I don't know if this is a topic that has been discussed recently on the forum but I just wanted to mention something I noticed on the YouTube recording of the papal Mass in Rome this morning. What I was happy to see was the priests insisting on giving communion on the tongue only, even when the recipients were firmly pushing forward their hands. Although there had been a tradition of insisting on receiving on the tongue in St Peter's this practice seemed to be increasingly ignored in recent years. Maybe this is an indication that Pope Francis is not quite as 'liberal' as some suggest. I don't want to criticise those who prefer to receive communion on the hand as the Church does allow it currently but I have always felt this was one of the most harmful 'fruits' of the second Vatican Council. I believe that the events in Akita suggest strongly that the Lord disapproved of this change in the 1960s.
I agree, but it would take a directive from Rome to sort this out. But then it part of a bigger problem concerning liturgy and reform in the Church.
At the service on Good Friday I happened to go the cathedral where the Bishop and about 5 other priests did the service. I noticed that most the priests and Bishop took communion on the tongue and that made me happy because I typically do the same if it is a priest distributing but if not a Priest then I take it in the hand.
So glad to read what you are all saying. I used to receive in the hand, until one day, at a weekday Mass, the priest gave me a piece of the broken host, and a piece fell to the floor. I went back afterwards but could not find it, despite scrabbling about on the rather grubby carpet. Anyway, after that I have only received on the tongue. At one time, I would receive in the hand (which almost everyone did at that parish) but check my palm afterwards very scrupulously for crumbs. I noticed another lady do the same, so it was noticed. We have since moved house and my current parish is smaller and we don't have weekday Masses. There is a passage in the book about Maria Simma about a corpse with black hands - connected to receiving communion in the hand. It makes me uncomfortable, true or not. So now I am the only one in my rural parish who receives on the tongue - I'm sure they think I am a 'traddie' but never mind!
I too had an experience at Mass where the host dropped, and I felt interiorly that Jesus was very displeased about me taking on the hand (I had just come back to Church after 15 years and wanted to do as everyone else was doing). I was also actually told in a locution to cover my head also and at that point gave up worrying what anyone but Jesus and Mary think of me. If anyone is "offended" by another's reverence to God then they can just sit and steam over it and ruin their own experience at Mass instead of immersing themselves in the awesomeness of what is really happening.
So glad to see this topic again. I was reading on Glenn's FB board about a visit where Jacinta from Garabandal spoke yesterday and this topic was discussed. She never felt worthy enough to touch it and I feel the same way. I need to get back to always taking it on the tongue. I have been doing this when a priest or deacon is administering but when it is a Eucharistic minister then I take it in the hand because really I can tell that many do not like giving it in the hand and look so disgusted with me when I stick my tongue out that it makes the whole wonderful experience rather sour. I guess I just need to suck it up and not worry about their discomfort but rather show reverence to Our Lord who died for us!
Taylor Marshall gives instruction on how to receive the Holy Eucharist on the tongue. http://taylormarshall.com/2011/01/5-tips-on-receiving-holy-eucharist-on.html I don't care for seeing Eucharistic ministers receive in the hand and (unless the priest is old and can't walk) when Eucharistic ministers return the sacred hosts to the Tabernacle while the priest stands there watching them. When the priest does it, I've thanked them after Mass.
If worship is primarily of the heart, the "right" choice of acceptable postural choices seems to pale... But if I was to receive on the tongue I wouldn't do so unless it could be done properly like when I was a youngster - with a paten. Kneeling? - well I suppose that is the "proper way" but it prob wouldn't work in a mixed setting. That prob needs bringing back Communion Rails. I do sometimes see visitors (Continentals?) kneeling, some genuflect beforehand instead. I may be wrong but the genuflecting seems an aberration, I don't recall that from my time as an altar server in the 1960s. Intinction gives me the woolleys when they pull the host from your fingers. You don't know whether they are going to walk off or drop it in the chalice. The worst are those who want you to hold the chalice while they merely "steady it" to sip.
Re Akita...probably need to be more careful of wishful thinking there. (1) Our Lord didn't say anything on this matter. (2) Even Our Blessed Mother apparently didn't say anything explicitly or directly to Sr Agnes on this matter (if you can find something let me know). (3) Even what Sr Agnes reported is only known to us through the reports of her Chronicler/Director (Fr. Joseph) (4) On the particular point of Communion in the Hand: - Sr Agnes somehow came to her own personal conclusion that she herself should only receive Communion on the tongue but it is not known how. - Sr Agnes seems to have had nothing to say wrt the rest of her Community (who practised reception in the hand) or the Church at large - though much later the convent masses eventually went to Communion on the tongue. - it is clear her priest was very much in favour of her adopting such a practise and pushed this line in his writings of her communications. - that was probably wise advice (for her) as she had the stigmata on her left hand: "Sr. Agnes received a stigmata on the palm of her left hand during Mass on several occasions that was so painful she was unable to open her hand to take Communion, as was the custom then at her convent. Because of this, she received on the tongue. When she reflected upon these things, she came to believe that what she experienced was evidence of a divine wish for Communion on the tongue. Eventually, her entire convent went back to receiving on the tongue (which had been the normative practice in the Universal Church for at least 1,700 years or so). Fr. Joseph Marie Jacq of the Paris Foreign Mission Society was one of the eye-witnesses (to the miraculous tears) and a theologian who came to know deeply about the spiritual condition of the nuns at Akita. '...when I was bearing the pain, it seemed a very long time. I still cannot forget it. At Holy Communion, everyone received in their hands, but since I could not open my palm because of the pain, I received in my mouth.' Regarding this occurrence, Fr. Joseph said, "The episode on July 26th shows us that God wants lay people and nuns to receive Communion on the tongue, because Communion by their unconsecrated hands carries with it the potential danger of hurting and undermining faith in the real presence." (Akita, by Francis Mutsuo Fukushima) So it seems that Our Lady actually said nothing about Communion on the tongue at all to Sr Agnes. It seems then that the reason Sr Agnes received Communion on the tongue was because of her stigmata suddenly appearing during mass - which her Director interpreted according to his own personal concerns.
Dietrich von Hildebrand (who Pope Pius XII called a “20th century doctor of the Church”), in an article entitled "Communion in the hand should be rejected," wrote the following:"Is it believable that instead of applying the most scrupulous care to protect the most sacred consecrated host, which is truly the Body of Christ, the God-man, from all such possible abuses, there are those who wish to expose it to this possibility? Have we forgotten the existence of the devil who wanders about seeking whom he may devour'? Is his work in the world and in the Church not all too visible today? What entitles us to assume that abuses to the consecrated host will not take place?" Confirming his concerns is Mike Warnke, a former satanic high priest who converted to Christianity, who warned the U.S. bishops that allowing Communion in the hand was a mistake, as it would allow satanists easier access in procuring the sacred host, which is desecrated at satanic services. The Holy Father is well aware of the danger of the loss of sacred Particles and this is certainly part of his reasoning in not giving Communion in the hand at his private Masses at the Vatican. ...
As reported by Fr. George Rutler in his Good Friday sermon at St. Agnes Church, New York in 1989, when Mother Teresa of Calcutta was asked by Fr. Rutler, "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.'" (note: Fr. Emerson of the Fraternity of St. Peter was also a witness to this statement by Mother Teresa). Some good material here , but I had to delete the link.[bayside rubbish, so maybe unreliable]
It is undoubtedly the case that Our Lady (or Jesus) did not specifically speak to Sister Agnes about receiving Communion on the tongue but it is a mistake to think that therefore the association of Akita and Sister Agnes with the practice of receiving Communion on the tongue is just due to personal preferences. Both Fr Joseph and Sister Agnes believed that the signs they were given encouraged the need to receive on the tongue. But surely, at the heart of this matter, lies the fact that the Church (and even less, a Pope) at no stage decided to change the practice of receiving on the tongue. The origins of the practice of the post Vatican II behaviour stemmed from disobedience on a large scale on the part of bishops and priests around the world but particularly in America. Both Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II after Vatican II indicated clearly that reception should continue to be on the tongue.
When I saw the priests and Bishop taking communion by the tongue from each other at Good Friday that said it all for me. It is obviously not wrong to take it by the hand per the church but to me it shows a somewhat lack of respect for the Eucharist. I just don't feel that my hands are worthy enough to hold him. It is a personal feeling. Heck I don't even feel worthy to receive it at all as none of us should but thankfully the Lord looks past this to give us such a wonderful gift. Now there is another thought in my head though. At the last supper and institution of the Eucharist did they not take it and break it and eat by the hand? Now they were priests doing so but it does not mention whether they gave it to each other by mouth or if they passed the bread to each other and broke it and then ate.
Glad you dropped the link. A web-site that opens with the title "Each Communion in the hand brings more punishment..." is prob not managed by someone worthy of further hearing.
These two fallible human beings can personally infer and believe whatever they like. No mandate came from heaven at Akita as is often suggested in these tireless discussions. Fr Joseph clearly had an obsession on this particular issue (as his writings demonstrate). Surely the Church and the world has more serious things to put its energy into - which is no doubt why the authorities (usually picky on serious aberrations liturgical) have decided to leave this matter to the local Ordinaries.
So, for you, BH, the clear and firm words of Popes Paul VI and John Paul II on the topic are irrelevant??
There are no clear and firm words from Jesus or Mary on the matter at Akita. I go with the flow at my local Church run by Marist priests faithful to our local Ordinary who is in Communion with Rome. Anything else is above my pay packet or of the devil. This is all God wants me to worry about.
I ask the question again, BH. For you, are the clear and firm words of Popes Paul VI and John Paul II on the topic irrelevant?
I will just respond by saying that I do find it very very sad that on this matter, Catholics can so easily ignore what three Popes have said. For me, it is a perfect illustration of the apostasy of our age.
