List of indults for reception of Holy Communion in the hand

  • Thread starter Thread starter VietCatholic83
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
diggerdomer said:
If that’s true, then kneeling during most of the Eucharistic prayer is an indult also. After all, the universal GIRM says to kneel only during the words of institution. So given that logic, the US must have an indult to kneel following the Holy Holy until after the Great Amen.

Right?
Click to expand...
I don’t know if that holds. (What follows is my own thought-process, not anything official.)

Kneeling for the whole Eucharistic Prayer (as opposed to just the Consecration) is particular law in America, an extension/expansion of universal law. I’ve never heard of it described as an indult. If it were an indult, that would mean it is forbidden to kneel for the whole Eucharistic Prayer elsewhere, say, in Spain (just a guess), and I’m not sure that’s the case.

That is not the case with Communion in the hand. It is forbidden, unless there is exemption from universal law given through an indult.

I’ve asked a canon lawyer to weigh in on the matter. I’ll let you know what I hear back from him.
 
japhy said:
I don’t know if that holds. (What follows is my own thought-process, not anything official.)

Kneeling for the whole Eucharistic Prayer (as opposed to just the Consecration) is particular law in America, an extension/expansion of universal law. I’ve never heard of it described as an indult. If it were an indult, that would mean it is forbidden to kneel for the whole Eucharistic Prayer elsewhere, say, in Spain (just a guess), and I’m not sure that’s the case.

That is not the case with Communion in the hand. It is forbidden, unless there is exemption from universal law given through an indult.

I’ve asked a canon lawyer to weigh in on the matter. I’ll let you know what I hear back from him.
Click to expand...
I will be very interested in his response.

My take on this, and I am no expert either:

– an indult by definition is an exception, granted by the Pope, to some provision of law.
– with the indult for CITH, the law being excepted, is that communicants not touch the Sacred Species themselves when communing
– posture is not generally goverened by law but rather by direction; even such things as kneeling for the consecration can be exempted by authorities below the Pope for good reason (safety, health, space).
– kneeling and when to kneel are matters of posture
– kneeling until the Great Amen is covered as an adaptation to a direction rather than an indult
 
japhy said:
I don’t know if that holds. (What follows is my own thought-process, not anything official.)

Kneeling for the whole Eucharistic Prayer (as opposed to just the Consecration) is particular law in America, an extension/expansion of universal law. I’ve never heard of it described as an indult. If it were an indult, that would mean it is forbidden to kneel for the whole Eucharistic Prayer elsewhere, say, in Spain (just a guess), and I’m not sure that’s the case.

That is not the case with Communion in the hand. It is forbidden, unless there is exemption from universal law given through an indult.

I’ve asked a canon lawyer to weigh in on the matter. I’ll let you know what I hear back from him.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I’d be interested to hear the response as well.

My point is that both issues (communion in the hand and kneeling during most of the Eucharistic Prayer) are two (of many) approved “adaptations” for dioceses in the U.S. Nowhere that I am aware of in the promulgating documents is there a distinction that some things are adaptations (only) and others are indults. I am well aware that in 1969 communion in the hand was grated specifically to those requesting it via indult. But as I understand it, the GIRM approved for the U.S. dioceses is just that–approved, i.e. not approved and then there are some indults that give other special permissions.

Hope your canon lawyer can help here. Thanks again.
 
diggerdomer said:
Thank you. I’d be interested to hear the response as well.

My point is that both issues (communion in the hand and kneeling during most of the Eucharistic Prayer) are two (of many) approved “adaptations” for dioceses in the U.S. Nowhere that I am aware of in the promulgating documents is there a distinction that some things are adaptations (only) and others are indults. I am well aware that in 1969 communion in the hand was grated specifically to those requesting it via indult. But as I understand it, the GIRM approved for the U.S. dioceses is just that–approved, i.e. not approved and then there are some indults that give other special permissions.

Hope your canon lawyer can help here. Thanks again.
Click to expand...
But the GIRM specifically says “The communicant replies, Amen, and receives the Sacrament either on the tongue or, where this is allowed and if the communicant so chooses, in the hand.” That’s not an adaptation for the US but is included in the Latin edition.

That alone shows that it’s normally not allowed but that some places have indults (even if that word isn’t used).

OTOH, GIRM 43 (the Latin) allows for the National Conferences of Bishops to adapt posture to the tradition of the people and specifically says that where kneeling for the entire Eucharistic Prayer and after the Agnus Dei is usually done it can be retained. It’s unfortunate the the English version on the Vatican website is the US one and not the universal one. It was better with the 1975 GIRM since the universal one was published with US adaptations as an addendum. At least we got to see what the adaptations were changing.
 
Phemie said:
That alone shows that it’s normally not allowed but that some places have indults (even if that word isn’t used).
Click to expand...
If the word’s not used, then perhaps it’s not an indult?
Phemie said:
It was better with the 1975 GIRM since the universal one was published with US adaptations as an addendum. At least we got to see what the adaptations were changing.
Click to expand...
I completely agree. Thanks.
 
tee_eff_em said:
Do you think there is something “special” about the word, that it bears more than its apparent meaning?? :confused:

tee
Click to expand...
Yes. It’s a very specific word used for very specific and important circumstances. It’s on the “legal” side of things in the Church where many words often have very precise meanings and uses. Especially as indults are exceptions to Church law, I do think the Church uses it very carefully and specifically. Thank goodness. In that sense, “special.”
 
Please, what is the specific and technical definition of the word then? I do not wish to remain ignorant.

tee
 
CDNowak said:
diggerdomer, as the document under which the indult was originally granted, Memoriale Domini is still in force, Communion in the hand is still “a general faculties, granted by the Holy See to bishops and others, of doing something not permitted by the common law.”
Click to expand...
But it appears to me that the General Instruction of the Roman Missal is common law. There is no other law dioceses in the U.S. have to follow. As the GIRM so states:
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.
Click to expand...
 
diggerdomer said:
But it appears to me that the General Instruction of the Roman Missal is common law. There is no other law dioceses in the U.S. have to follow. As the GIRM so states:
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.
Click to expand...
The quoted text is among the US adaptations to the GIRM. It need not specify *“where this is allowed” *because the practice is, in fact, indulged in the US.

tee
Click to expand...
 
tee_eff_em said:
The quoted text is among the US adaptations to the GIRM. It need not specify *“where this is allowed” *because the practice is, in fact, indulged in the US.

tee
Click to expand...
Yes, it is a U.S. adaptation, as are all the other differences in the GIRM approved for the U.S. vs. the editio typica. It need not specify because it’s allowed everywhere this GIRM applies.

Still, no mention of indult.
 
It is the local law (ie indult). It is not the universal law (the Latin, # 160, however, is).
 
diggerdomer said:
But it appears to me that the General Instruction of the Roman Missal is common law. There is no other law dioceses in the U.S. have to follow.
Click to expand...
But dioceses in the US are not required to follow that part of the adaptation since it is an indult. A Bishop is completely within his rights to decide not to accept the indult for his diocese. This would not be the case if the adaptation, which allows the communicant to chose, is common law.
 
Corki said:
But dioceses in the US are not required to follow that part of the adaptation since it is an indult. A Bishop is completely within his rights to decide not to accept the indult for his diocese. This would not be the case if the adaptation, which allows the communicant to chose, is common law.
Click to expand...
Wrong. The diocese in the U.S. are required to follow the approved GIRM. The approved GIRM for the U.S. dioceses is approved by the Vatican, and includes and incorporates (without indult) adaptations requested by the USCCB…

Where do you get the idea that the dioceses in the U.S. are not required to follow this:

usccb.org/liturgy/current/revmissalisromanien.shtml
 
diggerdomer said:
Wrong. The diocese in the U.S. are required to follow the approved GIRM. The approved GIRM for the U.S. dioceses is approved by the Vatican, and includes and incorporates (without indult) adaptations requested by the USCCB…

Where do you get the idea that the dioceses in the U.S. are not required to follow this:

usccb.org/liturgy/current/revmissalisromanien.shtml
Click to expand...
The Vatican has twice affirmed the right of an individual Bishop to reject the indult even if the conference of bishops has been granted it. There is nothing in the GIRM that changes that or CAN change that.

Continuing to link back to the US adaptations is not helpful since the indult is not mentioned in that document.
 
Corki said:
The Vatican has twice affirmed the right of an individual Bishop to reject the indult even if the conference of bishops has been granted it. There is nothing in the GIRM that changes that or CAN change that.

Continuing to link back to the US adaptations is not helpful since the indult is not mentioned in that document.
Click to expand...
Where exactly did the Vatican affirm what you claim, which seems contrary to the Vatican-approved GIRM for the U.S. dioceses? Thanks.
 
Joannm said:
Every European country I have been in allows it.
Click to expand...
But let’s keep in mind that the defacto practice does not in itself make it licit. As we know of the history of this practice, it started out as an abuse and only then became licit in some places after it had already gotten out of hand (no pun intended).

Do a Google search on Cardinal Suenens
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top