MIKE AQUILINA distills the difference between the two ways of receiving the Eucharist . . .

Mike Aquilina

The Body of Christ is the most precious thing in the world. It’s very important that none of it be lost or disrespected in any way.

In times past, it was the rule that people receive the Host on the tongue. There were several good reasons. First of all, the hands of priests are consecrated expressly for consecrating the Eucharist. Over time, it seemed fitting that such contact should be reserved to consecrated hands. But there were other reasons, too. Superstitious people sometimes hid the consecrated Host for use as a sort of magic talisman, which is a sacrilege. This was less likely to happen if people in the congregation never had an opportunity to hold the Host.

And then there were practical reasons: In the days before indoor plumbing, workmen might come to Church with very grubby hands. And there are fewer opportunities for accidents when the Host is placed on the tongue.

Although these reasons are still valid, U.S. bishops decided that it’s safe and respectful to offer Communion in the hand to people who wish to receive it that way. Those who receive in the hand should take special care to ensure that no small particles of the Host remain on their hands or fall to the ground.

Many people prefer to receive on the tongue because they find it more fitting and reverent, or because they grew up with the custom, or because they’d rather not take the chance of accidentally mishandling the Sacrament. The general rule is that the person receiving, rather than the person distributing, should decide whether to receive on the tongue or in the hand.

If you wish to receive on the tongue, keep your hands down and folded, and allow the person distributing the Host to place it on your tongue.

Because Christ is fully present in both the consecrated bread and the consecrated wine, you don’t get any more grace if you receive both species than if you receive only one. Communion under both species, or only one, is equally valid. You’re not getting just half of Christ if you receive only the Host or, for that matter, only the Blood of Christ, as people with wheat allergies sometimes do.

MIKE AQUILINA is the author or editor of more than 40 books on Catholic history, doctrine and devotion. This column is reprinted with permission from his book “Understanding the Mass: 100 Questions, 100 Answers“ (Servant Books, 2011).

Catechism 101

Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us, is present in many ways to his Church: in his word, in his Church’s prayer, “where two or three are gathered in my name,” in the poor, the sick, and the imprisoned, in the sacraments of which He is the author,  in the sacrifice of the Mass, and in the person of the minister.  But “he is present . . . most especially in the Eucharistic species.”

Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons, this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly. This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1373-1390