Diocese Forbidden To Receive Christ On The Tongue

[JKirkLVNV]

Only communion on the hand is allowed here in my archdiocese, and no receiving from the cup, on account of the swine flu

Our bishop has asked us to use our prudential judgement in the matter of the Most Precious Blood and in the Exchange of Peace. We may still receive the Most Sacred Body on the tongue.

 

[Mamselle_Duroc]

But I’m pretty sure that the Holy See would affirm a bishop’s authority to regulate this in the event of a pandemic (if there is one). We don’t celebrate Mass on Good Friday, yet the Holy See permitted it for the earthquake victim in April. Common sense is probably expected to prevail in readings of canon law and the Holy See is probably not going to overrule a bishop in a situation where he’s “on the ground” and there is NO harm to the Faith in his ruling (and there is no harm to the faith by reception in the hand, since the Church permits it, it has ancient, perhaps even Apostolic antecedents, etc.).

As for what I assume, I didn’t use the word “proud,” now did I? And bear in mind, I also receive on the tongue (except right now and until this “crisis” passes), so “I” am “we.”

I apologise. I was using ‘you’ in the general sense but as I was replying to your post I should have realised that it wouldn’t be clear.

The Church permits for people to receive in the hand, and if those like you who generally receive on the tongue choose to receive in the hand until, as you say, the “crisis” passes, that is wonderful. When the announcement was made prior to Mass this past Sunday I considered doing the same, but when it came right down to it my own personal conscience wouldn’t permit for it.

So my choice is just to refrain until I’m free to receive on the tongue again. On this thread, however, there has been an atmosphere of disapproval towards that perfectly legitimate choice, and implications that it’s proud and/or childish. I just ask that I be believed when I say that my motives, reasoning, and feeling are completely sincere and genuine. I hold no disdain towards those who choose to receive in the hand and I hold no grudge against the bishop. Yes, I do intend to write to him, but it’s because I want him to know that there are people who care very deeply about it, and do my part to ensure that we’re clearly notified the moment we’re free to receive on the tongue again.

I’m just awful unhappy.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I apologise. I was using ‘you’ in the general sense but as I was replying to your post I should have realised that it wouldn’t be clear.

The Church permits for people to receive in the hand, and if those like you who generally receive on the tongue choose to receive in the hand until, as you say, the “crisis” passes, that is wonderful. When the announcement was made prior to Mass this past Sunday I considered doing the same, but when it came right down to it my own personal conscience wouldn’t permit for it.

So my choice is just to refrain until I’m free to receive on the tongue again. On this thread, however, there has been an atmosphere of disapproval towards that perfectly legitimate choice, and implications that it’s proud and/or childish. I just ask that I be believed when I say that my motives, reasoning, and feeling are completely sincere and genuine. I hold no disdain towards those who choose to receive in the hand and I hold no grudge against the bishop. Yes, I do intend to write to him, but it’s because I want him to know that there are people who care very deeply about it, and do my part to ensure that we’re clearly notified the moment we’re free to receive on the tongue again.

I’m just awful unhappy.

And that’s where I am concerned. A) You speak of your “own personal conscience.” We do have those (personal consciences), but we aren’t Protestants, we don’t have a “me and Jesus” theology or ecclesiology or anything else. We are a part of the Mystical Body of Christ, a part of the whole. We are called to think with the mind of the Church. The Church has permitted this generally (even though Pope Benedict distributes the Most Sacred Body only on the tongue, he permitted the Indult to be extended to the Polish Church in 2007), and your bishop has invoked what is probably his legitimate authority in an emergency situation (he would be well OUTSIDE his authority if he tried to make it permanent). That you have a scrupple about this seems, with all due and genuine respect, problematic, esp. since B) you are unhappy about not being able to receive Our Blessed Lord, which the Church (and your bishop) says you certainly may! Do you see what I mean?

 

[NeedImprovement]

QUOTE=weepixie71;5176448]i went to a tridentine mass!!! the priest said bishop jenky announced we are not to receive communion on the tongue until further notice. i see no reason why a priest would lie about it.

I apologize weepixie71. I didn’t mean to imply the priest would lie….But reporters, especially those with their own agenda. I’ve unwillingly ( after some poor unfair treatment by certain governmental bodies here) become finely tuned to language which is ambiguous and more seriously, prevaricative and equivocal. Often the latter is not so unintentional.

Here’s what I was hinting at: If the priest said, (1) “Bishop Jenky announced we are not to receive Communion on the tongue”, that’s one thing; and it is in that light that my responses are written. If, however the priest said, (2) “Bishop Jenky requests (or asks) us not to receive Communion on the tongue,” that’s different. A good example of prevarication would be someone using the second wording, but doing their best to make it sound like the first wording when they announce it. This stuff can be done so subtly sometimes that it goes right by us. Reporters periodically only give us part of the truth so they can paint their own picture.

Not to pile on you here and believe me I probably agree with you on these matters. … All this misinformation and confusion over who has authority over what is concerning, especially if we ever have a real crisis, (which we probably will)

This would be one opinion or idea I’d have of a crisis – People are being confused and have to refrain from receiving Holy Communion. That’s tragic.

In the big picture, one soul being eternally lost is a greater tragedy than all the wars throughout the history of mankind put together.

I think we need to understand (even if someone says their proud…etc… ) it’s a real emotional wound when that happens to you – reception of Holy Communion is a very personal thing. I remember, during the SARS outbreak, when our pastor first “asked” us from the pulpit not to receive on the tongue, it was like one big omelette inside of sad, angry and confused all mixed together. When it was finally time for reception of Holy Communion, I did comply…but it didn’t change the hurt. I just said to Our Lord in Holy Communion: “Okay Jesus, if this is what I have to do…so I can be with you – please, don’t let this last too long.”

Just to qualify for you: For more than 8 years of my 13+ years apostolate, I assist an elderly priest who is half paralyzed from a stroke, has advanced Parkinson’s and for all intents and purposes only has one hand/arm which functions in a limited manner. If I assist him, he is able to celebrate Mass privately, but he can’t do it alone. On those occasions (2-3 times a week) I receive Communion in the hand from him…out of necessity …he can barely get the Host in his own mouth , let alone mine. …Kind of boggles the mind - how I could be doing this, yet feel (during the SARS outbreak) the way I described in the preceding paragraph , doesn’t it? It’s because when I am not required to serve, my preference – my “free choice”, is to receive Holy Communion on the tongue.

Looks like we have to re-visit the question of authority. I believe I need to make a separate post since this one is a little lengthy.

 

[Mamselle_Duroc]

And that’s where I am concerned. A) You speak of your “own personal conscience.” We do have those (personal consciences), but we aren’t Protestants, we don’t have a “me and Jesus” theology or ecclesiology or anything else. We are a part of the Mystical Body of Christ, a part of the whole. We are called to think with the mind of the Church. The Church has permitted this generally (even though Pope Benedict distributes the Most Sacred Body only on the tongue, he permitted the Indult to be extended to the Polish Church in 2007), and your bishop has invoked what is probably his legitimate authority in an emergency situation (he would be well OUTSIDE his authority if he tried to make it permanent). That you have a scrupple about this seems, with all due and genuine respect, problematic, esp. since B) you are unhappy about not being able to receive Our Blessed Lord, which the Church (and your bishop) says you certainly may! Do you see what I mean?

Yeees… sort of. Well, wholly, in fact, but I think perhaps you don’t understand what I mean. I agree, “personal conscience” did sound very Protestant and I feel silly for it. I only phrased it in that way because I was afraid if I just said “conscience” flat-out I would give the impression that I was implying that for all my talk, I really do think you people receiving on the hand are doing something wrong.

I don’t think this is scruples. I had scruples as a young teenager, and I just don’t think this is it. What I’m getting at is that this is a big, important personal ‘devotion,’ if you want to phrase it that way. I’m personally opposed to me personally receiving on the hand, if that makes sense. And I agree that if I were to receive on the hand, I would be doing absolutely nothing wrong, if it did feel against my conscience. The Church has okay-ed it.

But, for instance, the Church doesn’t require headcoverings. I still feel bareheaded when I go into a church without one. It’s something I feel strongly that I should do, and while I wouldn’t be sinning by not wearing a headcovering, I would definitely feel that I wasn’t doing something that I ought to do.

Girl altar servers are permitted by the Church. I never served. Whether the Church permits it or not, I couldn’t justify it for me. The Rosary isn’t a required devotion, but I just don’t feel right if I omit to say it one day. The Church hasn’t issued any proclamations on how to dress, but some women don’t feel right if they’re wearing trousers. I’m not one of them (happen to be wearing trousers right now), but I do know how they feel.

It’s not a question of sin vs. no sin, not even for me personally. It’s just a question of what I feel particularly called to do and what I don’t, if I’m making any sense at all.

Yes, I’m unhappy about not receiving. But at this point, anyway, I’d be a lot more unhappy if I received in the hand. We’ll see how long this lasts, and we’ll see what happens.

I do very much appreciate your concern. I think I’m okay on the scruples angle, at least though. My parents have had to deal with scrupulous kids in the past, and if they thought I was going overboard I think they’d be pretty quick to knock some sense into my head. I’ve talked to a couple others too, and from lay-people to priests they don’t see an issue with simply abstaining.

And, hey, if Father Z. feels that it’s all right for us to just abstain, I feel fairly safe about it.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

QUOTE=weepixie71;5176448]i went to a tridentine mass!!! the priest said bishop jenky announced we are not to receive communion on the tongue until further notice. i see no reason why a priest would lie about it.

I apologize weepixie71. I didn’t mean to imply the priest would lie….But reporters, especially those with their own agenda. I’ve unwillingly ( after some poor unfair treatment by certain governmental bodies here) become finely tuned to language which is ambiguous and more seriously, prevaricative and equivocal. Often the latter is not so unintentional.

Here’s what I was hinting at: If the priest said, (1) “Bishop Jenky announced we are not to receive Communion on the tongue”, that’s one thing; and it is in that light that my responses are written. If, however the priest said, (2) “Bishop Jenky requests (or asks) us not to receive Communion on the tongue,” that’s different. A good example of prevarication would be someone using the second wording, but doing their best to make it sound like the first wording when they announce it. This stuff can be done so subtly sometimes that it goes right by us. Reporters periodically only give us part of the truth so they can paint their own picture.

This would be one opinion or idea I’d have of a crisis – People are being confused and have to refrain from receiving Holy Communion. That’s tragic.

In the big picture, one soul being eternally lost is a greater tragedy than all the wars throughout the history of mankind put together.

I think we need to understand (even if someone says their proud…etc… ) it’s a real emotional wound when that happens to you – reception of Holy Communion is a very personal thing. I remember, during the SARS outbreak, when our pastor first “asked” us from the pulpit not to receive on the tongue, it was like one big omelette inside of sad, angry and confused all mixed together. When it was finally time for reception of Holy Communion, I did comply…but it didn’t change the hurt. I just said to Our Lord in Holy Communion: “Okay Jesus, if this is what I have to do…so I can be with you – please, don’t let this last too long.”

Just to qualify for you: For more than 8 years of my 13+ years apostolate, I assist an elderly priest who is half paralyzed from a stroke, has advanced Parkinson’s and for all intents and purposes only has one hand/arm which functions in a limited manner. If I assist him, he is able to celebrate Mass privately, but he can’t do it alone. On those occasions (2-3 times a week) I receive Communion in the hand from him…out of necessity …he can barely get the Host in his own mouth , let alone mine. …Kind of boggles the mind - how I could be doing this, yet feel (during the SARS outbreak) the way I described in the preceding paragraph , doesn’t it? It’s because when I am not required to serve, my preference – my “free choice”, is to receive Holy Communion on the tongue.

Looks like we have to re-visit the question of authority. I believe I need to make a separate post since this one is a little lengthy.

If we are talking about personal feelings, I’d like to say that it took me the longest time to be able to rec. on the tongue without feeling self-conscious. I never felt the least bit casual or irreverent about receiving in the hand, ie, I’ve always known WHO it was that I received, but it was the arguments on these fora that induced me to switch. I don’t do it out of a sense of reverence, however. I’ve never been able to detect a difference in depth of feeling or reverence in the change in practice. I do it now as an act of reparation to Our Lord for the divisions in His Body and the silly arguments that go on between His Children and for my own lack of humility. And yes, I see it as a form of arrogance if I have to “tolerate” what the Church permits in Her Discipline. It’s like Cardinal Martinni (retired Archbishop of Milan) refusing out of hand to ever offer the EF: arrogant and out of line.

 

[NeedImprovement]

There shouldn’t be any confusion over who has (doesn’t have actually) authority. I thought that case was made fairly clear. Now, whether one is going to choose to comply , one still needs to know and deserves to know what the truth is. If some of you find the following language too strong, I apologize in advance (see my username); it’s only to demonstrate the truth to you.

First of all, we need to move all this medical and pandemic stuff over to the side. I don’t really care if a bishop was faced with a scenario where a billion locusts would descend upon the members of his flock and eat all their hair and left toenails unless parishoners received Holy Communion in the hand … it’s all irrelevant. If we want to know the truth, we need to dispense with those things which have the potential of confusing the issue.

I’ll give several excerpts but would encourage interested members to read all of MEMORIALE DOMINI . It isn’t lengthy , as far as instructions go:

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWMEMOR.HTM

MEMORIALE DOMINI
Instruction on the Manner of Distributing Holy Communion
Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship
Issued on May 29, 1969

So, let’s start here : Reception of Holy Communion on the tongue is still the norm, the traditional way of distributing, and **must **be retained.

“…Thus the custom was established of the minister placing a particle of consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicant.
This method of distributing holy communion must be retained, taking the present situation of the Church in the entire world into account, not merely because it has many centuries of-tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful’s reverence for the Eucharist. The custom does not detract in any way from the personal dignity of those who approach this great sacrament: it is part of that preparation that is needed for the most fruitful reception of the Body of the Lord…”

Pope Paul VI sought the opinions of the bishops on reception of Holy Communion in the hand in the form of 3 questions. Each time, the majority were not in favor (those results are also recorded in the linked Instruction/document). It was after he had their advice/ consensus that he proclaimed the following:

"…From the returns it is clear that the vast majority of bishops believe that the present discipline should not be changed, and that if it were, the change would be offensive to the sentiments and the spiritual culture of these bishops and of many of the faithful.
Therefore, taking into account the remarks and the advice of those whom “the Holy Spirit has placed to rule over” the Churches,[11] in view of the gravity of the matter and the force of the arguments put forward, the Holy Father has decided not to change the existing way of administering holy communion to the faithful.

The Apostolic See therefore emphatically urges bishops, priests and laity to obey carefully the law which is still valid and which has again been confirmed. It urges them to take account of the judgment given by the majority of Catholic bishops, of the rite now in use in the liturgy, of the common good of the Church.

Where a contrary usage, that of placing holy communion on the hand, prevails, the Holy See— …"

That last paragraph says it clearly doesn’t it ? It states the law of the Church and emphatically urges, bishops, priests and faithful to obey it carefully. It says that law is once again confirmed. It was also confirmed again by Pope John Paul II…Redemptionis Sacramentum, that “each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue.” To date, I haven’t heard any rumours about Pope Benedict XVI wanting to abolish any of the above any time soon.

The College of Bishops and the Apostolic See have spoken and stated the law on this matter.

If a bishop forbids any of the faithful from receiving Holy Communion on the tongue, he is disobeying the law of the Church. (So please, be certain whether he is forbidding, or asking).
If a bishop is not in communion with the College of Bishops and the Apostolic See, he has no authority.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Yeees… sort of. Well, wholly, in fact, but I think perhaps you don’t understand what I mean. I agree, “personal conscience” did sound very Protestant and I feel silly for it. I only phrased it in that way because I was afraid if I just said “conscience” flat-out I would give the impression that I was implying that for all my talk, I really do think you people receiving on the hand are doing something wrong.

I don’t think this is scruples. I had scruples as a young teenager, and I just don’t think this is it. What I’m getting at is that this is a big, important personal ‘devotion,’ if you want to phrase it that way. I’m personally opposed to me personally receiving on the hand, if that makes sense. And I agree that if I were to receive on the hand, I would be doing absolutely nothing wrong, if it did feel against my conscience. The Church has okay-ed it.

But, for instance, the Church doesn’t require headcoverings. I still feel bareheaded when I go into a church without one. It’s something I feel strongly that I should do, and while I wouldn’t be sinning by not wearing a headcovering, I would definitely feel that I wasn’t doing something that I ought to do.

Girl altar servers are permitted by the Church. I never served. Whether the Church permits it or not, I couldn’t justify it for me. The Rosary isn’t a required devotion, but I just don’t feel right if I omit to say it one day. The Church hasn’t issued any proclamations on how to dress, but some women don’t feel right if they’re wearing trousers. I’m not one of them (happen to be wearing trousers right now), but I do know how they feel.

It’s not a question of sin vs. no sin, not even for me personally. It’s just a question of what I feel particularly called to do and what I don’t, if I’m making any sense at all.

Yes, I’m unhappy about not receiving. But at this point, anyway, I’d be a lot more unhappy if I received in the hand. We’ll see how long this lasts, and we’ll see what happens.

I do very much appreciate your concern. I think I’m okay on the scruples angle, at least though. My parents have had to deal with scrupulous kids in the past, and if they thought I was going overboard I think they’d be pretty quick to knock some sense into my head. I’ve talked to a couple others too, and from lay-people to priests they don’t see an issue with simply abstaining.

And, hey, if Father Z. feels that it’s all right for us to just abstain, I feel fairly safe about it.

Father Z isn’t the Church. And you speak of what you are “called to do.” By whom? Again, with respect, absent grave sin, do you imagine that the Lord would NOT call you to receive Him? Can God call apart from His Church?

And again, I’m talking about right now, in an emergency situation, not as a regular norm.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

If a bishop forbids any of the faithful from receiving Holy Communion on the tongue, he is disobeying the law of the Church. (So please, be certain whether he is forbidding, or asking).
If a bishop is not in communion with the College of Bishops and the Apostolic See, he has no authority.

I’m not sure that the Holy See wouldn’t support a bishop in THIS SPECIFIC situation, ie, an epidemic. I’d bet that they’d back him.

 

[Mamselle_Duroc]

Father Z isn’t the Church. And you speak of what you are “called to do.” By whom? Again, with respect, absent grave sin, do you imagine that the Lord would NOT call you to receive Him? Can God call apart from His Church?

And again, I’m talking about right now, in an emergency situation, not as a regular norm.

sigh

Either I’m just awfully tired today, or I’m just never going to be able to express myself clearly. You’re going to have to forgive me.

No, Father Z. isn’t the Church. But he’s right in line with the Church when he says we don’t have to receive.

The long and short of it is this: we are not obligated to receive Communion every week. So I won’t. I’ll be at Mass every week, attentive and praying that the flu passes, praying for the bishops to do what is right, and praying for the salvation of my own soul, but I won’t be receiving Communion.

The Church doesn’t ask us to receive every week. I trust the Church.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

sigh

Either I’m just awfully tired today, or I’m just never going to be able to express myself clearly. You’re going to have to forgive me.

No, Father Z. isn’t the Church. But he’s right in line with the Church when he says we don’t have to receive.

The long and short of it is this: we are not obligated to receive Communion every week. So I won’t. I’ll be at Mass every week, attentive and praying that the flu passes, praying for the bishops to do what is right, and praying for the salvation of my own soul, but I won’t be receiving Communion.

The Church doesn’t ask us to receive every week. I trust the Church.

I understand…at least, I think I do. I suppose I find myself disturbed, by those on both the right and the left (the “traditionalists” and the “progressivists”) who think that they know better than the Church. If I read something into what you said, I apologize.

 

[Mamselle_Duroc]

I understand…at least, I think I do. I suppose I find myself disturbed, by those on both the right and the left (the “traditionalists” and the “progressivists”) who think that they know better than the Church. If I read something into what you said, I apologize.

Oh, please don’t apologise… there’s no need. Your concerns were very legitimate and it’s always nice to know that there are people who will make me stop and think before charging on recklessly.

I’m definitely very much on the ‘traditional’ side, but I’m not a ‘traditionalist’ and I pray every day that I retain the humility to never, ever think myself better than the Church. So many times people force a hard line, and I’m grateful to Pope Benedict XVI for doing so much to ease the relations. When things like this come up it makes things very difficult for those of us who are just trying to be faithful in a more traditional way. I feel like Bernardo O’Reilly in The Magnificent Seven: ‘progressives’ on one side, ‘traditionalists’ on the other, and me in the middle.

Just keep me in your prayers?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Oh, please don’t apologise… there’s no need. Your concerns were very legitimate and it’s always nice to know that there are people who will make me stop and think before charging on recklessly.

I’m definitely very much on the ‘traditional’ side, but I’m not a ‘traditionalist’ and I pray every day that I retain the humility to never, ever think myself better than the Church. So many times people force a hard line, and I’m grateful to Pope Benedict XVI for doing so much to ease the relations. When things like this come up it makes things very difficult for those of us who are just trying to be faithful in a more traditional way. I feel like Bernardo O’Reilly in The Magnificent Seven: ‘progressives’ on one side, ‘traditionalists’ on the other, and me in the middle.

Just keep me in your prayers?

Yes, certainly, as I hope you will me.

 

[Indyann]

I understand…at least, I think I do. I suppose I find myself disturbed, by those on both the right and the left (the “traditionalists” and the “progressivists”) who think that they know better than the Church. If I read something into what you said, I apologize.

Well, I absolutely do not understand.

I keep thinking of how “offended” (not sure of the exact wording)
Jesus was when St. Faustina did not receive when she thought she had committed some minor digression. Maybe “wounded” was the word. Will have to look it up.

I am pretty sure that most, if not all Catholics would continue to receive the Holy Eucharist if it were decreed that the Host be offered ONLY on the tongue.

 

[Cat]

I am totally flummoxed by this thread.

We’re talking about JESUS, the Lord and Savior. Jesus, the Second Person in the Holy Trinity. Jesus, Who died for us and rose again and ascended into heaven.

There is a wonderful prayer (from Ven. John Henry Newman) that I like to pray during adoration: “I acknowledge and confess that I kneel before the Sacred Humanity which was conceived in Mary’s womb, and lay in Mary’s bosom, which grew up to man’s estate, and by the Sea of Galilee called the Twelve, wrought miracles, and spoke words of wisdom and peace; which in due season hung on the cross, lay in the tomb, rose from the dead, and now reigns in heaven.”

I can’t imagine passing Him by. Maybe it’s because I was Protestant for so many years, but when I first attended Mass, I recognized Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament and I yearned for Him.

NONE of us is worthy to receive Him, but HE speaks the word and we are healed.

I just can’t comprehend why anyone would walk away from Him for the sake of a reception method.

If my favorite actor were appearing within several hundred miles of my city, I would be there to see him, just to SEE him, not necessarily touch him or meet him.

We are given the privilege of receiving our Lord in Holy Communion–I’m sorry, everyone, but I can’t even imagine turning away from Him.

I thought Holy Communion was about JESUS, not us. HE must increase, and we must decrease.

 

[Brian777]

Our Lord and Savior can not and would not spread dicease to us. this is my argument to my brother who refuses to recieve the Precious Blood.

 

[marleelynn]

In the Archdiocese of Baltimore (MD) there is only communion to be received on the hand and no offering of the wine. There are a couple of outbreaks of the swine flu here.

 

[NeedImprovement]

I think it might have been quite interesting, in the dioceses in question, if we had been able to find out whether the related bishops had been approached by civil authorities or whether it’s an initiative they came up with themselves.

You know, if one person in a restaurant has it and they sneeze… or if someone in the kitchen of the restaurant has it and they sneeze…

Holy Communion is not meant to offend the sensibilities of the faithful. I don’t think it’s a very positive “fruit” or indicator that some of our brothers and sisters are refraining from receiving Holy Communion altogether because of this initiative. It certainly isn’t something which would gladden the Sacred Heart of Jesus or our Blessed Mother’s Immaculate Heart.

Here are some good ideas:

sigh

… attentive and praying that the flu passes, praying for the bishops to do what is right, and praying for the salvation of my own soul, …

Here’s another :

… We just need to use as much faith as we can.

I think I’m going to follow your advice right away and pull out my Rosary and follow with some other prayers.

 

[ProVobis]

You’re PROUD of this? How very sad
It is a very un-Catholic attitude to hold in such contempt a practice permitted by the Church. We are permitted by indult to choose whether to receive in the hand or on the tongue (I receive on the tongue).

You’ve just contradicted yourself. If we choose to receive on the tongue and they won’t accommodate, then what’s so un-Catholic about not receiving? It’s not a mortal sin not to receive so what’s so sad about it? I’m sorry you feel that one has to go against his conscience just to show you that he doesn’t hold any practice in contempt.

That said, if one were really concerned about the swine flu, he or she would avoid being in public altogether. Communion whether in the hand or tongue would be a moot point.

 

[Matt33]

Our Lord and Savior can not and would not spread dicease to us. this is my argument to my brother who refuses to recieve the Precious Blood.

I do not share this view. Our Lord could very well allow disease to be spread. Why not? He allows saints and Popes to die, He allows Stigmata, Suffering, death to all sorts of Holy people. I find it sad that in this day and age, when JPII showed us about redemptive suffering and uniting to Christ on the Cross that we take this view. Have we really watched all the ways in which the Lord works and learned nothing?
Surely the Bishops of some diocees do not agree with you. And while they may not have the authority to do what they are doing I for one do not question thier faith or education in the matter concerning the Body of Our Lord. NOw maybe thier education on the media we could talk about, or even thier education on just how much power Bishops in the US think they have. Yeah we could talk about that. Personally I think your view is dangerous, and not grounded in The Church’s theology. Fortunatley with the hype of the swine flu slowing down I don’t think you are endangering anyone this time.