(no subject)

[tree_and_leaf]

Meanwhile, procrastination on t'internet leads me to discover that some people are improbably angry about the possibility that a priest might use anti-bacterial hand gel before celebrating Mass.

Some people are very strange.

Back to work.

Comments

[em_h]

Goodness. We are actually required by the diocese to do so, somewhere between the peace and the offertory usually. I tend to do it just before the lavabo, so I can get the antibacterial effect but not have nasty-smelling gel on my hands when I touch the Host. (I have been assured by a doctor that this is acceptable from an antibacterial point of view). I have seen some people celebrate with the gel practically dripping from their hands, and I have received wafers which tasted disgustingly of gel, so I know this is not without its problems … but since SARS, we operate under particular guidelines which are not likely to change anytime soon.

[dejla]

And why, pray tell, should they be outraged? I would be PLEASED.

[tree_and_leaf]

It is wicked and showing a lack of faith in the sacrament! Also hand gel bottles are tacky.

... apparently.

[sporky_rat]

We have one that sits in a a nice metal cylinder on the actual altar.

It's like Brylcreem. A lil' dab 'll do ya!

[dejla]

I never heard that the sacrament was anti-bacterial. And heaven knows when colds run so rampant... well, the lord helps those who help themselves.

[tree_and_leaf]

I quite agree. And even if all it's doing is putting unnecessary worries to rest, that's no bad thing either.

[tree_and_leaf]

I think it was a requirement during the last big swine flu epidemic, but I'm not sure (wasn't ordained back then) - I do remember the priests all gelling their hands when I was serving though.

They also banned reception in both kinds for anyone other than the celebrant, which had the strange side effect of producing a ruling from both Archbishops declaring that the C of E definitely believes in concomittance, which I don't think had ever been officially articulated before.

[tree_and_leaf]

We should probably look at getting one of those.

[sporky_rat]

It placates the Old Guard because you can't see the bottle and makes the rest of us feel just a bit better during cold and flu season.

[dejla]

When my church offered us the opportunity to dip the wafer in the wine instead of drinking from the cup, I took it up immediately. No spreading cold and flu germs for me!

[em_h]

After SARS -- which was a big and very scary deal, and had a second major outbreak during Holy Week of all times -- Public Health in Toronto actually did a fairly thorough investigation of communion practices, and we are still bound by the guidelines they recommended, which interestingly mostly accorded with my preferences anyway. Basically, they determined that the common cup is not a risk as long as a) the wine is actually alcohol-containing wine, not grape juice, b) the cup is metal, not pottery, and c) it is properly wiped with a purificator between communicants. They have banned intinction, based on the risk of fingers touching the wine (fingers being a far more significant vector than mouths), and in cases where intinction is necessary, the celebrant must intinct and then administer on the tongue. Their greatest concern was actually the Peace, and what they mostly require is that gel be used after the Peace and before touching vessels or the host.

[tree_and_leaf]

Mm, there is decent evidence that that's more dangerous than drinking from the cup. Counterintuitve, but it seems to be so.

[tree_and_leaf]

I hate intinction. It's not banned in our church, and it's amazing how many of the people who do it end up dipping their fingers in.

The guidelines sound very useful.

[dejla]

Interesting! I shall look that up!. I will add that it is partially a squick factor for me -- I was raised Baptist, and everyone got their own tiny glass (or later, plastic) of (Baptist, here) grape juice. And a tiny little white bread cube. Personally, I think the wafers are a better aesthetic.

But, yes, sharing communal cup..