"potential health risks associated with intinction" !?!?

[tee_eff_em]

The following question/answer occurs at the very end of the USCCB document Communion Under Both Kinds and Cleansing of Vessels (with emphasis added).

7. What about those instances where there are many chalices and only one Priest to purify them?
When there are insufficient Priests, Deacons, or instituted acolytes to purify the additional chalices during Mass, the purification may take place immediately after the Mass has concluded. If such purification by ordinary ministers proves pastorally problematic, consideration should be given to distribution of Holy Communion by intinction or to the distribution of Holy Communion under the form of consecrated bread alone. Priests should also keep in mind potential health risks associated with intinction, especially in the coming flu season.

Does anyone have any idea what potential health risks are being alluded to? (I’ve always been under the impression that sipping from a common cup was a greater potential health risk than intinction?)

tee

 

[LilyM]

The risks of a common cup are obviously much greater, but certainly there would be a level of risk associated with intinction too - remember flu germs thrive in moist environments, which means intinction poses a greater risk that receiving the Host alone.

 

[Philothea_2.0]

The risks of a common cup are obviously much greater, but certainly there would be a level of risk associated with intinction too - remember flu germs thrive in moist environments, which means intinction poses a greater risk that receiving the Host alone.

But where would the germs come from? The priest? He’s the only one touching anything during intinction.

 

[kmknapp]

But where would the germs come from? The priest? He’s the only one touching anything during intinction.

The mouths of the communicants. Look at the motions, chalice to mouth#1 to chalice to mouth #2 to chalice to mouth#3… all while continuously damp. Even riskier than common cup reception since 1)symptomatic sick people choose not to receive from the chalice, and 2) the chalice edge is dried after each reception and is rotated besides, making it harder for germs to thrive and cross-contaminate the communicants.

karen marie

 

[palmas85]

The mouths of the communicants. Look at the motions, chalice to mouth#1 to chalice to mouth #2 to chalice to mouth#3… all while continuously damp. Even riskier than common cup reception since 1)symptomatic sick people choose not to receive from the chalice, and 2) the chalice edge is dried after each reception and is rotated besides, making it harder for germs to thrive and cross-contaminate the communicants.

karen marie

In intinction nobodys mouth comes anywhere near the Chalice. The Priest dips the Host into the Blood and then places it on the communicants tongue.

 

[DJJG]

I am an EMHC and when someone receives the host on the tonhue, as is requiered when intinction is used, one can not help that he will sometime touch a communicant’s tongue or lips at times. I imagine that you would pick up some germs and transmit them to the next host (although not to the chalice unless you put your fingers into the prescious blood). I guess that it would be possible to transmit a cold from one person to another but I personaly wouldn’t worry about it. Besides if I get a really good cold then I get a couple of paid days off from work.

 

[LeahInancsi]

I am an EMHC and when someone receives the host on the tonhue, as is requiered when intinction is used, one can not help that he will sometime touch a communicant’s tongue or lips at times. I imagine that you would pick up some germs and transmit them to the next host (although not to the chalice unless you put your fingers into the prescious blood). I guess that it would be possible to transmit a cold from one person to another but I personaly wouldn’t worry about it. Besides if I get a really good cold then I get a couple of paid days off from work.

To me, that would seem to be the only occassion for the exchange of germs.

This subject reminds me of a pet peeve I’m developing. People who wish to receive by mouth need to open their mouths wider!

This last Sunday, I was the only EMHC at the back of my church and had to serve about 100 people in a short period of time. There were quite a few who wanted to receive by mouth, but they barely gave any indication. Many times, I had difficulty getting the host between their teeth and tongue. Thus far, I haven’t touched anyone, but I’m sure the day is coming.

Open your mouth **WIDE **and be proud!

 

[netmilsmom]

I am an EMHC and when someone receives the host on the tonhue, as is requiered when intinction is used, one can not help that he will sometime touch a communicant’s tongue or lips at times. I imagine that you would pick up some germs and transmit them to the next host (although not to the chalice unless you put your fingers into the prescious blood). I guess that it would be possible to transmit a cold from one person to another but I personaly wouldn’t worry about it. Besides if I get a really good cold then I get a couple of paid days off from work.

First, I receive by intiction. I have never had my tongue touched by a priest. I know people will say, that’s just you, but there is a certain skill to placing a host on one’s tongue. In our parish, the priests will stop and instruct a communicant to “open wider” at the kneeler. They are above the communicant so there is not much of a problem with placing the host, being held by the edge, onto the tongue without touching it. It can be a “drop” situation. the edge of the host is placed, the host is basically dropped on the tongue. And yes, we have patens.

Now, let me tell you about wiping a communial cup.
When I worked in a banquet facillity in college we put all glassware into a special solution to kill all germs before dishwashing. We did this because we were told that many germs live in lipstick even after being washed in an industrial washer. I was told that a syphillis virus can live through the washings without a problem when you add lipstick to the mix.
A dry cloth will take off only so much. Turning the cup is useless as well considering that eventually you get back to the original spot.

I launder altar linens. I can’t tell you how much lipstick I find on those cloths from the communal cup. To think that a dry cloth can wipe away all germs or that everyone who is sick is avoiding the cup, is just not workable in my mind.

 

[Philothea_2.0]

Keep in mind that some people have very small mouths and CAN’T open them very wide. I’m one of them. I do the best I can, but I’ve had my teeth touched by more than one priest/EMHC.

 

[ncjohn]

While I don’t personally worry about the germs aspect of receiving too much, beyond not taking the Blood when I have a noticeable cold, I believe overall that receiving on the tongue is probably a greater risk for transmission of germs.

Whether the priest or EMHC is actually touching the tongue or not isn’t relevant. Continually putting your hand and fingers within breathing range of people’s mouths is going to expose those fingers to whatever germs people are carrying and is going to transmit them to the next host picked up and distributed. From that aspect, receiving in the hand at least only exposes one to whatever germs are on the fingers of the person distributing the host.

As I said though I don’t really worry much about this stuff. I can think of much worse ways to go than dying from receiving Our Lord.

Peace,

 

[tee_eff_em]

While I don’t personally worry about the germs aspect of receiving too much, beyond not taking the Blood when I have a noticeable cold, I believe overall that receiving on the tongue is probably a greater risk for transmission of germs.

Whether the priest or EMHC is actually touching the tongue or not isn’t relevant. Continually putting your hand and fingers within breathing range of people’s mouths is going to expose those fingers to whatever germs people are carrying and is going to transmit them to the next host picked up and distributed. From that aspect, receiving in the hand at least only exposes one to whatever germs are on the fingers of the person distributing the host.

As I said though I don’t really worry much about this stuff. I can think of much worse ways to go than dying from receiving Our Lord.

Peace,

I dunno… “They” say more germs are transmitted by handshakes than by kissing…

tee
Who has no doubt that a dog’s mouth is cleaner than his, but still would not recommend admitting them to Communion

 

[tee_eff_em]

A priest of my acquaintance always said that every minister of Holy Communion ought to have a purificator, in order to wipe the fingers when necessary. But I do not know if he meant “ought – it is my opinion that” or “ought – there is a rubric somewhere expressing such”.

tee

 

[CRW]

The following question/answer occurs at the very end of the USCCB document Communion Under Both Kinds and Cleansing of Vessels (with emphasis added).

Does anyone have any idea what potential health risks are being alluded to? (I’ve always been under the impression that sipping from a common cup was a greater potential health risk than intinction?)

tee

IMHO, I think this was a over reaction to the directive that EMHC’s could not purify the sacred vessels. To decrease the requirement on the priest, deacon or acolyte, to offer Holy Communion in the form of the Blessed Body (Host) only.

Intinction is received on the tongue but many people receive the Blessed Body on the tongue, without intinction. As a EMHC, one occasionally touches the tongue accidentally; however, this has been a common practice throughout the history of our Catholic Church. I would think intinction would decrease the possibility to spread the “bug” knowing that the priest or deacon would be the only ones participating.

 

[CRW]

A priest of my acquaintance always said that every minister of Holy Communion ought to have a purificator, in order to wipe the fingers when necessary. But I do not know if he meant “ought – it is my opinion that” or “ought – there is a rubric somewhere expressing such”.

tee

No rubric but it does make a lot of “common sense”. So don’t wait to see it put into practice anytime soon.

 

[StephanieC]

I’m not going to get in a debate over which carries the greater risk of contagion (intinction or common chalice), although clearly that’s where this thread is headed!

We don’t live in a perfect world of perfectly programmed robots, however, and as a daily mass communicant (by intinction) I have to say that it’s pretty common for the priest, deacon or EMHC to touch either my tongue or lower lip with his/her (if EMHC) fingers.

It’s no biggie to me; (and I do open my mouth nice & wide) It just happens. Big whoop.

But that’s why it’s briefly mentioned in that document–“it happens, and here’s what you should keep in mind.”

 

[kmknapp]

In intinction nobodys mouth comes anywhere near the Chalice. The Priest dips the Host into the Blood and then places it on the communicants tongue.

With his fingers. Then the fingers are back into chalice, then into another communicant’s mouth, etc, etc.

It’s not directly people’s mouths, it’s lots of peoples’ mouths via the priest’s distribution fingers.

karen marie

 

[wjp984]

what about in the Eastern Rite where a spoon is used. The spoon never touches the tounge by the way.

 

[drforjc]

With his fingers. Then the fingers are back into chalice, then into another communicant’s mouth, etc, etc.

It’s not directly people’s mouths, it’s lots of peoples’ mouths via the priest’s distribution fingers.

karen marie

But the same thing happens with the host alone…