If communion in the hand is mandated what should those who normally receive on the tongue do?

[PatienceAndHumility]

Liturgical law, which is distinct from Canon Law. But yes, such a bishop would be violating Church teaching.

So if the expected mandating happens, we are to conclude that large swathes of the world’s bishops are breaking liturgical law? Let’s assume that’s correct. Hypothetically, what might be the best reasonable defence such a coalition might use to justify this?

What do the bishops propose trumps the “peacetime” right of both methods of reception?

 

[PatienceAndHumility]

I may not always prefer the decisions my local bishops makes, but I will obey his decisions as I believe they are in good faith. If we can’t follow our bishops, who hold apostolic authority, how can we follow Jesus?

Amen! I think this captures a key point to this.

Where would the disobedience stop? If a bishop makes such a declaration, in opposition to the law of the Church, would a priest have a similar ability to disregard the law, or a Deacon disregard the pastor?

If a bishop makes such a declaration, in opposition to the law of the Church, would a priest have a similar ability to disregard the law, or a Deacon disregard the pastor?

This is where I fear we tread into legalism. The heart of the question assumes that a mandating is respected by superiors. After all, legal resolution or not, one cannot reasonably expect priests to disobey bishops en masse. So if we assume more priests will obey than not, the faithful who abstain based on preference of method of reception remains the substantive matter. God bless

 

[Rau]

Seeking the reception of communion on the tongue is not an act of disobedience,

Acting contrary to recommendations made by proper authorities and pursuant to the public health, on the grounds of mere personal preference, is an act of…[you complete the sentence.]

Some would have us believe that to receive other than on the tongue is an imposition of something egregious.

 

[Brendan]

Acting contrary to recommendations made by proper authorities and pursuant to the public health, on the grounds of mere personal preference, is an act of…[you complete the sentence.]

…an act of personal preference, in the case of COTT, a legitimate one. The proper authorities may certainly recommend. In fact, a proper authority may certainly command. A lower authority could could recommend, they could not override the instructions given by a higher authority.

 

[Brendan]

What do the bishops propose trumps the “peacetime” right of both methods of reception?

The question is, under what authority would a bishop be able to ‘trump’ Redemptionis Sacramentum?

If they bishop does not have the authority to do so, then there is no question of disobedience. At that point the guilt of disobedinece would fall to the minister that denied such a reception.

 

[on_the_hill]

I receive on the tongue for personal reasons which are related to OCD and scrupulosity. I won’t be receiving if I can’t receive that way.

Are you working to overcome these obstacles in your life?

 

[AHapka]

If you feel that the bishop is violating canon law, then raise the issue with his superior (or perhaps the Congregation for Divine Worship?).

Since what the bishop is asking us to do is not a sin (you can separately debate about the violation of canon law as being sinful, but not us receiving in the hand), I see no reason that we can’t do what he says until the issue is resolved properly with his superiors.

As far as crosses to bear, this seems like a small one.

 

[puer.dei]

There are small crumbs more than half the time in my hand that I must inspect my hands to consume any crumbs. These crumbs are going to the floor at mass more than we could ever imagine

Your priest might want to change his source for hosts. The ones used at my parish don’t leave a bunch of crumbs like that.

 

[c4csp]

Your priest might want to change his source for hosts. The ones used at my parish don’t leave a bunch of crumbs like that.

It is a normal host. I’m not saying there are large crumbs all the time, but a very tiny speck of a crumb. I’m really examining my hands. Most don’t examine and would miss it completely.

 

[Mrchatsworth]

I’ll tell you what I did. I refrained from the Eucharist until I was able to receive on the tongue, the first couple weeks that meant going to the EF, after cooler heads prevailed then people have been receiving on the tongue

 

[StudentMI]

Are you working to overcome these obstacles in your life?

Yes but it’s difficult.

 

[Anesti33]

Make up your minds. You are angry at the Church for permitting CITH. You are furious at the Church for denying COTT. You are essentially disobedient to the Church’s laws because you can accept neither. This is how protestantism started.

 

[Anesti33]

A faithful blogger in these parts is known to say that a bishop cannot compel a priest in many ways, but a bishop can make a priest’s life very very miserable if the priest does not comply out of obedience.

I would say the same of the relationship between a pastor and his faithful. There are pastors who have imposed things on me, contra legem, and I did not enjoy such things, but life is much easier when we approach authority in a spirit of submission and obedience.

Catholics today, especially Traditionalist Catholics, have a baked-in sense of distrust for authority. This is incubated in the political forum, as anti-government sentiment and Boogaloo Boys run rampant on the right, and #BLM and Antifa on the left. This profound distrust and disrespect for authority, this feeling of ownership because in a democratic republic, we elect our leaders, leaks through the “Wall of Separation” between Church and State, and bleeds into our relationships with our pastors and the Supreme Pontiff.

Rome is not going to come to your rescue on this COTT issue. Mark my words. If you don’t want to receive the Eucharist, as my father says at supper-time, “Fine, more for the rest of us!!!”

 

[Rau]

an act of personal preference, in the case of COTT, a legitimate one.

Perhaps you miss the point. Does mere personal preference trump the the public health inspired decision of the relevant authorities?

 

[LisaB]

I think those who refuse to receive in the hand and would rather not receive at all do not believe that the two options for reception are created equal. My guess is they believe that receiving in the hand is less reverent, and they don’t want to participate in it. Some may believe they would be offending the Lord by doing so. These are just guesses, of course I don’t know what other people think, but it seems logical that if one believed hand and tongue were equally valid and acceptable options, that one wouldn’t forego the Eucharist merely because of personal preference.

My point is that people who would rather not receive than receive in the hand most likely do it out of deep convictions and not just because they are stubborn and want their way.

 

[kikiki32]

I know it’s supposed to be the exception, but I also observe that in my historically catholic country, communing in the hand is quite frequent. I only heard in my life about a single priest who wouldn’t allow using the hand.

I usually prefer using the tongue, but I have no problem using the hand. I understand that my hands are not worthy of taking the Eucharist, but I’m also not worthy of receiving it. The important thing is the state of the soul. And for the rest, I trust and follow what the Church allows. And within that scope, I’ll try to search what personally brings me closer to God, which are masses with some solemnity and respect, but without excessive rigidity. The most simple yet beautiful mass I’ve encountered is the “public mass” that is offered every Sunday in a Chartusian monastery. It’s a normal nous ordo mass that lets you observe how the priest-monk shows huge respect and transmits humility, stillness and inner peace.

 

[Rau]

I think those who refuse to receive in the hand and would rather not receive at all do not believe that the two options for reception are created equal. My guess is they believe that receiving in the hand is less reverent, and they don’t want to participate in it. Some may believe they would be offending the Lord by doing so.

It follows these folks believe the Church authorities were wrong to introduce communion in the hand - and thus that they know better than the church authorities who introduced it and have maintained the practice.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I only heard in my life about a single priest who wouldn’t allow using the hand.

Priests don’t get to decide. Only Bishops can decide that and even then to receive in the hand requires exception from Vatican.

It follows these folks believe the Church authorities were wrong to introduce communion in the hand - and thus that they know better than the church authorities who introduced it and have maintained the practice.

Point is that it was allowed to not change anything drastically as exception but was meant to be suppressed over time. Instead it is growing.

As I said as long as you are allowed to, commune any way you want. I receive in the hand now too. But we can’t pretend exception is equal option to normative one. In other words according to Church, receiving on the tongue is superior objectively (subjectively it is a different story). Once again that does not make receiving in the hand illicit or anything.

 

[PatienceAndHumility]

. In other words according to Church, receiving on the tongue is superior objectively

There is a small clarification needed here- in Moriale Domini, which affirmed this very thing, it does clarify that this prudential judgement is made in the context of culture and the needs of humanity at that point in time. Thus, it is not intrinsically superior. Rather it is prudentially proposed as what ought to he the preferred method of distribution/reception.

 

[puer.dei]

I was really trying to get at the fact that there are likely a large number of Catholics that would abstain from receiving the Eucharist if the indult to receive on the hand was withdrawn.

Fact? I wonder.
I did an informal poll of friends & family. They were surprised that anyone would even think that. Not a single one said yes, they would stop receiving Jesus if the method of receiving changed.