Is anyone changing the way they receive communion because of the swine flu?

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

I take issue with the use of the word “right.” Just because something may be permitted under certain circumstances, does not mean that this is a right.

The USCCB has not left this up to the bishops. The indult applies to all the territory of the USCCB. Yes, the bishop is the moderator of the liturgy within his diocese, but again that’s not the same thing as saying that a right exists for the faithful to receive this way. It is an option. It is a decision to be made by the communicant, but not a right by any means.

It is also the responsibility of the priest to ensure that Communion in the hand is not done if there is any danger of disrespect for the Eucharist. That means that he has to be the judge of whether or not to allow this for each individual communicant. This isn’t to be taken lightly, nor to be done arbitrarily–he can’t say “I feel it’s always irreverent to receive in the hand, so I don’t do it.” If this were indeed a right, the priest would not have the responsibility of deciding here.

I’ll make the same offer: If you can show where the Church says that there is a right to receive Communion in the hand, I’ll give you a turkey. And keep in mind that the Church has said many times that reception on the tongue is indeed a right, so it’s not as if this matter hasn’t been addressed.

Hi again,

I haven’t seen the word “right” used in any official document—I think it is a very poor choice of words when speaking of manner of reception of Holy Communion. Whose rights take priority? I believe putting your fingers in any one’s mouth is far more dangerous during flu season, especialy if I am the next communicant, but you believe someone has a “right” to put me at greater risk. What about a bishop’s “right” to shepherd his flock? If you bishop told you to discourage reception on the tongue, would you obey?

But back to documents—from the GIRM

1. The priest then takes the paten or ciborium and goes to the communicants, who, as a rule, approach in a procession.

The faithful are not permitted to take the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them from one to another. The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.

When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the Sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood.

discretion–3 a: individual choice or judgment b: power of free decision or latitude of choice within certain legal bounds <reached the age of discretion

1. discretion - freedom to act or judge on one’s own
   liberty - freedom of choice; “liberty of opinion”; “liberty of worship”; “liberty–perfect liberty–to think or feel or do just as one pleases”; “at liberty to choose whatever occupation one wishes”

and look at liberty- 2 a: a right or immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant : privilege b: permission especially to go freely within specified limits

Lux

 

[FrDavid96]

Hi again,

I haven’t seen the word “right” used in any official document—I think it is a very poor choice of words when speaking of manner of reception of Holy Communion. Whose rights take priority? I believe putting your fingers in any one’s mouth is far more dangerous during flu season, especialy if I am the next communicant, but you believe someone has a “right” to put me at greater risk. What about a bishop’s “right” to shepherd his flock? If you bishop told you to discourage reception on the tongue, would you obey?

But back to documents—from the GIRM

discretion–3 a: individual choice or judgment b: power of free decision or latitude of choice within certain legal bounds <reached the age of discretion

1. discretion - freedom to act or judge on one’s own
   liberty - freedom of choice; “liberty of opinion”; “liberty of worship”; “liberty–perfect liberty–to think or feel or do just as one pleases”; “at liberty to choose whatever occupation one wishes”

and look at liberty- 2 a: a right or immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant : privilege b: permission especially to go freely within specified limits

Lux

I suggest you read an official Church document called Redemptionis Sacramentum:

[92.] Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice, if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to thefaithful.

The wording here is very clear. There is a right to receive Communion on the tongue. There is an option/choice of receiving on the hand under certain circumstances. R.S. makes a clear distinction between the right to receive on the tongue and the potential option of receiving on the hand.

If I ever meet HE Francis Cardinal Arinze, I’ll pass along that you think " think it is a very poor choice of words when speaking of manner of reception of Holy Communion"

No one is talking about putting one’s fingers into anyone’s mouth. That’s not how Holy Communion is distributed.

As for the bishop’s authority, this is what the Church has to say in Redemptionis Sacramentum:

[24.] It is the right of the Christian people themselves that their diocesan Bishop should take care to prevent the occurrence of abuses in ecclesiastical discipline, especially as regards the ministry of the word, the celebration of the sacraments and sacramentals, the worship of God and devotion to the Saints.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

OK, fair enough. Do you think that charity might sometimes be better served if we do not demand every right? What of my right to be put less at risk? You have not shown that second hand contact is more risky than first hand, nor have you responded to the fact that many have experienced the contact I mentioned with reception on the tongue.

What of the Bishops instructions? And this still sounds like a “right” to me

1. The priest then takes the paten or ciborium and goes to the communicants, who, as a rule, approach in a procession.

The faithful are not permitted to take the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them from one to another. The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.

When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the Sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood.

Hopefully no Bishop will suspend public Communion because people demand their “right” to receive on the tongue.

Lux

 

[FrDavid96]

OK, fair enough. Do you think that charity might sometimes be better served if we do not demand every right? What of my right to be put less at risk? You have not shown that second hand contact is more risky than first hand, nor have you responded to the fact that many have experienced the contact I mentioned with reception on the tongue.

What of the Bishops instructions? And this still sounds like a “right” to me

Hopefully no Bishop will suspend public Communion because people demand their “right” to receive on the tongue.

Lux

There is no additional risk when people receive on the tongue–I have responded at length to that.

And again, to respond to your “fact” that many have experienced contact, I have likewise responded at length. When Communion on the tongue is distributed properly there is very little risk of coming into contact with the Communicant’s mouth.

On the other hand, you have yet to attempt to show how reception of Communion on the tongue increases the risk of spreading any flu, especially in the context of the fact that germs are already being spread in the church by people’s hands.

 

[paperwight]

When Communion on the tongue is distributed properly there is very little risk of coming into contact with the Communicant’s mouth. (QUOTE)

I have been an EMHC for 20 years. Believe me, I am very careful to distribute properly.

But the problem I’ve found is the communicants, not my method. There’s only a small number in our parish who receive on the tongue, but of those, at least half ‘hump up’ their tongue but barely open their mouths. This means, to position the Host on their tongue means making contact with the tongue - there’s no space round the Host for my fingers to go, if you see what I mean. Now, I could just almost throw the Host in, (I’m really sorry if this sounds irreverent, but the image of a frisbee comes to mind); that would avoid contact, but would risk the Host not getting far enough in.

So I have to do the best I can and surruptitiously wipe my fingers on my jacket under cover of holding the ciborium to my chest before ministering to the next communicant, hoping I’m not showing an expression of distaste. Occasionally, and to my horror, I realise that I haven’t done a good enough job of wiping the saliva off my fingers because the next Host sticks to them.

Lucky you, if you never come across this problem. What am I supposed to do - hiss at them to open wide as if I were a dentist?

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

There is no additional risk when people receive on the tongue–I have responded at length to that.

You have responded in length, but haave not given any documentation for your speculation.

Obviously first hand contact is more risky than second hand, which is the reason for the name second hand

And again, to respond to your “fact” that many have experienced contact, I have likewise responded at length. When Communion on the tongue is distributed properly there is very little risk of coming into contact with the Communicant’s mouth

.

Again–many have reported contact both as distributing and receiving, so you cannot say there is no risk. So the fact is that there is certainly a real risk.

On the other hand, you have yet to attempt to show how reception of Communion on the tongue increases the risk of spreading any flu, especially in the context of the fact that germs are already being spread in the church by people’s hands

First hand contact is more risky than second hand contact. This is just common sense, as well as a medical fact, and no amount of denial will change this.

Lux

 

[rinnie]

Nope, here’s the way I see it. When its your time, its your time. If I would get the swine flu by receiving the Bread and Body of Christ and die, what a way to go! I will take my chances! I believe that the Bread and wine of our Lord is our Lord himself. No worry’s there. If God can create us, forgive our sin, take away death, and help me the way he does with my Problems. the swine flu is nothing!

Personally I think its just the goverment trying to get our mind on other things. Like how our 401k is a 201k and will probally be a 1k when its all said and done!

Swine flu just another distraction!

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Thanks paperwight,

I totally agree. I really prefer to distribute in the hand, although I would never force this on anyone. I really can’t understand why someone wouldn’t respect the instructioons of their Bishop (and common sense during a difficult time), rather than demand a “right”.

Lux

 

[marytk]

What bothers me is the attitude that “I trust God that I won’t get sick by receiving on the tongue.” Well the problem here isn’t just THAT person. It is if he has a virus and there is contact that could be spread to everyone in line after him.
(Personally I am in the take a risk group, IF it only involves ME getting sick. So If I have a cold I won’t receive the cup. I don’t worry about getting sick from others though.

I am an EMHC. I do get "contact’ at times. It isn’t just me. Sometimes the person moves his head.

 

[PhilotheaZ]

This is how our diocese handled it, with the following notice printed in our diocesan newspaper and in all parish bulletins: dioceseofscranton.org/News/FluNoticeApril30,2009.asp

It includes these important points:

The practice of offering the sign of peace through a hand shake is not an obligatory action of the Mass.

The faithful are reminded that Holy Communion, whether under the species of bread or under the species of wine, is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, when one receives only the host, or when one receives only from the chalice, one receives the whole Christ. Any member of the assembly who feels ill at ease with partaking of the Precious Blood from the communal chalice when it is offered at Mass should know that to refrain from this option does not in any way decrease the sacramental effects or communal nature of the Eucharist.

I think this was a great teachable moment. Sometimes the faithful get carried away with the sign of peace, so it’s good for them to know it’s optional. Since the flu outbreak, our parishioners have been instructed to do it without any handshaking for the time being; often the priests do not announce the sign of peace at all.

Also, at our parish we have not been receiving from the chalice since the flu outbreak. I think this has been a good opportunity for those who were poorly catechized to learn that they are receiving the “whole” Jesus under either form. I know some people who really feel they have been denied something crucial when they are not offered Communion from the chalice. Indeed, some will seek out a church for daily Mass where they know Communion will be offered under both kinds.

 

[EasterJoy]

Precautions have been dropped in the Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon, as enough time has passed to show that an unusually grave risk does not exist. People are being reminded that, as ever, they have a moral duty to refrain from receiving the Precious Blood, and from attending Mass, if necessary, if they have reason to believe they may pose a particular health risk to others if they participate more fully.

Again, this isn’t something that was ever intended to be a long-term policy, but just a short term measure against the possibility of a serious pandemic.