SARS is not the only viral/bacterial infectious disease that can be transmitted via person to person contact. Why then is it not a global practice to receive communion in the hand (to avoid contagion from mouth to mouth) and to avoid shaking of hands during the sign of peace at Mass? The hands are the most virulent vehicle for transmission of disease, as well as the human mouth. Receiving in the hand, when 90 percent of the parish receives on the tongue, does not remedy the problem. Similarly, receiving in the hand after having shaken 10 hands is not hygienic. Are there any others who are as concerned as I am with the practices noted as vehicles for the transmission of infectious diseases? If this is not an issue, why, then, have both China and Canada banned receiving in the mouth and handshaking in order to prevent the spread of SARS?

-- Joyce Surman (jasurman@optonline.net), May 15, 2003

Answers

I really think you have a lot more important things to worry about than catching SARS from your communion practices. If you have something against taking communion in the hand or participating in the sign of Peace, then just don't do it.

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), May 15, 2003.

yea, though i walk through the valley of the shadow of death, i shall fear no evil...

what do i have to fear from SARS, or the flu, that God would not protect me from? If it is the will of my Lord that i should catch some deadly disease, then it will befall me whether i choose to reject His sacraments and offerings or not. but if i reject the sacraments and offerings then i have befallen a disease far deadlier than SARS, for SARS can kill my body, but rejecting faith in my God to continue his ways can kill my soul

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), May 16, 2003.

. . . and then there's always the antibacterial hand wipes one can use after shaking hands so that those w/obessive-compulsive cleanliness disorders can be at peace.

Dave

P.S. And if you'd receive communion wine with a high alcohol content, any germs picked-up in the mouth would have a hard time suriving :-)

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), May 16, 2003.

...consider the number of people accepting communion and those contracting an illness. I don't believe that there is much of a threat here in the states.

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 16, 2003.

I think you all miss the point. Christ is pure, He would not allow one of His Priests to pass on a communicable disease through the consecrated Host to the one receiving. As well, if I am "Not Worthy To Receive Him" am I any more worthy to touch Him with communion in the hand. I observe communiuon in the hand appears to be no more than a cattle line of bodies all wiith their hands stuck out, with little or no reverence for The Body and Blood of Our Lord. Watch it sometime. Don

-- Don Pennell (dpennell@istar.ca), May 16, 2003.

Joyce, on this issue I will side with you to a certain extent. If you live in an area of higher infection like SARS, then prevention is the best medicine.Diseasses attack people no matte the creed. Catholic Europe was once decimated by the plague in the 14 century. 25% of the Catholic population died.

In Isaiah and in 2 kings we read of the plague (same one) which killed the Assyrian army of king Sennacherib around 714 BC (historians say is 711 BC).

Same plague killed Anglicans in the 17th century AD. The old rhyme ring around the rosies....achoo, achoo, we all fall down originated at this time.

AIDS started as a disease which killed homosexuals. It was called Gays disease. Now it attacks mostly heterosexuals.

SARS started killing mostly atheists and Budhists. But it could start killing Christians too if the proper medical steps are not put in place.

There is a false notion in Catholicism that if Christ touched lepers, and he was OK. Saint Francis of Assissi also touched a leper, and he was OK, then we can do it, and is OK. Nothing can harm us.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), May 16, 2003.

You mean like in the Gospel of Mark Chpt. 15 or 16 (I can't remember),it says that we can drink poison and handle snakes.

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 16, 2003.

I strongly believe that we *can't* contract anything during communion. Call it Blind Faith, if you want, but that's a starting point.

I think that you are risking more infection with the communion going from the priest's hand to your hand, then from your hand to your mouth than the communion going from the priest's hand to your mouth.

As for the sign of peace: my personal habit has been if I'm 'infectious', I won't touch any one else. In fact, I'm more likely to give a hug than to shake hands, as when shaking hands, I'm going to look you in the eye - breath to breath an all that. With a hug, my face if over their shoulder, and I am touching their clothes rather than their hands.

You are not alone in your concern, but I just think that years ago, I decided that it was Blessed, so I couldn't be affected.

-- Apryl (apryl@hotmail.com), May 16, 2003.

Yes, that one Rod. Ancient manuscripts for Mark end at 16:8.

The idea of handling snakes and not dying comes from what happened to Paul at Malta (Melita). 3 but Paul having gathered together a quantity of sticks, and having laid [them] upon the fire, a viper -- out of the heat having come -- did fasten on his hand. 4 And when the foreigners saw the beast hanging from his hand, they said unto one another, `Certainly this man is a murderer, whom, having been saved out of the sea, the justice did not suffer to live;' 5 he then, indeed, having shaken off the beast into the fire, suffered no evil, 6 and they were expecting him to be about to be inflamed, or to fall down suddenly dead, and they, expecting [it] a long time, and seeing nothing uncommon happening to him, changing [their] minds, said he was a god.

Whoever ammended Mark, added this verse based on Paul. There is a lot to learn, Rod. Just because is in a Bible, doesn't mean it belongs there. Not even Paul was protected from beatings, stonings, and from death. The man became a saint after his ill treatment of Christians at the beginning. He had to suffer 30 years. He is the founder of our belief system. He is the founder of gentile Christianity. When you read The Book of Acts, the beginnings and endings to his letters you will see the scope of this man in the ancient world. Otherwise, we would still practice circumcision.

Apryl, read the sections of Exodus and Leviticus which deal with the priesthood. Notice the cleansing rituals. Notice sections on "leprosy" word for all sort of illnesses or diseases.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), May 16, 2003.

I have grown up receiving communion through the tongue. I will never stay away from that practice. This has been our way since the beginning, many many centuries ago. I hold the same belief as many saints did, only the priest has the right to touch the divine body of God.

If contamination or spreading diesease is the issue, somebody is forgetting "what" we are talking about here. This is not some food or some formality. This is indeed the divine body of christ, and if you think otherwise, you are simply calling God a liar.

But the most important question is, how did it go so far? How did man stoop so low to compare the body of christ with the wordly things and the impure? This is what purifies everything in the world. I have no idea how the importance of the holy communion was lost.

Back where I came from, only priests touch the communion, except for some people who are afraid of contamination, and if accidentally the communion drops to the floor, the priest kneels down and carry it with atmost respect and faith.

I don't know about canada but I used to hear everyday about the prosecution and torture of catholics who are faithful to the pope, not to the chinese-made christianity. When they put catholics in jail, how could one say that the mass performed there is not just some show? When did china begin to allow catholics anyway? They have proclaimed that they would kill those who unknowingly spread the disease anyway.

There is nothing wrong with receiving through the hand, just like through tongue, as the church has said so. However, finding faults like the spreading of diseases through receiving the communion makes it seem like the holy body of christ is nothing but some form of food. There is nothing worse than that.

I will go far as to say this. To say that by participating in the holy mass or receiving the holy communion one is subject to receiving or spreading diseases, is nothing less than utter blasphemy. While God purifies everything, satan contaminates everything, especially our minds. We have to be careful of that.

Also, it doesn't mean that just because jesus and st francis touched lepers and were okay, we catholics can be okay too. Jesus, is God and st Francis is one of the most faithful persons ever lived. If you believe you have the faith, and if that faith is absolutely strong, nothing will happen. We all know what happened to St Peter, the leader of all when he fluctuated in his faith. It is also a good idea to remember how St Francis became attached to lepers. His first reaction when he saw a leper was to run away in his horse as fast as he can.

There are many saints who treated lepers like they were their brothers, and even today many young people take care of them with hearts full of love. Nothing will happen to them, because they willingly came forward to take care of those who have no hope. God himself has disguised himself in the form of lepers a lot. I remember one saint saying, lepers are the true image of God. The small services or even a kind look or smile done to them will be rewarded by their faither a thousandfold. I could only wish I had the faith of all those people.

-- Abraham T (lijothengil@yahoo.com), May 16, 2003.

Don Pennell

Shame on you . . . Cattle don't have hands

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), May 16, 2003.

You know something, when Jesus gathered with his diciples in the upper room to share the meal together and when at the end of the meal he took the bread, broke it and HANDED IT to his diciples, saying to them . . . "This is my Body; and when he took the cup and passed it to them saying this is my Blood, do this in remembrance of me . . .

He created something infinatly beautiful . . . don't muck it up with all this nonsense of proper practice . . . how you take the host doesn't mean anything, it's what is on the inside that matters and if you're busy with all this stuff . . . Your not celebrating properly whether you receive the host on your tonge or in your hand or wherever you would have it placed.

Peace all

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), May 16, 2003.

actually, we know that the disciples must have taken communion by hand, other than Jesus handing it to them on their tongues, as could be argued. Jesus dipped his bread in the wine, and judas at least did as well. unless Jesus put the bread on everyone elses tongue and then handed it to judas, all the disciples took the communion by hand. funny thing is, Jesus intinctured the bread... a practice not to be used today.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), May 17, 2003.

I don't think the bread actualy matters. Eventhe holy communion, before being blessed by the priest, at the time of preparation etc. is simply food, but we are seeing the most high coming down as simple as a piece of food. Only God could do that. We are obeying his command of remembering his sacrifice and are participating in it. The orthdox catholics are using bread in their holy mass. They use water as a substitute for wine too.

It is also known that the disciples had no idea what was going on, and many even decided to leave him because of saying that the bread was his flesh and the wine was his blood. Not even the apostles understood what was happening.

-- Abraham T (lijothengil@yahoo.com), May 17, 2003.

abraham,

i think i would check that... there were twelve at the last supper and 11 afterwards. the only one who left was judas.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), May 17, 2003.

little paul,

I think you misunderstood Abraham, he said disciple, not Apostle. All followers of Christ are disciples, you're thinking of the 12 Apostles :-)

God bless

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), May 17, 2003.

sara,

good call, im getting blind in my old age. i do wear glasses after all (maybe not THICK ones...). sorry bout the misunderstanding.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), May 17, 2003.

Jmj

Hello, Abraham.
You wrote: "The orthdox catholics are using bread in their holy mass. They use water as a substitute for wine too."

By "orthdox catholics," are you referring to the Eastern Orthodox churches (which our Catholic Church does not actually call "catholic")?

If so, I am shocked to hear about it. I have always read/heard that all the Eastern Orthodox churches use real wine (made from grapes) and would not accept any substitute (especially not water) -- resulting in a valid Holy Eucharist. That is why we, as Catholics, are permitted to receive Communion in an Orthodox church, under certain circumstances.

Do you have some way of verifying what you have written? I think that you must be mistaken (unless I have misunderstood you).

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 18, 2003.

Dear J.F

I have very little knowledge on orthdox people and I don't know the difference between eastern and western (people from east and from west?). My family is mixed with catholics and orthdox, but due to the issue of debates and quarrel, I don't talk to them about anything regarding faith. The orthdox churches here that I have seen are all malayalam based. I know that there are 2 groups in orthdox - constantly fighting - one supports catholica bava (equivalent of our pope) and the other opposes. In Kerala it is very violent and even in the middle of holy mass there are violent incidents. I can't find any other section because even here, all the orthdox churches I have seen are malayalam churches.

I have attended their mass once. It takes around 2-3 hours. I am quite sure that water is used as a substitute for wine. I don't know the reason behind this. I also don't know if only a particular section of the orthdox do this. Many catholics go to their mass and vice versa. I too knew that we are allowed to go to their mass, but I thought the authorities knew that water is used. The only reason that I could think of is perhaps the unavailablility of grape/wine. Or maybe they are following the old ways - I heard that in the early centuries (before 5th), when it was not grape season, water was used. I don't know if this is true.

-- Abraham T (lijothengil@yahoo.com), May 19, 2003.

Hello, Abraham.
I hope that it was a misunderstanding on your part. For example, I hope that they used a certain species of white grapes that produced an almost colorless wine, making you think wrongly that it was water.
But, if they really used no wine at all, then there was no valid sacrament -- and no real Divine Liturgy was celebrated.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), May 19, 2003.

Little paul, I think you are right labout the wine being intinctured by Jesus. He never gave them bread (matzot) in the mouth.

Only about 5 times did I ever received the bread and wine that way. To me is more sanitary practice to give the wine,

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), May 19, 2003.

J.F

You are right! I was clearly mistaken. I asked my cousin and then I understood it well. The bread is actually dipped in wine. What I saw was what happened after the bread is given. The priest takes a jar of water and gives everyone to drink right after the bread is received. I mistook is for the wine. I believe water is given along with bread and wine as a symbolic representation of that explained in previous posts, along with maybe the water that came along with the blood of Jesus when he was stabbed. I am not entirely sure though. Thank you for reminding me to clarify the issue. Otherwise this would have caused many confusions.

-- Abraham T (lijothengil@yahoo.com), May 19, 2003.