Communion on tongue

  • Thread starter Thread starter Roshan_Mathias
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Roshan_Mathias

Guest
Can a Bishop Ban Communion on tongue?

If no, why? Which of the Church’s document supports this?

If yes? Which of the Church’s document support this?
 
Use the search feature for threads on “Communion on tongue” and you will probably find dozens of past posts that will be helpful…This topic has been beaten to death, not that it is not important, but I don’t think there is anything that can be added that hasn’t already been said…and at this point, only serves as a divisive topic leading to argumentation.

Pax et Bonum!
 
dscath said:
at this point, only serves as a divisive topic leading to argumentation.
Click to expand...
True dat.

Still, I have a question that I haven’t seen addressed around here (maybe you can point me to a thread that brought this up?):

It is a precept of the Church and part of canon law that the faithful are to attend Mass on Sundays and holydays of obligation. Yet, bishops (and even pastors, IIRC) may dispense the obligation.

It is in canon law that COTT is the norm and cannot be denied to anyone. Why is it, then, that some suggest that this norm may not be dispensed with? 🤔
 
Gorgias said:
It is a precept of the Church and part of canon law that the faithful are to attend Mass on Sundays and holydays of obligation. Yet, bishops (and even pastors, IIRC) may dispense the obligation.

It is in canon law that COTT is the norm and cannot be denied to anyone. Why is it, then, that some suggest that this norm may not be dispensed with? 🤔
Click to expand...
From what I recall, it comes down to the differences between rights and obligations.

An obligation is something imposed (for lack of better term) on the faithful and the obligation can be dispensed to lessen the “burden” on the faithful.

A right is either inherent or given and not imposed. Because of that no individual can revoke or impede the right of another without grounds or following process. Revoking the right would be a penal action (versus a dispensation) and bishops cannot implimemt new penalties of their own volition.

I’m sure some canonist could correct me, but the right I believe falls under Canon 214 (221.1 might also apply). I’ll see my Canon Law professor tomorrow and I’ll ask him if I happen to remember.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top