{"id":2080,"date":"2012-09-17T14:07:51","date_gmt":"2012-09-17T18:07:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/badcatholic\/?p=2080"},"modified":"2017-08-03T21:33:40","modified_gmt":"2017-08-04T01:33:40","slug":"why-i-receive-communion-on-the-tongue","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/badcatholic\/2012\/09\/why-i-receive-communion-on-the-tongue.html","title":{"rendered":"Why I Receive Communion on the Tongue"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/head>

Works regarding the reception of Communion usually contain an unsettling air about them, if only because (a) Catholics tend to be dicks over these matters and (b) they point to a difference between Catholics at the precisely the moment when Catholics claim all accidental differences cease. It is the Church\u2019s absurdly bold declaration that all become one in Christ. It follows that a notable difference in the reception of that very same Christ (in the Holy Eucharist) could be an opportunity for scandal<\/a>.<\/p>\n

How one in spirit are we, a man may be tempted to ask, if we are so diverse in expression and in body, some kneeling, some standing, some\u00a0receiving\u00a0on the tongue, and others on the hand? Do the actions of the body not arise from the spirit?<\/p>\n

If a visitor entered a home and some stood to welcome him, others knelt when he crossed the doorframe, and still others approached him and firmly shook his hand, one thing would be certain: They all have different relationships to the visitor. They are not in communion<\/em> in regards to him. Could the same not be said of Catholics\u2019 diverse reactions to their Sunday Visitor, Jesus Christ?<\/p>\n

The complaint is easily brushed away. Catholics are not told to respond to the innate calling of their hearts when they go to\u00a0receive\u00a0Communion. A man may believe his personal relationship with Jesus Christ mandates he\u00a0receive\u00a0Communion lying down \u2014 but he is not allowed to do so. Rather the Church, understanding the reality of the Eucharist (and the reality of the Christian in relation to the Eucharist) has set down three approved methods for the reception of Communion. They are \u2014 while standing \u2014 to\u00a0receive on the hand or on the tongue, and \u2014 while kneeling \u2014 to\u00a0receive\u00a0on the tongue.<\/p>\n

These three norms have been found by the Church to\u00a0sufficiently\u00a0express the proper reaction of man to the Eucharist. Thus we are united in our reception even if we differ in our posture, for we are united in the wisdom of the Church, and in obedience to Her. We follow her orders, which order us to the same end.<\/p>\n

To apply what I\u2019m saying to my previous example, it is as if the same visitor were coming to the house, and so the mother of the house took her children aside and said, \u201cChildren, we\u2019re expecting a very distinguished guest. When he arrives you may embrace him, shake his hand, or bow politely. Nothing else, for he merits more than a wave, or a fist-bump, or whatever innate reaction you have to his presence. Understand?\u201d The children, upon greeting the guest in these three ways, are united in spirit, as they are united in the authority of their mother who has determined their proper posture. The man who understands this cannot complain of a disunity among them.<\/p>\n

However, as a child going to\u00a0receive\u00a0Communion, I choose to\u00a0receive\u00a0on the tongue. I would like to explain why. It is not because $\"\"$ <\/a>\u00a0it is holy. It is not because it is traditional \u2014 Lord save me from ever placing value on a thing because it is old. It is because receiving the Eucharist on the tongue expresses in the body a fundamental truth about the Eucharist: That it comes from God.<\/p>\n

Whereas the world is oppressed by all manner of nitpicking authorities without recognizing it, it is the defining characteristic of the Christian in this age that he is sweetly oppressed by one Authority, and that he damn well knows it. For it is no freedom to claim freedom from authority, it only means swearing fealty to the dogma of never swearing fealty, an insane task made all the more difficult by the fact that we will always<\/em> swear fealty to\u00a0authorities. The authority of Truth \u2014 for instance \u2014 is unavoidable, and the authority of Goodness is obeyed even by the liberated modern, for in saying \u201cit is good to break away from authority\u201d, he assents to the authoritative dogma that man should do that which is Good.<\/p>\n