Communion in the hand

[pnewton]

Is the Indult above the Law of the Church (with regards to communion) ?

This question reflects a contradiction that can not exist. Can a decision that changes a disciple be above the disciplinary law of the Church? Huh?

 

[nbjayme]

indulgence, favor, fr. indultus, p. p. of indulgere: cf. It.
indulto, F. indult. See {Indulge}.]
[1913 Webster]

1. A privilege or exemption; an indulgence; a dispensation
   granted by the pope.
   [1913 Webster]
2. (Spain) A duty levied on all importations.
   [1913 Webster]

The Church has a law regarding the use of indult but issuing an indult does not make it a law.

See the difference.

 

[nbjayme]

Is the Indult above the Law of the Church (with regards to communion) ?

As far as the Church is concerned the reception of the Eucharist to the tongue is the most acceptable way.

An indult is given due to some circumstance but if circumstance does not exists the Law prevails.

 

[nbjayme]

Is the Indult above the Law of the Church (with regards to communion) ?

 

[una_fides]

In that they apparently have little or no regard for the legitimate authority of Christ’s Church through which all graces, including that of the Real Presence, flow to mankind, then no, it doesn’t particularly redeem them that they cling to SOME traditional practices and SOME Catholic beliefs.

‘Who rejects you rejects me,’ after all. Not ‘some forms of rejection are OK/tolerable, others aren’t’.

I’m not supporting by any means the rejection of Church authority in those groups. I am pointing out, however, that they are not opposed to the universal law of the Church, which is Communion on the tongue and that they believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. You are missing my point. I’m trying to say that Communion in the hand with lack of proper catechesis and with improper catechesis produces a deficiency of faith regarding the Real Presence. The groups that do not believe in the Real Presence and that oppose it also promote Communion in the hand. Why? Could it be that Communion on the tongue more clearly signifies faith in the Real Presence and that Communion in the hand reduces the Body of Christ to seem more like food and less like divinity?

As for you, njbayme, the indult IS the law of the Church in regards to communion, in those places where it applies. It’s a legitimately permitted way of doing things in certain places. It’s a false dichotomy to say that the indult is somehow in opposition to the law of the church.

An indult is an exception to the law of the Church. The law of the Church is Communion on the tongue. The indult is a special exception to that rule of law applicable in limited circumstances, which many bishops and even cardinals think should be abolished.

 

[pnewton]

An indult is given due to some circumstance but if circumstance does not exists the Law prevails.

What is your personal authority for making such a determination. Pope Benedict XVI is our pope and I understand his place. I know my bishop has authority under him as my priest does under the bishop. Where do you fit in?

 

[nbjayme]

Is the Indult above the Law of the Church (with regards to communion) ?

indulgence, favor, fr. indultus, p. p. of indulgere: cf. It.
indulto, F. indult. See {Indulge}.]
[1913 Webster]

1. A privilege or exemption; an indulgence; a dispensation
   granted by the pope.
   [1913 Webster]
2. (Spain) A duty levied on all importations.
   [1913 Webster]

---

If indult makes in itself a law then without question all N.O. bishops and priests should now be celebrating TLM (there was an indult given).

 

[una_fides]

On the lighter side from your PM I can see things that you seem to concern yourself with, I see as normal. Like at lent we do not have Holy Water.

I am just at a point that okay I am guilty I have not seen it, nor heard of it. What do you want from me. Do not get me wrong on this site, yes, But never in life. So there you have it. I do not know you, but I know that in 47 years I have visited many Churchs had two main Churchs and have never heard of or seen this. What would you do if you were me?

Ok. I now understand a little more where you are coming from here. You have not yet studied what is and is not liturgical abuse, and therefore are unable to spot it when you encounter it. You think that everything is fine and dandy and that the priests at the Novus Ordo parishes you attend are doing everything by the rules and teaching everything soundly. Well… let me ask you some quick questions:

1. Do any of the priests change the words at Mass? (I suggest purchasing a missal and reading the prayers along with the priests. If they willfully depart from the words in your missal, they are committing a GRAVE offense against the Church and against the faithful. Sources and explanation of nature of the offense to follow.)
2. Do the people hold hands during the Our Father?
3. Has anyone other than a priest or deacon given a homily at Mass?
4. Have you ever been to a parish where everyone stands during the consecration?
5. Have you ever seen someone denied Communion for kneeling? (a rare practice but I’ve heard of it happening)
6. Have you ever seen a priest make or tell someone receive Communion in the hand? (again rare, but it happens)
7. Have you ever seen liturgical dance?
   There are many more, but if you have seen any of these, they are serious abuses against the Mass as the Church has said it must be celebrated in all Latin Rite Churches. Vatican II expressly forbid any priest to change anything on his own authority. Here is what the Church has said on the matter:

“Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority” (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, 22, repeated in documents like Sacram Liturgiam; Tres Abhinc Annos; CIC 841, 846; and many other laws and regulations). Deviations from the Order are illicit, and when done intentionally they’re a grave offense both against the Church and the faithful who have a right to an authentic liturgy (Inaestimabile Donum, CSDW, April 3, 1980).

Furthermore, liturgical abuses can even produce invalid masses that do not produce the Real Presence of Christ! See this article: ourladyswarriors.org/articles/badliturgy.htm

Take the quiz on this site to help you spot liturgical abuse:
massabuses.com/
This site explains the top 10 liturgical abuses and cites the Church laws proving so for each of them:
catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9901fea1.asp
One last site that outlines the degrees of gravity of offenses:
ewtn.com/expert/answers/cdw_liturgical_abuses.htm#abuses

 

[LilyM]

Why? Could it be that Communion on the tongue more clearly signifies faith in the Real Presence and that Communion in the hand reduces the Body of Christ to seem more like food and less like divinity?

And could it not be that the lack of proper catechesis is in and of itself the problem, and nowise would communion on the tongue remedy the lack of belief even if it WERE made the sole means of receiving?

THe first generation of reformers received all of THEIR communions on the tongue, after all, and it didn’t stop them from denying the Real Presence (or just as importantly the doctrine of transubstantiation).

An indult is an exception to the law of the Church. The law of the Church is Communion on the tongue. The indult is a special exception to that rule of law applicable in limited circumstances, which many bishops and even cardinals think should be abolished.

An indult is an exception that is nonetheless granted within the processes of Church law and therefore forms part of it that Church law.

In essence it is legally granted permission or privilege for something. It constitutes a statement of what the legal position is regarding a certain practice in a certain area - which is roughly the same thing that ANY law does.

Just as the exemption (often retroactive) of Catholic schools from anti-discrimination laws (which would otherwise prevent them from hiring only Catholics) is part and parcel of those laws, albeit it excepts them from its usual application and even though it sometimes is granted after the fact.

Would you suggest, njbayme, that the law on discrimination in fact applies to no-one, or isn’t real law, just because it doesn’t apply to some? Or that a statement from the legislature that ‘Catholic schools can legally institute a policy hiring only Catholics’ is somehow NOT law? What else is a statement from a legislator about how the law applies?

Many bishops and cardinals think it should be abolished. Well, I know of one bishop who has acted on his conviction and had the indult revoked in his diocese. And of course His Holiness’s stipulation - applicable only to those who receive Communion directly from him (I wonder why, if the practice is so much to be reprobated?)

How many other Bishops and Cardinals have turned their talk into action and similarly had the indult revoked in their dioceses? Precious few.

 

[nbjayme]

Not directed to me but let me share my experience.

1. Have you ever seen a priest make or tell someone receive Communion in the hand? (again rare, but it happens)
   When I was 12 and didn’t know much. The priests lined up all people to take the host and dip it in the consecrated wine.
   The horror at the length of what N.O. variants can do to you faith.
2. Have you ever seen liturgical dance?
   In my country, yes. A mass shown in TV. Novus Ordo mass.
   Also a mass with altar girls and dancing during mass.

I think it is rightly called Novus Ordo mess.

 

[nbjayme]

Indult is an “exception”… “exception” from what?

Indult does not repeal a law … .it simply provides permission to not excercise the law due to some circumstances (case to case basis).

Realign yourself to the Church Teaching.

 

[nbjayme]

When Pope Pius the V instituted the perpetual mass into a Law he at the same time granted an indult to those who already practiced their own custom more than 200 years. Yet he also encouraged those Churches with indult to accept the perpetual mass.

See the Difference. Here we see a Law and Indult… they are different and not same.

Whether you accept the perpetual mass as a law or not it tells us that indult have a much lesser scope and power.

 

[una_fides]

And could it not be that the lack of proper catechesis is in and of itself the problem, and nowise would communion on the tongue remedy the lack of belief even if it WERE made the sole means of receiving?

But we know that there are a good number of liberal priests out there that are going to teach people errors regarding the Eucharist and how to receive it. And there are also a LOT of priests out there that simply will not teach anything at all regarding the Real Presence or how to properly receive Communion. Most people today who claim to be Catholic either do not know or do not follow the Church’s teachings. A look at the election results demonstrates that clearly as people are more concerned about money than with morality. Most Catholics today also do not even know that you cannot receive Communion if you are conscious of committing a grave sin without first going to confession. You should see the surprise on people’s faces when the find out this fact that every Catholic should know. Many do not even know that missing Mass on Sundays or holy days of obligation is a mortal sin. The priest at a parish I used to attend even told people that it was NOT a mortal sin to miss Mass, when the Church explicitly teaches that it IS!

How many other Bishops and Cardinals have turned their talk into action and similarly had the indult revoked in their dioceses? Precious few.

You have pointed out a serious problem today. Bishops today like to talk and talk and explain and then talk some more but they don’t like to act. This is a serious problem in the Church today. They don’t enact any laws with any teeth for example regarding liturgical abuses, which permits them to continue. If you add a penalty to a law, then more will obey. In the same way, they do not want to offend or cause people to question them, cause divisions, etc. Pope Benedict pointed out the problem of bishops in the US not handling the scandals regarding child abuse properly as rather than imposing ecclesiastical penalties, they simply moved priests to other parishes where they would continue to abuse children. My point is that just because a bishop is afraid to act does not mean that he does not know or believe that one way is better than the other, as the vote results of the bishops displayed on here earlier clearly demonstrate.

 

[LilyM]

Not directed to me but let me share my experience.

1. Have you ever seen a priest make or tell someone receive Communion in the hand? (again rare, but it happens)

Never. Not once. I am sorry for those to whom it happens.

Just as I am sorry for those who when Mass was exclusively in Latin were subjected to priests who would ape the liturgy of the Mass but not say the proper words of consecration. St Bernardine of Siena discusses this at some length - indicating that lots of priests didn’t even KNOW what the proper words of consecration were!

THAT certainly would damage my faith, and THAT would be almost impossible in the NO where the Canon is said aloud.

1. Have you ever seen liturgical dance?
   In my country, yes. A mass shown in TV. Novus Ordo mass.
   Also a mass with altar girls and dancing during mass.

Once that I can recall. Not on TV, but in a Mass held almost exclusively for young children. Not that it’s an excuse of course, but in justice it certainly would be more tempting to ‘involve’ children by getting some of them dancing.

 

[LilyM]

Indult is an “exception”… “exception” from what?

Indult does not repeal a law … .it simply provides permission to not excercise the law due to some circumstances (case to case basis).

Realign yourself to the Church Teaching.

An indult DOES in effect repeal the law for those people and those places where it applies - in effect the permitted practice BECOMES part of the law there.

Remember an indult for CITH is NOT simply a statement that communion need not be exclusively on the tongue, it’s positive permission to distribute in the hand. So it is much more than just an ‘exception’, it’s actually a positive legal permission to do something.

 

[nbjayme]

1. the priests blurbing the words are his own fault. It affects his own faith but not those who attend the mass.

But there’s a huge difference of allowing people to do sacrilege on the host.

1. Mass is not a place for dancing. Our concentration most focus on Peace and toward the Lord and not the performers.

Dancing during mass is bad education for Children. There’s proper place and time for everything.

 

[nbjayme]

The indult is an “exception” and will always be an 'exception"

If there is an “exception” meaning something exists for it to be excempted from.



It does not repeal the Law.

 

[una_fides]

An indult DOES in effect repeal the law for those people and those places where it applies - in effect the permitted practice BECOMES part of the law there.

Remember an indult for CITH is NOT simply a statement that communion need not be exclusively on the tongue, it’s positive permission to distribute in the hand. So it is much more than just an ‘exception’, it’s actually a positive legal permission to do something.

It’s permission that if someone asks for CITH then they should not be denied based upon the ordinary Church law that has been on the books for over a thousand years that said that they otherwise would be denied. CITH began in rebellion to the law of the Church by liberals. Answer that charge.

 

[LilyM]

1. the priests blurbing the words are his own fault. It affects his own faith but not those who attend the mass.

But there’s a huge difference of allowing people to do sacrilege on the host.

Are you joking? Not saying the proper words of consecration invalidates the Mass … makes it not a true sacrament. Denies the graces of Christ to those who attend, not to mention that as a result they actually don’t fulfil their Sunday obligation. In addition, it is a sin to pretend to minister the sacrament in this way.

And when laity know about it (as the many people who heard and read St Bernardine’s sermons did) - and ESPECIALLY when they know that sometimes it happens because of lack of education and that some priests don’t even know what the proper words ARE - it causes huge scandal among the faithful and absolutely damages the faith of everyone who hears about it!

1. Mass is not a place for dancing. Our concentration most focus on Peace and toward the Lord and not the performers.

Dancing during mass is bad education for Children. There’s proper place and time for everything.

I never said it was proper, I’m saying it’s somewhat more understandable, though not more excusable.

 

[nbjayme]

1. Are you saying that God would deny those who are sincerely going to the Church for Mass to accept Him?

“Many” does not mean “Majority”. See the difference. And, would the Father allow a true devotee to accept an unconsecrated hosts.

Either you say God has no power to inspire the Priests to do what is Good for the sake of his beloved Church Faithful. Or God does not know anything at all.

I believe in God’s Providence and I place all my trust in Him who desires one thing —> salvation for my soul.