Your Grace1,
I was stunned to read of your recent attack on those who receive Holy Communion on the tongue. Even more so because you used an Easter homily to launch that assault, which demonstrates an amazing lack of pastoral sensitivity and is, frankly, quite despicable. I suspect that if one of your priests preached against those who receive in the hand, you would probably suspend him. That said, permit me to react to your line of argumentation.
You say that reception on the tongue began in “the Dark Ages” because the people had dirty hands, but that now, we are much more hygienic and should, on that score, receive in the hand. You also say that the laity today are not children anymore (about which I shall comment further on).
Your harangue then asserts that those receiving Holy Communion on the tongue are guilty of the sins of pride and disobedience because the popes and bishops have mandated reception on the hand, which is patently false. In point of fact, liturgical law calls for reception on the tongue, so that any national body of bishops desiring reception in the hand must seek and receive an indult from the Holy See! As for popes, John Paul II never gave Communion in the hand; Benedict XVI stopped doing it on the Solemnity of Corpus Christi, 2008; Francis never gave the Sacrament in the hand as pope.
Now, as a favor to you, I should like to present an accurate history of the issue.
Proponents of Communion in the hand maintain that “this was how Communion was distributed in the Early Church.” Well, yes and no. There are certainly indications that this was done in some places. However, by the time the Christological controversies of the first centuries were settled and when Eucharistic theology was firmly in place, the practice either died out or was suppressed. Indeed, there are many practices of the ancient Church that few would want revived—like lifelong penance! What is certainly incontestable is that for over a millennium, reception on the tongue was universal.
When did a call for its abandonment occur? At the time of the Protestant Reformation.
The Protestant “Reformers” were particularly sensitive concerning the symbolism of liturgical ceremonies, and special attention was therefore paid to eliminating anything which could perpetuate belief in a sacrificing priesthood possessing powers denied to the laity or in the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament.2 In Thomas Cranmer’s 1549 Communion Service, he allowed the Sacrament to be placed on the tongue of the communicant by the minister. This was severely criticized by the very radical Swiss Martin Bucer, for two reasons. In his judgment, it gave undue reverence to the “bread,” as it called it, and it elevated priests above the laity. And so, he demanded that Cranmer comply with his vision, causing Cranmer to change the rubric for his 1552 Prayer Book, to bring it into line with Protestant practice on the Continent. Bucer’s rationale for this change is quite unambiguous, presented with shocking bluntness.3
The Catholic Church held firm on her immemorial practice of distributing Holy Communion solely by placing the Sacred Host directly into the mouth of the recipient. In the wake of the Second Vatican Council (which never even remotely considered a change in this regard) and in that rebellious “spirit of Vatican II,” in places like Holland, Belgium, France, and Germany, priests began to distribute Holy Communion directly into the hands of recipients—in total disregard for liturgical law. This violation of Catholic Tradition caused Pope Paul VI to survey the bishops of the world regarding their attitude toward this practice. The response of the worldwide episcopate was almost uniformly negative. In his 1969 Memoriale Domini, the Pope tried to avoid a schism by playing Solomon and thus forbade the practice—except in the few countries where it had been done illicitly (namely, Germany, Belgium, Holland, and France).
Needless to say, it makes no sense to give approval to actions that were clearly acts of disobedience. At any rate, if the document had been taken at face value, the illegitimate practice would have been legitimized in only four nations. Instead, other episcopal conferences began to petition the Holy See for the indult (which, canonically, is a grudging permission); all who asked for it, received it. Some liturgists and bishops in the United States sought to get on the bandwagon, with the issue being raised several times for a vote of our bishops, each time defeated. Finally, through the machinations of Cardinal Joseph Bernardin (then president of the episcopal conference), the illicit polling of absent bishops through mail-in ballots (!) brought about victory for those proponents in 1977. Since then, priests (even those supporting the practice) report that consecrated Hosts are regularly found in pews, in missalettes and even in toilets; we also know that Hosts are taken from churches and used in Satanic Masses.
“What’s wrong with Communion in the hand?” “Is the tongue any holier than the hand?” Those superficial queries miss some fundamental points of doctrine. We are not receiving ordinary bread in Holy Communion, but the very Bread of Life, Christ Himself. Therefore, our mode of reception ought to reflect the uniqueness of the action. Almighty God, speaking to us in Psalm 81, invites us: “Open your mouth wide, and I will fill it.” You argued that adults feed themselves; they are not fed like children. The truth of the matter, however, is that as we approach the holy altar, we do so, precisely, as children of our Heavenly Father. As a matter of fact, being fed in the ancient world was a sign of hospitality; in that light, it may even be right to suppose that Our Lord actually placed “the first morsel” of the Last Supper directly into the mouths of His Apostles. Such “feeding” was even connected with royalty and, after all, through Baptism, we belong to the royal people redeemed by Christ. We still have a vestige of that idea as newlyweds feed each other the first pieces of the wedding cake.
It is no accident that the traditional Catholic language speaks of “receiving” Holy Communion, while an alternative verb now competes with it, so that some speak of “taking” Holy Communion—which is, yes, the Protestant manner of speaking.
Receiving on the hand also has another perhaps unforeseen consequence: It places the recipient in the role of intermediary. When one is baptized, he doesn’t take the water from the minister and pour it on himself; when someone receives the Anointing of the Sick, he doesn’t take the oil and daub it on himself. With Communion-in-the-hand, however, the recipient takes the Body of the Lord from the minister and administers it to himself, which changes him from being a humble recipient to that of an active minister.
Last but by no means least, we cannot omit observing that the Roman/Latin Rite is the only one of the 23 rites of the Church to permit Communion-in-the-hand. Nor is the practice permitted in any of the Orthodox Churches. In other words, no Christian community with valid Orders and belief in the Real Presence sanctions this Roman aberration and is often cited as scandalous to Eastern Christians—both Catholic and Orthodox.
Following the national Eucharistic Congress in the summer of 2024 in Indianapolis, the largest survey ever of laity was conducted to gather intelligence from lay Catholics as to what they believe ought to be done to bolster faith in the Real Presence.4 On issues potentially contributing to a loss of faith in the Real Presence, the first response was the distribution of Holy Communion in the hand.
To sum up, Your Grace, I must conclude that your understanding of Communion reception is woefully misinformed, ahistorical, and unjust.
Permit me to offer three bits of fraternal correction.
First, to remedy the lacunae in your understanding of the topic, I would recommend reading Dominus Est—It Is the Lord! Reflections of a Bishop of Central Asia on Holy Communion by Bishop Athanasius Schneider, published in English by Newman House Press (which I serve as publisher); I should note the work was originally published in Italian by the Vatican Press itself.
Second, since you pride yourself on being a “Francis bishop,” you might want to echo his famous retort, “Who am I to judge?”
Third, meditate on the line of your early mentor who became Pope Benedict: “What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful.”
Endnotes:
1For the benefit of our readers: Bruno Forte is the Archbishop of Chieti, Italy. He is acknowledged to be a formidable theologian, leaning seriously to the left. As a young priest, he was brought to the University of Tubingen by none other than Hans Kung and Walter Kasper—both strong liberals—and, yes, by Joseph Ratzinger. Forte was consecrated a bishop by Cardinal Ratzinger in 2004. At the Family Synod of 2014, Forte advanced positions favorable to gay activists and proponents of reception of Holy Communion by the divorced/remarried.
2And so, we should not be surprised that 70% of Catholics do not believe in the Real Presence (the very statistic that precipitated episcopal alarm) and have a truncated understanding of the Sacred Priesthood (and a concomitant decline in priestly vocations) since the introduction of Communion in the hand more than four decades ago.
3“I cannot see how the seventh section requiring the bread of the Lord to be put not in the hand, but in the mouth, of the recipient, can be consistent. Certainly the reason given in this section, namely, lest those who receive the bread of the Lord should not eat it but take it away with them to misuse it for superstition or horrible wickedness, is not, it seems to me, conclusive; for the minister can easily see, when he puts the bread in the hand, whether it is eaten or not. In fact, I have no doubt that this usage of not putting these sacraments in the hands of the faithful has been introduced out of a double superstition; firstly, the false honour they wished to show to this sacrament, and secondly the wicked arrogance of priests claiming greater holiness than that of the people of Christ, by virtue of the oil of consecration. The Lord undoubtedly gave these, His sacred symbols, into the hands of the Apostles, and no one who has read the records of the ancients can be in doubt that this was the usage observed in the churches until the advent of the Roman Antichrist.
“As, therefore, every superstition of the Roman Antichrist is to be detested, and the simplicity of Christ, and the Apostles, and the ancient Churches, is to be recalled, I should wish that pastors and teachers of the people should be commanded that each is faithfully to teach the people that it is superstitious and wicked to think that the hands of those who truly believe in Christ are less pure than their mouths; or that the hands of the ministers are holier than the hands of the laity; so that it would be wicked, or less fitting, as was formerly wrongly believed by the ordinary folk, for the laity to receive these sacraments in the hand: and therefore that the indications of this wicked belief be removed—–as that the ministers may handle the sacraments, but not allow the laity to do so, and instead put the sacraments into the mouth—–which is not only foreign to what was instituted by the Lord but offensive to human reason.
“In that way good men will be easily brought to the point of all receiving the sacred symbols in the hand, conformity in receiving will be kept, and there will be safeguards against all furtive abuse of the sacraments. For, although for a time concession can be made to those whose faith is weak, by giving them the Sacraments in the mouth when they so desire, if they are carefully taught they will soon conform themselves to the rest of the Church and take the Sacraments in the hand.”
4Response Characteristics:
• This was the single largest survey of lay Catholics ever completed in the United States, far exceeding the number of responses required for a statistically valid survey. There were a total of 15,843 responses (14,725 from U.S. lay Catholics) with an 80% completion rate yielding a total of 12,680 completed surveys
• A total of 780 surveys came from attendees of the National Eucharistic Congress held in Indianapolis in July 2004 (6% of completed responses).
• This is the only survey that has specifically probed the underlying reasons for why lay Catholic believe there has been a loss of faith in the Real Presence.
• Demographic statistics:
o Geography: Responses received from 194 U.S. dioceses and eparchies.
o Gender: 63% women, 37% men.
o Age: 6% under the age of 25, 20% ages 25 to 44, 12% ages 45 to 54, 23% ages 55 to 64, 24% ages 65 to 74, and 16% ages 75 and older.
o Race: 85% white and 15% minorities.
o Length of time being a Catholic: 84% since infancy, 11% over 10 years and 5% 10 years or less.
o Type of Mass Attended: 21% exclusively attend the Traditional Latin Mass, 43% primarily attend the Novus Ordo Mass along with periodically attending the TLM, and 36% exclusively attend the Novus Ordo.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Thank you, Father Peter.
Superb response!
Dear Father,
Bravo! I extend many heartfelt thanks for the factual reasons and your courage in refuting a member of the hierarchy regarding his ideas on receipt of the Eucharist on the tongue.
Yesterday I was amazed to witness, in the Seattle archdiocese, a parish priest who distributed Holy Eucharist to First Communicants, all of whom received on the tongue. It was a beautiful sight to see.
The practice of gestures of reverence or signs of respect is too often overlooked or given short shrift in today’s liturgy.
I am overjoyed and give thanks to the Lord for your letter to Abp. Forte. May the Archbishop be corrected and come to share in the light of humility, reason, and glory to the Lord.
Only consecrated hands are worthy of touching the body of Christ – That is the way that the Host is distributed at the Latin Mass – the ONLY way. I was told that by a Latin Mass Priest many years ago and it makes perfect sense.
Which begs the question – why does this despicable man rant and rave on the subject? I would say that it is the chip-away principle – he is a close follower of the late Pope Francis, one of whose aims was the abolition of the Latin Mass, and that practice is one of the pillars of the Mass.
Chip-chip-chip.
My oh my…Excellency-Bruno-the-synod-book-stealer is fretting about “others” he thinks are wicked.
Another unintentional contribution to irony by the-McCarrick -cult.
MORE BUENOS ARIES MERCY ON PARADE.
Keep digging Your Grace…perhaps you too will be rewarded with a homo-erotic portrait of yourself on the Cathedral walls.
I believe this is the same Bishop who tried to pull some shenanigans during the Synod of the Family regarding ‘irregular unions’.
Whenever I hear hierarchs speak as Forte does, one thing comes to mind. There is homosexuality somewhere lurking in the dark shadows.
For more on Forte’s involvement in Church teaching on homosexuality, note this little very public kerfuffle in 2014: https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/30722/how-an-incorrect-translation-of-the-synod-report-created-chaos
One more report re Forte’s penchant for helping to make a messy: https://onepeterfive.com/pope-speaking-plainly-communion-divorced-messy/
Well, I must say I agree with most of contents of the letter except it really doesn’t leave the Bishop much wiggle room to save face especially since it was a publicly, open letter other than a private admonition of fraternal advice. I can only see one of two things happening. Either the Bishop realizes his error and the manner it was presented to the faithful especially the time and place he chose to speak his mind on the issue and relents in as a graceful manner as possible considering or he digs in his heels and refuses to capitulate, and bear a resentment to being ‘corrected’by a lowly priest. I guess my correction to the Bishop would have been done differently, unless that has already been done and I don’t know about it.
There is a difference when a bishop expresses a poorly thought out liturgical position and would benefit from having this pointed out in private. Then there are times, many many times, when bishops exercise hate-filled characterizations of traditional practices that amount to deep rooted blatant anti-Catholicism. The only thing they tend to listen to is when they are called out publicly.
Agree.
Perhaps the remedy would be in returning to kneeling to receive Communion. Kneeling is hardly a posture of pride.
At our little church everyone kneels at the altar rail except those disabled. Or a few still lost in the 70’s.
I think the best approach would be to leave how they approach the altar up to each individual and not judge anyone who stands rather than kneels, which is what Holy Mother Church has advocated.
I 67 years-old, a convert to Catholicism since 2004, and have had multiple surgeries on my feet and also a knee replacement, all of which have given me the ability to live without pain and to actually be able to walk as my physical fitness activity and even care for my 3 year-old grandson. I can even stand for many hours; e.g., at a museum.
BUT…I am also under orders by my orthopedic surgeon to NEVER, EVER put any weight on my knees (e.g., kneeling) because of the risk of damaging them, especially one that had surgery.
I actually tried to kneel once when I was visiting a Latin Mass parish–and the pain was so bad that in less than 15 seconds, I went back to sitting reverently with my head bowed.
I avoid any sport that might mean a fall on my knees, including the sport that seems to be really popular among seniors, pickleball. And I avoid kneeling during Mass, and also in my own private prayer life. My way of showing reverence is to obey the doctor to whom GOD gave the ability to heal. I have no objection to others kneeling, and I know that many seniors are capable of kneeling. I am not and I am grateful that God still allows me to approach His Table and receive His Son in Holy Communion.
I think there are many other people, including many senior citizens, like me. Please stop judging me and all the rest of us who are waiting for heaven to be able to kneel again.
I cannot see how or where or why mrscracker judged you. Where do you see that?
I am a TLM devotee, and the priests come out of the sanctuary to the pew to administer Holy Eucharist to those persons with disabilities–those who cannot walk, stand or otherwise transport themselves to the altar in their wheelchairs. Granted, someone must communicate to the priest that his presence is needed beyond the sanctuary.
No one judges you for your inability to kneel. Would you judge me for having no feet?
your second paragraph was what I was thinking as well
if you’ve mobility problems you’re covered
if the TLM saves souls that would not be saved who are we to judge?
Mrs Sharon, I think my comments mentioned that those who are disabled stand at our altar rail. That includes our deacon’s wife who had foot surgery. No one is compelled to kneel and certainly no one is judged for being physically unable to. I’m very sorry if you misinterpreted my comments and I apologize for any distress that caused you.
You are wrongly judging people of judging you when no such thing is occurring.
Kneeling when you can is good. If health does not allow the physical act, then a respectful silence is allowed.
Pickle ball, a friend knocked his should out of joint. Required surgery and is in recovery.
About 20 years ago, I attended a conference at which one of the speakers was a Catholic priest who appeared only a few years older than I — i.e., part of the Baby Boom generation. During his talk he never said anything even remotely neutral about the pre-Vatican II Church. At lunch I found myself seated next to him, and I remarked that one thing I missed from those days was kneeling at the altar rail and excitedly waiting as the priest and altar boy with patten got closer and closer to me. The priest made a face of unconcealed disdain and quipped, “Too demeaning.” Since then I’ve thought of about a half-dozen replies I might have made to him, but I trust that God was able to use my stunned silence far better than anything my ego might have fabricated.
what did he mean by his reply?
He was suggesting that kneeling to receive Communion was beneath human dignity. “We’re above that nowadays.” (The expression on his face said it all.)
the “every knee shall bend, every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord” must have come later
One would think that the kneeling posture of humility would be safe from the accusation of pride, but I’ve heard both kneeling and veiling (another naturally humble act) described as arrogant, since they supposedly are only done to call attention to oneself. Then again, I’ve also heard people declare others “holier-than-thou” for the serious crime of saying something is morally wrong.
A person who wants there to be no good reason for doing something will be very good at finding only bad reasons for others to have done it.
Is that related to projection?
🙂
Yes, always the opposite to put it in people’s minds that don’t know the history and reason; only seeing it as face value negative criticism.
I’ve been veiling for 21yrs. No one where I lived at any of the churches I went to veiled. I started because a new priest had a few pamphlets out about it. I grabbed one and read it. It was so beautiful, I think God called me to it. It was awkward at first because it was only me anywhere I went to Mass. Priests would look at me strangely (not very favorably). At the same time, I stopped being a minister of the Holy Eucharist (I still want to throw up thinking I used to physically profane Jesus in the Eucharist!). Also started kneeling to receive. Eventually a few people would receive on the tongue, about 3 yrs later another lady at church started to veil, then some of my mom friends from the Catholic school/church. When I moved to a new area, across the state, it was so N.O.!!! Again, no one at the churches I went to to check out to see if any tradition, was zero. It was very difficult for several years. I even had a few priests who would not give me the Holy Eucharist on the tongue. And of course, looked at me strangely. Stayed away from me, weren’t welcoming. It was a cross, but one I wasn’t going remove!
The same new priest several years before I moved, was starting a church reno, toward traditional tastes. I had old pictures of the nave and sanctuary of what it looked like before the N.O. demolition. I asked our priest, “ could we have a communion rail” to which he said, “ That’s a great idea!” We were the first in the metro area, aside from the old cathedral churches in the big city.
Where I moved, my local parish doing a small reno, I asked the priest about getting a communion rail. The answer “uh, that’s not going to happen.” Although over the years, more women are veiling, and more receiving on the tongue and in kneeling! Praise God-literally, as it is a more sacred form of worship!!!
It’s not “veiling;” it’s simply wearing a head covering and includes wearing a hat or scarf. It is no longer required but is optional, and is not some sort of devotional practice nor is it a sacramental. In the USA, pre-Vatican II, most women wore fashionable hats that coordinated with their outfits. Veils were not common. At all. Many who were traveling or forgot a hat would bobby-pin Kleenex on their head to comply with the law. The point is, it was never considered some sort of spiritual practice. The term “veiling” is a new invented word used by young women who never lived during the pre-conciliar time. There was no spiritual reference to “hatting,” or “scarfing,” or “Kleenexing.” They did not feel called by God to wear a teal pillbox with a feather.
If you choose to wear a mantilla, fine. But be careful not to fall into the trap of pseudo-piety being pushed by TLM goers.
The railing at the altar was taken down when Vatican ll came in. I made my communion in the Traditional (thank you Jesus). The following week the rail was gone. I was young didn’t know about Vatican ll. My mom was confused and we stopped attending church. She finally started going again but it was never the same. It was like going to a different religion but still calling itself Catholic. Thank you for giving us the Traditional which is the True Church.
yes, I’ve read where the faithful, who actually sacrificed so much in following the church and its teaching and leaders, were ‘left standing with their mouths open’ (like what is going on?)
Absolutely agree! It is becoming a practice in some churches kneeling, communion rails; especially the diocesan Churches who offer a Latin Mass. However, the N.O.Modernist/cronies appointed as Bishops are taking away the Latin Mass, as in MI AOD (Detroit) Abp Weisenburger. Just like in the article with the timing, he put a letter out the day before Holy Thursday. Obviously, imho, on purpose. Drip , drip, diocesan LM, then will get rid of priestly orders like FSSP AND ICKSP.
Good response and critique by Fr. Stravinskas, but I can’t see such arguments having the smallest effect on Archbishop Forte and other clerics of a similar bent. He seems typical of a type we’ve often seen since VII: you can cite the Council’s actual declarations, canonical norms, papal instructions, long established practices, the actual desires of the faithful or any other authoritative sources that you like. The response you’ll get is almost certainly going to be a sneering dismissal, after which Archbishop Forte and his “enlightened” colleagues will simply continue doing whatever they want. Why shouldn’t they? There’s usually nothing to fear from Rome.
It’s good to recall the Church’s norms on the distribution of Holy Communion, clearly outlined in Redemptionis Sacramentum (2004).
But before approaching a pastor or bishop, we should also pray — especially the Rosary — asking the Lord to open hearts and grant our legitimate requests. Without prayer, even the most authoritative arguments may fall on deaf ears.
Thank you, Father.
I’ll have to admit that I needed this instruction as much as Archbishop Forte obviously did.
“..reception on the tongue began in “the Dark Ages” because the people had dirty hands, but that now, we are much more hygienic and should, on that score, receive in the hand. ” It is rather funny to see this bishop to speak in the position of public health authority. We are probably more hygienic today than in former centuries, that is true. However, the priest may wash his hands before serving a Mass while many of us do not wash their hands before Mass. In the cities we often travel to attend the Mass by public transport and I would not bet on the hygienic level of our hands. Bishop Forte is from Italy and I would bet he would face this public transport comment anywhere in the EU. Greetings from the Czech Republic!
I’ve seen some convincing arguments to the effect that placing the host directly in a communicant’s mouth increasing concern over consecrated fragments falling to the floor and remaining there unconsumed, with the careless treatment of it – being taken home by some Mass goers rather than eaten – and the increasing incidence of deliberate sacrileges which placing the Host in the hand made easily possible. Communion on the tongue while kneeling assured that these things wouldn’t occur most of the time, since the consecrated Host would be consumed immediately. Alas, with the return of communion in the hand, it’s become necessary to search the church floor each week after Sunday Masses, since – at least at my parish – we never fail to find several Hosts on the floor, in a pew or even in one of the missalettes a week or so later.
Years ago at a very devout and reverent parish in the Archdiocese of Detroit that offers both the ordinary and extraordinary form of the Roman Rite, consecration hosts were found inserted into Mass booklets on two occasions.
The Holy Pastor on both occasions put the recovered hosts in an Lavabo dish to dissolve and be properly taken care of.
When the Holy Pastor returned to the sacristy where the consecrated hosts were, he found them bleeding in three places.
Two Eucharistic miracles in the last ten years! I have on of them on my iPhone
on both occasions put the recovered hosts in an Lavabo dish to dissolve and be properly taken care of.
Can you explain this for those of us who are unfamiliar with this item and its use?
good points, and I’ll add that we used to share the dipper at the water pail (before indoor plumbing) but eventually figured out that practice spread germs, after we discovered those. (way after D ages)
When we lost power and the water pump wouldn’t work I’d send my children down the road to a neighbor’s spring where there was a dipper hanging nearby. Happy memories.
🙂
My little brother asked me once why the water dipper wasn’t called the ‘Little Dipper”
yes, water usually tastes better out of metal than plastic; I’ve even noticed livestock going to the metal water tank instead of the plastic one – even though they’re both clean; milk and soda were better out of glass when that was commonplace; we used to take our milk bottles back for credit when we restocked
I think cokes taste better in glass bottles too. Mexican cokes especially.
My cattle have the Rubbermaid black watertanks. They last forever and stand up to lot of abuse from the cows. Metal rusts out very quickly in our climate but that’s an interesting observation you shared. Thank you.
May our loving GOD be glorified and adored for creating you, dearly Fr. Peter. What you have expressed in this splendid write-up is nonetheless the, “GOSPEL TRUTH”, about the Eucharistic Body of our LORD Jesus Christ. May GOD continue to bless, empower you and use you! Keep praying for a better understanding of the treasure we have in the Eucharistic Body of our LORD Jesus Christ, please.
Tongue or hand, which is more tainted? Perhaps we should deal with the former before we receive with the latter. 😇
No kidding! I am an MT(ASCP), retired after working in the Microbiology Lab in hospitals for 41 years. The mouth, including the tongue, are among the most “germ”-laden parts of the body! Eugh! Why do you suppose dentists now wear gloves and masks when working in our mouths?!
In fact, almost every part of our body is covered with bacteria, including our skin.
But many of these microorganisms are essential for the defense of our bodies against pathological species of bacteria. God knows what He’s doing!
Rome is burning; Nero fiddles.
If done properly, the Blessed Sacrament is placed on the tongue without touching it. My Pastor is always capable of this.
Sorry I’m speaking metaphorically.
Tongue-in-cheek
I cannot speak for your tongue, but my hands help remove waste from my body. Which is more germ-laden? Hands, tongue, bodily waste?
your mouth is full of germs because it’s always wet, People get mono often from kissing is my understanding
Mrs. Whitlock please correct if this is wrong
Card. Fernandez talks about the healing in a kiss. He even wrote a book about it!
Some scientists have determined that a single 10-second kiss transfers 80 million germs from one to another.
Yet at least one high-level Vatican hierarch proclaims the value of a kiss.
80 million? Mr. Meiron I’ve told you 100,000 times not to exaggerate!
But your number is probably like a political poll – plus or minus 3%
If I exaggerate, so do reports of the study!
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/60136/how-many-germs-are-kiss
It’s amazing all the bugs we support; good and bad – no wonder I’m always hungry!
One time one of our livestock got acidosis and the vet came out; after he treated her he had me grab a slug of cud from another critter’s mouth and then he stuck it in the sick animal’s mouth, to reintroduce bacteria that was killed off. it worked and was quite a lesson on the effects of the unseen.
Cool story about the cow cud.
Yes, we tend to think of bacteria as ‘germs’ therefore ‘bad’, forgetting that many are beneficial.
No wonder you are always hungry! Even the food we eat carries a bacterial load that needs feeding! https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4266855/
Great article Father Stravinskas.
Wow – thank you Father Stravinskas !!!
You knocked it out of the park. Someone need to do this and you delivered.
God bless you for your clarity and courage.
I think Father’s instruction was only incidentally addressed to the Archbishop. (See earlier comment).
Well said, thank you Fr Peter.
My confidence in and respect for most bishops
is now almost nil. This incident is just one of many that makes me shake my head.
I take no pleasure in saying that.
Why, yes, Bishop. God forbid Catholics, even small numbers of them, exhibit any piety or respect for the Eucharist. What did that poll say again about how FEW Catholics believe in the Real Presence?? That MOST did NOT believe, as I recall. Hmmmm. Now, I wonder why that might be? Part of the reason might be that SOME of our Bishops would prefer their flocks be Protestants. Lets secularize the whole thing. Maybe arrange with Amazon to fed-Ex the hosts to Catholics. Why even bother setting foot in a church? Can’t you just pray anywhere? That would be quick and modern, right? I mean, lets shorten the Mass and get out of there as fast as possible. We all have better ways to spend our time!! Especially ( evidently) the priests I see checking their watches during the middle of the Mass they are offering. If some Bishops disapprove of receiving on the tongue I would imagine them horrified by the practices of many of the saints. But then, what did the saints know, anyway? So medieval! Lastly, attacking Catholics for showing extreme respect ( and belief) to the Eucharist seems especially inappropriate when done on Easter Sunday.
yes, I was also thinking the Protestant theory; water down the brand as much as possible even after Vat II
Dear Archbishop Forte,
I see that you recently commented on the practice of receiving Holy Communion on the tongue. I took note of the fact that you are a prelate from Italy. I’d like to comment on the fact that my family and I took a trip to the region of Perugia. We stayed about 30 minutes outside the city of Perugia. On the Sunday we were there, we had the damnest time finding a Catholic church with Mass on Sunday. I thought Italy was a Catholic country. I’m now concluding it is not. Might I respectfully suggest that the bishops in Italy concentrate on evangelizing your country and not worrying about Communion by mouth vs Communion by hands. There are issues facing your local Church that are more pressing.
About Mons Forte, I would like to quote a link to a comment of one of his very recent articles, an evident strategic move by the modernists to favor the election of a Pope in accordance with their ideology:
https://oraetcogita.substack.com/p/a-falsehood-about-pope-francis
I see that my typing/proofreading skills are a bit wanting. My comment above should read as follows:
I’ve seen some convincing arguments to the effect that placing the host directly in a communicant’s mouth became standard practice due to increasing concern over consecrated fragments falling to the floor and remaining there unconsumed, along with the careless treatment of it – being taken home by some Mass goers rather than eaten – as well as the growing incidence of deliberate sacrileges which placing the Host in the hand made easily possible. Communion on the tongue while kneeling assured that these things wouldn’t occur most of the time, since the consecrated Host would be consumed immediately. of course this posture was also seen as more appropriately reverent as well.
Alas, with the return of communion in the hand, now standard overall, it’s become necessary to search the church floor each week after Sunday Masses, since – at least at my parish – we never fail to find several Hosts on the floor, in a pew or even in one of the missalettes a week or so later.
Would this possibly be due to older Communicants not being able to take the entire Host due to its dryness?
It seems there should be an announcement, perhaps, that only those of the faith etc… It seems like people would see this occurring.
My guess would be that many communicants of varied ages – especially the VII generation – have a casually irreverent attitude toward the host, which they may or may not regard as the genuine Body of Christ. Recent polls certainly confirm that a majority of Mass attendees don’t believe this core teaching of the Mass.
I was watching Communicants last night and thought of your recurring? plight; shouldn’t the pastor or diocese address this; even posting sentries if necessary? They may have to limit the number of extras so observation is easier and practical.
Corruptio optimi, Pessima est
Now lets get on about this business of receiving from the ‘cup’….
Many Novus Ordo clergy are so fazed by manifestations of orthopraxis that when they encounter it they respond either like rabbits in truck headlights or rant and rave. The idea of the «objectified sacred» may just be beyond them.
Furthermore, if indeed belief in the physical Real Presence, Body, Soul and Divinity in the consecrated elements is lacking and Holy Mass is regarded as a communal meal, a form of agape then reception of the Holy Eucharist in the hand is the logical end result.
This is why I almost never attend the Novus Ordo any longer. The Mass is only as reverent as the priest will tolerate it being. Yes, yes, I know Ecclesia supplet. But I am fed up with the clericalism of the Novus Ordo. And it will never change. No matter what new rules are announced by a bishop or a pope, they are either only regional or temporary, or they are ignored altogether.
For 35 years I coordinated and took Holy Communion to the homebound. As I scan the extravagant commentary, it seems like a war of who’s right and who’s wrong. What would Christ do? I believe compassion to the reverent reception of the real presence is first and foremost. The Eucharist is the glorified body of Christ. If Thomas was invited to place his fingers into the wound of Christ’s side, then what should we conclude?
A reductio ad absurdum! English: How ridiculous!
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. At 77 years and disabled, I have received plenty of condescension. I have always had the intention to defend the Holy Eucharist with my life. A relic of Blessed Carlo Acutis is in the altar of my parish Church. The Real Presence needs more emphasis in our Catholic teachings. I guess I’m rediculous and very imperfect. The list of Eucharistic miracles is not made up. What is taught that is not correct should go to the lack of teaching it correctly. Fr. I’m sorry.
Father: You write, “Needless to say, it makes no sense to give approval to actions that were clearly acts of disobedience.” Would you write the same for giving approval to the action of kneeling to receive communion? When it was disobedient to do so, some continued kneeling, and therefore the U.S. bishops allowed individuals to kneel. Your turn. Be consistent.
No, because the bishops were wrong to mandate only standing. An adage teaches: I have no obligation to obey what you have no right to command. Which is why Rome corrected the US bishops, telling them they could not do what they did!
In our upside down age, you can either choose to listen to the bishops or to remain Catholic. You cannot do both.
I am a cradle Catholic born in the early 1950s. My wife and I belong to a very traditional parish in Michigan. We have a holy and traditional priest, whom we dearly love. Our parish retains a Communion rail, and many parishioners kneel there to receive Communion on the tongue.
My wife and I both receive Communion in our hand (reverently, in my opinion). The reasons? (1) Our deacon, who distributes Communion along with our pastor at the rail, places the host far back on the tongue, presumably to ensure that it won’t fall off. In my cases, that’s squarely in the literal gag zone. Nobody wants to open his mouth to someone who’s about to gag him. (2) We have seen literal saliva on the fingers of another priest who says frequent Masses at our parish. (3) I have personally had priests and extraordinary ministers touch (bump into) my tongue with their fingers. And if they are touching my tongue, they have touched others.
Now, I know from experience that it is entirely possible to administer the host onto someone’s tongue without skin contact of any sort. (I have served as an extraordinary minister at the request of our pastor.) But I am not going to complain to our pastor about his deacon and extraordinary ministers because, as brave as he is on doctrinal matters, I know in advance he would be highly unlikely to address this issue. So we will go on receiving on the tongue. I wish this weren’t the case.
Practice hygiene! The priest, even if he is taking extra effort, touches either the tongue or the lips of a communicant and goes on to distribute the communion, may be touching again the tongue of the next communicant. Receiving the Lord in my own hand is more personal (affirmation), taking the communion in my hand and consuming (affection) than letting Him be placed in the tongue by a priest – very unhygienic and very very impersonal!