AmericanPapist Comments
It was only after my conversion that I became aware of the fact that whether one received communion "on the tongue" or "in the hand" was such an issue in the Church. My instincts led me to adopt a "via media," likely dissatisfying to both sides the debate, but attested by several of the Church Fathers. I receive communion in the palm of my hand and then raise my hand to my mouth to receive on the tongue. I receive it, but do not take it (as it were).
See, e.g. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 23.21: "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."
I support your Father's idea, only because one would have to eat Nachos DURING mass to break the current fast.
When the Church is requiring that we not chow down on Krispy Kreme during mass, something has gone terribly wrong.
I agree with dad. At our house we fast from solids from midnight. Coffee is eleminated one hour before Mass starts, with the exception that if my husband is doing Communion services @ the prison, he eats in between service and Mass so he doesn't pass out at the altar.
We were brought up this way and have never seen a need to change the habit.
We sure do appreciate lunch on Sunday, that is our "break" fast.
Imposing as a requirement of law what is scarcely impossible to avoid doing anyway (how many people really eat and drink on their way to Mass?) makes legal norms seem like empty exercises
I have witnessed some one drinking a Coke on the way in the door of church and also an usher snagging a donut hole on his way back into the nave after excorting the children back from the Liturgy of the Word.
It sometimes is very easy to eat during mass.
Children within my realm of influence learn that we need to Hunger for Jesus. We need to not only prepare our bodies, but also our souls.
Fasting changes things, just like prayer.
I like the quote from Cyril of Jerusalem. I went on a pilgrimmage to Rome hosted by the Legionaries of Christ. My room mate told me, "The Legionaries take Communion on the tongue. Maybe you should, too." I prayed about it and felt that God wanted me to take Communion in my hand. The very next Communion was very special. Staring at the Body of Christ for a little moment was like a little Adoration for me.
Of course I will obey if and when they Church changes her rule. (What's the difference between a liturgist and a terrorist? You can negotiate with a terrorist.)
In the mean time, that little moment of contemplating and staring at Jesus in my hand is something I look forward to enjoying.
My, I usually always get an education when I come round here.
Having learned only relatively recently about the tounge vs hand debate (if you will allow me to call it that) I have been putting some slightly anxious thought into the question.
Some people at my parish receive on the tounge and I wouldn't mind doing so but I feel vastly uncomfortable with the mechanics of the procedure. I just can't seem to get over it.
So I usually receive in the hand. I also look at it before raising it to my mouth. I wasn't aware that this could actually be correct per Cyril. I feel better now.
I guess there is a difference between grabbing the wafer for oneself and cupping ones hand to receive? I can definitely see why the first would be wrong but the second be correct if not ideal.
I will of course keep praying about it since I can see the point of those who argue that communion must be received on the tounge. But in the meantime, I won't feel like I am missing the point so much as I was.
Thanks crazylikeknoxes for the quote!
The current norms (or lack of consistency) within the United States cause much confusion and hesitation on behalf of communicants and ministers of communion. Reception of the Holy Eucharist would be preserved from awkwardness if there was more consistency. Making reception on the tongue normative would be a boon to more comprehensive awareness and education regarding the Eucharistic celebration (from worthiness of reception, the ministers, to species themselves!)
The Eucharist - what an extraordinary gift!!!
Please pass on to your dad that his article was very informative (out of confusion, not out of scrupulosity, have i heard the question of whether the fast is a.from the time mass begins or b.an hour before reception of communion, comes up often!) But he takes the question in a spiritual and entirely more fruitful direction! Then again, articles in Antiphon are always of that caliber.
I receive on the tongue, but if I get a taste of the finger of one more person (EMHC or priest), I think I'm going to start following the advice of Saint Cyril of Jerusalem.
OK I go to weekday noon Mass with some frequency. I hate to be shallow, but putting aside my coffee cup at 9 AM on a weekday to receive communion at a Mass that starts at noon would bum me out. I might not go at all. Laziness and/or sloth (or are they the same thing?). Yes I could go anyway and not receive (and have when I screwed up by semi-consciously sipping my coffee after 11:15 am). Sinfully, scrupulously yours in St Louis.
I personally prefer receiving in the hand. I don't think that it should be forgotten that it is the ancient practice of the Church (so it is an irony that most of those who criticize it identify themselves as "traditionalists"). I prefer it because of the personal meaning that I find in it. It is an active receiving rather than a passive receiving, you receive and then must do something with it. To me, this highly mirrors the Catholic understanding of all Grace in our lives. I also like that it reveals lack of piety more readily. If we are to be honest, receiving on the tongue just *looks* more pious .. whether or not the person really has much piety. Receiving in the hand makes ones piety, or lack thereof, quite evident.
But I should emphasize, the meaning I talk about above is a *personal* meaning that *I* find. I do not claim that it is an intrinsic meaning. I think the debate is, quite frankly, silly. I think the only people who are wrong are those who claim that only one way is right or that one is inherently superior.
Personally, I think a much more important discussion to have is the altar rail. More important that tongue v. hand, more important than kneeling v. standing, I think that rail v. line is really a more important discussion. The line tends to rush people through the act of Communing. It puts Communing in the realm of the ATM - and you often even see people giving "ATM space" of a couple of feet in the Communion line. Communion is supposed to be a communal act (none of us are done communing until all of us are done communing, which is why individual devotions are for after the tabernacle is closed and why we actually *need* silence after that) but it is also an intense act that requires a moment of inwardness. The line does not permit this. However, the rail offers a moment of introspection before and after Communing, a moment without the crush of a line behind, to actually experience that moment before returning to the Communion of the faithful.
It doesn't matter if we stand or kneel, if it's hand or tongue, even if there is an actual rail, I think that working to return to the use of an altar rail for Communion is a far more important issue that whether people receive on the tongue or hand.
A sticky issue. I'd always received in my hands with serious reverence. On the advice of a friend, I listened to Fr.Z's podcast on the topic and was entirely unpersuaded by any of the points he made. But on the advice of another, I tried receiving on the tongue & found I had greater peace after Communion. Perhaps the resolution of this issue lies in the liturgy revealing its meaning to us, rather than arguing from ideas and excersise of the will.
N.None: I know exactly what you mean about the noon-time mass. Anything more than an hour (with respect to coffee) would likely impinge on my ability to function as a productive employee. And I need all the help I can get.
Re: Cyril of Jerusalem.
Be careful with this quote. I have heard that the "after having carefully hallowed your eyes by the touch of the Holy Body" was at one point taken literally: people would touch the Eucharist to their eyes and perhaps other extremities that needed to be "hallowed": one of the eventually superstitous abuses that happily gave way to communion on the tounge in the first place.
Of course, I can't find my source for that interpretation right now
Commenting by HaloScan
