Obedience or Disobedience... liturgical policies?

[5Loaves]

This brings up the question of obedience and “honoring thy father”, hence the Bishop who has stated we should receive in the hand for now. While discussing this subject with those on all sides of the issue, a seminarian offered the thought of obedience…
Thoughts?

This came up in Canon Law class. Our teacher, a canon lawyer, said that the bishops have made* recommendations*, not a requirement, to their priests, that during flu season there be no hand holding, and reception in the hand rather than on the tongue. It is then the prerogative of the priest to follow the recommendation or for pastoral reasons make another choice.

 

[Spirithound]

Quoting from another thread:

Spirithound writes that the diocese of London says “No Communion on the tongue”. I’m wondering if it is within the authority of the bishop to restrict communion on the tongue. “Redemptionis Sacramentum” 92 says that “each of the faithful has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue.”

Yes, for circumstances such as these. The Bishop could not make a general rule, always applicable, removing the option of receiving on the tongue.

The authority of the diocesan bishop (ordinary). See for instance Canon Law 381.

Can. 381 §1. A diocesan bishop in the diocese entrusted to him has all ordinary, proper, and immediate power which is required for the exercise of his pastoral function except for cases which the law or a decree of the Supreme Pontiff reserves to the supreme authority or to another ecclesiastical authority.

I’ve never really considered what sort of force is behind the points in the diocese’s pandemic plan, but the rector of the seminary has asked us to follow the plan in a spirit of obedience.

 

[grandfather]

All, thanks for the comments.

Here’s the situation. This is what the bishop of the diocese has posted in regards to receiving:

“Holy Communion should be distributed only into the hands of communicants and not on the tongue.”

.

Authority and obedience are more than laity to priest, or laity to bishop. The bishop is also under authority and there are limitations imposed on him by those in authority over him. The bishop has no authority to mandate anything that contradicts the instructions or norms imposed by those from whom he receives his office and the authority that goes with it.

Your bishop probably has good intentions. He wants to avoid spreading a flu. Nevertheless he is acting outside the scope of his authority.

On any given day whether in flu season or not there is some risk of spreading contagion by receiving the host on the tongue. So if a bishop is concerned about this could he ban the pracitce? Certainly not!

If the bishops were really concerned about spreading contagion what they would stop is the practice of dozend and sometimes hundereds of people drinking from the same cup. The risk is much greater there.

Another thing that would be stopped is the illicit practice of giving “special” blessings to those not receiving. The priest and even extraordinary ministers regularly place their hands on people’s heads, mostly children and then put their hand into the chalice to handle hosts to distribute. Imagine if someone came to the dining table and rubbed everyone’s hair, then used his hands to distribute food.

As always we including bishops seem to strain at gnats and swallow camels.

 

[Monica37]

Saw the title and was thinking the same question recently but for a slightly different reason. I am away from my regular parish for awhile. I have limited choices so often I attend a quite liberal parish. I realize that I put myself in that situation and deal with most of what I see going on, but they do not kneel at any time during the Mass including during the Consecration. We are temporarily in a gym that has no kneelers, but is not wanting to kneel on the bare floor a reason to not kneel? I have been to many churches in the area and their kneelers are just solid wood and people kneel on those. My question is, I feel terrible not kneeling at the Consecration, but I don’t know if I am supposed to go along out of obedience. The other thing is that I am very conservative (I wear a veil anyway), and have been accused at previous parishes of trying to be “holier than the Pope” which is absolutely not true, but I don’t want to put anyone off here, as it is a very small community. What is my obligation at the Consecration? Sorry to hijack, but it is still a question of obedience, I think.

 

[Hotchkiss]

All, thanks for the comments.

Here’s the situation. This is what the bishop of the diocese has posted in regards to receiving:

“Holy Communion should be distributed only into the hands of communicants and not on the tongue.”

If that’s the case in your diocese I’m curious as to why anyone would “demand” to receive on the tongue? Because we have a “right” to receive on our tongues? Because it’s the normative way? Because we have the “right” to impinge on the health of fellow faithful?

It seems like obedience and common sense often takes back seats to one’s own personal desires

If the tables where turned and receiving in hand was the riskier option and thus limited by some bishops, we would hear a collective cheer from the very people who are now lamenting the loss of their choice right now.

“Normative way?”

 

[Hotchkiss]

Authority and obedience are more than laity to priest, or laity to bishop. The bishop is also under authority and there are limitations imposed on him by those in authority over him. The bishop has no authority to mandate anything that contradicts the instructions or norms imposed by those from whom he receives his office and the authority that goes with it.

Your bishop probably has good intentions. He wants to avoid spreading a flu. **Nevertheless he is acting outside the scope of his authority. **

You offer that as if it’s a proven fact. It’s not. Care to give it a shot?

On any given day whether in flu season or not there is some risk of spreading contagion by receiving the host on the tongue. So if a bishop is concerned about this could he ban the pracitce? Certainly not!

If the bishops were really concerned about spreading contagion what they would stop is the practice of dozens and sometimes hundreds of people drinking from the same cup. The risk is much greater there.

Another thing that would be stopped is the illicit practice of giving “special” blessings to those not receiving. The priest and even extraordinary ministers regularly place their hands on people’s heads, mostly children and then put their hand into the chalice to handle hosts to distribute. Imagine if someone came to the dining table and rubbed everyone’s hair, then used his hands to distribute food.

As always we including bishops seem to strain at gnats and swallow camels.

The CDC disagrees with you. Again, would you care to prove your assertion?

 

[Hotchkiss]

I don’t think there is a bishop anywhere in the country who has mandated reception in the hand during the epidemic under pain of mortal sin. I think they have suggested it and given guidelines to pastors and other ministers, but I don’t think they have made any statement at all that would render this sinful. **What is sinful is a willful, intransigent attitude of disobedience against one’s bishop, an attitude that always looks for way to disobey his directives, simply for the sake of disobeying. The ;issue is irrelevant. The people who choose latin Mass, kneeling for communion or any “traditionalist” issue as an excuse to display their dissidence are in precisely the same position as those who use women’s ordination or homosexual priests as their issue. **I note that on Sunday Night Live both Fr. Groeschel and Archbishop Dolan agree with my assessment.

I totally agree.

I wonder how many of those upset about having to receive in hand have thought “This is happening due to the actions of my bishop. A direct descendant of the Apostles who has been chosen by God through His Church to help shepherd His faithful. Maybe I should put some faith in God’s choice of an Earthly shepherd for me particularly during these unsure times.”

 

[grandfather]

If that’s the case in your diocese I’m curious as to why anyone would “demand” to receive on the tongue? Because we have a “right” to receive on our tongues? Because it’s the normative way? Because we have the “right” to impinge on the health of fellow faithful?

It seems like obedience and common sense often takes back seats to one’s own personal desires

If the tables where turned and receiving in hand was the riskier option and thus limited by some bishops, we would hear a collective cheer from the very people who are now lamenting the loss of their choice right now.

“Normative way?”

Not too long ago the Vatican issued an instruction about the matter. It said that all Catholics had a right to receive on the tongue as they had for centuries. The reason for the instruction was that some priests and bishops were trying to ban the practice. People were being refused Communion if they did not put their hand out. So the Vatican stepped in and put a stop to it. You do not owe obedience to a bishop when he acts outside his authority, is not obedient.

Canon Law says we have an obligation to receive the sacraments once a year. Imagine if a bishop said in order to be a praticing Catholic in his diocese you have to go to confession every month, or week. He has no authority to do this. His motive is to help reduce the contagion of sin in his diocese and make everyone a better Catholic. It does not matter. He has no authority to mandate something that is outside what is normative (roll eyes). Get it?

Additionally, there had been much abuse resulting from the practice of receiving in the hand. After the funeral of John Kennedy Jr., a member of the country’s most prominent Catholic family (rolleyes) in Saint Patrick’s Cathedral NYC there was a full front page picture of a guy on the sidewalk outside grinning while holding a Host. I know personally of a parish that has ushers assigned near the altar to look for people who take the Host and pocket it. I know of a parish where a Host was found outside in the bushes. I know a young man who saw a host being desecrated after a Mass outside a parish and got in a fight over it. I know a priest who stopped giving out Communion to go after a boy who took a Host in his hand and walked away with it. The boy’s mother could not udnerstand the problem, because the kid always returned to the pew with the Host and consumed it there.

 

[puzzleannie]

I’m having a hard time following you here. First you say (and rightly so) that it’s only a suggestion and that it is not mandated. Then you say that to do otherwise is an act of disobedience. How can it be disobedience if something is not mandated in the first place but only suggested?

no please read what I said, not what you think I said. I never at any time said it is an act of disobedience to receive communion in the hand, or on the tongue, or kneeling, or standing, or sitting for that matter if you are disabled.

What I did reference is the attitude of habitual disobedience for the sake of disobedience to one’s bishop, the attitude that many people take whenever this topic is introduced, and the attitude which many have decried on this thread. If someone has chosen the manner in which he individually chooses to receive communion NOT out of motives of piety, but of base motives to demonstrate his personal holiness trumps the teaching of his bishop, then that person is in grave spiritual danger.

 

[FrDavid96]

Quoting from another thread:

Can. 381 §1. A diocesan bishop in the diocese entrusted to him has all ordinary, proper, and immediate power which is required for the exercise of his pastoral function except for cases which the law or a decree of the Supreme Pontiff reserves to the supreme authority or to another ecclesiastical authority.

I’ve never really considered what sort of force is behind the points in the diocese’s pandemic plan, but the rector of the seminary has asked us to follow the plan in a spirit of obedience.

Spirithound,
I’d like to offer a thought on this. Here’s how I look at the situation: If the bishop has issued suggestions that people should receive in the hand, and you’re doing so because of this, it’s not really a matter of obedience as such (because he has no authority to issue such a command), but it’s rather a matter of deference to the bishop’s wishes. Obedience means that we must do what he asks. Deference means that we have no outright obligation to do so, but we follow his suggestion anyway out of respect.

 

[grandfather]

You offer that as if it’s a proven fact. It’s not. Care to give it a shot?

The CDC disagrees with you. Again, would you care to prove your assertion?

The bishop can not contramand instructions from Rome. Rome has given clear instructions on this matter. The Church is a hierarchical institution. That is how she functions. Christ ordained, or empowered, His apostles who passed on the powers of their offices to others. Bishops incardinate priests who promise to obey their lawful authority. In a sense it is like a military organization where members obey those in legitimate authority over them. When you sign up you agree to obey your superiors legitmate orders. If you sargeant ordered you to rape local village women, or torture prisoners, or burn down a building full of civilians, his orders are illegitimate and unlawful. You do not have to obey them. He has no authority to order you to obey him. He is disobeying his superiors. He is a renegade.

Has the CDC done a study that says multiple people who drink from the same glass or cup will not risk passing on infections, cold virus, flu, herpes, or bacterial infections?

 

[grandfather]

Spirithound,
I’d like to offer a thought on this. Here’s how I look at the situation: If the bishop has issued suggestions that people should receive in the hand, and you’re doing so because of this, it’s not really a matter of obedience as such (because he has no authority to issue such a command), but it’s rather a matter of deference to the bishop’s wishes. Obedience means that we must do what he asks. Deference means that we have no outright obligation to do so, but we follow his suggestion anyway out of respect.

That is a very good explanation. Many people do not have a proper understanding of obedience.

 

[FrDavid96]

Originally Posted by grandfather
Authority and obedience are more than laity to priest, or laity to bishop. The bishop is also under authority and there are limitations imposed on him by those in authority over him. The bishop has no authority to mandate anything that contradicts the instructions or norms imposed by those from whom he receives his office and the authority that goes with it.

Your bishop probably has good intentions. He wants to avoid spreading a flu. Nevertheless he is acting outside the scope of his authority.

You offer that as if it’s a proven fact. It’s not. Care to give it a shot?

Yes, it is a proven fact. And I will prove it.

Already posted by Spirithound:
Can. 381 §1. A diocesan bishop in the diocese entrusted to him has all ordinary, proper, and immediate power which is required for the exercise of his pastoral function except for cases which the law or a decree of the Supreme Pontiff reserves to the supreme authority or to another ecclesiastical authority.

Sacrosanctum Concilium:

1. 1. Regulation of the Sacred Liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.
2. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the Liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.
3. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the Liturgy on his own authority. Note please that the word used in the original Latin is sacerdos, which means priest/bishop and not presbyter which means priest-not-bishop.

Redemptionis Sacramentum:
[14.] “The regulation of the Sacred Liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, which rests specifically with the Apostolic See and, according to the norms of law, with the Bishop”.

[17.] “The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments attends to those matters that pertain to the Apostolic See as regards the regulation and promotion of the Sacred Liturgy, and especially the Sacraments, with due regard for the competence of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It fosters and enforces sacramental discipline, especially as regards their validity and their licit celebration”. Finally, it “carefully seeks to ensure that the liturgical regulations are observed with precision, and that abuses are prevented or eliminated whenever they are detected”. In this regard, according to the tradition of the universal Church, pre-eminent solicitude is accorded the celebration of Holy Mass, and also to the worship that is given to the Holy Eucharist even outside Mass.

[24.] It is the right of the Christian people themselves that their diocesan Bishop should take care to prevent the occurrence of abuses in ecclesiastical discipline, especially as regards the ministry of the word, the celebration of the sacraments and sacramentals, the worship of God and devotion to the Saints.

Notitiae April 1999 from the CDCWS
Query: Whether in dioceses where it is allowed to distribute Communion in the hands of the faithful, a priest or extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may restrict communicants to receive Communion only in their hands, not on the tongue.

Response: Certainly it is clear from the very documents of the Holy See that in dioceses where the Eucharistic bread is put in the hands of the faithful, the right to receive the Eucharistic bread on the tongue still remains intact to the faithful. Therefore, those who restrict communicants to receive Holy Communion only on in the hands are acting against the norms, …

Now my question is this:
Would you care to prove your assertion that the bishop does have the authority to deny the faithful the right to receive Communion on the tongue???

 

[FrDavid96]

I totally agree.

I wonder how many of those upset about having to receive in hand have thought “This is happening due to the actions of my bishop. A direct descendant of the Apostles who has been chosen by God through His Church to help shepherd His faithful. Maybe I should put some faith in God’s choice of an Earthly shepherd for me particularly during these unsure times.”

I totally disagree because you’re arguing in favor of disobedience to the Successor of Peter and the Vicar of Christ, as well as the ordinary magisterium of the Church gathered in Ecumenical Council (Vatican II Sacrosanctum Concilium which has just been quoted).

 

[japhy]

… they do not kneel at any time during the Mass including during the Consecration. We are temporarily in a gym that has no kneelers, but is not wanting to kneel on the bare floor a reason to not kneel?

For some people, it can be.

I feel terrible not kneeling at the Consecration, but I don’t know if I am supposed to go along out of obedience. … What is my obligation at the Consecration?

If you can kneel, please, do kneel. If you cannot kneel (or if, for prudential reasons, you choose not to), you are expected to make a profound bow (of your body, not just your head) when the priest genuflects after the elevation of the Host and of the Chalice… assuming, of course, that he genuflects! If he doesn’t, you should still make the profound bow after the elevations. Just because other people aren’t showing reverence to our Lord in the Most Holy Sacrament doesn’t mean you shouldn’t. (I know you know that.)

“In the dioceses of the United States of America, they should kneel beginning after the singing or recitation of the Sanctus until after the Amen of the Eucharistic Prayer, except when prevented on occasion [NOT habitually! – japhy] by reasons of health, lack of space, the large number of people present, or some other good reason. Those who do not kneel ought to make a profound bow when the priest genuflects after the consecration.” (GIRM 43)

I am very conservative (I wear a veil anyway), and have been accused at previous parishes of trying to be “holier than the Pope”…

Such accusations are totally inappropriate and unhelpful. (One wonders how much they know about the Pope!) There is nothing wrong at all about wearing a veil, kneeling during the times of Mass you’re supposed to kneel, etc. I am sorry for your “persecution” for trying to live a life of holiness which the Church calls each and every one of us to.

 

[peary]

In my area, there are many parishes. A few are conservative, others coined more liberal. Over the past few years I have become reacquainted with my faith and are starting to see the differences come to light.

With the recent H1N1 virus, many are being asked to receive on the hand instead of the tongue. The parish I attend is very much traditional, even having a communion rail at the front, in which communion is distributed by kneeling, which is not the norm in the diocese. The majority of parishioners receive on the tongue. There are some in our parish, who when they go to other parishes, will not receive in the hand. In fact, they are in many ways being confrontational about it, saying I refuse to take it in the hand and are stating that they are being “refused” the Eucharist. I see their point about reverence in receiving on the tongue, however, it seems like they are making more of a ruckus than being good Catholics. After all, we are there to worship the Lord and receive him.

This brings up the question of obedience and “honoring thy father”, hence the Bishop who has stated we should receive in the hand for now. While discussing this subject with those on all sides of the issue, a seminarian offered the thought of obedience. His opinion is that we should obey the bishop, as he is obliged to obey his superiors as a seminarian. If he is asked to do something, he should, with the exception of if the issue would cause sin. It was said that there is nothing sinful about receiving on the hand. If the action of receiving on the hand was sinful, then it is a problem. So, the premise lies in sin.

Thoughts?

One should follow the bishop’s example, actually, unless that example leads one to sin or cause scandal in the Church. The problem is: did the bishop direct that Communion MUST be received in the hand, or that it should? Was it a suggestion or a directive? That makes a big difference. It it was a suggestion, then the person should have the ability to decide whichever way he or she is more comfortable in receiving the Eucharist. And, if it was a suggestion and the parish priest(s) made the decision for his own parish to receive in the hand, he takes the choice away from the communicant. My whole thing is - let the person decide as to how he or she wants to receive the Eucharist.

 

[Hotchkiss]

**The bishop can not contramand instructions from Rome. **Rome has given clear instructions on this matter. The Church is a hierarchical institution. That is how she functions. Christ ordained, or empowered, His apostles who passed on the powers of their offices to others. Bishops incardinate priests who promise to obey their lawful authority. In a sense it is like a military organization where members obey those in legitimate authority over them. When you sign up you agree to obey your superiors legitmate orders. If you sargeant ordered you to rape local village women, or torture prisoners, or burn down a building full of civilians, his orders are illegitimate and unlawful. You do not have to obey them. He has no authority to order you to obey him. He is disobeying his superiors. He is a renegade.

Has the CDC done a study that says multiple people who drink from the same glass or cup will not risk passing on infections, cold virus, flu, herpes, or bacterial infections?

Again you are offering your opinion as if it were proven fact and it’s not. Are you aware by any chance just how much authority individual bishops are given?

Yes there are things no bishop may do. He may not espouse heresy or do anything to profane the Eucharist as just two examples but he has a tremendous amount of authority to use his best judgment on many other matters.

The Church may be a "hierarchical institution"yet my bishop answers directly to the Pope. Ponder that.

Yes the CDC has published information that refutes your belief that “the practice of dozens and sometimes hundreds of people drinking from the same cup” presents a risk that is “much greater” than receiving on the tongue. You should be able to Google it.

 

[Hotchkiss]

Not too long ago the Vatican issued an instruction about the matter. It said that all Catholics had a right to receive on the tongue as they had for centuries. The reason for the instruction was that some priests and bishops were trying to ban the practice. People were being refused Communion if they did not put their hand out. So the Vatican stepped in and put a stop to it. You do not owe obedience to a bishop when he acts outside his authority, is not obedient.

And you lack the knowledge to know the extent of your bishop’s authority, particularly in exigent circumstances. You also lack the authority to potentially put the health of your clergy and fellow faithful at risk.

Canon Law says we have an obligation to receive the sacraments once a year. Imagine if a bishop said in order to be a praticing Catholic in his diocese you have to go to confession every month, or week. He has no authority to do this. His motive is to help reduce the contagion of sin in his diocese and make everyone a better Catholic. It does not matter. He has no authority to mandate something that is outside what is normative (roll eyes). Get it?

Nope, I do not “get it.”

Rather than come up with an absurd hypothetical, why don’t you ask your bishop if his fellow bishops who have limited communion to in-hand have the authority to do so? I would be interested in his response. I have not seen any bishop publicly claim that no bishop has the right to limit communion reception to in-hand during times like these.

Additionally, there had been much abuse resulting from the practice of receiving in the hand. After the funeral of John Kennedy Jr., a member of the country’s most prominent Catholic family (rolleyes) in Saint Patrick’s Cathedral NYC there was a full front page picture of a guy on the sidewalk outside grinning while holding a Host. I know personally of a parish that has ushers assigned near the altar to look for people who take the Host and pocket it. I know of a parish where a Host was found outside in the bushes. I know a young man who saw a host being desecrated after a Mass outside a parish and got in a fight over it. I know a priest who stopped giving out Communion to go after a boy who took a Host in his hand and walked away with it. The boy’s mother could not udnerstand the problem, because the kid always returned to the pew with the Host and consumed it there.

Stick to the discussion. Don’t go off on a tangent to attack communion in hand. I can profane the Blessed Sacrament whether I receive in-hand or on-tongue (and then remove it.)

 

[Hotchkiss]

Yes, it is a proven fact. And I will prove it.

Already posted by Spirithound:
Can. 381 §1. A diocesan bishop in the diocese entrusted to him has all ordinary, proper, and immediate power which is required for the exercise of his pastoral function except for cases which the law or a decree of the Supreme Pontiff reserves to the supreme authority or to another ecclesiastical authority.

Sacrosanctum Concilium:

1. 1. Regulation of the Sacred Liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.
2. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the Liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.
3. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the Liturgy on his own authority. Note please that the word used in the original Latin is sacerdos, which means priest/bishop and not presbyter which means priest-not-bishop.

Redemptionis Sacramentum:
[14.] “The regulation of the Sacred Liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, which rests specifically with the Apostolic See and, according to the norms of law, with the Bishop”.

[17.] “The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments attends to those matters that pertain to the Apostolic See as regards the regulation and promotion of the Sacred Liturgy, and especially the Sacraments, with due regard for the competence of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It fosters and enforces sacramental discipline, especially as regards their validity and their licit celebration”. Finally, it “carefully seeks to ensure that the liturgical regulations are observed with precision, and that abuses are prevented or eliminated whenever they are detected”. In this regard, according to the tradition of the universal Church, pre-eminent solicitude is accorded the celebration of Holy Mass, and also to the worship that is given to the Holy Eucharist even outside Mass.

[24.] It is the right of the Christian people themselves that their diocesan Bishop should take care to prevent the occurrence of abuses in ecclesiastical discipline, especially as regards the ministry of the word, the celebration of the sacraments and sacramentals, the worship of God and devotion to the Saints.

Notitiae April 1999 from the CDCWS
Query: Whether in dioceses where it is allowed to distribute Communion in the hands of the faithful, a priest or extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may restrict communicants to receive Communion only in their hands, not on the tongue.

Response: Certainly it is clear from the very documents of the Holy See that in dioceses where the Eucharistic bread is put in the hands of the faithful, the right to receive the Eucharistic bread on the tongue still remains intact to the faithful. Therefore, those who restrict communicants to receive Holy Communion only on in the hands are acting against the norms, …

Now my question is this:
Would you care to prove your assertion that the bishop does have the authority to deny the faithful the right to receive Communion on the tongue???

My bishop reports directly to the Pope. I have not heard anything from the Pope saying that no bishop may limit communion to reception in hand in the US during emergency times like we are in right now.

In the end it’s nothing more than comparing what you believe and interpret to what my bishop actually knows.

 

[japhy]

Again you are offering your opinion as if it were proven fact and it’s not. Are you aware by any chance just how much authority individual bishops are given?

I don’t see how it can be made more clear: “each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue.” (Redemptionis Sacramentum 92)

That’s what the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments said in 2004, and that’s what they are as Catholics write to themstill saying now asking about whether their bishops are allowed to restrict Communion during this H1N1 scare.