S
Soubirous1
Guest
Italy’s on lockdown and I’m guessing in a few weeks threads like this won’t matter because the governments are going to have to do something.
Do bishops have authority to prohibit Communion on the tongue?
- Status
J
Joe_5859
Guest
You inspired me to do so searching. Here are some statements that bishops have made:
- Diocese of Albany: CORONAVIRUS :: Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany
- Diocese of Arlington: https://www.arlingtondiocese.org/pr...gton-response-to-concerns-of-the-coronavirus/
- Archdiocese of Chicago: Statement on Behalf of the Archdiocese of Chicago Regarding Coronavirus/COVID-19 Prevention Guidelines - Statements - Archdiocese of Chicago
- Diocese of Cleveland: Information on illness prevention concerning liturgical celebrations
- Archdiocese of Denver: https://www.archden.org/coronavirus/mass/
- Diocese of Phoenix: https://dphx.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/2020-03-06-DPHX-FLU-CORONAVIRUS-GUIDELINES.pdf
- Diocese of Pittsburgh: Diocese Announces Coronavirus Precautions | Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh | Pittsburgh, PA
- Diocese of Richmond: Catholic Diocese of Richmond Statement on Safety During Coronavirus Outbreak
- Diocese of San Diego: https://www.sdcatholic.org/uncategorized/catholic-diocese-monitoring-news-of-coronavirus/
- Diocese of San Jose: Holy Mass - Diocese of San Jose
- Diocese of St. Augustine: https://www.dosafl.com/2020/03/06/statement-on-the-coronavirus/
- Diocese of St. Petersburg: Coronavirus Updates: Prevention, Precautions and Prayers – Diocese of Saint Petersburg
- Diocese of Trenton: Coronavirus - Diocese of Trenton - Lawrenceville, NJ
P
Paul_Edwards
Guest
Because that bishop over “6000 miles away” is usually right to be honest. This bishop is a very objective rather than a subjective bishop and I know of no case in which this bishop has been wrong publicly so far. He has stood for the truth even when almost no other bishops have done so, hence his first name Athanasius makes sense, as he is the St Athanasius of our time. People could’ve asked the same questions during the Arian crises and yet we still know that the one among many was right because he was objective about what was always held and was formal (St Bishop Athanasius).
Now first of all, we make a distinction between general cardinals who’s authority is quite limited, and those on the other hand within the Roman Curia who exercise universal jurisdiction in particular areas for the Holy Father. The point is, those Cardinals of the Curia and the Pope, despite their silence have not formally changed the rules they have previously issued. Until this is done, a bishop who keeps the established law is right whether or not he is almost unique or 6000 miles away. This is a matter of being objective, and this bishop is right because he promotes the universal law of the church and that is why we give weight to an auxiliary bishop 6000 miles away
Last edited:
P
Paul_Edwards
Guest
Perhaps there is a reason for considering exceptions for left handed people, but considering that the majority of people are right handed then the majority of people should not receive in the left hand at least and yet that is what happens in the majority of cases still for some reason
W
whatistrue
Guest
Why? What possible logical reason is there for this claim?
P
Paul_Edwards
Guest
What you say first is true, ie bishops conferences cannot overrule a bishop, because “national churches” do not exist. The bishop however is bound to the Papacy and to its Curia ie the Roman Curia (The Holy See) which has universal authority. The directives of the Holy See therefore means that a bishop cannot suspend reception on the tongue. The whole point of this decision years ago was to stop priests or bishops from legislating on this. If the bishop attempts to do so in defiance, then the priests have a duty to resist that and follow the directives of the Holy See, and lay people maintain their canonical rights.
T
TMC
Guest
This is merely another way of saying that you personally agree with him, which makes my point for me.
P
Paul_Edwards
Guest
I explained that above earlier
Last edited:
W
whatistrue
Guest
Do you mean trotting out the old, outmoded, outdated, and nonsensical claim of the left hand being lesser? Or was there something with logic behind it that I missed?
P
Paul_Edwards
Guest
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
Yes, the deacons hands are not consecrated, I agree but they, themselves, are set apart, consecrated to help the priest. I am not. You are correct the indult does allow us to touch the host but that does not mean I have to touch the host, unless the Church makes it mandatory that that is the only way to receive. I agree we are talking about discipline not dogma.
This I disagree with. It is more than a pious devotion, it is a tradition of the Church and the normative way of receiving the Eucharist unless allowed otherwise.
Disobedience would be going up to communion and requesting to receive on the tongue when told not to. Making a spiritual communion rather than receiving in the hand is not disobedience. We are not required to receive communion at every Mass.
The virus is spread many ways and many people are sick, I really hope that we don’t believe what you are saying here. Again, as the saints of the past have done, we can make spiritual communions when we are unable to receive the Lord because of any situation, such as in Italy right now, Masses being canceled. No one is receiving.
The Value of a Spiritual Communion
When I was growing up, my mother would often make a spiritual communion and speak of its value. I didn’t really pay much attention. It was fine for her, I reasoned. After all, it couldn’t hurt. But like many of what I considered her “pre-Vatican II” practices, I didn’t put much stock in it. With […]
catholicexchange.com
I agree the pandemic can worsen and there may be a long walk in the desert. I can see that happening. I also know, though, that I and everyone else, may or may not live to see this pandemic. It is up to the Lord. No one is guaranteed tomorrow or the next minute and so for that reason I also agree we should always be doing what we can to receive the graces we need. The first foundational grace we need to seek comes from the sacrament of penance. We can also do many penances and indulgences and rosaries in this time of crisis…if we are unable to receive.
But again the first thing for baptized Catholics is the Sacrament of penance, getting right with God, being sure we are in a state of grace. If one is not baptized, we need to be encouraging baptism. All this comes first.
This talk is meant for priests but there is much we laity can learn from it also:
God bless
Last edited:
T
TMC
Guest
Again, this makes no sense. So you are saying that you are following this auxiliary bishop, who is not your bishop, and instead disregarding the Pope, the 200 Cardinals and the other 5,000 bishops because only this one bishop is correct. But you are also saying that if you decide he is wrong you will disregard him as well. So is it your view that no one has actual teaching authority in the Church? That you are the final arbiter of the Church’s teaching?
P
Paul_Edwards
Guest
It’s not that the left hand is no longer “lesser”, it’s rather that now we recognize that there are some people who are the opposite way around, in fact some of the greatest people. I even know a priest who says the Latin mass who is left handed. These people can assert that their right hand is “lesser” for them if they wish to. While maintaining respect for these people, that does not mean we no longer acknowledge the reality is still the same as in history for the majority of people at least, but we just make exemptions nowadays for those who feel more comfortable using there other hand generally which is fine.
Admitting of an exception does not mean completely forgetting what the norm is
P
paperwight
Guest
Well, exactly. On the contrary, it makes perfect sense for the nondominant hand to receive, as then the dominant one can be used to pick up the Host. Paul, are you perfectly ambidextrous? Can you use either hand with equal finesse? I know I can’t.Paul_Edwards:
Why? What possible logical reason is there for this claim?
W
whatistrue
Guest
In order to preserve my own sanity, and to avoid a beef with the moderators when I inevitably write something so far beyond the pale in reply to such a misguided piece of writing., I can only say this: Welcome to the Ignore bucket.
P
Paul_Edwards
Guest
The Pope has not issued a decree on this matter. He could easily do so and yet he has not, so until he does then the laws of His predecessors remain in place. That is the beauty of the papacy, the fact that silence is not consent and infallibility is not inspiration.
No, it’s not for me to decide. The Holy See could easily abolish the document that gives the faithful a right to receive in the hand and it has not done so. They are the authority and they have not done so, hence this is the law of the church until it is abolished. It’s not about me deciding if he is right or wrong, law is clearly written and He happens to have voiced a reminder about that, not pointing to Himself but to what the Church has decreed in its highest Curia
T
TMC
Guest
You seem to be going back and forth at this point, in that you seem to acknowledge that the bishops COULD give this direction, but you take issue with the failure to issue the proper piece of paper to support the direction.
Do you agree that teaching authority is vested in the bishops and the Pope? If your answer is “yes,” then how does an ordinary not have authority to set these norms in his diocese? If (as you put it) all of these bishops will “held accountable” in the next life for these supposed errors, why wouldn’t the Cardinals or the Pope step in?
Isn’t it possible that the answer is that bishops DO have this authority in their diocese, that they are using their authority properly, and that you are simply incorrect?
Do you agree that teaching authority is vested in the bishops and the Pope? If your answer is “yes,” then how does an ordinary not have authority to set these norms in his diocese? If (as you put it) all of these bishops will “held accountable” in the next life for these supposed errors, why wouldn’t the Cardinals or the Pope step in?
Isn’t it possible that the answer is that bishops DO have this authority in their diocese, that they are using their authority properly, and that you are simply incorrect?
P
Paul_Edwards
Guest
Actually, in the ancient but rare practice, the fingers never picked up the host, but rather the host was received in the right hand which was then lifted to the mouth and taken by the mouth.
As Bishop Schneider has said: “The Holy Eucharist was received on the palm of the right hand and the faithful were not allowed to touch the Holy Host with their fingers, but they had to bow down their head to the palm of the hand and take the Sacrament directly with their mouth”
P
paperwight
Guest
That’s brought back a really painful memory for me. Raising the host to the mouth without touching it was the practice I was used to, having been brought up an Anglican. So when COTH was introduced, I absent mindedly did just that (I had three under fives at that time so was definitely dozy). Imagine my horror when the next Sunday, from the pulpit the Canon criticised ‘someone’ in the parish who had done this terrible irreverent thing, as ‘You wouldn’t have eaten even a biscuit in this way so far less etc. etc…’paperwight:
Actually, in the ancient but rare practice, the fingers never picked up the host, but rather the host was received in the right hand which was then lifted to the mouth and taken by the mouth.
As Bishop Schneider has said: “The Holy Eucharist was received on the palm of the right hand and the faithful were not allowed to touch the Holy Host with their fingers, but they had to bow down their head to the palm of the hand and take the Sacrament directly with their mouth”
It still hurts. But it shows how a very conservative and long serving Canon viewed the practice, way back then. He would never have gone against how he was instructed by his Bishop.
Last edited:
O
OraLabora
Guest
Yes but a small-t tradition. Traditions come, traditions go. There never was a tradition for the laity to pray the Divine Office before the council, and it was never encouraged. Since the council it is encouraged and many like myself have taken up the practice. Eventually it will be “tradition” but not likely in my lifetime! In my part of the world, folks have taken to communion in the hand like a duck to water. Eventually that will weave its way into our spiritual DNA unless someone changes the “rules” back to tongue and kneeling. Then you’ll have the other side whingeing about it… but I wouldn’t even though I prefer in the hand. I’d just do as I’m told perhaps complaining about my creaky knees from time to time.
What I meant to say is at least we are not contributing through that particular vector. Since in many cases COVID-19 causes mild cold-like symptoms, many with it possibly don’t know they have it. The better strategy would be for someone infected to not come to Mass at all. But if they don’t know they can’t avoid and this measure at least slightly reduces the risk of transmission. Remember we receive communion from one priest, deacon or EMHC, but the priest, deacon or EMHC distributes communion to many and thus the risk of exposure is much greater for them. But yeah if you know you have it, you shouldn’t be at Mass. And even if you have what feels like a slight cold, given the circumstances, you shouldn’t come to Mass just in case it is COVID-19.
We need access to all the sacraments according to where we find ourselves on our faith journey. For someone my age, Reconciliation and the Eucharist. Given the clergy shortage, we need to do our best to protect our deacons, priests and bishops by taking the sensible precautions they ask us to take.
Last edited:
- Status