Skip to main content
I have designated communion on the tongue the 'middle of the wedge' between Protestant and Catholic culture.

Attached below is a good article on some of the practical aspects of this ancient and venerable practice of the Catholic Church.

Courtesy of SSPX.org

Communion on the tongue unsanitary?

November 22, 2013 
District of the US
Opponents of Communion on the tongue often assert that this practice is unsanitary compared to in-the-hand - but what is the reality?

Pastor's Corner for Sunday, November 24

First published in February 2012, we have republished this piece for reflection.
Communion on the tongue is unsanitary. So authoritatively stated an article published in the Australian Catholic Leader by Elizabeth Harrington, the education official for the Liturgy Commission of the Brisbane archdiocese:
…It is awkward for ministers to give communion on the tongue to people who are standing, which is the recommended posture for communion in Australia, and it is unhygienic because it is difficult for ministers to avoid passing saliva on to other communicants.[1]
This statement (often made by in-the-hand proponents) reveals an ignorance of the Roman Church’s traditional practice and the rubrics for the distribution of Holy Communion on the tongue.
In the first place, the communicant is supposed to kneel; obviously exceptions are made for the handicapped, who usually wish they could kneel. Not only does this show the communicants’ humility in receiving their Divine Eucharistic Lord (i.e., God), but this submissive posture also enables giving the Host on the tongue more practically, safely and… hygienically — in all three cases, much more so than Communion in the hand.
Another interesting aspect is that the traditional form of receiving Communion kneeling and on the tongue demonstrates the Roman character of practicality that pervades its namesake liturgical rite, resulting in a reverent and dignified manner of receiving the Bread of Angels, yet easily and efficiently.
The traditional rubrics of the Rituale Romanum[2] prescribe that the priest is to carefully pick up the Host by Its edge between his right thumb and index finger; no other digits may be used to perform this action. As diligently taught in traditional First Communion classes, the communicant is to tilt his head back slightly, open his mouth and extend his tongue a little creating what is often called “the pillow of the tongue”. The priest then easily places the Host on this “pillow” without touching the communicant’s tongue, mouth, or even lips — resulting in an absence of physical contact between the administrator and the communicant.
But with Communion in the hand, full hand-to-hand contact is made between the administrator (usually the ubiquitous Eucharistic Minister) and the communicants, who often have not washed (or sanitized) their hands prior to receiving. Hence with in-the-hand, there is a very real danger of spreading unwanted germs.
The fact is, before the progressivists’ clamor for Communion in the hand (something we might add episcopal conferences did without the Holy See’s approval[3]), the issue of hygiene was never raised concerning the traditional manner of receiving Holy Communion — and this during an era when the hygienic advocates were in full swing to make the world germ free.
The irony of this charge against Communion on the tongue is that those who promote in-the-hand for non-existent hygienic reasons simultaneously encourage the practice of “sharing the cup” (receiving the Precious Blood communally from a chalice) which the Roman Church ceased in ancient timesprecisely due to hygienic concerns (i.e., because of the backwash of saliva that inevitable occurs from a group of people drinking from the same vessel) — which in turn could lead to disdain of this Sacred Mystery.
This topic in fact provides just one more example of how through Holy Mother Church’s traditional practices, she is solicitous for both our spiritual and natural welfare. On the supernatural side, she provides us with a reverential manner in which we poor and unworthy sinners (“Domine non sum dignus” citing the sentiments of the Centurion) may receive Our Lord’s Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, yet in the natural sphere, in a way that does not jeopardize our bodily health.
Footnotes
1 This is the archdiocesan newspaper and the article was titled “Communion in the Hand” was published on February 12, 2012, in the column, “Liturgy Lines”. It is currently unavailable online without a subscription.
2 Three editions of the traditional Roman Ritual are currently available from Angelus Press, two in English, a pocket-size and Fr. Philip Weller's The Roman Ritual set (which he intended to also act as a catechism for the laity) and one in Spanish.
Cf. Bishop Juan Laise's groundbreaking book, Communion in the Hand: Documents and History and this webpage featuring a video extract from Cardinal Burke which includes many pertinent links about Communion in the hand.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Count Capponi - RIP

+ JMJ I had heard of Count Capponi over the years and was happy to hear a voice crying in the wilderness. I suspect that his conscience was clearer than many. This part of the article caught my attention: Capponi defended the right of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre to continue his work without the label “schismatic,” which term Capponi rejected, saying: “You cannot apply the standards of the new code of canon law and the mentality of the old code. According to the new code, Lefebvre could do what he did with a Catholic intention, and he did what he did in ‘sincerity’ and invoked the ‘state of emergency’ argument, which the new code permits. You might not like the new code, but it’s what governs the Church.” I know a few people who tried to stir up a fuss when the SSPX cited the New Code in one of the documents with Rome.  Yet, the truth is what it is --- the New Code was promulgated by a reigning Pope and flawed as it is ... there are some benefits to its liberality. ...

Is it sinful to attend the Novus Ordo (New Mass) - Is it Sinful to Not Attend the Novus Ordo on Sunday?

+ JMJ A non-SSPX Catholic is upset over the SSPX statements on not attending the Novus Ordo Missae. Ladies and gentlemen, what the SSPX, or at least its website editor, is advocating is a mortal sin against the Third Commandment.  Unless the priest deviates from the language of the Sacramentary, the consecration, and thus the rest of Mass is to be considered valid.  No one may elect not to attend Mass simply because abuses are occurring therein.  Might I suggest that such absenteeism is its own abuse?  The Third Commandment binds under mortal sin.  Father So-And-So from the SSPX has no authority whatsoever to excuse attendance at Mass, be that Mass ever so unpalatable. Source:Restore DC Catholicism Well, this is interesting. First why does the SSPX issue this statement? Because it is sinful to put your faith in danger by attending a protestant service.  It is likewise dangerous to put your faith in danger by attending a protestantized ma...

Those who return to the past are not outside the Church - Rorate Caeli

+ JMJ I had been thinking about putting together a post explaining some of the history of how the SSPX has arrived at its current position. Now I see that Rorate has posted a translated editorial that shows the roots of the SSPX principles. In reading these words, I see patterns and themes that were put forward by Archbishop Lefebvre decades ago. Perhaps his sight was clearer than most. P^3

Fr. Burfitt on Fr. Pfeiffer's Attempted Consecration

 + JMJ   Amidst the shadows cast by the publication of Traditionis Custodes, I am working on a map of the 'resistance' splinters to put their reaction in contrast with that of the SSPX.  In the midst of this, I just came across Fr. Burfitt letter on the attempted consecration. Breaking it down (see below)  items 2 and 3 are key.  Just as the consecrating bishop is 'doubtful', even if he hadn't muffed the first attempt, Fr. Pfeiffer remain doubtful and therefore this impacts those men is attempts to 'ordain'. There were rumours that Fr. Pfeiffer was seeking episcopal consecration for years as he cast about for various bishops (also doubtful) to help him achieve this goal. I wonder how he convinced the 'doubtful' bishop to provide (twice) the doubtful consecration. What a mess!  This creates a danger to the souls of his followers and wonder where it will end. Will he go full sede and have himself 'elected' pontiff as others have done before him...

SSPX Transfers

+ JMJ Eponymous flow posted the following list of transfers etc. Source: http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2020/04/castling-of-leadership-at-sspx.html The departures Bishop Bernard Fellay, the third Superior General until 2018, leaves the General House in Menzingen and moves to the Seminary of St. Thomas Aquinas in the USA. Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, suffering from ill health, is being referred to the Seminary of St. Pius X in Ecene as a retreat. Fr. Christian Thouvenot, until now Secretary General of the General House, becomes a professor at the seminary in Ecene. Fr. Franz Schmidberger, until now Rector at the Seminary of the Heart of Jesus in Zaitzkofen, moves to the district of Germany. Fr. Jürgen Wegner, until now district superior of the DISTRICT USA, moves to the district of Austria. Fr. Philippe Brunet, until now Superior of the Autonomous House of Spain-Portugal, becomes professor at the Seminary U.L.F. and co-saviour of La Reja in...