A couple of weeks back, all the NZ media carried the story that the Catholic Church here was taking every precaution against the spread of swine flu by altering a number of common Mass practices. Those practices were:
1. Shaking hands at the Sign of Peace.
2. Sharing the Precious Blood to all communicants from the Chalice.
3. Communion on the tongue of the Body of Christ - communion is to be on the hand only.
This weekend's NZ Catholic lauded such measures, especially since the Bishops "moved swiftly". The angst at the ban on reception on the tongue was mentioned, and so were some of the more sensational aspects of the conversation on this matter that had preceded the editorial on the NZ Catholic blog site: Being Frank.
Here is where it gets interesting.
Actions 1 & 2 are non-controversial.
1: There is no need to shake hands at the Sign of Peace; not to mention the fact that the Vatican is looking at moving this part of the Mass out of the Eucharistic prayer because of the disruption it causes.
2: The Precious Blood does not need to be distributed to all communicants. Because the Body of Christ, in the form of the host, contains Our Lord's Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, nothing more is gained from the reception of the Precious Blood.
Action 3, however, the ban of communion on the tongue is controversial. Because communion on the tongue CANNOT BE BANNED. It is just not allowed to be done. A person cannot be denied Holy Communion because they want to receive the host on the tongue. Redemptionis Sacramentum makes this very clear in point 92:
Point 91 is also worth mentioning as it says that a person not prohibited by law cannot be denied communion:
The examples given are the posture of the communicant, but, the points contained within could easily be extended to communion on the tongue.
So, what does this mean?
In denying communion on the tongue, the Bishops have broken Church law.
They cannot make up their own Church law as they go, they have to follow what a higher authority has decreed.
So when the NZ Catholic Editor mocked me in the current editorial for daring to suggest that there were darker motives involved in doing what is completely unlawful for a Bishop to do, I was disappointed.
I was disappointed mainly because before hypothesising as to why communion on the tongue was banned, I made it very clear that I thought the Bishops had overstepped their authority. They simply had no ability to remove communion on the tongue as an option, as my previous reference to Church documents shows. But no mention of that possibility was made in the editorial.
Too controversial, I suspect.
Though, the other option is that the Bishops are simply ignorant of Church law. Which would be astounding, because, these men have devoted their lives to the Church, and has been promoted to positions of authority over entire areas of NZ. The thought that they simply would not know they cannot ban communion on the tongue, especially since the Pope has been giving communion this was exclusively over the past year, is not probable.
I don't know what is worse, the NZ Bishops purposely flouting Redemptionis Sacramentum or being ignorant of what is contained within it.
In any event, questions need to be asked. And it looks like NZ Catholic is not interested in asking them.
1. Shaking hands at the Sign of Peace.
2. Sharing the Precious Blood to all communicants from the Chalice.
3. Communion on the tongue of the Body of Christ - communion is to be on the hand only.
This weekend's NZ Catholic lauded such measures, especially since the Bishops "moved swiftly". The angst at the ban on reception on the tongue was mentioned, and so were some of the more sensational aspects of the conversation on this matter that had preceded the editorial on the NZ Catholic blog site: Being Frank.
Here is where it gets interesting.
Actions 1 & 2 are non-controversial.
1: There is no need to shake hands at the Sign of Peace; not to mention the fact that the Vatican is looking at moving this part of the Mass out of the Eucharistic prayer because of the disruption it causes.
2: The Precious Blood does not need to be distributed to all communicants. Because the Body of Christ, in the form of the host, contains Our Lord's Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, nothing more is gained from the reception of the Precious Blood.
Action 3, however, the ban of communion on the tongue is controversial. Because communion on the tongue CANNOT BE BANNED. It is just not allowed to be done. A person cannot be denied Holy Communion because they want to receive the host on the tongue. Redemptionis Sacramentum makes this very clear in point 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.
Point 91 is also worth mentioning as it says that a person not prohibited by law cannot be denied communion:
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”.[177] 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.
The examples given are the posture of the communicant, but, the points contained within could easily be extended to communion on the tongue.
So, what does this mean?
In denying communion on the tongue, the Bishops have broken Church law.
They cannot make up their own Church law as they go, they have to follow what a higher authority has decreed.
So when the NZ Catholic Editor mocked me in the current editorial for daring to suggest that there were darker motives involved in doing what is completely unlawful for a Bishop to do, I was disappointed.
Many Catholics were highly critical of the bishops' decision, some of them venting their frustration in letters to the editor and others on the 21st-century equivalent - blogs.
Some hypothesised that the decision to abandon Communion on the tongue was part of some episcopal plot to bring an end to the method of receiving Our Lord that the Church has used for centuries. We think those fears are without justification.
I was disappointed mainly because before hypothesising as to why communion on the tongue was banned, I made it very clear that I thought the Bishops had overstepped their authority. They simply had no ability to remove communion on the tongue as an option, as my previous reference to Church documents shows. But no mention of that possibility was made in the editorial.
Too controversial, I suspect.
Though, the other option is that the Bishops are simply ignorant of Church law. Which would be astounding, because, these men have devoted their lives to the Church, and has been promoted to positions of authority over entire areas of NZ. The thought that they simply would not know they cannot ban communion on the tongue, especially since the Pope has been giving communion this was exclusively over the past year, is not probable.
I don't know what is worse, the NZ Bishops purposely flouting Redemptionis Sacramentum or being ignorant of what is contained within it.
In any event, questions need to be asked. And it looks like NZ Catholic is not interested in asking them.
I wonder what the NZC Editor would have thought of the contributors to BeingFrank who called into doubt the Bishops motive as well?
ReplyDeleteThe recent issue was interesting for that editorial and the thoughts of Joy Cowley. There's not a lot of thinking going on at higher levels in NZC one could wonder. And I doubt a contrary viewpoint offered to Cowley's would be published.
I don't know what is worse, the NZ Bishops purposely flouting Redemptionis Sacramentum or being ignorant of what is contained within it.Of course if you don't know the latter you can't do the former. I suspect that may be the case. And as priests cant even compose their own prayers it must be time to chuck out the RS and get back to... um the Bible, perhaps. Like the Word of God is somewhat more important than the word of the RS.
ReplyDeleteDave,
ReplyDeleteThis is not the post to start a Protestant-Catholic argument. It's not about that.
I believe the church has taken this too far and I disagree with any of these measures - in particular 1 and 2. I think the church is being nannyish and instead should be asking the congretions to refrain if an individual has any flu or cold like symptom. A little bit more self responsibility would be in order. Although I am a irregular but regular church goer (btween 1 and 3 times per month on average) I will give church a break until they pull their head in.
ReplyDeleteI am not starting a protestant Catholic argument at all. Protestantism (or whatever it is called) has nothing to do with it. The post is a question of Catholic church law. Likewise my response.
ReplyDeleteInteresting post, Lucyna :)
ReplyDeleteA little harsh to consider the NZ bishop's were flouting canon law. None of us know all laws (religious or secular) from memory, so it is most likely they simply overlooked these points when considering how best to deal with a potential health risk.
Quite correct to draw it to their attention though.
Dave, without getting at you specifically, I find your point "time to throw out the RS" to be a key part of the problems we as a society face today.
ReplyDeleteThere seems to be a tendency to think (or at least to act) as if all knowledge gained over many, many years can be dropped with one minor obstacle - especially when the obstacle is recognised as people not being aware of the knowledge in plain view, and then not taking the time to learn why it exists in the first place.
I was at a presentation the other day when the presenter announced a "new" marketing technique sweeping the world.
I pointed out that that "new" marketing technique was being used in the 60's and 70's and even 80's, but had been dropped over time. All he had done was rediscover it.
He finished with a quote from Plato that proved it had been known for thousands of years...and couldn't see the irony.
Hi Peter,
ReplyDeleteIf you are an irregular church goer, I'm sure you are aware that you shouldn't be partaking of the Precious Blood anyway, unless you'd been to confession prior as missing the Sunday obligation is a mortal sin.
I point it out, because many of our readers wouldn't know and would think it's ok for Catholics to regularly miss Mass, and then receive communion as if nothing serious had happened.
But I think planning not to go to church until all of this is over is planning mortal sins in advance, and is not really a good way to go. Ie: I'm going to do this bad thing, and God will forgive me if I go to confession. You run the risk of not really being sorry when you do go to confession...
Squaredrive,
ReplyDeleteYes, it's harsh. However, the rules around the Eucharist (since it is the Body and Blood of Christ made physically present) would be an area I would expect them to be experts in.
But maybe that is expecting too much.
Mr Tips,
ReplyDeleteI wasn't going to say anything about Joy Crowley, but, she keeps jumping back into my mind.
I was amazed to find that double page spread in NZC. But maybe Joy has such a large following in NZ (amoungst Catholics), that it would have been next to impossible not to include her. Maybe she submitted the article?
My husband got a book by Joy given to him by his catechist when he entered the Church last year. Aoteoroa Psalms, I think it was called. The "psalms" are basically heretical, so the book was recently culled from our library.