Can the Pastor do this?

  • Thread starter Thread starter belgianwaffles9
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

belgianwaffles9

Guest
I know that receiving communion standing and/or in the hands is allowed by indult, and that the lawful, “normal” (whatever the statistics say) way to receive is kneeling on the tongue.

That said, would a pastor have the authority to say that the indults did not apply in his parish, and that the Eucharist was the be received kneeling and on the tongue only (save physical handicap)?

I’m assuming here that the Bishop doesn’t order him to accept the indults, of course. And, I believe I have heard of cases where Bishops declared that the indults do not apply to their diocese. Am i correct in assuming that this is allowed?
 
“way to receive is kneeling on the tongue.”
sounds a little painfull to me.
 
FrCorey said:
“way to receive is kneeling on the tongue.”
sounds a little painfull to me.
Click to expand...
ahh, the comma, such an underrated mark.

Just today at work I pointed out that the Charleston Chew box says that they are "chewy flavored nougat ", and I know full-well that chewy is a texture, not a flavor.

On a more serious note, I suppose he has a precedent in Pope Benedict XVI’s recent action. If he, as a pastor, decided people had to receive on the tongue while kneeling, why cant yours?
 
belgianwaffles9 said:
I know that receiving communion standing and/or in the hands is allowed by indult, and that the lawful, “normal” (whatever the statistics say) way to receive is kneeling on the tongue.

That said, would a pastor have the authority to say that the indults did not apply in his parish, and that the Eucharist was the be received kneeling and on the tongue only (save physical handicap)?

I’m assuming here that the Bishop doesn’t order him to accept the indults, of course. And, I believe I have heard of cases where Bishops declared that the indults do not apply to their diocese. Am i correct in assuming that this is allowed?
Click to expand...
The Pastor can certainly say that all in his Church should receive kneeling. However if one comes standing the Pastor could not lawfully refuse him in the same way if one kneels at a Mass where the norm is standing he is not to be refused.
 
belgianwaffles9 said:
I know that receiving communion standing and/or in the hands is allowed by indult, and that the lawful, “normal” (whatever the statistics say) way to receive is kneeling on the tongue.

That said, would a pastor have the authority to say that the indults did not apply in his parish, and that the Eucharist was the be received kneeling and on the tongue only (save physical handicap)?

I’m assuming here that the Bishop doesn’t order him to accept the indults, of course. And, I believe I have heard of cases where Bishops declared that the indults do not apply to their diocese. Am i correct in assuming that this is allowed?
Click to expand...
Individual Bishops may well have authority (but don’t quote me on this) to say indults don’t apply in their dioceses or in particular parishes.

If the parish is one that sometimes or exclusively says the TLM according to 1962 Missal, for example, then all the rubrics (including reception kneeling and on the tongue) will apply as they are in that Missal.
 
If the parish is exclusively offering the EF, then, you have to abide by what the rubircs are for this particular Mass. As Pope Benedict noted, you can’t mix and match. In the EF, the sole posture for receiving Holy Communion (save for a physical impairment) is kneeling and on the tongue. You kneel eithe on a kneeler or on the communion rail.

Howeever, if the parish is offering both the OF and the EF, you can’t blend the two. In the OF, kneeling to receive Holy Communion is a legitimate posture. In fact, the Holy Father has ratified it and re-affirmed it. However, standing, too, is legitimate. It’s a case of either/or posture being valid.
 
Hi,
  • The norm for receiving communion is on the tongue, and yes in the USA we have an indult to receive in the hand, if we wish. The indult says that the priest cannot refuse* to give communion in the hand, if that is what the communicant wishes.
However if communion is offered by intinction then we must receive on the tongue; but the priest cannot use intinction as a way to force the congregation to receive on the tongue.
**🙂 **
 
belgianwaffles9 said:
I know that receiving communion standing and/or in the hands is allowed by indult, and that the lawful, “normal” (whatever the statistics say) way to receive is kneeling on the tongue.
Click to expand...
In the US the norm is standing, and the option is hand or mouth. Hand is an indult, which is approved, but standing is the norm, with kneeling allowed. (no indult involved in standing)

Have you heard of a priest instructing all communicants to kneel, or is this a hypothetical question?

Lux
 
Lux_et_Tenebrae said:
In the US the norm is standing, and the option is hand or mouth. Hand is an indult, which is approved, but standing is the norm, with kneeling allowed. (no indult involved in standing)

Have you heard of a priest instructing all communicants to kneel, or is this a hypothetical question?

Lux
Click to expand...
Actually, there was an indult for standing; the universal norm has always been kneeling. For any local Bishop’s conference to even immagine making standing the local norm, there would have to be an indult to do so. Eventually, such and indult came, and the US bishops decided to apply that indult to basically its furthest extent. Two points worth noting, however: the indult affirms the right of every Catholic to receive according to the universal norm, which is kneeling; furthermore, the US bishops had to receive permission from the Vatican to make standing the local norm.

I have heard of a few enlightened priests suggesting or requesting that people kneel, and i know certain bishops have not used the indult. I have not, however, heard of a pastor making his parish a “kneeling only” parish. Which made me curious if it was legal or not. Summorum Pontificum gives a lot more power to pastors in liturgical matters like this, so i sonsidered it a related issue.
 
DJJG said:
However if communion is offered by intinction then we must receive on the tongue; but the priest cannot use intinction as a way to force the congregation to receive on the tongue.
**🙂 **
Click to expand...
Interesting… how exacly does one prove that the priest is using intiction to “force” reception on the tongue, instead of other reasons, such as speed, to lessen the need for EM’s, or a host of other reasons…
 
I don’t mean to go off topic, but speaking of “Can the Pastor do this”, the priest at mass this morning actually confirmed someone, and there was no bishop around!! Can the Pastor do this?
 
terryobrien80 said:
I don’t mean to go off topic, but speaking of “Can the Pastor do this”, the priest at mass this morning actually confirmed someone, and there was no bishop around!! Can the Pastor do this?
Click to expand...
It depends on the situation. Sometimes a priest can validly confirm because the law gives him the faculty, such as when he baptizes adults or receives them into full communion with the Church. Sometimes he can confirm validly because the bishop has given him the faculty to do so in a particular case. In danger of death, a priest may also confirm validly. See canons 882-883.
 
terryobrien80 said:
I don’t mean to go off topic, but speaking of “Can the Pastor do this”, the priest at mass this morning actually confirmed someone, and there was no bishop around!! Can the Pastor do this?
Click to expand...
Of course he can, as delegated by the Bishop.

Priests are also supposed to confirm infants who are baptized due to danger of death.

In a couple of cases our Bishop delegated to our pastor the responsibility to administer Confirmation when children who had prepared for the sacrament were unable to be present when the Bishop was in town.
 
Okay. It seems suspicious to me though. I always thought that only a bishop could Confirm :confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top