D
DeniseNY
Guest
All this is true, but has nothing to do really with an infectious disease
- Status
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Amen. I wish I could like this a thousand times.
People should not have to gamble with their health in order to receive Jesus.
P
PetraG
Guest
Well, yes, actually, some Catholics do feel pretty strongly about not having the Blessed Sacrament placed directly into their own hands. They are concerned about avoiding profaning the Eucharist, and I don’t think it is particularly charitable to treat that concern as if it were self-serving. That is really unfair.
Their reason for not wanting to have the host placed directly onto their hand is that they have a concern about inadvertantly profaning the Most Holy Eucharist. That seems like a pretty good reason, as it is the reason the Church selected that as the only way to recieve for so many years. What reason do you have for not wanting to receive earlier rather than later? If you refuse to be flexible, surely you have a reason, right?
Honestly, when the discussion comes around to requiring people to receive directly onto the tongue, is it charitable to accuse people who prefer to receive in the hand of being selfish and inflexible? Really?
By the way, why do you think you can presume Our Lord would be displeased with someone who elected not to receive Holy Communion because they would rather not receive than to receive and risk profaning the Eucharist accidentally? What part of that is disrespectful to Our Lord?
Your point that not transmitting the virus is the point of the request begs the question of whether the measure makes any difference. The problem is that there isn’t any evidence that it does. Let’s face it: Nobody even knows how this virus spreads, do they? No, they don’t. No one has ever identified a single case when someone is known to have picked up any disease at all becase a church allowed reception of Holy Communion on the tongue, have they? No, they haven’t.
I’m not saying the Eucharist is magic. I’m saying that there are epidemiological realities concerning what does and does not measurably change the risk of disease transmission. Why would the faithful be denied anything, let alone denied what is normally a right, when there isn’t any way to demonstrate that a benefit will result?
Last edited:
T
Thom18
Guest
The Church in America allows for reception in either form, leaving it to the individual to decide how to receive Him.
Is it so wrong, then, for the Church elsewhere to bind reception of the Eucharist to the hand in order to prevent a health crisis? I don’t claim to speak for Jesus, but if reception on the hand is licit for personal preference, I would imagine it’s licit also to limit reception to the hand for necessity, which this certainly is.
Is it so wrong, then, for the Church elsewhere to bind reception of the Eucharist to the hand in order to prevent a health crisis? I don’t claim to speak for Jesus, but if reception on the hand is licit for personal preference, I would imagine it’s licit also to limit reception to the hand for necessity, which this certainly is.
Last edited:
P
PetraG
Guest
They are using a method that may or may not change the risk of disease transmission by denying a method that is sometimes preferred because it lowers the risk of profaning the Eucharist.
I don’t know that this is a matter of “liberal” vs “conservative,” but I do wonder what kind of message is sent when the value of wanting to avoid profaning the Eucharist even accidentally is discounted. That is a legitimate reason for wanting to keep the right to receive Holy Communion without adding to the number of hands the Eucharist passes through. Every time the Eucharist is handled, after all, the chance of accidentally dropping a fragment increases. That is not a trivial thing for the faithful to feel concerned about.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
People should not have to gamble with their health just because you, a layperson - or even some scientist - doesn’t know for sure if the virus spreads through saliva or mucus that gets on an EMHC’s hands. If someone got sick and died, then we’d know how the virus spread, but someone would be dead. If 50 people got sick, then we’d know how the virus spread, but we would have a lot of sick people and people might then be so afraid they wouldn’t want to receive at all.
The bishop has made a very prudent decision, yet you want to argue with it for no good reason other than you have a preference here. You’re asking people to put their health at risk for your preference, and you’re not trusting the bishop to do the right thing.
Last edited:
P
PetraG
Guest
The necessity is presumed. What is the evidence that this measure is going to make a difference in the health risks faced by the congregation? Who is the identified person who got sick this way?
Um, no. I’m arguing that (a) I don’t think there actually is medical evidence that this measure will make a difference in how many people contract this or any other disease that somebody might contract while at Mass and (b) I’m defending a right that shouldn’t be put aside for nothing, even if it is not a right that I prefer to exercise.
I can receive Holy Communion in the hand. Lately, I prefer to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, but if I think it would cause discomfort to an extraordinary minister, I’ll recieve in the hand.
The problem is that when I do receive in the hand, there is the need to check to see if a fragment was left behind. If there was, I’m at a loss to tell you how I could consume it without getting any saliva on my hand. I don’t even know (and neither does anyone else know) how this virus is transmitted. Therefore, I think the difference in the what is a very small chance of disesase transmission if either method is used is vanishingly small and somewhere between difficult and impossible to judge. The physical reality just doesn’t justify the measure, that’s all.
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself
Patron
I am not seeing how you are more expert on “medical evidence” in this case than the bishop.
The bishop presumably didn’t just make this decision on a whim.
The problem here is that you simply can’t accept the bishop’s decision as it disagrees with your own. Fortunately, he is the bishop and what he says, goes.
We don’t make these decisions by committee in the Catholic Church, and I’m glad because I would not want someone like yourself putting my health, or my family’s health, at risk.
The bishop presumably didn’t just make this decision on a whim.
The problem here is that you simply can’t accept the bishop’s decision as it disagrees with your own. Fortunately, he is the bishop and what he says, goes.
We don’t make these decisions by committee in the Catholic Church, and I’m glad because I would not want someone like yourself putting my health, or my family’s health, at risk.
P
PetraG
Guest
You don’t even know that receiving directly onto your tongue isn’t safer for you than touching the pew and then receiving in your hand, do you? No, you can’t know that. More to the point, you don’t even seem to want to receive earlier rather than later on the theory that you might be safer that way.
I am not talking about putting you at risk to make someone else feel more comfortable. I’m talking about assessing what the real identifiable risks are rather than what the imagined risks are.
I think you need to scroll up and see the post where I said my response if I felt that I couldn’t receive on the hand in good conscience, which I have NEVER said describes myself is to write a respectful letter to the bishop and to Rome outlining my concerns and to refrain from receiving Holy Communion in the meantime.
How that puts anyone’s health at risk, I have no idea. Where the premise came from that a bishop couldn’t possibly err on a matter that concerns epidemiology, I also have no idea.
Would I write the letter I’m describing? No. Why not? It doesn’t bother me personally enough to object, so I would just comply. I was only answering what I would do if I felt as the OP does. It is not “the right answer.” It is an option, and I think it is warranted. I didn’t think it was my place to tell the OP that wanting to avoid the risk of profaning the Eucharist was a selfish reason to want to stick with reception in the ancient manner. Excuse me, but I’m sticking with that.
Last edited:
J
Joe_5859
Guest
Threads like this make me appreciative of the fact that I am not a bishop. Whatever they do, they’ll have someone to tell them they are wrong.
It is a friendly reminder to me to pray for our bishops.
It is a friendly reminder to me to pray for our bishops.
P
PetraG
Guest
Amen to that, Joe.
R
Rau
Guest
Well, reception in the hand is not itself wrong. Requiring it for a time is well intentioned, and will likely do more good than harm. Therefore - it seems a good act?
P
paperwight
Guest
‘Licking their hand’? Come, come, that is ridiculous and gross. I have only once in 40 years of receiving on the hand come across a small fragment. How did I deal with it? By dabbing a finger to my tongue and then on to the fragment, which adhered and I was able to lift it. .savedbychrist:
Really–what is going to happen if the faithful see a fragment of the Eucharist on their palms? Well, let’s hope they’re going to lick their hands in order to consume it! I don’t see how it is possible to consume a tiny fragment stuck to your palm without getting saliva on your hand. I’ve never been able to do it, which is why I always recieved on the tongue when I was going to be an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion. Well, there is a mode of transmission, and we don’t know how this virus is passed along.
I can assure you, no saliva on my hand.
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
It was in your finger!
Tis_Bearself
Patron
I’ll cop to licking my hand a couple months ago when Father put the host in my hand a little too firmly and it broke into pieces. It seemed like the most expedient method of making sure all of Jesus was consumed and didn’t end up on the floor.
P
PetraG
Guest
If you didn’t need saliva, what was your finger doing on your tongue before you touched the fragment?
Sorry, you cannot assure me that you put none of the germs into your hand with moisture or that you didn’t transfer any germs in either direction. You simply don’t know that.
How many people in history are known to have gotten sick because Holy Communion was distributed one way rather than the other: Zero. No known disease outbreak has ever been tied to EITHER method of distributing Holy Communion. You can all look, but I don’t think there has even been a disease outbreak tied to receiving Holy Communion out of a common cup. It’s theoretically possible, but there are no identified cases. It just isn’t some huge risk.
Sorry, I’m a scientist. I can’t help it. The evidence of any substantial disease risk coming from any mode of recieving the Sacred Host, let alone an advantage of one method over the other, simply is not there.
Again, would I personally object if I were positively asked to recieve in one way or the other? No, I wouldn’t. Will I defend someone who feels it is their right to receive the Sacred Host directly onto their tongue? Yes, obviously, I would.
I think I’ve made my points, though. I will not draw any negative conclusions about the motives or the depth of human empathy to be found in anybody who has been disagreeing with me. I’ll thank you to please return the favor, if you would be so kind.
More to the point, please try to maintain a charitable attitude towards those who do not want to recieve Holy Communion except on the tongue. Looking down on them or accusing them of being selfish or disobedient or whatever other accusations have been made against them here is not necessary and it is not nice.
Last edited:
P
paperwight
Guest
The point is, though, it would be my own saliva and won’t harm me. .
The danger I can see is when the fingers of an EMHC touch the tongue of a communicant, and then give Communion to the next person, thereby transferring any infection from the first to the second.
The danger I can see is when the fingers of an EMHC touch the tongue of a communicant, and then give Communion to the next person, thereby transferring any infection from the first to the second.
O
OurLadyofSorrows
Guest
This has the potential to become huge IMHO , as an epidemic that brings great risks. The Diocese is wise.
This coronovirus is spread human to human very effectively, and has potentially fatal outcomes.
This coronovirus is spread human to human very effectively, and has potentially fatal outcomes.
Last edited:
- Status