Receiving communion in the hand using a purificator?

Status
Not open for further replies.
HomeschoolDad

HomeschoolDad

Administrator
Staff member
I’ve brought this up in other threads, but I think it deserves its own.

What problem would there be, if any, with receiving communion in the hand, but covering one’s hand with a purificator (or even a nice, dignified cloth handkerchief)?

I do not receive CITH, but given the present circumstances, I can see that I am more or less going to have to, if I should be so blessed as to be able to go to Mass anytime soon. Both for reasons of tradition and hygiene, I do not wish to receive on my bare palm. I do realize that in medieval times, women used houseling cloths for receiving communion (not clear why men didn’t use them). So there is historical precedent for it. Just using my mother wit, I have to think that this method is far less likely to carry CV than either COTT or the conventional method of CITH.

I can foresee a problem with small particles adhering to the cloth, but these same small particles would adhere to one’s skin, and it is my understanding that these particles can (and should) be consumed by the communicant. I would be planning to receive on the purificator, cup it up to my mouth, and administer the Host to myself this way. I would then fold the purificator in on itself, put it in a plastic bag, and put it back in my pocket.

I have verbal permission from a diocesan priest (on leave from his diocese) to wash communion linens by hand, and to dispose of the water reverently in an unused area of my garden. This permission has never been revoked.

Is there any reason I can’t do this? (Priests’ and deacons’ opinions welcomed.)
 
The guidance we have been given is that neither minister nor communicant may wear gloves. I would expect this to extend to any type of hand covering. Most of it is because it is difficult to ensure particles of the sacred species are contained in a purificator (they are folded differently from corpals which are specifically folded to contain particles) or don’t adhere to gloves.

We have also been told we are not to deny those who wish to receive on the tongue. There is a suggestion that those who wish to receive in the traditional manner be asked to wait until after those who fear contamination have received. It might also be possible to ask if you may receive after mass is concluded. Some bishops may outright ban it, but many are continuing to allow it so you millage may very.
 
For viral transmission worries:
Sanitize your hands immediately before, while in line, or while walking up. Rub hands until dry, and do NOT touch anything while walking up and waiting. (Maybe hold them together.)
If the altarware is clean, and the priest sanitizes his hands before consecration, you’re all good.
Clean “dishes”, (“vessels” just for @(name removed by moderator) 😏) host, hands, YOUR hands, that’s as good as it gets. (Nothing would be avoided by receiving on a cloth unless your own hands are not clean. Whatever would be on the priest’s hands would be in your mouth anyway via the host) Firstly, receiving on the cloth would require the cloth be free of contamination. If you lift the host with your fingers to your mouth, you just “contaminated the field” in medical term.
For particles if you feel you need to: (I know, it might sound odd, but we are in an odd time. Try to not blast me.). Receive, keep hand closed on the way back to the pew. Kneel with head down and VERY discreetly lick your hand then immediately sanitize again.
Hope that helps some, and sorry for long details.
Dominus vobiscum
Edited for clarity
 
Last edited:
HomeschoolDad said:
I do not receive CITH, but given the present circumstances, I can see that I am more or less going to have to, if I should be so blessed as to be able to go to Mass anytime soon.
Click to expand...
The USCCB has sent out some preliminary guidance on reopening, and it includes COTT.
 
Usige said:
The guidance we have been given is that neither minister nor communicant may wear gloves. I would expect this to extend to any type of hand covering. Most of it is because it is difficult to ensure particles of the sacred species are contained in a purificator (they are folded differently from corporals which are specifically folded to contain particles) or don’t adhere to gloves.
Click to expand...
I have to think that this refers to plastic surgical-type gloves, not traditional cloth gloves. The latter are extremely uncommon in the modern world, and are more worn by altar servers at the Traditional Latin Mass (and even that is not common). The servers at the TLM do not, though, receive CITH wearing these gloves — they do not receive CITH at all.

The purificator could always be ironed to create creases similar to those on a corporal.
Emeraldlady said:
I suspect that this would be one of the ‘bizarre proposals’ that Cardinal Sarah was warning against as ‘total madness’.
Click to expand...
Then would the good Cardinal have said that medieval houseling cloths were “total madness”? (FWIW, I deeply admire Cardinal Sarah and, quite frankly, hope he becomes the next Pope.)
Agnus-Dei said:
Kneel with head down and VERY discreetly lick your hand then immediately sanitize again.
Click to expand...
No blasting intended, but the very need to lick one’s hand reveals an intrinsic problem with CITH. That’s more like something a dog would do. Colonel Sanders comes immediately to mind as well.

Don’t get me wrong, if I became Pope tomorrow, CITH would end effectively immediately, but I do think COTT carries a great risk of CV transmission (priest’s fingers being breathed on by the communicant). We might be better off not having communion of the faithful at all, for the duration. Traditionally, people would have understood this. Nowadays, they would absolutely freak out.
 
Yup. That’s why I mentioned if you feel a need since the CITH seems to be the thing now. (If receiving at all.)
I would not feel a need, and see that as nearing scrupulous behavior. No appearance of bread, no crumbs, no issue. Of course just my opinion.
Dominus vobiscum
 
Last edited:
Agnus-Dei said:
I would not feel a need, and see that as nearing scrupulous behavior. No appearance of bread, no crumbs, no issue. Of course just my opinion.
Click to expand...
It’s not scrupulous. And you are right, if there are no visible particles of bread, there is no issue.

I just prefer to follow the more traditional practice of only the priest or deacon touching the Host. The priest used to keep his fingers pressed together during the Mass until he had purified them.

Not to sound effeminate or overly delicate, but it is more a question of “just the thought of it”.
 
I’m not a priest, but IMO your idea is sensible. Perhaps a somewhat darker material would make particles more visible. The one downside I’m able to imagine is people copying your practice who may have special challenges with physical coordination, in that the use of the purificator might increase the chance of dropping.
 
Buks said:
I’m not a priest, but IMO your idea is sensible. Perhaps a somewhat darker material would make particles more visible. The one downside I’m able to imagine is people copying your practice who may have special challenges with physical coordination, in that the use of the purificator might increase the chance of dropping.
Click to expand...
I considered some kind of pastel (a handkerchief, purificators only come in white), for that very reason, but I wondered if this might be a bit “dainty”. IIRC the cloths used in the Melkite Divine Liturgy are red. That might be a plan.
 
It’s not just “breathed on.” I’ve had the privilege of distributing Communion for 15+ years in 3 parishes, and it’s the rare COTT recipient who extends their tongue far enough, and opens their mouth wide enough, to prevent the transfer of saliva. In the old world that was unpleasant; in the new world, dangerous and unacceptable.
 
Understood. I would agree with both, but COTT seems more fitting to me as well.
With the streamed content lately, I’ve noticed the priest not keeping the thumb/index finger pressed together. He only held with the right hand, supported by the left.
Orans posture sometimes looks like the priest is giving a double “OK” sign. These didn’t even display one.
shrug.
Dominus vobiscum
 
Supposed to be a bit of levity, didn’t work. 😊
Dominus vobiscum
 
Huh. I had a “Premature posting”. Deleted.
 
Last edited:
Agnus-Dei said:
For viral transmission worries:
Sanitize your hands immediately before, while in line, or while walking up. Rub hands until dry, and do NOT touch anything while walking up and waiting. (Maybe hold them together.)
If the altarware is clean, and the priest sanitizes his hands before consecration, you’re all good.
Clean “dishes”, (“vessels” just for @(name removed by moderator) 😏) host, hands, YOUR hands, that’s as good as it gets. (Nothing would be avoided by receiving on a cloth unless your own hands are not clean. Whatever would be on the priest’s hands would be in your mouth anyway via the host) Firstly, receiving on the cloth would require the cloth be free of contamination. If you lift the host with your fingers to your mouth, you just “contaminated the field” in medical term.
For particles if you feel you need to: (I know, it might sound odd, but we are in an odd time. Try to not blast me.). Receive, keep hand closed on the way back to the pew. Kneel with head down and VERY discreetly lick your hand then immediately sanitize again.
Hope that helps some, and sorry for long details.
Dominus vobiscum
Edited for clarity
Click to expand...
You forget the clouds of droplets coming out of the nose with each breath and every time one opens the mouth. An infected person leaves a cloud of droplets in the air after receving. No matter if he receives directly on the tongue or in the hand and himself places it in his mouth.
 
I’ve said this in other threads and I will say it here: It is not how we receive. it is Who we receive. To wit:

I am beginning to think that this mania, obsession, preference, demand - whatever - for reception ‘solely this way’ and ‘solely that way’, is a form of scrupulosity. Or worse in a few cases.

Saint Paul wrote that we eat and drink damnation unto ourselves - not by receiving standing, or in the hand - but unworthily, with sin on our consciences.

“Oh, but our profane hands are not worthy” blah blah blah…

What about the filthy Petri dish of the oral cavity? Home of a veritable plethora of bacteria and fungi on a normal basis (look up candida albicans). Our teeth smash it to bits while our saliva (which we drool like Pavlov’s dogs while committing various sins) dissolves the Eucharist.

“Oh, but our hands should never touch it…”

If our double-tongues, (with which we both bless and curse those made in God’s image - James 3) is the preferred target of reception, what does that say? Our sinful hands cannot benefit from that same Divine touch?

Those are the only hands that Christ has to do his work. If touching a relic can transmit grace via those hands, how much more so the Eucharistic Lord?

We should burst into tears no matter how we receive the Lord - some of us are so preoccupied with how we touch the lord when He is not concerned at all about how He touches us! Except in our hearts.

Doubt, dispute, distraction and division: who delights in this?

Obedience and reverence in the heart. Who delights in that?
 
Was addressing the cloth being used, without trying to be too wordy. (Still long). Mass resumes here this evening at 5pm. Distancing, masks required by all present, except to move very briefly to put the host in your mouth. (My reason for not addressing mist/droplet transmission on its own.) I figured that the “masking” standard went without saying. (My oops.)
The priest will mask up also far as I know.
What a strange time we live in huh.
Dominus vobiscum
 
Last edited:
To make it even worse, those masks does not provide even close to a good protection from inhaling droplets in the air. One person removes the mask to receive. Exhales through the nose a couple of times and opens the mouth at least once. Then puts the mask back on. The next person comes up and inhale a couple of times both with the mask on and with it removed. This person is guaranteed to inhale droplets from the person/s before. Not to mention the droplets from the priest, deacon and eventual assistants.

People really have no idea how much we deposit from our bodies to our surrounding environment all the time.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
What problem would there be, if any, with receiving communion in the hand, but covering one’s hand with a purificator (or even a nice, dignified cloth handkerchief)?
Click to expand...
Not seeing what that accomplishes, though.
HomeschoolDad said:
Both for reasons of tradition and hygiene, I do not wish to receive on my bare palm.
Click to expand...
Tradition: don’t you receive “on the bare tongue”? How’s that different?
Hygiene: if the priest doesn’t touch your hand when distributing CITH, then what’s the hygiene problem that a cloth solves?
 
Could you not just use hand sanitizer before you go up for communion? That seems the simplest thing. Carrying it in your purse is going to be a thing now.

Before all this happened, there was a big bottle of hand sanitizer that every communion minister used when they approached the altar area. If they now had masks on, hand sanitized, and the faithful did that as well, that is about as much as a person could do, should they make the decision to attend in the first place. We assume risk when we leave the house.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top