Saturday, November 23, 2019


I read somewhere that a priest complained that the laity were receiving Holy Communion on the tongue and this caused the priest’s fingers to get wet with the communicant’s saliva. He was so very concerned about spreading germs to other communicants. He avidly promotes, though, drinking from the common chalice. Hypocrisy? I digress, though.

This can happen, especially when receiving on the tongue when one is standing and not kneeling.

However, I could easily complain at Mass about those who receive in the hand (which I don’t complain about at Mass btw). Because when I place the Host on the person’s hand, I often touch the palm unwittingly. And when people grab the host there is fingers to fingers contact. Oh, the humanity of it all!

We all know that there are more germs of hands and door knobs and the like than in saliva, or at least that is what a pseudo/neo scientist I know repeats over and over again.

At the Cathedral’s EF Mass where everyone kneels to receive and all receive on the tongue, I seldom or ever touch their tongue or mouth or get saliva on my fingers. Why? First of all, the communicant is kneeling. Secondly the communicant tilts their head back a bit in order to receive and thirdly they don’t keep their tongue in their mouth or stick it out way to far and lick it back in before I retrieve my fingers.

I touch far more hands at the OF Mass and more tongues too because at the OF Mass people stand and I have to reach up a bit rather than down.

The older traditional way of receiving needs to be restored for the health of mankind, spiritual and physical.  


Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

"We all know that there are more germs of hands and door knobs and the like than in saliva, or at least that is what a pseudo/neo scientist I know repeats over and over again."

Not "pseudo-" or "neo."

You have been presented with the facts about the role communion from a common cup doesn't play in the transmission of disease. These facts come from scientists - men and women who are more than capable to make determinations based on the data they collect.

But, like the president's advisor Ms. Conway, you prefer your "alternative facts" to reality.

By the way, if you'd like a few lessons on how to distribute communion in the hand without touching the hands of the communicants, I'd be happy to bring you up to speed next time we meet.

Robert Kumpel said...

Over the years I've noticed that priests who were formed before the ruptures of the late 60's and early 70's would hold the host with their thumbs on top of the Host, givint their wrist some room to move up and down and adjust to the communicant's mouth without touching the tongue.

EMCH"S (especially those who have long fingernails) and priests formed during the late 60's 70's & 80's often tend to hold the Host like an eye-dropper, with their forefinger on top, the thumb on the bottom and when giving Holy Communion on the tongue, tend to insert it into one's mouth as if shoving a quarter into a vending machine. One could suspect that they thought (or were taught) that receiving on the tongue was absolutely an "outdated" practice or that the few dinosaurs, like myself, would not be around much longer. One of many reasons, I made sure my children were not put into the 2nd grade First Holy Communion "Cattle Call" at the average Catholic school, where they seem to insist that the children be taught to receive in the hand.

Of course, we all know that the worldwide norm for receiving Holy Communion IS on the tongue, no matter how badly the USCCB wants to obscure that fact. Try explaining the current indult to people and the dishonest way that it was obtained by the USCCB under the very questionable leadership of the late Cardinal Bernardin (may God have mercy on his soul) is often a real eye-opener.

Robert Kumpel said...

Just proofread my comments. EMCH? (EMHC) . givint? Yeesh. How embarrassing!

TJM said...


LOL. You lack any self-awareness. Why do you vote for a party that glories in the "woman's right to choose to murder her baby?" Scientific advances make the Dem Party's position on infanticide indefensible! Are you anti-science too?

TJM said...


Please explain the “science” behind your party’s position on gay “marriage” since the Catholic Church teaches a primary purpose of marriage is procreation. How is that accomplished?

John Nolan said...

The current practice of receiving the Host in the left hand and then picking it up with the fingers of the right is objectionable on far more serious grounds than those of hygiene.

Anonymous said...

Let's discuss communion in the hand...

TJM - "Abortion! Gay Marriage! Procreation! Infanticide! Anti-Science!"

Well, OK......