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

De Veritate - St. Thomas Aquinas - What is necessary to believe explicitly?

I was recently introduced to a work of St. Thomas De Veritate ( Source ) in the course of an argument concerning the minimum content of explicit faith.  When I submitted the following quote as proof: Theological faith, that is, a supernatural faith in Revelation, is necessary, and this is an effect of grace (D 1789); nemini unquam sine ilIa contigit iustificatio (D 1793). As far as the content of this faith is concerned, according to Hebr. 11, 6, at least the existence of God and retribution in the other world must be firmly held, necessitate medii (by the necessity of means) with explicit faith. In regard to the Trinity and the Incarnation, implicit faith suffices. The supernatural faith necessary for justification is attained when God grants to the unbeliever by internal inspiration or external teaching a knowledge of the truths of Revelation, and actual grace to make the supernatural act of faith. Cf. De verite 14, I I.Ott - Fundamentals of Dogma p241 In response my opponent ...

Comparision of the Tridentine, Cranmer and Novus Ordo Masses

+ JMJ I downloaded the comparison that was linked in the previous article on the mass (here) . ... a very good reference! P^3 From: Whispers of Restoration (available at this link) . CHARTING LITURGICAL CHANGE Comparing the 1962 Ordinary of the Roman Mass to changes made during the Anglican Schism; Compared in turn to changes adopted in the creation of Pope Paul VI’s Mass in 1969 The chart on the reverse is a concise comparison of certain ritual differences between three historical rites for the celebration of the Catholic Mass Vetus Ordo: “Old Order,” the Roman Rite of Mass as contained in the 1962 Missal, often referred to as the “Traditional Latin Mass.”The Ordinary of this Mass is that of Pope St. Pius V (1570) following the Council of Trent (1545-63), hence the occasional moniker “Tridentine Mass.” However, Trent only consolidated and codified the Roman Rite already in use at that time; its essential form dates to Pope St. Gregory the Great (+604), in whose time the R...

Rome and the SSPX - Version 2026 Part 5b - How Did We Get Here??? ... A Continued Anlaysis using ChatGPT.

 + JMJ Part 5b How Did We Get Here??? So in the previous ChatGPT analysis the LLM ‘concluded’ that there was continuity in doctrine. So now we’re going to explore this element. There is some repetition but I don't have time right now to do a lot of editing.  I think instead we'll have a Part 5c where I try to pull it all together with some old fashioned human sense making. At the end point, I think the LLM collects an interesting if somewhat skewed perspective: The SSPX mapping hinges on this claim: That Vatican II affirms (at least implicitly) propositions that the Syllabus of Errors explicitly condemned. The broader Church response is: The same propositions are still rejected—but Vatican II is addressing different categories (political, pastoral, anthropological) rather than reversing doctrine. While the summary of the SSPX position seems close, that of the broader Church seems to be either an outright AI hallucination or a consensus point from the literature that it used...

News Roundup: April 30, 2026

 + JMJ I just realised that I haven't posted the latest Roundup ... and there is a lot in the roundup as the media storm around the SSPX continues! I also just noticed this article: European Conservative: Why the SSPX Bishop Decision Matters Far Beyond Church Politics (link) .  P^3 === Popes Past Present and Future Papal News and Views Cardinal Fernandez maintains that Francis is not dead- metaphorically Pope Leo XIV Reopens Amoris Laetitia File | FSSPX News Pope Leo: “We Do Not Agree with the Formalized Blessing of …Homosexual Couples” - OnePeterFive RORATE CÆLI: How Pope Leo is Reshuffling the Curia: Musical Chairs and Power Games RORATE CÆLI: A Giant Leap: The meaning of Cardinal Eijk’s Pontifical High Mass and the Rebirth of Dutch Catholicism RORATE CÆLI: A Sign of Continuity with the Pre-Francis Papacy: Pope to Wash Feet of Twelve Priests RORATE CÆLI: Vatican Blocks Continuity of Procedure of Beatification and Canonization of Argentine Bishop -- no new Satanellis Pope Leo...

Rome and the SSPX - Version 2026 Part 5 - How Did We Get Here???

 + JMJ This is the fifth in this series and I think it may require a part b to show the controversial documents and teachings of the Pope post V2. P^3 Part 5 How Did We Get Here??? Introduction My family became ‘Traditional’ in early 1980’s and I didn’t realise until years later how early we entered the Fray. So the SSPX was slightly over a decade old when we started going to Mass. That is a young organization, as someone said at the consecrations “Aren’t you a little young to be a bishop?”, the response was, “That is something that time will change.” 1970: SSPX founded with diocesan approval (Abp. Marcel Lefebvre) 1974–1976: Vatican II disputes escalate; Lefebvre suspended a divinis 1988: Illicit episcopal consecrations → excommunications declared 2000: SSPX Jubilee pilgrimage to Rome (signals openness to talks) 2009: Excommunications lifted by Pope Benedict XVI 2011–2012: Doctrinal talks with CDF collapse 2015–2017: SSPX granted faculties for confessi...