Revoke the U.S. Indult on Standing for Holy Communion

[tee_eff_em]

Any Bishop could suspend communion in the hand tomorrow, the same is true I think with communion standing.

To suspend standing to receive would (I think) require a re-writing of the GIRM, or an arbitraryness on the part of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

tee
But I could be mistaken

 

[Prague]

TEE, I love your Stations of The Cross. Just wanted to let you know.

 

[GKaplan]

You know what I would be happy with? The priest taking occasion one Sunday to simply say that receiving on the tongue and kneeling is ok. That it’s not a freak show, and that if you come up and kneel, it’s not going to make a scene. And that everyone else should understand why some people want to do it and why those desires are reasonable.

I receive communion on the tongue, but have never kneeled. I’ve thought about it, but I also am wary of anything that puts undue attention on myself, especially because nobody would understand it. It would cause distraction with no explanation, and I don’t think that’s appropriate.

I think that a lot of people, if they knew that these things were not “weird” and were acceptable, and why, would do it. I wish everyone in my church would google “communion in the hand”, and I bet half the congregation would stop taking it that way. They don’t know any better.

 

[PJM]

=Phemie;6360913]I take it that your use of the term “Ordinary ministers of the Eucharist” here is sarcasm directed at the abusive overuse of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.

Amen!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

In answer to the OP’s question:

I doubt that the pope would go against the wishes of the bishops. This article, an interview with Msgr. Marini, seems to explain the Holy Father’s “game plan” vis v vis the Reform of the Reform.

ncronline.org/news/vatican/q-msgr-guido-marini-papal-liturgist

 

[mick321]

Is there anyway we can petition the Holy Father in Rome to revoke the indult given to the Bishops of the Church in the U.S. making standing during Holy Communion the norm? I believe it is of grave importance to change this, as I think many Catholics have lost respect for the Eucharist— inbetween bad catechesis and standing for Communion (some don’t even bow, as is technically required) I think it’s just gone downhill from there.

What a circus this has become.

Yes, you may petition the Holy Father to revoke the indult if you wish. If you hurry, he may even compose and distribute the documents before close of business today.

In many US dioceses, distribution of CITH by EMHC’s to those who refuse to kneel [TWRTK], has become the defacto norm. Regardless of what is ordered, this set of novelties will not die easily. Beyond that, few US bishops will surrender this issue to Rome if they have the means to resist. To many of them, the matter has already become a symbol of regional pride, like resistance to the Voting Rights Act was at another time and place. [id est: “Try to come down here and stir-up *our Catholics will ya? We’ll just have to see about that, sonny.”]

Under the circumstances, why bother? Since the Holy Father has regularized and expanded the use of the Extraordinary Form, no faithful Catholic is required to attend or otherwise support parishes where corruption of the Holy Liturgy and bad catechesis have become an inter-diocesan sport.

If you think it is of grave importance to change this, you may wish to do what many of us already have: Make the change in your personal life. Issue your own revocation of the indult, and live by it.

No Catholic gains salvation on a technicality.
.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Under the circumstances, why bother? Since the Holy Father has regularized and expanded the use of the Extraordinary Form, no faithful Catholic is required to attend or otherwise support parishes where corruption of the Holy Liturgy and bad catechesis have become an inter-diocesan sport.

.

Just to clarify and not to read anything into what you’ve said: Reception standing (in procession, really) and in the hand are approved disciplines of the Church. Neither is a corruption of the Holy Liturgy. There are antecedants for both in the ancient Church (Apostolic perhaps and certainly Patristic) and they are not, of themselves, bad. Further, the Church’s disciplines are protected by at least a negative infallibility; that is to say, the Church cannot initiate or approve a discipline that will lead the faithful to impiety (what people do with it is another story).

If I have misunderstood what you have said, please forgive me.

Also, what do you mean by this: “No Catholic gains salvation on a technicality.”

 

[Canto]

To suspend standing to receive would (I think) require a re-writing of the GIRM, or an arbitraryness on the part of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

tee
But I could be mistaken

The Australian GIRM says on the tongue and where approved, only if you wish, on the hand. Standing not kneeling is the norm here.

So if a Bishop decided he no longer approved on COTHand for his dioscese, I don’t see why he couldn’t get rid of it

 

[ProVobis]

Further, the Church’s disciplines are protected by at least a negative infallibility; that is to say, the Church cannot initiate or approve a discipline that will lead the faithful to impiety (what people do with it is another story).

You keep referring to this “negative infallibility.” Please help me out with this as I can’t seem to find anything on it. And how does it relates to piety per Council of Trent. Thanks.

 

[Matariel]

Indult or not it needs to go. Communion is treated too casually.

Exactly my feeling; and by the way, the U.S. is the exception. Kneeling is the universal norm, while standing is merely the U.S. norm.

But, is there a route in which we can petition the Pope to revoke this disaster?

 

[Matariel]

no not until you reverse the architectural changes that ravaged churches 40 yrs ago–without btw any support from any V2 document–
return the communion rails and kneeling benches which placed you at the optimal position for receiving communion on the tongue
the two abuses, standing and receiving in the hand to together IMO, you can’t change one without changing the other, and two generations later, going into the 3rd, it may be too late

I certainly hope this is not the case. The Latin Rite has suffered greatly from this I believe.

 

[Matariel]

Standing to receive Christ is an insignifiant issue in reguards the loss of Faith in the Real Presence, when compared to the abusive use of Ordinary ministers of the Eucharist [lay folk as asistant priest].

You’re are correct, this is a serially abused allowance in the GIRM; the GIRM states that these Extraordinary (i.e., not ordinarily supposed to be used) Ministers of Holy Communion are to be used ONLY when there is no way for the priest to distribute in an ordinate amount of time. This is definitely not the case in the overwhelming majority of parishes that use EMHCs.

Secondly, this is an official abuse; whereas standing is permitted legally in the U.S. regions of the Church. The first needs be be corrected by informing the priest and other liturgical authorities, while the second needs to simply be revoked by the Pope.

And that is the issue: is there any way we can get the Pope’s attention on this issue? I know he believes that kneeling is the best mode of reception.

 

[Matariel]

While that is a nice thought, how would that effect those of us who can’t kneel with both knees? Would exceptions be made? I kneel in the pew but have one leg extended out underneath the pew in front because it will not bend properly, nor support me with it bent (& I am a smaller person (5’6" -125 lbs), not obese - I say that because I posed that question once & was told maybe if I lost weight my knee would support me).

I believe Holy Mother Church has always made exceptions for people who are physically unable to kneel; before Vatican II, I believe the people unable to kneel sat up front and the priest distributed to them sitting down, and then went to distribute to the kneeling.

Does anyone remember what the practice before Vatican II was for people who could not kneel?

 

[Malkin71]

Redemptionis Sacramentum:

[90.] “The faithful should receive Communion kneeling or standing, as the Conference of Bishops will have determined”, with its acts having received the recognitio of the Apostolic See. “However, if they receive Communion standing, it is recommended that they give due reverence before the reception of the Sacrament, as set forth in the same norms”.

[91.] In distributing Holy Communion it is to be remembered that “sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who seek them in a reasonable manner, are rightly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them”. Hence any baptized Catholic who is not prevented by law must be admitted to Holy Communion. Therefore, it is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing.

[92.] Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice, if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.

Here is something that I was thinking about today. During Holy Communion, Have two lines in the front. One for kneeling and the other one for standing. If there is a Communion rail have the people use it. If the Communion rail is not there have a kneeler avaliable. You will see which side the people will use. Also have the Priest distrubute Holy Comunion to those who kneel and the EMHC to those who stand. This might help people to come to see and maybe understand what REVERENCE IS ALL ABOUT!!!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

You keep referring to this “negative infallibility.” Please help me out with this as I can’t seem to find anything on it. And how does it relates to piety per Council of Trent. Thanks.

The concept is this:

No, matters of discipline, being mutable, are not infallible. The Church’s infallibility, however, extends to matters of discipline negatively inasmuch as she cannot propose or promulgate to the faithful any discipline that will lead them astray (lead them into impiety). The discipline may not be prudentially wise, it may be foolish, in fact, but it is not of itself impious or sacreligious. I don’t know that it was mentioned at Trent, but Trent isn’t the only council of the Church anymore than Vatican II is. And not all of what we believe is proposed by Councils.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

See, Pro Vobis, for me, it’s like this:

When people argue about things like standing reception, or communion in the hand, or the use of EMHC, I see the prudential point of not allowing those things. I simply don’t believe that untruths and half-truths serve the truth, however. There is simply no evidence that the ancient Apostolic or Patristic Church believed that only ordained hands should touch the Sacred Elements. There was no prescribed position for reception, either. Those things came about as our corporate devotion to Our Lord AS the Eucharst grew and intensified. The devotions that grew out of that awareness likewise cannot be argued to be wrong (as many “progressivists” like to claim). We cannot, however, claim that those practices, present in the Patristic and possibly the Apostolic Church, were wrong. It isn’t Catholic to do that (and certainly not “traditionalist” Catholic, if that word means what it’s supposed to mean). Of themselves, ONTOLOGICALLY, there is nothing wrong with these practices. Are they the wisest? Are they the best we can do? NO, they aren’t and if that’s the argument we’re going to employ, then I’d rise up on my hind legs to defend it. But poor academics, misunderstandings, the words of one isolated saint or pope taken out of context, do NOT serve the Truth and should not be employed.

 

[Frosty]

and by the way, the U.S. is the exception. Kneeling is the universal norm, while standing is merely the U.S. norm.

Do you have any actual proof that this is the case? I live in a country where standing seems to be the norm and on a recent trip that included six countries in Europe, standing also seemed to be the norm. I’d be grateful if you could show me the proof that the U.S is merely an exception as you appear to believe.

 

[ProVobis]

JKirk,

A few things here:

(1) The term “negative infallibility” is something you fabricated. There is no official teaching on this or none that I could find anyway. Only the verbum infallibility has been defined.
(2) Piety was something discussed at Trent, which is why I brought up Trent. I could have citied earlier councils of the Church which supposedly condemned the sacrilegous practice of layman touching the consecrated host.
(3) If indeed infallibility applies in matters of faith and morals, then the defined sacrilege that is associated with this touching of the consecrated bread stands always. Simply changing the definition to that of being a practice doesn’t make it so because the infallibility definition then falls apart and worthless in terms of matters of morals because there are no morals if everything becomes just a practice the Vatican can change. And if CITH or EHMC is no longer is a sacrilege, then what is?

I didn’t mean to pick on you before. You are a very intelligent guy and have done a lot of studying obviously. But I just hope you see my position.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Pro Vobis, another thought occured to me.

Look at this link. The interview itself is instructive (for all that he writes for NCR, John Allen is regarded as a fair and objective reporter), but it’s the responses to the interview that I find fascinating. You’ll need to scroll to the end of the article to find them. This is how bad argument works from the other side.

ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/liturgist-pope-aims-propose-practices

From the wildly inaccurate assertions about what Vatican II said to one lone poster’s apparent concern for the deaf not being able to fully participate should the altar be adorned with candles and a crucifix, I’m astonished at the ignorance of the Church’s history, theology, and liturgy. These people firmly believe this rubbish is historically correct when it patently ISN’T. There assertions have no basis of truth in history, in canon law, in theology, in REALITY. Thing is, many “traditionalists” are just as bad.

Truth is never served by falsehoods and it doesn’t need them to defend itself.

 

[ProVobis]

Pro Vobis, another thought occured to me.

Look at this link. The interview itself is instructive (for all that he writes for NCR, John Allen is regarded as a fair and objective reporter), but it’s the responses to the interview that I find fascinating. You’ll need to scroll to the end of the article to find them. This is how bad argument works from the other side.

ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/liturgist-pope-aims-propose-practices

From the wildly inaccurate assertions about what Vatican II said to one lone poster’s apparent concern for the deaf not being able to fully participate should the altar be adorned with candles and a crucifix, I’m astonished at the ignorance of the Church’s history, theology, and liturgy. These people firmly believe this rubbish is historically correct when it patently ISN’T. There assertions have no basis of truth in history, in canon law, in theology, in REALITY. Thing is, many “traditionalists” are just as bad.

Truth is never served by falsehoods and it doesn’t need them to defend itself.

True but the ordinary man in the street only deals with perceptions and biases based on his own teachings and what he wants to believe. I’ll leave it up to moral theologians to discuss what exactly, whether fact or fiction, God will be judging us on. I’m not qualified on that score.