Official from Vatican - Faithful Cannot Be Deined Communion on the Tongue Due to Flu!!

[ProVobis]

The health issue is a complete smokescreen, it is truly a non-issue. So there has to be another reason this has come into play.

If it’s against having the EF celebrated in his diocese, he’s out of line on that score as well, per SP of 2007.

 

[Phemie]

If it’s against having the EF celebrated in his diocese, he’s out of line on that score as well, per SP of 2007.

And from what I know of Bishop Henry, it’s not something I’d expect. Then again, Bishops have surprised me before.

 

[Hotchkiss]

Yes, this is true, but they generally try to get along with the bishop despite his lack of authority over them. And also, the churches they use are often the diocese’s and so the bishop can shut them down and out of them.

For my part it’s clear the bishop is trying to pressure them to change their practice, which they cannot in this matter. The spirit behind such a pressure cannot be good. It really strikes me as malicious.

The health issue is a complete smokescreen, it is truly a non-issue. So there has to be another reason this has come into play.

So you say – with zero evidence. You make a claim as if it’s a proven fact and it’s not.

It’s a HUGE concern to my own bishop, I have talked to him about it in person. It’s not at all unreasonable to think that it’s a huge concern to this bishop as well. You may disagree with the bishop’s concern and with his subsequent actions but you simply don’t have the evidence to credibly make the claim: “The health issue is a complete smokescreen, it is truly a non-issue.”

Your comment “The spirit behind such a pressure cannot be good” is also horribly offensive. I strongly suspect the “pressure” derives from a desire by the bishop to protect his flock – a “good” pressure indeed. Until there is actual evidence to the contrary that’s what I will believe.

 

[QDude]

In the EF, the norm is to receive Holy Communion on the tongue while kneeling. A bishop does not have the authority to change what is mandated in the EF. While COTH is a valid option, it is an indult and not the universal norm, whereas, COTT is the default and the universal norm.

Sorry if this already came up, but can you point me to the rubrics of the EF that state that COTT is the norm and/or mandated (preferable online and in english ). I couldn’t find it at sanctamissa.org/en/rubrics/

Thanks,
Ed

 

[benedictgal]

Sorry if this already came up, but can you point me to the rubrics of the EF that state that COTT is the norm and/or mandated (preferable online and in english ). I couldn’t find it at sanctamissa.org/en/rubrics/

Thanks,
Ed

CITH is something that is an indult and is applicable only to the OF. CITH was one of the end results of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the Ordinary Form (what many commonly refer to as the Novus Ordo). CITH was never a part of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the EF (what people have referred to as the Traditional Latin Mass and Tridentine Mass).

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

The bishop can’t just arbitrarily go around cancelling parish Masses (that’s not governing or shepherding it’s chaos). Note the key word there: arbitrarily. He needs to have a good reason, and the bishop is the one who decides what constitutes a good reason; even though his decisions in that regard can be appealed to a higher Church authority. But would that be the CDWDS or a different Congregation? Again, remember cancelling parish Masses is within the bishop’s authority.

I just don’t know if what we see on the website accurately reflects either what the bishop said, or what the bishop meant.

So a bishop can’t suspend communion on the tongue, but he can suspend entire Masses. Talk about using a gun when a fly swatter will do.

 

[benedictgal]

So you say – with zero evidence. You make a claim as if it’s a proven fact and it’s not.

It’s a HUGE concern to my own bishop, I have talked to him about it in person. It’s not at all unreasonable to think that it’s a huge concern to this bishop as well. You may disagree with the bishop’s concern and with his subsequent actions but you simply don’t have the evidence to credibly make the claim: “The health issue is a complete smokescreen, it is truly a non-issue.”

Your comment “The spirit behind such a pressure cannot be good” is also horribly offensive. I strongly suspect the “pressure” derives from a desire by the bishop to protect his flock – a “good” pressure indeed. Until there is actual evidence to the contrary that’s what I will believe.

Again, you choose to disregard what the Holy See, through the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discpline of the Sacraments, has already stated. While a bishop may have concerns regarding H1N1, the ends do not justify the means. He cannot overrule and override what the Holy See has already stated.

With all due respect, even though ample evidence has been given to you, you refuse to acknowledge the fact that the Holy See has authority over this issue, not your bishop. Remember, Hotchkiss, obedience is a two-way street. Just as the faithful are expected to obey the bishop, the bishop needs to obey the Holy See, in this case, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. He does not have carte blanche authority over the Mass. In fact, his authority is limited.

 

[benedictgal]

So a bishop can’t suspend communion on the tongue, but he can suspend entire Masses. Talk about using a gun when a fly swatter will do.

Believe it or not, Father, this happened just across the Rio Grande from me in Nuevo Laredo. Their bishop (and Nuevo Laredo is the see of that diocese) suspended Mass for about two weeks. In fact, most of the northern Mexican state of Tamaulipas cancelled schools (preK through university). The strange thing is that a lot of folks from Nuevo Laredo crossed into Laredo and shopped. Guess how I know this. I was driving through downtown Laredo and saw a whole bunch of people, including kids, walking around wearing masks.

My point is this: if things were that drastic, why did the folks not just stay home? If the matter were that severe, why didn’t Customs and Border Protection stop these folks from coming into Laredo?

 

[Digitonomy]

"FrDavid96:

Just for clarity here. The protocol number means that the authenticity of the document can be verified. It does not necessarily make it an official response. Other types of correspondence likewise have PNs.

It also means that it will appear in Notitae, the official publication of the CDWDS, as did the response to japhy’s letter. As I noted in another post, Notitae is the CDWDS version of our Congressional record. Once something is in there, it’s just another indication that it is official.

Does the presence of a protocol number automatically mean the item will appear in Notitiae? In light of FrDavid96’s description, it seems that on occasion there might be correspondence on private subjects that could be withheld from the general public.

 

[BernadetteM]

My grandchildren go to a Catholic school and two of them receive on the tongue, the Principal told them that is was incorrect to receive that way and they were to receive in the hand. It had nothing to do with the flu. I think it is his preference.

I explained to them that this is not true and that Pope Benedict only gives communion on the tongue while the person is kneeling.

There is a serious problem when leaders give false information and intimidate young children.

I will be glad when these priests etc. have retired and hopefully Catholics will be given the correct teachings of the Church.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

 

[Brendan]

Does the presence of a protocol number automatically mean the item will appear in Notitiae?

Yes it does.

In light of FrDavid96’s description, it seems that on occasion there might be correspondence on private subjects that could be withheld from the general public.

That is true, I personally have recieved a responsorium that was more personal in nature. It did not have a protocol number. It didn’t ‘make it’ into Notatie

 

[Ockham]

Let’s not play games now – stick to the discussion.

We are talking about limiting communion to reception in the hand.

You are attempting to introduce red herrings – IF there is a health/technical reason for limiting communion distribution to in-hand and not IF an individual bishop has the innate authority to do so, plus other unrelated reasons for not allowing someone to receive communion at all.

What?

The discussion is whether the flu can be spread by COTT. Re-read the title of this thread. I still would like to see evidence linking COTT with increased chance of contracting the virus if you have it.

 

[o_mlly]

You are of course, free to assume anything you like–and you probably will continue to make assumptions based on ignorance.

You must be confusing my posts with others. Readily admitting my ignorance of canon law, I’ve made no assumptions and rather have encouraged all to “stay tuned” unitl the experts render a verdict. I suspect non-experts (those weghing in with verdicts without canon law credentials) to be ignorant that they are ignorant.

This isn’t about “winning.” It’s about what the canon law of the Church says.

A bit emotional here. We all win when the process plays out. I suspect we will not be privy to correspondence between CDWDS and the bishops. However, if we see the bishop’s reverse their policies or are excommunicated, we can infer the Holy See’s decision. Once again, stay tuned.

I read Fr McNamara’s article It is well written and well thought out. However, he was answering a question which described 2 different licit options for celebrating Mass, and you are attempting to apply his resonse to a question dealing with denying members of Christ’s faithful the exercise of a right which the Church has clearly defined. I do hope you are able to see the difference because it is a very significant difference.

.

Once again, my agitated friend, I am not drawing any conclusions but suggesting there is room for alternate opinions in the hopes that the “dogmatists” in his thread will merely pause on dictating what is mere opinion as fact regarding the the scope of the bishop’s authority when in his judgement, his flock is at risk.

The issue of denying Communion in the hand is not one of choosing between 2 equal licit options–even though it may appear to be that on the surface. The issue is one of suspending a right of every Catholic (who is also eligible to receive).

Don’t you mean “denying Communion on the tongue,” not “hand”? However, everyone receives Communion on the tongue; that’s not the issue. The issue is whose hand places the Eucharist on one’s tongue.

The canon law of the Church trumps your own personal opinion, especially given the fact that you have provided absolutely no basis to justify that personal opinion.

Once again, I encourage you to read my posts. I have stated no personal opinion other than proposing patience. Your opinions notwithstanding, when teaching authorities disagree, a good lay Catholic may take the temporary position of ignorance, taking neihter side and await the resolution of the disagreement. However, would a secular priest who has taken a vow of obedience to his bishop be required to withhold COTT if his bishop so ordered?

Cite the canon that supports your position and I will take your posts more seriously.

I am not a canon lawyer. I believe it is you who is practicing without a license(?) Since apparently my posts have upset you, I suggest you stop reading them.

'till then I’ll wait to hear from someone who actually knows what he’s talking about,and understands both the issue at hand, and the canon law of the Church, rather than presenting personal opinions based on ignorance of the law.

Ah, at last we agree! Why didn’t you start with this as your position. You’d have saved me a lot of typing.

 

[FrDavid96]

Does the presence of a protocol number automatically mean the item will appear in Notitiae? In light of FrDavid96’s description, it seems that on occasion there might be correspondence on private subjects that could be withheld from the general public.

If we’re talking about a responsum ad dubium, then yes, a PN means it will appear there–unless there’s something personal about it which would place the matter in the internal forum.

If we’re talking about other correspondence to/from the Vatican, then no–sometimes it’s published sometimes it isn’t. Just about any letter sent from the Vatican will have a PN. It’s just the Vatican version of a dewey decimal system–it shows someone in the future which file-drawer to open.

 

[FrDavid96]

Sorry if this already came up, but can you point me to the rubrics of the EF that state that COTT is the norm and/or mandated (preferable online and in english ). I couldn’t find it at sanctamissa.org/en/rubrics/

Thanks,
Ed

Sure.

adoremus.org/0203CommunionHand.html

adoremus.org/1101Communionhand.html

adoremus.org/RedemptionisSacramentum.html see #92

These are the approved adaptations for the United States
usccb.org/liturgy/girm/fil2.shtml
The words “The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand at the discretion of each communicant” are an approved addition to the GIRM (#160) which is not found in the original Latin GIRM.

See also this page
ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_in_hand.htm
Which has the texts of the Cong. for Divine Worship (now the CDWDS) which give this permission on behalf of Pope Paul VI.

 

[benedictgal]

Does the presence of a protocol number automatically mean the item will appear in Notitiae? In light of FrDavid96’s description, it seems that on occasion there might be correspondence on private subjects that could be withheld from the general public.

Not necessarily. The letter that japhy wrote was published in Notitae. Furthermore, it even made the rounds on Fr. Z’s blog and on the Adoremus website. Adoremus subscribes to Notitae.

 

[Brendan]

These are the approved adaptations for the United States
usccb.org/liturgy/girm/fil2.shtml
The words “The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand at the discretion of each communicant” are an approved addition to the GIRM (#160) which is not found in the original Latin GIRM.

And one other thing to keep in mind, the Extraordinary Form has it’s own general instructions. The two cannot be mixed as they are for two different missals.

The addition of the indult for Communion in than Hand is an addition to the GIRM for the Ordinary Form, and is thus not applicable to the celebration of the Extraordinary Form.

 

[FrDavid96]

Here is a link to the diocese of Calgary webpage.

If nothing else, at least we now know exactly what the bishop is saying

rcdiocese-calgary.ab.ca/

 

[Hotchkiss]

My grandchildren go to a Catholic school and two of them receive on the tongue, the Principal told them that is was incorrect to receive that way and they were to receive in the hand. It had nothing to do with the flu. I think it is his preference.

I explained to them that this is not true and that Pope Benedict only gives communion on the tongue while the person is kneeling.

There is a serious problem when leaders give false information and intimidate young children.

I will be glad when these priests etc. have retired and hopefully Catholics will be given the correct teachings of the Church.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

It’s also wrong to infer that this is somehow “better.”

 

[Hotchkiss]

…A bit emotional here. We all win when the process plays out. I suspect we will not be privy to correspondence between CDWDS and the bishops. However, if we see the bishop’s reverse their policies or are excommunicated, we can infer the Holy See’s decision. Once again, stay tuned…

Very true. If the bishop’s directive is reversed that will be fairly strong evidence that he overstepped his authority. If it remains in effect until the end of flu season it will be fairly clear he did not overstep his authority.

Bp. Henry reportedly said “I am well aware of what the Congregation decided but quite frankly, it is not their call. It is mine.” If he did indeed say that I would say he was perhaps being overly direct. I would also suggest he was likely being quite accurate. Time will tell but given the bishop’s reputation I would strongly suspect that he will prevail.

It’s important to remember that Bp. Henry does not report to any of the pundits that are going nuts right now. They do not hold dominion over him. God does – in the very concrete form of Pope Benedict XVI. The very person that gives all bishops a great deal of authority.