List of indults for reception of Holy Communion in the hand

[diggerdomer]

No, because there are places where the Latin editio typica specifically gives the Bishops’ Conference of each country the right to decide for itself how things are going to be. .

Where does the Latin editio typica specifically say the Bishops Conferences have the right to decide certain matters? I was not aware of that. Thanks.

 

[diggerdomer]

Y

That also gives the implication that an individual bishop may not be forced to preserve some adaptations to the GIRM.

I disagree. As I understand it, all Bishops (and all the Faithful for that matter) are required to follow the GIRM that is approved for them.

Can you show us where Bishops are free to deviate from the Vatican approved GIRM? Or do I misunderstand you? Thanks.

 

[diggerdomer]

T

This isn’t a matter of not following the GIRM at all but rather of following the universal GIRM rather than the US one.

For the U.S., there is only on GIRM to follow, right? Or do I misunderstand? My understanding is that the only GIRM Bishops (and of course all the Faithful) are obligated to follow is the one (one) approved by the Vatican specifically for the dioceses in the U.S.

Or are you saying that dioceses in the U.S. have more than one GIRM they are obliged to follow?

Thanks for any clarification.

 

[tee_eff_em]

If he’s in the U.S. he would then be violating the Vatican approved GIRM. I really don’t see that as a possibility. Do you know of any Bishops in the U.S. that have violated the GIRM?

Bah. He would be safeguarding the Blessed Sacrament.

If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.
*Redemptionis Sacramentum *#92

tee

 

[diggerdomer]

Bah. He would be safeguarding the Blessed Sacrament.

If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.
*Redemptionis Sacramentum *#92

tee

Bah yourself. For one, Redemptionis Sacramentum is an Instruction that is does not supersede the GIRM. So the GIRM still applies, in this case as approved for U.S. dioceses which states that the faithful have the option of how to receive communion.

There’s no (realistic) provision here for a Bishop to declare, contrary to the GIRM approved by the Vatican for U.S. dioceses that communion in the hand is not allowed. What RS is indicating, appropriately of course, is that profanation not occur. This is not something that could be decreed a priori by a Bishop as a diocesan rule. How would he know that each and every instance of communion in the hand is a risk of profanation? Ludicrous.

 

[Phemie]

Where does the Latin editio typica specifically say the Bishops Conferences have the right to decide certain matters? I was not aware of that. Thanks.

Article 43, Posture says in the Latin editio typica

Est tamen Conferentiæ Episcoporum, gestus et corporis habitus in Ordine Missæ descriptos ingenio et rationabilibus populorum traditionibus ad normam iuris aptare.53 Attendendum tamen erit, ut sensui et indoli cuiusque partis celebrationis respondeant. Ubi mos est, populum ab acclamatione Sanctus expleta usque ad finem Precis eucharisticæ et ante Communionem quando sacerdos dicit
Ecce Agnus Dei genuflexum manere, hic laudabiliter retinetur.
Ad uniformitatem in gestibus et corporis habitibus in una ademque celebratione obtinendam, fideles monitionibus obtemperent, quas diaconus, vel minister laicus, vel sacerdos proferunt, iuxta ea quæ in Missali statuuntur.

That section does not appear in the US GIRM (the only English verson on the Vatican website, unfortunately) because of the way the US adaptations were imbedded in the text rather that put in as an addendum as was done in the '75 edition. It does appear in the Spanish, French texts on the Vatican website though and I finally found it in English at the Liturgy Office England & Wales website:

Nevertheless, it is up to the Conference of Bishops to adapt the gestures and postures described in the Order of Mass to the culture and reasonable traditions of the people.53 The Conference, however, must make sure that such adaptations correspond to the meaning and character of each part of the celebration. Where it is the practice for the people to remain kneeling after the Sanctus until the end of the Eucharistic Prayer and before Communion when the priest says Ecce Agnus Dei (This is the Lamb of God), this practice is laudably retained.

With a view to a uniformity in gestures and postures during one and the same celebration, the faithful should follow the directions which the deacon, lay minister, or priest gives according to whatever is indicated in the Missal.

With the '75 edition the USCCB mandated that all dioceses adhere to the adaptations for the Eucharistic Prayer Posture. Canada’s CCCB, OTOH, allowed each Bishop to choose for his own diocese; some bishops transferred the decision making to the pastors which is why you often see great variations from parish to parish within a diocese.

To the dismay of many, at some point in, IIRC, the late 90s the USCCB reversed their “All Dioceses” stand and gave each bishop permission to decide EP posture for his own diocese. As I understand they returned to the ‘All Dioceses’ rule for the EP with the 2002 GIRM while allowing individual bishops to decide the posture for the Agnus Dei.

 

[japhy]

Bah yourself. For one, Redemptionis Sacramentum is an Instruction that is does not supersede the GIRM. So the GIRM still applies, in this case as approved for U.S. dioceses which states that the faithful have the option of how to receive communion.

I beg to differ.
[92.] Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice, if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.
If RS 92 can’t supersede the GIRM in countries where Communion in the hand is allowed by indult, then what is the purpose of the last sentence?

I don’t also see why RS is “below” the GIRM. They both come from the same dicastery, the CDWDS. The GIRM is from 2002, RS is from 2004. I would interpret the GIRM in light of RS.

 

[CDNowak]

For the U.S., there is only on GIRM to follow, right? Or do I misunderstand? My understanding is that the only GIRM Bishops (and of course all the Faithful) are obligated to follow is the one (one) approved by the Vatican specifically for the dioceses in the U.S.

Or are you saying that dioceses in the U.S. have more than one GIRM they are obliged to follow?

Thanks for any clarification.

There is only one GIRM. That has then been adapted for the various countries. You can’t put the document at odds with itself without realizing what is universal and what is extraordinary (local indults).

 

[japhy]

The response from Colin Donovan (on EWTN radio’s Open Line today) essentially says that the practice of Communion in the hand is generally an indult, and in the United States it is local law. He also said that someone could not be denied Communion in the hand in the United States because the US adaptation to the GIRM explicitly states it is allowed.

So now I’m puzzled, because I was under the impression that a Bishop in a conference (where the indult for Communion in the hand exists) could choose not to “apply” the indult in his diocese. I’m also puzzled because there is a prescription in Redemptionis Sacramentum about disallowing Communion in the hand if there is danger of profanation.

 

[diggerdomer]

I If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.[/INDENT]
If RS 92 can’t supersede the GIRM in countries where Communion in the hand is allowed by indult, then what is the purpose of the last sentence?

It doesn’t superseded the GIRM but gives instructions on matters not contained explicitly in the GIRM. Further details/guidance on implementing the GIRM, if you will. This last sentence you note is not contradicted by the GIRM; it serves as an admonition that IF there’s a risk of profanation THEN communion should not be given in the hand. I guess it needed to be said or they wouldn’t have, it seems pretty common sense to me.

I don’t also see why RS is “below” the GIRM. They both come from the same dicastery, the CDWDS. The GIRM is from 2002, RS is from 2004. I would interpret the GIRM in light of RS.

The Roman Missal was promulgated by Pope Paul VI via an Apostolic Constitution. RS, like other Instructions from the Congregation, are of course approved by the Pope but promulgated by the Congregation. It’s more like an “executive order” in how to carry out the law (Missal). So yes both the Congregation and the Pope are involved in both documents, but their manner of promulgation indicates the difference.

 

[CDNowak]

The GIRM is promulgated by the CDW, look at the opening documents.

 

[Corki]

The GIRM is promulgated by the CDW, look at the opening documents.

And the most recent Roman Missal was promulgated in 2000 by Pope John Paul II.

Both RS and the GRIM come from the CDW and both are interpretive documents for the RM. The GIRM does not come from a “higher authority” nor does it overrule RS.

But I must say I am confused by Colin Donovan’s response. If that is the case, a US Bishop could not do what the Vatican said the Italian Bishop could. But a priest could decide not to give Communion in the Hand if he felt there was a danger of profanation. This is, of course, hypothetical since no Bishop in the US seems to want to operate without the indult. But Mr. Donovan’s response seems to mean that a person could come to an EF Mass and insist on CITH. That just seems wrong.

 

[VietCatholic83]

WOW. I fancy myself an amateur liturgist but this discussion is getting waaaaaay over my head. The way I understood it, the universal norm for receiving Holy Communion was on the tongue, as practiced in the the Extraordinary Form and in the liturgies of the East. Then people began to receive in the hand as an attempt to “do things as the early Christians did” which was initially prohibited but then tolerated after-the-fact by the Holy See for a limited number of countries which were doing it, including the United States. It appears as though Communion in the hand is now widespread and takes place all over the world, as a “de facto” norm. So I guess my original question was whether all of these places actually have the indult or permission to engage in this practice or are most of them pretty much doing it illicitly and since there’s no liturgical police to stop them, they do it anyway.

 

[Malkin71]

It doesn’t superseded the GIRM but gives instructions on matters not contained explicitly in the GIRM. Further details/guidance on implementing the GIRM, if you will. This last sentence you note is not contradicted by the GIRM; it serves as an admonition that IF there’s a risk of profanation THEN communion should not be given in the hand. I guess it needed to be said or they wouldn’t have, it seems pretty common sense to me.

The Roman Missal was promulgated by Pope Paul VI via an Apostolic Constitution. RS, like other Instructions from the Congregation, are of course approved by the Pope but promulgated by the Congregation. It’s more like an “executive order” in how to carry out the law (Missal). So yes both the Congregation and the Pope are involved in both documents, but their manner of promulgation indicates the difference.

A “Muto Propio” is an “Executive Order” too.

 

[diggerdomer]

A “Muto Propio” is an “Executive Order” too.

The difference being the Pope can enact law, a Congregation by itself cannot.

 

[Malkin71]

The difference being the Pope can enact law, a Congregation by itself cannot.

The Pope is the head of the Holy Catholic Church and the Congregation. Priests, Bishops, Cardinals must listen and obey the Pontiff. Sadly, they don’t. Even the laity do not agree with the Pontiff. If we all would, the Church would be stronger and united.