If communion in the hand is mandated what should those who normally receive on the tongue do?

[Rau]

If that authority is to be revoked, it must be done by the CDWDS, as the were the originators of the instruction.

It is as simple as that. The bishop may request, but not command.

Ok, this clarifies it. It’s just a procedural issue. The storm in this tea cup will go away when the appropriate church authority makes the appropriate adjustment to the letter of the rule.

Since the Church has given the authority to decide on the of the reception to the individual member of the faithful, to deny that would be an act of injustice.

Another way to look at this is to recognise the original error in not allowing for circumstances not foreseen eg. Pandemics.

 

[Brendan]

Another way to look at this is to recognise the original error in not allowing for circumstances not foreseen eg. Pandemics.

In that regard, the Church already looked at it, in 2009, when a bishop in the UK attempted to prohibit COTT during the H1N1 pandemic, the CDWDS ruled that the bishop was in error.

Ok, this clarifies it. It’s just a procedural issue. The storm in this tea cup will go away when the appropriate church authority makes the appropriate adjustment to the letter of the rule.

I would say ‘IF’ the appropriate Church Authority ( CDWDS or the Pope himself) changes the law, until then, the consistant Church teaching has been that COTT is always an option for the faithful, even in the midst of a pandemic. Until then, the bishop simply does not have the authority to make that change unilateratly.

And that is more than procedural, it is a good practice of virtue, how could a bishop expect obedience to his legitimate directives if he himself does not show obedience to the directives placed upon him?

 

[YADA]

Italy's priests told to take steps at mass to counter coronavirus | Italy | The Guardian

The United States is not the only Country that has recommended Communion in the hand over on the tongue, Italy did as well … and recommended that those recieving on the tongue abstain is they had any symptoms … since this article was from February - before we knew how many people were asymptomatic and therefore would not have symptoms … .my thoughts are the faithful should either abstain or submit to receiving on the hand.

Our very small country parish does not have a full time priest. We and the nearby mission have a retired priest who was brought out of retirement to provide Mass - this man is in his eighties - I am sure there is not one person who wants to take the chance of spreading COVID-19 to this person who has been serving our community the last three years. We are just so thankful that he is able to do what he can for us. He is pretty frail at times.

 

[Rau]

until then, the consistant Church teaching has been that COTT is always an option for the faithful, even in the midst of a pandemic.

It’s a teaching? Or is it a practice Governed by a rule? Certainly if the church were to announce that it clings to that rule - “you must offer the option no matter the public health risks” - then I see no difficulty in doubting the wisdom of those rule makers. I’m pleased to see the bulk of Bishops see their real duty more clearly than some others.

 

[Rau]

And that is more than procedural, it is a good practice of virtue, how could a bishop expect obedience to his legitimate directives if he himself does not show obedience to the directives placed upon him?

No good bishop Can expect obedience when he acts contrary to the good. Nor should any rule-maker.

 

[Rau]

In that regard, the Church already looked at it, in 2009, when a bishop in the UK attempted to prohibit COTT during the H1N1 pandemic, the CDWDS ruled that the bishop was in error.

I’d be interested to read that ruling or anything authoritative on it if you can provide a reference/link.

 

[Brendan]

I’d be interested to read that ruling or anything authoritative on it if you can provide a reference/link.

IanM posted the CDWDS response earlier in this thread

If communion in the hand is mandated what should those who normally receive on the tongue do? Liturgy and Sacraments

[image]

Bit more here

RORATE CÆLI: It is not licit to deny communion on the tongue due to H1N1

 

[Rau]

IanM posted the CDWDS response earlier in this thread

No real context given which is unfortunate. Nor is there any evidence of a thoughtful response. Just a consulting of the “rule”.

 

[Brendan]

No real context given which is unfortunate. Nor is there any evidence of a thoughtful response. Just a consulting of the “rule”.

My second link had the context, which is about as much as the CDWDS published is Notatie. As for the response, why would reiterating the rule not be thoughful if there was no reason for the rule to have been revised?

 

[Montrose]

It’s a teaching? Or is it a practice Governed by a rule? Certainly if the church were to announce that it clings to that rule - “you must offer the option no matter the public health risks” - then I see no difficulty in doubting the wisdom of those rule makers. I’m pleased to see the bulk of Bishops see their real duty more clearly than some others.

Receiving in the hand or on the tongue is not a teaching. It is a discipline. Disciplines can be changed.

 

[Rau]

As for the response, why would reiterating the rule not be thoughful if there was no reason for the rule to have been revised?

Because such would be indistinguishable from a mindless unthinking response.

 

[Anesti33]

It is not a mindless, unthinking response, it is a directive by the highest authority on Earth regarding a matter which is informed by 2000 years of praxis and law, and I take issue with you calling the Eminences in this dicastery “mindless”.

Consider this: Pope St. John Paul the Great’s Ordinatio sacerdotalis essentially said: we have no authority to ordain woman priests because it has always been this way, and so it always will. That was the strongest case law St. JPG had to bolster his case against women’s ordination.

I would say that the same applies to COTT. Holy Communion has always and everywhere been administered on the tongue, whether in the Greek Church or the Latin, in all documented history, there has never been a prohibition or even a lapse in the practice. Therefore there can be no prohibition now or in the future, no matter what the circumstances; it is a right of the faithful not to be infringed because of a mere pandemic.

 

[YADA]

Holy Communion In The Hand (Norm Till 500-900 AD) | Dave Armstrong

 

[Anesti33]

Um, so what? Is there some evidence of the absence of COTT? No, I didn’t think so.

(As I said, the Greek Church existed alongside the Church you cite in this article, and the Greek Church has not recently changed their praxis.)

 

[Rau]

It is not a mindless, unthinking response,

I didn’t say that it was. I said it would be indistinguishable from one.

informed by 2000 years of praxis and law,

Praxis and law in matters not including public health.

Therefore there can be no prohibition now or in the future, no matter what the circumstances; it is a right of the faithful not to be infringed because of a mere pandemic.

That’s your assertion. A great many bishops seem to disagree as they have placed concern for the flock ahead of the literal reading of a rule.

Holy Communion has always and everywhere been administered on the tongue,

Are you sure about that?

 

[Organist78]

As I said in the post: experience.

 

[Diaconia]

(As I said, the Greek Church existed alongside the Church you cite in this article, and the Greek Church has not recently changed their praxis.)

Eastern-wise, most of the discussion of the Eparchs has been around whether to Commune the faithful: (1) in the normal way, with a spoon, (2) by intinction - in Melkite fashion, or (3) not at all.

As you might imagine, the responses have varied from “you don’t have faith if you don’t want to receive normally,” to “keeping people alive by not infecting each other is the pressing concern.” As a bonus, one Eparch says that no one has ever become sick from Communing by spoon in the chalice for 2,000 years. Through all the diseases and plagues of the last two millennia. YMMV

FYI — We actually don’t say “on the tongue,” because we do not want anyone to stick their tongue out. Just open your mouth wide, tilt your head back, and receive. We “feed” the faithful, not distribute.

One different thing the Ukrainians are doing in the USA — the clergy are dipping their own piece of the Lamb into the Chalice. We normally Commune each kind separately, with specific prayers for each. It’s a big deal to modify that.

At the end of Divine Liturgy the deacon consumes all the Gifts that remain, and drinks all the Blood. So, not sure the intinction modification thing does much for the deacon.

Fr. Deacon Christopher

 

[Brendan]

I didn’t say that it was. I said it would be indistinguishable from one.

It would be indistinguishable, if one presumed that the CDWDS issues mindless responses. I personally do not think that they do.

That’s your assertion. A great many bishops seem to disagree as they have placed concern for the flock ahead of the literal reading of a rule.

Would you hold that that bishops who do permit it are NOT concerned, or have LESS concern, about their flock?

 

[Rau]

It would be indistinguishable, if obe presumed that the CDWDS issues mindless responses. I personally do not think that they do.

One only need to presume they are not incapable of one.

Would you hold that that bishops who do permit it are NOT concerned, or have LESS concern, about their flock?

I understand the motivation of the many bishops who have acted (to withhold COTT) on the grounds of a public health concern. I have not heard a convincing justification to not act. My presumption is that those few who persist in COTT at this time take it on themselves to conclude they are not placing anyone at unnecessary risk. For I cannot believe any bishop would place their flock at risk for the sake of a rule serving the mere convenience of some.

 

[Brendan]

One only need to presume they are not incapable of one.

Have you seen any evidence that the CDWDS did not give due thought to its past decisions

I understand the motivation of the many bishops who have acted (to withhold COTT) on the grounds of a public health concern. I have not heard a convincing justification to not act. My presumption is that those few who persist in COTT at this time take it on themselves to conclude they are not placing anyone at unnecessary risk. For I cannot believe any bishop would place their flock at risk for the sake of a rule serving the mere convenience of some

Did you read Archbishop Sample ( Portland, OR) instructions?

https://d2y1pz2y630308.cloudfront.net/12494/documents/2020/3/Further Considerations March 2020.pdf

.And my own Archbishop

COVID-19 Response and Reccomendations - Archdiocese of Detroit

1. The faithful have a right to receive Holy Communion in the hand or on the tongue.

a. Receiving Holy Communion on the tongue could cause concern for some parishioners following behind (in the line for Holy Communion) about spreading droplets to the fingers of the minister via breath.
b. Options for handling this fear includes:
i. Ask those receiving on the tongue to please receive last
ii. Have a designated minister for Holy Communion for those who wish to receive on the tongue

Why would any of those protocols be inadequate?