Hong Kong And Singapore Impose Communion On The Hand
The dioceses of Hong Kong and Singapore ordered that Holy Communion be distributed only on the hand while forbidding the reception on the tongue. The reason given is the spreading of the Corona-virus. …More
The dioceses of Hong Kong and Singapore ordered that Holy Communion be distributed only on the hand while forbidding the reception on the tongue.
The reason given is the spreading of the Corona-virus.
However, not even in the historic times of the plague, Holy Communion was distributed on the hand. The priests protected themselves by using so called plague spoons (picture below).
This were golden or silver spoons with a spoon-handle up to forty centimetres to distribute Holy Communion.
Picture: © Mazur, CC BY-NC-SA, #newsLqmgyqkswr
The reason given is the spreading of the Corona-virus.
However, not even in the historic times of the plague, Holy Communion was distributed on the hand. The priests protected themselves by using so called plague spoons (picture below).
This were golden or silver spoons with a spoon-handle up to forty centimetres to distribute Holy Communion.
Picture: © Mazur, CC BY-NC-SA, #newsLqmgyqkswr
- Report
Social media
Change post
Remove post
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
@Thors Catholic Hammer
"Your view then is that the priests hands/fingers are always miraculous and will destroy any germs that might be picked up."
That's not what I said, you idiot.
It's bad enough when you put words into Pope Francis' mouth, don't you dare put them in mine.
"This of course implies..."
A strawman argument since you're debating a claim I didn't present.
I made my position clear …More
@Thors Catholic Hammer
"Your view then is that the priests hands/fingers are always miraculous and will destroy any germs that might be picked up."
That's not what I said, you idiot.
It's bad enough when you put words into Pope Francis' mouth, don't you dare put them in mine.
"This of course implies..."
A strawman argument since you're debating a claim I didn't present.
I made my position clear when replying to Arthur McGowan. I'll repeat it for your benefit.
"An antimicrobial is different from a non-viable transmission vector. The former is, as you said, something that "kills germs". A non-viable transmission vector is a method a virus can't be transmitted. For example, touching an HIV positive person's hair or skin is a non-viable tranmission vector. The virus can only be transmitted through direct contact with human bodily fluids."
I did not say the priest's hands "kill germs" . Full stop.
You're so OCD over "the priest's hands" you're blind to all else. As I said before, to you directly:
If your neighbor has a bad cough, you're more likely to catch their illness directly from them via airborne dispersion of the saliva/ mucus droplets.
All of which means, if someone is sick with a respiratory virus, you're more likely to catch it just from breathing the same air with them than you are from the priest's fingers. That's Intro To Basic Virology 101.
But that isn't how that glob of tapioca pudding between your ears works.
You've fixated on "the priests' fingers" and "communion in the hand" the same way you've fixated on "bergoglio".
Once that happens, just like always, you're deaf dumb and blind to all evidence, much less reason to the contrary.
"Your view then is that the priests hands/fingers are always miraculous and will destroy any germs that might be picked up."
That's not what I said, you idiot.
It's bad enough when you put words into Pope Francis' mouth, don't you dare put them in mine.
"This of course implies..."
A strawman argument since you're debating a claim I didn't present.
I made my position clear when replying to Arthur McGowan. I'll repeat it for your benefit.
"An antimicrobial is different from a non-viable transmission vector. The former is, as you said, something that "kills germs". A non-viable transmission vector is a method a virus can't be transmitted. For example, touching an HIV positive person's hair or skin is a non-viable tranmission vector. The virus can only be transmitted through direct contact with human bodily fluids."
I did not say the priest's hands "kill germs" . Full stop.
You're so OCD over "the priest's hands" you're blind to all else. As I said before, to you directly:
If your neighbor has a bad cough, you're more likely to catch their illness directly from them via airborne dispersion of the saliva/ mucus droplets.
All of which means, if someone is sick with a respiratory virus, you're more likely to catch it just from breathing the same air with them than you are from the priest's fingers. That's Intro To Basic Virology 101.
But that isn't how that glob of tapioca pudding between your ears works.
You've fixated on "the priests' fingers" and "communion in the hand" the same way you've fixated on "bergoglio".
Once that happens, just like always, you're deaf dumb and blind to all evidence, much less reason to the contrary.
Thors Catholic Hammer
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
@ @Ultraviolet
The vile abuse you emit when your many falsehoods are confronted is no doubt due to your continued association with the diabolic formal heretic antipope Francis who engages constantly in such practices.
Like him you can not concentrate on specific points of argument but hide behind accusations and abuse.
You really have nothing to say and that will remain the position for as long as …More
@ @Ultraviolet
The vile abuse you emit when your many falsehoods are confronted is no doubt due to your continued association with the diabolic formal heretic antipope Francis who engages constantly in such practices.
Like him you can not concentrate on specific points of argument but hide behind accusations and abuse.
You really have nothing to say and that will remain the position for as long as you continue to recognize the false and diabolic reign of antipope Francis.
The vile abuse you emit when your many falsehoods are confronted is no doubt due to your continued association with the diabolic formal heretic antipope Francis who engages constantly in such practices.
Like him you can not concentrate on specific points of argument but hide behind accusations and abuse.
You really have nothing to say and that will remain the position for as long as you continue to recognize the false and diabolic reign of antipope Francis.
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
The only falsehood here is you fabricating a view I never presented. You do it because you can't refute what I did present. You're more than an idiot, Thor. You're a damned liar and I see no reason to sugar-coat either term.
You lie about everything and anything as naturally as readily normal people speak the truth. You lie about history. You lie about Pope Francis. You can't even debate a …More
The only falsehood here is you fabricating a view I never presented. You do it because you can't refute what I did present. You're more than an idiot, Thor. You're a damned liar and I see no reason to sugar-coat either term.
You lie about everything and anything as naturally as readily normal people speak the truth. You lie about history. You lie about Pope Francis. You can't even debate a comment I made without first falsifying it into something I didn't present.
It's a malady and mendacity you share with other deluded fools whose world-view is based on fiction.
"Like him you can not concentrate on specific points of argument but hide behind accusations and abuse."
...and that's another of your standard diversionary tactics: Magical Thinking.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking
Saying something doesn't makes it real because you said so.. I did "concentrate on specific points of argument". Better still, I corrected your "specific points of argument" because you don't know what you're talking about like usual.
And your reply to that? To be expected. Every time you lose a debate you always lapse this same fall-back of crying about how a.) you've been insulted, b.) you've heroically confronted "falsehood" (which you always leave unrefuted) c.) the person who bested you is just like Pope Francis somehow.
You're just noise and the only thing that surpasses the dishonesty of your tactics is your repetition of them.
Now either counter what I presented directly and truthfully or quit the field. I'm certain there are at least four other posts that haven't seen your irrelevant fabrications about Pope Francis yet.
Dogs urinate on every lamp post and hydrant to make sure they spread their "message". Your behavior and input on GTV is no different.
You lie about everything and anything as naturally as readily normal people speak the truth. You lie about history. You lie about Pope Francis. You can't even debate a comment I made without first falsifying it into something I didn't present.
It's a malady and mendacity you share with other deluded fools whose world-view is based on fiction.
"Like him you can not concentrate on specific points of argument but hide behind accusations and abuse."
...and that's another of your standard diversionary tactics: Magical Thinking.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking
Saying something doesn't makes it real because you said so.. I did "concentrate on specific points of argument". Better still, I corrected your "specific points of argument" because you don't know what you're talking about like usual.
And your reply to that? To be expected. Every time you lose a debate you always lapse this same fall-back of crying about how a.) you've been insulted, b.) you've heroically confronted "falsehood" (which you always leave unrefuted) c.) the person who bested you is just like Pope Francis somehow.
You're just noise and the only thing that surpasses the dishonesty of your tactics is your repetition of them.
Now either counter what I presented directly and truthfully or quit the field. I'm certain there are at least four other posts that haven't seen your irrelevant fabrications about Pope Francis yet.
Dogs urinate on every lamp post and hydrant to make sure they spread their "message". Your behavior and input on GTV is no different.
Thors Catholic Hammer
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
@@Ultraviolet
Your view then is that the priests hands/fingers are always miraculous and will destroy any germs that might be picked up.
This of course implies every priest is always in a state of sanctifying grace and free from mortal sin.
No wonder you think Bergoglio is some class of pope when you express such utter gullibility concerning the ordinary priesthood.
The facts are that germs can …More
@@Ultraviolet
Your view then is that the priests hands/fingers are always miraculous and will destroy any germs that might be picked up.
This of course implies every priest is always in a state of sanctifying grace and free from mortal sin.
No wonder you think Bergoglio is some class of pope when you express such utter gullibility concerning the ordinary priesthood.
The facts are that germs can be transferred from mouth to mouth when the Eucharist is given on the tongue should the priests fingers accidentally touch the moisture laden oral cavity/tissues.
Therefore communion in the hand is objectively less likely to transfer germs as hand to hand touching rarely happens
.It is also physically easier to transfer a host into a hand without touching than onto a tongue.for the simple reason the human hand area is very much larger
Your view then is that the priests hands/fingers are always miraculous and will destroy any germs that might be picked up.
This of course implies every priest is always in a state of sanctifying grace and free from mortal sin.
No wonder you think Bergoglio is some class of pope when you express such utter gullibility concerning the ordinary priesthood.
The facts are that germs can be transferred from mouth to mouth when the Eucharist is given on the tongue should the priests fingers accidentally touch the moisture laden oral cavity/tissues.
Therefore communion in the hand is objectively less likely to transfer germs as hand to hand touching rarely happens
.It is also physically easier to transfer a host into a hand without touching than onto a tongue.for the simple reason the human hand area is very much larger
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
"Active measures include hand sanitizers and avoiding the peace handshake."
Not a problem in Traditional Latin Mass parishes. Whatever goes on in your novus ordo circus is your own problem.
"In addition those distributing the Sacred Host on the tongue need to sanitize their fingers should a finger touch a tongue or lip."
Implying germs can be spread by the sanctified hands that are literally holding …More
"Active measures include hand sanitizers and avoiding the peace handshake."
Not a problem in Traditional Latin Mass parishes. Whatever goes on in your novus ordo circus is your own problem.
"In addition those distributing the Sacred Host on the tongue need to sanitize their fingers should a finger touch a tongue or lip."
Implying germs can be spread by the sanctified hands that are literally holding the Body Of Christ.
GTFO. >:(
This is obviously just another excuse for Communist China to strike at God's True Church and God's Liturgy.
Besides, according to the CDC, there isn't any certainty physical contact even transmits the virus. It's predominantly a respiratory virus.
As usual @Thors Catholic Hammer is making things up again.
Not a problem in Traditional Latin Mass parishes. Whatever goes on in your novus ordo circus is your own problem.
"In addition those distributing the Sacred Host on the tongue need to sanitize their fingers should a finger touch a tongue or lip."
Implying germs can be spread by the sanctified hands that are literally holding the Body Of Christ.
GTFO. >:(
This is obviously just another excuse for Communist China to strike at God's True Church and God's Liturgy.
Besides, according to the CDC, there isn't any certainty physical contact even transmits the virus. It's predominantly a respiratory virus.
As usual @Thors Catholic Hammer is making things up again.
Arthur McGowan
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
"Implying germs can be spread by the sanctified hands that are literally holding the Body Of Christ."
As opposed to the superstitious belief that they CAN'T?More
"Implying germs can be spread by the sanctified hands that are literally holding the Body Of Christ."
As opposed to the superstitious belief that they CAN'T?
As opposed to the superstitious belief that they CAN'T?
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Nothing "superstitous" about it. Unless you also call the miracle of transubstantiation mere "superstition" and there are certainly many who do.
I will admit, I honestly didn't expect to find somebody like that on GTV, though.More
Nothing "superstitous" about it. Unless you also call the miracle of transubstantiation mere "superstition" and there are certainly many who do.
I will admit, I honestly didn't expect to find somebody like that on GTV, though.
I will admit, I honestly didn't expect to find somebody like that on GTV, though.
Thors Catholic Hammer
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
To Ultraviolet.
I have received on the tongue at TLM masses along with the saliva from a communicant near me which was transferred to the priests fingers and then to my lip.
Receiving orally is the most unhygienic means of Holy Communion.
At least when you receive in the hand you are not getting a dose of your neighbors bad cough transferred via the priests fingers..More
To Ultraviolet.
I have received on the tongue at TLM masses along with the saliva from a communicant near me which was transferred to the priests fingers and then to my lip.
Receiving orally is the most unhygienic means of Holy Communion.
At least when you receive in the hand you are not getting a dose of your neighbors bad cough transferred via the priests fingers..
I have received on the tongue at TLM masses along with the saliva from a communicant near me which was transferred to the priests fingers and then to my lip.
Receiving orally is the most unhygienic means of Holy Communion.
At least when you receive in the hand you are not getting a dose of your neighbors bad cough transferred via the priests fingers..
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
"At least when you receive in the hand you are not getting a dose of your neighbors bad cough transferred via the priests fingers."
Sloppy logic. If your neighbor has a bad cough, you're more likely to catch their illness directly from them via airborne dispersion of the saliva/ mucus droplets.
Like usual, you've fixated on something and ignore all evidence and reason to the contrary.
I'm curious …More
"At least when you receive in the hand you are not getting a dose of your neighbors bad cough transferred via the priests fingers."
Sloppy logic. If your neighbor has a bad cough, you're more likely to catch their illness directly from them via airborne dispersion of the saliva/ mucus droplets.
Like usual, you've fixated on something and ignore all evidence and reason to the contrary.
I'm curious if you raised your concerns with the pastor. Or, as I suspect, the poor man pointedly absents himself whenever he sees you closing in on him with that urgent gleam in your eye. No doubt he's already been on the wrong end of your "corrections" involving any mention Pope Francis.
(oh God help me... it's that guy again, here he comes) *turns in desperation to the nearest warm body* "Why Mrs. Jones! What a lovely brooch you're wearing, tell me... how IS your psoriasis doing these days?"
"Father, I'm SO glad you asked, It's been just awful lately... My doctor said... and then I said..."
Given the choice between listening to a cranky old woman detail every crusty red scaly rash that appears on her receding hairline and you, I can't blame the man for choosing the former. :D
"I have received on the tongue at TLM masses along with the saliva from a communicant near me which was transferred to the priests fingers and then to my lip."
Or so you claim. Sadly, you do have an unfortunate habit of telling falsehoods whenever they better suit your purpose or your argument. At best, you are arguing from personal experience, entirely unsupported personal experience at that.
Put another way, many people claim to have been abducted by aliens, many people claim they are aliens, others claim they've seen the Loch Ness Monster, others claim the've petted the Loch Ness Monster.
Their say-so doesn't prove it is true.
Your Fallacy Is:
Sloppy logic. If your neighbor has a bad cough, you're more likely to catch their illness directly from them via airborne dispersion of the saliva/ mucus droplets.
Like usual, you've fixated on something and ignore all evidence and reason to the contrary.
I'm curious if you raised your concerns with the pastor. Or, as I suspect, the poor man pointedly absents himself whenever he sees you closing in on him with that urgent gleam in your eye. No doubt he's already been on the wrong end of your "corrections" involving any mention Pope Francis.
(oh God help me... it's that guy again, here he comes) *turns in desperation to the nearest warm body* "Why Mrs. Jones! What a lovely brooch you're wearing, tell me... how IS your psoriasis doing these days?"
"Father, I'm SO glad you asked, It's been just awful lately... My doctor said... and then I said..."
Given the choice between listening to a cranky old woman detail every crusty red scaly rash that appears on her receding hairline and you, I can't blame the man for choosing the former. :D
"I have received on the tongue at TLM masses along with the saliva from a communicant near me which was transferred to the priests fingers and then to my lip."
Or so you claim. Sadly, you do have an unfortunate habit of telling falsehoods whenever they better suit your purpose or your argument. At best, you are arguing from personal experience, entirely unsupported personal experience at that.
Put another way, many people claim to have been abducted by aliens, many people claim they are aliens, others claim they've seen the Loch Ness Monster, others claim the've petted the Loch Ness Monster.
Their say-so doesn't prove it is true.
Your Fallacy Is:
The false church in pseudo-communion with Bergoglio will always be a false church.
Thors Catholic Hammer
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Bergoglio is not in communion with any church.
Le Précurseur
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Hahaha 
what a bogus argument! When we know that the water from the miraculous spring of Lourdes has never made a single person sick, even though many people drink it directly, to suggest that the Blessed Sacrament could be a carrier of the Coronavirus, is bordering on blasphemy! 
Arthur McGowan
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
The notion that a priest's fingers and the Blessed Sacrament kill germs does not border on superstition. It IS superstition.
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
You're not reading what is written here, Arty. Le Précurseur didn't say the Blessed Sacrament "killed germs". They denied the possibilty it could be a carrier of the Coronavirus.
An antimicrobial is different from a non-viable transmission vector. The former is, as you said, something that "kills germs". A non-viable transmission vector is a method a virus can't be transmitted. For example, …More
You're not reading what is written here, Arty. Le Précurseur didn't say the Blessed Sacrament "killed germs". They denied the possibilty it could be a carrier of the Coronavirus.
An antimicrobial is different from a non-viable transmission vector. The former is, as you said, something that "kills germs". A non-viable transmission vector is a method a virus can't be transmitted. For example, touching an HIV positive person's hair or skin is a non-viable tranmission vector. The virus can only be transmitted through direct contact with human bodily fluids
Also, if it's not too much trouble, please show where in Le Précurseur's comment they mentioned "a priest's fingers". Even though it's a very short post, I can't quite seem to find those three words. I'd be immensely grateful if you quoted them directly, word-for-word, with quotations. ;-)
An antimicrobial is different from a non-viable transmission vector. The former is, as you said, something that "kills germs". A non-viable transmission vector is a method a virus can't be transmitted. For example, touching an HIV positive person's hair or skin is a non-viable tranmission vector. The virus can only be transmitted through direct contact with human bodily fluids
Also, if it's not too much trouble, please show where in Le Précurseur's comment they mentioned "a priest's fingers". Even though it's a very short post, I can't quite seem to find those three words. I'd be immensely grateful if you quoted them directly, word-for-word, with quotations. ;-)
Thors Catholic Hammer
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Yes. The human bodily fluids in a communicants mouth that can transfer to a priests fingers when he administers communion on the tongue.
I have experienced this phenomenon at TLM masses and it is not pleasant conjuring as it does the very very real possibility of infection .
The safest most hygienic method is communion in the hand.
I have experienced this phenomenon at TLM masses and it is not pleasant conjuring as it does the very very real possibility of infection .
The safest most hygienic method is communion in the hand.
Thors Catholic Hammer
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Excuse me?
At the last supper Christ distributed the bread into the HAND of each disciple.
You also refuse to accept the well known truth concerning the experience of many Catholics who receive on the tongue that saliva from other communicants can be transferred via the Ministers finger however unintentionally.
Your refusal to accept this truth combined with your insults about the matter indicate …More
Excuse me?
At the last supper Christ distributed the bread into the HAND of each disciple.
You also refuse to accept the well known truth concerning the experience of many Catholics who receive on the tongue that saliva from other communicants can be transferred via the Ministers finger however unintentionally.
Your refusal to accept this truth combined with your insults about the matter indicate you are not behaving as a Christian .
Communion on the hand is in accordance with how Christ himself distributed His Body at the Last Supper.
It is also the most natural and hygienic method of distributing the host.
At the last supper Christ distributed the bread into the HAND of each disciple.
You also refuse to accept the well known truth concerning the experience of many Catholics who receive on the tongue that saliva from other communicants can be transferred via the Ministers finger however unintentionally.
Your refusal to accept this truth combined with your insults about the matter indicate you are not behaving as a Christian .
Communion on the hand is in accordance with how Christ himself distributed His Body at the Last Supper.
It is also the most natural and hygienic method of distributing the host.
4 more comments from Thors Catholic Hammer
Thors Catholic Hammer
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
@@St Cuthbert Mayne
The magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church tells me that I can receive the Eucharistic host on the HAND.
But you reject the magisterium of the church you profess membership of.
(In addition medical science , anthropomorphics and basic common sense all tell me it is a more hygienic manner of Eucharistic reception at mass than via the tongue)More
@@St Cuthbert Mayne
The magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church tells me that I can receive the Eucharistic host on the HAND.
But you reject the magisterium of the church you profess membership of.
(In addition medical science , anthropomorphics and basic common sense all tell me it is a more hygienic manner of Eucharistic reception at mass than via the tongue)
The magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church tells me that I can receive the Eucharistic host on the HAND.
But you reject the magisterium of the church you profess membership of.
(In addition medical science , anthropomorphics and basic common sense all tell me it is a more hygienic manner of Eucharistic reception at mass than via the tongue)
Thors Catholic Hammer
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
@@St Cuthbert Mayne
You are correct in saying that the Host is God and therefore unlikely to transfer infection.
However the priests fingers are not God the possibility of transference exists.
That possibility is increased by the reception of communion on the tongue as opposed to in the hand for obvious physical reasons
You are correct in saying that the Host is God and therefore unlikely to transfer infection.
However the priests fingers are not God the possibility of transference exists.
That possibility is increased by the reception of communion on the tongue as opposed to in the hand for obvious physical reasons
Thors Catholic Hammer
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
@ @St Cuthbert Mayne
You totally fail to understand that the spread of saliva never occurs when everyone receiving communion receives on the hand only.
This practice should now become mandatory in the Catholic Church for hygienic reasons.
You totally fail to understand that the spread of saliva never occurs when everyone receiving communion receives on the hand only.
This practice should now become mandatory in the Catholic Church for hygienic reasons.
Thors Catholic Hammer
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
@ @St Cuthbert Mayne
Then you can not disagree that saliva is a superior vector for the transmission of infection .
When communion is distributed on the hand only there is no possibility of saliva transference .
That possibility is highly probable when communion is distributed on the tongue.
The logic of the argument is that communion in the hand is more hygienic.More
@ @St Cuthbert Mayne
Then you can not disagree that saliva is a superior vector for the transmission of infection .
When communion is distributed on the hand only there is no possibility of saliva transference .
That possibility is highly probable when communion is distributed on the tongue.
The logic of the argument is that communion in the hand is more hygienic.
Then you can not disagree that saliva is a superior vector for the transmission of infection .
When communion is distributed on the hand only there is no possibility of saliva transference .
That possibility is highly probable when communion is distributed on the tongue.
The logic of the argument is that communion in the hand is more hygienic.
eticacasanova
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Another bogus calamity is making its inroads. Bring more