Lancaster, England, Mar 6, 2020 / 03:19 pm (CNA).- The Bishop of Lancaster on Thursday issued a decree meant to reduce the risk of coronavirus transmission at Mass, which focused on suspending the sign of peace and the reception of Holy Communion from the chalice.
The March 5 decree, signed by the diocese’s bishop and its chancellor, discouraged, but did not attempt to prohibit, reception of the Host on the tongue.
Bishop Paul Swarbrick introduced seven “pastoral measures” in the diocese effective March 5-21 “to reduce possible transmission” of coronavirus.
The sign of peace, reception from the chalice by the lay faithful, and the use of holy water stoups have been suspended.
“Those who choose to receive the Sacred Host on the tongue should be encouraged to receive on the hand instead. Their doing this represents an act of loving charity to their community. Alternatively, they should be encouraged to make a ‘Spiritual Communion’,” the decree states.
It addes that churches and chapels open for private prayer should remain open, with regular sanitization; ministers should wash and sanitize their hands before and after distributing Holy Communion; and “shared hymnbooks and Mass books should ideally not be used at this time.”
There are 147 confirmed cases of coronavirus in England. There has been one death in the country due to the infection.
Many Churches around the world have issued precautionary guidelines for Masses, or cancelled public Masses entirely, because of the coronavirus outbreak which originated in China late last year.
The new strain of coronavirus causes a respiratory disease, COVID-19, and has a fatality rate of roughly 3%. There have been more than 100,000 confirmed cases of coronavirus in at least 81 countries, and more than 3,400 deaths. The vast majority of cases and deaths have been in China.
Like the Diocese of Lancaster, the Archdiocese of Chicago has urged hygienic practices, and it it said that “given the frequency of direct contact with saliva in the distribution of Holy Communion on the tongue, every consideration should be given by each individual to receive Holy Communion reverently in open hands for the time being.”
The Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon said March 2 that “a parish cannot ban the reception of Holy Communion on the tongue, nor may an Ordinary or Extraordinary minister refuse a person requesting Holy Communion on the tongue.”
Its worship office emphasized that ministers of Holy Communion should be “able to distribute Holy Communion without risk of touching the hands or the tongue,” and that “parishioners should also be instructed how to receive Holy Communion properly either on the tongue or in the hand.”
The Portland archdiocese said, “We consulted with two physicians regarding this issue, one of which is a specialist in immunology for the State of Oregon. 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.”
The Portland archdiocese referred to Redemptionis sacramentum, the Congregation for Divine Worship’s 2004 instruction on certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist, which notes that “each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice.”
Immediately to Portland’s north, in the Archdiocese of Seattle, Archbishop Paul Etienne issued a differing set of directives in response to coronavirus.
The Northwest Catholic wrote March 3 that Archbishop Etienne “said that holy water should be removed from fonts” and “that Communion hosts should be received only in the hand, not on the tongue.”
On March 4, Bishop Thomas Daly of Spokane encouraged pastors to suspend the sign of peace, and to refrain from distributing the Precious Blood. He added that “this might also provide a catechetical opportunity to remind the faithful that reception of the Sacred Host is indeed reception of the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ.”
The following day, after a meeting “with local health experts, the vicars, school and other diocesan leaders,” Bishop Daly added that clerics should “consider encouraging parishioners to receive Holy Communion in the hand. Receiving in the hand carries a risk of infection, but there is an increased danger of transmitting this virus through droplets in the mouth.”
Archbishop John Wester of Santa Fe issued directives March 3 that directly prohibited the reception of the Eucharist on the tongue.
“During the flu season and given the possibility of being exposed to the coronavirus, ALL communicants are to receive Communion in the hand,” the archbishop said.
The Diocese of Tucson said March 5 that “as receiving Holy Communion on the tongue almost always involves some accidental touch with tongues and lips, Holy Communion should be distributed only in the hand for the immediate future.”
In guidelines updated March 6, the Diocese of Phoenix said that at the current stage of the outbreak, pastors “may implement” voluntary precautions, among which is that they “may invite communicants to receive on the hand,” adding that “reception of Communion on the tongue could inadvertently contaminate the hands of those distributing Communion. However, individual communicants have the right to decide.”
Should the outbreak become worse, pastors would be mandated to “invite communicants to receive on the hand.”
On March 5, Bishop Peter Baldacchino of Las Cruces issued guidelines which said that “it is still left to the discretion of the communicant how they wish to receive the Host. Please note that it may be good to notify them that receiving Holy Communion in the hand and not on the tongue is preferred to limit the exposure of being exposed to the Coronavirus Disease.”
Bishop Baldacchino added that “as the distribution of Holy Communion involves contact with both the mouth and hands, any Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion who feels uncomfortable distributing Communion should be allowed to temporarily step down from ministry.”
Archbishop Leonard Blair of Hartford wrote March 3 to the clerics of his local Church to say that “Communion on the tongue should be strongly discouraged” as a precautionary measure against the spread of coronavirus.
A Feb. 28 memo sent from Archbishop Blair in his capacity as chairman of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Divine Worship to the US bishops regarded “liturgical celebrations amid public health concerns regarding the spread of the coronavirus.”
The memo offered considerations “meant to be helpful” to bishops “if and when it becomes necessary to take preventative steps with regard to the celebration of the liturgy in your local church.”
The precautionary measures it offered were “suspending the exchange of the sign of peace” and “suspending the distribution of Holy Communion to the faithful via the chalice.”
Prohibiting the reception of Holy Communion on the tongue was not mentioned in the memo.
CNA contacted the USCCB and the archdioceses of Seattle and Santa Fe March 5 to inquire whether an ordinary is able to prohibit the reception of Communion on the tongue, considering that the Congregation for Divine Worship has called this a right that each of the faithful always has. No responses have been forthcoming.
[…]
If a person can get a Declaration of Nullity for the Sacrament of Marriage, it seems like one should be able to apply for a Declaration of Nullity for the other Sacraments as well.
Well, if there was something critical lacking at the time of the Baptism I suppose it wouldn’t be valid either.
mrscracker:
That’s what conditional Baptisms are for: To rectify invalid Baptisms, such as the ones performed by that priest in Arizona.
Any valid baptism cannot be nullified or rescinded in any circumstance, no matter whether the person declares themself no longer a Catholic, or leaves the Church for the rest of his/her life.
Once a baptized Catholic, always a baptized Catholic.
Whichvi believe to be anti biblical and foolish….many times jesus used parables to point that out….you can walk away from the faith as an adult, voiding your baptism as a mark of conversion…so get baptized as an infant, grow up doing whatever you please in opposition to the teachings of the church and still go to heaven….very delusional….
The Sacraments leave an indelible character upon the soul. Assuming they were valid.
I was baptised at 13 years old, and obviously, I know far more now, and understand far more now, then I did at the time. I got baptised with my friend. It was after confirmation classes were completed for the year (this was a Methodist Church) but before the confirmation ceremony (which I did not attend because we were out of town). I stopped going to church after that.
.
Now, really, honestly, if I went to a marriage tribunal with that kind of mentality about my marriage (I don’t mean because I was 13, just all the other events around the baptism–the circumstances), pretty sure I could obtain a Declaration of Nullity.
.
So a baby is baptised, and that’s the last time the child ever goes to Church because the parents show up just long enough to get the child baptised, but aren’t interested in the faith much. I remember reading John Hardon, SJ said that baptising a baby who would not be raised in the faith can actually be detrimental.
.
NGL, I’ve literally wondered about getting my Confirmation declared Null
Baptism imparts an indelible character. You cannot undo Baptism. You can remove names from State rolls where the State has insinuated itself into the practice of religion, but the State does not inform Ctholic theology.
MrsHess:
An annulment is something that only pertains to the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony/Holy Mystery of Crowning.
It does NOT seem like one should should be able to apply for a Declaration of Nullity for the other Sacraments as well. A priest can be defrocked, and marriage can be granted an annulment in certain circumstances. Once you are baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and Holy Spirit, you are a Catholic for the rest of your life, whether or not you declare yourself to be debaptized, or declare yourself as no longer a Catholic
You can leave the Church for the remainder of your life, but those 3 Sacraments of Initiation of Baptism, Confirmation, (Chrismation) and Holy Eucharist remain with you and your soul as long as you live.
Once a Catholic, always a Catholic.
Perhaps a better choice of words, but overall, welcome to dystopia. After-the-fact debaptizing sounds a lot like after-the-fact abortion undoing pregnancy.
And, while they’re at it, the 500 Belgians might explain for us why the transgender movement should not remind us of the 1978 sci-fi horror movie, “The Body Snatchers.”
For once, a rare moment Pope Francis is vilified for being morally on target. “The pope’s words were rejected by the university, which criticized them as betraying a deterministic and reductive attitude” (French-speaking branch of the university in Louvain).
Haughty, intellectually distorted faculty, the bane of academia worldwide, rend their garments. Not lacking in vindictiveness they add the criticism of clergy abuse to their outrage as a sort of elevation of their distorted reasoning. When was bringing an infant to birth deterministic? By what logic is describing women as nurturers of the gift of life reductionism.
Their logic is the unprincipled freedom to distort reality. They in effect hurl their disdain at Christus Pantokrator. Leuven/Louvain, among the many Catholic universities that are no longer Catholic.
The discord between Bergoglio’s words and actions is flagrant Liberalism – a sin when Catholics were at the helm of the Roman Institutions presently occupied by freemasons, their sympathisers and traitors.
The 4 maxims in Evangelii Gaudium are a composition deriving from secular thinking stressing worldly toleration. The source is not grace. The same secularist thinking is very often, inconsistent with itself; since it will at times prioritize conflict and ideas with its own part(s) while monopolizing both time and space as usefully as possible. Here we have a demonstration of it by people declaring their wish to be de-baptized; doing this in order to steal away from the Pope and the moral force of his declaration, whatever positive feeling they might now engender. The secularist thinking can’t be moored to faith; it is itself prone to produce its own jumbles while faith works in grace in season and out of season. The 4 maxims have nothing to do with evangelization and we are at a loss what is to be done for the Holy Father, or for the encyclical, about that. Except of course to pray to be faithful.
Belgium, like Holland, is the lion’s den today.
Hope Belgian Archbishop Luc Terlinden is taking lessons from Dutch Cardinal Willem Eijk.
Baptism like several other sacraments is an outward sign of an inward Grace joyfully received by an unique life and celebrated by the Divine residing in the assembled kith and kin. Trying to undo such an in-depth communitarian spiritual branding is a Herculean undertaking. Archival records may depict someone as a paper tiger, paper lion, or a paper Christian. Is that enough?