Communion on the tongue discouraged?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Paul72
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
For all the people that are in fear of germs, I just want to ask this…

Before communion in the hand was allowed, did people have these fears? I don’t remember it ever being discussed.

Does anyone, that receives on the tongue or on the hand ever remember getting sick and being able to trace it back to receiving the Eucharist? It seems to me that either way has its possibilities for germ spreading, but is it really something to fear?

It is just not a concern of mine. If it were, I could not get change back from a cashier, or touch a grocery cart, or a door handle to the mall or…the list is endless.

I can’t live my life like that. I do not think God allows communion to be an opportunity to make people sick.
 
When I was a child I was an alter boy, and one of our tasks was to hold a gold plate (the exact nomenclature escapes me) under each persons chin when receiving the host…I do not ever remember seeing someone receive it on the hand (this would have been from late 60’s to the late 70’s) and I left the Church for many years, when I came back several years ago I noticed people receiving it on the hand…

I wonder what prompted this and why the change?

Dunno…
 
Last edited:
.
The Church officially has said you can take communion either way.
This is just my personality–but if someone didn’t like my taking it on the tongue, I will just ignore him.
But I understand how the original poster feels, and if I was him, I would consider going to another parish.
Once in awhile, though, I take it on the tongue, if, for example, my hands are dirty. I never recall such a discouraging reaction (though perhaps I never noticed it). I don’t think such a discouraging reaction is common though.
 
Last edited:
BlueMaxx said:
I do not ever remember seeing someone receive it on the hand (this would have been from late 60’s to the late 70’s)
Click to expand...
People in USA were regularly receiving in the hand by the late 70s. At least in our diocese, it was pretty much the norm by that time except among senior citizens.
I wonder what prompted this [receiving in the hand] and why the change?
Click to expand...
I think a lot of the motivation was logistical. Receiving on the tongue worked very well when everybody knelt at a Communion railing, put their head back, tongue out, and did not say Amen.
It worked less well when everybody began to walk down the aisle and receive standing, without their head back, and having to say Amen first.
People’s heads are all different heights, which creates a physical challenge for the priest or EMHC trying to reach their mouths.
 
Last edited:
Yes- the shuffling-along communion line seems tailor-made for Communion in the hand, and the Communion rail is obviously made for Communion on the tongue. Once churches got rid of the rail, the very setup of the Communion line is inhospitable for Communion on the tongue. I guess that’s how churches want it. If they wanted to make it pleasant or easy for Communion on the tongue, they would figure out how to reinstitute the rail. “Shrug”.
 
Last edited:
BlueMaxx said:
This morning at St. Benedicts…

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Click to expand...
I’m surprised that they offer the chalice at all. Because how long are people contagious before they even know if they have the flu (or show symptoms)?
 
Last edited:
Well, yeah, peeps, people die from the flu, but don’t you think that happens in the UK / Europe as well? That’s the question, why do Americans take it more seriously, or is it just better publicized?
 
Last edited:
esieffe said:
If you are sick or contagious, I personally would not approach at all rather than receive in the hand. That is only MY thoughts on the matter
Click to expand...
If you are sick, I would recommend that you stay home. Simply not come to Mass, at all.

Certainly, if you know that you are contagious, stay home.
 
With regards to illness and communion, I feel that the biggest risk is the sign of peace with lots of shaking hands, hello’s, hugs and sometimes kisses. Handshaking does transfer pathogens, bacterial and viruses.

When at OF mass, I would shake the hands of at least ten people with in my row, front and behind me. That is a lot of hand shaking.

In my old parish many years a bottle of hand sanitizer sat on a bench at the front of the church unused and was meant for Extraordinary Ministers. Here I see a mode of transmission.

One doesn’t have to be sick to pass on bugs.
 
Jen95 said:
Well, yeah, peeps, people die from the flu, but don’t you think that happens in the UK / Europe as well? That’s the question, why do Americans take it more seriously, or is it just better publicized?
Click to expand...
I honestly don’t think American do take influenzae more seriously, or for that matter, any health issues. Depending on which study you read, a very large percentage (some studies say 50%) of Americans are obese or overweight, and many not only have a bad diet (all sugar and fat, no fruits or veges or lean protein), but also many never participate in any kind of physical exercise. Many Americans regularly drink to excess, and around 15% still smoke cigarettes. Americans tend to sleep far less than they should (average is around 5 hours out of 24). Americans regularly drive distracted (mainly texting, but also eating/drinking, and talking on the phone). They live with stress and do little to try to alleviate it other than “medication” (which includes alcohol, food, and nicotine, BTW). And many Americans do not take vacation days that they are entitled to, and instead, work overtime or work several jobs (not just “poor” people, but wealthy people often have several “jobs” taking up their time).

And many Americans do not visit their doctor regularly (or even have a doctor), do not keep up their health screens (mammogram, prostate exam, colonoscopy, skin examination, etc.) and many never visit the dentist.

And yet, we all seem to think we’re going to live forever. And when we do get the news that we have some kind of disease or condition that will end our life, we pull out all the stops and spend millions trying to “get well.”

I think there’s a really good chance that many people in church with us are not well. I can certainly understand the reluctance to shake hands with others, although I think the obvious solution to that is wearing gloves (which used to be a norm for women in church, even in my Protestant/Baptist church!).
 
Yes it happens sometimes but I do not have the right to refuse anyone take the host the way they want…I try my hardest to maintain proper hygiene but I don’t believe anyone has got sick as a result
 
Jen95 said:
40.png
BlueMaxx:
This morning at St. Benedicts…

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Click to expand...
I’m surprised that they offer the chalice at all. Because how long are people contagious before they even know if they have the flu (or show symptoms)?
Click to expand...
I am sorry…I should have posted that yesterday morning they did not offer the chalice at all. They stopped two days prior. At least at the early morning daily mass I go to.
I am getting ready to go now and it will probably be the same.
 
Jen95 said:
If they wanted to make it pleasant or easy for Communion on the tongue, they would figure out how to reinstitute the rail. “Shrug”.
Click to expand...
I have seen many parishes adding kneelers in front of the sanctuary for people to kneel. I agree it does make receiving on the tongue easier.
 
Don’t stop, you receive the King of kings as you ought, give glory to Him. Nevermind the dirty looks, offer them up.
 
The deacon’s hands are not consecrated and he is an ordinary minister of the Eucharist.
 
Robtimus151 said:
Your hands are not consecrated, our hands should no be touchingbthe Sacred Host.
Click to expand...
Robtimus151 said:
Which is why you shouldnt be distributing the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
These comments are contrary to Church teaching in this context.
The Church permits us to receive in the hand.
The Church also permits the use of EMHCs to distribute Communion.
These comments you make are therefore your personal opinion, not reflective of Church teaching.

It’s also inappropriate for you to tell another poster he shouldn’t be serving as EMHC when he expresses a concern about being unable to administer Communion on the tongue to people who do not open their mouths wide enough to receive. A priest in the same situation would have the same problem.
 
Last edited:
BlueMaxx said:
It too mention everyone dips their fingers in holy water on the way in and out, I always thought of that as being the point of cross contamination than the host… drinking from the same cup I get.
Click to expand...
The CDC actually had a study posted that showed that people who recieve from a common cup at their churches don’t have a higher rate of catching communicable diseases than people who don’t. One has to assume people use common-sense precautions.

I can’t imagine receiving Holy Communion on the tongue presents some great health hazard, provided the communicants receive correctly, that is, which is to say they open their mouth and have their tongues out far enough that it is relatively easy to distribute Holy Communion to them without touching their tongue.
Zach said:
That’s the same with me. I’m always afraid I’ll drop the host so all my concentration is on making sure it’s secure in my hands from when it’s handed to me until I put it in my mouth.
Click to expand...
This does show an advantage of recieving directly onto the tongue. There’s no examining your palm afterwards to be certain you have not missed a fragment.
Robtimus151 said:
Your hands are not consecrated, our hands should no be touchingbthe Sacred Host.
Click to expand...
Robtimus151 said:
Which is why you shouldnt be distributing the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
It is one thing to recommend a self-discipline that you have found edifying yourself. It is your right to receive on the tongue, and Pope St. John Paul II (among others) has noted that this practice does lower the risk of accidental or negligent profanation of the the sacred species.
It is one thing to point that out…fine. It quite another thing to add restrictions that the Church herself does not impose for reasons that the Church herself does not teach.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top