Refused Communion on the Tongue

[Oneofthewomen]

This issue comes up every year at flu season.

No priest or Bishop can make a directive to suspend that which is a norm of the Church, and since COTT is the universally approved way of receiving, no one can be refused the option.

 

[Usige]

The priest can’t make a decision like this for the parish he shepherds?

No he can’t, nor can the bishop. They may suggest it, but they cannot disallow it.

The universal norm is COTT, not CITH. Reception in the hand is by indult. In other words the Vatican has to give a Episcopal Conference permission to do so and could rescind the indult to receive in the hand and that would be it. All the faithful would return to the universal norm of COTT.

The priest or bishop can stop offering the blood as this is an option. They can also tell people to not shake hands during the sign of peace. The can also tell people to stop playing hands across the parish during the Our Father. The last two are in their power because they are not part of the norms of the Church. They cannot deny people to receive on the tongue because this is the right of the faithful.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

I’ll accept that I can’t receive on the tongue when the sign of peace among the laity is forgone. That is much more prone to spread germs than Communion on the tongue done properly.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

why should the bishop be involved at all. Let us not get ahead of it and for now it a matter between aunt the priest of that aunt. She needs to take it up with him first to find out and also to work at resolving the matter if there is any misunderstanding. And possibly to receive the communion she was due to receieve if that is possible… it is upsetting but just a mis communication which can be easily resolved in the parish. if the Aunt is willing to let it be resolved because it is quite easy to go home and remain upset in our own juices and no one actually knows there has been a miscommunication taken place until the Aunt has taken it up with the priest in her own way. By the way, I hope the aunt has given permission for it to be freerly discussed here seeing how upset the opening poster has reported her to be. I am not sure she wants an international discussion on it.

This is excellent advice. The aunt herself should speak directly and in person with her pastor. That will very likely clear up the situation.

The aunt can offer to come up at the end of the procession or to always receive from the priest or a well-trained EMHC who can place the host on her tongue without touching it (this requires cooperation from both parties).

As others have said, holding your arms crossed over your chest usually means that you are NOT receiving, so that is what the EMHCs may be thinking and why they are not offering her communion.

The niece can certainly listen to the aunt, but doesn’t need to be involved in speaking to the priest, calling the diocese, writing to the bishop or anything else. Especially since the niece apparently doesn’t attend the same parish.

The issue of whether the priest and deacon distribute communion is a totally separate issue and should be approached separately. This is something that might need to be referred to the bishop.

 

[Usige]

I’ll accept that I can’t receive on the tongue when the sign of peace among the laity is forgone. That is much more prone to spread germs than Communion on the tongue done properly.

 

[clem456]

No he can’t, nor can the bishop. They may suggest it, but they cannot disallow it.

The universal norm is COTT, not CITH. Reception in the hand is by indult. In other words the Vatican has to give a Episcopal Conference permission to do so and could rescind the indult to receive in the hand and that would be it. All the faithful would return to the universal norm of COTT.

The priest or bishop can stop offering the blood as this is an option. They can also tell people to not shake hands during the sign of peace. The can also tell people to stop playing hands across the parish during the Our Father. The last two are in their power because they are not part of the norms of the Church. They cannot deny people to receive on the tongue because this is the right of the faithful.

Fair enough.The heart of my point was that the priest should be trusted, not nit-picked to death, and brought to the attention of his bishop, who is probably going to put this question in the “maybe tomorrow after my appointments are over” file.

Your position then is that when the shepherd of a parish asks his flock to receive on the hand for health reasons, people should obstinately refuse, rather than go along for the sake of peace? Cause being correct in their particular postures is more important? Or am i misreading.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

You are not asking me, but yes you are misreading.

It is not in the Priest’s power to make such a request in the first place.
The universal norm for the reception of communion is on the tongue, and no one, for no reason, anywhere and ever can be denied or asked to refrain, unless and until the Pope himself speaks on the issue.

Fair enough.The heart of my point was that the priest should be trusted, not nit-picked to death, and brought to the attention of his bishop, who is probably going to put this question in the “maybe tomorrow after my appointments are over” file.

Your position then is that when the shepherd of a parish asks his flock to receive on the hand for health reasons, people should obstinately refuse, rather than go along for the sake of peace? Cause being correct in their particular postures is more important? Or am i misreading.

 

[Usige]

Your position then is that when the shepherd of a parish asks his flock to receive on the hand for health reasons, people should obstinately refuse, rather than go along for the sake of peace? Cause being correct in their particular postures is more important? Or am i misreading.

I am saying that we should listen to the priest, but if our own piety or comfort does not allow us then we should not be denied reception by universal norms.

If the idult to receive in the hand was rescinded and the same health concerns remained would you suggest that the Eucharist be suppressed because of health concerns for say 2 months until it passed? Too often it seems people are okay with this because they are not impacted by it.

Note that most people that receive on the tongue don’t do so just as an external show of piety. It often is a deep seated calling that they cannot receive it another way. If you felt Christ was telling you to receive kneeling and on the tongue how would you feel if your pastor said no? Health concerns are secondary to what the Lord has written in my heart.

Something many people don’t realize about why some only feel comfortable receiving on the tongue is that for us receiving in the hand is too close to actively taking the Body of the Lord. COTT is a passive act, where as reception in the hand is an active thing. To receive on the tongue reminds us that grace is freely given to us despite what we have done; it is not a right but a gift to us even though we are unworthy. To actively take the Lord removes that sense of being given the grace despite my sinful nature.

 

[GoneAstray]

Our bishop did send a letter. No hand shaking. No wine during Communion. And no Communion on the tongue. This is just public health safety during the worst epidemic in 20 years. God doesn’t cloak us in invisible bio hazard suits.

I feel for your aunt because it is the ONLY way she can receive due to her personal beliefs. I also don’t believe in contributing to epidemics.

I think a logical compromise would be that your aunt receive Communion last and the priest can use hand sanitizer afterward. I know that would probably make her feel like she’s a spectacle but I’m just throwing it out there for people who feel this strongly about it.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

Our bishop did send a letter. No hand shaking. No wine during Communion. And no Communion on the tongue. This is just public health safety during the worst epidemic in 20 years. God doesn’t cloak us in invisible bio hazard suits.

I feel for your aunt because it is the ONLY way she can receive due to her personal beliefs. I also don’t believe in contributing to epidemics.

I think a logical compromise would be that your aunt receive Communion last and the priest can use hand sanitizer afterward. I know that would probably make her feel like she’s a spectacle but I’m just throwing it out there for people who feel this strongly about it.

I get the feeling that this is because of bad practice at distributing COTT. When I go to an EF Mass, I’ve never had a problem. The hand never touches the tongue. If you know what you’re doing there is no contact. Where I have had problems, however, are in other parishes where EMHC’s and even some priests are just awful at it. I’ve licked a few fingers, not a great experience.

The method is simple. Place the Host between your index finger and thumb, and place on the tongue while pushing on the the tongue with the thumb. This way it sticks to the tongue. No “place-and-run” or “reach into the mouth” necessary. And by the way, it is so much the easier while kneeling.

 

[maryjk]

Our bishop did send a letter. No hand shaking. No wine during Communion. And no Communion on the tongue. This is just public health safety during the worst epidemic in 20 years. God doesn’t cloak us in invisible bio hazard suits.

Last year they were saying the same thing. Worst epidemic in 20 years.

I feel for your aunt because it is the ONLY way she can receive due to her personal beliefs. I also don’t believe in contributing to epidemics.

Done correctly the priest’s fingers shouldn’t touch anything but the Host.

I think a logical compromise would be that your aunt receive Communion last and the priest can use hand sanitizer afterward. I know that would probably make her feel like she’s a spectacle but I’m just throwing it out there for people who feel this strongly about it.

The logical compromise would be for the priest to learn how to properly distribute Communion.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

The logical compromise would be for the priest to learn how to properly distribute Communion.

Or in this case to distribute at all. Obviously the EMHC’s are not well-trained enough if they can’t do this without touching tongues.

 

[GoneAstray]

I think there is a misconception of how viruses are spread. It does not always involve direct contact with body fluids. They can be air borne as well or picked up on your hands and then you rub your nose or your eyes. In fact, distributing communion any way is probably going to be a risk.

I think the reason the prohibition of doing it on the tongue is that it is more high risk than other methods.

If sick people stay home, there is no problem. They don’t. I think God understands illness and how you would like to go to church but can’t.

This actually is the worst epidemic in 20 years. So far. It may turn out to be the worst epidemic in 50 years. Just from empirical evidence, I have never seen so many people sick in my life time which is more than 50 years. I know few people who are NOT sick. I think being prudent at a time like this is just common sense.

 

[englishredrose]

please, stop getting carried away please…

Clem,
you said your aunt folder her arms across her chest. Poster Mrs Sally has confirmed this (If you saw our two posts), is traditonal to do for Catholics when they don’t want to receive and has also said the possibly just got simply confused on seeing the arms folded.

Please, does this have to really draw itself anymore and stop attacking issues that aren’t really there . Encourage the Aunt to take it up with the priest and find a solution as think it a simple misunderstanding through her arms being folded.

 

[jwinch2]

In her parish they priest has always been a bit leary of distributing the Host on the tongue and says that mainly lay people hand out Communion, often while the priest are deacon are seated.

This is a real problem. Those who know me on here can attest that while I am for following the rubrics within the OF of the Mass, I am not one to go around yelling “LITURGICAL ABUSE” like Chicken Little. However, this is a real and legitimate example of a Liturgical Abuse. Unless the priest and deacon are themselves concerned about being sick and spreading the flu, there is no legitimate reason that an Ordinary Minister of Holy Communion should be sitting down doing nothing while the Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion are distributing the Body and Blood of our Blessed Lord.

This should be addressed politely but directly with the pastor, as it should not be happening. If that does not yield a good response, it should be taken to the diocese.

Due to flu season the priest announced they would not be giving the Host on the tongue and that there were only a few of them that still did it this way anyway (namely my aunt and her children). If she approaches with her arms crossed and opens her mouth she simply doesn’t recieve.

First of all, are you sure she is not sending mixed signals? If she has her arms crossed as people do when they are not receiving communion, the EMHC might not understand what she is hoping to accomplish. I would suggest keeping her arms at her side or folded in front of her reverently to eliminate any possible confusion.

Assuming this is not a misunderstanding, this is a tough one. Technically, she has the right to receive on the tongue, as we all do. However, practical reality as well as personal prudence suggests that one should not wish to spread disease to the rest of the parish because of this right.

To be honest, if the Body of Christ is distributed properly, the Minister’s hand should not touch any part of the recipient in the first place. However, accidents can and do happen and perhaps some basic prudence on the part of the parishioners is in order. Or, perhaps those who wish to receive on the tongue can go last in line so that the chances of spreading any disease are minimized.

She should also speak to her pastor about this situation and if necessary take it to the diocese. However, again, she should be polite, but direct and try to view the pastor’s response through a charitable lens.

 

[Usige]

I think the reason the prohibition of doing it on the tongue is that it is more high risk than other methods.

Its been 15 plus years since the last infectious disease classes I attended, but this is a very small risk compared to the two largest infection vectors. People are most likely to get sick from the virus in aerosol form from people coughing or from touching door handles. Why don’t we assign door holders (including bathroom doors) if people want to reduce the disease being spread?

I did an informal survey of friends at an OF parish that primarily receive in the hand versus friends at an EF parish that only receive on the tongue to see how many have gotten the flu. If COTT is a strong vector then there should be a cluster (i.e. higher rate) at the EF parish. There is virtually no difference in infection rate (the CITH group is slightly higher). The lack of clustering in the EF parish certainly implies that COTT is not a major disease vector.

 

[GoneAstray]

Its been 15 plus years since the last infectious disease classes I attended, but this is a very small risk compared to the two largest infection vectors. People are most likely to get sick from the virus in aerosol form from people coughing or from touching door handles. Why don’t we assign door holders (including bathroom doors) if people want to reduce the disease being spread?

I did an informal survey of friends at an OF parish that primarily receive in the hand versus friends at an EF parish that only receive on the tongue to see how many have gotten the flu. If COTT is a strong vector then there should be a cluster (i.e. higher rate) at the EF parish. There is virtually no difference in infection rate (the CITH group is slightly higher). The lack of clustering in the EF parish certainly implies that COTT is not a major disease vector.

Of course, the most common vector would be a door knob in a public place. It is why I carry hand sanitizer and use it. And I’ve gotten sick from people coughing directly on me as well. I got pertussis during last year’s pandemic that way.

I am sick now because I went for a routine annual test at a clinic. Talk about a good place to pick up a virus. No one coughed on me there. In fact, few people looked sick. Just a couple toddlers. However, that would still be a definite hot zone IMHO. It is why they are begging people with the flu to stay out of ERs unless they are critically ill.

As for your study, what church did you use as a control group? JK. I believe saliva would have more concentration of virus than a hand.

But it’s just getting silly now. Let’s face it. Every time we go out, we’re exposed during an epidemic. A virus can be spread while someone is asymptomatic. They don’t even know they’re sick yet.

I’m staying home and doing my part for public health. The bishops are just trying to do their part to keep this from getting worse. It is probably not going to work but I applaud them for trying.

 

[Aran_Houlihan]

That is bad hygiene

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

The best solution would be for sick people to stay home. It’s just common courtesy.

 

[Brendan]

The method is simple. Place the Host between your index finger and thumb, and place on the tongue while pushing on the the tongue with the thumb. This way it sticks to the tongue. No “place-and-run” or “reach into the mouth” necessary. And by the way, it is so much the easier while kneeling.

I go to an OF parish where we use the communion rail and COTT is done by the vast majority of parishioners.

Yesterday, I was down at the seminary for a Pro-Life Conference that began with Mass. I received kneeling and COTT. The priest (one of the professors there) knew ‘the drill’ and properly laid the Host on my tongue. No fingers were touched.

But you are right, it’s a lot easier to do while the recipient is kneeling.