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.