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

[Matariel]

But surely the Apostles received Communion in the hand at the Last Supper? It is usually presumed that this was so. Even if it were, though, we would point out that the Apostles were themselves priests, or even Bishops.

But we must not forget a traditional custom of middle-eastern hospitality which was in practice in Jesus’ time and which is still the case; that is, one feeds his guests with one’s own hand, placing a symbolic morsel in the mouth of the guest. And we have this text of St. John’s Gospel (13:26-30): “Jesus answered, ‘It is he to whom I shall give this Morsel when I have dipped It.’ So when He had dipped the Morsel, He gave It to Judas… So, after receiving the Morsel, he [Judas] immediately went out…”

Did Our Lord place this wet Morsel into Judas’ hand? That would be rather messy. Did He not perhaps extend to the one whom He addressed later in the garden as “friend” the gesture of hospitality spoken of above? And if so, why not with Holy Communion, “giving Himself by His own Hand”?

Fr. Paul McDonald
franciscan-archive.org/apologetica/tongue.html

All good points; but did Judas sacrilegiously receive a consecrated Morsel???

 

[Canto]

kneeling OF Mass at a kneeler with patten

wdtprs.com/blog/2008/05/corpus-christi-mass-benedict-xvi-gives-communion-only-on-the-tongue-to-people-kneeling/

 

[Canto]

All good points; but did Judas sacrilegiously receive a consecrated Morsel???

How many pro-abortion politicans have recieved communion from the Priest in persona Christi.

 

[Matariel]

How many pro-abortion politicans have recieved communion from the Priest in persona Christi.

But Canon Law forbids— !

But it still happens because the Sacraments work ex operatio, or whatever. I can’t remember the Latin.

But they are either disobedient or unaware. Those conditions would not apply to Christ giving to Judas.

 

[Canto]

But Canon Law forbids— !

But it still happens because the Sacraments work ex operatio, or whatever. I can’t remember the Latin.

But they are either disobedient or unaware. Those conditions would not apply to Christ giving to Judas.

John 13:30 He therefore, having received the morsel, went out immediately.

Mark 14:23 And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it.

 

[Matariel]

John 13:30 He therefore, having received the morsel, went out immediately.

Mark 14:23 And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it.

But did God willingly give Judas a consecrated Morsel, even though He knew it was sacrilegious???

 

[Canto]

But did God willingly give Judas a consecrated Morsel, even though He knew it was sacrilegious???

Would it have made any difference if he recieved on the hand?

 

[Matariel]

Would it have made any difference if he recieved on the hand?

No, I believe receiving in the hand is imprudent, but in and of itself it is not sacrilegious. I believe it has led to an unintended widespread lack of the Holy Eucharist.

 

[thereseozi]

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

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=421573

Hi,

The priest’s fingers are consecrated—not in order to the TOUCH the Body of Christ, but in order to CHANGE bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. In the early Church the host was placed in the hand of the faithful. There really isn’t anything more sacred about the tongue in itself. I suspect that most people sin more often with their tongues than with any other part of their bodies.

If you prefer to receive on the tongue, fine. People who chose to receive on the tongue usually do so as an act of reverence. This is a very good thing. But we need to remember that the Church allows Communion on the hand through her Christ-given authority–and we cannot doubt that authority without doubting the One who gave it.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.

 

[Frosty]

Whatever countries you visited probably also established standing as their regional norm, as that is the latest trend among Western nations. But kneeling is still the norm in many more places, and is the universal norm. Of course, Communion in the hand is an older practice also; but we can’t be antiquarians when it comes to liturgy, unless there is a deep theologically valid reason for adhering to an older practice. I believe such applies in the case of kneeling.

:

Communion Norm

Universal Norm

From the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 3rd edition, March 2002.

The following norm is the universal norm found in the Roman Missal. Note that each Bishop Conference determines the particular norm for its own country. By the general law, each adaptation is then submitted to the Holy See for recognition.

160 The priest then takes the paten or ciborium and goes to the communicants, who, as a rule, approach in a procession.

The faithful are not permitted to take up the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice themselves, and still less hand them on to one another. The faithful may communicate either standing or kneeling, as established by the Conference of Bishops. However, when they communicate standing, it is recommended that they make an appropriate gesture of reverence, to be laid down in the same norms, before receiving the Sacrament.

The GIRM does not say that kneeling is the universal posture. It says that both standing and kneeling are equally viable and it is up to the National Conferences of Bishops to determine the norm they wish for their individual countries.

Also from more than 40 years ago:
In the 1967 document Eucharisticum mysterium (Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery), the Sacred Congregation of Rites (now called the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments) established that,

1. … In accordance with the custom of the Church, the faithful may receive communion either kneeling or standing. One or the other practice is to be chosen according to the norms laid down by the conference of bishops.

At the time this directive was issued the US Bishops did not establish a posture, although Communion processions with reception standing quickly became the custom throughout the United States, as they did in much of the world.

ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_posture.htm

 

[ProVobis]

But we need to remember that the Church allows Communion on the hand through her Christ-given authority–and we cannot doubt that authority without doubting the One who gave it.

The doubt is probably brought about by inconsistency:

**Pope St. Sixtus I **( 115-125): “it is prohibited for the faithful to even touch the sacred vessels, or receive in the hand”;

Origen (185-232 A.D.): “You who are wont to assist at the divine Mysteries, know how, when you receive the body of the Lord, you take reverent care, lest any particle of it should fall to the ground and a portion of the consecrated gift (consecrati muneris) escape you. You consider it a crime, and rightly so, if any particle thereof fell down through negligence.” (13th Homily on Exodus);

St. Basil the Great (330-379), one of the four great Eastern Fathers, considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault (Letter 93);

**The Council held at Saragozza **(380), it was decided to punish with excommunication anyone who dared to continue the practice of Communion in the hand;

The local council at Rouen, France (650) stated, “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywomen but only in their mouths”;

**The Council of Constantinople **(692) which was known as in trullo (not one of the ecumenical councils held there) prohibited the faithful from giving Communion to themselves. It decreed an excommunication of one week’s duration for those who would do so in the presence of a bishop, priest or deacon;

Council of Trent: “To omit nothing doctrinal on so important a subject, we now come to speak of the minister of the Sacrament, a point, however, on which scarcely anyone is ignorant. The pastor then will teach, that to priests alone has been given power to consecrate and administer the Holy Eucharist. That the unvarying practice of the Church has also been, that the faithful receive the Sacrament from the hand of the priest, and that the priest communicate himself, has been explained by the Council of Trent; and the same holy Council has shown that this practice is always to be scrupulously adhered to, stamped, as it is, with the authoritative impress of Apostolic tradition, and sanctioned by the illustrious example of our Lord himself, who, with His own hands, consecrated and gave to His disciples, His most sacred body. To consult as much as possible, for the dignity of this so August a Sacrament, not only is its administration confided exclusively to the priestly order; but the Church has also, by an express law, prohibited any but those who are consecrated to religion, unless in case of necessity, to touch the sacred vessels, the linen or other immediate necessaries for consecration. Priest and people may hence learn, what piety and holiness they should possess who consecrate, administer, or receive the Holy of Holies.” (Council of Trent, Session 13, Chapter 8)

 

[Joseph651]

stand fast and hold the traditions which you have learned whether by word OR by our epistle - 2 Thes 2:15

I have not read all of the comments on this thread so maybe some one has brought up the subject already. I still have no idea why we do not receive the blood of Christ as Christ himself told us to do? I have heard all of the comments about this in other threads but it still does not make any sense to me. I feel closer to God when I kneel and accept the host as the body of Christ and accept the wine as the Blood of Christ. I go to Mass in anticipation of being able to accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior through HIS body and blood and come home with the affirmation of being a true believer in Jesus Christ.

In Jesus Name

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I still have no idea why we do not receive the blood of Christ as Christ himself told us to do?

Can you show us where Christ told us how to receive the Eucharist?

 

[peary]

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.

There are about 20 bishops who are retiring within the next two years, most of them are of the liberal persuasion. We pray that the Holy Father will replace them with more traditional bishops who would be open to revoke the indult. However, you have to remember that in most churches in the world, the faithful stand during the Consecration, not kneel. Benedict XVI has shown through example that people should, however, kneel when receiving Communion, and that he prefers giving the Eucharist on the tongue of the recipient rather than in the hand.

 

[PJM]

=Onegin;6366238]This is a really good point. Kneeling may be technically acceptable, but if you hear the stories it’s easy to tell that many Priests in many dioceses are hostile towards this. Perhaps a lot of people who would otherwise consider kneeling don’t do so because they are afraid the Priest will call attention to them or refuse to give them Communion (it has happened!).

So this is a good suggestion. The Priest should let the faithful know what options are available to them.

Oh, and for the poster that asked about the Pre-Vatican II practise in regards to not being able to kneel, I wasn’t alive back then but at a lot of traditional parishes that use the Communion rail, those who cannot kneel simply stand at the rail. No big deal.

---

My dear friends in Christ,

Allowing the priest to decide IF he chooses to be Obedient to Rome is a VERY BAD idea.

Its simply NOT his call, NOT his decision to make. If such a preist refuses Jesus to one of his flock for kneeling or receiving on the tongue, he should be reported in writting to His Bishop. [Keep a copy for yourself].

If you need information on how to do this, PM me. [PJM]

You become complicit is a very sinful action by going along with such clear abuses.***

As an FYI:

RECEIVING OUR BLESSED LORD KNEELING AND ONE ONES TONGUE REMAINS THE INTERNATIONAL, WORLD-WIDE NORM!

 

[Matariel]

Communion Norm

Universal Norm

From the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 3rd edition, March 2002.

The following norm is the universal norm found in the Roman Missal. Note that each Bishop Conference determines the particular norm for its own country. By the general law, each adaptation is then submitted to the Holy See for recognition.

160 The priest then takes the paten or ciborium and goes to the communicants, who, as a rule, approach in a procession.

The faithful are not permitted to take up the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice themselves, and still less hand them on to one another. The faithful may communicate either standing or kneeling, as established by the Conference of Bishops. However, when they communicate standing, it is recommended that they make an appropriate gesture of reverence, to be laid down in the same norms, before receiving the Sacrament.

The GIRM does not say that kneeling is the universal posture. It says that both standing and kneeling are equally viable and it is up to the National Conferences of Bishops to determine the norm they wish for their individual countries.

Also from more than 40 years ago:
In the 1967 document Eucharisticum mysterium (Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery), the Sacred Congregation of Rites (now called the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments) established that,

1. … In accordance with the custom of the Church, the faithful may receive communion either kneeling or standing. One or the other practice is to be chosen according to the norms laid down by the conference of bishops.

At the time this directive was issued the US Bishops did not establish a posture, although Communion processions with reception standing quickly became the custom throughout the United States, as they did in much of the world.

ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_posture.htm

That’s talking about regional norms.

The universal norm (as stated by the papal liturgist, Msgr. Marini, whom I quoted earlier) is kneeling.

 

[Matariel]

There are about 20 bishops who are retiring within the next two years, most of them are of the liberal persuasion. We pray that the Holy Father will replace them with more traditional bishops who would be open to revoke the indult. However, you have to remember that in most churches in the world, the faithful stand during the Consecration, not kneel. Benedict XVI has shown through example that people should, however, kneel when receiving Communion, and that he prefers giving the Eucharist on the tongue of the recipient rather than in the hand.

Wait— in most regions people stand during the Consecration? Was that a typo? I hope so… I thought it was imperative to kneel at the Consecration.

 

[Letchitsa1]

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

It is treated too casually, but is it because of the posture used by many or is the real issue not the posture so much as it is that Catholics are not properly catechized to begin with, and the rare few that are never have that teaching reinforced.

For example - when was the last time (or the first, for that matter) you ever hear a priest - any priest - teach on proper pre-disposition for reception of communion, what is allowed/not allowed and why? I’ve been a Catholic for 19 years this coming Easter, and I can honestly say beyond the initial catechesis - I have seen 1 priest in 19 years actually do so, and that was in a tiny parish of maybe 300 families when they brought back the reception of communion under both species for the first time since the mid-1980s. Otherwise, this priest makes sure the parents as well as the children making their First Communion are properly taught - he teaches the children himself in this area, and it is required attendance for the parents as well. Eventually - he will get most of the Catholics in the parish at least once, but since not all Catholic families have children for whatever reason, there will be a few missed. Although in this case - since he has been there about 32 years now - he taught most of the adults in the parish when they were children, lol.

 

[Canto]

It is treated too casually, but is it because of the posture used by many or is the real issue not the posture so much as it is that Catholics are not properly catechized to begin with, and the rare few that are never have that teaching reinforced.

Maybe kneeling and on the tongue could be a great teaching tool.

If one has to acually get down on the knees for Jesus, and have the Priest (in persona Christi) place the host on their tongue, maybe they will see just how the Eucharist is the centre of the Church.

Still unsure, maybe then they will do some study and ask questions.

 

[Letchitsa1]

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.

No, they are not. However, when all the Latin-rite parishes in the area do so - the faithful Catholic afflicted with living in such an area is faced with essentially two choices - attend or stay home. Since they are not likely to stay home - they either take a “grin and bear it” approach, or they wind up traveling a significant distance that can, in and of itself, become cumbersome on a weekly basis. Where I go to school, this is very much the case. I can tell of some instances I have witnessed that would make faithful Catholics sick to their stomachs. However, when my choice is to drive at least an hour and a half one way for mass, or “suck it up and deal” I really don’t have much choice. I can’t afford the time involved in the commute, nor can I afford the amount of gas that would be involved in such an endeavor. Instead, I settle for the best I can get, and spend my time working on the priest with questions like, “Regarding n, which I see happening here on Sunday, I see this document says … Can you explain for me the apparent discrepency, please?” It’s a student parish, so I can get away with quite a bit of that.