Diocese mandating Communion in hand due to epidemic

  • Thread starter Thread starter savedbychrist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The consecrated elements of bread and wine become, by consecration, Jesus Himself - who, of course, will not make anyone sick! But unhealthy germs and viruses can get put into the Cup, and onto the consecrated Host by sick people - and these disease-causing agents are not part of the Eucharist. They remain separate substances, but once in or on the consecrated elements, they can be received along with the Holy Eucharist. Thus normal care must be taken to transfer the Eucharist to the faithful in as clean a way as possible.
 
Last edited:
Six of one, half a dozen of the other…

The Priest and EMHC could be asymptomatic and shedding the virus. You could become infected from a nearby cough, the sign of peace, a sneeze, or a dirty door handle.

As usual, there’s a lot of hysteria and panic over a virus that even the W.H.O. Says “Is Not a Global Emergency”.
 
How dare they offer Communion to anyone? Just touching a stranger’s hand could communicate the virus, right?
Why not just say - - no distribution until the epidemic is over?
 
Cruciferi said:
As usual, there’s a lot of hysteria and panic over a virus that even the W.H.O. Says “Is Not a Global Emergency”.
Click to expand...
In Asian countries, they take virus transmission very seriously, partly because of the population density and perhaps also because the medical care there is not as extensive as some Western countries. If they had a whole bunch of people get sick at once, they might not be able to handle it.

As an example, if you are a citizen of some of those countries and you go abroad and when you return home, you have a little cold or sniffle, they might not let you back into your home country as you’re considered a health risk.
Also in some places, the wearing of facemasks in public is considered good manners as well as good health.
 
Last edited:
This change is good news…

The action to limit to receiving the hand is both perfectly fine, but responsible by the diocese.
It is an action that is in the best interest of everyone. Not unlike when a diocese chooses not to offer the chalice during flu season in order to reduce the spread of illness or when the decision is taken to eliminate the sign of peace to reduce the spread of illness… there is no reason to go bananas over this and we should show respect for the responsible authorities decision without spreading outrage over a perfectly legitimate decision .

By the way, receiving in the hand is both reverent and accepted as legitimate in the Church. we should not undermine that fact.
 
Last edited:
If one is willing to trust in God regarding how they receive the Eucharist, then why not be consistent, and trust that God is able to lead the Church into all truth, like promised, allowing for this type of reception? After all, we are not Protestants subject to each deciding truth according to our own interpretations of Scripture and tradition.
 
fide said:
The consecrated elements of bread and wine become, by consecration, Jesus Himself - who, of course, will not make anyone sick!
Click to expand...
The consecrated species don’t change in their accidents: that is, in their physical properties. Our Lord won’t make anyone sick, but species with the same accidental properties as a substance that could transmit disease has the same capacity to physically transmit disease. That capacity is low, but just to be clear we are not taught anywhere that consecration changes it.
Cruciferi said:
The Priest and EMHC could be asymptomatic and shedding the virus. You could become infected from a nearby cough, the sign of peace, a sneeze, or a dirty door handle.
Click to expand...
The sign of Peace is usually also restricted to ways that don’t involve touching, but I agree with you. Distributing Holy Communion as it is usually done at Mass probably does not change the overall risk of being in a crowd of involuntarily-sneezing humans to any measurable extent. If you don’t want to get sick, if you want to contain an epidemic, stay away from places where crowds of people spend an hour in close quarters, especially if you are in the second crowd that follows the earlier crowd that assembled in the same space.

This virus probably came from a market that sold live animals. It’s pretty unlikely that anybody was kissing their purchases. That implies that suspended droplets of cough or sneeze that get onto the face or hands of the victims are a route of transmission.
Cruciferi said:
As usual, there’s a lot of hysteria and panic over a virus that even the W.H.O. Says “Is Not a Global Emergency”.
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree with taking measures to protect people who are vulnerable to serious consequences if they contract a disease that is not so serious if a strong person contracts it. No, this disease probably isn’t going to be the Spanish flu of 1918. Yes, it is worth taking extra measures when there is a virus going around that presents a threat to the most vulnerable populations.

I’m more in the camp that believes that it is more important to pay attention to the routes most likely to transmit disease rather than the unlikely ones, even if measures that attempt to prevent the less-likely modes of transmission are the easiest to implement.

As I said: if I were asked to receive one way and not the other, I’d just comply. I don’t blame anyone who feels strongly that they do not want to recieve except directly on the tongue. Their reasons are important; that is why they have the right to receive in that manner. Yes, I understand that this right could be suspended for very important reasons. I just think from a scientific standpoint it is probably quite rare when assembling in big crowds is safe but receiving on the tongue is too dangerous to allow.
 
Last edited:
I was under impression that communion in hand was originally designed (or re-introduced, if you will) to be used in situations like these. Otherwise it would not even exist, no? This seems like one of legitimate reasons for this… and you need to also understand that this is temporary.

Communion in hand being optional is an exception… many countries do not allow it. In my country (Slovakia), if you came over to Priest (or EMCH for that matter) with intent to receive communion in hand and not on tongue, you would probably get confused look and many do not even know it is practice outside our country. Even if Priest would recognize your intent (and went against Bishop’s conference) and actually gave you Eucharist that way, you would be expected to take it, and while facing the Priest receive it, and then leave. That is how practice ought to be and how it prevents someone stealing the Eucharist. But I have yet to see anyone receive in hand in our country.
 
OrbisNonSufficit said:
I was under impression that communion in hand was originally designed (or re-introduced, if you will) to be used in situations like these.
Click to expand...
What is your source? I have to admit I have never heard that suggestion before. I don’t think the history of distributing Holy Communion in the hand had anything to do with disease prevention. If it had, it would have been odd to introduce reception of Holy Communion under both species in the same time frame.
OrbisNonSufficit said:
Even if Priest would recognize your intent (and went against Bishop’s conference) and actually gave you Eucharist that way, you would be expected to take it, and while facing the Priest receive it, and then leave.
Click to expand...
That is how it is done in our archdiocese: that is, extraordinary ministers are instructed to pay attention so as to ensure that the communicant actually consumes the Sacred Host before walking away.
 
PetraG said:
What is your source?
Click to expand...
I admit that it was just my impression. I have no source. I might have mistaken it with why chalice stopped being offered to the laity… or just had wrong impression all along. Still, I do believe that in situations like those, it is legitimate to limit form of reception of the Eucharist. I don’t think I ever received in hand (perhaps once at Mass where Pope Francis was present and number of communicants was so high it was somewhat chaotic for poor EMCHs to administer on the tongue), and I like receiving on the tongue. But epidemic is case of necessity- I doubt Bishop is doing this to abolish tradition or to deprive the faithful of their right to receive on tongue by this.
PetraG said:
That is how it is done in our archdiocese
Click to expand...
Nice. I heard that this is the norm. That said, I study outside my country and attend Masses there often, and people there tend to sometimes turn around and then consume the Eucharist. I am not saying they are stealing it or anything, (in-fact my impression is that they still treat it with reverence) just that possibility of it is a bit higher. At the same time, receiving on tongue in that country is also somewhat common and EMCHs as well as Priests are used to both.
 
I am not going to get into the CITH versus COTT debate. I receive COTT for reasons of tradition, personal piety, and the possibility of unseen (not invisible, just unseen) particles. As for the latter, my close-up vision is not the best, and I could miss a particle. I don’t want that to happen. I also do not wish to be dabbing my palm with my tongue, if I did see a particle.

I would just say that no one has to receive communion — unless it is the last opportunity in the year for them to make their Easter duty (I have actually been in that circumstance!) — aside from the priest. It is generally not understood, that one who is not impeded from receiving communion (by mortal sin or failure to fast) may simply decline to receive for any reason or no reason whatsoever, as long as the reason is not one of impiety (and even then, the sin would be in the impiety, not in the failure to receive). If there were an epidemic bad enough, I would be all in favor of not distributing communion at all. People would go nuts over this, no doubt, but it is a possibility — it violates nothing of the essence of the Mass. I don’t know if it is ever exercised in the Church in modern times.
po18guy said:
“Lord, I’m sorry that I refused communion. You see, they wanted to place the Host in my hand! No way!”

“My child, it is your hands that do my work…”

“Well, we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that”
Click to expand...
Our Lord would never condemn anyone who exercised the perfectly legitimate option of declining communion at a particular Mass. See my comments above.

If there is an epidemic bad enough, I would also favor cancelling all Masses. I’m not a huge fan of corralling hundreds of people together in an enclosed space during such things as flu epidemics.

Also, there is nothing that miraculously prevents the Eucharistic species from transmitting disease. The species retain all accidents of bread and wine, including the possibility of disease transmission. Again, if things are that bad, either limit communion to the priest only, or cancel Mass altogether.
 
Last edited:
Well, I really don’t think that this question should have riled people up so much. I think that it is a perfectly reasonable idea to want to limit the spread of this seemingly aggressive coronavirus by temporarily stopping the reception of Communion on the tongue. Now, that being said, I would say that priests who know what they are doing in distributing Communion on the tongue do not get their fingers on my tongue. Only those who are not as experienced do that, and it is unfortunate because it can be avoided. As such, I often feel that it’s actually more sanitary to receive on the tongue because so many germs get on our hands and if we aren’t able to wash them before Mass, then all of that will have the opportunity to get in our mouth if we receive in the hand. Nevertheless, after a preliminary search, it seems that researchers discovered that the SARS CoV from the 2002-2003 China outbreak was found in saliva. Furthermore, it seemed to spread via droplet transmission. Therefore, I believe that they are right to stop Communion on the tongue for this related disease.

May God bless you all! 🙂
 
savedbychrist said:
I would like to see if I am being reasonable before reaching out to the Bishop
Click to expand...
The bishop in this instance is an 80-year-old cardinal with a doctorate in dogmatic theology. It is unlikely that you will persuade him that he is wrong, but you can probably expect to receive a courteous reply.
 
From our beloved Saint Benedicts Cathedral…

They have stopped asking us to give each other the sign of peace and to quietly pray for it, and stopped offering the cup…covered in another thread here also…

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
That doesn’t make any sense to me. I receive the Host from the priest’s hand…he doesn’t put his hand into my mouth nor even on the lips. He has washed his hands prior to Mass ( I assume). Receiving it by hand means a plethora of ministers etc. No I don’t understand this. I am less likely to receive any contamination in the current mode of the Mass I attend.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
If there is an epidemic bad enough, I would also favor cancelling all Masses. I’m not a huge fan of corralling hundreds of people together in an enclosed space during such things as flu epidemics.

Also, there is nothing that miraculously prevents the Eucharistic species from transmitting disease. The species retain all accidents of bread and wine, including the possibility of disease transmission. Again, if things are that bad, either limit communion to the priest only, or cancel Mass altogether.
Click to expand...
This is more realistic. Practically speaking, it seems that in cases where the very small threat of disease transmission posed by distributing Holy Communion on the tongue is too dangerous to allow, even though that is a right of any of the faithful who are properly disposed to receive Holy Communion, then it is not safe to allow the faithful to gather in close quarters and in large groups at all. After all, that is known to be a risk factor for spreading diseases that are transmitted when victims inhale droplets that inevitably get into the air via coughing and sneezing by infected persons.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top