I'm just throwing this question out there for debate. Of course, both are permissible in the USA.

I'm just wanting to get people's general feelings about it. So...which do people prefer (if their country allows both)?

-- Victoria (tecdork99@pvfnet.com), June 22, 2003

Answers

Hi i have wondered the same thing on occasion.At my parish i have used both methods but prefer in the hand.I have also seen alot of people dip in the wine then proceed. Peace be with you....................................

-- Andrew (drewmeister7@earthlink.net), June 22, 2003.

Greeting Victoria: In response to your ? niether are necessary for salvation. Have you read John 3:3 in the word of the Lord if not then why? The word of the LOrd is th nourishment for your soul, for bread is merely a moment of remembing Jesus, but is not in any way Jesus. God is glorified in one who is broken for thier sins and calling on Jesus for salvation, who alone can make one a new creator.

-- Areyousavedorreligious (Truthisfreedom316@yahoo.com), June 23, 2003.

being made a new creation, not creator this God

-- Alexsavedbygrace (truthisfreedom316@yahoo.com), June 23, 2003.

Both are 100% acceptable. A person can receive communion in either species (the bread or wine) or both.

Indiction (hope I spelled that right), the dipping of the host into the wine, according to two priests, to whom I asked the question, is not acceptable.

If the species of wine is given, the priest (or extraordinary eucharistic minister) should use the chalice (or cup).

God Bless

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), June 23, 2003.

indinction was what I was trying to spell god bless

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), June 23, 2003.

Victoria,,, both ways of receiving Jesus in Eucharistic form are acceptable, intincion {dunking} is not. I received Jesus on the tongue for many years, and now I'm comfortable receiving Him reverently in my hand.There was a season to be a profound example of reverence.Now I am comfortable in receiving in my hand, although it is a great privilege, I don't take it lightly.

For those who think as alex { is freedom}, Jesus is most definitely present physically under the appearance of bread and wine. See John 6:54, and this whole transpiration betweeen Him and His disciples. The Catholic Church has held this Gift from Him for 2000 years. I am not receiving Him out of religious blindness, His coming into me physically is MOST PERFECT, AND MOST POWERFUL,MOST INTIMATE, along with His Spoken Word.

How much closer can we be to the Living God then to arise with His praises in our minds and on our lips, and to go daily to receive Him physically in our bodies? How much more more can He equip us to go and evangelize the world, with words, and without words; by merely His Presence in us? Alex, study history, the Church's teaching about His real Presence in the Bread and Wine has sustained for 2000 years, any other teaching has only been around for a few hundred years.

Theresa

-- Theresa Huether (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), June 23, 2003.

Sorry about the incorrect spelling of intinction,

I read a little more on intinction and found that it is acceptable. The priest dips the host and communicant receives it by mouth. Of course, this eliminates receiving it in the hand. Some priests are using this method because they don't agree with a person receiving the host by hand.

God Bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), June 23, 2003.

Well said, Theresa!

-- Victoria (tecdork99@pvfnet.com), June 23, 2003.

Thank you John, I didn't know that intinction was permissible by the RCC. I have gone to Byzantine Mass, which is under the Pope of course, and they do the intinction with a little spoon and sort of "drop" it on your tongue. Interesting.

-- Victoria (tecdork99@pvfnet.com), June 23, 2003.

I think intinction has been non-allowed in our diocese so the precious Blood is not spilled, but this may have changed recently, not sure. I get a little nervous when I see it , It reminds me of donuts 'n coffee. ..could be just me..

-- Theresa (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), June 23, 2003.

Jmj
Hi, Victoria and friends.

Those who mentioned that intinction is not acceptable were probably led to believe this through a misunderstanding. What the Vatican has emphasized is that SELF-intinction (the practice that Andrew witnessed) is completely forbidden. But intinction done in the proper manner (as described by John P) is not only permitted but even encouraged as a good way to receive both Sacred Species. In the front of the sacramentary (the book on the altar), you'll find the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (G.I.R.M.), wherein intinction is described and not at all criticized. In fact, the Church encourages reception under both Species as having a fuller "sign value" (though not to imply that only in this way is Jesus wholly received).

Many people don't know that the Church requires that a "paten" (Communion plate) be used at all times in the distribution of the Eucharist -- because of the possibility of dropping a Host or fragment thereof. The paten can be held by an altar server or passed by each communicant to the next. The use of a paten is particularly essential when intinction is used, because of the possibility of dripping. (An experienced minister who uses intinction frequently can learn to prevent almost all dripping.)

From the time of my First Communion (in 1959) and the time that I became an "inactive Catholic" (in 1969), I received Jesus in the only way permissible -- on the tongue. When I returned to an active practice of the faith, some years later, I chose the option to receive Jesus in my hand. In the many years since then, I have received on the tongue only when intinction was being used.

It is rather amazing that I have come across this thread today, because of an experience I had just this morning. It was one of those rare occasions in my life on which I received a very brittle, thin, and damaged Host in my hand. I have always made it a practice, after lifting the Host to my mouth with my right hand, to check my left hand carefully to see if any fragment of the Host remains there. I think that I have found a fragment only once or twice in almost twenty years. But today, perhaps because the altar bread was poorly manufactured, I saw that there were four fragments in my hand -- one large and three very small. After returning to my pew, I consumed these -- but I had to admit that the experience was a disconcerting one, and it has me considering whether I will return to reception on the tongue (contrary to my strong preference). I now realize that many fragments of Hosts are probably being dropped to the floor, accidentally, by people who do not examine their hands. (Please don't let this happen to you and Jesus, dear friends! Yes, I know that Jesus can take care of himself and suffers no pain on being dropped or even stepped on -- but it is just such an unfitting thing to happen to our King.)

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 23, 2003.

I prefer to receive on the toungue. I know both are acceptable forms, but I don't like to receive in my hand. I was once told that when you receive in your hand you're actually supposed to lick your hand afterwards to be sure you have all the particles of the Eucharist and that they aren't hitting the floor, but you don't ever see anyone do that! Does anyone know if that is actually what you're supposed to do when you receive in the hand?

-- R. (none@none.com), June 23, 2003.

At mass this past Sunday, the feast of Corpus Christi, the priest gave a great sermon about the different ways to receive the eucharist. One thing he did mention was that although receiving by the hand was allowed, that the Church prefers that we receive directly on the tongue. Does anyone have any idea where he might have derived this? I did not know the Church has a preference.

It was great sermon. Lots of material about helping the preist by coming to a full stop, don't walk away without consuming the host, and not grabbing the host ("Invasion of the body snatchers technique"), but passively accepting the host as it is given.

-- Pat Delaney (patrickrdelaney@yahoo.com), June 24, 2003.

Hey "truthisfreedom316" did you read the letter I sent to you from my personal email address? What did you think? E-mail me back, OK.

Thanks!

-- Victoria (tecdork99@pvfnet.com), June 24, 2003.

"No," twice.

No, one is not supposed to lick his hand. (How could such an uncouth thing even enter anyone's mind?)

No, the Church has not stated that she has a preference that we receive on the tongue. But that has not stopped several people -- each of whom receives only on the tongue -- from claiming inaccurately that the Church has published a preference. The problem with making false claims like this is that one person stating an error can mislead anywhere from one person to hundreds (e.g., a priest's congregation), and they in turn can mislead their family members, and they in turn can ... [etc.]. It's hard to undo this kind of thing.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 24, 2003.

Thanks John. I thought that sounded rather on the weird side, but I wasn't sure how to respond, not knowing the answer myself.

-- R. (none@none.com), June 24, 2003.

David,

You are not ready to understand or accept the food that adults do, you are still a child and shall remain so until you understand that you and those like you have deified the scriptures while those who were hearers of Christ and their hearers saw thing decidely more along the lines of the Catholic Church than those like you could bear.

When you understand that the scriptures were "tested" by the tradition that existed before they did individually and as the bound text you accept, you will begin to comprehend that scripture are an adjunct to tradition and not the idol they are made to be.

Those that did not pass the muster of tradition, as judged by the apostolic successors of the orininal hearers of Christ, were not included in the canon.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), June 28, 2003.

I have joyfully, reverently received in the hand (like a little throne) since my "born again" experience and return to the Church July 1999. Last month, I started wondering about receiving on the tongue vs in the hand, and all the confusion I had read on the subject. It is a subject often refered to by Our Blessed Mother in many of the personal revelations worldwide (yes, I realize you have to read these with wisdom & take 'em with a grain of salt but they ARE interesting!). She states that it is disrespectful of Our Lord's body for our hands to touch Him, that only consecrated hands of the priest should touch the host. Since she always has our best interests at heart, I always like to listen to my Mother's advice.

So the other day at work, I simply asked the Lord to let me know which way to go, as I only want to love, honor, please and obey Him. That evening, at Saturday vigil Mass, I went up for Communion with my hands folded as our awesome Bishop Robert Vasa (Baker Diocese, Oregon) taught our Confirmation youth recently (fingers extended, thumbs crossed, held at chest level). When I approached for Communion, it was like my hands were "held" by another force so I opened my mouth to receive on the tongue (which I hadn't done since a child). "Ok, Lord, I guess that's that" and I have decided to only receive on the tongue from now on. A Spirit-filled friend happened to look up right then when I was receiving Our Lord, and she told me she was "blown away" by this reverent posture and holy respect for the Lord.

As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord (Joshua 24:15), so I am going to work with my boys (15, 12, 9) to make their Communion in this manner, much more reverently and holy. Also, I find it very humbling to receive on the tongue (you are not in control, you are exposing a private part of your body, it is very intimate)...so I believe that pleases Our Lord as well. And it also emphasizes that we are being FED...rather than feeding ourselves. So all in all, that's the reasoning and prayer behind my recent decision to only receive on the tongue from now on.

Hope this helps! God bless!

-- Cindy Brown (cindybrown@gorge.net), July 06, 2003.

Dear Cindy,

Your deep reverence for the Eucharist is most uplifting, though personally I feel no less reverence receiving our most blessed Lord in my hand as the Apostles did. The Church does allow us a free and unconditional choice on this matter, so whichever way is most meaningful to a particular person, that's the way he/she should receive.

My only negative reaction to your post is this - Our Blessed Lord does not send His Blessed Mother to deliver messages that contradict the teaching of His own Church. Any time a message attributed to a supposed apparition conflicts with the teaching of the Church, you can be certain that the message is not from Our Lord, or from Our Lord's mother. Jesus told the leaders of His Church, "he who hears you hears Me". Mary would not contradict Him.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 06, 2003.

Paul,

Is this not the case with Fr. Gobbi, founder of the Marian Movement of Priests? Didn't the Church rule that his messages his own private thoughts?

Pax et Bonum.

-- Thomas (tcdzomba@excite.com), July 07, 2003.

Thomas, please refer to this.

-- (_@_._), July 09, 2003.

I forgot to mention that the page linked above is at the EWTN site.

-- (_@_._), July 09, 2003.

Thank you for clearing that up for me.

Pax et Bonum.

-- Thomas (tcdzomba@excite.com), July 09, 2003.

What do you break when you break the consecrated host in the Mass, as you do, putting one portion into the chalice and partaking of the portion yourself? You say the whole substance of the bread is gone but you have broken some substance. What is it? It cannot be bread, for by your showing it is not there. It cannot be the Body of Christ, for if you say He cannot be broken the immortal and impassible, what is broken when you break the host? Yet that the subject is so solemn that one would feel amused at the way in which Rome has provided for the disappearance, corruption etc. of her transubstantiated host. For example, 'if the host be putrified or musty or lost, or if a mouse eat it, through carelessness'. We ask again: What is it that becomes corrupted? It cannot be the accidents of smell, taste, look and colour. Rome tells us there is no substance there, but that of the Body of the Redeemer, but surely that cannot corrupt. One must conclude that after all has been said an done there is nothing but bread, consecrated no doubt, but bread still.

-- Mrs, Skeptical (veryprivate@nowhere.com), July 13, 2003.

Sorry Mrs,

But you are way off the track (the inevitable result of separation from the pillar and foundation of truth). You try to describe a spiritual miracle in terms of physical science, which is a losing proposition from the start. Yes, when the consecrated host is broken, it is indeed the substance of Christ's Body - and that would be the whole story, if physical science were the only consideration. But it isn't. It is a spiritual reality. God is capable of this, is He not? Each and every consecrated host is the Body of Christ, whole and entire. It must be so, for Jesus said it is truly His Body, and yet His Body cannot be subdivided. Therefore, one Host is His Body and Blood, total and complete, and a thousand Hosts are likewise His Body and Blood, total and complete, without division and without duplicity, for just as His Body cannot be subdivided, neither can it be multiplied. It follows then that when a Host which is His Body and Blood is broken, His Body is not subdivided along with the physical accidentals. The most minute particle of the consecrated Host is still the Body and Blood of Christ, whole and entire, for it cannot be subdivided.

Should the physical accidentals become "corrupted" (as they do indeed by digestion after we receive the Eucharist), they remain the Body and Blood of Our Lord and Savior as long as the physical characteristics of bread remain. Once nothing identifiable as bread remains, "it" is no longer the Body and Blood of Christ, for "It" no longer exists. The reality of essence exists only in union with the accidentals. The essence cannot be corrupted, as the Body of Christ is incorruptable; but the accidentals can become corrupted, as their physical characteristrics are still those of bread.

I cannot imagine the arrogance which must be required to read the words of God Himself - "My flesh is real food; my blood is real drink; This is my Body; This is my blood; Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you" - and then to look Him straight in the eye and say "You are sadly mistaken. Your body is merely symbolic food; your blood is merely symbolic drink; this is not your body and blood, but only a symbol of it; I'll find my spiritual life by reading a book, thanks, not in the way you have taught. The Holy Spirit has revealed this to me, Jesus ... too bad He didn't reveal it to you".

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 13, 2003.

I'm sorry that you got to this thread before I did, Paul.
Although your work is excellent (as almost always), this hag -- who pretended to be Catholic on another thread, a few weeks ago -- did not deserve a reply.
She has copied and pasted the above filth from the demon-inspired words of the "Reverend" Ian Paisley, the foremost European anti-Catholic. (I will provide a URL to prove this via e-mail, but I will not publicize it here.)

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 13, 2003.

It's me...Victoria again...the person who posted the original question. I just got done reading through the posts and it seems, on this forum anyway, that it's pretty much split 50/50 on people's personal preference of hand or tongue.

The thing that got me wondering about this in the first place, was Mother Angelica on EWTN. She gave a talk once about her preference for the tongue and her reasons why. Of course, she is from a generation that always used the tongue, so of course, this would be her preference. She gave some pretty good logical reasons for not taking it in the hand, but was also quick to say that either way was perfectly acceptable, as far as the Church is concerned.

As a relatively new Catholic (convert) it just made me wonder what you seasoned folks thought. Thank you very much for all of your responses.

I learn so much on this forum...from all of you. Thank you!

P.S. I have even learned from the anti-Catholic Fundies that post here. Now I am much quicker at spotting "dog doo doo" when I see it. :o)

-- Victoria (tecdork99@pvfnet.com), July 13, 2003.

Gene,

This is another thread I "topped" for you, to show you other opinions on how you should of spoke up for your niece.

When good men do nothing(like you did) evil thrives!

Even if you read Pauls post on 7/6/03 in this thread, he said,"..The Church allows us a FREE AND UNCONDITIONAL choice in this matter..."

You shouldn't be bragging of being a "yes man"when your familly needed you in this matter.The young Lady and her Mom should of been comlimented instead of of you agreeing with a Priest on a "power trip".

Where did you ever read that someone can be scolded and intimidated into receiving the Holy Eucharist in there hand?

This was baloney what you and this priest did to this young girl! She probably looked to you for help and you curred, either through ignorance or just to keep peace.

I hope you have the courage to tell this young Lady how WRONG you where.

-- . (David@excite.com), October 11, 2003.

Hello,

I've stumbled upon this thread rather late in the day, I'm afraid. The reason that I did is because I am looking for something on Eucharistic abuses.

I seem to be encountering rather too many of these recently. I have seen a communicant take the host and leave the church with it, despite the priest giving communion practically pleading with that person to consume. I have also become aware of children removing the host from their mouths to show it to others on their way back to their seats.

Most upsetting, however, was a recent incident at my parish where someone began to consume the host but then spat it out onto the floor by the alter before running out of the church.

It is very distressing to see these things happen and leaves everyone who witnesses an incident such as these feeling very shocked.

I was just wondering if anyone else has seen our Lord being treated this way? Personally, I receive in the hand but I think that if we returned to Holy Communion on the tongue only it could reduce Eucharistic abuses considerably. (I realise that the last abuse that I described could still happen)

Any thoughts or personal experiences on this matter would be appreciated.

God bless you all,

James

-- James West (jwest1_uk@yahoo.com), October 15, 2003.

I forgot to mention that our present Holy Father will only give communion on the tongue and absolutely refuses to let people receive in the hand if he is administering the Eucharist.

Yours in our Eucharistic Lord,

James

-- James West (jwest1_uk@yahoo.com), October 15, 2003.

James,

Of the three examples you've provided, the last two would have occured regardless of whether communion was placed in the hand or mouth. Even in the first someone could take communion from their mouth and put it in their hand. Neither form of communion will prevent abuse. What is needed is for your priest to stress reverence for the Eucharist, and if someone is disobeying, to take appropriate action.

I can remember back in the "old days" of the Tridentine rite our parish priest complaining of hosts being left in the missal rack in the pews, so unfortunately communion on the tongue won't solve this, but *respect* will. That's what needs to be encouraged, IMO.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 15, 2003.

I forgot to mention that our present Holy Father will only give communion on the tongue and absolutely refuses to let people receive in the hand if he is administering the Eucharist.

In order for Communion to be distributed in the hand, the local bishops' conference must vote in favor of this by 2/3 majority and then request permission for it from the Vatican. I have heard that the Italian bishops' conference never did vote and seek in this way, and that is why the pope (who is a bishop in Italy of course) distributes Communion on the tongue.

It is just wrong to say that the pope "absolutely refuses to let people receive in the hand" when he is distributing Communion. I have seen him do so with my own eyes at a Mass that was quite recently televised. Moreover, if he is visiting a nation in which Communion in the hand is permitted, each communicant who approaches him has the right to receive in the hand or on the tongue. The Church's documents clearly state that the communicant's preference will not be denied. Let's be factual.

-- (Lets@Be.Factual), October 16, 2003.

Hello, and thank you for your responses. I wasn't actually suggesting that Communion in the hand only should be returned to, I was just exploring this issue.

I agree that revrence needs to be stressed but the abuses that I mentioned were not, it seems, carried out by practising Catholics who regularly attend Mass but rather by people who seem to have wondered in with the intention of doing something unpleasant or sinister.

Regarding the Holy Father's preference for giving Communion on the tongue only, I only repeated what I had read in a number of different sources. Here is another article:

The Pope . . . and Mother Teresa of Calcutta It is well known that the Holy Father is not a promoter of Communion in the hand. In his native Poland, the practice is still illicit, as indeed it is at the level of the universal Church. It was also illicit until very recently in the Vatican Basilica. And he has even refused to do it in countries where the practice has been granted by the Holy See.

The most remarkable example of this last is the time when the wife of the President of France, Madame Giscard d'Estaing approached the Pope for Holy Communion with hands outstretched. He ignored those hands and placed the Sacred Host into her (astonished) mouth. (Actually, she need not have been astonished; explicit instructions had been given that the Pope would not give Communion in the hand.)

Yours,

James

-- James West (jwest1_uk@yahoo.com), October 19, 2003.

So, apparently the article you read and quoted is wrong OR the pope has changed his mind -- since, as I said, I recently saw him give Communion in the hand with my own eyes.

In his native Poland, the practice is still illicit, as indeed it is at the level of the universal Church.

This quotation from your article shows that the article is poorly written and could easily contain errors. It is inaccurate and misleading to say that communion in the hand is "illicit ... at the level of the universal Church." The writer should have said that the "norm" for the Church is "on the tongue," but that dispensations have been granted for "in the hand" to many countries around the world.

-- (Lets@Be.Factual), October 19, 2003.