Simple arithmetic is pretty much irrelevant here. As a mathematician, I am well used to the idiot over-simplifications common in mathematical models. People are not static points, they are a couple of feet wide, and when in pews they may be sitting back or kneeling forward. So I need 8 feet laterally, and 9 feet fore and aft, twice the 36 sq.ft. of the over-simplification. And then you need to fit these 72 sq.ft. rectangles so that there is a seat in the middle of each one, or if you have a couple 90 sq.ft..
This is a practical problem, not one for abstraction. I suspect very few churches will achieve 20% of comfortable capacity.
OTOH if your congregation is large TLM families who can each fill a pew, you put them in alternate pews (ban the elderly widowers, like me, who would block off large areas) and achieve 50% capacity.

Our over-60's would come even if the bishop told them not to. My parents (over 70 and in the high risk group) are still out and about visiting friends and family.

In the Diocese of Tyler, our bishop has issued guidelines for reopening. Mass attendance is still not required. Communion in the hand only. Every other pew roped off. Social distancing between households required. Maintain social distancing between families.

I imagine preceptual attendance at Mass is going to be proactively dispensed for the foreseeable future, and a broader understanding of passive dispensation (not just by active illness but by risk factors making one vulnerable to illness) obtaining thereafter.

Maybe the only force strong enough to weaken our dependence on hymns is this pandemic...

I don’t think any of these places where the hymnody is so ingrained would be willing to give it up so easily, so I’m afraid this will go in a completely different direction and usher in the installation of more large screens in sanctuaries in lieu of printed leaflets. And it wouldn’t surprise me during this re-opening period if we see encouragement from various parishes for people to print their leaflet at home or even to bring their own device to view them on during mass.

One of our priests is a medical doctor, quite experienced (neurosurgeon?), was a late vocation, he is quite happy to give only on the tongue.

I feel some consideration should be given to the transmission potential of congregational speaking and singing http://www.chantcafe.com/2020/04/silent-presence/

And for that matter choirs.

In the EF, communion in the hand isn’t an option, so for those who attend the EF, we’re not going to be able to receive for a long time (or our Masses will be suspended again like they were with H1N1). I wonder what the Eastern Rites are doing.

In the EF, Communion in the hand isn’t an option

My bishop responds, "that's their choice."
It's infuriating.

In some parishes, the buildings will remain mostly empty because of the 60+ rule.

Yes. And collection plates will be quite bare, too.

Yah, well, the Milwaukee Archdiocese is headed by a Canon lawyer, and a local parish is headed by a Canon lawyer too, and both maintain the fiction......

Oh, well.

Canon lawyer too...

It's absurd.

spiritual Communion

I agree that it's reasonable to request people make spiritual Communion, for the general welfare of all present, but to say that they are may receive in the hand, but are not "allowed" to receive Communion on the tongue is insane.

I have nothing against the idea of all public "phase-in" Masses being Latin Low Masses, to avoid instances of projectile "particles," any type of hand-holding, or even a lack of reception of Communion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBZYYAmy6Lg

Looks like East Tennessee will be returning to public masses on Pentecost. Works for me since that is the name day of the parish. Need to start practicing since I haven't touched the organ since the pandemic began.

Communion in the hand: This has become the "pro multis" of the extremists since the 2010 missal translation took away their basis to complain about "for all." They seem to ignore that it was the norm for around 400 years before communion on the tongue was instituted. I suspect the breads were probably not nice round hosts before that time, either. I strongly suspect the state of one's soul, reverence for the sacrament, and interior disposition are much more important than whether communion is in the hand or on the tongue. We easterners avoid the whole problem by doing intinction where the sacrament is not touched by any member of the laity. I have thought the west should adopt that practice, as well. It is more authentic.

All this reminds me of the toddler who pitches a fit because his peas are touching his macaroni, thus rendering both inedible.

Has anyone considered being grateful for being able to receive communion at all?

I think highly of Cardinal Sarah and have read his books. He is, however, stuck in a Renaissance mindset and goes off the deep end on liturgy. I wouldn't mind if he advocated restoring something approximating the liturgy of the early centuries but the liturgical practices he sometimes advocates are neither original nor authentic. Five hundred year old practices from the high Renaissance that were an over-reaction to Protestantism do not authenticity make. Much of what is looked on as Tradition isn't.

A dear friend harps on particles that fall from the hosts and the sacrilege that ensues. The way those hosts are made, you might get some particles if you chip away at the edges of them with mallet and chisel. They hold together pretty well. Christ knew all the issues that could result from the medium he chose for the sacrament. In earlier times when they didn't use modern hosts and even used loaves of bread, there would have been more particles than anyone could estimate.

Live streaming of masses: Yeah, I am not crazy about them, either. I watched the dueling vibratos from the local cathedral for the reconsecration yesterday. I finally couldn't stand the Gatling gun soprano vibrato any longer. I switched to St. Pat's NY and watched a bigger than life Wagnerian soprano belt out "Immaculate Mary." I expected Valkyries to swoop around the sanctuary. Only the Viking horns were missing. I am completely over the live streams. In fairness, maybe you just have to be there in person to appreciate them.

I will say again, that we should all be grateful for masses and communion. In many parts of the world, Christians would consider themselves greatly blessed to have what we take for granted.

Postscript: Now I am hearing that there is some discussion about whether or not to allow choirs or congregational singing at the masses when they resume. I guess those breathy altos could spread some germs if they were so minded. LOL.

I would question some of that documentation as wishful thinking from a later time. In the really early days the Eucharist was consumed at house churches from loaves. Even in early churches, it wasn't unusual for people to take some of it home for consumption later.

Particles: Scrupulosity run amok. Better be sure to kiss that rosary you dropped on the floor. Otherwise, God may kill you and generations of nuns will torment your sleep for years to come.

No, we don't need any more added rites. We need to do the ones we have better before originating more. Wonder what kind of chant would be sung for circumcisions? Males only, screechy sopranos not allowed? Probably would have to be done in Canada since most males are circumcised in the U.S.

My point is that much of what we accept as "history" was written after the Scholastics did a number on Christianity. What they didn't mangle, post-Trent theologians did.

Back to this. Too many interruptions today. Having been through if not a less enlightened time, certainly a less educated time, superstition and rather nonsensical practices crept into the church. I remember performing certain actions to get 1 day, 2 hours, and 13 minutes removed from time in Purgatory. I also remember priests anointing babies with saliva during the old baptismal rites - pretty unsanitary in our own times. I am glad the post-Vatican II church has done away with some of the practices that had become ridiculous and made the church a laughingstock. Just because something was done after Trent in the Latin church, doesn't mean it has any validity today.

Wait a bit and Charles will come up with The Better (Eastern) Way.

Just because it was done in the early Church doesn’t mean it was the best way of doing things.

Yup. It's the condemned "antiquarianism" which--by the way--was a big part of the Bugnini palette. Wrong then, wrong now.

Communion in the hand is a licit, but clearly inferior option. My view is that the same health concerns that make lingual Communion undesirable at this time are equally applicable (if not more so) to Communion on the hand. The pragmatic approach for those uncomfortable with it is to stick to spiritual Communion until the pandemic has cleared.

So, the fact that there's a paper somewhere mentioning something means that it was "the norm" for that long?
Conversely, no one cares that it was very decidedly, in an official capacity, condemned as a heresy?

You are going to quote some sort of tradition and pretend that a much longer tradition doesn't matter? The Catholic Church has been around for 2000 years, but a supposed approximately 400+50 of them are the ones that matter?

Please.

I don't really want to get into arguments. I don't care that you think the Roman rite isn't as good or efficient at receiving Communion as is the Eastern rite (of which I still think is better than reception in the hand).
The fact of the matter is that the documents referenced saying that people cannot be refused to receive Communion on the tongue are still in effect, and, as the Cardinal stated, cannot be superseded by some (scientifically unsubstantiated) personal preference by local bishops.

I anticipate that here in Brazil there will be no more Communion on the tongue ever again, except at 'private' (non-parish) Masses (such as those held in the chapels of congregations, associations, confraternities, etc where they can have their own customs, and any public who shows up are people who like things that way). That, and the traditionalists. In those contexts, if Communion on the tongue is deemed (politically) problematic for some reason they will simply switch to private Communion outside of Mass, such as when people come in for Confession, and thus avoid provoking whoever is hassling them.

The fact is what is permitted (or required) on paper and what is permitted in the complex reality of Reality are often not very close to each other. Or, how much torment one is willing to bear to make a point is often a factor. I'm as guilty as any - how often do I compromise on some point to try to cope with the circumstances?

I very rarely chime in on such conversations, but I find it simply incredible that some folks seem to maintain a refusal to receive communion in the hand and replace it with a "spiritual communion" as a positive value. To go without the Eucharist to rigidly maintain a practice that is only one of the options for the reception of communion seems to my mind to be missing the point entirely.

The medical advice here in England is very clear, do not touch your face particularly your mouth... So logically Communion in the hand is out. After our Archbishop tried to ban communion on the tongue, he was persuaded to change his mind, thanks to expert advice from medical professionals, and Canon lawyers.
It has been pointed out that communion in the hand usually involves hand to hand contact, while communion on the tongue rarely involves the priest touching the tongue.

Any ideas that involve hand sanitising for the congregation before communion during Mass are disruptive and irreverent.
We should also note that General Communion as part of Mass is a recent (re-) introduction, 150 + years ago we would not have had this problem.

Over here the bishops are now regretting shutting down our Masses and churches, and are engaging with the Government to get things opened. I suspect money rather than anything to do with devotion is the main driving force (I am told a few bank accounts are empty). It remains to be seen what hoops will need to be jumped through, but I can't see the Sunday Mass obligation to be put back into force anytime soon. With only those that are not worried about the virus going to Mass it will make things easier.

True. Frequent communion was not the norm for centuries and is a recent practice.

OTOH the Council of Trent thought it desireable!

Session XXII chapter 6.
The sacred and holy synod would wish indeed that, at each mass, the faithful who are present should communicate, not only in spiritual desire, but also by the sacramental participation of the Eucharist, that thereby a more abundant fruit of this most holy sacrifice might be derived unto them: but nevertheless, if this be not always done, ...

Some may regard Trent as recent.

Trent is an interesting situation. It met for 18 years, not continuously, was abandoned and everyone went home, reconvened, and on an on. For those who think Vatican II was a mess, just go back and read about Trent. There was an earlier council that was supposed to deal with Protestantism and it made a complete hash of it. Finally Trent did do that. I also hear that Trent forbade reading scripture. Not so. Trent forbade unauthorized versions of scripture that had not been verified and approved for accuracy. Councils can sometimes create more problems than they solve.