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

[Rau]

That (Abp Sample) matches my assessment. Interesting the archbishop decided he would consult the immunologist. One wonders what if the advice had been otherwise (as from other medical sources, it is…).

 

[Rau]

Why would any of those protocols be inadequate?

They might be adequate were only those in the COTT queue at risk. But given a heightened risk for those people, and the highly contagious nature of covid, all with whom they come into contact are subjected to heightened risk. All for the sake of what is mere convenience.

 

[Brendan]

They might be adequate were only those in the COTT queue at risk. But given a heightened risk for those people, and the highly contagious nature of covid, all with whom they come into contact are subjected to heightened risk. All for the sake of what is mere convenience.

Everyone receiving Communion is at risk, no matter if they are recieving COTT or CITH. As +Sample noted

They agreed that done properly the reception of Holy Communion on the tongue or in the hand pose a
more or less equal risk.

The risk of touching the tongue and passing the saliva on to
others is obviously a danger however the chance of touching someone’s hand is
equally probable and one’s hands have a greater exposure to germs.

so what is this ‘heighened risk’ that you refer to?

 

[goout]

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

Go to Mass and be obedient to the Church’s discipline and practice.
Receive in the hand.
Why is this even a question?

 

[OraLabora]

Why would any of those protocols be inadequate?

They don’t seem to take into consideration the risk to the minister, unless some part of the protocol is missing. Also, nor does it seem to take into account the risk to each successive communicant if there is contamination between the minister and a communicant. Unless one sanitizes after each communicant, possible maybe with only 1 or two receiving on the tongue, but less than convenient if a dozen are waiting in line at the end to receive on the tongue.

The practical matter is that risk of contact with saliva is very real and not infrequent. And I have this from the personal account of our abbey’s principal minister of Holy Communion, who is also runs the abbey’s infirmary. That is direct contact with the source of infection, if there is one.

Go to Mass and be obedient to the Church’s discipline and practice.
Receive in the hand.
Why is this even a question?

Indeed!

 

[Brendan]

They don’t seem to take into consideration the risk to the minister, unless some part of the protocol is missing. Also, nor does it seem to take into account the risk to each successive communicant if there is contamination between the minister and a communicant. Unless one sanitizes after each communicant, possible maybe with only 1 or two receiving on the tongue, but less than convenient if a dozen are waiting in line at the end to receive on the tongue.

In our Archdiocese, the protocol is for the minister to sanitize their hand if they come in contact with the recipent, either their hand or their tongue. If the minister touches either the hand or saliva, they sanitize.

If you take a look at the protocol for my Archdiocese, you will see that the Archbishop recommends that either their be a seperate minister for COTT ( as is done in my parish, all those who wish to recieve COTT sit in one section), or that those that wish for COTT wait, and come up last, ( as is done at my parent’s parish).

That is direct contact with the source of infection, if there is one.

The hands are also a source of infection, that is why we are all asked to wash our hands frequently.

Why is there so much disobedience to the instructions of the Church here? All of it is so easily fullfiled, yet there contintue to be calls for bishops to disobey the teaching of the Church.

If someone desires to recieve CITH, great, that is their right in most diocese, if someone desires to receive COTT, that to is there right.

That is Church teaching. Reiterated in Redemptionis Sacramentum. Are We all not asked to be obedient to that as well? If anyone doesn’t like it, Rome is the place to petition. Please feel free to do so.

 

[Brendan]

Go to Mass and be obedient to the Church’s discipline and practice.
Receive in the hand.
Why is this even a question?

You are free to recommend that, but Church teaching very specifically states that the decision on the mode resides with the faithful. Any attempt to deny someone COTT is an act of disobedience.

 

[OraLabora]

You are free to recommend that, but Church teaching very specifically states that the decision on the mode resides with the faithful. Any attempt to deny someone COTT is an act of disobedience.

In normal circumstances. These are not normal circumstances.

I recognize that some cultures stick to the letter of the law. Some like mine accept that the spirit of the law requires obedience, but also common-sense relaxation of the rules in unforeseen circumstances.

Jesus seemed very clear on that with Mosaic law. I don’t think He came to free us from the inflexible constraints of Jewish Law to only have His Church develop equally constrictive laws on issues of very little moral impact.

It is quite simply an another form of legalism.

It ends up being a battle of two different philosophies of law. Logically, the legalists win the argument, but at the risk of losing souls. So nobody really wins, and it becomes a pointless exercise.

 

[Rau]

so what is this ‘heighened risk’ that you refer to?

The risk that might suggest those demanding COTT be served in a different queue!

Note that this debate is NOT about medical risk of COTH vs COTT. Those harping on about how the rule is sacrosanct have been clear on that point! They have made the debate is about whether this particular rule ought be literally followed notwithstanding assumed increased risk to public health in the midst of a pandemic.

 

[Rau]

It is quite simply an another form of legalism.

Yes! It is mind blowing that a rule made to see that priests retain a practice available is being elevated to a teaching - a moral imperative - that must have no exceptions. Just like the negative precepts “Thou shall’t not…”. And the primary rationale offered for why this rule (which is no more than discipline for our convenience) should be followed in every circumstance is that…”it’s a rule”!

 

[Maximian]

there’s no problem.

Obviously therecis a problem. Just asserting that there isn’t does not really help.

 

[Montrose]

There is a third option of course. Receiving Communion is only mandatory once a year during the Easter period. Before anyone jumps in and says that is true but the Church strongly recommends receiving regularly that is during normal times which this is not.
During this health crisis a person could simply choose not to receive.

 

[Brendan]

I recognize that some cultures stick to the letter of the law. Some like mine accept that the spirit of the law requires obedience, but also common-sense relaxation of the rules in unforeseen circumstances

We already discuss the ‘spirit of the law’ earlier in the thread. The Spirit of the Law is determined by the one who CREATES the law, not the one who RECIEVES it. In this case the spirit of the law is determined by the CDWDS.

And that is reenforced in Canon 16.

It ends up being a battle of two different philosophies of law. Logically, the legalists win the argument , but at the risk of losing souls . So nobody really wins, and it becomes a pointless exercise

The question then becomes, how does the CHURCH interpret this law? And it has already been posted on how the CHURCH interpreted the law during H1N1. That is why we have a Magisterium and a Church hierarchy.

 

[Brendan]

The risk that might suggest those demanding COTT be served in a different queue!

Note that this debate is NOT about medical risk of COTH vs COTT. Those harping on about how the rule is sacrosanct have been clear on that point! They have made the debate is about whether this particular rule ought be literally followed notwithstanding assumed increased risk to public health in the midst of a pandemic.

Your post is a bit confusing. At first you mention that it does not involve the discussion of the medical risks between COTT and CITH, but then again mention the assumed risk in the midst of a pandemic

The discussion would go hand in hand, would it not.

Also, I never claimed that the rule was sacrosanct, only that a change would have to come from the CDWDS, not from any lower authority.

It is a disciple that the Church can change at any time, but it is the appropriate authority in the Church that must do so, a lower authority can seek to have the rule changed, or a dispensation granted.

The risk that might suggest those demanding COTT be served in a different queue!

Or, as both you and Ora pointed out, the concern is really about inconviencinng other parishioners in case the minister must take additional time to follow the protocols.

Having a seperate line or waiting to the end would alleviate the inconvienience. The actual risk is no different.

 

[OraLabora]

The Spirit of the Law is determined by the one who CREATES the law, not the one who RECIEVES it.

Not in our culture. If the law imposes an injustice because of an unforeseen circumstance, we use our common sense and ignore the precept that causes difficulty, or in this case, suspend it until circumstances return to normal. Yours is a very legalistic approach that is antithetical to French Québec culture.

 

[Brendan]

Not in our culture. If the law imposes an injustice because of an unforeseen circumstance, we use our common sense and ignore the precept that causes difficulty, or in this case, suspend it until circumstances return to normal. Yours is a very legalistic approach that is antithetical to French Québec culture.

Actually, I was referring to Church law.

Can. 16 §1. The legislator authentically interprets laws as does the one to whom the same legislator has entrusted the power of authentically interpreting.

And yes, I am very familar with Quebec. My wife is from Drummondville, and most of my inlaws are in Quebec.

They are avid hunters, and no personal claim of ‘spirit of the law’ would get them out of poaching an moose. They would most certainly be brought in front of a court, fined, and have their hunting privlidges removed. Quebec courts do have a repuation of leniency in some regards, they are quite sticklers in others. And ’ I could not buy a license because I was afraid of Covid’ would not count for much to a Quebec judge.

 

[OraLabora]

Well our bishops, and our abbey, mandated communion in the hand before churches were locked down. I rather doubt it was in the spirit of mass disobedience, but rather the common sense my folk are known for.

Our abbey, even though not under the jurisdiction of the bishops, also mandated communion in the hand until lockdown. As my spiritual director says, « we are not a parish; it is a conventual Mass where we open our doors to the public; if they don’t like our usages they are free to attend Mass elsewhere ».

And in parishes, the faithful are free to refrain from communion if they don’t like the bishop’s directives. Or swallow their pride and receive in the hand. I’m pretty sure any complaints to the bishops wouldn’t gain much traction.

 

[Diaconia]

Also, I never claimed that the rule was sacrosanct, only that a change would have to come from the CDWDS, not from any lower authority.

While this is admirable, under normal circumstances would work. But not in the middle of a pandemic that requires quick decision-making.

Priests (and, even moreso, bishops) made, and continue to make, game-time decisions. Some have said no receiving on the tongue. That’s it. Anyone faulting a priest or bishop for that is mistaken. People can elect not to receive at all if not on the tongue in those areas.

When the pandemic is under control, things will return, it’s not a forever change.

Deacon Christopher

 

[Anesti33]

There was certainly rapid response from the dicastery (Apostolic Penitentiary?) that weighed in on general absolution (i.e. they repeated all the specific norms already in place and said there is no variance for the pandemic.)

And the CDWDS certainly weighed in during the last pandemic and said no way, you are not allowed to discontinue COTT, so I don’t see the difference between pandemics that will allow bishops to suddenly make novel legislation?

Now there are drastic, semi-permanent changes to the fundamental structure of the Mass and the CDWDS remains silent. I think it’s time for them to grow a spine and say how they feel about these things.

 

[Diaconia]

And the CDWDS certainly weighed in during the last pandemic and said no way, you are not allowed to discontinue COTT, so I don’t see the difference between pandemics that will allow bishops to suddenly make novel legislation?

Well, that’s above my pay-grade, I am just a deacon, a member of the lower-archy.

I do know that bishops (and to a lesser extent, priests) are getting bombarded on multiple sides about these sorts of things during the pandemic: Government leaders, health officials, lay faithful, lawyers, etc. Pray for all the clergy during these troubling times.

Deacon Christopher