Coronavirus Mass Changes - Communion in Hand?

[CRV]

It’s the fact that many people breathe out when receiving so that the fingers are enveloped in a warm damp mist containing who knows what pathogens which then are passed on.

I’m curious to know how you know this for a fact?

I hold my breath, and I think I’d be not the only one who does.

 

[puer.dei]

However, my response was simply based on the hierachy that exists in the Church, and it is a fact that even a Bishop must obey documents issued from Rome.

One would think, with the news coverage, that the Vatican is certainly aware that many bishops all over the world have issued these directives/suggestions. And yet, Rome has not issued a “you can’t do that” statement.

 

[paperwight]

paperwight:

It’s the fact that many people breathe out when receiving so that the fingers are enveloped in a warm damp mist containing who knows what pathogens which then are passed on.

I’m curious to know how you know this for a fact?

I hold my breath, and I think I’d be not the only one who does.

I know it from thirty years of administering Holy Communion. Of course you are not the only one to hold their breath. You are right - saying many was exaggerating. . I will change my statement to ‘some’ do so.

 

[Mi_Rose]

It is the trust a child places in her father.
I am staying home as much as I can though. I have had bronchitis pneumonia and bronchitis again already this year.

 

[Paul_Edwards]

Liverpool Diocese, in that case do you sometimes attend St Mary’s Shrine in Warrington? I often go there and know they never give communion in the hand the FSSP and happen to be in that Diocese so wondered how they would be effected etc

 

[Victoria33]

We had a slight problem with the flu a few years ago and we stopped doing a few things during that time. Though, this is more severe, the prior problem has prepared some of us.

I hardly ever have drunk from the Chalice in recent years.

 

[pnewton]

A bow? Are you in Far East Asia?

I am from Texas and do this all the time. My own habit came not from the Orient, but the Jaffa, that and where I work it is convenient. What does the Far East have to do with a Church, which by its very name, is Catholic?

 

[UpUpAndAway]

Since CITH is prohibited in the EF, there is at least a de facto exception for the priests who celebrate Mass according to that form. I have been told that some (Arch)dioceses have officially declared the exception, but in the absence of such a declaration I would think the relevant rubrics prevail.

The FSSP, as a Society of Apostolic Life with Pontifical Right, does not answer to the local ordinary anyway. Should the situation degrade to the point where CITH COTT is deemed too risky under any circumstances but the celebration of Mass is not itself suspended, Communion at EF Masses would likely not be given to those attending and only the celebrant priest would communicate.g

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

A bow? Are you in Far East Asia?

I am from Texas and do this all the time. My own habit came not from the Orient, but the Jaffa, that and where I work it is convenient. What does the Far East have to do with a Church, which by its very name, is Catholic?

Nothing… we when I read the post, I was envisioning a full bow the way the Chinese / Japanese do it.

I didn’t picutre a had bow or slight bow. I was simply curious, though I re-reading my post, I guess it could sound a judgemental - which was NOT my intent.

 

[godisgood77]

I would almost rather forego receiving Jesus at all rather than receive him in my hand!

Good news is that receiving in the hand is perfectly legitimate. It is a more sanitary means of receiving as there is a reduced change that a virus is transmitted this way. It seems prudent that dioceses are now taking this precautionary step given the rapid spread of the virus.

Now, should you receive in the hand? Only you can make that choice… it comes down to your stylistic preference

 

[bb134570]

I think that you should still receive the Body but not the Blood.

 

[Paul_Edwards]

One would think, with the news coverage, that the Vatican is certainly aware that many bishops all over the world have issued these directives/suggestions. And yet, Rome has not issued a “you can’t do that” statement.

I wouldn’t be surprised in recent times lol.

Silence however does not mean consent where law is concerned, thankfully, otherwise we’d be in a right mess by now. That’s the beauty of having formal laws in place, such laws and rights protect us even when the lawmakers are not directly intervening in practice, or even when people are appointed who don’t want to say anything or stop certain things from going on. Until they actually issue a statement nothing will change and good priests can continue to give communion on the tongue and follow the universal law of the church which is objective and de facto thankfully

 

[tafan2]

No it’s not any safer. You are correct.

 

[Genesis315]

Under traditional principles, restricting the Eucharist to the priest’s hands was not absolute. “Necessity” or “urgency” could provide exceptions.

Even bringing large portions of the Eucharist home for self-communication was justified by necessity as St. Basil notes:

It is needless to point out that for anyone in times of persecution to be compelled to take the communion in his own hand without the presence of a priest or minister is not a serious offense, as long custom sanctions this practice from the facts themselves. All the solitaries in the desert, where there is no priest, take the communion themselves, keeping communion at home. And at Alexandria and in Egypt, each one of the laity, for the most part, keeps the communion, at his own house, and participates in it when he likes. For when once the priest has completed the offering, and given it, the recipient, participating in it each time as entire, is bound to believe that he properly takes and receives it from the giver. And even in the church, when the priest gives the portion, the recipient takes it with complete power over it, and so lifts it to his lips with his own hand. It has the same validity whether one portion or several portions are received from the priest at the same time.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3202093.htm

Even after the Church developed her tradition, for the sake of increased reverence and appreciation of the Sacrament, of only the priest handling it, necessity and urgency were still exceptions, as St. Thomas notes:

Thirdly, because out of reverence towards this sacrament, nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament. Hence it is not lawful for anyone else to touch it except from necessity, for instance, if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4082.htm#article3

When communion in the hand was haphazardly reintroduced some decades go, there clearly was no necessity nor increase in reverence. However, if it would help curb the spread of a pandemic (some people seem to think so, some don’t), it seems that would be a justification even under the older, more reverence-inspired practices.

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

The entire country of Italy is in lockdown. The Pope is going to be a good example in this crisis with what to do in Lent.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

To me both methods (all three of you add spoons in eastern catholics) seem to be no safer than other ones. Many viruses (flu, cold etc) are often caught by your hand (turning infected door knobs, touching infected areas…) and spread when you touch your eyes/nose/mouth… So I do not see receiving communion in the hand as much safer than on the tongue for Covid-19…

You are absolutely correct.

If the saliva of a person who has an infection (which they may not even know they have yet) gets on to the fingers of the priest or EMHC giving them Communion on the tongue, either because of direct touch, or because of breathing on them, the infection could be passed on to the next in line.

This could happen if the priest touches the communicants hand that has a germ on it also, passing it on to the next person.

 

[billwiz]

Hi, I am a Presbyterian well versed in Catholic theology. I keep seeing multiple posts on communion in hand vs. on tongue during the Corona outbreak. And I’m confused. Why are some so insistent on receiving on the tongue? Jesus most likely passed the bread around at the Last Supper and everyone took some.
Again, I understand Catholic theology regarding the body of Christ (and in no way want to insult your beliefs), I just don’t get the tongue/hand debate.

 

[SPONP4US]

I attend a few different parishes, the parish priest where I attend regular implied the “Advice” for COTH was an Order, apparently it is an encouragement and a guideline. When I attended my own Parish on Sunday , the Parish Priest said he didn’t mind if people receive COTT and said the reason the priest often catches Saliva is when people don’t keep their head still. If the recipient keeps their head still, tongue extended and head back (maybe hold breath too) then they should not make contact with the priest.

I am not feeling great about COTH but I may receive this way when I am outside of Parishes where I know the Priest allows it. I also will be licking my hand as the two times I have received there has been visible particles.

I also wanted to share this video, and ask everyone to please check the floor and that you don’t drop Our Lord or leave a residue on your hands. Please take a look:

 

[MagdalenaRita]

I’m confused. Why are some so insistent on receiving on the tongue? Jesus most likely passed the bread around at the Last Supper and everyone took some.
Again, I understand Catholic theology regarding the body of Christ (and in no way want to insult your beliefs), I just don’t get the tongue/hand debate.

As you stated when Catholics receive Communion they are receiving the actual body and blood of Christ. At the last supper we do not know for sure exactly how Jesus gave them the bread. We do know that the apostles were the start of the Catholic priesthood, which was a privilege given to them alone. A priest hands are consecrated so they are the hands that the Church has traditionally said should be handling Christ’s body. This is how it has been for decades. If we receive on the tongue we, whose hands have not been consecrated, or set apart for the sacred, are not handling or manipulating His body. This prevents any abuses from happening to our Lord’s body. It shows reverence and faith toward our Lord.

From the article below:

The Church’s preference for Communion on the tongue is nearly always justified by notions of reverence, devotion, humility, respect, adoration, and decorum. And while Pope John Paul II acknowledges those “who, receiving the Lord Jesus in the hand, do so with profound reverence and devotion” ( Dominicae Cenae 11), permission for Communion in the hand is accompanied by warnings of potential disrespect, profanation, weakening of Eucharistic faith, and indifference.

.Why Communion on the Tongue is More Suitable Than in the Hand| National Catholic Register

 

[OraLabora]

If people know how to receive COTT properly, then the priests’ fingers should not come into contact with a persons’ tongue. This was reiterated at my parish within the past month as a reminder of how to receive properly.

This supposes that everyone will do it right. If the risk of touching saliva is real if one doesn’t do it right, and is a vector to transmit the virus, then this is a very risky assumption to make. We are all humans after all and subject to failure.

A bishop or even a conference of bishops is a lesser authority than Rome. Therefore, in order to contradict Rome, a bishop would need to have authority from Rome.

What did Jesus say about doing acts of charity on the Sabbath when Jewish law prohibited any “work” on the Sabbath? Sabbath was meant to serve Mankind, not Mankind serve the Sabbath. The same can be said of Church Law. If we cannot accept that the Law cannot foresee all circumstances, and thus common sense measures be allowed in those circumstances, then we fall into a kind of Pharisaical rigidity that Jesus railed against. Rigour yes, rigidity, no.

Let’s take a concrete example outside religion. On an airliner the captain is supreme authority on board. And while these days the atmosphere in the cockpit is more collaborative than in the past, he still holds the last word. So assume that a crew is in a critical phase of flight, on approach to landing at a busy airport in IMC (instrument meteorological conditions), and the captain is the pilot flying. Assume he shows subtle signs of incapacitation, say from a silent heart attack or TIA and the co-pilot picks up on it; say through slow reflexes, slurred speech or some such. Now does the co-pilot follow air regulations exactly and radio the Chief Pilot on the ground for permission to take over control? No. He will say with authority “I have control”. If he was mistaken he will have some explaining to do with the Chief Pilot after landing. But if the captain’s level of consciousness continues to degrade, he will have saved the flight. Similarly here, do we await instructions from Rome, or does the bishop assess local conditions in his diocese and act accordingly? Viruses like this expand exponentially. I know what my answer would be.

And for all we know, perhaps the bishops have already spoken to Rome and Rome has simply replied “this is in your jurisdiction, you are in authority to act as you think best for the safety of your clergy and parishioners”.

So how about we give it a rest and accept that the bishops are acting in good faith? Obey if you can or make a spiritual communion if you can’t. Or go to an FSSP parish and hope that they haven’t decided to withhold communion altogether.