Canon 87: What can and cannot Bishops do?

  • Thread starter Thread starter savedbychrist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

savedbychrist

Guest
Canon 87 states:
A diocesan bishop, whenever he judges that it contributes to their spiritual good, is able to dispense the faithful from universal and particular disciplinary laws issued for his territory or his subjects by the supreme authority of the Church. He is not able to dispense, however, from procedural or penal laws nor from those whose dispensation is specially reserved to the Apostolic See or some other authority.
Click to expand...
So what authority does this Canon give to bishops? What does “dispensation is specially reserved to the Apostolic See” refer to? Are they specifically mentioned whenever it is applied?

I am asking this because my Diocese allows self-intinction in the diocesan Mass guidelines, but I’m pretty sure it’s wrong and I’m writing to the Diocese for clarification. Specifically, does Canon 87 give Bishops authority to allow self-intinction? Should this be a dispensation “specifically reserved to the Apostolic See”?

By the way, it has been the norm here since 2004. I observe that more than 90% of the faithful receives the Communion this way (before the suspension of Mass). I only learnt recently that it is gravely wrong to do so. My parish’s RCIA taught catechumens to receive by self-intinction as well. It’s just pretty terrible.
 
A caution: at least in our area diocesan offices are closed right now.
 
I have looked this up in a commentary (New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law; ISBN-13: 987-0809140664).

The previous canon (#86) says the bishop cannot dispense from constitutive law. Of course, the bishop cannot dispense from natural and divine law, only ecclesiastical law. Among the ecclesiastical laws he may not dispense from procedural or penal laws. The commentary also says that the bishop cannot by this canon give a general dispensation but only grant dispensations to individuals.

It lists 22 dispensations (p. 135 ff.) reserved to the Holy See so I hope you’ll excuse me for not typing them all out.
 
Can he give approval for self-intinction to his flock? Yes.

This canon places the bishop’s authority for dispensation within the context of disciplinary laws specifically issued for his diocese. Amongst these disciplinary laws falls the application of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal. While the GIRM is to be adapted in general terms by the overarching local conference of bishops, the GIRM specifically addresses in Chapter 9 (for the US Catholic Conference of Bishops) that Bishops are given the power to regulate “the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds.” (no. 387).

In short, this allowance for self-intinction is not even strictly a dispensation because it is within the legislative power of a Bishop explicitly laid out by the USCCB, having been given the authority to do so by the laws of the Church.

God Bless,
Ben
 
Last edited:
CRM_Brother said:
Amongst these disciplinary laws falls the application of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal.
Click to expand...
I think that self-intinction was specifically condemned by Redemptionis Sacramentum 104. I’m no expert in Ecclesiastical law, so I want to ask if the Redemptionis Sacramentum has any effect in this case
 
Our closed last week. Employees have to get permission to go in the building. They have to have a good reason like tribunal work that needs to be done by Easter.
 
savedbychrist said:
So what authority does this Canon give to bishops? What does “dispensation is specially reserved to the Apostolic See” refer to? Are they specifically mentioned whenever it is applied?
Click to expand...
Whether or not the bishop’s dispensing power applies to liturgical law is kind of like a “third rail” among canon lawyers. Some say it does. Others say no. Most don’t even want to touch the topic.
savedbychrist said:
I’m writing to the Diocese for clarification.
Click to expand...
It will be interesting to hear their response and rationale.

Dan
 
What is / would be the rationale for opposition to self-intinction?
 
In self-intinction, the person is being their own Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion.
 
Rau said:
What is / would be the rationale for opposition to self-intinction?
Click to expand...
Other than it being “against the law” as stated in, among other places, Redemptionis sacramentum, it:
–is basically self-communication, which is not permitted to laity (in ordinary circumstances)
–is open to serious abuses/mistakes/negligences in terms of drops of the precious Body/Blood falling to the floor.

Dan
 
It also has the issue of someone reaching in too far and dipping fingers in the Blood, defeating the entire purpose . . .

For the circumstances, Melchite-style intinction could be the way to go–they use long enough strips for the priest to instinct and place in the mouth without the fingers going inside.
 
Redemptionis Sacramentum was a general instruction. We must make this distinction because the Curia is an arm of ordinary magisterium, not extraordinary magisterium. Curial documents, outside of direct Papal decrees, do not hold ordinary authority over that of the local ordinary. In this case, the bishop isn’t just a representative of the pope and subservient to the curia. The current working draft for the new constitution for curial reform explicitly describes that the curia is to be supportive and subservient to not just the Pope but also the local ordinaries. As a general norm, Redemptionis Sacramentum says that comunicants should not be allowed to self-intinct, but this restriction is always contingent on the approval and implementation of the local ordinary.
 
CRM_Brother said:
Redemptionis Sacramentum was a general instruction.
Click to expand...
More properly, it is simply an “instruction.” A document of this sort is only supposed to direct executives (bishops, vicars general, episcopal vicars) as to how they are to understand and apply the law (law, properly speaking, such as what is in the “general instruction of the Roman Missal” and other liturgical “praenotanda” that introduces the various Rites, for example). So, it is of less authority than the law itself. Nevertheless, it is still binding on those for whom it is issued.

On some points, Redemptionis sacramentum certainly goes beyond what an instruction does–it appears to legislate. Due to this, and other “instructions” that included new, true law (most famously, the 1997 document Ecclesiae de mysterio), some canonists think there should be a new category of documents: the “legislative instruction.”

This is all beside the point of the thread, I suppose, but it’s still interesting (to me, anyway).

Dan
 
Last edited:
acanonlawyer said:
On some points, Redemptionis sacramentum certainly goes beyond what an instruction does–it appears to legislate. Due to this, and other “instructions” that included new, true law (most famously, the 1997 document Ecclesiae de mysterio ), some canonists think there should be a new category of documents: the “legislative instruction.”
Click to expand...
Thanks for that clarification. I was going to ask if bishops are not bound by other bits of Redemptionis Sacramentum? Eg in the same section, it is noted that the communicant must not be permitted to receive the intincted host in the hand – Certainly it would be sloppy and of questionable wisdom, but there is no footnote to other document or law, so could a bishop say “Go ahead, have a handful of intinction”??
acanonlawyer said:
This is all beside the point of the thread, I suppose, but it’s still interesting (to me, anyway).
Click to expand...
Not just to you.
 
This was one area which the proposed constitutions for the curia is meant to clarify. It is meant to clearly define the ordinary magisterial authority of the curia with regard to bishops, namely that in ordinary authority, the curia is subordinate to the local bishop within his diocese outside of penal and procedural legislation. In this context, the former legislative instruction of the curia would be regarded as simply instruction (outside of direct Papal endorsement through extraordinary magisterial authority) and does not supersede the bishop’s legislative power outside of penal and procedural codes.
 
dochawk said:
Melchite-style intinction could be the way to go–they use long enough strips for the priest to instinct and place in the mouth without the fingers going inside.
Click to expand...
Maronite-style intinction is where it’s at! 😉
 
on a related question, since you really seem to be very knowledgeable, does giving a blessing to non-communicants fall in the allowed category? based on canon law on a dishops being allowed to approve local customs and also the adaptability of the girm that you just mentioned by local ordinaries, it seems like they should be allowed to approve it, however they are people arguing that they can’t using the same documents, so it’s quite confusing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top