realize this approach may take longer but I feel it adds a dimension not gained by just walking down the aisle and receiving communion standing up.  Don’t get me wrong, I am not one who feels we should revert back to Mass in Latin.  That is a matter for an entirely different topic.

Hi Frank,

It’s a common spelling mistake, but it changes the whole meaning of a sentence.

You can read more of my poetry here:

http://users.erols.com/fishhook/

While reception in the hand is of course completely licit and approved, still, if many people began to receive on the tongue, or even kneeling, it might become a sort of sacramental that would catch on and spread.

Danielle, I know how you feel. I’ve been there when the Host was dropped, when priests hissed at me to open my mouth (already open wide), when lay ministers didn’t seem to know what to do, etc., etc. These are examples of why it’s important to do the right thing. Here are my suggestions, for whatever they are worth:

1. Trust your original instinct and keep receiving on the tongue.

2. See 1.

If the church is ever going to get re-sacralized, it has to start here and with the laity. Belief in the Real Presence is at all all-time low, and we’ve all heard stories about profaning the Host. This is a moment to give witness, as you and so many others have done. Whether your minister is a priest, as it should be, or a layman, I pray that you won’t stop now.

I received kneeling and on the tongue for years before anyone else started doing the same. Think in terms of one or two people every five years. It takes a long time to evangelize people in the silent witness way. Perhaps the example had nothing to do with it too.

In any case, please don’t give up. I would bet these little actions mean far more to Our Lord than we realize.

Peace,

John Heuertz, OP
Kansas City

Another thought: you can perhaps get control of the situation and make life easier for the EM by kneeling for the Eucharist you receive on the tongue. Taking a moment to do it gives the EM a chance to understand what’s happening, and it gives unmistakable witness to the reality of Christ the King.

Standing to receive the Eucharist on the tongue might be an important step forward for the Church but kind of a halfway position, if you know what I mean. I believe it’s an important step forward.

As for the EMs who stick the Host between your child’s fingers clasped in prayer: shame on them! But who knows how much control your pastor has over his staff and volunteers, or even what his own position might be?

Merry Christmas!

I desire to receive communion on the tongue but twice a priest dropped the host and then an eucharistic minister missed my mouth and tried to catch the host and ended up rubbing it all over my face to try and retrieve it. I was horrified and shocked over the experience. I begged the forgiveness of Jesus and offered up as a sacrifice my receiving the host in the hand from that point on.  The priests in that community did not cover up their distaste in giving communion on the tongue which made it embarrassing when you wanted to receive communion that way.  It makes you wonder if these priests even believe that the host is the true presence of Jesus…because if they did, surely they would want the Lord treated with more reverence instead of being pawed and fumbled with.

“I begged the forgiveness of Jesus and offered up as a sacrifice my receiving the host in the hand from that point on.”

I don’t believe that Our Lord is such a hard case as to blame you for someone’s else’s fumbling. : ) He’s not like us in our petty vindictiveness and injured pride and vanity. He forgives us much worse than lack of hand-eye coordination.

I just look where the priest or deacon is and go there. We may be the last ones to receive (I have 6 kids in tow); and we may have to traipse all across an entire church; and we may stand out; but to the best of my ability, I will receive from an ordained person. I wholeheartedly disagree with lay ministers of the Precious Body. So what if we have to wait longer to receive because there is only one line. We wait, and have extra time to meditate and prepare for the reception of His Body and Blood.

Papal Midnight Mass with no Communion in the hand
Posted on 24 December 2010 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf
I was not able to watch all of the Papal Mass in the Vatican Basilica, but I have started to get interesting emails about something people noticed.

Among them was this email from a priest in Rome:

In a change to former practice, those distributing Holy Communion at
the Holy Father’s Mass tonight were told that ‘at all Papal Masses
Communion is to be given only on the tongue.’ The usual statement that Prelates receive in the same way as the Laity remained.
thought you might be interested.

Yes, indeed.

One of the emails from people watched the Mass said:

Did you notice that during the communion of the faithful during Pope Benedict’s Midnight Mass at least one priest refused to give Holy Communion on the hand? Instead, the security guard near this priest motioned for each communicant to receive on the tongue. If the communicants didn’t get the hint, the priest still did not give them the Host in the hand, but rather held It near their mouth until they finally understood. Some of the people looked very surprised when they held their hands out and didn’t get the Host.

This was apparently noticeble during the broadcast.

This is way it is going to have to be done.  Example… then buzz buzz buzz… then people will catch on and, over time, things will shift to a point where the change back to the NORMAL manner of reception of Communion can be effected without as much upheaval.

Danielle,  Where do you live?  I’m amazed that EMHCs are so incompetent in how to administer Holy Communion on the tongue in your parish or diocese.  I live in Knoxville, TN, which is the smallest diocese in the entire country (when Catholics are considered as a percentage of the population), and I’ve never experienced what you’ve experienced when receiving Holy Communion on the tongue, from priest, deacon or EMHC.  I’ve never had anyone respond in any other way than to respectfully and gently place the Host on my tongue.

Have you spoken with your pastor about this?  I would think it a simple matter of training.  This isn’t rocket science, for pete’s sake.  It’s a simple thing to gently place the Host on another’s tongue.  I wouldn’t think people would have such difficulty with it.

Hi Pavel, I visited your website: http://users.erols.com/fishhook/ and thoroughly enjoyed the poems you posted.  I also took a peak at your latest book of poetry “From Here to Babylon” and was absolutely blown away.  I wish I could express myself half as well as you do. Reading your poetry is inspiring and thought provoking.  I hope you had a Merry Christmas and I wish you a Happy and Healthy New Year.

The real “problem” is the lack of Holy Priests!  Please all…pray, fast and make sacrifices for many more Holy Priests and Religious!  Adore Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament!  Pray the Holy Rosary daily!  Go to Holy Confession/Reconciliation regularly!  Attend and Participate in Holy Mass daily whenever possible! Pray the Divine Mercy Chaplet daily!  “Storm” the gates of Heaven with prayer, fasting and almsgiving for Holy Priests!  If God hears our prayers the need for Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion will vanish as we will have an superabundance of vocations!  May God Bless Us with Many Holy, Devout, Pious Priests to lead us all out of our Spiritual Darkness into Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ’s Marvelous Light!  God’s Peace, Love and Joy to All this Christmas Season!

Hi Frank,

God bless you for your encouragement. It’s very important to me.

If you decide to buy the print copy - it’s available in Kindle too - and mail it to me I’ll return it with a warm personal inscription - no postage necessary, just your address.

My email address is on my poetry site

I wish you a blessed Christmas and a happy New Year.

@ I believe - Thanks for the follow-up. I did a little research myself as well and found things as you said. The easiest approach for me is to follow the Pope’s example to the best of my ability, so that’s what I’ll do. I’ll bow to the hip and continue to receive on the tongue, until such time as the kneelers return.

I believe many on this blog will enjoy this article…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/24/AR2010122403023.html?sid=ST2010122403083

Pope’s Master of Liturgy Helps Benedict Restore Traditions

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/24/AR2010122403023.html?sid=ST2010122403083

The following has been said here already many times over but repeating sound advice is never redundant:

1) Avoid the EMHCs. I’m sure they are very nice and pious people but they shouldn’t be doing this. If you can’t, accept only their blessing (probably not valid, either, but much less harmful.)

2)“Jesus is Jesus, in my hand or on my tongue” - this seemingly obvious statement is dangerously simplistic. Following this line of reasoning, one may also say, “Jesus is Jesus in my pocket”, or “Jesus is Jesus in my fridge”, and so on. I won’t repeat here all the arguments against receiving in hand, only one and perhaps most important, namely, that this mode equals in practice self-communicating which is clearly forbidden by the Canon Law. Sanitary arguments for the receiving in hand are rather naive - how many extra germs your hand has after giving the sign of peace to your neighbors? All in all, only the Eucharist on the tongue for me!

We don’t shake people’s hands at Mass, with a very few exceptions. A sign of peace doesn’t mean you have to shake hands. People usually understand and accept with a smile.

Speaking of shaking people’s hands at Mass, I deplore it but feel compelled to do it so as not to be thought of as a snobbish. When the flu was making its way around last year our pastor announced we would skip shaking hands in an attempt to avoid giving each other the flu.  I was hoping against hope that this may be the beginning of a new trend; I was wrong.  Some people step out into the aisle and hug people which I find totally distracting and out of line.  This is one practice I would like to find omitted from Mass.  I get really concerned this time of year when the person in the pew behind me coughs and sneezes throughout the Mass. I’m always thinking to myself do I want to turn around and shake hands with this person or child?  Does anyone else have these thoughts or am I totally off base?

I’ve seen lots of people wipe or pick their noses with their fingers and then offer their hands to be shaken. I don’t go near them. In fact I’ve moved to other pews to avoid them. I’m not there to be a medical missionary. Offer an upraised palm as a sign of peace and smile. It will be accepted.

Frank, I totally agree with you.  Our Parish did the same thing last year during flu season and I was hoping we wouldn’t go back to shaking hands, however, no such luck.

Pope Benedict to Catholics:
Kneel and Receive on the Tongue Only

Pope Benedict XVI does not want the faithful receiving Communion in their hand nor does he want them standing to receive Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. According to Vatican liturgist, Monsignor Guido Marini, the pope is trying to set the stage for the whole church as to the proper norm for receiving Communion for which reason communicants at his papal Masses are now asked to kneel and receive on the tongue.

http://newsblaze.com/story/20090801065749zzzz.nb/topstory.html

@ Frank - Off base?  Not at all.  A couple of years ago the fruitcake behind me hacked and coughed for an entire hour before he passed on the worst cold - to me - that I’ve ever experienced.  I saw him at Mass this morning, and I’m still puzzled as to why someone that sick would show up to Mass.  Shake hands with him?  We don’t do that at the Latin Mass I attend, but I guarantee you that I never would.

Also, the most reverent Novus Ordo priest I ever met taught us a few years ago that shaking hands at Mass, when God is on the altar and we’re about to receive Him, is the worst possible time to take your mind off God and focus on your neighbor.  His advice was, don’t.

Since we are on this subject, here are other things that really bother me at the Novus Ordo Masses I attend (I also go, whenever I can, to a traditional Latin parish where such things do not take place):

- general noisiness and distraction before the Mass (no possibility to pray in peace);
- people coming in late, sometimes very late;
- trivial melodies passing for liturgical chant;
- priests beginning a homily with a joke;
- praying Our Father with outstretched arms (this may be an ancient custom but it seems really affected and contrary to Jesus’ advice (“When you pray, don’t pray like a Pharisee”, etc.)
- the sign of peace (not only unhealthy but potentially hypocritical);
- clapping in the church;
- people leaving during the exit procession.

This list is incomplete because I don’t want to get into more technical liturgical matters, e.g., why do we stand instead of kneeling during the Lamb of God (Agnus Dei) prayer, etc.

One more remark: many participants in this discussion argue that it doesn’t matter to Our Lord whether we receive the Eucharist in hand or on the tongue. I do not believe, first, that we can possibly even fathom what matters and what does not matter to Jesus Christ, and second, that we really do these ritualistic gestures only for Him. No, we perform them also for ourselves, to instill in us a sense of the miraculous, a sense of the mystery, of something out of the ordinary taking place “hic et nunc”. This fundamental truth had been ignored by the post-Vatican II “reformers” of the liturgy who favored basic understanding over the sense of the supernatural, thus turning Catholicism into merely an ethical system resulting in the creation of social services. This is certainly useful but this is not religion. Religion means a link between the human and the Divine. Christianity is a mystery religion and we must keep it as such. One way of doing so is through the traditional ritual, developed and proven during many centuries.

This post makes much sense to me:

“Posted by Bob Hunt on Sunday, Dec 26, 2010 4:11 AM (EST):Danielle,  Where do you live?  I’m amazed that EMHCs are so incompetent in how to administer Holy Communion on the tongue in your parish or diocese.  I live in Knoxville, TN, which is the smallest diocese in the entire country (when Catholics are considered as a percentage of the population), and I’ve never experienced what you’ve experienced when receiving Holy Communion on the tongue, from priest, deacon or EMHC.  I’ve never had anyone respond in any other way than to respectfully and gently place the Host on my tongue.

Have you spoken with your pastor about this?  I would think it a simple matter of training.  This isn’t rocket science, for pete’s sake.  It’s a simple thing to gently place the Host on another’s tongue.  I wouldn’t think people would have such difficulty with it.”

I was thinking the same thing.

I wholeheartedly agree most of all with this post:

“Posted by jchavez on Sunday, Dec 26, 2010 10:36 AM (EST):The real “problem” is the lack of Holy Priests!  Please all…pray, fast and make sacrifices for many more Holy Priests and Religious!  Adore Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament!  Pray the Holy Rosary daily!  Go to Holy Confession/Reconciliation regularly!  Attend and Participate in Holy Mass daily whenever possible! Pray the Divine Mercy Chaplet daily!  “Storm” the gates of Heaven with prayer, fasting and almsgiving for Holy Priests!  If God hears our prayers the need for Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion will vanish as we will have an superabundance of vocations!  May God Bless Us with Many Holy, Devout, Pious Priests to lead us all out of our Spiritual Darkness into Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ’s Marvelous Light!  God’s Peace, Love and Joy to All this Christmas Season!”

Thanks for the wisdom.

As a college chaplain (where everyone receives on the tongue) and a celebrant (elsewhere) of the Melkite Rite, where everyone receives by intinction (including babies)I am puzzled why EMHCs can’t be trained properly. It’s simple. In addition, it is also puzzling that experience has not been gleaned by EMHCs and Deacons and Priests what the Holy Father states in his book Spirit of the Liturgy…that people take the Eucharist home as souvenirs or leave them in pew benches. The issue is far more than ‘self’ and ‘personal intention’ concerning reverence. The matter doesn’t stop there. Leadership is important here. Anglicans solved this years ago and so did the Eastern Rite. The Holy Father, in the same book, recommends the exchange of peace be given at the offertory, as practiced already in Zaire, where, he says, it has been taken from the Eastern Rite, and where it properly belongs. Keep it away from Communion and highlight our need for reconciliation. The Rite has deteriorated into a social exchange from its original meaning and messes up the communion rite. Nonetheless…in our ‘large’ parish everyone receives on the tongue, by intinction, admiinistered only and always by a priest or deacon. Read the document allowing (1973) EMHCs and you’ll see that the intention of the church was NOT to have them help in the church but to bring the Eucharist to shutins. In my first parish there were 52 Eucharist Ministers. With 120 shut ins only four were going to them on Sundays. The beauty was to supply communion weekly to shut-ins. When asked only 22 of the 52 wishes to help. The rest were only interested in the Sunday show…especially the politicians. We let all the rest go and only the true servants remained to help on Sundays. However I still maintain that they are not needed at all, and that priest-administers symbolize the FATHER of Lights feeding his children. We did this in the past with larger crowds…and it was fine, providing time for meditation and music ministry and singing. Only 25% of Catholics are in churches today in spite of greater ‘participation’ of the laity. This ‘ordaining’ of EHMCs had little effect on increasing community but had a greater effect on dishonoring the Eucharist. Distribution is now a pedestrian affair…..and the fallout is a laissez-faire attitude on the part of the young.

As a college chaplain (where everyone receives on the tongue) and a celebrant (elsewhere) of the Melkite Rite, where everyone receives by intinction (including babies)I am puzzled why EMHCs can’t be trained properly. It’s simple. In addition, it is also puzzling that experience has not been gleaned by EMHCs and Deacons and Priests what the Holy Father states in his book Spirit of the Liturgy…that people take the Eucharist home as souvenirs or leave them in pew benches. The issue is far more than ‘self’ and ‘personal intention’ concerning reverence. The matter doesn’t stop there. Leadership is important here. Anglicans solved this years ago and so did the Eastern Rite. The Holy Father, in the same book, recommends the exchange of peace be given at the offertory, as practiced already in Zaire, where, he says, it has been taken from the Eastern Rite, and where it properly belongs. Keep it away from Communion and highlight our need for reconciliation. The Rite has deteriorated into a social exchange from its original meaning and messes up the communion rite. Nonetheless…in our ‘large’ parish everyone receives on the tongue
and from a priest or deacon only. This was done for centuries. What’s the issue today? I submit it is the interest of clergy to ‘ordain’ new clerics some of whom will not bring communion to the sick but only be on for the show on Sunday (especially politician’s spouses). Clericalization of the laity is an issue for the Holy Father and those who rankle at the ‘in-crowd’ in which modern Catholics are still expected to be passive. No way! Many eventually migrate to the Evangelical Churches where the Gospel is preached. Are these the new structures the Holy Father is speaking about?

Pavel, I am going to start offering an upraised palm as a sign of peace along with a smile.  I would feel comfortable doing that as an alternative.  Patti, I guess you feel the same as Pavel and me on this topic. I Believe, I can’t fathom why anyone would go to Mass when they are that sick but I’ve been sitting in front of people like that all my life.  I too got sick a few times,and I’m quite confident, it was shaking hands with people like that sitting behind me in the pew.  I didn’t stop to consider the timing at Mass of shaking hands when God is on the altar and we are about to receive.  That could be a compelling argument to make a change, if nothing else to do it at the close of Mass.  Hieronymus, my wife and I changed parishes because of the general noisiness and distractions before and during the Mass.  The floor plan of the church was circular and every time someone would come in late or get up to leave for any reason it was a major distraction.  How many people receive communion and just walk out without going to the pew to kneel and pray to Our Lord?  I see the same people week after week just walk down the aisle and leave Mass with the Host still in their mouth.  Mass to me isn’t over until the priest says, “The Mass is ended let us go in peace”.  In closing, I am happy that so many of you feel as I do about shaking hands in Mass.

This is silly. As a Eucharistic Minister I was trained in both methods. Last year, when I had a rash on my hands I took the Eucharist on my tongue for seceral weeks. Someone in tour parish, probebly a priest coordinates the Eucaristic Ministers. Diplomaticly speak to him and suggust a little refresher training is in order.

Why isn’t a communion plate still used to catch the consecrated Host if it were to fall from the hands or tongue?

I don’t recall ever seeing an EMHC using one.

Should this omission or lack of training drive one’s conviction on the ancient and holy tradition of receiving communion on the tongue?

I receive in the hand because Jesus said “Take and eat and… Take and drink”
I am not a child I do not need to be fed and I find that receiving on the tongue is not necessary . I believe in the real presence and I find I prefer to have it put in my hand and I will,  Take and Eat.I would not worship in the extraordinary form of the mass because I cannot receive in the hand.

@joan,

Well, that’s just your opinion and saying that it relies on a very simplistic interpretation of the Holy Writ and that it goes against the millennia of Church tradition (which in Catholicism is as important as the Scripture) wouldn’t really change your mind, right? I thought so.

I’ve seen numerous pro-CITH comments based on or referencing “Take this and eat… Take this and drink…” in their argument. There is a fundamental defect in that argument.
-
The Last Supper was Christ and the Apostles—otherwise known as Bishops. More generally, the Church was founded upon the Pope—Peter—and was essentially the first College of Cardinals—the other 11 Apostles. It was them the supped with Him, and the Holy Ghost descended Christ instituted the Blessed Sacrament amongst the Ordained, not the laity. It was them that chose the successor to Judas. They were the Ordained. Still are.
-
Others unwittingly contradict another teaching of Christ, at least in spirit, by arguing that they aren’t children and can feed themselves. If you are an adult, then this is true, but I would counter argue that Christ admonished us to approach Him with the faith of a child. It isn’t an exact comparison, but it does remind us all that are lay people that we are to approach Him with a child-like faith, devoid of pretense and arrogance.
-
If you genuinely believe He is here with us, and care to read some of the other myriad of comments on this thread you would see why this attitude could be easily construed as offensive to both fellow Catholics, and more importantly to God Himself…

Anyone with sufficient Catholic sense to receive on the tongue, should know better than to receive Holy Communion from one of these lay people. The Pope doesn’t want them in the sanctuary. They are but one more liturgical abuse.

So, I’m sorry, but this “dilemma” doesn’t make any sense.  Go to the priest for Holy Communion - preferably at a Traditional Latin Mass.  NEVER to a lay person.  Why on earth would you refuse to handle the Sacred Species yourself, while allowing another lay person to do so?  You got it right first time:  lay people should not touch the Blessed Sacrament. So, don’t go to these people.

There is no communion plate because an acolyte would have to be standing along side and place the plate under the host each time the person offers it to one of use.  I neatly solved the problem by moving from N. CA to St. Louis, MO county where I attend the Latin Mass where we kneel and receive on the tongue.  An acolyte places a plate under each host…and he does a great job….serious and good!

I would do what one blogger does, otherwise….follow the priest and get the host from him.  Not from people who have just shaken hands with one another and do not have consecrated hands to handle the Most Pure Body.

See why the Latin Mass is a good thing!  Patricia in St. Louis, MO

I’m an Opus Dei cooperator. At our Recollections there is a Mass, and there is always someone standing next to the priest with a plate. I don’t watch other people, but I would assume that most and probably all of us receive on the tongue, although I seldom see people kneel. I don’t kneel because I feel awkward about standing up from a kneeling posture, but I do bow before the person ahead of me who is receiving.

I think that anything that helps me remember what I am doing and Who I am receiving is a good thing.

At our Church an Altar Boy usually holds the plate under the Host (would it also be called a Paten, or is that just for the Altar?) If an Altar Boy is not present, than one of the lay people usually will do it.

It would be a handled or non-handled Communion Paten, as opposed to the Chalice and Paten set for the priest, which is always un-handled. Typically the intinction set is a donut-shaped paten with a small, removable cup in the center in which a small amount of the Precious Blood is placed to intinct the Host.

Thank you Todd.  I remember receiving Communion by intinction, how I miss that…

Wow, there were a lot of typos in that one from earlier today. Here it is again, corrected.
-
I have seen numerous pro-CITH comments based on or referencing “Take this and eat… Take this and drink…” in their argument. There is a fundamental defect in that argument.
- To use modern terms, the Last Supper was Christ, the Pope, and the first College of Cardinals (yes, I know, they were bishops and “Cardinals” was a much later designation, but it fits). It was them that the supped with Him, and them who the Holy Ghost descended upon to found the Church. It was them that chose the successor to Judas. They were the first Ordained and Consecrated priest bishops. To equate yourself as a lay person in 2010 with the Apostles at the Last Supper is a bit of a stretch, to be honest. I certain could bring myself to arrogate like that.
- Others unwittingly contradict another teaching of Christ, at least in spirit, by arguing that they aren’t children and can feed themselves. If you are an adult, then this is technically true, but I would counter that Christ admonished us to approach Him with the faith of a child. It isn’t an exact comparison, but it does remind us all that are lay people that we are to approach Him with a child-like faith, devoid of pretense and arrogance.
- If you genuinely believe He is here with us, and care to read some of the other myriad of comments on this thread you would see why this attitude could be easily construed as offensive to both fellow Catholics, and more importantly to God Himself… Pretty sure He isn’t interested in smugness or condescension our of creatures, either.

Receive the Body of Christ from a priest only.  Problem avoided.
Why do some Catholics let the poor training and lack of reverence by the lay actors at the Novus Order Mass deter them from offering the Lord of the Universe His proper respect?  Why change to suit the current trend.
God cares, (how could He not care?)about how He is received at Mass.
Communion on the hand is part of the theater which calls itself the N/O Mass.  Yes, its valid and all that. But, is it reverent?  Hardly.  Is there a sense of mystery?  None at all. Is it otherworldly? Not even close.
So, stand your ground and receive Our Lord in the most respectful way possible…from the hands of His priest, untouched.

“But, is it reverent?  Hardly.”

I find myself made uneasy by this. How does one know the inner intention and attitude of a recipient according to the way the Body of Christ is physically received? You may prefer reception on the tongue and even argue persuasively for it, but you cannot know the inner state of other human beings.

“...you cannot know the inner state of other human beings.”

This is the classic beginning of the slippery slope. If “the inner state” is the ultimate criterion, we don’t need any rules, any commandments, any Magisterium, not even the common sense. Isn’t this, in a way, how the Reformation has begun (not to mention the “cafeteria Catholicism…)? “Sola fide” and all the subjective rest of it. This is not the Catholic way of thinking which we affirm every time we say the Credo - a set of basic, non-negotiable axioms, completely independent from any “inner states”.

At what point does pride overtake humility in the best of Catholics.. everything needing to be said has been covered in 300 plus comments.

I agree with others who have pointed out that using a paten would solve the problem of dropping the Sacred Host. Once, an EEM used the ciborium itself as a paten when I came up to receive on the tongue. I thought that was pretty smart of him.

Get rid of the Extraordinary Ministers,  altar servers should assist with patens, and if only those in the state of grace received—maybe there would be no problem of such long lines and need for EXTRAORDINARY MINISTERS in mini skirts. Our parish uses kneelers, has no E. Ministers, but rather our priest, deacons and altar boys.
How fortunate we are and may God bless our parish and good priest. People make a 30 minute to one hour drive for Mass each Sunday.

It’s true that one should receive in a state of grace, but somebody else’s state of grace is beyond your knowledge and none of your business.

Ya think so? You think people are too stupid to know what sin is—or that they can be their own judge and jury?
Thought God gave us the 10 Commandments for that, and confessionals.. So in your book it is OK to show no respect to the Sacred Sacrament as long as I don’t judge anyone? Missing Mass on purpose, living together, children out of wedlock, pornography, stealing—things almost bragged about today—you don’t think are important to make a call on? Interesting.

“Ya think so? You think people are too stupid to know what sin is—or that they can be their own judge and jury?”

You’re an angry person arguing with yourself. I believe what you do. Go in peace, with Christ.

Patt, be cool.  Pavel is just making the point “Judge not lest ye be judged”.  I find myself judging from time to time before I realize that it is not our place to judge but God’s alone.  Furthermore, please remember “For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged”.

SHOW THE PRESENCE

The counter man exhorted: ‘Hope’
And parceled up the steak I bought,
What has hope to do with meat?
Hope received although not sought

A golden earring in one ear,
An apron white instead of wings,
He may have told me: “Do not fear”
Although I was not listening

Seldom do I now look up
Nor see the shepherds in the fields,
Now a time of faith corrupt
And hardly do the faithless kneel

But messengers can manifest
Themselves in some unlooked for spot,
Show the presence of the blessed,
Hope and trust where it is not

              Pavel
              December 22, 2010

I am off to review the Spiritual Works of Mercy and that one about “admonish the sinner”-that person who knowingly receives Communion in the state of mortal sin. I guess I am a horrible person for pointing out to my young Catholic co-workers who have not been taught, that we need to be in the state of grace and avoid committing a sacrilege.

This trick of alleging judgmentalism is designed to silence critics of those who publicly cause scandal. Won’t wash.

If I see someone picking up a bar of chocolate in the supermarket and putting it in his pocket, then leaving the store without paying for it, I am not “judging” him by saying “he took a bar of chocolate and left without paying for it.” That is a simple fact. I am merely observing it.

Some years ago, a priest in England told me about a mother and daughter who paid him a visit to arrange the daughter’s wedding.  She was cohabiting with her boyfriend.  When Father pointed out that one of them would have to change addresses until after the wedding, the mother got very hot under the collar and accused the priest of being “judgmental.”  The girl was living with her boyfriend, as if he were her husband. The priest was merely repeating what she, herself, had told him. That she was living in sin, giving public scandal.  For the two of them to jump out of bed and head for the altar (she, of course, in a snowy white dress - symbol of bridal purity!) is a huge scandal.  The fact that she had a bad mother, may, of course, help account for her situation but it still doesn’t excuse it.  We all have an obligation to keep educating ourselves in the faith - so that, for example, we know that the Church does not want these lay people giving out Holy Communion and so that we understand that their very existence undermines the priesthood. But such is the loss of reverence and appreciation of the doctrine of the Real Presence that I recently read in a Glasgow parish bulletin, an instruction from the ever so liberal priest, NOT to wear gloves when approaching for Communion in the hand! It says something when even a priest like him disapproves of such ignorance.

Similarly, there’s nothing judgmental about avoiding extraordinary ministers. And I’m not just talking about those extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion who are in adulterous affairs and/or cohabiting or contracepting, given that they should not be handling the Blessed Sacrament at all, are only compounding the scandal they are giving and heaping coals of fire on their own heads.  Lay people must not handle the Sacred Species. If I see someone doing that, I’m going to say they are in the wrong.

So, don’t gimme “judgmental.”  If someone is cohabiting that is public knowledge. If it is public knowledge, then it is a scandal.  That is, it’s an obstacle to the faith of others.

Why these people want to be publicly involved in the “liturgy” is beyond me.  The only “liturgy” they should be contemplating is a very honest and a very urgent Confession.

Which brings me to my key point.  To be guilty of “judgmentalism” we have to say that X is going to Hell.  THAT is judgmentalism. To say X RISKS going to Hell by this or that behaviour, is what we are duty bound as Baptised/Confirmed Catholics to do if we see someone risking their eternal salvation.  Otherwise, we risk Hell ourselves.  So, please stop this silly claim that to state the obvious is to be “judgmental.” It’s not.

Editor CT—-Well stated and the point I was trying to make. People love an escape hatch and saying “don’t be judgemental”  is thrown at you if you make a statement of any kind. Gee.
Even Pavel couldn’t stop himself and judged me “an angry person”.

Patt,

I meant to comment on that other trick, which you mention, of labelling critics as “angry” or something similar.

I’ve had that hurled at me countless times. I edit a newsletter which reports on the crisis in the Church in the UK, and we often use satire - humour is a feature of our publication. Yet, critics describe it as “angry” and “bitter.”  But what else can they say?  They don’t have any answers to what we say, so they have to resort to personal attacks.  A tried and tested method.

In any event, we’re entitled to be angry.  Anger is not a bad thing per se.  Our Lord took a corded whip - a corded whip, note - and chased out the unfaithful Jews from the temple.  Seems the “gentle Jesus” of common mythology was out of town that day.

We’re VERY entitled to be angry at the dire state of the Church today, at the infidelity of so many bishops and priests, at the scandals caused by all sorts of aberrations in the Church, not least these lay people playing at being priests.  My first thought on reading the blog article was not “what a nice, humble person this is, who is going to sacrifice the traditional mode of receiving Holy Communion in order to please these numbskull extraordinary ministers” - nope.  My immediate thought was, frankly, what an idiot!  Instead of remaining steadfast in the Faith, as St Paul tells us (often angrily!) the blog author decides to oblige the very people who should not be touching the Blessed Sacrament at all!  Listen, if St Paul called those Galations “stupid” or “senseless” can you imagine what angry comments would flow from his pen today, Patt?

Let these weak souls hurl abuse all they like. They can’t change the facts, they cannot change the truth. And the truth is, that the Faith is being preserved today, thanks to the remnant of traditional priests and Catholics who are clinging for dear (eternal) life to the Faith as it was handed down to us from the apostles - not as it’s been handed down to us by the Second Vatican Catastrophe. It’s being preserved by those Catholics who would no sooner think of receiving Holy Communion from a lay person than they would think of praying the Gluminous Mysteries of the Rosary!

Editor CT—I totally agree. I read that only an “remnant” will be saved. If you want something bad enough it is worth the fight-so we must fight the “good fight” to get to Heaven.

“In any event, we’re entitled to be angry.”

That’s what I said. You’re angry. Admonish if you must. Leave the anger behind.

I’m admonishing you. Are you humble enough to hear?

Pavel,

Of course I’m humble! Anybody will tell you that I’m humble. For goodness sake, what a daft question. I’m about the humblest person you will ever (not) meet. 

I’m also slim, witty, intelligent and extremely glamorous. I sing like a bird and I can do a very nice Highland Fling.  But humility is really my strong suit. 

However, Sugar Plum, it’s really not your place to make personal remarks about anyone - not even humble li’l ole me.  YOU should have sufficient humility yourself - not to mention intelligence - to be able to deal with the issues under discussion without making nasty personal remarks.

You take care of the beam in your own eye, sweetheart, and don’t worry about the speck in Patt’s eye. And if you suspect a speck in my own humble little eye, well, may the Lord have mercy upon your soul.  I forgive you, Honey Bunch.  I really do. Or as they say in the U.S. of A. “Ah really do - Ah do, Ah really do…”

Ever so humbly yours, grovel, grovel. 
Sister U. Heep…

A good (albeit a little intemperate) explanation of the true meaning of “Judge not lest ye be judged” can be found at http://www.bigbluewave.ca/2009/04/judge-not-lest-ye-be-judged-real.html . In Matt.7:1-5, Jesus very obviously speaks about hypocrisy (“For in the SAME way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure YOU USE, it will be measured to you”, NIV) and NOT about criticism in general. After all, Jesus Himself - not to mention St. John the Baptist, St. Peter, St. Stephen, St. Paul, etc. - was judging the scribes, the Pharisees and other hypocrites. As for anger, it is sometimes not only allowed but even necessary as, once again, Our Lord Himself has shown us by whipping and chasing out of the Temple the merchants and moneylenders. This is known as “righteous anger”, and only in our confused times (which favor “nice” over “true”) it can be labelled as “un-Christian”. In my experience, Matt.7:1-5 is usually quoted by the people who don’t have any real arguments to offer, and who try to silence the opposition (and morally elevate themselves) by such dishonest means.

I am out of this discussion.

Thanks for that helpfu post, Hieronymus.

Very wise decision, Pavel. God bless you.

Grey day in Texas, but a lovely thought filled discussion warms the soul. May God send His blessings and graces to all of us in 2011!

You’re most welcome, EditorCT. I am also fed up with the half-heretical, half-ignorant mishmash still passing for Catholicism in some areas of Christendom. Thank God for HH Benedict XVI, Cardinal Burke, Bishop Olmsted and other serious prelates and believers. May they finally prevail over the Kennedy and cafeteria “Catholics”!

Watch the video below on You Tube ...

Communion in the Hand pt.1 Experiment and Explanation

Yes, the video is both informative and funny (the sound could be better, though…) Here is what Kevin Orlin Johnson has to say about the origin of receiving in hand:

“Vatican II never discussed the idea and evidently never envisioned its introduction. Some countries [France and the Netherlands - my addition] had introduced the practice illicitly ... and Paul VI surveyed the bishops of the world about it. They almost universally called for maintaining… the distribution on the tongue. The Pope then granted an indult… that let those countries that already had the practice continue. Oddly enough, the bishops of the United States - where the practice had never before existed - asked permission of the Holy See to introduce it. Even more amazingly, they got it. Still, universal Church law does not permit reception of the Sacrament in the hand, and John Paul II strongly disapproves of it.” (“Why do Catholics do that?”, New York: Ballantine Books, 1994, p. 68).

To sum up, the illicit practice of receiving in hand has only a papal indult on its side. I say “only” because papal indults are not documents promulgated “ex cathedra”, therefore they are prone to being fallible. We should not be afraid of openly stating this truth - popes are only human and open to error, unless they speak “ex cathedra” (which is a fairly rare occurrence). I believe - and I have the right to do so - that Pope Paul VI’s indult was mistaken and ought to be revoked, not only because it contravenes, for no good reason, the longstanding tradition but also because it does not bring about any real benefits.

Dear Mrs. Bean:

Please hang in there and do not get discouraged.  It should be easy to figure out where to sit at Holy Mass so that you can count on receiving Holy Communion from the priest-celebrant, without line-jumping or other moves that might draw attention.  I usually do this, but I acknowledge that sometimes EMHCs are unavoidable.  Nevertheless, I never show them a palm.  How will they ever acquire the skill they need to do their duty, unless people force them?  And if some of them quit in exasperation or disgust, that wouldn’t be so bad either, would it?  It would prove that they weren’t really called by God to this ministry in the first place.  Please let me say, also, that you are correct that you have the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, but in this you are missing the point somewhat.  If you have rights, it is because you have responsibilities, and in this case, your responsibility (and mine, and everyone’s) is to give our Lord Jesus Christ all the reverence that is His due.  And so you should say instead that Jesus has the right to be received on the tongue.  As Chesterton once paradoxically observed, anything worth doing, is worth doing badly, even if it means that Our Lord accidentally ends up on the floor once in a while.

Goodness me.  The English and Welsh martyrs, our one and only Scottish martyr, St John Ogilvie, had their guts torn out and were hung drawn and quartered to defend the Faith.

What on EARTH is so difficult about doing whatever it takes - “drawing attention” to oneself if need be to cross an aisle to receive Holy Communion in the way the Church wishes us to do?  I’m so shocked at that last sentence about “so what if the Host ends up on the floor” - under guise of objecting to lay people playing at being priests, Jerry unwittingly reveals the poisonous, eroding, effects of attending the new Mass per se. 

Which brings to me to my key point:  since I would sooner lie down in the middle of the road and allow a two ton truck to run over me rather than attend a new Mass, I don’t know why I’m bothering with this debate.

Get yourselves back to the Mass of all time, that the saints and martyrs lived and died for, that we KNOW pleases God and then all these idiots prancing about in sanctuaries will have no audiences to dress up for. Whether or not you realise it, your faith in and devotion to the Blessed Sacrament is being, has been, eroded by this newer and definitely fewer Mass concocted by a Freemason Archbishop with the express intention of making it acceptable to Protestants.  Forget it. In 50 years it won’t exist. Go to www.catholictruthscotland.com and read the Mass page there.  And the newsletter. Educate yourselves and head for the nearest SSPX chapel - immediately if not sooner. Otherwise, you are in danger of losing your faith altogether.

St. John Ogilvie, St. Joan of Arc, St. Philip Neri, St. Pio of Pietrelcina—all the saints—were humble and obedient to Church authority, even when it was being wielded imprudently or downright abused.  That’s one of the ways they glorified God, and one of the surest marks of their sainthood. You would never have seen one of them inside an SSPX chapel if there were a licit, albeit banal, Holy Mass being offered elsewhere within a hundred miles.  I am as attached to the usus antiquior as anyone, but it’s not quite a daily privilege where I live, and I realize in any case—and perhaps you should, too—that it is simply Not About Me.  Over and out.

The saints, Jerry Monroe, were obedient to GOD.  All Church authority, as St Paul teaches, are subject to God. Nobody has the authority to change the Mass - as Pope Pius Vi clearly taught and Paul VI sought to excuse his action in producing a new Mass by emphasising that it was meant merely to be “an option”  - so if you are really keen to be obedient, you will make every effort to get to the new Mass - and at the very least, you will NEVER engage in the liturgical abuse which is receiving Holy Communion from a lay person.

Correction
 
“you will make every effort to get to the new Mass” should of course read “to the old rite Mass.”

I adamantly refuse to receive Holy Communion from anyone other than a priest or deacon and ONLY on the tongue.  I will often wait for the very end of the line, or a sufficient opening, in order to be on the side where our priest stands so I may receive from him. 

On some Sundays he is assisted by our deacon and this becomes unnecessary but when he is alone and doesn’t line up on “my” side I will wait everyone out in order to receive from the priest.  Furthermore, I would never even THINK of receiving from a woman under ANY circumstances. 

EMHC’s are not ordained and do not consecrate the Host and there is really no need for them anyway.  Maybe if enough people started refusing to receive the Blessed Sacrament from other parishioners who just aren’t content with hearing Mass and must “actively participate”, this insidious practice might eventually be terminated by the Church.

Well said, Daniel G.  Well SAID!

“Now” (I hear you say) “where IS the nearest Traditional Latin Mass so that I can also kneel at the altar rails like the centuries of Catholics before me?”

Too many comments to read.

Just wanted to agree with you…

I tend to receive from the priests rather than the non-ordained, but I must say I’ve never encountered this problem with them. Maybe it’s different in the US, but here in the archdiocese of Vienna, Austria, EMHCs seem to be rather well trained in this respect…

I must say the only person I don’t like to receive on the tongue from (though I still do) is a very old priest from a venerable religious order who apparently doesn’t have enough feeling in his fingers in order to just let go of the host when it reaches the communicant’s tongue…

Until they do away with Extraordinary Ministers,  Communion in the hand, girl attar servers, people holding hands during the Our Father, and all the other Protestant trimmings—nothing will change. No reverence, no increase in vocations and no true appreciation of Christ’s Church. We’ll just get a lot of people calling themselves Catholic telling us how wonderful the Protestant way of seeing things is and how they have finally found the Bible that that mean old Catholic Church denied them. Then they’ll tell us priests should be able to marry, that being gay is not wrong that we should allow women priests—the usual baloney. Although I don’t make it to the Tridentine Mass- you may still consider me a right wing radical Catholic—so what? I’d rather be on God’s right than the left…

All I can say is WOW. Looking for a good topic for the Youth Group tonight.  I’m old school (reciever of Christ Jesus on the tongue) The kids will love this. Be kind to one another and Bless you all.

A message to Mrs. Danielle Bean,

I hope that you are reading the comments, all 360 of them and growing, and you are noticing that at least 95% of them are not only against the receiving in hand but also against very many other post-Vatican II innovations. This should make you rethink your decision, for your sake and the sake of your children because what you see here is the future of the Holy Mother Church. The era of Her mindless pollution by worldly influences is nearing its end - and good riddance.

I am so happy to see others who avoid the EM and make sure they receive from the consecrated hands of the Priest.  I will also not enter a Church without a head covering out of respect for Our Lord.  We don’t have kneelers, so I make sure I genuflect before receiving.  I don’t want to hold up the line, so I do it while the person in front of me is receiving.  (I have seen them do this at Mass on EWTN).  Would actually prefer kneeling during Communion.

Here is a link some of you might be interested in:

http://www.youtube.com/user/RealCatholicTV?feature=mhum

http://www.divinemercysunday.com/chaplet.htm

“A pope said it well, the Smoke of Satan has entered the Sanctuary…”

Ironically, it was the same Pope Paul VI who allowed the reception in hand…

Not exactly. Reception on the hand was a practice of the Early Church as well.

@liseux (shouldn’t it be “lisieux”?),

Yes, probably (the evidence is ambiguous) but for a relatively short period of time and then it was banned due to the actual and possible abuses. Then, for at least 1,500 years, only the reception on the tongue had been allowed. I find it interesting, to say the least, that this argument is usually trotted out by the very same people who are against the traditional Latin Mass, even though the latter has been also practiced by the Early Church and, without interruption, into our times. Besides, if the practices of the Early Church seem to some to be more attractive, why not return to the adult baptism, the catechumens not being allowed to participate in the second part of the Mass, the public confession of sins and the prayers for the end of the world? And finally - what is it that makes the reception in hand BETTER than the reception on the tongue? Please name just one advantage (and, as we can see from the preceding discussion, hygiene is not it.)

I want to wish each and everyone of you a Happy New Year.

This is from the Catechism of St Cyril of Jerusalem (348 A.D.), Lecture 23:21 . . .

21. In approaching therefore, come not with your wrists extended, or your fingers spread; but make your left hand a throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a King. And having hollowed your palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it, Amen. So then after having carefully hallowed your eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, partake of it; giving heed lest you lose any portion thereof ; for whatever you lose, is evidently a loss to you as it were from one of your own members. For tell me, if any one gave you grains of gold, would you not hold them with all carefulness, being on your guard against losing any of them, and suffering loss? Will you not then much more carefully keep watch, that not a crumb fall from you of what is more precious than gold and precious stones?

http://www1000.newadvent.org/fathers/310123.htm

practically 20,000 comments later, I"m certain this won’t make a whit of difference, but I think there is no reason why one couldn’t follow the counsel of one the great church fathers.

@Svetlana,

The authenticity of St. Cyril’s quote is doubtful, you can google it and see what you come up with.

“there is no reason why one couldn’t follow the counsel of one the great church fathers”

And yet the Church at some point decided to abandon this practice - shouldn’t this fact make us think why? Besides, the pronouncements of even the greatest Church Fathers have no binding value because they are not infallible. Otherwise we would have to believe with St. Augustine that unbaptized babies go to hell, and with St. Thomas Aquinas that the Virgin Mary wasn’t free of original sin…

Svetlana

There is, indeed, a reason not to follow this practice, and St Cyril would exhort you today, to do as you are told by the Church in this matter.  The reason why the practice came to be forbidden was because of abuses and the ensuing dishonour to the Sacred Species.

I’ve just been told by a layman today, who returned to the Traditional Mass some time ago, that when he met his parish priest recently, the priest asked him where he’d been going to Mass. On hearing that he had been attending the TLM - one of the diocesan approved TLMs, this apostate priest told him: “you are not even a Christian.”

These liturgical abuses, weaken the Faith, Svetlana. To appeal to practices in the early Church, failing to allow for the work of the Holy Spirit in deepening the Church’s understanding of the great truths and doctrines of the Faith, is actually a heresy called Antiquarianism. St Cyril would not be advocating Communion in the hand today - believe me.  The opposite.  He lived at a time of great Faith. We are living in a time of widespread apostasy.  People taking the Sacred Species in their hands (sometimes gloved hands) is one sign of this apostasy.  Allowing Freemasons and Protestants to concoct a “new” Mass is another.

Danielle,
When you see where the priest who says Mass goes, go to his line. This way you can avoid this problem.
The Pope gives Holy Communion on the tongue and kneeling down, which is the proper respect to show Our Lord.
Among many other considerations, when a Host Is placed in the hand, many Particles fall onto the hand of the Communicants.
Where do these Particles end up?
The priest has consecrated hands and they are far superior to us.
The Legionaries of Christ receive Holy Communion on the tongue and kneeling down and The Pope’s Communicants only receive that way. Moreover, all of St. John Vianney’s Communicants received Holy Communion on the tongue.
It Is The Lord and your sacrifices are well worth it. Don’t give up when the going gets rough. Jesus gives you this cross. Remember only to go to the priest. St Thomas Aquinas said that only a priest can touch Holy Communion except in the case of an emergency. What is an emergency?
Not loosely used, this means that The Host is in danger and therefore needs to be picked up.
Peace In Christ,
Michael Lucci

As a woman, I dislike walking up to anyone and sticking my tongue out, because it feels indecent and immodest.  And receiving on the tongue while standing is difficult - too many fingers in the mouth and dropped hosts, as others have mentioned.  And I dislike bowing, because my hair falls in my face and I have to brush it away before receiving communion (clearly the guys who came up with that rule didn’t have long hair).

So, I receive on the hand, with a small genuflection (small so as not to trip anyone behind me), head bowed only from the neck (keeps my hair out of the way) - and raise the host to my mouth on my palm, rather than pick it up in my fingers and stick it in (which feels too much like eating a potato chip). 

A happy compromise, keeps it reverent, modest, and properly respectful toward Jesus in the Eucharist and everyone else around me.

The little bow of the head is what the pagans do to their imagined deities. 

Catholics have always knelt and received on the tongue. If it was good enough for the saints and martyrs down the centuries, it should be good enough for you.

The way you describe “walking up and sticking my tongue out” is typical mockery of Catholic Tradition.  You should be kneeling in silent preparation for receiving Holy Communion not worrying about your hair (get it cut, for goodness sake, not rocket science) or tripping folk up and all the other daft concerns of the nervous disorder Catholic world.

Really, theo, you need to get yourself to the traditional Mass - in 50 years time there won’t be any other kind. Take a look at the newsletter at www.catholictruthscotland.com and study, too, the Mass page there.

I am in total agreement with EditorCT.  We need to be humble before Our Lord, not worry about the people around us and what they think of us.  Once you genuflect or kneel for communion a few times you won’t “trip” anyone, because they will know your approach at the awsomeness of receiving Jesus in the Holy Eucharist.

I say—aren’t we supposed to be focusing on the miracle of receiving Our Lord? Not give a hoot about hair and people around us. You are allowing yourself to be distracted from this wonderful sacrament Our Lord has given us—Himself.  Methinks thou doth protest too much about Communion on the tongue. I cannot think of a better way to humble oneself than by being on one’s knees and being given the Bread of Life. Put your head back (hair won’t get in your face), open your mouth (don’t stick out your tongue). Gee, it isn’t that difficult and it is a lot more respectful than rushing up, grabbing the Host and chomping it on the way back to your pew—which so many young people do today.

Hear - absolutely - HEAR!  Well said, Patt.

It’s not long now until the new year strikes so let’s all make a new year’s resolution to only receive Holy Communion kneeling and on the tongue, as did our countless saints and martyrs, and if you are still attending the new Mass, I pray that this will be your first step back home to the Traditional Mass. Back to the Future!

A guid New Year to everyone!

The correct term for laity who distribute communion is Extraordinary Ministers of HOly Communion.

The priest is the Eucharistic Minister.  A deacon is an Ordinary Minister of Communion.

“Redemptionis Sacramentum,” No. 154:

“As has already been recalled, ‘the only minister who can confect the Sacrament of the Eucharist “in persona Christi” is a validly ordained Priest.’ Hence the name ‘minister of the Eucharist’ belongs properly to the Priest alone. Moreover, also by reason of their sacred Ordination, the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are the Bishop, the Priest and the Deacon, to whom it belongs therefore to administer Holy Communion to the lay members of Christ’s faithful during the celebration of Mass. In this way their ministerial Office in the Church is fully and accurately brought to light, and the sign value of the Sacrament is made complete.”

Actually, JP, the TRULY correct term for lay people who distribute Holy Communion is Extraordinary MONSTERS.

That’s what we call them over here in the UK!

@Mustum/Grape Juice

Mustum is a specially prepared ‘grape juice’, which is only partly fermented (and fwiw I’ve only seen ‘red’) which is, indeed, permitted for use in the Eucharist where the priest is an alcoholic.

It is usually, but not exclusively, for the priest’s consumption.  Regular, sacramental, wine is consecrated for the congregation, when they are also to receive the Precious Blood.

Grape Juice from Kroger’s would not be appropriate.

http://www.nccbuscc.org/liturgy/innews/1103.shtml

@Jan rogozinski:  I was re-reading these posts and I will say Jan, you were especially rude to me, not very Christian at all.  What do you mean “don’t give me this nonsense about alcohol”—-you are right in that an alcoholic priest does not get DRUNK on a little bit of wine—-you evidentaly do not know much about alcoholism.  They are just like drug addicts, one little taste and they are back on it again.  This priest said many a Mass, not just one. So try not to be so sarcastic—I don’t take that from anyone, “insanity”? me or my post. I think the fact that you seem to know little about alcoholism is “insanity” in this day & age.
@Todd Drain: As to the grape juice again——It did not happen in Charlotte, it happened in the 70’s when I lived in a different State. What he gave to the congregation, I have no idea, as I do not take wine, I am allergic to it.  All the “know-it-alls” and all the “disrespect” shown on this blog makes me wonder about the Catholic Church and where it is going.

I think the solution is to speak with the pastor regarding this problem.  EMHC should be used only in extrordinary situations, and they should be trained properly.  While it is accepted to receive in both the hand and tongue no one should feel they have to “give up” on the way they feel called to receive Our Lord in the Most Blessed Sacrament.

@Sue: that’s no problem. My only contention is that no one, even a priest who is a recovering alcoholic, is allowed to use grape juice. The unfortunate thing, no matter the intention of anyone involved—even the bishop that gave permission—is that invalid matter (grape juice) == no Sacrament. That was my only contention.
-
-
I think most people are at least generally aware that addicts have very specific difficulties to overcome as a Catholic because you have a built-in fault to overcome. Equally, every priest knows that his first priority is offering Mass, which involves the consecration of an alcoholic drink into the Blood of Christ. The norm for such is Intinction where you consume essentially only the taste and smell of wine, not any actual amount—and others can use a mustum, by dispensation.
-
-
Either way, there is no wine remaining at Communion time. As a matter of Faith, any priest should know that confecting the Eucharist and consuming it would not be an occasion of sin or temptation for him, and would only serve to strengthen him in his battle with addiction, not undermine it.
-
-
Everyone can wonder, who has read through mine and everyone else’s comments, about where the Church is going, because of the tone on this thread.  I can only say two things.
-
-
——1. I do not mind fiery debate, because with fiery debate at least there is no lukewarmness. Remember the Apostle John would not even enter the house of a man he knew to deny part of the faith. Would have nothing to do with those in error… so disagreements over practice if a practice is causing a problem shouldn’t be an issue. On the otherhand, the Holy Spirit is very clear in Scripture—and proven out in the history of the Church—that lukewarmness is indifference to God, and He is unable to sway them that are lukewarm and will cast them into Hell. If you a passionate about your Faith, and the Church, you will defend Her doctrine’s and sanctity, and even if you are wrong you at least care enough that the Holy Spirit can move in your soul and persuade you to change.  No one that has posted here in defense of the traditional (not antiquarian) practices of the Church, and those have defended the changes like CITH and EMHCs, appear to lack Faith and care for the Church and her mission. Time will tell. If CITH, EMHCs, and everything else that has changed are ideas of God’s will, they will remain. If they are of human motive only, then they will not. I believe it isn’t of God, and will not continue. Time will tell.
-
-
——2. Defending God, and His very presence, makes it very difficult to get to the point of Pharisaicalism, legalism, clericalism, pietism, or any other ISM you’d like to hurl at us who defend Him.  Charity—yes.  Tact—well, we can only hope, but many have great zeal for the Blessed Sacrament and the Church but find it hard to communicate that tactfully or gracefully. They should not be faulted for their zeal, so long as they have charity about what they say.
-
Besides those two reasons…
-
——Vocations, Mass attendance, Confession participation, and belief in Transubstantiation and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass have all collapsed in the western world from the 70s or 80s in percentage to the teens or 20s in percentage since the 1960s.  This directly coincides with the alteration of the Western Liturgy which started with a shift to the vernacularly and dropping of Psalm 42 and the Last Gospel in the 1965 Missal, and then “progressed” on to the manufacture of the 1969 Missal by the Consilium and it’s main proponents of change - Annabale Bugnini and Ferdinando Antonelli. This collapse isn’t a coincidence, and CITH and EMHCs are not the cause of collapse, but both a cause (widespread use them causing weakening) and a symptom (lack of belief and defiance precipitating them) of this change.
-
-
——We as Catholics pray as we believe, often said as Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi (the law of prayer is the Law of Belief). When you fundamentally alter the Rite itself, the other Rites of the Church, and compound that by introducing every novelty you can think of from the vernacular only with wretchedly bad translations to wrecking churches in the name of renovating, removing confessionals, removing altar rails and standing to receive, and often removing the Blessed Sacrament itself by , installing tables everywhere, moving the choir and band into the sanctuary, CITH, EMHCs, girls as alter servers, heavy lay participation in the sanctuary, an overhaul of the Office, diminish chant, new readings in a new cycle, general confession, stop preaching about sin and the need for confession, flout the Church’s teachings from the pulpit, and 2938 other things I can’t remember, you get this sort of permissive attitude where anything and everything is “ok.” Well, everything is not ok. It isn’t ok to do, and it isn’t ok in the Church. Just because everyone’s doing it doesn’t make it “ok.”
-
-
——Peace and grace to all in this new year.

Comments on Todd Drain post:

“I do not mind fiery debate, because with fiery debate at least there is no lukewarmness.”

Absolutely. In our confused times we mistake being nice for being right. It is not so. If you read the Fathers of the Church (especially St. Jerome, St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom), you find them full of righteous passion and, occasionally, not mincing too much their words.
That’s because they were faced with many dangerous heresies, just like we are now, and they didn’t care a bit if they were called “divisive” or “controversial” (in actual fact, they weren’t called that - even the heretics at that time have had more sense than they do now, and used real arguments instead of just blowing hot air.)

“Well, everything is not ok. It isn’t ok to do, and it isn’t ok in the Church. Just because everyone’s doing it doesn’t make it “ok.””

I can only say amen to this. Have a Happy New Year!

Agreed. Never go along with the herd just to “get along” for they can lead you over the cliff. It is wonderful to see so many not accepting the incorrect method (ABUSES) done in so many parishes, The bottom line is that we want the abuses to stop so that we give Our Lord His due honor and respect. May God bless and guide us all in 2011
and may Our Lady pray for us sinners.

I wonder whether Pope Benedict XVI was thinking about what happened with so-called extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, and had his tongue in his cheek when he decided to call the traditional Latin Mass the “extraordinary” form of the Roman rite.  Let’s hope that it becomes as extraordinary as EMHCs—only faster!

@Jerry

LOL.  Good thought!

www.communion-in-the-hand.org

This from Michael Lucci “Among many other considerations, when a Host Is placed in the hand, many Particles fall onto the hand of the Communicants.
Where do these Particles end up?” is the heart of the problem. How reverently you receive in the hand just doesn’t matter. There are so many particles that are lost, Particles that are Jesus, Body Blood Soul and Divinity, lost on the floor. Much reparation is called for.

Wait long enough in these comment sections and you see who cares about the issues and who cares about being the last one to post or cast stones.
I am an EMHC. 
As for particles dropping, I haven’t seen this yet.  But @theo’s suggestion, and someone else also, about putting the host in the palm to the mouth would ensure the best transfer of all the particles.
Everybody loves a scapegoat, that is what the EMHCs are to many of these posters in this discussion.  Blame the lack of reverence on them.  That is a laugh.  I have nothing to do with those who come to church with no reverence in their hearts before they even step in the door.  There is no reason why people can’t become more reverent if they see more examples of people being reverent.  I loved @PIAs comment which no one picked up in which she gives the example of Mary Magdalene and Jesus.  EMHCs are examples of real people striving to be reverent even though they are not ordained and serving because they were asked.  We need more examples of laity striving to be reverent even though they are human.
I serve because I was asked, and only after long reflection, and I will cease serving in an instant if ever told I am no longer needed.  But in my parish, where we have masses 7 masses on Sunday, every hour from 7 to 1, and too few priests to minister, I am definitely willing to help if I can and it is permissible.
Oh, and I used to only take communion from the priest too.  Now I know better, that the body of Christ is present sacramentally during mass in the host no matter if I go to the priest or the EMHC.  Just because some people who post here feel like Christ isn’t in that host doesn’t make it so.

Just the same Kathy, you are not a priest, yet you have been given his responsibility, Wonder why there is a shortage of priests—is it because his importance has eroded with changes like this? Your fingers have not been consecrated,  (the priests’s have) yet you handle the Host. I remember JP II asking for a reduction in E-Ministeres -but they only increased in number. Fortunately, several of our city parishes—have no E-ministers. The parishes are not gigantic, but people do make an effort (30 to an hour trip) to support them. Our pastor takes his role very seriously and does as much as humanly possible to be a good priest. I am sure he would have liked to retire years ago—but like Pope Benedict he knows he has a responsibility to God FIRST.
So defend your role as much as you like—but NO SALE. I have volunteered in other capacities at our parish for the past 20 years (Altar server training, religious teacher, vocations committee, pro-life causes), and never would I have considered being an EM.

Kathy,

I can’t see any comment referring to Jesus and Mary Magdalene but what on EARTH does she have to do with people handling the Blessed Sacrament?  The lengths these lay people go to in order to justify their institutionalised sacrilege, is beyond belief.  I noted immediately when reading your post, that you share the same casual attitude towards dropped particles when you make a suggestion to “reduce” this happening.  You should be HORRIFIED at the slightest possibility of any particle falling to the ground and being trampled etc.  Reverent?  You kidding?

Everyone who is an EMHC says they are only doing this because the priest needs them.  The problem is, that it is not long before they are looking sideways at the priest in the sanctuary and wondering if THEY need HIM.  The Devil knows what he is about.  As for your remark about if you are ever told you are NOT needed, you’ll disappear - then you stand alone. I’ve been told by more than one priest how difficult it is for priests to get rid of these lay people.  They are full of pride.  I know one priest right now who is working on getting the message across that they are not wanted, but it’s anything but easy.  They’re used to being centre-stage and they are not going to give up their imagined status without a fight.

This is a very serious abuse, Kathy.  It is undermining the priesthood, so you are one day going to be held to account for your participation in what is, in fact, a very real evil.  Read this article to the end, and see if you can understand why the priest writer believes that the priesthood is being undermined and emasculated, not least due to the army of lay people carrying out priestly duties such as distributing Holy Communion. 
http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_emasculation.html

And by the way, only by very selective reading of the Vatican documents on this subject, could anyone REMOTELY believe that this liturgical abuse is permissible.
In the 1997 Instruction, article 8 states clearly that not even a packed church is reason for using lay people to distribute Holy Communion.

The core issue is not about reverence.  The core issue is about role reversal; it’s about undermining the priesthood through clericalising the laity (usually women)

Kathy, I understand exactly what you’re saying, and I applaud your willingness to come to the aid of the Church.  Unfortunately it is obvious that you have never read or understood the Vatican documents that made your journey possible.  As has been pointed out on this blog too many times to count, you are to be an “extraordinary minister” utilized in “extraordinary times”.  It sounds like your church routinely is using you or other “EM’s” for every Mass on Sunday and, possibly, during the week.  This is obviously and exactly what this Indult does not allow. These are not “extraordinary” times, so please study the documents and consider resigning.  You can find them all over the Internet or go to www.communion-in-the-hand.org

I wish you well and hope you will at least open up your mind enough to study the documents before you make any decision. One last point I would make:  Depending on what poll you read or believe, somewhere between 45 and 70% of Roman Catholics no longer believe in the Real Presence.  Have you ever asked yourself, why?

@Kathy… I’ve pretty much read this whole thread, and I have seen no one say that a lay person touching a Host makes it not the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ!?!? That isn’t metaphysically possible.  And I didn’t pass by PIA’s comment at all. I wrote a long post about the confusion over the Priesthood of Christ versus the Ordained Priesthood. We share in the priesthood of all believers, which is a burden and obligation, not license to touch Him. That should be, once again, reserved to the Priesthood of the Ordained.
-
-
Also, I started by stating (about four posts in) it isn’t irreverent or ill-trained EMHCs that are the problem but more that EMHCs are allowed at all. So personally—-  you were asked, and you do it because of attendance levels at 7 Masses, and with reverence. I’m sure I could do it as well… probably with much better vigilance and reverence than most.  But I don’t.  I’m wondering about the need for 7 Masses on Sunday, not enough priests, diocesan planning, and all the reasons you have a packed house. There should either be more parishes, more priests, or more deacons that you need that many EMs.  The parish I used to attend has 6 Masses on the weekend (7 when I was there) and no EMs. They have two priests, two deacons. They are the only one’s that administer Communion. Whoever isn’t offering Mass and reading the Gospel are there in the sacristry in alb and stole or dalmatic, waiting for Communion time.
-
-
I would conclude with being more than a little disturbed there there are Catholics on the planet that think touching the Sacred species, transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ, somehow ISN’T Him anymore after being touched. If it wasn’t then there would be no sacrilege or irreverence because it would simply be bread and wine again.

Although I am a bit of a theologian, and in order to have complete disclosure I am also of the opinion that 1)Extraordinary Ministers have incorrectly become “ordinary” and 2) acknowledge that the Church preference is that we are to receive on the tongue, my advice is more practical in this situation. Bring it up to your Pastor. Extraordinar y ministers shoulc be correctly trained and should take their duty with enough reverence to learn how to do it properly. Tell the Priest that the Extraordinary Ministers do not know how to offer the Host on the tongue and how much this concerns you (and others). If the Priest is any good, he will immediately make this an issue and give the EMHCs the proper direction.

Moreover, not bringing this up and letting it go is not only “giving in,” but is a disservice to the Church. The Church has stated on numerous occasions that receiving on the tongue is the preference. If people do not consistently stand up for the preferred method to receive, the method that most reverently receives our Lord in the Eucharist, it will be lost to subsequent generations.

Jesus was only nine months in the womb of Mary, three hours on the Cross, three days in the sepulcher, but He is always in the tabernacle. 

Does our reverence before Him bear witness to this most blessed truth?

Editor CT, Hieronymus thank you for your excellent posts and explanations. The title “Extraordinary” ministers should be examined. Looking up the word extraordinary—you will find it means; unusual, uncommon, abnormal rare , unconformity. However it is far too common and even “ordinary” at many local parishes. Even if a priest is on the altar and can handle a small group—up steps an E-minister to do it for him. This is the result of allowing the door to be open to Extraordinary Ministers and girl altar servers. Once they are allowed on the altar it is difficult to have them retired permanently. I would certainly like to see that happen in this new year so the priest’s sacred role and influence could begin to be restored.

@Patt, as @PIA pointed out, Saint Tarcisius’ fingers were also not consecrated, yet he was declared a saint for carrying the Eucharist to those imprisoned.  Our bodies are not consecrated, yet we receive the Host into our unworthy human bodies as Christ asked us to do. And I am not interested in selling EMHC, I am interested in faithfully doing as I am asked.
@EditorCT, there is no need to justify my work as an EMHC, I am faithfully fulfilling what I am asked to do.  As for standing alone, I know the other EMHCs, and I know of no pride in them when it comes to being an EMHC.  In fact, they are the most humble intent followers of Christ that I know.  Maybe the priest was telling you of the EMHC’s pride to explain to someone who sees them as the Devil’s followers why he can’t get rid of them.  Or maybe you just heard wrong or are interpreting what you see the way you want to see it?
As for the website article that you referred to, besides the huge part about celibacy, the writer forgets that there is no mass without a priest, and no consecrated Eucharist.  No one takes the place of the priest,  EMHCs know this and I feel sorry for the writer of that article that he doesn’t feel the eternal importance of his role in the consecration, and thinks that others take his place.  I have never seen an EMHC rush the altar and try to take the place of the priest in any way.
@I Believe,  I have faith, and I do what my faith leader tells me is permissible with reverence.  I don’t have time for all of the church documents.  St. Thomas Aquinas saw the need for faith for this very reason, it is unreasonable to ask people to reason about more than they can learn in the life-time they are given if that is not their work.  It is up to the leaders with the necessary intellectual skills whose job it is to know the documents.  There are many reasons Catholics may not believe in the real presence, to keep this short that is all I will say.
@Todd Drain,  Thank you for your reply.  Perhaps no one here has said as much, that the Host is no longer the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ because an unconsecrated hand has touched it.  That is an implication that I am drawing from much of the vehemence of some posters on this site.  We need more people to post on the Real Presence of Christ and how that is the important message.
@ Matthew Perkins, Thank you.  I agree with you- we need more vocal presence on the important and essential aspects of the Catholic faith, especially the Real Presence.

Kathy,

You can’t discount the documents of the Church like that!  We all have an obligation to keep ourselves informed about the Church’s teaching and disciplines, especially at a time of crisis, such as we are living through. Bishops and priests are not doing their duty - your priest is an example.  Our Lady at La Salette spoke about this (this is one of the Church’s approved apparitions) so you really do need to keep yourself informed. Do you really want to be presented at your judgment with the shocking consequences of participating in this abuse?  Possibly presented with people who lost faith in the Real Presence thanks to people like you handling the Sacred Species?  After all, if Kathy can handle the Blessed Sacrament, what’s so special about it?  I know of people living in adulterous relationships who are EMHC in their parish. What a double-whammy scandal.

Allow me to ask you this, Kathy. Why do you think that so many Catholics are opposed to this practice of lay people giving out Holy Communion?  Remember, many, if not all of us, have been asked to take on this mantle - and refused. Why?

@ EditorCT

We have what is called assent.  We cannot possibly be expected to keep up on each individual document, letter, dubium etc. AND be sure that we are understanding it fully.

I agree with your sentiment that we need to be aware (and each individual’s capabilities are different) of Church teaching, but we are permitted to leave some of the driving to those in the front.

If we are following teaching/instruction in good faith, then I suspect the judgement we face will include those who led us astray, if in fact such a thing is happening.  It will be THEIR millstone.

EMHCs are NOT inherently an abuse.  They are permitted whether or not one likes it.  They can be overused, but that is the pastoral judgement of the priest, not of the laymen.

If you think EMHCs are being over-used, then don’t be one.

I’m not.

@JP, this is not rocket sciense and there is no excuse for not reading, comprehending and following the Church.  But I agree with you that those above you, including priests and bishops, are very much responsible for not teaching.

The document authorizing the introduction of extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist is an Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, issued on January 29, 1973, entitled Immensae caritatis. It authorizes the use of extraordinary ministers in “case of genuine necessity.”

What are those circumstances of genuine necessity? They are listed as whenever…

1.there is no priest, deacon, or acolyte;
2.these are prevented from administering Holy Communion because of another pastoral ministry or because of ill health or advanced age;
3.the number of the faithful requesting Holy Communion is such that the celebration of Mass or the distribution of the Eucharist outside Mass would be unduly prolonged.

The Instruction stipulates that:

Since these faculties are granted only for the spiritual good of the faithful and for cases of genuine necessity priests are to remember that they are not thereby excused from the task of distributing the Eucharist to the faithful who legitimately request it, and especially from taking and giving it to the sick.

Nothing could be clearer.

@Kathy,

“Saint Tarcisius’ fingers were also not consecrated, yet he was declared a saint for carrying the Eucharist to those imprisoned.”

The handling of the Eucharist by lay people is allowed in times of a persecution as stated by St. Basil the Great (see http://www.franciscan-archive.org/apologetica/tongue.html and numerous other webpages.) For this reason the example of St. Tarcisius is not universally valid.

The latest advice about how to receive on the tongue:

http://cantuar.blogspot.com/2011/01/5-tips-on-receiving-holy-eucharist-on.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+taylormarshall+(Canterbury+Tales+by+Taylor+Marshall)

@ I Believe

Darned right it’s not rocket science.  I’ve done a lot of reading myself, and use the exact phrase you did to encourage others to read.  It is NOT rocket science.  Reading Sacrosanctum Concilium (spelling from memory, sorry.) changed my view of my faith.

However there are nuances (to some things, although perhaps not in the case of EMHCs) where we don’t always necessarily understand exactly what’s written.  Do always remember that the bulk of what we read which is generated in Rome, is translated to English from Latin.  Only the Latin versions are official.  (Okay, here we may be getting into rocket science).  I can’t read much at all in Latin, but even then I read more in Latin than most people I know, aside from some of the ordained.

BTW I recently had the EMHC discussion with our priest.  There is another doc referring to EMHCs which is more recent than that which you quoted, but off the top of my head I cannot remember what it’s called.

JP, you are wrong - this IS inherently a liturgical abuse.  Here’s a very good summary explaining why…  And, by the way, JP, this article also explains why you may not always understand what is meant in Vatican documents emanating post-Vatican II, and as you’ll see, it ain’t got nuthin to do with translations from Latin to English. Absolutely nothing…
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/extmin.htm

Kathy, true, St. Tarcisius fingers were not consecrated (in the 3rd Century), but he was allowed to do this in a crisis and under abnormal, unusual circumstances, not every day and at countless Masses. I repeat- priests have had their fingers consecrated for this purpose, and you have not, nor have you taken Holy Orders. Extraordinary is for abnormal, rare, unusual conditions. But you are talking about every Mass. You say you would gladly step down, well, don’t let me block your exit.

Set yourself up so that you only recieve communion from the priest. Switch lanes if you have to. Never recieve from “eucharistic ministers”. Priests can touch communion. If you are a eucharistic minister, quit and substitute your “ministry” by praying at mass that communion on the hand and non priests touching Jesus will stop.

No, Joseph, I will spend my time praying that vocations to the priesthood increase and that EMHC aren’t as necessary.

I am of a very traditional mindset and would prefer to only receive from a priest, while kneeling and on the tongue.  This is not possible for me most of the time without becoming a huge distraction as I am a member of the parish choir.  Most of the EMHCs at my parish are capable of distributing Holy Communion properly.  A few will essentially toss the host into my mouth, other will touch my tongue with their fingers, surely as disgusting for them as it is for me.  I am inclined to begin receiving in the hands in the event an EMHC who doesn’t know what she is doing.  My preference would be, however, to do away with the EMHC all together.  My parish seats about 500.  There is no reason that the priest cannot distribute by himself with the assistance of one or two EMHCs for the Precious Blood.  (Oh how I long for the time when Swine Flu kept us from distributing under both kinds)

@Liseux, given I have regularly seen one or three EMs (no chalice, chalice) used at 10-20 person attendance Masses, increasing vocations isn’t likely to diminish the problem of Extraordinaries really being Ordinaries. Some of the more egregious behavior, which has been around easily since the 1980s, and probably since the 70s, are EMs administering Communion after the Celebrant’s ciborium is empty, and EMs finishing most of the consumption of His Blood and purifying vessels while father takes a seat on the throne (yet another odd occurrence). EMHCs are NEARLY as necessary as things are made out to be right now. They certainly won’t be necessary with more priests or deacons around.
-
-
——I ponder the question: “When the Church returns to tradition more (attendance at and numbers of TLMs grows) and a full fledged Reform of the Reform happens with the new Mass, and vocations begin to significantly increase (which I guarantee they will) and you have two-four priests in each rectory and a bevy of better trained deacons to supplement very large parishes, will all the legions of EMHCs return to the pews quietly?”
-
-
——Indeed I wonder… because when the extraordinary becomes ordinary, indulgence becomes entitlement.

I meant to say “EMHCs are NOT NEARLY as necessary…”

When Catholics are as holy as they are to be, and we have a holy and full priesthood, then I do hope that the majority of the EMHC’s return quietly to the pews.

A somewhat pertinent piece of latest news:

New York churchgoers warned of hepatitis A outbreak through infected Communion minister (the heading by Catholic News)
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/01/04/2011-01-04_christmas_day_churchgoers_warned_of_hepatitis_a_outbreak_at_long_island_church.html?r=news

Another reason is added to the case against EXTRAORDINARY ministers. I never was one to sip from the communal wine cup either. Heaven only knows what germs lurked there as hundreds took a sip from same cup. No thanks—besides it was totally unnecessary—the bread alone is complete.

@Patt.  Never understood this rationale.  You have the chance to receive the blood of Christ and are more worried about germs than receiving our Lord?!  He is worth the germs.

Our pastor Combines the two—so we do not use a communal cup. As I said receiving under ONE species suffices. It was done that way for many, many years, nobody complained. Anyhow, it is my choice, no germs for me, dear.

Yes it is your choice and your priorities.

I always go to the Priest:O)

An excellent summary of the fallacious claims about the antiquity of the reception in hand:

http://cantuar.blogspot.com/2011/01/did-church-fathers-practice-communion.html

I have not had a similar experience. I continue to receive on the tongue. I believe that you should do what you think best. It is your choice!

I am in awe of you guys who know exactly what Jesus would say or what Jesus thinks.  Even more impressive is that He ALWAYS agrees with you!

My dear neighbor died last week.  I have been bringing him Holy Communion with my unconsecrated and female hands since mid September when I called in a priest to give him last rites and to bring him back into the Church.  I greatly appreciate how the priest got to him the same afternoon, but no priest ever checked up after that until h died.  I hope the Lord will not hold it against me.

My dear neighbor died last week.  I have been bringing him Holy Communion with my unconsecrated and female hands since mid September when I called in a priest to give him last rites and to bring him back into the Church.  I greatly appreciate how the priest got to him the same afternoon, but no priest ever checked up after that until he died.  I hope the Lord will not hold it against me.

caroline,

Have you any idea how shocking your action of taking unauthorised Holy Communion to someone, without the knowledge and permission of the priest?  Not that you should be handling the Blessed Sacrament anyway, that is NOT the correct role of the lay person - it is an aberration.

How do you know that your neighbour was not in a state of objective mortal sin?  Can you hear confessions?  That’ll be next, the way things are going. This is utterly scandalous.  You clearly haven’t a clue, but the priest should know better. 

What I would like to know is HOW DID YOU HAVE ACCESS TO THE BLESSED SACRAMENT, that you could take an extra host without the priest’s knowledge? 

As for Elmo - sadly, you’ve fallen into the Protestant heresy of separating Christ from His Church. How on earth do you think we have always known, and always will know, what Jesus thinks?  We know, because He told us how we would know, when He said to His first Pope and Bishops “He that hears you, hears Me” and that teaching authority can only be used to teach doctrines in conformity to Tradition.  Novelties like Communion in the hand, standing, are - like all the other modern novelties - not in conformity with Tradition and therefore cannot - have not, and never will be - imposed on the faithful. They’re un-Catholic practices.

Caroline, sounds like you gave yourself Holy Orders while you were making all the major decisions. Wonder if the Lord will hold it against You? Probably.

I explained the situation to my pastor and he gave me permission to bring the host each Sunday morning to my friend.  On Tuesdays I do hospital ministry, get the host at Mass from another church nearer the hospital, arrange to have some over and bring those to sick neighbors and the priests know all about it.  The priest who gave my friend the last rites came from one of our national parishes.  I was disappointed that he never checked back.  The sick man was indeed dying, he was reconciled, and I have no reason to think he was committing mortal sins between communions.
I have since told my pastor that the man died and thanked him for allowing me to bring him communion over several months.

caroline,

That priest of yours is not a sound priest.  He clearly had no concern for your neighbour’s spiritual well being or he would have paid him/her a visit to offer Confession. 

With all due respect, it is not your business to decide whether or not the patient was committing mortal sins between Communions, as you put it.  Firstly, you appear to be saying that this person had been lapsed for a time, and that alone requires Confession before receiving Holy Communion.  Do you realise that it is a mortal sin to miss Mass on Sunday, without good reason, such as illness?  And are you aware that we can sin in thought, as well as word and deed?  So, unless you can read the patient’s mind, you have no way of knowing what his spiritual state was.  Instead of thanking your priest for letting you take the man Communion over several months, you should have told him off roundly, for failing in his duty to that lapsed Catholic.

Thank God I found the SSPX.  I just can’t comprehend how Catholics can attend the new Mass with all these aberrations going on, lay people playing at being priests and deciding who needs Confession and who doesn’t. 

God help you all.

Editor Ct, aren’t you assuming alot of facts?  Caroline stated the priest did visit the neighbor and brought him back into the Church.  The priest also gave Caroline permission to bring him communion.  Are you concerned the priest is not authorized to let a lay person bring communion without sufficient preparation or that they permit it at all?

Pam,

I’m not making any assumptions.  Caroline said: “On Tuesdays I do hospital ministry, get the host at Mass from another church nearer the hospital, arrange to have some over and bring those to sick neighbors and the priests know all about it.”

She arranges for hosts to bring to sick neighbours.  She did not say that the priest first visited them to ensure that they were in a state of grace before receiving Holy Communion. On the contrary, she said she’d arranged for the priest to come and give one of her neighbours the Last Rites “and bring him back into the Church”  If I’ve picked this up wrongly, Caroline would surely have corrected me - or will now.  My reading of her post is that she takes Holy Communion to various sick neighbours and in the case of the lapsed man, he was brought back into the Church before his death, after receiving Communion from Caroline for some time, despite Article 8 of the Vatican Instruction on the Laity, 1997, which forbade the use of these “ministers” even in a packed church and stated that they were only to be used in exceptional circumstances where no priest was present at Mass. What on EARTH are the priests doing if lay people are taking Communion to the sick?  How do the sick get to confession?

Caroline (and her negligent priest) have been making all the assumptions, it seems to me.  Firstly, that the man was in a state of grace, ignoring the law of the Church that if we miss Mass even once, without sound cause, such as illness that prevents us from attending, we must confess before approaching for Communion again.

As for your other question, about Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, you’re dead right there - as I’ve already intimated above, I absolutely do NOT believe that they should be handling the Blessed Sacrament. Article 8 of the Vatican Instruction on the Laity says that even a packed church is not reason enough for their use and that they should only ever be permitted if there is no priest present.  Caroline’s jibe that she takes Communion to the sick with her “unconsecrated and female hands” is very typical of the apparent arrogance that I’ve experienced when dealing with these lay people who play at being priests.  I’m not making any personal judgment about the state of Caroline’s soul, so don’t lecture me on charity, but it is a feature of being an EMHC, in my experience, that they are very prone to defending their position, usually on the grounds that “Father needs me…”  I know priests who have (in one case is having) a time of it trying to ease them out of his sanctuary. The devil knew what he was doing when he introduced this particular liturgical abuse.  Doing what he always does to take us away from Christ and His Church, appeals to our pride.

Given that Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity is present, whole and entire under the appearances of (both) bread and wine, it is imperative that no fragment or particle of the Host remains on the hand or falls to the ground.  That the safety of the Blessed Sacrament is paramount, should persuade anyone with a truly Catholic soul, to refuse to participate in this liturgical abuse.  Only the ordained should handle the Blessed Sacrament.

Thanks for the clarification, EditorCt.  I read her statement to say the priest brought the gentleman back to the Church first.  I defer to your superior knowledge of the liturgical precepts as to whether or not there should be a lay person bringing hosts.  Biblically there is alot of delegation of responsibility, so I was never terribly offended by it.  However, I never thought my hands should be holding the Lord so I receive on the tongue.  As to whether someone has confessed, wouldn’t you agree that’s between the communicant and God? Even if a priest gives communion,they don’t ask each communicant if they are in a state of grace.

I didn’t have time to read all the comments so I may be repeating what somebody else has said. The answer is quite easy. We only have to do what the Catholic Church has said. First in the Instruction of Paul VI:  Memoriale Domini, the Congregation for Divine Worship’s 1969 Instruction on the Manner of Distributing Holy Communion, wherein the Pope ALLOWS for communion in the hand but instructs:

This method of distributing Holy Communion [on the tongue] must be retained, taking the present situation of the Church in the entire world into account, not merely because it has many centuries of tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful’s reverence for the Eucharist.

Further the practice which must be considered traditional ensures, more effectively, that Holy Communion is distributed with the proper respect, decorum and dignity. It removes the danger of profanation of the sacred species, in which “in a unique way, Christ, God and man, is present whole and entire, substantially and continually.” Lastly it ensures that diligent carefulness about the fragments of consecrated bread which the Church has always recommended.

And second, the Church’s instructions on the rare use of EMHC: ON CERTAIN QUESTIONS REGARDING
THE COLLABORATION OF THE NON-ORDAINED FAITHFUL IN THE SACRED MINISTRY OF PRIEST where in we are instructed:

§ 2. Extraordinary ministers may distribute Holy Communion at eucharistic celebrations only when there are no ordained ministers present or when those ordained ministers present at a liturgical celebration are truly unable to distribute Holy Communion.(99) They may also exercise this function at eucharistic celebrations where there are particularly large numbers of the faithful and which would be excessively prolonged because of an insufficient number of ordained ministers to distribute Holy Communion. (100)

Whereas in most of the world the left hand is called the “s_it hand” because it is used to wipe and the right is used to shake another’s, there, a priest’s ritual washing is not just symbolic—it can protect the faithful from disease.

Communion on the Tongue for them is a matter of good health.

Perhaps this is just one of Mother Teresa’s concerns:

“Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.”

(Not the same “Pam” that posted above.)  We never have heard if you are still receiving on the tongue, Danielle, but as a mother of eight I hope you are.  If your kids stop doing what they think is right because it is awkward, or people make it uncomfortable, or because they are pressured to stop, you would see the error here. Not one of your reasons was because you felt you were honoring and loving Jesus more. Our holy Father has everyone receive on the tongue at his masses, I read on these blogs.  Mother Theresa said it made her very sad to see people receive in the hand.  I have seen hosts on the floor, behind kneeler, put into pockets…. no wonder He sweat blood.  I hope you and your children receive from a priest if that will make you more comfortable and that you continue to receive on the tongue.

I’m just now reading this post and I have to say that it makes me very sad that you are feel almost forced to receive in the hands because receiving on the tongue has become so awkward - I cannot imagine what it would be like to see the host fall to the floor!  I have received on the tongue for the past several years without a problem, and I haven’t really come into contact with flustered Eucharistic ministers who aren’t sure how to do it, but I guess most of the time, I’ve received from priests (at our old church, we always sat in the same spot and that was always the proper place to receive Eucharist from the priest himself).

Then do what I’ve done since I joined the Church on Easter of 1994—do NOT receive Communion from the non-Ordained. I circle around, tend to always sit on which side Father tends to administer Communion, walk outside the church and around… whatever it takes, and receive Communion from an Ordained (priest or a deacon) ONLY.
End Quote.
This is what I do now to avoid receiving Communion from female EE ministers with tight or low cut dresses.  I now sit where I know the deacon or priest will distribute communion. I went to another parish this past Sunday where I didn’t know where to sit.  I would have received from an EE minister but I was not about to receive our Lord from a woman in tight blue jean walking shorts with turquoise toe nails.  I’m sorry if this offends but I just can’t receive from women dressed like this.  I went to the line of the priest before the usher could get to me.  I also receive on the tongue.  This way is the most comfortable for me.  As a child I received in the tongue.  I fell away from the church for many years so I never did learn how to do Communion in the hand.  When I returned to the church last year, I thought you had to receive in the hand.  It felt very awkward to me.  I found out later that you can still receive in the tongue so I went back to that. If the Pope Benefict XVI prefers to administer the Eucharist that way, that’s good enough for me.  Receiving in the hand did come about from disobedient priests in the 70’s and the Pope just giving in to them.

How sad that you “feel” coerced to conform to the incompetence of an EMHC.

If you were voting in a primary election, would you permit an election judge to talk you out of asking for the party ballot of your choice? Would you allow a store clerk to pressure you into buying a different brand than the one you want? Or to buy extra accesories that you don’t need? Would you allow a college counselor to talk you into changing your major to something you weren’t interested in? Are any of these things as important as the Eucharist? As for kissing the Sacred Host, I’ve never heard that the laity, or even priests/deacons for that matter, have permission to kiss the host. I’ve never even heard of the pope doing it. It strikes me as very presumptuous to do anything to the Sacred Host for which we do not have explicit permission.

@Janice Burkhead - “Re:  COMMUNION IN THE HAND:  Mother Theresa was asked one time what the greatest sin in the world was and she replied “COMMUNION IN THE HAND!””

That is absolutely NOT true!!  You should be careful about spreading lies…

Quotes falsely attributed to Mother Teresa and significantly paraphrased versions or personal interpretations of statements that are not her authentic words:

Mother Teresa: On receiving Holy Communion in the Hand:

“You quoted “Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.”

“This statement does not seem authentic to us. We have never heard Mother Teresa saying these words nor read them in her writings. One thing that Mother Teresa used to repeat very often was:

“…The greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself… the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.””

Mother Teresa Center
524 West Calle Primera,
Suite #1005N
San Ysidro, CA 92173

http://www.motherteresa.org/08_info/ReceivingC.html

The most complete source for info on this subject is www.communion-in-the-hand.org.  I noticed that they do not use the Mother Teresa quotaton anywhere on their site.

To me, this is a simple decision.  You walk up to receive Holy Communion, which is God Himself, and receive Him reverently on the tongue while kneeling… or you cave into the liberals and receive God like a protestant, standing with your hand out.  I think that’s really what this is all about, and it has effectively destroyed the whole belief in the Real Presence.

@Barry -  I hope you’re not one of those who make the grand gesture of kneeling to receive when everyone else is standing and receiving in Communion with the body of Christ.

If you do, I’m sure you’re sincere in your reverence, but for everyone else it looks like you’re saying “look at me everyone!  I’m the holiest one here!”

It was never required in the norm to kneel when receiving - except at the Communion rail.  Yes, I know they are doing it at St. Peter’s now, but it is still not part of any norm.

The object of Holy Communion is Jesus Christ. If a person kneels to receive Communion, which by the way is the Holy Father’s explicit desire and the ONLY way he administers Communion, it is presumed that the kneeling is in adoration and affection for our Lord.  Your subtle slam at him, trying to accuse him of pride, is shameful.

The norm to kneel for Communion existed until it was granted to stand (by Indult) in the 1970s, as with lay EMs and Communion under both kinds. The immemorial custom is kneeling, on the tongue.  It may not be the “norm” for the new Mass, but it was the norm for countless centuries.

Have a nice day Joseph.

Joseph, I solved that problem long ago.  I live in Phoenix where there are half a dozen churches, including four where the Latin Mass is offered, all where I am one of dozens/hundreds who receive on the tongue while kneeling.

So I consider your post to be a red herring.  You completely ignored my central point: Standing and receiving the Holy Eucharist has dramatically contributed to the widespread lack of belief in the Real Presence.  Denying that is pointless - the proof is in the collapse of Catholicism worldwide.  So the real question is, why do you insist on something so harmful that the Pope himself is demonstrating to be not the preferred way?  How can you justify it?

@Barry - “Standing and receiving the Holy Eucharist has dramatically contributed to the widespread lack of belief in the Real Presence.  Denying that is pointless - the proof is in the collapse of Catholicism worldwide.”

Well, I will deny your supposition because there is not one scintilla of evidence that standing has reduced the understanding of the Real Presence.  That is an absolute canard.

You do make my point though, in that if you have found a community where kneeling and receiving on the tongue is the local norm, then wonderful!!  It is about communion worship when we are together at the feast, not “I’m going to worship this way and you worship that way and we’ll see who God listens to first.”

If I was at a Mass where it was instructed that kneeling and receiving on the tongue is the norm, then I would be more than happy to do the same - because I don’t want to call attention to myself and I want to be in communion with that community.

Okay, so please explain to all of us why surveys consistently show that a significant number of Catholics no longer believe in the Real Presence.  This happened… why?

@Barry - It has to do with lack of education/formation and focus from the clergy.  It doesn’t have to do with body position.

Anyone who thinks they can approach God Himself standing up with their hand out isn’t thinking this out.

@Joseph, one is in Communion with the Church, partaking of the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Christ. I get your point in all of this, but in my part of the Church receiving standing or kneeling is optional either way. If one feels obliged in conscience to kneel, they should obey their conscience and do so. No priest (as a matter of norm and law) or lay person can deny reception of Him kneeling. Given this was an abuse of an indult to start with, I rather refer to think of doing it as following legitimate conscience, and only that. Its also consciousness raising if you do it long enough for people to notice and perhaps ask you why, so that you might encourage them too to kneel.

OK, I guess He prefers you stick your tongue out at Him ;-)

Wow!  Good luck with a comment like that.

Well, didn’t take long to see your true colors, Joseph. If you administer Communion to yourself, you are still sticking your tongue out, unless you’ve developed some odd walrus type tip your head back and drop Him in like a sardine method of receiving Communion. This got juvenile pretty quick…

I hope you can find an SSPX parish near you - that will solve all your needs.  Good luck.

@Joseph - Who? You need to @ your responses. The closest SSPX chapel (they don’t have parishes) is 1.5 hours away, one way, and I’m friends with far too many Fraternity and diocesan priests to switch over to the Society. They’ll probably finish reconciling next year anyway, and then everything will get even MORE interesting. Bwuah hah hah hah! (joking) Have a nice life Joseph.

@Todd - the chances of SSPX reconciling with Rome are roughly the same as those of FutureChurch reconciling with Rome

OK. Now I know for absopositively sure you have no idea what you’re talking about. Thanks. I think we’re done here, don’t you?

@Todd - Fair enough, we’ll see where SSPX is in a year.  But yes, since your inability to discuss without devolving into personal insults is clear,  I’m happy to say we’re done.

Personal insults? That you don’t know what you’re talking about is a self evident judgment. And I don’t “stick my tongue out” at the Lord. That’s preposterous.  The upside and downside of reconciling with Rome are both very long lists for the SSPX.  I hazard to say they will reconcile, so long as it is under a Personal Prelature, and the SOPs to liberals in Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae are closed with respect to the SSPX, FSSP, ICKSP, and other “trad” groups.  I actually see a greater harm to be done to the SSPX if they fail to reconcile at this point, unless they figure out some palatable way to say no.  I would give it 2-3 years wiggle room on time, since they have to digest the preamble, discuss and debate, formulate a response, give it to Rome, who in turn digests, discusses, formulates a response, etc.  Next year is a best case scenario. I’m not backtracking… I just thought more about the back and forth and how interminably long it takes Ecclesia Dei adn other dicasteries to do anything. The wheels of justice grind slow, yet exceedingly fine.

Why the little ones are not educated that the Body of Christ should be received with reverence and respect. Not on hand but on tongue and while kneeling. this is a false teaching of Vatican II and you, apostles of Jesus, shall know it better. Don’t follow this false doctrine. set an example. this is why many people are listening to Vatican II because only few defend priest traditions. In Tridentine Mass faithful receive body of Christ according to traditions. Why changing what God Himself has instituted. This is a sacrilege!!!! 
AND ONLY A PROPERLY ORDAINED PRIEST CAN GIVE COMMUNION !!! SHAME ON ALL WHO HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THIS COMMUNISTIC REVOLUTION DURING VATICAN II. GOD WILL HUMBLE YOU. IT IS NOT PEOPLES FAULT BECAUSE TRADITIONS WERE BLOTTED OUT. SET AN EXAMPLE AND RECEIVE COMMUNION ON TONGUE WHILE KNEELING AND DON"T CARE ABOUT WHAT OTHERS DO. YOU MUST COME BACK TO TRADITIONS PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Perhaps we who are not ordained should not receive the Body,Blood,Soul & Divinity Who is Our Lord & God at all until we are received by Him Heaven…

communion on the tongue is much easier when you’re kneeling - bring back the communion rail

This, unfortunately is not just a Eucharistic Minister problem.  My 12 year old daughter had a stroke at birth and cannot receive communion in the hand because her left hand will not supinate (turn upward).  She was personally taught by our parish priest how to receive communion on the tongue prior to her First Holy Communion.  Today (now 5 years later), we had a new pastor and when she tried to receive communion, since she did not have her hands out, he simply blessed her.  Afterwards I told him about her stroke and that she has to receive it on the tongue.  He told me (and her as she was there), that she has no right to receive communion because she doesn’t know how to do it properly.  In her lifetime she has probably received communion by more than 30 priests and another dozen or so Eucharist Ministers with no problems—ever.  Today she was made to feel foolish because she physically cannot receive communion in the hand.  It makes me sad.

The priest is WRONG and should be reported. He is another of the “make your own rules” liberal priests which need to be removed as they are doing harm with their ERRORS,

Norene—it may make you sad but it makes me justifiably angry at this priest.

Sad?  Justifiably angry? That mother should be causing mayhem - that priest is not only totally wrong and highly ignorant (obviously has no idea that reception on the tongue is the NORM in the Church and Communion in the hand remains an indult, not encouraged by any of the modern priests) but he is culpably ignorant.  He OUGHT to know.

I hope Norene that you contact your bishop to let him know about this scandal. He’ll probably do sweet nothing about it, but at least YOU will have done your duty by alerting him to the situation.

Correction: in my previous post, “not encouraged by any of the modern priests” should, of course, read “not encouraged by any of the modern popes.”

Apologies for this mistake - even the liberal Pope John Paul II disapproved of Communion in the hand, so Norene, you ought to set about educating that ignorant (and highly insensitive) priest - as well as reporting the matter to the bishop.

Absolutely REPORT HIM TO THE BISHOP!!
If this priest is not reported that would be a sin of omission for letting him get by with this. He is clearly not carrying out his priestly duties, quite the contrary.  I am glad I do not belong to such a parish.

I apologize.  My post was not clearly written.  When I wrote that he said that she did not know how to receive communion correctly, I meant on the tongue, not that in the hand was the only way.  He said that her posture was not correct.  Like I said, she has been receiving communion on the tongue by dozens of different priests for over 5 years and was personally instructed by an amazing priest when she was 8.  I believe the problem was that she is a child and I believe that this priest was not used to seeing children receive communion that way.  So when he did not see her hands out, he just passed her by, without even stopping to offer her communion.  I was sad because he turned the problem on her, saying that she approached the Eucharist incorrectly, instead of simply admitting that there was a miscommunication.  He said that she could receive the Eucharist on the tongue if she learned how to do it properly and until then had no right to receive communion.  As a child who is managing to live in this world with only one hand and all of the cognitive confusion that accompanies a stroke, there are many things that she struggles to do properly, but receiving communion has never been one of them.  But I wanted to make it clear that it wasn’t that he was objecting to her receiving communion on the tongue, but that in his mind, she didn’t approach it correctly.  I truly wish the church would go back to this form of receiving communion solely, and then there would be no such confusion, and so much less disrespect for the Eucharist.

Norene,

That is baloney.  Please don’t try to make the slightest excuse for that priest. I have never EVER heard of any priest refusing Communion because someone’s “posture” wasn’t right. He’s either an outright Modernist (Protestant) or he’s a nut. Whatever, there is no excuse ot be made.

Jesus said, as found in Mathew 15:11 It is not what enters one’s mouth that defiles that person; but what comes out of the mouth is what defiles one.”
It pretty scandalous, and not Catholic at all, to call a priest a nut.  That kind of talk leads to dissension, but of course that is the true intent of some people here.  They would prefer that people look at priests with suspicion and contempt if EMHCs are present, or for any other reason they come up with, until the Catholic Church conducts every mass in the way they deem to be appropriate (ieSSPX).
I thank G-d that Jesus continues to come to people in the sacrifice of the mass without regard to dissension like this.  It has been over a year since this post and these comments began, and Jesus continues to come.

I didn’t say he WAS a nut, I said he was either an outright Modernist, ie. he does not hold to the truths of the Catholic Faith or he is a nut.

This kneejerk response of “Jesus wouldn’t say that” comes from people who are reading a different Gospel altogether from the one handed down by the Church. The one I read has Jesus calling Herod “that fox”. The “gentle Jesus” of the modernist Gospel does not exist, my friend. Our Lord will, unless he repents, make short work of that priest at his judgment. Your false charity won’t help him then.

@EditorCT,
That quote from Jesus came from the Bible and is freely available as found on the website of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Only G-d sits in judgment of us all.
The truth of the matter is that Jesus continues to come to people in the mass all the time, whether they receive on the tongue or in the hand.  And for that I am very grateful.

@Kathy - Yes, Kathy, He continues to come, but unfortunately to a much smaller group of followers.  The Catholic church close to my home has mucher fewer people than even three years ago, and they all have white hair. The families and children are gone. Everyone receives on their hand, it’s a “supper” not a sacrifice, the word “contraception” has never been mentioned from the pulpit, and many of the people are pro-choicers.  Please consider this for just a second: maybe, just maybe, if the people were taught to kneel and receive God reverently, maybe they would have got it.  And if so, perhaps the virtual collapse in the number of the faithful worldwide wouldn’t have occurred. 

Something better change, and quick. The younger families are fleeing in huge numbers.

Kathy, I don’t think people are asking to look at priests with suspicion, but to know their own faith enough to know when a priest is preaching or saying something not in line with the faith - like the comment that the young girl should not be receiving.  He may have reacted the way he did for a million reasons and he may have regretted the words as soon as they came out of his mouth.  But the girl’s mom needs to speak to him again and let him know it was not ok and she needs to know her faith enough to let her daughter realize the priest mispoke that day.  I would be interested to hear what the priest calls the proper way to receive on the tongue is, because my tongue doesn’t leave my mouth until the Eucharist is raised in the ministers hand.  Also, as our society and Church are under such attack it is dangerous to turn a blind eye or pat every priest on the back when some openly undermine church teaching.  If you haven’t noticed, there is alot of disobedience and misteaching going on.  We need to pray for our priests and let them know we know our faith.

Jarrai gora oso ona lana baden blogger, zure gogorra lana definitly off ordaindu.

How did Padre Pio administer communion?  I have wondered.

Fr Kevin B sent me with letter to a woman mystic in Belgium known as Marguerite.  She is probably best known for Legion of Little Souls in connection with St Therese of L as well as the call for the World Day of Prayer for Peace.  In visiting her I was told that two things were left out of the published book at the request of her Benedictine Bishop.  The first had to do with a coming great event which people might find frightening.  The second was “Many people with receive Me in their hands, you must NEVER do so.”  I can assert that my own observations of Marguerite’s reception of communion was on the tongue; very focused exclusively on God in that NOTHING and NO ONE distracted her in the times I attended Mass and she happened to be there; and joyful like a very intelligent child, trusting, totally focused, enjoying delightful daily food for the journey which might not at all be so delightful.

Receive from the priest. Problem solved.

Agree.  MANY problems solved.  At St John’s Abbey / University in Collegeville MN they used bread they made, then sliced into approximately 1” cubes.  Crumbs…  Saw pieces crumbling on one occasion.  Probably a poor mix, but it was weird for a religious community to shave that way given the essence of Holy Eucharist.

You guys must think Jesus is awfully vain if you think he gets worked up over who/how he is received or if a crumb falls on the floor.  Geez

Andrew - You’re kidding, right?

@ Todd Drain - in case you just happen to be receiving comment notices on this.  Just wanted to remind you of our back and forth over SSPX reconciliation:

Todd: “They’ll probably finish reconciling next year…”

Joseph: “the chances of SSPX reconciling with Rome are roughly the same as those of FutureChurch reconciling with Rome”

Todd:  “Now I know for absopositively sure you have no idea what you’re talking about.”

Since I have no idea what I’m talking about, Todd, maybe you can enlighten me as to how the Church is doing with that reconciliation?  Tick-tock, tick-tock

I am confused.  I have a friend who kneels for Holy Communion every time.  She was told by her new pastor that she cannot kneel for Communion as that is what the Bishops in the U.S. want. Ist this true?  I thought we could receive kneeling or standing.  Does anyne know about this?  Especially since Holy Father allows kneeling and Communion on the tongue.

Patty, check out www.communion-on-the-hand.org and click on Videos, then click on the third video down, “Communion Kneeling and on the Tongue is Preferred Form,” which is an interview with Cardinal Arinze from 2010. You’ll find your answer there.

Sometimes I attend a Novus Ordo Mass at the Cathedral in Phoenix, where the priests are happy when you kneel. But in most churches, it’s definitely a battle.

Thank you Barry.
Funny, I’m watching EWTN and two Priests are just saying that you can kneel or stand for Holy Communion.

Standing or kneeling if reverent seems fine to me and in what i have read.  A theologian at St John’s, a single woman in her late 40’s and expert on archaic languages, once told me that in her Catholic faith [removed]she was not Roman Catholic), she and those of her faith stand after communion in thanksgiving in memory of Christ’s resurrection because it followed the sacrifice of His passion.  Further, she and others I know, bow to the alter if they received communion and are leaving instead of genuflecting.  I have not read anything on these matters - just sharing them.  For me the core is authentic respect and love for Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament.  I therefore receive on the tongue unless there are obvious reasons not to - such as the one given where a minister fumbled the delivery.  I also avoid “Extraordinary” Eucharist Ministers and always will for many reasons, foremost being that while Americans take the extraordinary as ordinary and some kind of “right” of choice - it isn’t and becomes no different than eating a piece of bread…  anybody can do it and a lot of desecration by almost any definition has crept into the practice of receiving and swallowing communion.  Lots of unconsumed hosts have been found in our parish for example outside the church building, on the floor, etc.

I watched Mass on EWTN this morning and was disappointed.  As I remember in the past, everyone received on the tongue.  This morning, many received in the hand. Women usually wore head coverings in the past as well.  Now, hardly anyone covers their head.  The Knights of Columbus were there and most received in the hand.  Also, two rows of men held hands during the Our Father.  I was taught that this practice is incorrect.  So sad…

Question..at mass, a young mother was explaining the host to her curious 6 hear old.  Coming back from communion, host in hand, she let the chold touchit.  The child was so excited to come to mass and wanted to learn all about the host.  The mom clearly made a mistake, but the priest stopped the mass and humiliated the mom, and terrified the child. Now she will not go back to mass.  Thoughts?

Margaret,

There is no match for presumption, which in large part is what the entire comment section of this article has been about.  I used to be very presumptuous, that is to say love without respect according to Saint Padre Pio.  The opposite is fear = respect without love. As even theologian and proponent of “inclusive language” Godfrey Leo Diekmann April 7, 1908 - February 22, 2002 put it to me in private conversation, for almost 2000 years people were afraid to approach Jesus and went through His angels and saints.  Since Vatican II people think of Jesus like He is a flower child.  The pendulum has swung too far in both directions.  It must be in the center.  In my own case while extremely presumptuous.  I even attended a “mass” where the priest used common grocery store “Wonderbread” for eucharist.  I knew him quite well, since he lived in the same house with another priest and myself (I am not a priest).  Shortly after his “mass” he left the priesthood for a woman).  This didn’t really change me much, unfortunately and I probably would have been like the the mother in your story. However, I visited the Blessed Sacrament one day and found myself physically trembling for no reason I could figure out.  It had never happened to me before in my life.  I thought maybe I was getting sick.  I was not.  It stopped when I left the chapel and has never returned.  Getting ready to return some books to library later that same day, there was one that turned out to be from a Saint.  I told God if there was anything He wanted me to see in the book it had better be now, and I randomly opened the book. It opened to a line that read, “It was because of your obstinate presumption that you trembled before me today.”  I studied the issue enough to tell you that presumption in the Bible is the grounds for loss of loved ones, including a wife.  In any event having suffered intensely for 7 years for my obstinate presumption, I will end by saying - if I were that mother, I would kiss the hand of that priest or any other priest if she thinks he is too harsh, beg God’s forgiveness, and teach the child to respect the Blessed Sacrament authentically.  As far as the priest is concerned, they are not immune either. Take for example Father Steven Scheier http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqiqO5BzH74

I never want to be counted as presumptuous before God again!  The cost is far more than a presumptuous person can admit to…  I couldn’t and would not have anyway were it not fro one grace filled moment.  The mother had one too, but probably has no clue yet.  I hope you can reach her heart and mind.  The Eucharistic miracles are instructive in this regard as well.

John T, While what you write about your own experience with presumption is beautiful and educational, you go to far suggesting the mother kiss the hand of the priest.  He caused a public scandal and division that will continue for years.  He didn’t approach the woman in love personally after Mass to educate her but presumed the worst and humiliated her publicly, slandering her name.  I could see him being censured, demoted, sent back to seminary for some education, but not praised for his actions.
Following Jesus’ own example or speaking harshly to the teachers who should know better, the priest needs to BEG the woman’s forgiveness!

it would be helpful and interesting to know the reaction of all the other people present at the Mass in question, but that is only vaguely guessed at by the writer.  I shall ask you to conduct your own search of presumption in the Bible.  Pleas also note the VERY public rebuke by St John of King Harod and Padre Pio of the doctor for his presumption regarding a woman.  The doctor’s actions involved illicit behavior with a fully consenting woman which is bad/fornication, but not on equal par with violating the Divine.  The entire list of emails above requires a fundamental realization that the Blessed Sacrament is not just a meal or subordinate to the person who receives communion.  The Blessed Sacrament is Divinity literally.  While I appreciate that the woman may have been ignorant, and I certainly don’t have all the facts, as with all other readers, such as what God sees in her heart/mind, but what I do know is that MANY people are far too presumptuous for their lack of respect for Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament and place emphasis on the human recipient rather than the divine.  It helps to explain the reported fact in the bible that a man placed his hand on the ark when he thought it was toppling over and fell dead instantly.  It seems today the Divine aspect is ignored and usually relegated to be subservient to the human considerations.  I simply can’t do that any longer as I once used to.

With what I know and have experienced, I would certainly kiss the hand of that priest or another and thanked him.

John T

Hit the wrong button - sorry. 

I am unaware of where in scripture Jesus gave example of apologizing to teachers or begging for forgiveness.  St John didn’t.  Padre Pio didn’t.  Pope John Paul II in his confronting and very publicly rebuking the priest turned politician in latin america didn’t.  Many other saints did not.  I am confused by why this priest should.  Please give example of Jesus ever backing off the duty of rebuking to save a soul from the killer sin of presumption.  I never found it in my bible search.

John T, This is not at all like the situation of John and King Herod or Padre Pio and the doctor.  And this may not even be a case of presumption.  You are projecting. The priests mind saw sin where there was beauty and innocence.  “Suffer the children to come to me.”  If we adults can touch our Lord with our sinful hands, how beautiful the touch of a searching child must have felt!!!  Certainly, the mom needed to know this is not something that should be done because not everyone would be as loving or well-intentioned as she, but it did not deserve the overreaction it received.  Look at the fruit.  Mom and child were traumatized and mom doesn’t dare go back. The parish is surely gossiping about it all. If all that is true, the priest (who is not Jesus, but may be striving to sainthood), should emulate St. Francis and alot of others saints who humbled themselves before those they served when they felt they erred.  You misunderstood what I wrote.  Jesus chastised teachers more severely because they were held to a higher standard.  He didn’t apologize to them because He is perfect.  He is God. But His followers did humble themselves and apologize.

This is like giving up sex because there are crying children in the house.

All you need to do is get in the line with the priest in it. 

I just refuse to get in the EM line if I can help it.

A few years ago, I started to receive the communion on hand on most occasions ever since I had a couple of incidents where the Holy Eucharist almost fell or had fallen off to the ground before it reached my tongue. It may have been due to the tactless way it was being handled by the minister or myself but those incidents had taught myself a lesson on how to securely receive the Holy Eucharist. Others may prefer it strictly on tongue. While some Catholics disapprove the practice of receiving the communion on hand, claiming it to be a very inappropriate way, the Pope still continues to allow the practice. I believe that the Holy Spirit had something to do with the decision of Pope Paul VI when in 1969 he gave the Indult to the French bishops, permitting each bishop to allow the practice in his own diocese.  But still, Catholics have different views and opinions on this matter which only create more confusion on my part.
While trying to put my confusion at rest by googling about the subject, a thought immediately came to my mind.  I imagined the activities occurred at the last supper during the Passover (Matthew 26:17-30). I believe that Jesus did not have to stand up and approach each one at the table to put the bread directly into their mouths. I imagined they were having supper as everyone normally would; Jesus, passing the bread and wine (which He turned into His body and blood) to everyone at the table. We all know as Catholics that it wasn’t just an ordinary supper not because of how the bread and wine were shared to the disciples but because of the miracle that had happened at the time, which by the grace of God, still happens to this day during the consecration at mass.
As long as the Pope continues to allow the receiving of the communion on hand, then I have no problem with it. Nevertheless, hand or tongue, to me it doesn’t matter. It’s how you regard the Holy Eucharist, who is Jesus, the Lord Whom you are receiving that matters! Everytime I receive the sacred Host on my hand, say my Amen, and then gently place it in my mouth, I think about how blessed I am to have my Savior within me, creating in me a clean heart, helping me to become worthy of the love and mercy of our Father! It always seems like I am receiving Him for the first time, giving me great peace and joy while quietly kneeling at my pew! When you receive Him, whether on your tongue or hand, what goes around your mind?

The Pope and priests at a communion rail cannot establish who is ill and who is not.  Therefore how can the act of distributing Eucharist in the hand be denied by them or the example be used to ignore the clear instructions of the Church?  It is like two people wearing wedding rings and living together but having never been married.  The outward sign of a marriage would likely prevail in the wider society don’t you think - even if there were no marriage?  JPII understood this well when his picture was taken with the rebellious south american priest turned politician.  Instead of a picture showing smiling faces, instead JPII admonished the priest for choosing politics over his priesthood and the picture caught the pope confronting the almost mocking laughing politician-priest.  Point is that when he knew JPII was quite clear.  He wrote favoring and indeed directing communion on the tongue except in special circumstances - consistent with written directives.

Further, in history distribution in hand was allowed and retracted, and allowed under certain circumstances (such as now).  Note that in retracting it was found that people tended to become presumptuous and treat the Eucharist with less and less respect as time went on.  JPII was pretty clear on distribution in the hand.  Have not researched it personally, but suspect Benedict is also.

How is France doing in the practice since 1969?  Are there as many abuses as before the Indult issued the French?  Has the practice resulted in less presumption?  For example in our little parish and a larger one at a Catholic University I use to attend, there were hosts found outside discarded in the bushes or grass, in the pew, on the floor, etc.  Not exactly a sign of reverence or reception.  The practice of receiving in the hand has NOT reduced acts of desecration or presumption anywhere in the world to my knowledge.  In addition, a former witch issued a tape recording which I have heard describing how easy it was to secure a consecrated host to use in their black Mass rituals.  When asked why they did not take from other congregations (protestant), she replied that they could actually feel the power and essence of God in only the Catholic Eucharist.

In my mind after communion it seems Jesus allows it to be separate for expression of free will always and everywhere, but (unless distracted) in heart and being otherwise the presence is clear and often tangible.

Wow, why don’t you just avoid the EMsHC and go to the priest to receive? I go to a Latin Mass. But when I do attend an ordinary Mass, I make sure I sit in the middle pews on the right side, St. Joseph’s side, right in the front. This way I could just go straight to the priest. And of course I receive on my tongue.

I feel your backing away from receiving on the tongue shows some lack of courage to stand up for what’s right. Instead you could go to the priest or whoever is in charge of the EMHC, and explain to them that they need training or instruction on how to give on the tongue.

I’m very disappointed in you not receiving on the tongue anymore.

Huh?  After rereading the last posting, I cannot figure out how you concluded what you did or determined I have a “...lack of courage…”.  I stopped only briefly when our local bishop required all pastors to issue eucharist in the hand.  When the serious illness passed, he lifted his direction and all of the people like me continued to receive on the tongue as I do to the present.

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/04/man-refused-again-hand-communion-at.html

Dear Danielle, I appreciate the challenges you note but can also see so many excuses. We cannot concede to floppy or irreverent behaviour or defer to humility incorrectly to what is essentially wrong in the first instance. Effectively, this just perpetuates bad form. Consequently, we diminish Truth and little by little lose the “right” to give GLORY to Our Lord who died for us.
God bless.