Again, this is completely false. The GIRM explains that there are certain non-essential parts of the mass which can be changed at the pastor’s discretion and the bishop’s approval for pastoral reasons. The Roman missal, contrary to popular belief, is not absolutely universal. There are small changes from bishop conference to bishop conference, approved by the Vatican. It is not absolute.No Cleric, not even a Cardinal can make alterations to what’s in the Missal at his personal judgement.
- The Diocesan Bishop, who is to be regarded as the High Priest of his flock, from whom the life in Christ of his faithful in some sense derives and upon whom it depends, must promote, regulate, and be vigilant over the liturgical life in his diocese. It is to him that in this Instruction is entrusted the regulating of the discipline of concelebration (cf. nos. 202, 374) and the establishing of norms regarding the function of serving the Priest at the altar (cf. no. 107), the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds (cf. no. 283), and the construction and ordering of churches (cf. no. 291). It is above all for him, moreover, to nourish the spirit of the Sacred Liturgy in the Priests, Deacons, and faithful. [emphasis added]
Children in our First Communion prep classes are taught COTT. In fact the priest wants them all to receive that way at their first communion. Our priests are working to get many to receive on the tongue rather than the hand but of course it’s always a choice.I doubt children are taught about receiving on the tongue any more. It may be that the two methods ought simply to be made equivalent options.
Sorry I wasn’t thinking much there on the moment. The scenario was as Bishop Schneider explains, my point only pointing to the fact the fingers were not involved but with not so good a description on my behalf. It was actually even more reverent than my faulty description when I wasn’t thinking much about the exact mechanism, Thankyou for pointing that out as the Bowing is very important there.which scenario actually occurred?
Yes, that is true. And the Vatican for example already granted a change when allowing certain bishops to have communion in the hand as an exception to the rule in their dioceses, otherwise this would not have been allowed anywhere. Bishops can therefore either ban or allow communion in the hand despite what the missal says. However, the issue of communion on the tongue was certainly not put under their authority, but that is on the contrary the norm throughout the universal church.There are small changes from bishop conference to bishop conference, approved by the Vatican.
No matter how many times you say this, the fact of the matter is that that the bishop has the ultimate authority of the ordinary magisterium within a diocese. Even the Pope acknowledges this when popes have outright refused to sit in the bishop’s cathedra when he visits a diocese. Only extraordinary magisterial authority overrides a bishop’s ordinary authority. The curia is meant to support the expression of the Pope’s extraordinary magisterial authority but, outside direct papal statements, they still only teach with ordinary magisterial authority. The draft for the new constitution of the Roman Curia explicitly states that the curia’s purpose is supplementary to both the Pope and the local bishop. The ultimate authority for legislating local pastoral norms lie with the bishop.However the issue of communion on the tongue does not come under a bishops jurisdiction of authority but remains a universal norm untouchable by diocesan authority.
I don’t believe anyone is saying that Person A is at risk receiving on the tongue. I believe the issue is when Person B receives on the tongue and the Host is accompanied by a bit of saliva from Person A that remains on the fingers of the person distributing Communion. As someone in that position, my observation is that very few extend their tongues far enough to mitigate that risk. Perhaps some COTT lessons could be conducted. Perhaps the person distributing could be allowed to request a safer “target” before the Host is given.Exactly. Many bishops are merely asking people not to recieve on the tongue. This is misguided, since there is no evidence that it creates a greater health risk, and on the contrary some evidence that it makes no difference. Some bishops have attempted to ban Communion on the tongue. That is, to borrow a phrase, ultra vires. Beyond their powers.
That is, to borrow a phrase, ultra vires. Beyond their powers.
I think the disconnect is with this: that what God wants us to do can somehow be different than what the Church permits. It cannot be.I do think that people do forget that the reason a person chooses something like reception of the Eucharist is based on what they believe God wants THEM to do, and not on what they might want to do.
My experience as an EMHC is that it’s far easier for me to avoid contact when I put the host in the hand versus the tongue. Honestly, I don’t see how an EMHC can make contact with their fingers with the communicants hand unless they’re careless or deliberately trying to do so. It’s so easy to avoid contact I simply don’t understand how you made contact every time you gave communion in the hand. You must not having been doing it the right way.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
You wrote:I do think that people do forget that the reason a person chooses something like reception of the Eucharist is based on what they believe God wants THEM to do, and not on what they might want to do.
The Church permits communion in the hand, which means God permits communion in the hand. It seems clear, then, that what God wants THEM to do, as you put it, is to eliminate scruples and receive Christ in any approved manner.I do think that people do forget that the reason a person chooses something like reception of the Eucharist is based on what they believe God wants THEM to do, and not on what they might want to do.
I don’t believe people mean to shame you. I, at least, do not. Receiving the Blessed Sacrament is a gift – such a tremendous gift that it’s extremely difficult to understand why one would not want to receive as often as possible when in a state of grace.No, with respect, nothing of the kind.
If I believe that God wishes me to receive in one way in preference to another good way, I may receive that other way (I believe you’ll notice I said in fact I did so at the Mass) OR that I may choose not to receive.
There is absolutely no Church teaching that I must receive the Eucharist at every Mass, even if I am in a state of grace.
Why is there such a push to shame or coerce people into going against their conscience when the person can absolutely be obedient to God by simply refraining from receiving the Eucharist at a given Mass?
Isn’t it equally possible that God is saying, "You feel called to receive me in one way, but temporarily at this time and place it is being ‘suggested’ that you receive the other way. Are you willing to let yourself be told you are scrupulous, disobedient, not listening to Me, even when you are not insisting indeed on receiving Me on the tongue but instead are offering the sacrifice of spiritual communion instead, or are you wishing for the praise and approbation of those telling you, "Stop doing it in a way which is perfectly valid but not the way most of us do it today. Don’t think that God is asking this of you. Listen to the world instead. We can even ‘quote Scripture to our purpose’. . .
I don’t think anybody here is trying to be anything but ‘kind’, but it is coming across as, “If you don’t do things OUR WAY, you’re defying God and wrong.”