Do bishops have authority to prohibit Communion on the tongue?

[savedbychrist]

Please, Folks! Let’s give the COTT/COTH debate a respite, huh?

Please, folks! No one here is discussing about which being superior to which, huh? It is not a concern here. The concern is banning COTT and allowing only CITH. It has nothing to do with which better than which.

 

[savedbychrist]

We serve the Lord who said “I desire mercy rather than sacrifice,” and who when He walked among us as a man was kind of annoyed that we didn’t already understand that of course even the Sabbath — and even “the Temple bread, which was lawful only for the priests to eat” — took second place to human well-being.

David did not deny eating the bread, did he? It clears shows what is meant by “illicit but necessary”. All I wish is our bishops to be more responsible and clear on declaring spiritual matters. Simply clarify “it is illicit but out of charity I had to do it”. What I’m unhappy about is how they never admit being illicit, causing more and more confusion in Church disciplines.

And yes, those holy things were not the Holy One, the precious body and blood of Jesus Himself. But then we also know that He became a man for the express purpose of letting sinful men not merely touch but mutilate His flesh and shed His blood — something that no amount of handling at Communion time can do.

Is it because our Lord’s Body has been humiliated greatly, that small humiliation from us would not matter? In no way I’m saying CITH is humiliation, but that logic simply doesn’t stand. You do not think that towards your most loved one.

 

[Minks]

Minks:

Please, Folks! Let’s give the COTT/COTH debate a respite, huh?

Please, folks! No one here is discussing about which being superior to which, huh? It is not a concern here. The concern is banning COTT and allowing only CITH. It has nothing to do with which better than which.

Lol! Then why is there concern???

EDITED TO ADD:
For the record, I clearly made no reference to the nature of the debate, just that there is one, so it was you, not I, who brought “superior” and “which better than which” into the conversation. Most who read the thread get the impression that your stance is that bishops have no authorization to deny Communion on the Tongue (COTT) for any reason, even under temporary circumstances. The way I’m understanding the thread, 103 posts (at the time this particular post was started) have gone back and forth over this issue.

 

[savedbychrist]

Then why is there concern???

Because it is not right to ban people from receiving Communion in the normative way across the Latin Rite. Even if you receive CITH regularly, it’s still not okay, because it’s nothing about your own preference, it’s the matter of the whole diocese.

For example, I like the Tridentine Mass better, and I would like it to be more popular and common. But if my Bishop says “all Mass must be in EF and OF celebrations will be banned”, it’s still not okay for me, because it’s not right to do so. It is an abuse of power, and he has no authority to do so. It also deprives the spiritual benefits people get from the OF. Yes, it’s the same Eucharist and the same Lord, but the form is important to help you build up reverence.

 

[Minks]

Honestly, considering today’s circumstances, this sounds like Shakespeare’s play: “Much Ado About Nothing.”

If you’re referring to a stoppage of COTT, Communion on the Tongue, during normal, everyday times, I would agree that your right to receive is being usurped in violation of rights granted by the Vatican; in that case, though, I’ve misunderstood the thread.

In re-reading the thread, this brouhaha still appears to be a reaction to the emergency measures of bishops in some areas declaring temporary stoppage of COTT while emergency medical instability grips nations across the globe.

If that is the case, in my opinion, we need to honor Our Lord by respectfully obeying His Pope through His Bishops and His Priests. If the medical crisis no longer exists, but the issue remains, THEN is the time to bother them with questions, being mindful that the manner of reception of Holy Communion is part of discipline, not doctrine.

Another concept that I’ve not seen mentioned during this thread is that of rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, namely, following the dictates of the disease control agencies within each country. The world is no longer, by and large, an agrarian society with sparse villages here and there, and large populations limited to a few easily controlled cities. By their sheer sizes, cities, states, and nations must necessarily be legally able to prohibit certain activities within their jurisdictions. When that occurs, our prelates must acquiesce.

Just so you know: I was steeped in “Only the priest or higher-ups dare to touch the Eucharist.” That was back when priests were plentiful and deacons weren’t on our horizons. I have received Holy Communion for over 72 years, and never once in my hand, and never once by anyone except a priest or a bishop. To do otherwise seems equivalent to cavorting naked in public.

However, I believe, in my heart of hearts, that in thanksgiving to Christ, we owe His Pope, through His Priests and Bishops, our obedience and loyalty at this time.

May Christ abundantly bless all of them, and all of us. Amen.

 

[otjm]

Okay, so now we have one diocese which appears to have banned COTT.

I guess if anyone wants an answer as to the bishop’s authority, rather than us all sitting around texting back and forth, someone can either ask the bishop the grounds of his authority, ask Rome, or ask someone far more knowledgeable in liturgical laws than anyone on this forum as to the question of his authority.

Or, in the alternative, we can wait and see if anyone here other than in the diocese of Hong Kong has such a ban imposed; beyond that , it is pure speculation which does nothing more than upset the equanimity of some herein.

We are in the middle of the process of learning the meaning of 6 degrees of separation. In the US from Oct.1, 2019 through Feb. 29, 2020 the CDC has preliminary estimates of 34,000,000 to 49,000,000 instances of the flu; 16,000,000 to 23,000,000 flu medical visits, 350,000 to 620,000 flu hospitalizations, and 20,000 to 52,000 flu deaths.

Having watched various commentaries about the corona virus, there appears to be 113,000 confirmed cases worldwide and nearly 4,000 deaths. There does not seem to be reliable data, however, as there continue to be reports of “mild cases” which do not require hospitalization, and may not be extensive enough to require a medical visit. The big stickler is that no one I have heard speak about reporting is indicating any sense that China is forthcoming about how bad “bad” is; meaning we may or may not be getting accurate reports of hospitalization and death rates, and the rest may be ambiguous to say the least.

Assuming that corona virus is far more likely to be spread than flu, and far more deadly (which appears to be a great consensus), then perhaps, in the wisdom of the Church (as opposed to a one line comment in RS), bishops may well be within their right to protect all of their parishioners if they feel they have reliable information indicating one method of reception of Communion has a significantly greater chance of transmission than another. I really don’t think there is anything in Canon law or Liturgical law which says that what is a disciplinary rule (either CITH or COTT, or both) may not be temporarily suspended based on health issues which appear to be somewhere between serious and deadly. RS notwithstanding.

 

[CRV]

CCC #893-895
The sanctifying office

893 The bishop is "the steward of the grace of the supreme priesthood,"423 especially in the Eucharist which he offers personally or whose offering he assures through the priests, his co-workers. The Eucharist is the center of the life of the particular Church. The bishop and priests sanctify the Church by their prayer and work, by their ministry of the word and of the sacraments. They sanctify her by their example, "not as domineering over those in your charge but being examples to the flock."424 Thus, "together with the flock entrusted to them, they may attain to eternal life."425

The governing office

894 "The bishops, as vicars and legates of Christ, govern the particular Churches assigned to them by their counsels, exhortations, and example, but over and above that also by the authority and sacred power" which indeed they ought to exercise so as to edify, in the spirit of service which is that of their Master.426

895 "The power which they exercise personally in the name of Christ, is proper, ordinary, and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately controlled by the supreme authority of the Church."427

Lumen Gentium #26 & 27
26. A bishop marked with the fullness of the sacrament of Orders, is “the steward of the grace of the supreme priesthood,” (48*) especially in the Eucharist, which he offers or causes to be offered,(49*) and by which the Church continually lives and grows. This Church of Christ is truly present in all legitimate local congregations of the faithful which, united with their pastors, are themselves called churches in the New Testament.(50*) For in their locality these are the new People called by God, in the Holy Spirit and in much fullness.(167) In them the faithful are gathered together by the preaching of the Gospel of Christ, and the mystery of the Lord’s Supper is celebrated, that by the food and blood of the Lord’s body the whole brotherhood may be joined together.(51*) In any community of the altar, under the sacred ministry of the bishop,(52*) there is exhibited a symbol of that charity and “unity of the mystical Body, without which there can be no salvation.”(53*) In these communities, though frequently small and poor, or living in the Diaspora, Christ is present, and in virtue of His presence there is brought together one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.(54*) For “the partaking of the body and blood of Christ does nothing other than make us be transformed into that which we consume”. (55*)

Every legitimate celebration of the Eucharist is regulated by the bishop, to whom is committed the office of offering the worship of Christian religion to the Divine Majesty and of administering it in accordance with the Lord’s commandments and the Church’s laws, as further defined by his particular judgment for his diocese.
continued below -

 

[CRV]

continued:-

Bishops thus, by praying and laboring for the people, make outpourings in many ways and in great abundance from the fullness of Christ’s holiness. By the ministry of the word they communicate God’s power to those who believe unto salvation(168) and through the sacraments, the regular and fruitful distribution of which they regulate by their authority,(56*) they sanctify the faithful. They direct the conferring of baptism, by which a sharing in the kingly priesthood of Christ is granted. They are the original ministers of confirmation, dispensers of sacred Orders and the moderators of penitential discipline, and they earnestly exhort and instruct their people to carry out with faith and reverence their part in the liturgy and especially in the holy sacrifice of the Mass. And lastly, by the example of their way of life they must be an influence for good to those over whom they preside, refraining from all evil and, as far as they are able with God’s help, exchanging evil for good, so that together with the flock committed to their care they may arrive at eternal life.(57*)

1. Bishops, as vicars and ambassadors of Christ, govern the particular churches entrusted to them (58*) by their counsel, exhortations, example, and even by their authority and sacred power, which indeed they use only for the edification of their flock in truth and holiness, remembering that he who is greater should become as the lesser and he who is the chief become as the servant.(169) This power, which they personally exercise in Christ’s name, is proper, ordinary and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately regulated by the supreme authority of the Church, and can be circumscribed by certain limits, for the advantage of the Church or of the faithful. In virtue of this power, bishops have the sacred right and the duty before the Lord to make laws for their subjects, to pass judgment on them and to moderate everything pertaining to the ordering of worship and the apostolate.

The pastoral office or the habitual and daily care of their sheep is entrusted to them completely; nor are they to be regarded as vicars of the Roman Pontiffs, for they exercise an authority that is proper to them, and are quite correctly called “prelates,” heads of the people whom they govern.(59*) Their power, therefore, is not destroyed by the supreme and universal power, but on the contrary it is affirmed, strengthened and vindicated by it,(60*) since the Holy Spirit unfailingly preserves the form of government established by Christ the Lord in His Church.

 

[CRV]

continued:-
A bishop, since he is sent by the Father to govern his family, must keep before his eyes the example of the Good Shepherd, who came not to be ministered unto but to minister,(170) and to lay down his life for his sheep.(171) Being taken from among men, and himself beset with weakness, he is able to have compassion on the ignorant and erring.(172) Let him not refuse to listen to his subjects, whom he cherishes as his true sons and exhorts to cooperate readily with him. As having one day to render an account for their souls,(173) he takes care of them by his prayer, preaching, and all the works of charity, and not only of them but also of those who are not yet of the one flock, who also are commended to him in the Lord. Since, like Paul the Apostle, he is debtor to all men, let him be ready to preach the Gospel to all,(174) and to urge his faithful to apostolic and missionary activity. But the faithful must cling to their bishop, as the Church does to Christ, and Jesus Christ to the Father, so that all may be of one mind through unity,(61*) and abound to the glory of God.(175)

 

[LilyM]

Well you know, in Lent we fast and abstain from things which are perfectly good. Why not fast from the Eucharist? Offer up not receiving the Eucharist in solidarity and communion, as it were, with the many people who cannot receive.

I’m not saying this would be permanent, but if you have no trouble understanding why Catholics would abstain from meat on Friday or fast on other days, then a fast from the Eucharist on a given Sunday should make sense as a sacrifice of penance.

In Lent we give up things that are good in order to attain a greater good.

Please tell me what superior good can be attained by foregoing the supreme source of supernatural grace that is the Eucharist when we receive if in a state of grace?

 

[savedbychrist]

someone can either ask the bishop the grounds of his authority, ask Rome, or ask someone far more knowledgeable in liturgical laws than anyone on this forum as to the question of his authority.

It would be too abrupt to ask Rome directly before seeking more casual or local means. Therefore, I have contacted the bishop, but for over 6 weeks I have yet received a reply.

 

[puer.dei]

In Lent we give up things that are good in order to attain a greater good.

Please tell me what superior good can be attained by foregoing the supreme source of supernatural grace that is the Eucharist when we receive if in a state of grace?

Humility? Obedience?

 

[whatistrue]

Perhaps not for those who receive on the hand, but for those who receive on the tongue it often is normally yes.

This was hard for me to follow, but I think I understand. I simply vehemently disagree - preference is not (or should not be) principle. It is a preference between legitimate options, not a matter of sin (which would definitely be a matter of principle).

For most people it is this way (apart from a few exceptions for left handers of course)

I am well aware that the left hand was historically looked down upon, but I thought we had gotten past such nonsense.

 

[OraLabora]

The diaconate is part of the Holy Orders. Deacons are allowed to distribute Holy Communion as necessary.

But their hands are not consecrated. You asserted that only consecrated hands can touch the Host. The Church clearly teaches otherwise. Moreover, the indult allows the communicant to touch the Host, which means that the means of receiving is disciplinary and not dogmatic teaching.

Which makes COTT a pious devotion, not de fide. So if one is attached to the devotion, by all means receive in that manner.

But if one refuses to obey in a crisis such as this, or refuses to receive communion, one flirts with either scrupulosity or plain stubbornness. However, at least by choosing not to receive communion, you won’t add to the spread of the virus.

If the pandemic worsens be prepared for either a lifting of the obligation or worse, as in Italy, no public Masses at all. Better to shore up your soul with Sacramental Grace while you can to prepare for the long walk in the desert that may follow.

 

[stpurl]

If I have the opportunity to have something supremely good but choose to not have it at one time in order by that sacrifice to apply the sacrifice in reparation for something wrong, then isn’t that for ‘the greater good’ as well? It’s not like I’m saying I’ll never receive communion again.

Wow, I never expected how deeply divided Catholics could be on the subject of sacrifice.

 

[pnewton]

If there is any actual disobedience here, it would be the Bishops disobeying the Holy See to ban COTT, despite Redemptionis Sacramentum says no.

Redemptionis Sacramentum addressed the disobedience, not this outbreak. It cannot be used one way or another for a chance in circumstances that it did not address.

 

[CRM_Brother]

Authority… that’s the primary concern here.

Redemptionis Sacramentum was issued by a curia office and the bishop of a diocese is, of course, the ordinary of a diocese. Both are part of the ordinary magisterium so the question is, ‘Which holds higher authority?’

A curia office, unless it is speaking of dogma or doctrine, is primarily concerned with pastoral norms. It reflect overarching theology and directives issued under the ordinary authority of the Pope.

Bishops, however, are the ultimate authority with regards to the ordinary magisterium within their diocese. Not even local bishops conferences can override this authority. So, the bishop has the absolute power as to how he implements the directives of the curia within his see (diocese). If a bishop wishes to temporarily suspend reception on the tongue, then he has the right to do so as it falls under his ordinary authority.

 

[Joe_5859]

we walk out the door on Sundays after Mass and the priest shakes hand after hand after hand, spreading germs right down the line. How dangerous is that?

Most places that I have seen suspend Communion on the tongue have also suspended the post-Mass greeting line, and even holy water in the holy water fonts.

 

[Joe_5859]

That’s not a fair assessment. Not every parish passes around a basket. In most parishes I have been to, the ushers go up the aisle with a basket on a stick. And people also use envelopes.

 

[maryjk]

Can anyone say with certainty that any bishop has said no one is to receive on the tongue? Or on the hand? Meaning, not some pastor said - but actual information from a bishop in the US?

1. Realizing that when people receive Holy Communion on the tongue saliva does get on the fingers of those distributing Holy Communion, I am requesting that for the time being people refrain from receiving Holy Communion on the tongue, if not for their own welfare, out of concern for the health of neighbor.

From http://thecatholicweek.com/2020/03/09/statement-from-archbishop-rodi-concerning-the-coronavirus/

So, it is not banned. But it has been requested.