Obedience or Disobedience... liturgical policies?

[Hotchkiss]

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 still saying now as Catholics write to them asking about whether their bishops are allowed to restrict Communion during this H1N1 scare.

I don’t think it’s potentially been a matter of life and death (in at least the fairly recent past) either.

It seems that some on this forum are forgetting the great trust and authority placed in Catholic bishops by the Church. They feel they can simply “look things up” and instantly know under all circumstances precisely what the Church demands and that there is absolutely no room for deviation on any matter in any situation.

Things are not that cut-and-dried for all matters under all conditions even though some would like them to be. That’s why God gave us the bishops.

That mindset while not only naive and wrong, it also must cause a great deal of frustration and anger for some people.

 

[CDNowak]

And you lack the knowledge to know the extent of your bishop’s authority, particularly in exigent circumstances.

snip<
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.

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.

It seems that some on this forum are forgetting the great trust and authority placed in Catholic bishops by the Church. They feel they can simply “look things up” and instantly know under all circumstances precisely what the Church demands and that there is absolutely no room for deviation on any matter in any situation.

The Congregations in the Roman Curia act under the pope’s authority and speak on his behalf in their official documents. japhy, FrDavid, and i have all posted these documents which, according to the CDWDS, do tell us that the bishops cannot forbid reception on the tongue. (a side note: not that it matters overmuch but that letter comes in response to the current situation).

The Church is not a gnostic sect, in which those with more learning will necessarily have the right answer. Neither does it endorse clericalism, that the clergy are above reproach. For this reason, the Church makes important documents, that can be understood with a little careful study, available. If we were not meant to put our reason at the service of faith, then we would not have the ability to reason.

Bishops have a great deal of trust and authority, but trust can be broken and authority abused. In this case, there are bishops who are abusing their authority, as is shown above.

 

[Hotchkiss]

The Congregations in the Roman Curia act under the pope’s authority and speak on his behalf in their official documents. japhy, FrDavid, and i have all posted these documents which, according to the CDWDS, do tell us that the bishops cannot forbid reception on the tongue. (a side note: not that it matters overmuch but that letter comes in response to the current situation).

The Church is not a gnostic sect, in which those with more learning will necessarily have the right answer. Neither does it endorse clericalism, that the clergy are above reproach. For this reason, the Church makes important documents, that can be understood with a little careful study, available. If we were not meant to put our reason at the service of faith, then we would not have the ability to reason.

Bishops have a great deal of trust and authority, but trust can be broken and authority abused. In this case, there are bishops who are abusing their authority, as is shown above.

So does my local bishop.

 

[Hotchkiss]

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).

That’s simply not true.

If a deeply concerned bishop was actually able to call the Pope directly on a regular basis to get his (name removed by moderator)ut on important matters what do you actually think the Pope would say regarding the H1N1 emergency?

A.) This has already been documented. Stick to the rules.

B.) Father, you are my vicar in (insert name here.) I trust your prayerful judgment keeping in mind the framework provided by the Church. If people are becoming seriously ill and are even dying, I trust you will do what is necessary to limit the risk to your flock.

If you truly don’t know, go ask your bishop. He’ll know.

I cannot be more supportive of the Pontiff than by following my local bishop…

 

[benedictgal]

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.

Actually, you are makng the same arguments you made in a previous thread, and, with all due respect, it might help you to read the documents. There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding here as to what the bishop can and cannot do.

Only Rome determines the method of distribution of communion to the faithful. The bishop has limited authority, as the documents that Fr. David quoted indicate. Your repeated assertion that the bishop answers only to the Pope fails to take into account a similar point that I raised in another thread: the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments acts in the name of the Holy Father, with his authority, in all liturgical matters.

That’s simply not true.

If a deeply concerned bishop was actually able to call the Pope directly on a regular basis to get his (name removed by moderator)ut on important matters what do you actually think the Pope would say regarding the H1N1 emergency?

A.) This has already been documented. Stick to the rules.

B.) Father, you are my vicar in (insert name here.) I trust your prayerful judgment keeping in mind the framework provided by the Church. If people are becoming seriously ill and are even dying, I trust you will do what is necessary to limit the risk to your flock.

If you truly don’t know, go ask your bishop. He’ll know.

I cannot be more supportive of the Pontiff than by following my local bishop…

Your assertion seems to, as I read it, totally ignore and disregard the authority of the CDWDS, which is the Apostolic See. The bishop’s authority is quite limited. In fact, he is admonished to follow what the Apostolic See has decreed. Perhaps you may not have read the authoritative documents issued by the CDWDS, but, they do, in some form or fashion, carry the signature (thus, the approval) of the Holy Father. And, even when they do not carry his signature, per se, the CDWDS still acts in his name with his authority. That is what you seem to not be able to understand. Consulting the CDWDS is the same as consulting with the Holy Father. In fact, all liturigcal matters are directed to the CDWDS since this is the curial congregation charged by the Holy Father to act in his name regarding these issues. So, your claim, as I read it, is unfounded.

Time and time again, the CDWDS has ruled that the faithful cannot be denied Holy Communion simply because they choose to use the Universal Norm of receiving on the tongue. In fact, receiving Holy Communion in the hand is an option received by indult from the Holy See. Anything with an indult can easily be rescinded.

 

[CDNowak]

So does my local bishop.

Read the rest of the sentence: “The Congregations in the Roman Curia act under the pope’s authority and speak on his behalf in their official documents.”

Not in the same way, the congregations act with the authority of the Pope. The bishop exercises his own authority, which is limited by the documents, Canon Law, the rights of priests, and those of the faithful.

The Notitia already linked is essentially the Pope saying (in response to a bishop’s inappropriate action on this matter): “This has already been documented. Stick to the rules.” I really suggest you read up in more detail on the organization of the Church, as you seem to be missing a large part of the picture.

 

[peary]

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.

Then one is, indeed, between a rock and a hard place. The Latin Mass is a choice that Catholics have now; they can attend one in their diocese if offered, or in another if offered there. Also, according to what I have on directives from the Vatican, the faithful can also have a choice in the reception of Communion - whether on the tongue or kneeling. I think that any bishop who denies his flock these choices is in disobedience to the Church as a whole. Traditional Catholics do not display their dissidence just for the sake of dissidence. They truly are attempting to stand up for their rights of choice in these matters. They are not in the same position as those who endorse women’s ordination or having active homosexual priests ordained.

 

[benedictgal]

Well, boys and girls, it seems that the CDWDS has pretty much issued an interpretation. In response to a layman from the UK regarding this matter of the distribution of Holy Communion and H1N1, the CDWDS, through Fr. Anthony Ward, the undersecratary, wrote that:

Prot. N. 655/09/L

Rome, 24 July 2009

Dear _

This Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments wishes to acknowldge receipt of your letter dated 22 June 2009 regarding the right of the faithful to receive Holy Communion on the tongue.

This Dicastery observes that its Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum (25 March 2004) clearly stipulates that “each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue” (n. 92, nor is it licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful who are not impeded by law from receiving the Holy Eucharist (cf. n. 91).

The Congregation thanks you for bringing this important matter to its attention. Be assured that the appropriate contacts will be made.

May you persevere in faith and love for Our Lord and his Holy Church, and in continued devotion to the Most Blessed Sacrament.

With every good wish and kind regard, I am,

Sincerely Yours in Christ,

(Fr. Anthony Ward, S.M.)
Under-Secretary

Thus, the CDWDS will probably be receiving more letters like this and will be contacting the individual bishops and archbishops regarding this matter. This breaking news, by the way, comes courtesy of Fr. Z.

 

[ml78]

Thanks to everyone for their comments and insight. As I’ve become more accustomed to my faith over the past two years, I’m starting to really see the finer details and arguments in the faith, along with differences in the area of how things are applied at parishes. I’ve heard a lot of comments about much variance in parishes/liturgies and it’s really starting to open my eyes. Like I’ve said, I attend a very solid parish, however there appears to be a few that could be said as bordering (if not over) the Catholic lines.

The premise of this thread for me was 1. What are we allowed to do (i.e. method to receive Eucharist) as faithful Catholics? and 2. Where can the Bishop rule on certain stances?. Certainly, priests are trying to obey the Bishop, but where does the line of the Bishop’s power stop.

And yes, it is the Diocese of San Jose that I reside in. Another topic is the following link that came out the other week in a local magazine, that scares me in some manner as to polices. Certainly this is a whole other subject, and I don’t want to derail this topic! metroactive.com/metro/11.18.09/cover-0946.html

Happy Thanksgiving to all.

 

[CDNowak]

The premise of this thread for me was 1. What are we allowed to do (i.e. method to receive Eucharist) as faithful Catholics? and 2. Where can the Bishop rule on certain stances?. Certainly, priests are trying to obey the Bishop, but where does the line of the Bishop’s power stop.

1. We are allowed, as faithful Catholics, to kneel and receive on the tongue (always and everywhere). As Catholics in America, our bishops have collectively asked for, and been granted, the further permission to stand and to receive in the hand.
2. IIRC, the local bishop only can change this last one, by suspending the indult (special permission) that granted it in the first place. Reading the GIRM and Redemptionis Sacramentum are very good guides to understanding where the borders are with respect to the liturgy (reading canon law is good too, but is a little harder to read straight through).

And yes, it is the Diocese of San Jose that I reside in.

I’m sorry.

Happy Thanksgiving.

 

[FrDavid96]

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.

Unfortunately, you are posting information which is completely wrong, and you are obviously unaware of just how wrong you are. I have attempted to explain to you, by referencing Church documents that your understanding of the bishop’s authority, and your misconception that the bishop does not answer to the various persons whom the pope has appointed to represent him are completely and entirely off-base.

Please realize that you are arguing from a position of ignorance. You have made it very clear that you do not understand how the various offices of the Church (in particular the Roman Curia) actually work.

In no way am I disputing the legitimate authority of the diocesan bishop. I am attempting to explain to you that this authority has limits, placed there by the Church; and that the Roman Congregations are indeed the legitimate representatives of the pope and speak with his authority unless an appeal is made to the pope himself, or he reverses them.

What I am trying to explain to you is articulated in canon law–which is proof-positive that this is not merely my own opinion. Your own refusal to believe what the canons say will not change the fact.

 

[FrDavid96]

That’s simply not true.

If a deeply concerned bishop was actually able to call the Pope directly on a regular basis to get his (name removed by moderator)ut on important matters what do you actually think the Pope would say regarding the H1N1 emergency?

A.) This has already been documented. Stick to the rules.

B.) Father, you are my vicar in (insert name here.) I trust your prayerful judgment keeping in mind the framework provided by the Church. If people are becoming seriously ill and are even dying, I trust you will do what is necessary to limit the risk to your flock.

If you truly don’t know, go ask your bishop. He’ll know.

I cannot be more supportive of the Pontiff than by following my local bishop…

You are the one who chooses to ignore the Church’s documents, and to ignore the Church’s rules. We’ve posted them for reference. Anyone can read them. Canon law can be found on the Vatican’s own website vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM Go there and read it for yourself.

I

 

[Spirithound]

Another topic is the following link that came out the other week in a local magazine, that scares me in some manner as to polices. Certainly this is a whole other subject, and I don’t want to derail this topic!

Pray for your bishop, your priests, and people who experience same-sex attractions.

 

[benedictgal]

Unfortunately, you are posting information which is completely wrong, and you are obviously unaware of just how wrong you are. I have attempted to explain to you, by referencing Church documents that your understanding of the bishop’s authority, and your misconception that the bishop does not answer to the various persons whom the pope has appointed to represent him are completely and entirely off-base.

Please realize that you are arguing from a position of ignorance. You have made it very clear that you do not understand how the various offices of the Church (in particular the Roman Curia) actually work.

In no way am I disputing the legitimate authority of the diocesan bishop. I am attempting to explain to you that this authority has limits, placed there by the Church; and that the Roman Congregations are indeed the legitimate representatives of the pope and speak with his authority unless an appeal is made to the pope himself, or he reverses them.

What I am trying to explain to you is articulated in canon law–which is proof-positive that this is not merely my own opinion. Your own refusal to believe what the canons say will not change the fact.

And, actutally, the CDWDS has issued a statement regarding the matter. Fr. Z posted it in his blog about 10 hours ago. Granted, the statement dates back to July of this year, but, it was on the same matter raised by the OP.

If we read the middle section of the letter, it states that:

This Dicastery observes that its Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum (25 March 2004) clearly stipulates that “each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue” (n. 92, nor is it licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful who are not impeded by law from receiving the Holy Eucharist (cf. n. 91).

The Congregation thanks you for bringing this important matter to its attention. Be assured that the appropriate contacts will be made.

I suspect that once folks read this letter, they may just be writing to the CDWDS to relate problems in their dioceses.

 

[grandfather]

Unfortunately, you are posting information which is completely wrong, and you are obviously unaware of just how wrong you are. I have attempted to explain to you, by referencing Church documents that your understanding of the bishop’s authority, and your misconception that the bishop does not answer to the various persons whom the pope has appointed to represent him are completely and entirely off-base.
.

Fr. David,
The poster is not looking for an explanation, but rather an argument. Giving an explanation therefore, however clear or reasonable, is a waste of time.

 

[diggerdomer]

1. We are allowed, as faithful Catholics, to kneel and receive on the tongue (always and everywhere). As Catholics in America, our bishops have collectively asked for, and been granted, the further permission to stand and to receive in the hand.
2. IIRC, the local bishop only can change this last one, by suspending the indult (special permission) that granted it in the first place. Reading the GIRM and Redemptionis Sacramentum are very good guides to understanding where the borders are with respect to the liturgy (reading canon law is good too, but is a little harder to read straight through).

I’m sorry.

Happy Thanksgiving.

The local bishop cannot by himself suspend what is in the approved GIRM. Changing the GIRM is beyond the authority of the local bishop except where specifically allowed.

 

[CDNowak]

The local bishop cannot by himself suspend what is in the approved GIRM. Changing the GIRM is beyond the authority of the local bishop except where specifically allowed.

The local bishop expressly has this ability in the case of Communion in the hand, see RS 92 (citing a Notitia from 1999).

Of course this is not a challenge to the GIRM which has:

161. 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.

 

[diggerdomer]

The local bishop expressly has this ability in the case of Communion in the hand, see RS 92 (citing a Notitia from 1999).

Of course this is not a challenge to the GIRM which has:

In the U.S., it IS allowed, across the boards per the GIRM, it’s not a matter for each Bishop to decide. As RS 92 notes.

 

[FrDavid96]

In the U.S., it IS allowed, across the boards per the GIRM, it’s not a matter for each Bishop to decide. As RS 92 notes.

There are conditions to giving Communion in the hand, unlike on the tongue which is always allowed. While the bishop cannot make a blanket statement simply prohibiting in-the-hand under all circumstances, he can certainly prohibit it on a limited basis, as well as provide some guidance and norms for determining if it should not be done on an individual basis. The standards for tongue or hand are not the same.

In fact every priest or deacon (or if applicable extraordinary minister of Holy Communion) has a responsiblity to deny in-the-hand in favor of on-the-tongue for individual communicants, when applicable.

 

[diggerdomer]

In fact every priest or deacon (or if applicable extraordinary minister of Holy Communion) has a responsiblity to deny in-the-hand in favor of on-the-tongue for individual communicants, when applicable.

For those following the GIRM as approved for the U.S. I was not aware of this. I didn’t realize there were occasions where the minister can choose. Can you help/clarify? Thanks.