Communion in the Time of Swine Flu & Dioceses which issue Documents

I have received about 20 e-mails from people in Toronto.

They are incensed by a memo sent to all churches in the Archdiocese of Toronto It has a requirement that all churches "must implement the changes outlined below" including "Temporarily suspend communion on the tongue".

I have written more than once on this issue of (pace Gabriel Garcia Marquez) Communion in the Time of Swine Flu and I don’t have anything more to add.

First, I am unaware that any diocese can override what we read in Redemptionis Sacramentum about reception of Communion on the tongue. 

If you have some beef with what you are experiencing, you have the right to express yourself with respect to the Congregation for Divine Worship in Rome.  I would love to be able to handle this for you, but until my paygrade rises pretty far pretty quickly, you had better turn to the CDW.

You must balance your own reaction and practice against the circumstances and what is being asked.

Ask yourselves if what is being requested by the local diocese is reasonable or not.

From my own experience, I have always been able to distribute Communion on the tongue without any contact between my fingers and any tongue.  I could probably count the number of times they have made contact on my otherwise dry fingers.

Still, that’s me and not Extraordinary (often Unnecessary) Ministers of Communion.  

This also doesn’t not take into account some people who at Communion time, for whatever reason, can’t present a stable target or who in some previous incarnation was a snapping turtle or hungry frog.

You would do help yourselves if you would take stock of how you are receiving on the tongue!  If you were all really good at it, paying attention to making it easy, this issue might not be coming up as it has.

I have seen letters from various diocesan chanceries on this point.  Most of them, the smart ones, approach these issues as a matter of strong recommendation.  Others take the imperious approach and run the risk of compromising people’s rights under Redemptionis Sacramentum.

Nevertheless, people – pleeeeeeease – ask yourself if the request, no matter how aggressive or gentle it is, is reasonable… in the time of high contagious influenza.

Over the weekend two doctor friends of mine told me what this flu is like, both saying "You really don’t want to get this."

And if you are really worked up, and are fuming about it at the time of Holy Communion, the don’t go to Holy Communion.  That way you will have only something to be angry about rather than compound your anger with a possibly sacrilegious Communion.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Seraphic Spouse says:

    Every time I got to a NO Mass in Toronto or Montreal, I end up licking the poor priest or extraordinary minister when I receive on the tongue. I suspect they have no idea how to administer the Eucharist on the tongue. But when I go to an FSSP’s or Oratorians’ EF Mass, there is NO problem at all.

    I know we all wish to have frequent reception of the sacraments, but really, we don’t HAVE to receive every week. We only HAVE to receive ONCE a year. For me, I voluntarily abstain from receiving the Eucharist rather than have to stand for it (and not kneel) or receive in the hand. This is difficult, but at such times I make my focus witnessing the Sacrifice of the Mass.

  2. Girgadis says:

    Rather than suspend reception on the tongue, we should reinstitute (for lack of
    a better word) reception while kneeling, which makes the whole moving target
    argument nearly moot. For those churches that underwent a wreckovation and have
    no altar rail, the same type of kneeler set up for the Holy Father can work just
    as well.

    In our church, the only way in which we have reacted to flu concerns is by skipping
    the dreaded exchange of peace.

  3. Nora says:

    I am certainly not an epidemiologist, but I think the risk of contagion would be higher from receiving in the hand. Reception in the hand is more likely to result in minister/communicant physical contact than reception on the tongue, if for no other reason than folks are not as careful to avoid it. The likelihood of that contact transmitting the virus to a place that could cause infection seems to be lower with reception on the tongue. In my understanding, far fewer H1N1 viruses are on the tongue of a patient than on his hands. Further swallowing some virus is a lot less likely to make one sick than having a few deposited on your hand, where you will inevitably touch your nose or eyes and drop those hummers right into their infection target.

    Do any of my fellow readers have access to an expert who could confirm the soundness of encouraging reception on the tongue to REDUCE the risk of H1N1 transmission?

  4. FrFenton says:

    The other issue is one of simple logic. I can tell you I, like Fr Z rarely make any contact when placing the Host on the tongue. However, there is frequent contact when placing the Host on the hand. People close their hands as you are placing the Host, etc.

    The hand is far more likely to have some pathogen than the tongue, simply because people shake hands in greeting (and at the sacrosanct sign of peace), we touch door knobs, etc. Therefore, if I touch a hand, I am probably coming into contact with the germs of a dozen people, as opposed to the germs of one if I happen to touch a tongue.

    I remember when they did this with the bird flu a couple of years back. My physician sister quipped “they obviously weren’t in my immunology class at Med School!”

    Please! Can we just observe the rights of others??

  5. drwob says:

    One way to implement the idea of reception on the tongue while kneeling might be to have those who choose to receive in the hand present themselves for communion first. After they have finished, those wanting to receive on the tongue can present themselves at the altar rail (or, if that is missing, the reserved front pews).

    Such an approach would limit cross-contamination with influenza (to the extent it exists with regard to reception of communion on the tongue) only to those who voluntarily present themselves for communion on the tongue. Presto! no need for a ban of any kind.

  6. Seraphic Spouse says:

    But, you know, no more chalice for all and sundry, which should cheer up all fans of Redemptionis Sacramentum:

  7. JosephMary says:

    When kneeling, the head falls back and the tongue presents in an easy manner for a safe administration of the Sacrament. Standing is harder, especially with a short EMHC or something.

    One church I went to for Saturday morning Mass had emptied the holy water fonts! I cannot help but think of Lourdes (and I have been there) where all sorts and kinds of folks with all sorts and kinds of conditions go into the water. I do not think there has been a documented case of contagion from them.

    Also, I was an EMHC for more than 20 years and the lay people would consume the remainder of the Precious Blood. I would be drinking after 100s and never was sick.

    I know these precautions seem like prudence in the natural order, but in the supernatural….

  8. Nora says:

    FrFenton – your sister is my new best friend! I think we should really push the public health benefits of a preference for reception on the tongue. If during the flu season folks get a chance to change to reception on the tongue, many will never go back. I know lots of folks say they don’t receive on the tongue for fear of appearing “holier than thou” or from lack of knowledge of the mechanics (no biting / no licking). Make it the norm for a few months and get past those fears!

  9. medievalist says:

    A curious thing has happened at my local Toronto O.F. parish. The pastor briefly mentioned this letter but did NOT mention anything about communion on the tongue, which continues to be given to a large number of parishioners without any fuss.

    On the other hand, swine flu is slowly ending the sign of peace as we know it. The pastor, in the same remarks, suggested that we simply bow to our neighbours. Moreover, he delved into the history of the sign of peace, saying that it should properly be given simply to the people on either the left or right of us and that the ceremony should not become a moment to shake the hands of ten people or wave across the church.

  10. Magpie says:

    I have a suspicion that in my parish, EMHCs are using hand gel after distributing Holy Communion, before first dipping their fingers in the water bowl. This would mean that any fragments of the Eucharist that are still remaining on the hands would be mixed with sanitizing hand gel.

  11. Thursday says:

    You know, it’s funny, in my diocese we are in the middle of a Swine flu outbreak area (Just a short hop from the hotzone that is the diocese of miami) and rather than taking away the communion on the tongue they took out the sign of peace (which is entirely optional anyway) .

  12. Jeff says:

    The same request was made in Melbourne, Australia. I’m not sure how it went down in the diocese generally but the request was issued as a recommedation rather than an absolute. In the traditional Parish I attend nothing changed.

    The whole swine flu pandemic seems to have been no worse than than your average flu. Just a beat up.

  13. cheyan says:

    Same is true in San Antonio, but not all parishes are implementing it; on Sunday at St. Helena, the priest actually called out, “no sign of peace, no sign of peace!” (that’s in the recommendations also, along with no holy water – and yes, the holy water/baptismal font was empty) over the top of the piano starting the Lamb of God (fortunately it hadn’t started being sung yet). Meanwhile, yesterday at St. John Neumann at the 11:30 daily Mass, the bulletin had no mention of the recommendation, people were still receiving on the tongue, and communion was still offered under both species.

  14. ejcmartin says:

    I believe this is happening over a large part of Canada. (Shortly after their plenary session ended)Our Archbishop instituted the same rules. However, trying to figue out what to do I went over Father Z’s post on this topic of last May and made note of the “consideration and charity” comment. My wife telephoned the Archbishop last week and he kindly returned the call later that day. She simply presented a solution to the Archbishop in the form of having those who wish to receive on the tongue to go to the back of the line. His response was as long as the priest involved was okay with it, so was he. To date we have three priests willing to administer on the tongue in our Archdiocese. God Bless our Archbishop and priests.

  15. Henry Edwards says:

    All the informed medical opinion I’ve seen suggests that spread of the virus by hand is more likely than by tongue. If a local situation is sufficiently serious to require cessation of communion on the tongue, it would therefore seem sufficiently serious to suspend all holy communion by the people. Why not?

    In any event, each individual person has the power to suspend his own holy communion until the situation seems safe enough to resume. (Incidentally, I am not convinced that the swine flu situation is sufficiently serious for any of these measures.)

  16. Tom A. says:

    In Hartford, CT, the Archbishop has recommended communion in the hand. Some pastors were more zealous than others, but communion on the hand was never forbidden. I simply do not present myself for communion at most NO Masses if I know the pastor is keen on hand communion.

  17. Glen M says:

    I am in a diocese next to Toronto and our bishop has issued the same notice. However, the FSSP don’t have any problem continuing to distribute Holy Communion on tongue to those kneeling. As others have pointed out, COTT while kneeling is safer than the alternative Yet COTT while standing could be more difficult and lead to contact between finger and tongue. Thus the solution is COTT while kneeling!

    I’ve never understood why people receive COTT from an EMHC anyway. Once the Body of Christ is touched by one unconsecrated hand why not another?

  18. Kimberly says:

    We have greeters that literally attack you when walking into the Church. Heavens, if I don’t get the germ from them I doubt very much that communion on the tongue is going to do it.

    “For me, I voluntarily abstain from receiving the Eucharist rather than have to stand for it (and not kneel) or receive in the hand.” Seraphic Spouse

    Do you realize what you are passing up?

  19. Allan says:

    At my parish, and a neighboring parish we still have communion on the tongue, but we are told no longer to hold hands at the Pater Noster (which I don’t do anyway), or shake hands at the kiss of peace, and thankfully there are no longer 6 or 8 extra chalices being distributed by an army of extraordinary ministers of holy communion, just the hosts.

    Swine flu has worked to our advantage, in this case. The Lord works in strange ways, but gets the job done.

  20. ndmom says:

    At Notre Dame’s Basilica of the Sacred Heart, distribution of the Precious Blood has been temporarily suspended, much to the apparent chagrin of some of the older CSC priests, and very few people seem to receive on the tongue, so that’s not been an issue. Can’t figure out why we just can’t jettison the Sign of Peace as well, since that must certainly be a far more potent germ transmitter.
    What I don’t get is why some people can’t pick their battles. Why deprive yourself of Holy Communion in order to make a statement? It’s fine to write a nice, polite letter of protest to the powers that be, but once you have used all of the reasonable human means to deal with the issue, wouldn’t it make more sense to move on and let our Lord handle it?

  21. Girgadis says:

    To the best of my knowledge, influenza is spread via inhalation. Flu viruses live in the back of the throat and the nose and are most commonly spread through close contact. It is by touching contaminated surfaces and then touching our nose or eyes, etc. that we contract most bugs. A little education on the subject might go a long way in convincing overly-cautious bishops that reception on the tongue is preferable to reception in the hand as a means of limiting the spread of germs in church.

  22. revfro says:

    Seraphic Spouse – “I end up licking the poor priest or extraordinary minister when I receive on the tongue.”, an unfortunate turn of phrase. But in my experience most communicants at EF masses are actively moving when their tongue comes in contact with the ministers’ finger. They are not still. They have not been properly trained. Most of the people who make contact with the ministers finger are trying to snap the host out of the minister fingers. They litteraly try too bite the Host out of the ministers hand.
    Readers of WDTPRS are probably more prone to the more prevalent problem of opening their mouths and putting out their tongues at the last moment. This is less dangerous but it is hard to put the Host on a moving target.
    I think that a certain amount of embarrassment hinders communicants from receiving in the right way. You should tilt your head back and put your tongue out, close your eyes and then remain still before the minister gives you communion. It is an act of humility for sure to do this because you will be waiting with your mouth open for a few moments, which may make you uncomfortable. But reverence for the Blessed Sacrament should make it easy to do this act of humility so that communion is received with the most dignity.
    Older Catholics who have always received kneeling still keep this practice alive today which they learned from the nuns who taught them catechism years ago. It seems that receiving communion requires that one be completely passive signifying that communion is the work of Christ and we must be receptive to Him.

  23. Mattiesettlement says:

    It worries me that we are allowing outside forces to influence our worship as Catholics of our God. In my mind these sort of reactions set a dangerous precedent with regard to how the world interacts with the Church and how the Church interacts with the world. We are so used to seeing change and innovation in our masses that one more change, for whatever reason, is just one more change. I believe what we should be concerned about above all is God’s concerns, that is proper worship. Our focus is too horizontal. We should be joining ourselves with our Lord as he offers himself to the Father in the Mass. The present response in the Church is only possible because of the mutable experience of the Liturgy by everyday Catholics. This would not have been possible in say 1957 because for most Catholics the Mass was seen as being immutable. Again we see how important the Liturgy really is … save the Liturgy, save the world.

  24. I won’t put the host in my hand ever. I’d rather not receive than put Jesus in my hands…

  25. Mark Pilon says:

    Same thing has happened in Halifax, NS – No communion on the tongue. A few thoughts on this:
    1. A point made by Fr. Fenton in his first paragraph is a good one – There is probably more person to person contact with communion on the hand. Up until last Sunday I have always received on the tongue and the times that I have had someone touch my tongue are very, very rare. It’s quite clear to me that many Eucharistic have an aversion to touching a stranger’s tongue.
    2. I wonder if perhaps one of the motives behind this initiative may be a concern about appearances as opposed to being purely an effort to minimize risk. Regarding minimizing risk in the context of all of the potential ways of contracting the flu in the course of a day: Is reception of the Eucharist a high risk action either way? Is it a significant means of spreading the flu among church goers? Is this one particular action of banning communion on the tongue really an effective way to prevent transmission? I don’t think the decision to forbid communion on the tongue is based on any solid evidence either way.
    4. Where does one draw the line? Back in the early 2000’s it was SARS, now it is the flu – though admittedly a more potent strain – but at this point it is nothing like SARS. What next? The common cold?

    Here is part of the policy of my Diocese: What I find troubling is the last sentence. What else could they possibly do now?

    “1. There will be no physical contact at the sign of peace.
    2. Shaking hands is to be avoided at all times
    3. Holy Communion is offered in the form of bread only and is placed in the hand.
    The Chalice is not offered. Holy Communion will not be placed on the tongue by the
    communion minister.

    This approach is implemented as a necessary precaution, in response to current increased risk of infection from the H1N1 virus. Should there be an increase in risk, further guidelines will be issued.”

  26. dcs says:

    I’ve never understood why people receive COTT from an EMHC anyway. Once the Body of Christ is touched by one unconsecrated hand why not another?

    Why compound a mistake?

  27. Jordanes says:

    Not having the Host touched by an unconsecrated hand is not the only, nor necessarily the chief, reason for receiving Holy Communion on the tongue. Communion on the tongue is better not just for what you’re not doing, but primarily for what you’re doing.

  28. Can someone post links to some of the medical opinions that indicate “in the hand” is actually less safe than “on the tongue”?

    Please, it would be very helpful in case this becomes more of an issue at my parish.


  29. Can someone post links to some of the medical opinions that indicate “in the hand” is actually less safe than “on the tongue”?

    Is in the hand really safer than on the tongue? If so, why the proliferation of bottles of Purel?

  30. Bruce says:

    “wonder if perhaps one of the motives behind this initiative may be a concern about appearances as opposed to being purely an effort to minimize risk”

    I am also from the Diocese of Halifax and go to St. Mary’s Cathedral 4-5 times a week for mass. Knowing the people involved I have to say the above statement is incorrect. The concern is for our weaker brothers & sisters who because of age or medical condition are at risk of actually dying from this flu.

  31. david andrew says:

    At the risk of sounding like a whack-job, I have to wonder if there is not also a matter of metaphysics at work. What we receive we believe in faith to be the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ, not bread and wine. Is it a stretch then to believe that Christ’s Real Presence in the sacred species would protect us from harm such as the transmission of H1N1 in the act of receiving Him in communion?

  32. Mrs. Bear says:

    Prior to this announcement – we did have an announcement a few weeks back that came from the Chancery in TO. Archbishop Collins had said that communion on the tongue was allowed – but descretion should be used if you were ill. Also mentioned in that memo was about the sign of peace that it was suggested that if you wanted – you could bow and not hand shake.
    It’s not a surprise that this was sent out yesterday – the day of the funeral mass (in Toronto) for the young boy who it seems died from the H1N1 (rather suddenly).

    I can’t recall if any directives were made during the SARS outbreak a few years back – other than not shaking hands during the sign of peace.

    It is only a temporary measure.
    I know my pastor will be anxious to see it reinstated.

    When I was at an All Saints party in the London diocese (in Ontario, Canada). The bulletin said that Bishop Fabbro had instructed no Communion on the tongue as well.

  33. mfg says:

    These pronouncements from the chanceries are very curious. One wonders if they are conveniently using the flu to advance their Vat 2 opinions on Communion in the hand while standing. I received Communion on the tongue while kneeling from 1936 to sometime after 1975 with no ill effect. Also I have only received Communion on the tongue since 1995 when I happily discovered the Indult. I have always heard that the hands are the most likely distributor of germs. This issue is far from over. Recently I had to go to a NO parish on Sunday because of time constraints (I couldn’t spend the 2-hour drive to the FSSP) and a lady nearby me actually rapped with her knuckles on the pew in front of me to get my attention to shake her hand. She failed.

  34. Tina in Ashburn says:

    So THAT’s why the holy water bowls were all missing at the nearby Franciscan parish. sheesh.
    Fortunately in the two parishes I frequent, the holy water is still out and the kiss of peace has been stopped.
    None of these parishes pass the cup – but that practice has been stopped in other nearby parishes.

    I haven’t noticed any of these parishes refraining from communion on the tongue.

    On the whole, things are good in the Arlington Diocese and we don’t have to fight about Communion on the tongue.

  35. Seraphic Spouse says:

    Kimberley: Yes, of course I know what I am “giving up”, although of course I am not giving up the Eucharist: I am just not receiving the Blessed Sacrament that Sunday. This may sound shocking, but I don’t receive the Sacrament of Reconcilation every week either. In the Middle Ages, worshippers felt so unworthy to receive the Eucharist that the Council of Trent had to order them to receive at least ONCE a year. Frankly, our universal rush to the front every single Mass might be the other extreme.

    Revfro: I couldn’t think of another way to put it. That is my experience, and I thought it might help to create a reasonable tone. And unllike most people commenting here, I have actually gone to Mass in Toronto and have seen (if not met) the Archbishop of Toronto, a man of good reputation and one of the few Canadian bishops who took the “Development and Peace” scandal seriously enough for the tastes of Canadian pro-lifers.

    I know how to receive the Eucharist on the tongue at EF Masses; receiving on the tongue at OF Masses is a whole different kettle of fish. Possibly the “moving target” problem is caused by people having to change the habits of a lifetime (or almost a lifetime) to accomodate themselves to receiving on theh tongue.

    Meanwhile, if anyone wants to receive kneeling in Toronto, they should know that the best places to go are the Oratorians’ “Holy Family” and “St. Vincent de Paul” parishes. The FSSP operate out in darkest Scarberia (Scarborough).

  36. Seraphic Spouse says:

    Oh-my bad. I think the Once a Year rule came down before Trent–in the late 13th century.Let me see…. Aha! It was the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215.

  37. chironomo says:

    I think the bigger issue is whether this is going to be some kind of “Trojan Horse”, with the “mandates” lingering in practice long after the effects of the flu are gone. I would be more comfortable if there were a termination of the regulations specified other than until further notice. Perhaps “when the WHO downgrades the threat level to less than pandemic” would make the lifting of the restrictions a matter directly connected to the problem it is claiming to solve. Otherwise it might seem like a convenient use of a crisis.

  38. Pater OSB says:

    I am more than happy to distribute Holy Communion to those who receive on the tongue – and I know how to do so. However… My thumb/finger have been licked more times than I can [or care to] count. I think kneeling is the way to go… however we have to be realistic at times and ‘choose our battles wisely’. In the meantime, if you receive on the tongue [which I prefer and would suggest], perhaps ask an Eastern catholic how to show you how to do so while standing. Squat the knees a bit, tilt the head back and licking should be greatly reduced.

  39. Seraphic Spouse says:

    Pater OSB, thank you for that practical advice. I will remember it the next time I am at a N.O. Mass without a communion rail.

    Meanwhile, I think we can now see that there is indeed a potential of germ-spreading through receiving on the tongue, especially while standing, thanks to clumsies like me. The Eastern Catholics, who always receive and always have receiving on the tongue, aided by a little spoon that never touches anyone’s mouth, will probably be fine.

  40. irishgirl says:

    I keep wondering-and I know I’ve asked this question before-what did the priests do in the time of the 1918 Spanish flu epidemic when it came to Holy Communion? Certainly there wasn’t any Communion in the hand then-everyone received on the tongue!

  41. “I think we can now see that there is indeed a potential of germ-spreading through receiving on the tongue…”

    Oh??? I haven’t read anything here yet that suggests that reception on the tongue presents a greater risk than reception in the hand. Did I miss it? Which comment here has said that? What exactly did it say?

  42. Allan S. says:

    I live in Toronto, and this seems reasonable. I think the issue is that when you are sick, the act of opening your mouth can lead to an involuntary cough – right on the minister. That would be bad.

    My sense of Abp Collins is that this he is a very pastoral, holy man who cares very deeply about his flock.

    Call it clericalism if you like, but if my Bishop says it, then that’s good enough for me.

  43. Scelata says:

    “The Eastern Catholics, who always receive and always have receiving on the tongue, aided by a little spoon that never touches anyone’s mouth, will probably be fine.”

    Seraphic Spouse, no that this is a reason not to receive the Blessed Sacrament on the tongue, (which I do most of the time,) but I can assure you that the skill of the priests and the experience of the communicants are no more consistent within the Eastern Church than in the Western, and there are indeed people who close their mouths on the gold spoon, slurp slightly, etc.

    As to whether Providence would permit that disease be passed by the reception of the Body and Blood of Jesus Chrsit, I have some anecdotal evidence.
    For a period of several years, when the immune system of a close friend’s with whom I had constant contact was dangerously suppressed, at daily Mass I declined to receive the chalice; only shook hands with gloves on; and if the priest set out a bowl of wafers for each person who intended to receive to transfer to another dish before Mass I simply did not receive at that Mass.

    I did not have a single cold for over three years.
    After that, I went back to more causal practices, and returned to the typical pattern of four or five colds a year.

    No post hoc, propter hoc… fallacy from me, I’m just sayin’.

    (Save the Liturgy, Save the World)

  44. ipadre says:

    I agree with Fr. Z! If your going to get all ticked off, than don’t receive. Of course, I long for the Church to rescind Communion in the hand because of the abuses and irreverence, but I would personally prefer to receive my Lord and not go without Him by receiving in the hand reverently until the swine flu passes.

    I also see the problem with the way some people receive on the tongue. They chase my hand with their mouth or try to grab the host with their teeth. For goodness sake – just open your mouths and stay still! If you receive on the tongue, learn to do it right! And if you receive on the hand, learn to do that right! I’m tired of people grabbing the host, closing their hands on my fingers and the like. However your receive, do it as Holy Mother Church requires – with reverence and dignity as deserves the King of Kings! (I guess I’m on a rant, but most people do not receive properly, either way)

  45. Mattiesettlement says:

    I think what people are upset about is that certain Dioceses are sending these directives as if they were commands when they should be recommendations. As Fr. Z has already pointed out Redemptionis Sacramentum 92 states that people are free to receive on the tongue.

    [92.] Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice,[178] if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.

    Note the words “always has the right”.

    Fr. DeCoste

  46. Henry Edwards,

    Do you have any opinions from medical professionals indicating that on-the-tongue is safer?

    Anyone, please?

    It would be a great help!


  47. Tom Ryan says:

    Went to Mass at Guardian Angel Cathedral in Las Vegas last night.
    Twice it was said that the bishop had ordered communion in the hand only.

    Nevertheless,they did take up a collection of dirty money and they retained the
    amateurs to distribute communion, albeit with out the Precious Blood.

  48. We continue to receive kneeling, on the tongue at Assumption Grotto, as we have through other flu outbreaks. It don’t know if it’s because we have a large homeschooling community or the manner of Communion distribution, but I have not seen high flu rates in the parish in any year.

    Further, Fr. Perrone once gave a piece of advice during his sermon, telling people that it’s a good idea to close your eyes when receiving on the tongue. Why? He says people have a tendency to try to follow the hand of the priest making it more difficult than a stationary target. It was hard to adjust at first, but now it is quite natural.

Comments are closed.