F
FAB
Guest
Try going the the USCCB site under liturgy.
- Status
J
Joe_5859
Guest
Thanks for the ambiguous reference.
Could you be a bit more specific? A quote would be nice. You are making an assertion that the bishops have said they have a clear preference for people to receive in the hand as opposed to on the tongue. That’s a bold claim for which there ought to be evidence. If the bishops really said this, you should have no trobule finding the quote.
If not, I guess I’ll just have to stick with the GIRM and conclude that they really didn’t say any such thing.
J
japhy
Guest
No, that’s wrong. That’s not the way it works. A norm is a norm despite exceptions and indults. The norm is to receive on the tongue. The norm is for only bishops, priests, and deacons to distribute Holy Communion.
Receiving in the hand is extraordinary. Having lay ministers of Holy Communion is extraordinary. Not the norm, not even by common practice.
F
FAB
Guest
Keep splitting those hairs and you’ll end up with fuzzy hair.
But to keep you happy I won’t call it the norm, but the extraordinary form as requested by the US bishops and the the Vatican gave an indult.
The point is still that recieving by the tongue is seen as an acceptable way to recieve not only by the US bishops, but by the vatican and the Pope.
There are many good reasons for having the extraordianary practice of many things in the Church, that doesn’t make them wrong, i.e the EXTRAORDINARY from of the mass. by your reasoning, if we should only follow the norm, then that form of the mass should also be ended.
Peace,
FAB
T
tee_eff_em
Guest
FTR, and speaking only for myself: I would never say that reception in the hand, in those places where it has been legitimately indulged, is wrong, and I hope no one inferred such from my post.
My only point was that reception in the hand is not the norm in the US (nor anywhere else in the world to my knowledge), though it may be a widely and legitimately opted practice.
tee
J
Joe_5859
Guest
Same goes for me.
There’s a big difference between saying that reception on the hand is allowed and is not wrong and saying that reception on the hand is the norm. I don’t think that’s splitting hairs. It’s just trying to be honest about what the Church rubrics contain.
B
benedictgal
Guest
Unless you are accusing the CDWDS of splitting hairs, here is what Redemptionis Sacramentum notes about the distribution of Holy Communion:
Standing and receiving on the hand are indults that can be rescinded at any time. In fact, there are some bishops who have now chosen to not use the indults and have been requiring the faithful to receive Holy Communion on the tongue. Receiving in the hand and standing are exceptions, called indults.
F
FAB
Guest
You missed my point and made one as well.
My point is that so many are caught up in the ritual of the mass they miss the meaning. Look at the concerns, holding hands, dress, kneeling hand or tongue. These are ritual issues. Going back to some kind of rigid conformaty does not make the faithful more pius, nor does it particular enhance the meaning of the liturgy.
In splitting hairs, I mean the obsetion of so many on this site not to discern any post to it’s message, unless it’s in strict terms. I know recieving by the hand is an indult, and in my humble opinion a very wise one. The US bishops in asking for the indult, have studied reasoning behind it. To continue to reject it, is to in some ways reject the teachers of the Church. What I ment by norm, is not it Church terms but in common terms, it is normal in the US to…
You made by point by pulling up the section from Redemptionis Sacramentum, which says See, See, it’s right there in writting, That’s what must be followed!
For me I greatly appriciate the idult. It makes the recieving of the Eucharist paricularly personal, that my God took the form of a man to save us and still today, I am worthy to recieven Him in the Palm of my hand.
Peace,
FAB
B
benedictgal
Guest
In an earlier post you said that the Pope does not have the final word. You are wrong. Obedience works both ways. Just as the faithful are supposed to obey their bishops, their ordinaries, in turn, must obey the Holy Father.
You seem to conveniently forget that Jesus gave St. Peter and his successors (the popes) the authority to bind and loose. Regulation of the Sacred Liturgy falls to the Holy See, as evidenced both in the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy and in Redemptionis Sacramentum. The bishops have some share in it, but, not the whole pie.
Actually, I did not make your point, but, proved it wrong. Indults are the exception to the rule, not the rule itself. Just as Pope Benedict XVI wisely allowed the indult permitting EMHCs to purify the sacred vessels to expire, the other indults can certainly go the way of the dinosaur. Indults are not meant to be permanent.
I am curious. What will you do if the indult is allowed to expire? Will you be just as open to obedience and supportive of the Church?
F
FAB
Guest
The decisions of the Pope are not made in a vacuum. (name removed by moderator)ut comes feom his fellow bishops, theologans, and the laity undert eh guidence of the Holy Spirit.Even St Peter had11 other to consult.
As indults expire, traditons change as well. If a indult expires, I will follow the authortity of my ordinary, same as I follow his instructions now. To Turn a question, Why aern’t you willing to embrace the new traditons of Vatican II? There were built on changes that came to the church over a 100 year peroid and were built on the foundation of previous councils, who also did the same.
Peace,
FAB
B
benedictgal
Guest
So, now you are considering the Holy Father first among equals. That is fine for the Orthodox, and, even the Anglicans, but, not the Church. Your characterization, with all due respect, sounds mighty Protestant to me. Pope St. Pius X institued a lot of reforms on his own authority, including that of sacred music in the Mass.
By the way, you might also want to read up on your liturgical history. The indult allowing the reception of Holy Communion in the hand did not pop up immediately after the Second Vatican Council. This was later, in the 1970s, I believe.
You might also want to read up on what Pope Benedict has said about the Second Vatican Council. You seem to think that there is some sort of rupture here in your line of thinking. The First Council did not change anything. In fact, it confirmed the Supremacy of the Petrine Ministry. The Council of Trent codified the Mass. The Council of Ephesus definitively established Marian doctrine.
F
FAB
Guest
First, we no longer live in the time of St. Pius X and modern popes have no longer excercised that kind of authorty, which among other things was changed in Vatican. The pope authority is first among equals an dno longer in a pyamid form were all authority starts from the top.
Since I do know liturgical history, reception in the hand was reinstuded, but as with other practices know in use, it comes from much older traditions in the church. Each of the councils you refer were called to address specific problems that at the time faced the church. Actually, about a 140 years ago there was a rupture in church thinking. It happened whernthe church stopped being a major land holder and lost the papal states. It relized that it was a global church and it’s interest went far beyonf just the interst of Euopean politics. From that time it moved to realize that the church was a spiritual light for the world. The ideas institued bny Vatican II was the accumulation of that 100 years in the church.
What I find sad about the traditional thought as express on this site is that it is always looking to the past. If it were to evaluated the past and learn from both the positve and negative to move forward would be one thing, but the thought instead is to go back and somehow freeze the church in that time, because some how it was better back then.
I doubt seriously if Benidict will move very far back if at all. I know that is the hope of traditionalist, but it will very likely be false home. there is a good chance that the next pope will come from South America, or Africa. Talk about turning tradition on it’s ear, just look out.
Peace,
FAB
J
japhy
Guest
I can’t find anything to that effect in the documents of Vatican II.
… This Sacred Council, following closely in the footsteps of the First Vatican Council, with that Council teaches and declares that Jesus Christ, the eternal Shepherd, established His holy Church, having sent forth the apostles as He Himself had been sent by the Father; and He willed that their successors, namely the bishops, should be shepherds in His Church even to the consummation of the world. And in order that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided, He placed Blessed Peter over the other apostles, and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion. And all this teaching about the institution, the perpetuity, the meaning and reason for the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and of his infallible magisterium, this Sacred Council again proposes to be firmly believed by all the faithful. … (Lumen Gentium 18)
But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head. This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. … (Lumen Gentium 23)
… And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith, by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals. And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. … (Lumen Gentium 25)
F
FAB
Guest
I’m impressed that you have read the entirety of the Vatican II documents. But waht you quoted I alrewady know and doesn’t negate my previous post… The pope is first among equals, which means he is the head of the Church. The final decision on matters is his, no argument. But as a practical manner, he doesn’t make decisions strictly on his own. As with any good executive, he seeks and recieves imput from his board, in this case, as I indiacted bishops, theologians and the laity.
Peace,
FAB
F
FAB
Guest
J
japhy
Guest
The only one I haven’t read in full is Gaudium et Spes. That’ll take a couple days, I’m sure.
I don’t think that explanation is synonymous with “first among equals”. The Pope has jurisdiction over the other bishops of the Church, indeed, over the whole Church. No other pastor in the Church has such jurisdiction. In that regard, the Bishop of Rome is not merely “equal” in position to all other bishops.
Wikipedia, for example, explains the Roman Catholic position in this way: “the Roman Catholic Church sees the Pope as holding an office senior to that of other bishops, rather than merely being the most senior bishop.”
The Old Catholic Encyclopedia says that “the position of St. Peter after the Ascension, as shown in the Acts of the Apostles, realizes to the full the great commission bestowed upon him. He is from the first the chief of the Apostolic band — not primus inter pares, but the undisputed head of the Church.”
I have never seen a Magisterial document describe the Pope as “first among equals”.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
I believe the sentiment emanates from a penumbra of the conciliar documents.
B
Brendan
Guest
Do you mean documents like *Pastor Aeternus *from Vatican II believe the sentiment emanates from a penumbra of the conciliar documents.
Or, perhaps, documents like Humane Vitae, where Pope Paul sought the council of bishops and laity alike, and then promptly overruled their conclusions on the matter of contraception?
Are those the type of penumbral documents that you are referring to?
J
Joe_5859
Guest
I was being facetious (or at least trying to!). I was alluding to the Supreme Court’s use of “penumbra” of the Constitution in order to invent our present day “right to privacy”. I do not subscribe to the “first among equals” view. Sorry for the confusion.
- Status