Posted on 05/11/2020 5:47:57 PM PDT by ebb tide
KNOXVILLE, Tennessee, May 11, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Bishop Richard F. Stika of Knoxville, Tennessee, has confirmed in a tweet that the priests of his diocese “will not give Communion on the tongue as per my instruction.” Taking it further, he says that if the person wanting to receive Holy Communion on the tongue “makes a scene,” then “they will be asked to leave and not permitted to return [until] this passes.”
In his May 6 decree on the resumption of public Masses, Stika described the “mandatory (non-negotiable)” procedure for distributing and receiving Holy Communion.
“Once you leave your pew/chair you will proceed single file (maintaining 6 feet apart) to the distribution point,” Stika wrote. “Immediately before you reach the distribution point you will remove your protective face mask placing it in your pocket and sanitize your hands with 70% alcohol-based sanitizing gel/solution (which will be on a small table directly in front of the distribution point).”
“Standing on the floor-marked X (or kneeling at the 6-foot marked locations along the communion rail), you will extend your arms and hands toward the priest/deacon with the palm of your non-writing hand facing up and completely flat supported by your writing hand,” he continued.
Urgent appeal to the bishops of the world: Feed your flock. Sign the petition here.
The priest, in turn, is to wear “a protective face mask and safety glasses.”
Stika added a diagram illustrating the reception of the Eucharist according to coronavirus rules in the diocese of Knoxville.
Stika’s comments on Twitter came after a user sent him an article on the guidelines prepared by the Thomistic Institute, which is part of the Pontifical Faculty of the Immaculate Conception at the Dominican House of Studies in Washington, D.C., and recommended by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
According to those guidelines, receiving Holy Communion directly on the tongue is possible “without unreasonable risk.”
“Opinions on this point are varied within the medical and scientific community: some believe Communion on the tongue involves an elevated and, in the light of all the circumstances, an unreasonable risk; others disagree,” the document pointed out. “If Communion on the tongue is provided, one could consider using hand sanitizer after each communicant who receives on the tongue.”
The guidelines specifically referred to Redemptionis Sacramentum, an Instruction published by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments in 2004. According to the document, “each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue.”
The article sent to Stika, published by Church Militant, was titled, “US Bishops Approve Communion on the Tongue.”
Stika responded, “Actually, the bishops did not. A group made some recommends, actually three for the reception of the Eucharist. But bishops must follow their own conscience. The headline is a distortion of the reality of what a committee stated.”
“You are dispensed from Mass or you may attend Mass and not receive the Eucharist,” he wrote. “You have two options. You have not option to possibility [sic] spread the infection.”
“These are very challenging times and my ministry is not to keep everyone happy but to do what I judge to be right. If I would do anything else, I would be violating my own conscience and the advice I seek from others,” Stika concluded.
The bishop of Knoxville was subsequently attacked on Twitter for his decision not to allow the reception of Holy Communion on the tongue, as well as not permitting Catholics who insist on that manner of receiving the Eucharist to come back to Mass before the coronavirus pandemic is over.
“I have to make decisions based on my conscious [sic] and protecting my flock,” he said. “I prefer to side with caution. I make no decision arbitrarily, but seek advice and then bring it to prayer.”
So much for all that "collegiality" and "universal Church";
Hand, tongue, licking. That sounds less hygienic and less respectful, than Communion directly on the tongue.
Hands touch church door handles, pews, missals/missalettes, forhead and clothes (in making the Sign of the Cross) etc prior to Holy Communion.
I will tell you the sound dynamics at Sacred Heart are noticeably fuller, more resonant than those of my parish church, which is a lamentable acoustic purgatory called St. Mary's in Johnson City.
I didn't expect Chartres, but for Knoxville, Sacred Heart will definitely do.
From an epidemiological POV I think you are right There’s no good reason to suspend reception on the tongue.
What in the heck are you babbling about now?
Compare to Houston's co-Cathedral of the Sacred Heart.
It looks like a masonic temple.
Co-cathedral? Sounds irritating.
The tabernacle needs to be centered.
Just receive on the tongue and you don’t have that problem.
I don’t know about you, but the last time I licked my palm was when I was nine years old and eating a pixie stix.
That the building serves its purpose in your enjoyment of it, and that the experience of the liturgy was fuller for you (music and other) - than it is noble and commendable for that reason alone. I will not argue with such a testimonial.
As this is my area of expertise, my personal experience differs. My primary criticism being material conceit. It is a steel frame wearing a brick and stone dress. I am not at all opposed to steel frames, or the notion that brick and stone can be used as a skin - in fact I think it can be, and has been, done wonderfully. When this manner of construction however, hides the frame and makes it appear that the brick and stone support the roof and dome as is done in Knoxville, I feel I am being played for a fool. This is what the 19th century critic John Ruskin argued against in his Seven Lamps of Architecture as being contrary to the second lamp, The Lamp of Truth.
Because of this manner of construction, while looking Italian Renaissance, it sounds and smells to me like a modern concert hall. The weep holes and expansion joints on the exterior say insulated cavity wall while the form advertises solid masonry load bearing.
It is conceit which is at the core of my criticism. Conceit has been the hallmark of the Church’s hierarchy of late.Too many Bishops have been wrapping themselves in the garments of tradition and doctrine in order to fill their coffers while at the same time covering, and in some cases participating in, the violation and abuse of the most vulnerable. In my estimation then, Disneyland-Classical-Renaissance is the official style of corruption and decay in the Church.
In my hometown of Washington, there are two good examples of buildings which do not engage in such deceit. The Washington National Cathedral is the last true solid stone masonry gothic churches built in the world (completed 1990). It looks, smells and feels like what it is. The limestone that you see on the inside and on the outside are what form the tall narrow nave and support the stone vaulting which culminate in the beautiful stone groin vaults. The tremendous flying buttresses are an incredible twelfth century invention to allow what would otherwise be a heavy nave wall to be pierced by light illuminating stained glass and filling the nave. The timber roof (not unlike Notre Dame Paris) a hat, sitting on top and clad in metal.
The Basilica Shrine of the Immaculate Conception (completed 1960) is another example. Although many do not like the neo-Byzantine style of the building, it is a noble structure. While the exterior is clad in Indiana limestone the bulk of the walls are made of common brick - it is a true solid masonry load bearing building. As a child, before they clad the interior walls with marble and travertine I saw the nave and it’s huge arches and (concrete) domes, exposed completely in brick. It was breath taking (even as a child) and one of the most beautiful memories I have. It was majestic and bold, and most importantly, it was true. The space feels heavy, because it is - you feel the air (especially in the Lourdes chapel which blessedly has no mechanical air systems).
My (long winded) point is that any space wherein the Eucharist is celebrated is a sacred and noble place. The act of the consecration makes it so, just as it did the stable in Bethlehem. When we go about the task of building a place for this sacred event, however, it should honest and true, whether a humble or grand structure. If the building deceives, what does that say of the liturgy? When I attend Knoxville it feels like Disneyland. When I see the steel frame wearing a brisk dress, I see Spellman and McCarrick preening in their mozzetta and biretta. A Church is for Christ and His Mystical Body, not vanity theaters for clowns such as these.
For sure an architect would evaluate a building n a profoundly different way than an untrained member of the faithful would. In some ways (most ways) I appreciate your comments, as well as the time and thought that went into them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.