CITH: some document requests

[diggerdomer]

You seem to be excluding completely the possibility that the US adaptation of the GIRM to permit Communion in the hand is because of an indult. I grant this is something still to be proven, but you don’t seem to even acknowledge it as a possibility.

Yes, I am denying that.

Let’s back up a minute. This might help. Can you define what an “indult” is? Do you know?

 

[diggerdomer]

“In the US” does not equal “Universal norm” (no wonder we have a reputation as ignorant).

Am I saying that the GIRM w/ US adaptations is incomplete or inadequate? Yes, to the extent that the US is not the the Universe, the US GIRM is inadequate. (didn’t we do this a year ago…).

BTW, let me add RS 92 to the list of citations.

If you are in the U.S., what liturgical law do you follow? The GIRM as approved by the Vatican for the U.S., or some other?

I never said anything about a universal norm, I am merely saying the norm in the U.S., as approved by the Vatican, is that communion can be received on the tongue or in the hand, with no preference indicated. If you disagree, please provide a reference from Church teaching as approved by the Vatican.

 

[CDNowak]

I never said anything about a universal norm, I am merely saying the norm in the U.S., as approved by the Vatican, is that communion can be received on the tongue or in the hand, with no preference indicated. If you disagree, please provide a reference from Church teaching as approved by the Vatican.

Then you are off topic.

 

[japhy]

Yes, I am denying that. … Can you define what an “indult” is?

Why are you categorically denying it?

As for what an “indult” is, I operate by the definition provided in the OCE, also found on Wikipedia:

“Indults are general faculties, granted by the Holy See to bishops and others, of doing something not permitted by the common law.” (OCE)

“a permission, or privilege, granted by the competent church authority – the Holy See or the diocesan bishop, as the case may be – for an exception from a particular norm of church law in an individual case” (wiki)

There’s also this entry in Fr. John Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary:

“A temporary favor granted by the Holy See to bishops to permit them to do something not otherwise allowed. If given for a certain time, it must be renewed by competent ecclesiastical authority.”

Are you going to ask, then, what the time limit stipulated in the indult for Communion in the hand is?

 

[Ockham]

If I may…digger has been provided ample sources to confirm CITH is an indult in the US yet he continues this incessant refrain of ‘it’s approved’, ‘don’t you follow Church teaching?’, ‘where in the GIRM does the word “indult” appear?’ or words to that effect. Of course, spiritual works of mercy are admirable and encourageable, but sometimes it’s best to throw seeds on fertile ground instead.

“*They [Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments] have also declared themselves favorable to reaffirm that the usual way of receiving Communion according to the norms is not on the hand, but in the mouth. There is, it is true, and **indult *which, on request of the [local] episcopates, allows for the distribution of the host [sic] also on the palm of the hand, but this must remain an extraordinary fact.”

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/08/urgent-reform-of-reform-is-in-motion.html

"*Feb 1, 2008 / 03:32 pm (CNA).- Archbishop Albert Malcolm Ranjith, Secretary of the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Cult and Discipline of the Sacraments has said that the policy of giving Communion in the hand should be revised.

Receiving Holy Communion in the hand “produces a growing weakening of a devout attitude toward the Most Holy Sacrament,” wrote Archbishop Ranjith in the preface of a book from the Auxiliary Bishop of Kazakhstan, Bishop Athanasius Schneider"*
catholicnewsagency.com/news/communion_in_hand_should_be_revised_vatican_official_says/

"*Communion-in-the-hand is approved by the Holy See **as an option **for the United States, and for many other countries, including Italy. The following are the relevant parts of the documents governing this permission.

…]

The authority of the Church to permit what in other centuries was freely done and which “by itself” is not contrary to the faith is not in question. If abuses are widespread they are contrary to the mind of the Church as expressed in the Roman documents, and contrary to the devotion expressed in the early Church when Communion was also received in the hand. Withdrawing this permission in our time on account of the abuses is certainly something Rome could do.*"

Colin B. Donovan, STL
ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_in_hand.htm

 

[japhy]

As you referred to, some 40 (not 30) years ago, communion in the hand was only licit by means of an indult. But that changed, as the Church authorized communion in the hand, without the indult, for the U.S. in the 1970’s.

So you are saying that the Church was authorizing Communion in the hand by an indult to various countries, but authorized it in the US without the indult?

The later US adaptation to the 1975 GIRM says “240. On June 17, 1977, the Congregation of Sacraments and Divine Worship approved the request of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops to permit the optional practice of Communion in the hand.” You are proposing that this “request” which was “approved” for the US was not for the indult, per the process described in Memoriale Domini?
In such cases, episcopal conferences should examine matters carefully and should make whatever decisions, by a secret vote and with a two-thirds majority, are needed to regulate matters. Their decisions should be sent to Rome to receive the necessary confirmation, accompanied with a detailed account of the reasons which led them to take those decisions. The Holy See will examine each case carefully, taking into account the links between the different local churches and between each of them and the Universal Church, in order to promote the common good and the edification of all, and that mutual good example may increase faith and piety.
And, lest you question whether this is describing an indult at all, the letter En reponse a la demande (29 May 1969: AAS 61) is prefaced thus:
Instructio completur, in re pastorali, Epistula qua conceditur Conferentiis
Episcopalibus indultum distribuendi fidelibus sacram Communionem
in manu, cum omnes condiciones requisitae habeantur.
What evidence is there that the permission granted to the US is of a different kind that the permission granted by indult to other conferences?

 

[diggerdomer]

You are deliberately ignoring the fact that the GIRM says “receives the Sacrament either on the tongue or, where this is allowed and if the communicant so chooses, in the hand.” Since it is not allowed everywhere, obviously the US (and Canada) had to receive permission to go against the universal norm. That permission was the indult they were granted 30+ years ago and which could be ended at any time.

Read the GIRM as approved for the U.S. by the Vatican para 160.

I don’t think your quote is accurate.

Agree?

 

[diggerdomer]

Then you are off topic.

If so, my apologies.

 

[diggerdomer]

Why are you categorically denying it?

As for what an “indult” is, I operate by the definition provided in the OCE, also found on Wikipedia:

“Indults are general faculties, granted by the Holy See to bishops and others, of doing something not permitted by the common law.” (OCE)

“a permission, or privilege, granted by the competent church authority – the Holy See or the diocesan bishop, as the case may be – for an exception from a particular norm of church law in an individual case” (wiki)

There’s also this entry in Fr. John Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary:

“A temporary favor granted by the Holy See to bishops to permit them to do something not otherwise allowed. If given for a certain time, it must be renewed by competent ecclesiastical authority.”

Are you going to ask, then, what the time limit stipulated in the indult for Communion in the hand is?

Thank you.

I admit, I don’t know what “OCE” refers to. Can you clarify?

Either way, let’s say for the sake of argument that an indult is what you claim, faculties of doing something not permitted by common law.

Common (liturgical) law for the U.S., as approved by the Vatican, is that communion can be received either on the tongue or in the hand.

For reference, read the GIRM as approved by the Vatican for the U.S. (you can find it on the USCCB web site).

 

[diggerdomer]

If I may…digger has been provided ample sources to confirm CITH is an indult in the US yet he continues this incessant refrain of ‘it’s approved’, ‘don’t you follow Church teaching?’, ‘where in the GIRM does the word “indult” appear?’ or words to that effect. Of course, spiritual works of mercy are admirable and encourageable, but sometimes it’s best to throw seeds on fertile ground instead.

“*They [Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments] have also declared themselves favorable to reaffirm that the usual way of receiving Communion according to the norms is not on the hand, but in the mouth. There is, it is true, and **indult ***which, on request of the [local] episcopates, allows for the distribution of the host [sic] also on the palm of the hand, but this must remain an extraordinary fact.”

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/08/urgent-reform-of-reform-is-in-motion.html

"*Feb 1, 2008 / 03:32 pm (CNA).- Archbishop Albert Malcolm Ranjith, Secretary of the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Cult and Discipline of the Sacraments has said that the policy of giving Communion in the hand should be revised.

Receiving Holy Communion in the hand “produces a growing weakening of a devout attitude toward the Most Holy Sacrament,” wrote Archbishop Ranjith in the preface of a book from the Auxiliary Bishop of Kazakhstan, Bishop Athanasius Schneider"*
catholicnewsagency.com/news/communion_in_hand_should_be_revised_vatican_official_says/

"*Communion-in-the-hand is approved by the Holy See **as an option ***for the United States, and for many other countries, including Italy. The following are the relevant parts of the documents governing this permission.

…]

The authority of the Church to permit what in other centuries was freely done and which “by itself” is not contrary to the faith is not in question. If abuses are widespread they are contrary to the mind of the Church as expressed in the Roman documents, and contrary to the devotion expressed in the early Church when Communion was also received in the hand. Withdrawing this permission in our time on account of the abuses is certainly something Rome could do."

Colin B. Donovan, STL
ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_in_hand.htm

Sorry, Ockham, I’m quoting Church teaching, you’re citing random internet links. Try again?

 

[diggerdomer]

So you are saying that the Church was authorizing Communion in the hand by an indult to various countries, but authorized it in the US without the indult??

Yes, 40 or so years ago, communion in the hand was approved only by indult.

But with the revision to the (note “the”) Mass of Paul VI, communion in the hand was extended by liturgical law itself (i.e. the GIRM) and not only by indult. As in the U.S.

 

[diggerdomer]

S

The later US adaptation to the 1975 GIRM says “240. On June 17, 1977, the Congregation of Sacraments and Divine Worship approved the request of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops to permit the optional practice of Communion in the hand.” You are proposing that this “request” which was “approved” for the US was not for the indult, per the process described in Memoriale Domini?

Read the 1975 GIRM yourself. Any mention of an indult there? I haven’t come across any, and it’s via that GIRM that I was taught the Church approved, in the U.S., that communion can be validly and licitly received, by Church law (not an indult to Church law) either on the tongue or in the hand.

 

[Vico]

Read the 1975 GIRM yourself. Any mention of an indult there? I haven’t come across any, and it’s via that GIRM that I was taught the Church approved, in the U.S., that communion can be validly and licitly received, by Church law (not an indult to Church law) either on the tongue or in the hand.

See post #49, this thread, for the 1985 cover letter update for Memoriale Domini, that uses the term faculty. Also 1999 CDWDS called it an indult for Canada.

 

[SimonDodd]

Read the 1975 GIRM yourself. Any mention of an indult there? I haven’t come across any, and it’s via that GIRM that I was taught the Church approved, in the U.S., that communion can be validly and licitly received, by Church law (not an indult to Church law) either on the tongue or in the hand.

This actually goes to prove what Japhy, myself, and others have said. Since CITH was unquestionably allowed by indult alone in 1975—no one seriously contends otherwise—the parity in language between the GIRM of the day and ours confirms that GIRM today presupposes and accommodates the indult rather than that constituting independent legislation.

 

[japhy]

I admit, I don’t know what “OCE” refers to. Can you clarify?

OCE = Old Catholic Encyclopedia.

Either way, let’s say for the sake of argument that an indult is what you claim, faculties of doing something not permitted by common law.

How about you define “indult” for us, instead of you having to make an act of faith that I’ve given a reasonable definition of the word.

Common (liturgical) law for the U.S., as approved by the Vatican, is that communion can be received either on the tongue or in the hand. For reference, read the GIRM as approved by the Vatican for the U.S. (you can find it on the USCCB web site).

An indult is concerned with the “common law” – that is, the universal law. The indult for Communion in the hand concerns the universal law for the reception of Communion, which is on the tongue.

That is why Redemptionis Sacramentum says “if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission…” (92)

That is why the normative Latin text of the GIRM reads “Communicandus … Sacramentum recipit, ore vel, ubi concessum sit, manu, pro libitu suo.” (161) [where it is permitted, in the hand]

Yes, the normative Latin text of the GIRM has been updated to account for the possibility of receiving in the hand, probably due to the wide-spread permission. The Latin text of GIRM 161 does not, in and of itself, grant that permission, it merely takes into account the permission which is given to some places. Clearly, receiving in the hand is not part of the universal (common) law, or else there would not be permission required. If receiving in the hand were part of universal (common) law, “ubi concessum sit” would be redundant.

Yes, 40 or so years ago, communion in the hand was approved only by indult. But with the revision to the (note “the”) Mass of Paul VI, communion in the hand was extended by liturgical law itself (i.e. the GIRM) and not only by indult. As in the U.S.

The normative Latin GIRM does not create permission for Communion in the hand. It only acknowledges the presence of the permission.

 

[diggerdomer]

See post #49, this thread, for the 1985 cover letter update for Memoriale Domini, that uses the term faculty. Also 1999 CDWDS called it an indult for Canada.

Memoriale Domini is from 1969 when CITH was, clearly, an indult.

I don’t know where the CDWDS called CITH an indult for Canada in 1999, can you share a reference?

Regardless, my point, admittedly as I am in the U.S. I can only speak for the experience of Catholics in the U.S., CITH was not an indult following the (Vatican-approved) Missal of Paul VI.

 

[Vico]

Memoriale Domini is from 1969 when CITH was, clearly, an indult.

I don’t know where the CDWDS called CITH an indult for Canada in 1999, can you share a reference?

Regardless, my point, admittedly as I am in the U.S. I can only speak for the experience of Catholics in the U.S., CITH was not an indult following the (Vatican-approved) Missal of Paul VI.

The Canada indult reference is from *Notitiae *(April 1999), the official publication of the CDW, posted on Adoremus:
adoremus.org/0203CommunionHand.html

Communion in the Hand indult was requested in 1969 but not US approved until 1977, Canada in 1970:

South Africa, 3 February 1970
Canada, 12 February 1970
Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), 2 October 1971
Zambia, 11 March 1974
New Zealand, 24 April 1974
Australia, 26 September 1975
England and Wales, 6 March 1976
Papua and New Guinea, 28 April 1976
Ireland, 4 September 1976
Pakistan, 29 October 1976
United States, 17 June 1977
Scotland, 7 July 1977
Malaysia and Singapore, 3 October 1977

ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_in_hand.htm

See No. 240 here from the appendix to the 1975 GIRM:
“On June 17, 1977, the Congregation of Sacraments and Divine Worship approved the request of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops to permit the optional practice of Communion in the hand.”
cfpeople.org/Books/GIRM/girmp11.htm#T2

 

[diggerdomer]

The Canada indult reference is from *Notitiae *(April 1999), the official publication of the CDW, posted on Adoremus:
adoremus.org/0203CommunionHand.html

Communion in the Hand indult was requested in 1969 but not US approved until 1977, Canada in 1970:

South Africa, 3 February 1970
Canada, 12 February 1970
Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), 2 October 1971
Zambia, 11 March 1974
New Zealand, 24 April 1974
Australia, 26 September 1975
England and Wales, 6 March 1976
Papua and New Guinea, 28 April 1976
Ireland, 4 September 1976
Pakistan, 29 October 1976
United States, 17 June 1977
Scotland, 7 July 1977
Malaysia and Singapore, 3 October 1977

ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_in_hand.htm

See No. 240 here from the appendix to the 1975 GIRM:
“On June 17, 1977, the Congregation of Sacraments and Divine Worship approved the request of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops to permit the optional practice of Communion in the hand.”
cfpeople.org/Books/GIRM/girmp11.htm#T2

Thanks. Great reference.

Please note, though, this reference says (appropriately) that ministers may not RESTRICT communion reception to only in the hand, where such reception has been approved.

This reference is not an indult FOR receiving communion in the hand.

Right?

 

[Vico]

Thanks. Great reference.

Please note, though, this reference says (appropriately) that ministers may not RESTRICT communion reception to only in the hand, where such reception has been approved.

This reference is not an indult FOR receiving communion in the hand.

Right?

Oh, right, the first reference is not for communion in the hand, it is that permission for communion only in the hand is denied. My mistake on mentioning that indult. Yet the indult for Canada is mentiond in the second reference.

The second indult reference is for “permission to give communion by placing the host on the hand of the faithful”.

The third reference refers to the date given in the second reference.

 

[japhy]

Please note, though, this reference says (appropriately) that ministers may not RESTRICT communion reception to only in the hand, where such reception has been approved.

The first link says:
Certainly it is clear from the very documents of the Holy See that in dioceses where the Eucharistic bread is put in the hands of the faithful, the right to receive the Eucharistic bread on the tongue still remains intact to the faithful. Therefore, those who restrict communicants to receive Holy Communion only on in the hands are acting against the norms, as are those who refuse to Christ’s faithful [the right] to receive Communion in the hand in dioceses that enjoy this indult.
What is the indult being referred to? Clearly one permitting Christ’s faithful to receive Communion in the hand.