This diocese: http://rcec.london.on.ca/ apparently didn't get the memo.

"Pandemic Planning in the Diocese of London
Current Status: Phase 1
Temporary withdrawal of Communion from the cup
No Communion on the tongue
Hand sanitizers at the doors of the church
At the greeting of peace recommend a greeting and an acknowledgement but no shaking of the hands
Encourage parishioners to stay home if they exhibit flu-like symptoms
Parishes should prepare for Phase 2"

Tell the families of deceased victims that H1N1 is a "mild flu." There have been several deaths attributed to this virus - of all ages by the way - in the my area. I also question the wisdom of advocating disobedience to a bishop's directives, however ill-advised they may be, regarding the distribution of communion. TLM is still something very much on the periphery of American liturgical practice and antagonizing the mainstream on a matter of temporary concern hardly helps the cause. The angry responses this past week to Kenneth Wolfe's not-so-well-written op-ed piece in the NYTimes indicates how far TML devotees remain from acceptance.

The victims in the Boston area have been mostly children and college age adults. A gentlemen in his sixties died last week from H1N1 in one of the western suburbs. Who is to say, maybe the maligned hype prevented other deaths.
The morning Boston Globe reports that the epidemic is on the wane. Good thing, the promised vaccine never materialized.

One liturgical good has come from this. I have heard many comment that a non-contact sign of peace seems more respectful and sincere.

Chrism:

Many thanks.

Chonak:

Thank you for the link.

Randolph,

I would question the wisdom of anyone who obeys his bishop over Rome--even if he agrees with him.

Not that I'm saying bishops ought to disobey Rome, but man you guys, Rome does everything, it seems. What's a bishop's job then? Just to carry out orders from Rome?

A bishop's primary job is to *teach* the flock in his diocese. There are several smaller and/or prudential matters in which he has particular authority, like whether to use female altar servers in his diocese, etc.

Rome will clarify questions (like the CDWDS did in this case) but doesn't give too many orders. I see where you're coming from, and how it could appear, but in the internal workings of dioceses bishops have significant decision making tasks.

Yeah, G, I know I got cranky. Its always hard to assume intentions in a format like this. But it seemed to me that Randolph's in his first post was sort of dismissing the concerns of folks who receive on the tongue (as is the universal norm of the Church, to step out of Am. for a second). And its no small thing that Rome seems to back up the folks on this, what with the letter from the CDWDS.

I'd gladly shake Randolph's hand if I got to meet him. This is the sentence that still bugs me a bit, but its not a hill I'd die on, either: 'TLM is still something very much on the periphery of American liturgical practice and antagonizing the mainstream on a matter of temporary concern hardly helps the cause.'

I don't see how the mainstream is antangonized. If most people receive on the hand, why should it bug them in the least?

Again, I'm not a traditionalist but I don't like to see these good people in our Church dismissed, especially on this matter.

MA, Singing Mum

I would be happy to shake your hand but I came down with the flu yesterday so it may not be a wise move. How’s that for irony! The illness is settling in my lungs, so it could very well be H1N1.

Gauging the tone of internet communications is treacherous and therefore one must always be vigilant to perceived meaning. The intent of my previous comment had less to do with whether communion should be received on the tongue during a health crisis than the inability of Latin Mass supporters to access accurately their position in the broader community and to judge the effectiveness of their public engagements. Though the TLM may enjoy more support in other geographical areas, it is more often than not the subject of ridicule and derision here in the greater Boston region - particular from some prominent newspaper and media personalities. I’m thinking of popular local columnists like James Carroll and television journalist Emily Rooney (Andy’s daughter). They make no attempt to hide their distain. So while there are three or four parishes offering TLM in my archdiocese, to say that TLM is “peripheral” to New England culture is merely stating the obvious. I think the phenomenon applies elsewhere as well.

I perhaps misled you into thinking I have no use for the Latin Mass. Far from it, I am old enough to remember with fondness when the old rite was the norm. I also remember the abuses. Because of the latter, the intentions of most reformers were honorable. My objection is not with TLM, but rather with a tendency of some to skew history and reject offhand strengths of the NO.

Because of this, TLM needs better public relations management. For example, though it is a common feature of cyberspace liturgical commentary to cite passages from Church documents as if they fall under the purview of papal infallibility or the dogmatic authority of the Magisterium. The pope has said it therefore it is law! Discussion’s over. This is not only naïve in terms of ecclesial theology but weakens the probability that the practices cited in those quoted passages will be implemented. The Pope is too wise to issue heavy-handed edicts, especially in regions like New England (and now Ireland) where an entrenched clericalism allowed and sheltered behavior more associated with prisons than rectories.

Passages recommending the retention of Latin and the promotion of chant are not self-implementing pieces of legislation. Documents do count, but Vatican II bishops did – mistakenly or not - exercise their legal options. With this as backdrop, it seems far more prudent today to emphasize the efficacy of the Latin liturgy over an imposed legalism. Defenders of TLM or Latin chant don’t need to adjust or invent facts to advance their case or overreact to a bishop's view on the best way to prevent the spread of disease. You do need however to engage detractors openly, calmly, sensibly, and with forbearance if you wish the majority ever to comprehend the depth and richness of the Latin rite enjoyed by so few. I just don’t see this happening on a wide scale.

Were we ever really instructed on receiving properly in the hand? I think so, but there certainly seem to be so many variations cropping up. OTOH, we WERE taught as 2nd graders how to receive on the tongue for our first Communion. Now-a-days that is no longer the case. If you open your mouth enough to stick your tongue out, and bring it back in without scraping the Host off in the process, everything works just fine. It is recommended that you close your eyes momentarily - not so much out of respect, but so that you the minister aren't playing a mutual game of hitting the moving target! If the tongue is sufficiently exposed, the minister's fingers never touch the tongue in order to lay the Host on the tongue. Of course, this all flies out the window if the Minister is forced to put the Host inside your mouth. And the whole process is further hindered by the communicant being required, not is in older days, to respond "Amen" before even beginning the process of opening up and sticking out! Now that's about 5 reasons for the old Mass' style of reception!

Father Z has posted a wise column today with a story about how to deal (and how not to deal) with people in disputes.

Chrism’s repeated queries remind me that I have broken a golden rule of blog commentary. Stay on topic! Thanks to Chonak, the Fr. Z link brings the original subject back in focus.

The frequent odd looks I get from some friends and acquaintances - granted a mostly secular, academic, post-Christian crowd - when expressing my admiration for the Latin Mass perhaps explains an unnecessary over-sensitivity. In any event, I apologize for taking an important discussion off course.