No Communion On The Tongue, But The Busybodying Continues Unabated

Mundabor has some thoughts on the stupid and canonically illegal 'banning' of Holy Communion of the tongue.

From Mundabor's Blog

And it came to pass that this morning, due to coronavirus and the guidelines announced by the UK Bishops’ Conference, the following changes were announced:

1. No communion on the tongue
2. No communion under both species
3. No hand shaking and effusions by the “sign of peace”.

Sad not to be able to receive communion. However, I immediately rejoiced for the “sign of peace”. Also, I immediately realised this would, at last and for a while, free us from the oh so saintly looking “extraordinary ministers” holding the chalice.

On the latter, I was wrong.

What happened was that, instead of holding the chalice, the extraordinary etc **were given the hosts to distribute**.

Then I had to look at the lay ministers giving the host to people … giving communion to themselves! It was a purely lay exercise in Protestantism, and a fitting image of the stupidity of our times.

In many churches here in the UK, the priest distributes the host, whilst the extraordinary etc holds the chalice. Not always, but often. You would think if there is no chalice, there is no need for the laypeople. But no, this could not be. It should not be said that the pewsitters are freed of the sanctimonious busybodies, silently screaming “Look at me! Look at me” I am sooo actively participating!” as they look almost as important as they feel.

We are getting mad. For countless generations, communion has been given on the tongue, and it is new to me that this should even be considered a potential vehicle of contagion. I receive(d) on the tongue every time, and the hand of the priest never touches my tongue or any other part of me. The host is gently deposed on my tongue without any touching, I retract my tongue carefully, that is that. I can’t imagine this requires more than minimal training on the side of the priest, as I do not remember one single episode in which my tongue was touched by anything else than the consecrated host. After his minimal training, the priest touching my tongue to put the host in it must be half blind or with an impaired ability to move his hand. In that case, I wonder how he can consecrate the host in the first place. 

Of course, I know what’s going on. The priest is perfectly able (like they all are) to do things properly; but who will go against the Bishops’ guidelines and expose himself to the accusation from concerned witches of wanting to infect the population?  

I wish someone explained to me how it is a problem to receive on the tongue; but then again, we have now entered an age in which common sense and normal occurrences (meat eating, dairy eating, carbon and oxygen in the air, wanting that children are not killed) are seen as madness or dangerous behaviours every day.