Liturgical abuse? Altar server/Chalice/purifying

[Phemie]

Apparently we were trained as EMHC’s to purify vessels 4 years (and earlier) before the indult was given for only 3 years.

I wonder why we were trained this way, without an indult first?

Some of the indults which we now have , such as Communion in the hand, came about because bishops were allowing them to be done already, so it’s not surprising you were trained before the indult was granted. Female altar servers were being used long before permission was granted for them.

I’m not sure that Canada has ever had the indult for EMHCs to purify the vessels but because the US had one it started being done here too.

 

[kikkichan]

JUAN CARLOS:

…

The Pope came with the statements that: “*EMoHC(s) are NOT permitted to purify the chalices anymore, only the priest *(deacon or instituted acolyte) can do it,”

I am sure your pastor knew abut it, but it was one of an ABUSE on him because he knows he is to PURIFY the chalices, not the *EMoHC(s) nor the altar servers.

…

GOd bless.
PROVIGIL

*edited by kc

Can you reference something to support that please

. Not that I doubt you, but I would like to read it too because I see EMHC’s purifying vessels all over the place. Thanks.

Joab Anias:

See: usccb.org/liturgy/cleansingofvessels.pdf on the “The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)” web site

" …In this letter to all Bishop members of the USCCB, Bishop Skylstad
noted that “as a result, it will be necessary to inform all pastors that
Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion may no longer assist with
the purification of sacred vessels at Mass.”

If this has already been addressed. please disregard!
–kc

 

[OhMalley]

Some of the indults which we now have , such as Communion in the hand, came about because bishops were allowing them to be done already, so it’s not surprising you were trained before the indult was granted. Female altar servers were being used long before permission was granted for them.

I’m not sure that Canada has ever had the indult for EMHCs to purify the vessels but because the US had one it started being done here too.

I don’t think CIH was allowed “because bishops were allowing them to be done already.” I think it came about fairly recently because it’s an ancient Church practice that’s preferred by a great many Catholics.

 

[japhy]

I don’t think CIH was allowed “because bishops were allowing them to be done already.” I think it came about fairly recently because it’s an ancient Church practice that’s preferred by a great many Catholics.

I’m sure we’ve gone over this several times, but the document establishing the indult says:
… in recent years a fuller sharing in the eucharistic celebration through sacramental communion has here and there evoked the desire to return to the ancient usage of depositing the eucharistic bread in the hand of the communicant, he himself then communicating, placing it in his mouth.

Indeed, in certain communities and in certain places this practice has been introduced without prior approval having been requested of the Holy See, and, at times, without any attempt to prepare the faithful adequately.
The bishops voted (approx.) 1200-to-600 against the practice. Nevertheless:
Where a contrary usage, that of placing holy communion on the hand, prevails, the Holy See—wishing to help them fulfill their task, often difficult as it is nowadays—lays on those conferences the task of weighing carefully whatever special circumstances may exist there, taking care to avoid any risk of lack of respect or of false opinions with regard to the Blessed Eucharist, and to avoid any other ill effects that may follow.

In such cases, episcopal conferences should examine matters carefully and should make whatever decisions, by a secret vote and with a two-thirds majority, are needed to regulate matters. Their decisions should be sent to Rome to receive the necessary confirmation, accompanied with a detailed account of the reasons which led them to take those decisions. The Holy See will examine each case carefully, taking into account the links between the different local churches and between each of them and the Universal Church, in order to promote the common good and the edification of all, and that mutual good example may increase faith and piety.
What it comes down to is this: if you are in an ecclesiastical province where Communion-in-the-hand is permitted, it’s because it was being done on a widespread level illicitly before the indult was granted, not because people asked for permission first (unless the conditions for the indult have changed).

 

[Traditional_Ang]

I don’t think CIH was allowed “because bishops were allowing them to be done already.” I think it came about fairly recently because it’s an ancient Church practice that’s preferred by a great many Catholics.

O’Malley:

But, and it’s a BIG “BUT”, the way Catholics receive our Lord in the hand NOW and the way they received HIM in the hand THEN are as different as NIGHT and DAY. Here’s a sample shown in one of my posts…

Eucharist in the Hand – #51

The closest (To St. Cyril’s Description) I’ve seen anyone come in my experience is a TAC priest whom I watched receiving when he was serving Mass for a fellow priest… He knelt and reached his hands above his head, RIGHT hand on top of the Left as he bowed his head, while the body of our Lord was placed in his hand. He then gazed at our Lord enthroned in his hand as he held our Lord aloft (while still kneeling) for 1 or 2 seconds before reverently consuming Him. Yes, This priest made a throne out of his right hand so he could “gaze on Him whom he had pierced”.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5148810&postcount=51

If you can truthfully say you see Catholics receiving the Lord in the manner I just described, I’ll say that they wanted to do it as the Early Church did it. I haven’t. Here is the description from St. Cyril I alluded to in my post:

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Cyril of Jerusalem

“Approaching do not come with thy palms stretched flat nor with fingers separated. But making thy left hand a seat for thy right, and hollowing thy palm, receive the Body of Christ, responding Amen. And having with care hallowed thine eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, take it, vigilant lest thou drop any of it. For shouldst thou lose any of it, it is as though thou wast deprived of a member of thy own body.” “Then afterCommunion of the Body of Christ, approach the Chalice of His Blood, not extending thy hands, but bending low, and with adoration and reverence saying Amen, sanctify thyself by receiving also the Blood of Christ. And while thy lips are yet wet, touch them with thy hands, and sanctify thy eyes and thy forehead and thy other senses” (Cat. Myst., v, 22, 21-22).

newadvent.org/cathen/04595b.htm

We’re simply not allowed to do much of what St. Cyril describes nowadays, but we can treat the Body & Blood of the Lord with the Reverence and Awe due the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[Provigil]

OHMALLEY:

To make things more lucid, I said the Bishops came out with the statement the the "EUCHARISTIC MINISTERS’ ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PURIFY THE CHALICES.

Yes, they can consume if there is any wine left, BUT THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PURIFY THE CHALICES.

Ask your pastor, or when you to go church, notice after Communion, the EM will finish the wine and that is it. It is now obligatory that the PRIEST purify the chalices.
PROVIGIL​

 

[Phemie]

OHMALLEY:

To make things more lucid, I said the Bishops came out with the statement the the "EUCHARISTIC MINISTERS’ ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PURIFY THE CHALICES.

Yes, they can consume if there is any wine left, BUT THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PURIFY THE CHALICES.

Ask your pastor, or when you to go church, notice after Communion, the EM will finish the wine and that is it. It is now obligatory that the PRIEST purify the chalices.
PROVIGIL​

We keep telling you, the only people who are Eucharistic Ministers are priests and bishops. Lay people are “Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion”.

 

[Joab_Anias]

Joab Anias:

See: usccb.org/liturgy/cleansingofvessels.pdf on the “The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)” web site

" …In this letter to all Bishop members of the USCCB, Bishop Skylstad
noted that “as a result, it will be necessary to inform all pastors that
Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion may no longer assist with
the purification of sacred vessels at Mass.”

If this has already been addressed. please disregard!
–kc

Thanks.

 

[FrDavid96]

The diocese where I was trained to be an EMHC back in 1998-99 trained us to purify the vessels and we did so during Mass the whole time I was there.

I see the same being done in most places I visit. Why do you think this is the case?

I looked at an old Sacramentary (1974). The old GIRM, #147 says that the “acolyte” may purify the vessels. Contrast this to the new GIRM #192 which specifies “duly instituted acolyte” In the novus ordo Mass, a qualified layperson may assume the role of acolyte if a “duly instituted acolyte” is unavailable. Most people simply “connected the dots” and came to the conclusion that a layperson can purify the vessels because this is part of the acolyte’s role. That would explain why, in 1998, you were trained to do it.

I don’t know what triggered the USCCB in 2001 to petition for an indult to allow for laypersons who aren’t instituted acolytes to purify, but obviously there had to be some reason.

Just a side note, on the USCCB website listing the documents I quoted earlier, there are a number of typographical errors. The dates aren’t accurate, but at least they are approximate.

 

[Joab_Anias]

I looked at an old Sacramentary (1974). The old GIRM, #147 says that the “acolyte” may purify the vessels. Contrast this to the new GIRM #192 which specifies “duly instituted acolyte” In the novus ordo Mass, a qualified layperson may assume the role of acolyte if a “duly instituted acolyte” is unavailable. Most people simply “connected the dots” and came to the conclusion that a layperson can purify the vessels because this is part of the acolyte’s role. That would explain why, in 1998, you were trained to do it.

I don’t know what triggered the USCCB in 2001 to petition for an indult to allow for laypersons who aren’t instituted acolytes to purify, but obviously there had to be some reason.

Just a side note, on the USCCB website listing the documents I quoted earlier, there are a number of typographical errors. The dates aren’t accurate, but at least they are approximate.

I know that after Mass, in the sacristy, a lay person who wasn’t the serving acolyte or EMHC would sometimes do the final purification with soap and hot water. I wonder if that had something to do with the indult. Thats the only thing I could think of.

Thinking about what exactly is the difference between an EMHC, an acolyte and a duly instituted acolyte;

This is what Fr. Hardon’s dictionary has:

ACOLYTE
A ministry to which a person is specially appointed by the Church to assist the deacon and to minister to the priest. His duty is to attend to the service of the altar and to assist as needed in the celebration of the Mass. He may also distribute Holy Communion as an auxiliary minister at the Eucharistic liturgy and to the sick. An acolyte may be entrusted with publicly exposing the Blessed Sacrament for adoration but not with giving benediction. He may also, to the extent needed, take care of instructing other faithful who by appointment assist the priest or deacon by carrying the missal, cross, candles, and similar functions. The ministry of acolyte is reserved to men and conferred by the bishop of the diocese or, in clerical institutes of religious, by the major superior, according to liturgical rites composed for the purpose by the Church. Women may be delegated to perform some of the functions of an acolyte. (Etym. Greek akolouthos, attendant follower.) See Also: ALTAR BOY

Wouldn’t it be possible for an EMHC to also be an acolyte even though she/he is only serving in assisting with the Eucharist?

Wouldn’t an EMHC, who was fully trained and registered with the diocese to act as an EMHC, then be considered a duly instituted acolyte for that ministry?

Maybe I am misunderstanding but according to what I am gathering from Fr. Hardon’s dictionary, an altar server is considered a duly instituted acolyte. Am I mistaken?

 

[FrDavid96]

I know that after Mass, in the sacristy, a lay person who wasn’t the serving acolyte or EMHC would sometimes do the final purification with soap and hot water. I wonder if that had something to do with the indult. Thats the only thing I could think of.

Thinking about what exactly is the difference between an EMHC, an acolyte and a duly instituted acolyte;

Wouldn’t it be possible for an EMHC to also be an acolyte even though she/he is only serving in assisting with the Eucharist?

Wouldn’t an EMHC, who was fully trained and registered with the diocese to act as an EMHC, then be considered a duly instituted acolyte for that ministry?

Maybe I am misunderstanding but according to what I am gathering from Fr. Hardon’s dictionary, an altar server is considered a duly instituted acolyte. Am I mistaken?

A couple of points to keep in mind,

No one is an “extraordinary minister of Holy Communion” That’s a point the Church has been making over and over again in recent years. I don’t say this to be critical of you, but in order to understand the rest of what I’m saying, that point has to be kept in mind.

The function of an EMHC only exists while that person is actually engaged in assisting a priest in the distribution of Communion. Once that “moment” is over, the person is no longer an EMHC. In reality, no one can ever say “I am an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion” unless that person is actually engaged in distributing Communion. There is no such office. That’s exactly what the qualifier “extraordinary” means.

Certain people are potential EMHCs. First among these are instituted Acolytes.
(The bishop can also appoint certain persons to be potential EMHCs on a stable basis, but they’re still only EMHCs when they’re actually distributing).

What we now call “acolytes” used to be “subdeacons.” They were ordained to this order. In the early 1970s Pope Paul VI discontinued the order of subdeacons (in the Latin rite) and replaced it with the ministry of Acolyte. Acolytes can only be installed by the bishop, using the proper liturgical rite (sometimes the bishop can delegate this rite to a priest). Although it is not an ordination, it can sometimes be helpful to think of it *as if *it were an ordination. Acolytes are installed, not ordained, and so are laymen, not clerics, but once installed, they remain so for the rest of their lives. In most cases, this ministry is only conferred on those preparing for the priesthood or diaconate.

The word itself “acolyte” can also be applied to other laypersons who are appointed to perform the liturgical role of an instituted Acolyte on a temporary basis. It can indeed be confusing because there is a significant difference between an “acolyte” and a “duly instituted Acolyte.” The instituted Acolyte should always perform his office whenever he is present at Mass. On the other hand a temporary acolyte may only function when there is an absence of an instituted Acolyte.

An instituted Acolyte is de facto (ok, for the purist, ipso jure) a potential EMHC when there is a genuine need. Again, temporary acolytes can only be appointed EMHCs when there is both a genuine need and a lack of instituted Acolytes.

What I’m trying to say is that it is not a matter of saying that an EMHC is a potential acolyte, but it’s precisely the other way around: an acolyte is a potential EMHC.

Clear as mud now? I hope this helps.

As for your first question, the sacred vessels must be purified by a cleric or a duly instituted Acolyte, but once they have been purified, anyone might clean them in the sink. The indult had nothing to do with this “cleaning” part, only the purifying part.

 

[Joab_Anias]

A couple of points to keep in mind,

No one is an “extraordinary minister of Holy Communion” That’s a point the Church has been making over and over again in recent years. I don’t say this to be critical of you, but in order to understand the rest of what I’m saying, that point has to be kept in mind.

The function of an EMHC only exists while that person is actually engaged in assisting a priest in the distribution of Communion. Once that “moment” is over, the person is no longer an EMHC. In reality, no one can ever say “I am an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion” unless that person is actually engaged in distributing Communion. There is no such office. That’s exactly what the qualifier “extraordinary” means.

Certain people are potential EMHC’s. First among these are instituted Acolytes.
(The bishop can also appoint certain persons to be potential EMHCs on a stable basis, but they’re still only EMHCs when they’re actually distributing).

What we now call “acolytes” used to be “subdeacons.” They were ordained to this order. In the early 1970s Pope Paul VI discontinued the order of subdeacons (in the Latin rite) and replaced it with the ministry of Acolyte. Acolytes can only be installed by the bishop, using the proper liturgical rite (sometimes the bishop can delegate this rite to a priest). Although it is not an ordination, it can sometimes be helpful to think of it *as if *it were an ordination. Acolytes are installed, not ordained, and so are laymen, not clerics, but once installed, they remain so for the rest of their lives. In most cases, this ministry is only conferred on those preparing for the priesthood or diaconate.

The word itself “acolyte” can also be applied to other laypersons who are appointed to perform the liturgical role of an instituted Acolyte on a temporary basis. It can indeed be confusing because there is a significant difference between an “acolyte” and a “duly instituted Acolyte.” The instituted Acolyte should always perform his office whenever he is present at Mass. On the other hand a temporary acolyte may only function when there is an absence of an instituted Acolyte.

An instituted Acolyte is de facto (ok, for the purist, ipso jure) a potential EMHC when there is a genuine need. Again, temporary acolytes can only be appointed EMHCs when there is both a genuine need and a lack of instituted Acolytes.

What I’m trying to say is that it is not a matter of saying that an EMHC is a potential acolyte, but it’s precisely the other way around: an acolyte is a potential EMHC.

Clear as mud now? I hope this helps.

As for your first question, the sacred vessels must be purified by a cleric or a duly instituted Acolyte, but once they have been purified, anyone might clean them in the sink. The indult had nothing to do with this “cleaning” part, only the purifying part.

That helps a lot but I am still not clear on what constitutes “duly instituted” and not completely clear on; if an EMHC in that capacity, in the absence of other acolytes and when actually performing the ministry, would be considered “duly instituted” or not.

I guess, in the case of purifying vessels, its a moot question as there isn’t an indult any longer.

This still leaves me with the question of who is considered a duly instituted acolyte. I thought that was the point of my training and approval by the Bishop to be an EMHC when I was first trained. As you say, the sub deaconate is discontinued, are Altar boys considered duly instituted acolytes or just who exactly is considered a duly instituted acolyte now? Seminarians?

Thanks for the answers.

 

[Brendan]

That helps a lot but I am still not clear on what constitutes “duly instituted” and not completely clear on; if an EMHC in that capacity, in the absence of other acolytes and when actually performing the ministry, would be considered “duly instituted” or not.
.

Being duly instituded involved a particular rite done upon the person by the bishop.

Here is a picture of the rite being accomplished in Archdiocese of Philidelphia (upon a semniarian)

http://orderofmercy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/img_0027-300x225.jpg

Any person who has not been so installed by a bishop, using this rite, is not a duly instituted Acolyte.

The rite is restricted to men, women cannot, by Law, be installed as Acolytes. The ministry is most often given as part of seminarian or diaconal training, but at least one diocese ( Lincoln, Neb) installs men to this ministry seperately.

 

[Aramis]

OHMALLEY:

To make things more lucid, I said the Bishops came out with the statement the the "EUCHARISTIC MINISTERS’ ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PURIFY THE CHALICES.

Yes, they can consume if there is any wine left, BUT THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PURIFY THE CHALICES.

Ask your pastor, or when you to go church, notice after Communion, the EM will finish the wine and that is it. It is now obligatory that the PRIEST purify the chalices.
PROVIGIL​

With all due respect, you need to learn the appropriate terminologies in current use.

Rome has made several clarifications to english use of the terms. Some as recenty as 2008. (Chiding the US for use of the terms Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist, and Lay Eucharistic Minister, as the EM is the minister who confects the Eucharist.)

 

[Brendan]

OHMALLEY:

To make things more lucid, I said the Bishops came out with the statement the the "EUCHARISTIC MINISTERS’ ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PURIFY THE CHALICES.

Provigil,

The Minister of the Sacrament is the one who confects (calls the Grace into being).

The Minister of Baptism is the one pouring the water while reciting the Trinitarian Formula.

The Minister of Reconcilliation is a validly ordained priest with faculties.

The Minister of Annointing is the same.

The Minister of Matrimony are the couple themselves.

And the Minister of the Eucharist is a validly Ordained Priest. A layperson, or a Deacon are, by definition NOT EUCHARISTIC MINISTERS. They cannot consecrate the elements into the Sacrament.

Now Deacon may assist in the Communicaiton of the Eucharist ( the bringing of the Eucharist to the Community). This Ministry is called being a Minister of Holy Communion. (note the difference in name from that of the priest, it is a completely different ministry than confecting the Sacrament, thus it has a completely different name)

A layperson may, under circumstances, assist in the Communication of the Eucharist (Holy Communion). They are then called Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.

Please get the terms right, as they have VERY profound theological differences.

 

[japhy]

That helps a lot but I am still not clear on what constitutes “duly instituted” and not completely clear on; if an EMHC in that capacity, in the absence of other acolytes and when actually performing the ministry, would be considered “duly instituted” or not.

Altar boys (or girls) are not acolytes. They are substitutes for acolytes when acolytes are not available. Most people you would consider “lectors” are, in truth, not lectors. They are substitutes for lectors since it is rare that a person be appointed to the instituted office of lector.

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) covers the ministries of instituted acolytes and lectors:
The Ministry of the Instituted Acolyte and Lector

1. The acolyte is instituted to serve at the altar and to assist the priest and deacon. In
   particular, it is his responsibility to prepare the altar and the sacred vessels and, if it is necessary, as an extraordinary minister, to distribute the Eucharist to the faithful. 84

In the ministry of the altar, the acolyte has his own functions (cf. below, nos. 187-193), which he must perform personally.

1. The lector is instituted to proclaim the readings from Sacred Scripture, with the exception of the Gospel. He may also announce the intentions for the Prayer of the Faithful and, in the absence of a psalmist, proclaim the Psalm between the readings.

In the Eucharistic Celebration, the lector has his own proper office (cf. below, nos. 194-198), which he must exercise personally.

Other Ministries

1. In the absence of an instituted acolyte, lay ministers may be deputed to serve at the altar and assist the priest and the deacon; they may carry the cross, the candles, the thurible, the bread, the wine, and the water, and they may also be deputed to distribute Holy Communion as extraordinary ministers.
2. In the absence of an instituted lector, other laypersons may be commissioned to proclaim the readings from Sacred Scripture. They should be truly suited to perform this function and should receive careful preparation, so that the faithful by listening to the readings from the sacred texts may develop in their hearts a warm and living love for Sacred Scripture.
   To be (duly) “instituted” means that the Bishop has formally instituted you as a lector or acolyte. Only males can be instituted acolytes or lectors.

An instituted acolyte or lector takes precedence over their substitute. If an acolyte is at a Mass, he should be fulfilling his ministry instead of letting an altar server (substitute-acolyte) take his place. Same thing with a lector: if a lector is at a Mass, he should be fulfilling his ministry instead of letting a reader (substitute-lector) take his place.

 

[FrDavid96]

That helps a lot but I am still not clear on what constitutes “duly instituted” and not completely clear on; if an EMHC in that capacity, in the absence of other acolytes and when actually performing the ministry, would be considered “duly instituted” or not.

I guess, in the case of purifying vessels, its a moot question as there isn’t an indult any longer.

This still leaves me with the question of who is considered a duly instituted acolyte. I thought that was the point of my training and approval by the Bishop to be an EMHC when I was first trained. As you say, the sub deaconate is discontinued, are Altar boys considered duly instituted acolytes or just who exactly is considered a duly instituted acolyte now? Seminarians?

Thanks for the answers.

The only instituted Acolytes are those who have been very specifically installed into this ministry by a special ceremony presided-over by the bishop. This ceremony is very similar to an ordination. Again, try to think of it like an ordination. No one could go through this and not be aware. It can’t be done by letter, or verbally, it can only be done through the specific installation ceremony.

I think I understand the difficulty here. “Duly instituted” does not mean “appointed by the bishop” or anyone else in authority to do so. It refers to the ceremony making someone an “Acolyte.” Just for clarity, imagine using the words “ordained acolyte” instead of “instituted.”

For the most part, only those preparing for the priesthood or diaconcate are installed as Acolytes.

There is a real difficulty in understanding the vocabulary here. I personally think it is a shame that the order of subdeacon was eliminated in the Latin Rite.

 

[OhMalley]

I’m sure we’ve gone over this several times, but the document establishing the indult says:
… in recent years a fuller sharing in the eucharistic celebration through sacramental communion has here and there evoked the desire to return to the ancient usage of depositing the eucharistic bread in the hand of the communicant, he himself then communicating, placing it in his mouth.

Indeed, in certain communities and in certain places this practice has been introduced without prior approval having been requested of the Holy See, and, at times, without any attempt to prepare the faithful adequately.
The bishops voted (approx.) 1200-to-600 against the practice. Nevertheless:
Where a contrary usage, that of placing holy communion on the hand, prevails, the Holy See—wishing to help them fulfill their task, often difficult as it is nowadays—lays on those conferences the task of weighing carefully whatever special circumstances may exist there, taking care to avoid any risk of lack of respect or of false opinions with regard to the Blessed Eucharist, and to avoid any other ill effects that may follow.

In such cases, episcopal conferences should examine matters carefully and should make whatever decisions, by a secret vote and with a two-thirds majority, are needed to regulate matters. Their decisions should be sent to Rome to receive the necessary confirmation, accompanied with a detailed account of the reasons which led them to take those decisions. The Holy See will examine each case carefully, taking into account the links between the different local churches and between each of them and the Universal Church, in order to promote the common good and the edification of all, and that mutual good example may increase faith and piety.
What it comes down to is this: if you are in an ecclesiastical province where Communion-in-the-hand is permitted, it’s because it was being done on a widespread level illicitly before the indult was granted, not because people asked for permission first (unless the conditions for the indult have changed).

You have not proven that.

 

[Mike_Dye]

A life long Catholic for 60 years. Have done both and now have gone back to receiving my Lord and Savior under the one species of bread.

 

[japhy]

You have not proven that.

If it’s not the case, then the grounds for requesting the indult must have changed. But the fact remains that the original language of the indult was that the existing practice of receiving on the tongue was to remain, and that only in those places where receiving in the hand had become prevalent and the “bishops, priests, and people” could not (would not?) “observe zealously this law”, the possibility of an indult was made available.