Wherein Fr. Z rants about repression of Communion on the tongue and about a “new normal”

[CTBcin]

I had never received communion in the hand until the Coronavirus happened. After my bishop mandated it, I dutifully obeyed. And guess what? It wasn’t a big deal.

I find that such “liturgical war” issues become ridiculous and petty in a time like this.

 

[StudentMI]

This is confirmation that traditionalists don’t believe that CITH is legitimate at all and up to them is would be banned. His rant is at best irresponsible and at worst something sinister. Telling people not to receive CITH it it is the only way available, is literally denying the Presence of Christ in our Communion.

I don’t think we can go that far. Especially as far as saying they’re denying the Real Presence.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

This is confirmation that traditionalists don’t believe that CITH is legitimate at all and up to them is would be banned. His rant is at best irresponsible and at worst something sinister. Telling people not to receive CITH it it is the only way available, is literally denying the Presence of Christ in our Communion.

I don’t think we can go that far. Especially as far as saying they’re denying the Real Presence.

But there is a cold jolt in ones gut reading a Priest advise people against receiving the Body of Christ in a way perfectly legitimate with the Church, if that is the only way available to them, is there not? Perhaps I should wait for a while after I read something that sends my antenna abuzz, because I really feel like someone has to give his devotees another view on the subject.

 

[Dovekin]

His rant is at best irresponsible and at worst something sinister. Telling people not to receive CITH it it is the only way available, is literally denying the Presence of Christ in our Communion. Why on earth else would a Priest discourage people from receiving in this legitimate way? Very suspicious motives to me.

This was my reaction as well.

I came away from it thinking he was describing the Eucharist as evil, as millions of body blows to Christ. There is no recognition of the grace flowing from the proper communions, or even more importantly, the grace flowing from Christ on the Cross that is greater than all our sinfulness. The gratitude that is the Eucharist is not evident in his rant. But now I fear I am also approaching the attitude of “I thank you I am not like other men.” so I will stop.

 

[Mrchatsworth]

We have reopened Mass but our Bishop has said no communion on the tongue. One priest refused someone last week and the Bishop has told him he cannot refuse someone communion. So our bishop seems to be in the middle. That being said I wonder if the ban on COTT by a bishop would be a de facto ban on the EF.

 

[PetraG]

Both true…the Reporter is rubbish.

Fr. Z…half his posts are rants, the other half are pictures of food he’s eaten or cooked. Used to read his site, but don’t really go there anymore.

A bit more on his love of shooting than I’d like, too. Not that he can’t do that, he’s free to do what he wants, but the blog doesn’t do it for me, either. And yes, since the new translation, I don’t find it as interesting as I once did.

 

[PetraG]

https://d2y1pz2y630308.cloudfront.net/12494/documents/2020/3/Further Considerations March 2020.pdf

This morning we consulted with two physicians regarding this issue, one of which is a specialist in immunology for the State of Oregon. They agreed that done properly the reception of Holy Communion on the tongue or in the hand pose a more or less equal risk. The risk of touching the tongue and passing the saliva on to others is obviously a danger however the chance of touching someone’s hand is equally probable and one’s hands have a greater exposure to germs…

Archbishop Sample consulted with those who have knowledge of the matter from a medical point of view and did not find a compelling argument for banning reception on the tongue on epidemiological grounds.

 

[pnewton]

I find that such “liturgical war” issues become ridiculous and petty in a time like this.

I would think we have more important issues, but then I have known some, one comes to mind I know in real life, that at one time was more zealous about spreading communion on the tongue among faithful Catholics than spreading the Gospel to the world. Perhaps that colors my perspective. To him, since he stated this might be a “planned-demic?” perhaps he does not believe it is a “time like this.”

In any case, it is not an option at my parish. And while Fr. Z used the USCCB document as evidence that it is possible to still distribute on the tongue, he left off this part from the guide. “If Communion on the tongue is provided, one could consider using hand sanitizer after each communicant who receives on the tongue.”

Can you imagine how that would work out in a communion line, where every time some one opts for the communion on the tongue, communion stops while the priest steps aside to sanitize his hands?
Then there is an issue of how to do this with a mask. For our protocol, after receiving, we have the communicant step a few feet away, alone, lower their mask and consume the host. Our priest pointed out that as a pro-life people, we would do better to err on the side of caution, even if no “compelling” (a word that speaks to the judgment of the listener) argument can be made. We are just following the advice of our own medical professionals.

 

[Beryllos]

A suggestion has been made that those receiving Communion on the tongue should wait till the end and receive after all those receiving Communion in the hand. (The “first” shall be last???) If saliva transfer is an issue, this would infect fewer recipients.

 

[Dovekin]

My only problem with Abp Sample’s statement is the qualification “properly done.” If he does it properly, William Tell can split an apple sitting on top of his son’s head with an arrow. If it is done improperly, the consequences could be dire. If danger lurks from being done improperly, that needs to be considered as well for either form of distribution.

But none of that has anything to do with my reaction to Fr Z’s comments. I am concerned that he discourages Communion because there is so much sacrilege. Where sin abounds, Grace overflows much more from the Eucharist. I know he believes that, so it was just hard to read his dreary depiction. I really do not care which distribution system is used; I can see health arguments for and against either. I just hope wise judgments will be made.

 

[PetraG]

But none of that has anything to do with my reaction to Fr Z’s comments. I am concerned that he discourages Communion because there is so much sacrilege. Where sin abounds, Grace overflows much more from the Eucharist. I know he believes that, so it was just hard to read his dreary depiction. I really do not care which distribution system is used; I can see health arguments for and against either. I just hope wise judgments will be made.

Surely Fr. Z knows that if we refuse to receive Holy Communion unless the priest is sufficiently excellent for us–let alone that we have judged our fellow laity to be pious enough for us!–that carries a spiritual peril of its own.

 

[commenter]

Fr. Z like all the priests is probably stressed out by this situation and maybe he expresses that by ranting in posts. I’m inclined to just scroll past it.

I can’t believe the level of stress priests must be under in recent years.
If I were a priest, I’d either be totally silent or doing worse than ranting.

 

[JimG]

Fr. A does make the point that communion is not obligatory:
“I am wholly on board with the Council of Trent’s admonition that people should be able to receive the Eucharist frequently in way that is both sacramental and spiritual. However, Communion is not obligatory at Mass.”

He notes that we are obliged to attend Mass every Sunday. But we are obliged to receive communion once a year.

 

[CTBcin]

To him, since he stated this might be a “planned-demic?”

Well, that right there says a lot.