- Status
Tis_Bearself
Patron
When other people decide they know better than the learned Bishop.
P
PetraG
Guest
No, I cannot remotely come close to being able to read Chinese.
Well, there was a time in the history of the Church when we did not recieve Holy Communion every Sunday. I guess if I felt very strongly that I could not comply in good conscience I would write a respectful letter of protest to the bishop and to Rome, explaining why I felt there was not a sufficient epidemiological advantage to warrant this denial of a right of the faithful, and in the meantime just not receive Holy Communion if I felt strongly that I did not want to risk profaning the Eucharist by recieving in my hand and perhaps being responsible for dropping a fragment.
Some will object that the chances of dropping a fragment of the Eucharist when receiving in the hand is very low, but if that is so then why be so concerned about the extremely low likelihood of transmitting disease by distributing Holy Communion directly onto the tongue? I can attest to having found a fragment of the Eucharist on my hand after putting the host in my mouth. Of course I could have missed it. There isn’t a single documented case of transmission of disease via distribution of Holy Communion on the tongue ever happening. It is theoretically possible, but you won’t find a case of it in the literature.
Really–what is going to happen if the faithful see a fragment of the Eucharist on their palms? Well, let’s hope they’re going to lick their hands in order to consume it! I don’t see how it is possible to consume a tiny fragment stuck to your palm without getting saliva on your hand. I’ve never been able to do it, which is why I always recieved on the tongue when I was going to be an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion. Well, there is a mode of transmission, and we don’t know how this virus is passed along.
Last edited:
S
savedbychrist
Guest
Thanks for your advice. I hope the discussion will be fruitful, although I am not so positive that they will consider my concern seriously. Most of the time they approach questions from catechumens as “inquiries of the faith”, and they respond in the position of a “knowledgeable teacher explaining the faith to you, a student”, rather than seeing you as a member of the Church and considering it as a real concern. But anyways, I will keep humble and obedient when raising this concern.
T
Thom18
Guest
There’s nothing “liberal” about disease prevention.
P
PetraG
Guest
No, but not everything meant to prevent disease actually makes much difference in preventing disease, not even things that require other trade-offs.
Let’s say you are an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion. You receive in the hand, put the host in your mouth, and then of course to avoid negligently profaning the Eucharist, you check your palm to see that there is no fragment left on your hand. There it is, a fragment stuck to your hand.
This has happened to me. Tell me: How do you consume that fragment stuck to your hand without either risking dropping it or else getting saliva on one or the other of your hands? Where is the disease prevention in that?
Last edited:
S
savedbychrist
Guest
I described the Diocese as “liberal” not because of this measure they take, but rather just a plain description. Of course it is just my opinion.
D
DeniseNY
Guest
But at this point you are a student of the faith.
ETA: and to some degree we are always students, with more to learn.
Last edited:
P
PetraG
Guest
No, I think you ought to receive first. Many parishes do reserve the front row for those who need to do so. As I’m sure you are aware, there are always viruses going around that pose a real danger to those who are immunosuppressed.
The question is whether restricting Holy Communion to in the hand actually has the effect that is supposed. I think any of us who check our hands after we receive in the hand know that we will find a small fragment left behind from time to time. I know I have.I would propose from experience that it is somewhere between difficult and impossible to consume a small fragment of the Eucharist that is sticking to your hand without any saliva-bridged contact between your mouth and your hand.
Since when is that sanitary? It isn’t as if you can just leave that fragment there and not consume it out of fear of transfer of germs between your hand and your mouth.
On top of this, we don’t even know how 2019-nCoV spreads. If it is a virus that can live on a dry surface, why would we want to eat food from our hands, which have been touching the pews and other surfaces that other people have touched since we came into the church. Are we going to mandate hand sanitizer for all communicants, too?
I just don’t think that the epidemiological advantage is as great as people automatically suppose, and especially not if Holy Communion is being received in that hand diligently, with vigilance concerning small yet visible and identifiable fragments that are sometimes left behind.
Last edited:
P
puer.dei
Guest
Absolutely. The diocese is trying to help slow the spread of a new, contagious disease.
BTW, germs and viruses don’t give a darn about “liberal” or “conservative.”
E
EricPH
Guest
1
1ke
Guest
You have some seriously mistaken ideas about the Eucharist.
Please talk to your pastor.
Please talk to your pastor.
Q
QuD
Guest
Memoriale Domini, by which the normative manner of receiving the HC was NOT changed and which allowed for bishops’ conferences to request an indult (exception from law) was published in the AAS with accompanying norms to be followed. No. 1 is:
So the bishop in question is clearly overstepping his jurisdiction.
S
savedbychrist
Guest
Yes I am a student, but my concern was meant to be a concern, not a question. If our clergy seez such as mere inquiries, they would be unable to spot solid concerns despite catechumens have already told them.
C
Catfinger77
Guest
Liberals like to not get the virus if possible.
S
savedbychrist
Guest
Jesus suffered 5480 wounds in His Passion. He was all covered in blood, tears, sweat and spittle. But Veronica still wiped His face, and Mary still embraced His corpse. Do they believe in the “magic” of the Eucharist as you claim? No. Did they not see how dirty our Lord was? No. But they chose to embrace the Lord because of love. The Mass is the Sacrifice at Calvary, and I see no reason why Mary and Veronica would be seen as virtuous, while we would be seen as “serious mistaken” and foolish.
S
savedbychrist
Guest
And as some people are not so happy with the “liberal” description, I have removed it from the topic.
Last edited:
E
EricPH
Guest
Thanks for sharing.
It comes down to health and safety or trust in our Lord. I just prefer to trust in our Lord.
T
Thom18
Guest
I don’t see why we need to be concerned about how liberal or conservative they are in this case. They’re doing this to prevent the spread of disease, not to diss conservativesThom18:
I described the Diocese as “liberal” not because of this measure they take, but rather just a plain description. Of course it is just my opinion.
po18guy
Well-known member
What if I don’t want to receive first - ya’ know, like those who don’t want to receive in the hand?
I do not want to find out how the virus is transmitted!
The point is to not transmit the virus, is it not?
Are we so inflexible that we must receive one way and one way only?
“Lord, I’m sorry that I refused communion. You see, they wanted to place the Host in my hand! No way!”
“My child, it is your hands that do my work…”
“Well, we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that”
I do not want to find out how the virus is transmitted!
The point is to not transmit the virus, is it not?
Are we so inflexible that we must receive one way and one way only?
“Lord, I’m sorry that I refused communion. You see, they wanted to place the Host in my hand! No way!”
“My child, it is your hands that do my work…”
“Well, we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that”
- Status