The following advisory guidelines for the Church of Ireland’s response regarding the novel coronavirus (Covid–19) reflect previous advice provided by the Church as a response to pandemic flu. The guidelines offer a general framework to parishes, subject to further approval or other advice that may be considered appropriate by the diocesan bishop.
1. Follow all public health guidance provided by state authorities – the Public Health Agency in Northern Ireland (www.publichealth.hscni.net) and the Health Protection Surveillance Centre in the Republic of Ireland (www.hpsc.ie).
2. Physical interaction during services, including the Sign of Peace, should be suspended. Clergy may choose to give the congregation permission to carry out an alternative Sign of Peace that does not involve hand contact (e.g. a smile, nod or bow) if so wished. Shaking hands on greeting and departure at religious services/gatherings should be suspended. Observe good hand and general hygiene – thorough hand–washing with soap or sanitisers and disposal of tissues.
3. Stay at home if you feel ill and display influenza–like symptoms. The symptoms to be aware of in the case of the coronavirus include cough, shortness of breath, difficulty in breathing, and fever. Do not come to church services until you feel well.
4. The Church’s duty of care extends to members of the clergy. If you have influenza–type symptoms, do not call the clergy for pastoral visitation. Pastoral support for parishioners who are unable to attend church services should be provided by telephone or online (e.g. Skype).
5. Everyone administering Holy Communion should wash their hands or use alcohol–based hand gel before beginning. Holy Communion should be administered only in one kind (bread) and placed into the hands only and not onto the tongue. Only the celebrant should drink from the chalice. Holy Communion is normally received in both kinds separately – bread and wine – but may be received in either kind, and those who are incapable of receiving the sacrament are to be assured that they are by faith partakers of the body and blood of Christ and of the benefits He conveys to us by them (Book of Common Prayer, p.440). Intinction should be avoided.
Guidance for religious services has been provided by the Health Protection Surveillance Centre and is available at this link.
Any further guidance for either jurisdiction will be circulated as and when available.
Approved by the House of Bishops and the Honorary Secretaries of the General Synod
Individual cups could be used, including washable and reusable ones. That would be better than denying the wine (or juice) to communicants. Perhaps in modern culture tea or coffee would be more appropriate, or perhaps “soda” in the US.
I agree with your first point, David.
Our standards of worship and doctrine are the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the Articles of Religion. Both stipulate that Holy Communion must always be given in both kinds, specifically that the cup must never be withheld from the laity.
Using individual cups solves the problem (for those concerned about infection). That being the case, there is no issue with using wine or grape juice.
Clergy have a long history of providing face-to-face, hand-to-hand care to the sick. I question the vocation of any clergy who would avoid doing so.
“Communion in one kind should suffice in cases like this”
Both the Sevice of Holy Communion and the Articles of Religion require administration of communion in both kinds.
Fair enough, Roy.
Looking at the service “The communion of the sick” in the 1662 BCP, it says that the regular form of Communion is used when visiting the sick.
It also has the following rubrics. The first goes directly to your point and supports it. The second is very interesting when we consider that in those times some diseases were more devastating than the worst projections of Coronavirus today:
I find the practice of placing the bread on people’s tongues a strange custom. I also don’t like the way some handling the cup refuse to let it go and let the communicant take it in the normal way. I suppose some have a superstitious fear of any of the wine being spilled.
I think I may be old enough!
No offence taken. My comment was written with a smile on my octogenarian face.
Placing in the hand is older than placing on the tongue. John Chrysostom says “place one hand in the palm of the other to make a throne from your hands to receive the body of the Lord”
I very much doubt that the chalice is as dangerous as doorknobs, hymnbooks that have been sneezed on or keyboards, tablets intinction became common when AIDS was rife- out of concern for those infected catching common infections..
I think the Luther’s belief was that the bread and wine remain bread and wine, but somehow have the “real presence” in them from the moment of reception in the mouth, but not before.
Ahhhh, we went through all this hysteria in the early 1990’s with HIV. All kinds of fear mongering. Swine flu, SARS, you name it. As deacon or celebrant I consumed from the chalice as Eucharistic custom dictates. I am not writing this post from the beyond the grave.
A good Zwinglian solution. It *might* be the blood of Christ, but since it might *not* it might be just wine, soooo….It could be a vector of disease. Why ecumenical discussions with Anglicans are so iffy.
That reminds me that I get a bit huffy when people say that Zwinglians regard the Lord’s Supper as a mere memorial. The word “mere” is unnecessary and its use there s a bit mischievous. We don’t hear people say a birthday celebration or a commemoration of war sacrifice is a mere memorial.
presiding minister is the phrase used in Irish BCP. Cranmer Book v chapter x of the Lord’s Supper “Christ did not ordain his sacraments to this use, that one should receive them for another, and the priest for all the lay people; but he ordained them for this intent, that every man should receive them for himself…” Book v ch xi “But the very Supper itself was by Christ instituted and given to the whole Church, not to be offered and eaten of the priest for other men, but by him to be delivered to all that would duly ask it.” According to Cranmer the distinction between priest and laity is one of administration- the priest merely being a waiter at the Lord’s Table. Swine flu, avian flu, SARS, AIDS- the advice was always no danger from alcoholic wine and precious metal..