Pushed to the SSPX

[JustaServant]

In recent years they sometimes receive in lines - a nasty habit they have picked up somewhere.

 

[nice2000]

Can you show what directive the bishops were given that you say they are disobeying? The article mentions no such thing.

Both Popes (John Paul II and Pope Benedict) clearly stated they prefer we take communon on the tongue. There is no directive. Anyone can clearly see that many Bishops are not following suit (disobeying) on what John Paul II and Pope Benedict has asked.

 

[stevusmagnus]

This was never a universal practice. In the old rite of ordination and in the new rite, the hands of the deacon were not consecrated as a universal rule. This was a practice and is still in some rites.

But the DEACON HIMSELF is consecrated; laymen aren’t.

The key is to remember that when the Church grants an indult or an exemption, it cannot be a sin and should not be presented as either a sin or less worthy. We can say that ordinarilly this is this way or that the norm is this, but we must always remember that disciplines are not dogmas or doctrines from scripture. The Church has the power and the authority to change or exempt from them. When Aquinas writes, he is ot writing for the exceptions that existed even among the Dominicans, he is writing for the general population. Therefore, he uses the discipliines as they are usually applied, not the extraordinary cases.

1.) Please demonstrate that disciplinary laws cannot be harmful or sinful. The Protestants instituted communion in the hand explicitly to deny the Real Presence, and the fact that 75% of self-proclaimed Catholics no longer believe in it shows that it has had the same effect in the Church.

1. Yes the Church can change disciplinary laws; who is arguing they can’t? The point is that communion in the hand has been condemned throughout the history of the Church since Arius invented the practice to deny Christ’s divine nature, and especially since the Protestant revolt. To reintroduce it as a fait accompli after universal disregard of Paul VI and JPII’s condemnation of it only shows the hostility of the modernist towards belief in the Real Presence (which they, like their master Rahner and Bugnini, no longer believe in);
2. Why would any Catholic seek to justify a practice when a long list of fathers, doctors, popes, and saints have all condemned it? Especially in the face of the rampant loss of faith in the Real Presence it has caused since its de facto introduction?

There are too many people who want to take Aquinas writings as if they were dogmas declared from the Chair of Peter. That is not what Aquinas had in mind. He would be horrified to learn that we are using his teachings to fight the Church. He loved the Church and was the most humble human being. Much of what he wrote was not accepted by his own order and he was fine with that. He obeyed the successors of St. Dominic. We have to learn from this great man about the theological truths of which he spoke, but also learn his humility and his acquiessence to the Church.

And there are also modernists who seek to do away with Aquinas at any cost, in order to open back the path to modernism. Their motives are definitely suspect to say the least. They seem to evince only love of novelty and contempt for tradition and the salvation of souls.

Who is using Aquinas’ teachings to fight the Church? Traditionalists are using his teachings to combat those modernists who themselves are laying the axe to the Church.

“The Church” is not responsible for communion in the hand. It is the rebels who ignored the prohibition against it, and then after their rebellious victory and widespread de facto acceptance pretend that it was “the Church” who permitted it! It is truly diabolical.

 

[JReducation]

But the DEACON HIMSELF is consecrated; laymen aren’t.

Deacons are not lay. They are clerics, just like priests and bishops. A consecrated layman is a religious brother, monk, or friar in solemn vows. Clerics are not consecrated men. They do not make vows, unless they belong to a religious order. If they are diocesan, they are secular men, but not lay.

1.) Please demonstrate that disciplinary laws cannot be harmful or sinful. The Protestants instituted communion in the hand explicitly to deny the Real Presence, and the fact that 75% of self-proclaimed Catholics no longer believe in it shows that it has had the same effect in the Church.

Just because the Protestants did it for their own reasons, does not mean that Catholics did it for the same reason. It was done long before the Protestant Reformation and then was lost.

1. Yes the Church can change disciplinary laws; who is arguing they can’t? The point is that communion in the hand has been condemned throughout the history of the Church since Arius invented the practice to deny Christ’s divine nature, and especially since the Protestant revolt. To reintroduce it as a fait accompli after universal disregard of Paul VI and JPII’s condemnation of it only shows the hostility of the modernist towards belief in the Real Presence (which they, like their master Rahner and Bugnini, no longer believe in);

Neither pope condemned it. They said that it was not the norm and they repeated that the norm is communion in the hand.

1. Why would any Catholic seek to justify a practice when a long list of fathers, doctors, popes, and saints have all condemned it? Especially in the face of the rampant loss of faith in the Real Presence it has caused since its de facto introduction?

It’s not a matter of justifying a practice. It’s a matter of saying the truth. No pope can approve a practice that is a sacrilege. It is contrary to the theology of the papacy. A pope can reluctantly approve of this and this is what happened. We can say that it was reluctantly approved and that would be the truth. Popes cannot approve sacrileges against the Eucharist. The pope cannot teach against faith and morals.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[pnewton]

Both Popes (John Paul II and Pope Benedict) clearly stated they prefer we take communon on the tongue. There is no directive. Anyone can clearly see that many Bishops are not following suit (disobeying) on what John Paul II and Pope Benedict has asked.

No directive, no disobedience. One can not disobey a preference by doing that for which an indult is granted. The Pope may also prefer offering Mass at sunrise, that doesn’t make it disobedience to offer Mass at other times. The Pope might prefer Gregorian Chant. That does not make polyphonic chant prohibited.

 

[Lamentabili]

Diocesan priest on Communion in the Hand…

fatherpaul.org/didaskalos/editorials_answers/liturgy/communion_in_the_hand.html

Communion in the Hand and the New Theology
Q: Is Communion in the Hand the Norm or the Exception?

     A: Gentle Reader, it has been a couple weeks since I have published, for which I ask your apology. With no intention of excusing myself, I can provide reasons. Mainly, a week ago, my pastor expulsed me from my parish after only four months of faithful and generous priestly duty; and shortly thereafter to the present, my parish office connection to the internet was and remains mysteriously non-existent. Well, it took some brains, consulting and money, but now I’m back on the net, and happy to visit with you, and thank you for returning to my humble site.

        Recently, someone inquired about communion in the hand. He had a discussion with a friend about whether it was ordinary (his counterpart’s position), or whether it was the exception (his position). This person is a seminarian in a different state, for a different Diocese than my own, but I should keep him anonymous. A seminarian’s doubt on the unquestionable rite of reception in the hand could get him expelled… you know the lines the angry, rigid libs love to use when frying a vocation… “too old school,” “rigid,” “won’t be able to do what this diocese will ask of him (i.e., dissent) later as a priest,” and so on.

        There are plenty of people who, knowing nothing about history, love to shout how in the ancient Church they received in the hand. It’s funny how people who hate tradition appeal to tradition to get tradition-lovers to do untraditional things. (Or how the disobedient demand that the obedient do disobedient things in the name of obedience.) Signs of the times.

        First of all, we know very little about the first few centuries of the Church. They didn’t write a whole lot, because they were in times of intense persecution. Further, few enjoyed the education to read or write, so the ancient times didn’t have piles of libraries, magazines and newspapers documenting things over and over again.

Second of all, there is a true sense of development of doctrine and practice. This should not be mistaken for a substantial change in dogma or discipline, but a development as the Holy Spirit helps the Church, age after age, understand the divine gift she has received from her Divine Founder, Jesus the Word. An example of this is the sacrament of confession, how it seems from some historical studies that it was rarely used until the Irish monks re-evangelized Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire .

        So it is not certain that the ancients received communion in the hand until centuries after Christ, much less universally so, nor is it certain that such is the best way to communicate even if they did. What is best in all moral actions starts from a reflection on the nature of things; and the nature of the Eucharist is that it, in every part, is the full substance of the Incarnate Lord, Jesus son of Mary. The nature of this Sacrament should preclude anyone from even dreaming that communion in the hand would be a good idea.

Incidentally, what is ancient practice is the extreme – and I mean extreme – care priests have taken for centuries of the fingers which touch the host, during the Mass. The priests would not touch anything with those fingers all Mass until they had been purified, washed with wine and water. All the particles of the host on the corporal, paten and purificator were exquisitely cared for. For one particle is Him and enough to redeem the whole world. This element is completely, and offensively, missing from the Novus Ordo. It seems that the Church doesn’t care any more about the particles. In the seminary, the men were taught in my time that the Eucharist is not Eucharist if it is crumbs, as it lacks the appearance of food. See, it has to be food, food we can share, for the symbolism to be present. That, of course, is nothing short of a heresy.

So it is a marvel that from one day to the next, the Church puts the host in people’s hands, as if particles don’t exist, as if they don’t matter, and the laity have no liturgical purification of their hands.

Yet New Theology (i.e., heresy) priests have literally imposed this practice upon the laity. I heard a local priest command the laity to receive in the hand; he said this was the mind of the Church; he said this was the beginning of, and I quote, “putting the sacraments in the hands of the laity”; that no one should receive on the tongue, ever; etc. This imposition was abusive. His other liturgical abuses could be told here, for they are grave and many and amazing, but that would lead us far astray from the topic.

This widespread practice is clearly imprudent, and should offend the sense of anyone who has integral faith in transubstantiation. All priests would do well, any honest person must logically conclude, in abolishing this practice once and for all in their own parishes.

But again, the disobedient will claim it’s the new norm, and we obedient ones, who live with the obedience of faith (cf. Rom 1:5), must comply; that the laity have a right; that it is the new “ordinary” (as if they had any respect for what was ordinary). So what does Church law say?

 

[Lamentabili]

The huge scandal that this practice was already happening before it was legislated, and that Rome simply caved in, making grave sins against the Eucharist more plentiful, is rarely discussed. But it was only in 1985 (an approximate 1,952 years after the last supper) that Rome spoke on this matter (read here). The norms provide indications of how the hands are to be positioned, how clean the hands are to be, the liturgical response and motions, to consume in the presence of the minister, all of which are now completely ignored (naturally). They also state clearly that no one is forced to receive in the hand (7.). Clearly this was an allowance, and only for one Bishops’ Conference (the USA , even if now the practice is more widespread), and since an exception is not the norm, one must logically conclude that communion in the hand is the exception and not the norm.

The fact that the minister of communion is not allowed to exclude the communicant from communion on the tongue was clarified, for the belligerent let’s-sacrilege-the-host-type ministers, in 2003 (read here). Redemptionis Sacramentum dispelled any doubt, referring to communion on the tongue as a “right,” which the communicant “always has” (“ius simper habet”), and not so communion on the hand (read here). So if anyone tries to force you, Gentle Reader, to receive in the hand, you have a right to receive on the tongue, just as you have a right to receive kneeling (cf. here).

The 1983 Document states, at point number 6, that “Care must be taken that fragments of the consecrated host are not lost (cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, May 2, 1972: Prot: no. 89/71, in Notitiae 1972, p. 227).” Redemptionis Sacramentum – that widely ignored document promulgated to put an end to so many liturgical abuses at Mass – states, in paragraph 92 (read here), that “if there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful,” citing the same norm, promulgated and ignored in 1999.

Can someone please explain to me, how particles will not go astray, and therefore how the Eucharist will not be profaned by communion in the hand? I think it is impossible. But clearly, any priest who sees communion in the hand as the abuse which it is may not offer communion in the hand for this legally stipulated reason.

From this, we can conclude:

1.  Communion in the hand is not mandatory.

2.  Communion on the tongue remains the universal norm, to which all have the right (assuming proper dispositions, etc.).

3.  Communion in the hand is not to be done where there is risk of particles being lost or profanation happening (i.e., everywhere).

4.  There is a many, many century practice, full of wisdom and experience, in contra of communion in the hands.

In my Diocese, two parishes, one in Detroit , one in Capac north of the city, were ravished, and had the hosts stolen. Communion in the hand only facilitates the crime for those who desire to do black masses, for money sell the host to those who do, or perpetrate other such sins. These things are far worse than the habitual sacrilege of the lost particles of the transubstantiated bread of life, but one and the other are matters of mortal sin.

May God in his mercy spare the Church and the world the horrible stain of communion in the hand

 

[bpbasilphx]

\But the DEACON HIMSELF is consecrated; laymen aren’t.\

**Actually, we are ALL consecrated to Christ by our Baptism and anointing at Confirmation.

And the Eastern Churches use multiple anointings, including both hands, at Confirmation.**

\The Protestants instituted communion in the hand explicitly to deny the Real Presence, and the fact that 75% of self-proclaimed Catholics no longer believe in it shows that it has had the same effect in the Church.\

**As well as your post-hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy at the end, the first part of the statement is untrue historically.

Communion in the hand is called for BY RUBRIC in ancient liturgies still practiced in the Catholic Church, including those of St. James and Ss Addai and Mari.

This has been the case for centuries, and there was never any lessening of faith in the Real Presence where these liturgies are in use.**

 

[TraditionRising]

The good thing is that this so called dark day was outshown the day the Evengelium Vitae was promulgated. I wish that people would spend as much energy and time reading and discussing the content of that decree than tiaras and communion in the hand. It would be even healthier for our spiritual lives if we spent time discussing how to live it.

Merry Christmas and prayers for all and their families.

Br. JR, OSF

Point taken, but ITH is indeed a problem. Review the OP…

I feel as though I have almost been pushed to at least trying to attend an SSPX Mass.

I have considered myself faithful to the Church, but at a recent (NO) Mass I attended, I was denied Communion on the tongue, forced to receive on the hand, and forced to receive multiple hosts (because the Church will be closed for awhile). Even though I explained I had a right to receive on the tongue, I was told “don’t argue, the Priest is the boss at the altar” No! Christ is the Head at the altar!

Why bother attending Indult masses when the Dioceses are just as rebellious?

Laus Deo

That part in bold is the whole point Br JR. We have to put the crown back on Our Lord.
A Bishop can withdraw the indult in his diocese and order COTT. But no Clergy can deny COTT. The event Dorian described is appalling.

If that interview of the Bishop that wrote Dominus Est, along with what Stevus and others have presented, not to mention our Holy Fahers’ example, isn’t enough to make one think it wise to discard this divisive and questionable practice of CITH…

When you listen to the Good Bishop crush the argument that “early Christians received in the hand”, it’s really hard to think one would dismiss his stance. I can’t imagine how one couldn’t embrace it.

Just mho, God Bless

 

[surritter]

Diocesan priest on Communion in the Hand…

fatherpaul.org/didaskalos/editorials_answers/liturgy/communion_in_the_hand.html

Communion in the Hand and the New Theology…

I know this priest and he is great! However, I don’t know if this adds any new value to the discussion.

We all agree that receiving on the tongue is the universal norm, and that CITH is allowed, but only by indult.

The tone of several posts, however, is that CITH is sinful or a sacrilege, and this priests never said that!

 

[spn82756]

I know this priest and he is great! However, I don’t know if this adds any new value to the discussion.

We all agree that receiving on the tongue is the universal norm, and that CITH is allowed, but only by indult.

The tone of several posts, however, is that CITH is sinful or a sacrilege, and this priests never said that!

Why was this priest “expulsed” from his parish? No sarcasm intended. It’s just a question.

 

[surritter]

He did not get along with the pastors under which he served. He never violated any Church law (or civil law), but because he is such a by-the-book priest, I think they got irritated when he wouldn’t comply with their less-than-orthodox directions. We’ll leave it at that, since we obviously don’t have either party here to make a defense.

 

[pnewton]

Diocesan priest on Communion in the Hand…

fatherpaul.org/didaskalos/editorials_answers/liturgy/communion_in_the_hand.html

You already poste this, even though we are not supposed to repost articles like this, much less post the same thing twice. Here is a link to the thread on this topic, to keep things on target.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=410596

 

[JReducation]

Why was this priest “expulsed” from his parish? No sarcasm intended. It’s just a question.

I have no idea. But I can fill everyone in on rules and laws, being a religious myself.

If a parish is secular, the pastor can fire any priest as long as he lets the bishop know in advance. If the parish is religious, this is not possible. If a parish is religious, the superior of the house must approve such a move by the pastor.

A secular priest can be fired by the pastor for any reason, he can even fire because he does not think that they can’t work together or they can’t afford to keep him. The reasons are many. It is best not to speculate.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[spn82756]

I have no idea. But I can fill everyone in on rules and laws, being a religious myself.

If a parish is secular, the pastor can fire any priest as long as he lets the bishop know in advance. If the parish is religious, this is not possible. If a parish is religious, the superior of the house must approve such a move by the pastor.

A secular priest can be fired by the pastor for any reason, he can even fire because he does not think that they can’t work together or they can’t afford to keep him. The reasons are many. It is best not to speculate.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thanks for that explanation. I wasn’t trying to insinuate or speculate anything…it was just a honest question.

 

[ProVobis]

The key is to remember that when the Church grants an indult or an exemption, it cannot be a sin and should not be presented as either a sin or less worthy. We can say that ordinarilly this is this way or that the norm is this, but we must always remember that disciplines are not dogmas or doctrines from scripture.

Conceding the fact that the Church currently does allow communion in the hand where allowed by the local bishop, this is a rhetorical question but isn’t there a certain protocol involved with how we are to do this? I remember them giving us three weeks of instruction back in the 70’s; three weeks because they wanted to make sure we follow the instructions on receiving communion in the hand EXACTLY to the letter.

So my question is if we don’t follow EXACTLY how we’re supposed to receive communion, and I’ll bet 95% don’t, aren’t we in disobedience and we sin then? I know you will answer no so I’ll ask you another question, isn’t it safer sinwise just to receive on the tongue and not worry about whether we received correctly? There seems to be less margin for sin to receive on the tongue so why take the risk involved with receiving communion in the hand if we don’t have to?

I’m agreeing with Big Steve on the other issues involved.

 

[spn82756]

Conceding the fact that the Church currently does allow communion in the hand where allowed by the local bishop, this is a rhetorical question but isn’t there a certain protocol involved with how we are to do this? I remember them giving us three weeks of instruction back in the 70’s; three weeks because they wanted to make sure we follow the instructions on receiving communion in the hand EXACTLY to the letter.

So my question is if we don’t follow EXACTLY how we’re supposed to receive communion, and I’ll bet 95% don’t, aren’t we in disobedience and we sin then? I know you will answer no so I’ll ask you another question, isn’t it safer sinwise just to receive on the tongue and not worry about whether we received correctly? There seems to be less margin for sin to receive on the tongue so why take the risk involved with receiving communion in the hand if we don’t have to?

I’m agreeing with Big Steve on the other issues involved.

I think that a point must be made here. To sin requires knowledge that a sin is being committed. IF training has not been provided…which I’m reasonably certain it is not…then a person does not realize they’re “sinning” therefore can not be sinning. Now…that said…I know there are abuses. EDUCATION is the answer. If it leads to being required to receive on the tongue…then so be it. I’ve already posted that I’ve probably had a change of heart. But that is my decision. I will receive on the tongue.

 

[JReducation]

I think the question has been answered, but for the sake of repetition, to be guilty of sin the deed must be evil. This opens up an entire question. Is it evil to receive on the hand, even if one does not do it properly? The Church has not stated that it is. What the Church has always held is that one must have the proper disposition to receive communion. In other words, you can’t be in a state of mortal sin, knowingly. Sometimes people do something and they forget, so they don’t mention it in confession. That does not count against you.

The second rule for culpability is that one must know that the deed is evil. Here again, we get into a whole other area. I’m not a moral theologian, I’m a mystical theologian, but I can share what I did learn in moral theology and what I have read on this topic. The big discussion in moral theology is “What constitutes knowledge?” In the past, it was assumed that if one could repeat the rules, one knew. Today, this is not readily accepted by most moral theologians and most canon lawyers either. The argument is that many people can repeat a lot of things that make no sense to them.

The third rule for culpability is easier in this case. That is the rule of freedom. You must be free to choose the higher good. The point here is that if one feels uncomfortable receiving communion in the hand, even though it may be good or indifferent, one has a moral obligation to choose the higher good, which would be receiving communion on the tongue. However, one is not allowed to impugn culpability on others, because one feels that something is wrong.

This last point is a sticking point on these threads. There are many of us, including me, who prefer communion on the tongue. But we have no right to impugn culpability on the rest of the Church. We have no right for two reasons.

1. The Church has authorized communion on the hand. Even if the Holy Father prefers to distribute communion on the tongue, it remains his preference, not the law of the Church. No one can make law in the Church, except the reigning pope. To impugn sin on others when the Church does not do so, can be an evil thing. The person who is doing the blaming is causing others to feel scrupulous when there is no reason to do so. In addition, the person who is making others feel scrupulous is assuming the authority to teach in the name of the Church. You can’t assume authority to teach in the name of the Church. It has to be granted to you. You can say, "The Church says . . . "
2. The other reason why we cannot assign culpability to others for receiving on the hand, is that despite what any previous pope said or any document or any doctor of the Church said, the authority to interpret what they say and to decide whether it is binding or not rests in the Chair of Peter and those to whom Peter delegates. If a pope grants an indult, such as receiving communion on the hand or something else, he is the law giver. What he is doing is giving an exemption from the law or a dispensation from the law. He has the authority to suspend it, even if he does not like doing so. This is important to remember. Popes often make rules or dispense from them, but they don’t always like what they do. They do them for a greater good. It could simply be to keep people from commiting a sin.

This takes us to all those famous quotes and documents that people cite on this issue. If those say that communion in the hand is a sin, the pope can dispense with the law, so that those who are making use of this practice are not guilty of sin. One would ask, can a pope change something from being a sin to not being a sin? That’s a valid question. The answer is, sometimes.

If you violate the law, you commit a sin. However, if the law was made by man, then man has the authority to suspend his own law, to protect others from sin. An excellent example of this is eating meat on Fridays. There was a time when you were guilty of mortal sin, if you ate meat on Fridays. But that law is not doctrine nor dogma. Nor is that law part of the moral law that was handed down through revelation or natural law. That law was man made. Therefore, the Church had the authority to relieve the individual from the burden of sin, because it was the Church who imposed it in the first place. The Church can change rules for the good of the faithful, even when the pope who is doing the changing does so reluctantly. As long as he does, reluctantly or eagerly, it’s OK for the faithful to follow.

To end, my personal preference is for communion on the tongue, probably because I’m old. I like traditions. But I know that I commit no sin when I receive commuion on the hand.

We must not just cite documents. That CAN be a very Protestant approach to being a Catholic. You give a citation and I give you another and we can do this forever. We have to use common sense. It is the duty of the reigning pontiff to interpret the writings of the Doctors, saints, sciptures and his predecessors and it is his right to make changes to any laws that they made, as long as he does not make changes to revelation. We can’t just throw documents in the pope’s face. Because he has the right to come back and say, “I am Peter and I have the power to bind and lose.” As long as he’s not tampering with revelation, he is right. The Magisterium must protect revelation. Disciplines are at the discretion of the Pontiff or the bishops united as one. The Pontiff can delegate to others the authority to dispense and enforce discipline.

I hope this helps.

Have a blessed eveing!

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

I hope this helps.

Helps a lot. Thanks, Jr.

However, even though an indult has been granted, there is no universal granting of this indult either. Doesn’t that say a lot regarding how Rome really feels about the act? Personally I feel the Vatican can’t do anything because it has widespread too far for them to do much about it. They will look foolish trying to stop something that’s been so ingrained in some societies.

You used as the example the meat abstinence. Okay. Pope Paul VI did away with the mortal sin bit; yet Canon law states that everyone abstain from meat so what gives here? Can we conclude that Rome wants to appeal to our higher spirituality and abstain because we truly want to do penance to God, rather than because we fear Hell? But whatever the reason, can we not apply the same principle to communion on the tongue?

Incidentally, at the OF Masses I go to on an almost daily basis, I see a growing number of communicants receiving on the tongue from the priest, but the ones receiving from the EMHCs are almost all CITH. Can we conclude anything here?

 

[JReducation]

Helps a lot. Thanks, Jr.

However, even though an indult has been granted, there is no universal granting of this indult either. Doesn’t that say a lot regarding how Rome really feels about the act? Personally I feel the Vatican can’t do anything because it has widespread too far for them to do much about it. They will look foolish trying to stop something that’s been so ingrained in some societies.

You used as the example the meat abstinence. Okay. Pope Paul VI did away with the mortal sin bit; yet Canon law states that everyone abstain from meat so what gives here? Can we conclude that Rome wants to appeal to our higher spirituality and abstain because we truly want to do penance to God, rather than because we fear Hell? But whatever the reason, can we not apply the same principle to communion on the tongue?

Incidentally, at the OF Masses I go to on an almost daily basis, I see a growing number of communicants receiving on the tongue from the priest, but the ones receiving from the EMHCs are almost all CITH. Can we conclude anything here?

Let me begin with the first part of your post. No an indult is not universal. Otherwise, you may as well make it a rule and not call it an indult. This is what happened with the Tridentine Mass. It was an indult, but an unnecessary one, because the rule was never taken away. The Tridentine Mass had never been forbidden. Everyone just lost sight of the fact that it was still in the books. Now we’ve cleared up that mess.

Then there is communion in the hand. Well, it is an indult, but communion on the tongue remains the normal or customary way of doing it. Some people have lost sight of that. However, the Church is not going to pull back the indult any time soon. Why not? Because of the very reason that you stated. It has become so ingrained in some places that the Vatican would rather let the local bishop decide.

You mentioned the Friday meat obligation. What was taken away was the sin. The law still is that we abstain from meat on Fridays or replace it with some other penance, such as a special act of charity. Since most people forget to do the special act of charity, it’s easier to just go ahead and abstain from meat. To abstain from meat and replace it with lobster tail is ridiculous. That is on the Church’s intention. It’s a penance, not a weight loss program. What you find in the law is the obligation to do the Friday penance, but the sin has been taken out of it. The Church made it a sin, the Church can also take it away.

You are right when you said that the Church wants to press forward a higher level of spirituality among Catholics. She does not want Catholics who are good so they can get to heaven. She wants Catholics who are in love with God. This was John Paul’s idea when he revised the Code of Canon Law and a few other things. If you read his writings, especially The Gospel of Life, Theology of the Body and Crossing the Threshold of Hope, it’s all about being in love with God.

Now, Pope Benedict has introduced another element that was very much needed. He has slowly introduced the importance of theology in the life of the Catholic. If you read his writings and listen to his talks, they are very theological. He always slips the importance of reason and faith working together into almost everything he says and writes. He is looking for a better educated Catholic or Catholics to become better educated. But he does not want Catholics to become snobs who go around shoving people’s faces into books and writings. He is following up on what John Paul began. The more that Catholics understand the faith, the more in love with God they will become. It’s a move to push us to fall deaper in love with God, not make us apologists and theologians. It’s good to have apologists and theologians. Both are necessary. But being either is not a sign of being in love with God. So you are right. The push is for a higher spirituality, one that is about love not fear of hell.

There are many people who receive on the tongue. My guess why those who receive from the EMHC, receive on the hand is this (I could be wrong). The EMHCs may not know how to give communion on the tongue. There is a little trick that you have to know, in order to do it quickly and neatly. I know, because it took me a while to learn.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF