Do bishops have authority to prohibit Communion on the tongue?

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

savedbychrist

Guest
Recently due to the coronavirus, many dioceses around the globe has mandated Communion in the hand (i.e. prohibiting Communion on the tounge. I wonder, however, if bishops actually possess authority to do this.

Instructio Redemptionis Sacramentum 92 states:

Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice, 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, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her.

Quamvis omnis fidelis ius semper habeat pro libitu suo sacram Communionem ore accipendi, si quis communicandus velit Sacramentum manu recipere, in regionibus ubi Conferentia Episcoporum, actis a Sede Apostolica recognitis, id permiserit, ei sacra hostia administretur.

The bolded text means:
  • the faithful has the right to choose receiving Communion on the tounge
  • such right is always in place
So the question is:
  1. Is this Instruction from the Holy See binding on all bishops (of course the Bishop of Rome can change it)?
  2. If yes, do bishops have the authority to override this Instruction (without an indult)?
It would be a massive global abuse of episcopal power if the first answer is yes and second answer is no. But the possibility of so many bishops overlooking or rebelling against this Vatican document would be pretty slim, so I’m not sure on this subject.
 
Last edited:
Slightly off topic but… in my time as an EMHC I do not remember giving communion on the tongue and touching a persons mouth. I might have but I don’t remember doing so; but every time I gave communion in the hand, I touched their hand.

Patrick
AMDG
 
In the midst of a global pandemic, why is this of concern? The Church permits the faithful to receive in the hand. I’m not directing this to you, OP, but this experience is really exposing who among us believes they’re more Catholic than the Church.
 
This looks familiar…is there a reason for repeating this question you asked a few weeks ago?
 
gracepoole said:
The Church permits the faithful to receive in the hand. I’m not directing this to you, OP, but this experience is really exposing who among us believes they’re more Catholic than the Church.
Click to expand...
Permitting an option is fundamentally different from mandating it as the only acceptable option. I have never questioned the licitness of allowing reception in the hand, but rather the licitness of mandating reception in the hand.

On the other hand, although Communion in the hand is allowed, it is allowed in the form of an indult from the Holy See. Communion on the tounge remains the normative way of receiving Communion. Banning the normative way and allowing only the indult-allowed way is portraying an confusing message to the faithful on which is normative and which isn’t.

In the Diocese where I live in, for example, I have never heard of any pastors ever teaching that reception on the tounge is the normative way. Nor have I ever heard of it in my 18-month ongoing catechumenate class. Think about the faithful who travelled to other dioceses which does not have this indult or the bishop decides not to allow so. Without knowing that on the tounge is the normative way, they would just strectch out their hands, and confused at why the priest there would make them receive on the tounge.

This is why I think it matters, because it’s more than mere a physical health issue, it’s also a pastoral matter. It affects the faithful’s understanding to the Church’s disciplines. Catholic bishops are first pastors spiritually before they are pastors physically.
 
boldlygo said:
repeating this question you asked a few weeks ago?
Click to expand...
It isn’t. I was never asking the authority of the Bishop doing so, but rather the appropriateness. That’s why I posted that thread in Traditional Catholicism and this in Liturgy and Sacrament.
 
savedbychrist said:
Recently due to the coronavirus, many dioceses around the globe has mandated Communion in the hand (i.e. prohibiting Communion on the tounge. I wonder, however, if bishops actually possess authority to do this.
Click to expand...
In general, no they don’t. However, this is an extraordinary situation, so they might have it - though I think many canon lawyers are debating this right now.

It would not surprise me if they had the ability to say “no distribution of communion to the laity period” if they felt that was warranted. Afterall, we only have to receive once per year, during the Easter Season.

Honestly, my GUESS would be that the Bishops have more of a right to say no to the distribution of Communion in general vs. saying no to communion on the tongue.
 
Last edited:
My parish (not my diocese) has banned communion on the tongue. Is this allowed more or less than the diocese at large banning this? I’m really not liking this but I understand the extreme situation… I have mixed feelings about it but I also honestly don’t know if this is allowed
 
I am no Canon lawyer, it does seem like the Bishops do not have the authority. But the norms were not written with this unprecedented situation in mind. It seems like most bishops are encouraging CITH, but not mandating it. If a bishop does mandate it, I think we should be obedient to him, considering the present circumstances, and let the Holy See sort out the legality aspects in good time.
 
savedbychrist said:
40.png
gracepoole:
The Church permits the faithful to receive in the hand. I’m not directing this to you, OP, but this experience is really exposing who among us believes they’re more Catholic than the Church.
Click to expand...
Permitting an option is fundamentally different from mandating it as the only acceptable option. I have never questioned the licitness of allowing reception in the hand, but rather the licitness of mandating reception in the hand.

On the other hand, although Communion in the hand is allowed, it is allowed in the form of an indult from the Holy See. Communion on the tounge remains the normative way of receiving Communion. Banning the normative way and allowing only the indult-allowed way is portraying an confusing message to the faithful on which is normative and which isn’t.

In the Diocese where I live in, for example, I have never heard of any pastors ever teaching that reception on the tounge is the normative way. Nor have I ever heard of it in my 18-month ongoing catechumenate class. Think about the faithful who travelled to other dioceses which does not have this indult or the bishop decides not to allow so. Without knowing that on the tounge is the normative way, they would just strectch out their hands, and confused at why the priest there would make them receive on the tounge.

This is why I think it matters, because it’s more than mere a physical health issue, it’s also a pastoral matter. It affects the faithful’s understanding to the Church’s disciplines. Catholic bishops are first pastors spiritually before they are pastors physically.
Click to expand...
But again…
gracepoole said:
In the midst of a global pandemic, why is this of concern?
Click to expand...
 
What authority did the Italian bishops have to suspend public Masses in Italy? None, the scrupulous will say. But they did it. Bravo.

Sometimes one’s insistence on scrupulosity is someone else’s risky behavior, do the scrupulous ever think about that? In their blindness, they often don’t see it. What if a scrupulous person was infected, but not showing it? Are they going to insist that I accept the risk when I am an EMHC serving them? Are they going to insist on forcing the parish priest to accept the risk? That man comes into contact with a lot of people. Shouldn’t he take precautions for his health too? I figured out how to serve into the communicant’s hand without touching their skin so it can be done as I just did it yesterday.

Bishops are in charge of caring for their flock. Does that care not include health precautions based on the environment they’re in?
 
1Tim4-12 said:
My parish (not my diocese) has banned communion on the tongue. Is this allowed more or less than the diocese at large banning this? I’m really not liking this but I understand the extreme situation… I have mixed feelings about it but I also honestly don’t know if this is allowed
Click to expand...
I don’t think parishes can do this unless the Bishop has granted them the option.

NOW: I can see a pastor banning lay EMHCs from giving communion on the tongue and telling the faithful that if they want to receive on the tongue to come to him and/or deacon.
 
When I have talked to friends at our parish who are EMHC, they say much the same thing. And when they do touch a toungue, it is invariably their fault, not the communucant’s.

But others in this forum who are EMHC claim extraordinary high rates of contact with tongues (over 50 percent). Very strange the range of responses on this. I can say, as one who received on the tongue, it hardly ever happens to me.
 
Zzyzx_Road said:
What authority did the Italian bishops have to suspend public Masses in Italy? None, the scrupulous will say. But they did it. Bravo.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think the Bishops have more a right to do this than to withhold communion on the tongue.
 
gracepoole said:
In the midst of a global pandemic, why is this of concern?
Click to expand...
I have explained in my post:

Banning the normative way and allowing only the indult-allowed way is portraying an confusing message to the faithful on which is normative and which isn’t.

This is why I think it matters, because it’s more than mere a physical health issue, it’s also a pastoral matter. It affects the faithful’s understanding to the Church’s disciplines. Catholic bishops are first pastors spiritually before they are pastors physically.

It’s pretty much all I have to say on why
 
savedbychrist said:
40.png
gracepoole:
In the midst of a global pandemic, why is this of concern?
Click to expand...
I have explained in my post:

Banning the normative way and allowing only the indult-allowed way is portraying an confusing message to the faithful on which is normative and which isn’t.

This is why I think it matters, because it’s more than mere a physical health issue, it’s also a pastoral matter. It affects the faithful’s understanding to the Church’s disciplines. Catholic bishops are first pastors spiritually before they are pastors physically.

It’s pretty much all I have to say on why
Click to expand...
As has been stated, this is an unprecedented situation. And no one’s soul is endangered by receiving on the hand.
 
Zzyzx_Road said:
Bishops are in charge of caring for their flock. Does that care not include health precautions based on the environment they’re in?
Click to expand...
Being illicit is a different thing from being inappropriate. If it is appropriate and necessary, bishops might need to do it despite being illicit. That being said, they should still admit their act as being illicit, then say it is necessary (or else you would become like Archbishop Lefebvre when consecrating four bishops).
 
tafan2 said:
When I have talked to friends at our parish who are EMHC, they say much the same thing. And when they do touch a toungue, it is invariably their fault, not the communucant’s.

But others in this forum who are EMHC claim extraordinary high rates of contact with tongues (over 50 percent). Very strange the range of responses on this. I can say, as one who received on the tongue, it hardly ever happens to me.
Click to expand...
I think it has to do with how well (or poor) the parish has been trained (both EHMCs and people receiving)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top