List of indults for reception of Holy Communion in the hand

[Lepanto]

Only speaking for the U.S., it’s not an indult any more, it’s part of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (just like kneeling during most of the Eucharistic Prayer) that is approved by the Vatican for U.S. dioceses. Indults are exceptions to laws, not part of the law.

Laws can be changed. They are not doctrine.

 

[Phemie]

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

Everyone is quoting article 160 of the GIRM which doesn’t say anything about the norm. You can’t stop reading there. Article 161 of the US GIRM it DOES specify “where it is allowed”. So even the US version with adaptation shows that receiving in the hand is not the norm and is in fact not allowed everywhere.

 

[CDNowak]

The GIRM approved for the U.S. is not an indult. If you know differently, please share. Thanks.

The Latin, unadapted GIRM (well IGRM in Latin), is the universal norm, ie for the whole Latin Rite. There are also various documents that cover aspects not covered in the GIRM, such as reception of communion in the hand (again Memoriale Domini). Then there are documents that overrule the GIRM and apply everywhere (Redemptionis Sacrementum).

Any adaptations approved in a local edition (ie the US adaptations) are variations from the common, universal law (the US is not the whole universe). Thus they are, per the definition you provided indults. Broad indults, but indults all the same.

 

[diggerdomer]

Laws can be changed. They are not doctrine.

Divine laws cannot be changed. Anyway, of course ecclesiastical laws can be changed, I never suggested otherwise.

 

[diggerdomer]

The Latin, unadapted GIRM (well IGRM in Latin), is the universal norm, ie for the whole Latin Rite. There are also various documents that cover aspects not covered in the GIRM, such as reception of communion in the hand (again Memoriale Domini). Then there are documents that overrule the GIRM and apply everywhere (Redemptionis Sacrementum).

Any adaptations approved in a local edition (ie the US adaptations) are variations from the common, universal law (the US is not the whole universe). Thus they are, per the definition you provided indults. Broad indults, but indults all the same.

Redemptionis does NOT overrule the GIRM. It is an instruction that indicates proper ways of implementing parts of the GIRM. It was promulgated by the Congregation, it’s an executive not legislative document. The GIRM is law, promulgated by the Pope.

Redemptionis Sacramentum does not, and cannot because of the type of document it is, overrule the GIRM.

The GIRM in the U.S. does cover reception of communion in the hand, contrary to what you wrote, e.g. para 160:

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.

You can read it for yourself here: usccb.org/liturgy/current/revmissalisromanien.shtml

No, per the definition I provided they are not indults. As the promulgating documents from the Vatican clearly say, they are adaptations. To change them (e.g. whether or not to allow communion in the hand, whether or not to allow kneeling during most of the Eucharistic Prayer, etc.) requires changing the GIRM, not removing an indult.

 

[diggerdomer]

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).

No, communion in the hand has historically always been part of Catholic practice. It did not start as an abuse.

 

[Corki]

Redemptionis does NOT overrule the GIRM. It is an instruction that indicates proper ways of implementing parts of the GIRM. Again, it does not overrule the GIRM.

The GIRM is a general instruction while RS is a specific instruction. RS clarifies and specifies what is in the GIRM. While it may not be correct to say “overrule,” RS and the GIRM must be seen together and in light of each other.

The GIRM in the U.S. does cover reception of communion in the hand, contrary to what you wrote, e.g. para 160:

That’s not true, as has been pointed out to you before. In the very next paragraph, 161, it reads:

1. If Communion is given only under the species of bread, the priest raises the host slightly and shows it to each, saying, Corpus Christi (The Body of Christ). 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.** As soon as the communicant receives the host, he or she consumes it entirely.

This is in the US version, copied from the very link you supplied. Note the condition attached to communion in the hand, even in the US.

No, per the definition I provided they are not indults. As the promulgating documents from the Vatican clearly say, they are adaptations. To change them (e.g. whether or not to allow communion in the hand, whether or not to allow kneeling during most of the Eucharistic Prayer, etc.) requires changing the GIRM, not removing an indult

No, the condition “where it is allowed” is already there, at leaast for CITH. The “allow” would need to change, but the GIRM would** not **need to change. The language currently in the GIRM covers both a situation, in the US, where it IS allowed and one, in the US, where it is NOT allowed.

 

[diggerdomer]

The GIRM is a general instruction while RS is a specific instruction. RS clarifies and specifies what is in the GIRM. While it may not be correct to say “overrule,” RS and the GIRM must be seen together and in light of each other.

Of course they are taken together, I was simply pointing out the fact that RS does not overrule the GIRM.

That’s not true, as has been pointed out to you before. In the very next paragraph, 161, it reads:

No, it is true. The GIRM clearly does address communion in the hand and notes it’s allowed in the U.S. Para 161 is unchanged from the Latin. So what? Para 160 was adapted to obviously include that, so where para 161 says “where it is allowed” is interpreted for the U.S. dioceses by the clear teaching in para 160 that U.S. dioceses allow it.

This is in the US version, copied from the very link you supplied. Note the condition attached to communion in the hand, even in the US.

It’s not a condition, it’s an unchanged translation from the Latin original. “Where it is allowed” in para 161 was approved by the Vatican for U.S. dioceses to indicate either method is allowed (para 160)

No, the condition “where it is allowed” is already there, at leaast for CITH. The “allow” would need to change, but the GIRM would** not **need to change. The language currently in the GIRM covers both a situation, in the US, where it IS allowed and one, in the US, where it is NOT allowed.

Yes, the GIRM would need to change for the U.S. Para 160 would need to change (and for the other example, the places where posture during the Eucharistic Prayer is indicated).

Let’s make sure we’re clear here, I am referring to the GIRM approved for the U.S. dioceses. I know the original Latin GIRM would not need to change, but for the U.S. the GIRM would need to change because the only approved version the U.S. has is the approved one with adaptations. The U.S. Bishops cannot change that, it would require Vatican approval.

 

[CDNowak]

I apologize, RS was a poor example.

The GIRM in the U.S. does cover reception of communion in the hand, contrary to what you wrote, e.g. para 160:

The portion you keep quoting is not in the universal law (the original of the GIRM). It is therefore an exception to the universal law, by definition an indult. (a permission to vary from the universal law).

 

[Corki]

No, communion in the hand has historically always been part of Catholic practice. It did not start as an abuse.

Communion in the hand may have some historical roots but has not ALWAYS been part of Catholic practice in the Latin rite. In the US, it started as an abuse. I was in one of those parishes that was sneaking around with CITH during the 70s. They would go back to Communion on the Tongue when the Bishop or other diocisan personnel were around.

No, it is true. The GIRM clearly does address communion in the hand and notes it’s allowed in the U.S. Para 161 is unchanged from the Latin. So what? Para 160 was adapted to obviously include that, so where para 161 says “where it is allowed” is interpreted for the U.S. dioceses by the clear teaching in para 160 that U.S. dioceses allow it.

Yes, the GIRM would need to change for the U.S. Para 160 would need to change (and for the other example, the places where posture during the Eucharistic Prayer is indicated).

You have to take them both together. You cannot say that Paragraph 160 applies but Paragraph 161 does not. Don’t you think that the US adaptions were reviewed by numerous experts in the US and in Rome? They wouldn’t have kept 161 just because it was in the Latin original when there are many other parts changed, deleted or added to the US adaptation.

I agree that Paragraph 160 would have to change if the USCCB wanted to recind CITH for the whole US. But I believe that an individual Bishop could recind or restrict CITH in his own diocese without any change. The USCCB doesn’t grant indults, the Pope does that. The recent case in Bologna, Italy, shows the Vatican backing up a Bishop who recinded CITH for several of the larger Churches in his diocese. I can’t remember the name of the Bishop in Brazil but he did the same for his whole diocese a few years ago.

The portion you keep quoting is not in the universal law (the original of the GIRM). It is therefore an exception to the universal law, by definition an indult. (a permission to vary from the universal law).

I wish Japhy’s canon lawyer friend woud chime in. I’m not seeing anything in the US GIRM that would limit this right in the US any more than it was in Italy or Brazil.

The topic came up back when the Motu Propio for the EF Mass came out. People were wondering what would happen if someone went to an EF Mass and wanted to receive in the hand. I would think that a Bishop could restrict use of the indult for CITH to OF Masses without needing to get permission from Rome to do so.

 

[Sancto_Spiritu]

Reception in the hand is an ancient practice, one Our Lord practiced at the Last Supper.

Ummm … the priest gives himself Communion during the Mass. Christ is the Highest Priest of them All, so of course when he celebrated the First Mass, he would give himself Communion.

 

[japhy]

I wish Japhy’s canon lawyer friend woud chime in. I’m not seeing anything in the US GIRM that would limit this right in the US any more than it was in Italy or Brazil.

I’m not buddy-buddy with them. I emailed Ed Peters and Colin Donovan, but they’re busy men and I have not heard back from either of them yet. Hopefully I’ll hear Colin’s answer this Friday on EWTN radio’s Open Line show.

 

[diggerdomer]

I agree that Paragraph 160 would have to change if the USCCB wanted to recind CITH for the whole US. But I believe that an individual Bishop could recind or restrict CITH in his own diocese without any change.

No, an individual Bishop could not. Individual Bishops cannot deviate from the approved GIRM…so Bishops in the U.S. have to follow the GIRM approved for the U.S.

 

[diggerdomer]

I apologize, RS was a poor example.

The portion you keep quoting is not in the universal law (the original of the GIRM). It is therefore an exception to the universal law, by definition an indult. (a permission to vary from the universal law).

So by that logic everything in the GIRM approved for U.S. dioceses that is different from the Latin editio typica GIRM is an indult?

 

[Malkin71]

No, an individual Bishop could not. Individual Bishops cannot deviate from the approved GIRM…so Bishops in the U.S. have to follow the GIRM approved for the U.S.

Sadly, a lot of Bishops do. These forums are proof of it. If it wasn’t, Mass would be followed properly. How many Bishops make sure that the GIRM is followed correctly? Why when you go to Parish to Parish, the Mass is not followed correctly?

 

[tee_eff_em]

No, an individual Bishop could not.

Of course he could.

For instance, if an individual bishop were to judge that there was a significant risk of profanation, he could instruct that communion is not to be administered into the hands of the faithful.

tee

 

[CDNowak]

So by that logic everything in the GIRM approved for U.S. dioceses that is different from the Latin editio typica GIRM is an indult?

Yes, as variations from the common law, all adaptations would necessarily be indults (and yes, I realize that there are indults that I prefer to the universal norm).

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

 

[Phemie]

So by that logic everything in the GIRM approved for U.S. dioceses that is different from the Latin editio typica GIRM is an indult?

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. For example, it is the prerogative of the Bishops Conferences to decide whether to follow “the universal norm” or have adaptations to the posture for the Eucharistic Prayer.

It was the same in the 1975 GIRM, the USCCB decided the EP posture for the entire country. In contrast, the CCCB left it up to each bishop to decide for his diocese and many bishops left it up to the individual pastor to decide for his parish.

 

[Corki]

No, an individual Bishop could not. Individual Bishops cannot deviate from the approved GIRM…so Bishops in the U.S. have to follow the GIRM approved for the U.S.

The current situation is that, yes, an individual Bishop can do that and has done that in other countries. The canon law question is only whether there is something else that would restrict a US Bishop from doing what other Bishops are permitted.

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

By the same token, if a Bishop decided that there was some good reason to have people stand after the memorial acclamation (as they do in many other countries), that would be in harmony with the universal GIRM and, IMO would be within his authority. What he could NOT do would be to say that everyone remains standing through the whole EP since that would not be in keeping with either the universal GIRM or the US one.

 

[diggerdomer]

Of course he could.

For instance, if an individual bishop were to judge that there was a significant risk of profanation, he could instruct that communion is not to be administered into the hands of the faithful.

tee

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?