List of Countries which received Indult for Holy Communion in Hand

[Roshan_Mathias]

Can any one help me with a complete list of National Bishop conferences which received “Indult” for Holy Communion in Hand.

The link which I have shared showing only few countries which have received “Indult” for Holy Communion in hand, where my country name is not in the List, but in our country Holy Communion in hand is practiced from many years.

LINK- Documentation: Approval of Communion in the Hand under Pope Paul VI - PrayTellBlog

 

[otjm]

No, I don’t know of any list. I suspect that if you contacted the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, they would oblige you. Correspondence might take a bit of time.

 

[JulianN]

The indult isn’t really an issue in many countries. For example, in the United States, we are using the third edition of the Roman Missal, which has General Instructions (GIRM) The GIRM permits Communion in the hand. So, receiving in the hand is not a matter of an indult —it is now allowed in the law itself, removing the need for an indult. .

Without knowing your country and what the appropriate version of the the instructions are, it’s hard to answer your question.

 

[stpurl]

I don’t think you are quite correct regarding the US indult. I do not believe that the GIRM permission ( that is, its recognition of the indult from nearly 50 years ago in the US) amounts to a permission rendering the indult unnecessary.

As I understand it, the bishops may ask the Holy See for an indult (which they did supposedly) and they may also ask that the indult be revoked as did the bishops in England and Wales regarding Friday abstinence year round.

Which means what the bishops can do regarding CITH (which is not the norm of the Church, but an indult from the norm of COTT) would be these:
The bishops can ask for an indult (which may or may not be given).
The bishops can ask for an indult to be revoked.

What the bishops cannot do is to turn an indult into a law. It will always be an indult, and either it stays an indult from the norm, or it is revoked back to the norm.

It doesn’t BECOME the norm.

 

[paperwight]

I don’t think you are quite correct regarding the US insult.

That’s a very gentle and praiseworthy rebuke, stpurl.

 

[JulianN]

I’ll direct you to this.

Where is communion in the hand permitted Liturgy and Sacraments

The problem with online discussions like this is that people who throw out words like “indult” without having any understanding of how the Church’s liturgical laws work. That’s unfortunate. An indult is permission to do something that the law itself does not permit. It is very closely related to a dispensation. The difference is that an indult usually applies to a broad group of people, or broader circumstances, while a dispensation is typically more limited. Yes, an indult was issued in 1…

 

[puer.dei]

As I understand it, the bishops may ask the Holy See for an indult (which they did supposedly)

Supposedly?

 

[stpurl]

With all due respect to Father David, I stand by what I said. Between the whole, “if something lasts 30 years it becomes ‘right’ due to established custom’ and “local practice’ etc things become very murky.

But even Father David did not state where the ‘GIRM variations when approved by law become the law an indult is no longer an indult’ is actually noted as such. He just stated ‘it is so’. And I believe, again with respect, that he is mistaken in this.

It doesn’t really make sense, does it? There are many laws of the church; it is one thing to allow insults for individuals or groups to, for example, substitute the Friday abstinence or to receive CITH as an indult I.e. permission, even for decades, while acknowledging that the universal law remains something else. But to have Diocese A claiming that hey, THEIR law is now the former indult? or to have a majority claiming thus, turning the ‘universal norm’ into a minority? That doesn’t make sense. Granted, our current world is making less and less sense daily, but even with the (name removed by moderator)ut from Father David, I still do not maintain there is evidence that an indult, a permission from the Holy See to do action X instead of Y, can at a point in later years be made by the BISHOPS into a ‘law’.

 

[JulianN]

Since the GIRM was approved by the Vatican, I believe Father David’s understanding is correct.

 

[Dovekin]

The 8th chapter of the GIRM is about Adaptations that may be made by Bishops and Conferences of Bishops.

This chapter lists “the manner of receiving communion” as something to be decided by the Conference of bishops, not individual bishops.

Adaptations generally have to be approved by the Vatican, a process only slightly less burdensome than getting an indult.

The Vatican has said the decision on whether to receive on the tongue or in the hand is up to each individual communicant. Bishops Conferences have a choice of allowing it on the tongue; or in the hand or on the tongue. I think this is usually “on the tongue, or in their hand, at each communicants prefers” or something like that in GIRM 160 or 161.

 

[paperwight]

Thank you for that link to a previous discussion, JulianN as it also contains a list of countries where CITH is permitted, to answer the original and frequently asked query.

Very useful to have it posted as often as possible.

 

[twf]

The GIRM as approved for use in the US is the local law for the dioceses of the United States. The GIRM as approved for use in Canada is the local law for the dioceses of Canada, etc. There is no need for an indult as the law no makes the provision, at least locally, for both receiving on the tongue and in the hand.

Indults are granted when a local region wants an exception from the law. This is completely different from a local region having approved local laws that differ from the law elsewhere…

Another example would be holy days. In Canada, we have only two Holy Days of Obligation aside from Sundays - Christmas and Mary, Mother of God (Jan 1). (With several key Holy Days having been transferred to Sunday). We are not dispensed or operating under some indult for the other universal Holy Days…the local law for the dioceses of Canada has been changed, period.

 

[stpurl]

It is entirely possible it is correct. I just have not myself seen anything that indicates that making a permission (indult) into a regular practice in a given area (diocese, country) changes it from the original permission into a law on par with the Universal Norm.

As I had said, the whole “30 years equals custom” idea so often spoken of along with the GIRM and comparable documents in specific places IMO muddy the waters.

Look at the dioceses of England and Scotland. They asked for an indult for the Friday abstinence to be lifted outside of Lent. This then lasted for over 40 years. It would have had the same ‘law for the dioceses’ as with CITH, the same “custom’. Yet the dioceses had to ask for the former indult to be lifted (thus restoring the Universal Norm with regard to Friday abstinence). They did not as bishops issue an edict that, “From now on we bishops decree that Friday abstinence year round is what we are doing’; they had to go to the Holy See. Had they not done so, we would have the same situation as we do in the US, where abstinence on Fridays is observed in Lent (and the very murky and badly understood, in some cases not even known! Idea that a penance of some kind should be undertaken on the non-Lent Fridays). And if, God willing, the US decides to ‘lift the indult’ the bishops will likewise have to ask the indult to be lifted; they won’t be able to state on their own, “No more Lent Friday only abstinence”.

 

[JulianN]

That’s not quite the same, though. This is a liturgical practice that is governed by the current version of the Roman Missal in each country, and its accompanying instructions.

Once the practice is enshrined in the Vatican-approved instructions, no indult is needed.

 

[johnnykins]

GIRM from USCCB website (emphasis added):

1. The Priest then takes the paten or ciborium and approaches the communicants, who usually come up in procession.

It is not permitted for the faithful to take the consecrated Bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them on from one to another among themselves. The norm established for the Dioceses of the United States of America is that Holy Communion is to be received standing, unless an individual member of the faithful wishes to receive Communion while kneeling (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Instruction, Redemptionis Sacramentum, March 25, 2004, no. 91).

When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the Sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood.

1. If Communion is given only under the species of bread, the Priest raises the host slightly and shows it to each, saying, The Body of Christ. The communicant replies, Amen, and receives the Sacrament either on the tongue or, where this is allowed, in the hand, the choice lying with the communicant. As soon as the communicant receives the host, he or she consumes the whole of it.

If, however, Communion is given under both kinds, the rite prescribed in nos. 284-287 is to be followed.

I think part of the problem is that the GIRM is hardly a paragon of clarity on this issue.
160 seems to say it is the law to be able to receive under either manner.
161 makes it clear it is limited.

My own opinion, for what it’s worth, is the indult is still in place and has not been superseded by the law. Otherwise 161 makes no sense.

In practice, it doesn’t matter one bit if we are operating under the indult or the law.

 

[OraLabora]

There is no indult. Communion in the hand was permitted by Saint Paul VI himself, and allowed if a bishop or episcopal conference desired it for their territories. Once he approved it, it was up to the bishops of various localities to apply it or not to their territories.

See Abp. Annibale Bugnini’s book “Reform of the Liturgy”. The whole story is described in detail: which bishops were in favour, which were not. Most bishops were not in favour, but Saint Paul VI allowed it, out of charity, to those who were. In essence, a Saint overruled the majority of bishops to allow it.

So I think the OP is barking up the wrong tree.

 

[Cor_ad_Cor]

My own opinion, for what it’s worth, is the indult is still in place and has not been superseded by the law. Otherwise 161 makes no sense.

I would read that in the opposite way; 161 is a global/universal rule, and if an indult were needed, the phrase, “where this is allowed” wouldn’t be there. A universal law doesn’t go about anticipating indults. An indult is necessitated by the fact that the law is entirely silent or prohibitive on a matter (not the case here). My armchair-amateur canonist opinion.

 

[Titivillus]

GIRM from USCCB website (emphasis added):

1. The Priest then takes the paten or ciborium and approaches the communicants, who usually come up in procession.

It is not permitted for the faithful to take the consecrated Bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them on from one to another among themselves. The norm established for the Dioceses of the United States of America is that Holy Communion is to be received standing, unless an individual member of the faithful wishes to receive Communion while kneeling (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Instruction, Redemptionis Sacramentum, March 25, 2004, no. 91).

When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the Sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood.

That ultimate paragraph of GIRM 160 is an adaptation for the United States, as allowed in GIRM 390 – No such phraseology appears in the original. In compliance with #390, it can only appear here and be in force following the recognitio of the Apostolic See (Or, one might say, an indult).



160. Sacerdos deinde accipit patenam vel pyxidem, et accedit ad communicandos, qui de more processionaliter approprinquant.

Non licet ipsis fidelibus panem consecratum neque calicem sacrum per semetipsos accipere eo minus de manu in manum inter se transmittere. Fideles communicant genuflexi vel stantes, prout Conferentia Episcoporum statuerit. Cum autem stantes communicant, commendatur ut debitam reverentiam, ab iisdem normis statuendam, ante susceptionem Sacramenti faciant.

161. …

 

[Titivillus]

GIRM from USCCB website (emphasis added):
…

1. If Communion is given only under the species of bread, the Priest raises the host slightly and shows it to each, saying, The Body of Christ. The communicant replies, Amen, and receives the Sacrament either on the tongue or, where this is allowed, in the hand, the choice lying with the communicant. As soon as the communicant receives the host, he or she consumes the whole of it.

If, however, Communion is given under both kinds, the rite prescribed in nos. 284-287 is to be followed.

GIRM 161 does include that language, which I would judge indicates the foreseeing of continuing such permissions, which had been granted under previous versions of the Roman Missal.



(emphasis added)

161. Si Communio sub specie tantum panis fit, sacerdos hostiam parum elevatam unicuique ostendit dicens: Corpus Christi. Communicandus respondet: Amen, et Sacramentum recipit, ore vel, ubi concessum sit, manu, pro libitu suo. Communicandus statim ac sacram hostiam recipit, eam ex integro consumit.

Si vero Communio fit sub utraque specie, servetur ritus suo loco descriptus (cf. nn. 284-287).