Kneeling Catholics denied communion

[Anesti33]

Law can be suspended or changed by the Legislator. Where in Canon Law does it say a bishop can override the right to receive on the tongue?

You have a point–the Legislator can change the law. And isn’t it telling that at the height of the H1N1 pandemic, he upheld the rights of the faithful and did not delegate this to the bishops.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Perhaps there were localities that had H1N1, however, this is the first pandimic in more than a century.

The letter you posted does not address flu or any illness.

 

[Anesti33]

H1N1 was pandemic. Look it up. This is precisely the reason the unnamed party appealed to Rome. Causa finita est.

 

[TheLittleLady]

As neither the response nor the unnamed questioner says one thing about a flu, you are reading into this document what is not there.

 

[Anesti33]

EXACTLY - there is no need to mention a reason, because no reason is good enough to deny a fundamental right. I have provided documentation, now where is yours? The onus is on you to prove your point.

 

[otjm]

;Instead of documentation, I can give personal experience.

I was an altar boy in the late 1950’s, and along with other 6th, 7th and 8th graders, we were kids - meaning there were times we were less than pious.

We used to joke among ourselves as to how long a string of spit the priest had pulled from someone’s tongue at a Mass. It did not occur at every Mass, but it occurred frequently.

NOTE: I did notsay that it is not possible to put the Eucharist on someone’s tongue; I have done it many times over the few years I have been an EMHC, as we have a few people in our parish who prefer to receive on the tongue.

Several differences between now and the 1950’s: Whoever is distributing Communion is normally at eye level with whoever is receiving (and no one has approached me and knelt to receive). The Hosts are larger and thicker than in the 1950’s, which makes it easier to grasp by the near edge. In holding the Host, I and everyone I have received from holds the Host thumb down and pointing finger up when placing it in someone’s mouth; the pastor from my youth had thumb up, pointing finger down as the reverse is awkward when reaching down to someone who is about eye level to your waist, and generally the pointing finger is a bit closer to the enter of the Host, which makes it more likely to come in contact with the tongue.

I have also noted that from the point that the the minister starts to say “Body of Christ” to the point where the Host is either on the tongue or in the hand is markedly slower than in the 1950’s (the pastor was notorious for telling you to move faster if you lagged even a bit - it took literally no more than a second to a second and a half to distribute and be moving to the next communicant.

None of which is to say that if one receives on the tongue that the minister is going to touch the tongue; it depends on a whole lot of minor issues at that moment in time.

But no one is going to draw any spit from your mouth - or even come in contact with the tongue - if they place the Host in your hand. So no one needs a document “deeming safest”. Common sense is all that is needed.

Then, again, Voltaire was right.

 

[TheLittleLady]

The document nor the law say that this is an absolute or fundamental right.

Obedience to our Bishops is vital.

I’m not going to respond anymore.

 

[Anesti33]

So why is a bishop’s obedience to Rome any less important?

 

[otjm]

Law can be suspended or changed by the Legislator. Where in Canon Law does it say a bishop can override the right to receive on the tongue?

Where it says that he is the chief liturgist in his diocese. Code of Canon law, #838,section 4, as further noted by the USCCB in their document.

http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-wor...nis-sacramentum-authority-diocesan-bishop.cfm

There are, of course other documents of the Church backing this matter up.

Receiving on the tongue is the universal norm; that however, does not make it a “fundamental right” but rather the “normative right”. The matter is disciplinary, which means that it is not a matter of faith and morals, but rather rule, and can be changed or modified.

The document you cited says that Communion cannot be refused; it is not a universal statement but rather is made to the controversy specific to the ruling, which is that a priest could not refuse Communion based on kneeling/standing. Note I said “priest”, not “bishop” - either Canon law or Liturgical law may provide otherwise in other matters.

 

[Anesti33]

The document you cited explicitly disproves your thesis.
USCCB:

With the exception of these and other modifications of the law explicitly assigned to the Diocesan Bishop, no additional changes to liturgical law may be introduced to Diocesan liturgical practice without the specific prior of the Holy See.

 

[otjm]

So why is a bishop’s obedience to Rome any less important?

It is “any less important” where the Bishop, as chief liturgist in his diocese, does what the law permits. Rome has yet to say that during the pandemic, bishops do not have the authority to require Communion in the hand.

 

[otjm]

The document you cited explicitly disproves your thesis .

It would appear that you and some bishops disagree. Since they are trained in liturgical and Canon law, and until Rome says they have stepped outside of their authority, I am inclined to accept their decision over your interpretation.

 

[VeryBlessed]

Do you know where in the diary this is mentioned? I love that story, and Faustina herself–she is my confirmation saint.

It is passage 160! What a wonderful choice of confirmation saint. She blows me away. What a beautiful love for Jesus she had. I copy down favorite passages into a note in my phone so I can refresh myself by reading them. She is a treasure. Her love for God is so raw and so passionate that it puts me to shame IN A GOOD WAY. It’s also fun to read her diary because it shows you just how special a closeness we can all have with Jesus.