Who publishes the GIRM?

[thistle]

In response to Japhy: At the time Cyril of Jerusalem lived, I am sure that absolute reverence was shown in receiving Holy Communion, but the Church probably had to withdraw permission for reception in the hand, due to abuses, otherwise how did reception on the tongue become the norm?

The traditional way to receive Holy Communion was, and still is, on the tongue, but on June 17th, 1977, permission was given to receive in the hand.in the U.S. In Canada, the date was Feb 12th, 1970.

At that time, all parishioners were instructed exactly how to receive in the hand.

I do believe that we have now reached the stage where there are so many abuses, that permission to receive Holy Communion in the hand must be withdrawn. Absolute reverence has to be preserved at all costs.

The Church allows reception on the tongue and in the hand. The Church’s position trumps your opinion!

 

[Paulineo]

I am in complete agreement with you, we are permitted to receive on the tongue AND in the hand.

Cardinal Arinze has stated, that the PREFERRED way to receive Holy Communion is on the tongue, but we are ALSO permitted to receive in the hand, always with the greatest reverence.

We already see a movement towards reception on the tongue when Pope Benedict celebrates Holy Mass: a large number of the congregation receives on the tongue, and they also kneel.

 

[benedictgal]

The Church allows reception on the tongue and in the hand. The Church’s position trumps your opinion!

Actually, here is the position of the Church, according to Redemptionis Sacramentum:

[92.] Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice,178 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 thefaithful.179

Thus, while both COTT and CITH are both legitimate means of receiving Holy Communion, only CITH carries with it the stipulation that it can be rescinded since it is an indult and there could be a risk of profanation.

 

[Brendan]

The Church allows reception on the tongue and in the hand. The Church’s position trumps your opinion!

Of those two options, one is Universal, the other is permitted by indult (exception) in certain locations.

 

[thistle]

Of those two options, one is Universal, the other is permitted by indult (exception) in certain locations.

The “indult” is not only in certain locations. Its worldwide.
I’m British (Scottish actually) so I know what’s allowed in the UK (both ways of receiving)and have been to Mass in many countries in Europe and Asia. ALL of them permit reception on the hand.
Your comment implies hardly any countries allow this.
Please tell me which countries do not permit reception on the hand.

 

[japhy]

The “indult” is not only in certain locations. Its worldwide.

No, it is not a worldwide indult. It was only permitted in Poland as of 2006.

In 2004, the CDWDS wrote about receiving in the hand with these words:
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. (Redemptionis Sacramentum 92)

 

[thistle]

No, it is not a worldwide indult. It was only permitted in Poland as of 2006.

In 2004, the CDWDS wrote about receiving in the hand with these words:
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. (Redemptionis Sacramentum 92)

I did not mean it was a worldwide indult. What I meant was reception in the hand is found globally and that it was not limited like the other poster was implying.

I can tell you for certain that reception in the hand is allowed in USA, Scotland, England, Germany, France, Switzerland, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Hong Kong, South Korea and Philippines because I have been to Mass in those countries.

 

[Brendan]

The “indult” is not only in certain locations. Its worldwide.
I’m British (Scottish actually) so I know what’s allowed in the UK (both ways of receiving)and have been to Mass in many countries in Europe and Asia. ALL of them permit reception on the hand.
Your comment implies hardly any countries allow this.
Please tell me which countries do not permit reception on the hand.

Most of Latin America. Mexico and Brazil being the two big exceptions. And even in Mexico, the indult requested by the bishops was to allow each bishop to decide for his diocese. So it varies by diocese in Mexico.

 

[benedictgal]

I did not mean it was a worldwide indult. What I meant was reception in the hand is found globally and that it was not limited like the other poster was implying.

I can tell you for certain that reception in the hand is allowed in USA, Scotland, England, Germany, France, Switzerland, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Hong Kong, South Korea and Philippines because I have been to Mass in those countries.

However, this is what you wrote:

The “indult” is not only in certain locations. Its worldwide

These are your words. Redemptionis Sacramentum, with all due respect, proved your comments wrong. Inasmuch as you backpeddled, as I see it, you still stated that CITH was worldwide when the documents themselves proved you wrong.

 

[thistle]

However, this is what you wrote:

These are your words. Redemptionis Sacramentum, with all due respect, proved your comments wrong. Inasmuch as you backpeddled, as I see it, you still stated that CITH was worldwide when the documents themselves proved you wrong.

Oh please excuse me master of all virtue who never gets anything wrong!

I did not back peddle. I expressed myself incorrectly in the first place and I corrected myself.

What I do maintain is that reception in the hand is worldwide (even if the indult is country by country or diocese by diocese).
It is NOT limited to only a few locations. It is global.

 

[benedictgal]

Oh please excuse me master of all virtue who never gets anything wrong!

I did not back peddle. I expressed myself incorrectly in the first place and I corrected myself.

What I do maintain is that reception in the hand is worldwide (even if the indult is country by country or diocese by diocese).
It is NOT limited to only a few locations. It is global.

There is no need to be sarcastic and rude. Since you made the claim that the indult is global, please cite your sources. In other words, with all due respect, show us the paper trail from the authoritative documents of the Holy See that proves your point.

 

[thistle]

There is no need to be sarcastic and rude. Since you made the claim that the indult is global, please cite your sources. In other words, with all due respect, show us the paper trail from the authoritative documents of the Holy See that proves your point.

Can you not read what I said or do you need new glasses?
I corrected myself. I am NOT saying its a worldwide indult. I am saying that reception in the hand is global even if that has been achieved on a country to country or dicocese to diocese basis.
Do you not understand the difference??