The True Story of Communion in the Hand Revealed

[puer.dei]

Absentee votes were illegally counted

For which statement you have still not provided any citation from canon law, or any regulation.

one of the requirements was that it must be in (wide) practice in that area (USA) at that time (1969).

You keep saying that, yet the document you provided does not say anything about “wide” practice. It says “has already developed.” And specifically leaves it up to the Holy See to weigh the individual cases.

 

[CathBoy1]

For which statement you have still not provided any citation from canon law, or any regulation.

I have provided the words of a canon lawyer and I have also pointed out that during conclave, a 2/3 majority is also needed, absentee votes are not allowed.

Please provide me anything (a quote from a canon lawyer, a quote from an article, or anything at all) that says absentee votes are allowed.

You keep saying that, yet the document you provided does not say anything about “wide” practice. It says “has already developed.” And specifically leaves it up to the Holy See to weigh the individual cases.

Correct it says has already developed, it hadn’t already developed in the USA, in 1969 when the document was released, you’re splitting hairs here.

And no it doesn’t leave it up to the Holy See, it leaves it up to a 2/3 vote, which on the three occasions it didn’t get passed.

 

[CradleRC58]

One of my favorites as well !

A weekday OF Mass is never lesser than, for example, a Missa cantata imo, but a weekday Mass at my parish a couple of years ago will forever be a cherished memory. I posted a thread about it here…

What A Blessing At My Parish Weekday Mass Today! Spirituality

The Sanctuary Bell rang to begin Mass and four priests walk to the altar. One, a short priest wearing glasses. He looked familiar. Our pastor, one of the four, walked up to the ambo and introduced Cardinal Arinze ! His Eminence prayed today’s Mass. I was there for worship, not a photoshoot, but I had to get a couple of photos. [0719181209] [0719181216a] I will cherish this day for the rest of my life ! Deo gratias

 

[puer.dei]

Please provide me anything that says absentee votes are allowed.

No, that’s not how it works. You claim they are invalid, so there must be a law, a regulation, something that makes them invalid. You’ve been asked repeatedly to provide that.

Correct it says has already developed , it hadn’t already developed in the USA, in 1969 when the document was released,

The indult wasn’t requested until the mid-70’s. But thank you for finally dropping the “wide practice” claim.

And no it doesn’t leave it up to the Holy See

Of course it was up to the Holy See. Nobody else could grant the indult.
Direct quote (again, as I already quoted this before) from the document you, yourself provided:
“The Holy See will weigh the individual cases with care”

it leaves it up to a 2/3 vote, which on the three occasions it didn’t get passed.

I don’t see where it says a bishops conference can only vote three times. Or any other specific number, actually.

 

[CradleRC58]

It is really odd, that what was acceptable to do by the disciples while with Jesus, was perfectly acceptable, and today, isn’t.

I always assumed the disciples were ordained by Christ at the Last Supper. So they were not laity handling the Eucharist.

If that is not correct, when were they ordained ?

 

[CathBoy1]

No, that’s not how it works.

Because you can’t, common sense tells us absentee votes are not counted, under regular circumstances, in most cases for anything.

You claim they are invalid

A claim that I made based on the opinions of several priests, on the opinion of an expert in Canon Law and based upon common sense.

so there must be a law, a regulation, something that makes them invalid. You’ve been asked repeatedly to provide that.

And I have already admitted that I have no such knowledge of the existence of your criteria (not to say it doesn’t exist), apparently my acknowledgment wasn’t good enough for you the first time? I’ll indulge you, here it is:

None that I’m aware of, but it’s not simply a persons opinion it is the opinion of a canon lawyer…

And I never claimed that your criteria does exist.

I don’t see where it says a bishops conference can only vote three times. Or any other specific number, actually.

Nor did I claim there was a limit on the amount of times it could be voted on, simply that it went to a vote three times and was shot down three times until absentee votes were collected.

The indult wasn’t requested until the mid-70’s. But thank you for finally dropping the “wide practice” claim.

And the Promulgation of the document was in 1969, and it said in 1969 “has already developed”, in other words what had already developed when the document was written, which in the USA, CitH wasn’t really in use in 1969.

If the fact that Bishop Joseph Bernadin circumvented the system to get his way doesn’t bother you, that’s perfectly fine, it does bother some of us though.

BTW the term “wide practice” comes from the bishops conference that voted on the issue of communion in the hand in the USA, it wasn’t something that I just came up with.

Of course it was up to the Holy See. Nobody else could grant the indult.
Direct quote (again, as I already quoted this before) from the document you, yourself provided:
“The Holy See will weigh the individual cases with care”

Continued…

 

[CathBoy1]

…Continued from above

And you’ve taken the quote out of context, no worries, here is the entire quote:

The Apostolic See therefore strongly urges bishops, priests, and people to observe zealously this law, valid and again confirmed, according to the judgment of the majority of the Catholic episcopate, in the form which the present rite of the sacred liturgy employs, and out of concern for the common good of the Church.

If the contrary usage, namely, of placing Holy Communion in the hand, has already developed in any place, in order to help the episcopal conference fulfill their pastoral office in today’s often difficult situation, the Apostolic See entrusts to the conferences the duty and function of judging particular circumstances, if any. They may make this judgment provided that any danger is avoided of insufficient reverence or false opinions of the Holy Eucharist arising in the minds of the faithful and that any other improprieties be carefully removed.

In these cases, moreover, in order to govern this usage properly, the episcopal conferences should undertake the appropriate deliberations after prudent study; the decision is to be made by a two-thirds majority by secret ballot.

These deliberations should then be proposed to the Holy See for the necessary confirmation, together with an accurate explanation of the reasons which moved the conferences to take this action. The Holy See will weigh the individual cases with care, remembering the bonds which exist between the several local Churches among themselves and with the entire Church, in order to promote the common good and edification and the increase of faith and piety which flow from mutual good example.

 

[OddBird]

In Europe, even with the pandemic they only allow reception on the tongue?!

To be more specific, I’m talking about the Novus Ordo in Europe presently, and other places where they haven’t previously had an indult for cith. Are they currently receiving cith during the pandemic?

I live in Switzerland. Communion on the tongue is prohibited for now.

eta : in Switzerland, as well in France (my birth country), there was an indult to receive in the hand previously.

 

[Jen7]

Absentee votes were illegally counted to obtain the indult (exception) to allow for communion on the hand in the USA.
That doesn’t even account for the fact that, according to the guidelines drawn up for allowance of it, one of the requirements was that it must be in (wide) practice in that area (USA) at that time (1969).

I wonder why, since the indult seems to have been obtained through trickery, did no Bishops just disallow it in their individual diocese?!

 

[CathBoy1]

I wonder why, since the indult seems to have been obtained through trickery,

I wouldn’t necessarily say trickery, more like illicitly.

did no Bishops just disallow it in their individual diocese?!

Great question, I’m not 100% sure that any haven’t, I do know of priests that do not allow it within their individual churches/parishes, even those who do have Mass in the OF…

…but I’m not aware of any bishops that have disallowed the practice in their individual diocese altogether, perhaps some have (either in the USA, or anywhere in the world), I would certainly be interested in finding out.

 

[Montrose]

Great question, I’m not 100% sure that any haven’t, I do know of priests that do not allow it within their individual churches/parishes, even those who do have Mass in the OF…

…but I’m not aware of any bishops that have disallowed the practice in their individual diocese altogether, perhaps some have (either in the USA, or anywhere in the world), I would certainly be interested in finding out.

I would be surprised if an individual bishop could disallow it.
Once the Bishops Conference in a country has approved receiving on the hand then that’s it. It would have to be offered at Masses. It would then be up to the communicant to choose which way they wanted to receive.

 

[CathBoy1]

I would be surprised if an individual bishop could disallow it.
Once the Bishops Conference in a country has approved receiving on the hand then that’s it. It would have to be offered at Masses. It would then be up to the communicant to choose which way they wanted to receive.

I’m not so sure about that, CitH is an exception not a norm, I do believe it is well within the bishops authority to disallow an exception, heck there are already priests who disallow it in their individual churches/parishes (and I’m not talking about EF or EC churches, I’m talking about Novus Ordo churches).

 

[Montrose]

I’m not so sure about that, CitH is an exception not a norm, I do believe it is well within the bishops authority to disallow an exception, heck there are already priests who disallow it in their individual churches/parishes (and I’m not talking about EF or EC churches, I’m talking about Novus Ordo churches).

The GIRM makes it clear that receiving on the tongue or in the hand is at the discretion of the communicant. If it is allowed in a country by the Bishops Conference then it cannot be refused by the priest, EMHC, or bishop.

By the way there is no such thing as a Novus Ordo church. There is the Catholic Church. Masses are either the OF or EF.

 

[PaulinVA]

300 posts about something that is allowed by the Church. Apparently some think the Church is allowing something illegally or illicitly.

When more liberal people opine that something the Church teaches is wrong or shouldn’t be enforced or should be relaxed, these same people argue that everything the Church does is right and you “modernists” can’t argue against it.

I find that…ironic.

Actually, I’m not sure of the point of the thread at all.

 

[CathBoy1]

The GIRM makes it clear that receiving on the tongue or in the hand is at the discretion of the communicant. If it is allowed in a country by the Bishops Conference then it cannot be refused by the priest, EMHC, or bishop.

It absolutely can be refused by the priest, I know of multiple OF Masses which require reception of communion at the altar rail on the tongue, it is also within the authority of the bishop to put a ban on communion in the hand within his territory, however it is out of a bishop power to put a ban on communion on the tongue an idea which you suggested earlier in this very thread.

By the way there is no such thing as a Novus Ordo church. There is the Catholic Church. Masses are either the OF or EF.

I meant a Catholic Church that offers the ordinary form, I know of several Catholic churches that offer the ordinary form of the Mass that only allow for reception on the tongue in the USA, the very fact that these churches exist proves my point.

 

[CilladeRoma]

Then those priests are abusing their authority.
In the US, the GIRM states it is up to the communicant how they wish to receive. The only way a priest could deny CITH is if he believes that there is an actual risk of profanation. Not one priest or Bishop I know, and I know many, have ever had any reason to make a blanket “no CITH” rule. And they are wise enough to not even try.

We get it, you don’t like CITH,but enough is enough. The Church doesn’t share your opinion. It has been nearly 50 years and still crickets from Rome about changing it. The horse is dead, stop beating it

 

[CathBoy1]

Then those priests are abusing their authority.
In the US, the GIRM states it is up to the communicant how they wish to receive. The only way a priest could deny CITH is if he believes that there is an actual risk of profanation. Not one priest or Bishop I know, and I know many, have ever had any reason to make a blanket “no CITH” rule.

The churches in which I am specifically referring to only allow communion on the tongue at an altar rail (NO Mass just to be clear), do you know of any churches that allow reception of CitH at an altar rail?

Furthermore most (not all) of the churches I’m talking about, only allows for reception of communion by Intinction, **and what does the GIRM say about Intinction? Let’s take a look:

The GIRM or General Instruction on the Roman Missal tells us that Intinction is a form of Communion where the Communion minister dips the consecrated bread into the consecrated wine and then ministers it to the communicant. Intinction is not offered in the Diocese of St. Petersburg due to logistics. The Bread minister and the cup minster would have to be next to each other and a paten (small plate or tray) must be used which does not allow a communicant to receive by hand. The practice of the communicant taking the host and dipping it into the cup themselves is not permitted by the Church.

It sure seems that the GIRM does allow for the priest to make the decision on weather to allow for COTT only, because if Intinction is the only way communion is offered at a particular church, there is no other way in which to receive.

We get it, you don’t like CITH,but enough is enough.

CITH certainly isn’t my preference, but please don’t try to make it seem as though I am saying it is invalid, because I’m not, nor have I once made such a claim.

The Church doesn’t share your opinion. It has been nearly 50 years and still crickets from Rome about changing it.

And again I haven’t even once advocated that they should, so please do not imply that I did.

The horse is dead, stop beating it

If you do not wish to converse with me on this topic any further that is absolutely fine, please don’t directly respond to my posts on this topic and we will not have to interact any further.

Peace be with you friend.

 

[CilladeRoma]

Your keep changing your story.
You never said Communion was by intinction, just at the altar rail. Obviously you cannot receive in the hand in that case.

And yes,when I could kneel, there is a parish that uses the altar rail and I do receive in the hand, as do many others.

 

[CathBoy1]

Your keep changing your story.
You never said Communion was by intinction, just at the altar rail. Obviously you cannot receive in the hand in that case.

I’m not changing my story, I said I know of churches that celebrate in the ordinary form and do not offer communion in the hand, yes I mentioned the altar rail, you go to the altar rail and receive by intinction from the priest in the churches that I am speaking of that offer only by intinction.

And yes,when I could kneel, there is a parish that uses the altar rail and I do receive in the hand, as do many others.

Wow I’ve never seen that and it certainly would be interesting to see.

The churches that I am talking about that offers the ordinary form and offers communion only on the tongue at the altar rail (without intinction), do not allow for reception on the hand, I wasn’t even aware that reception in the hand at the altar rail was even an option, you learn something new every day and again it would be interesting to see.

Peace be with you friend.

 

[CilladeRoma]

Why would it not be?
Reception of Communion is allowed either way, so why would it make a difference?