Sunday, October 09, 2011

Has Our Indult Ran Out?

Fr Z has an interesting post about the US Diocese of Madison abandoning the practice of giving Holy Communion under both kinds, the reason: the temporary indult that allowed the practice has run out. The indult, to diverge from the universal practice, was issued in 1975 and ran out in 2005.

So, has the Indult for England and Wales run out too or has Madison got it wrong?
Any Canon Lawyers out there?

14 comments:

motuproprio said...

I doubt that would make any difference. We've never had an indult to permit Extraordinary Ministers to cleanse the chalice(s) and paten after communion, yet it happens in parishes up and down the land every day

a priest said...

From my travels in Italy and Poland, no indult appears to have been granted for those countries.

So the indult for Communion under both kinds was granted for individual Conferences of Bishops - and was not of universal application.

My recollection is that the indult was introduced in England & Wales in the early 1980's - quite a few years later than 1975.

So, if the indult in England & Wales were granted for the same length of time as in the United States (ie 30 years), it would be due to expire in the not too distant future.

thelicensedfool said...

That's an interesting thought. I will be interested to hear the answer.

a 2nd priest said...

I have never been happy about EMHCs.

I can see where permission is given for them in cases of necessity for the distribution of Holy Communion but I cannot see where permission is given for them just so HC can be given under both kinds.

Jacobi said...

Reception under both kinds, other than perhaps in the exceptions mentioned, is unnecessary since the totality is received in the Host.

The practise of large numbers using one chalice is, how shall I put it, rather unhygienic - and I speak here as a scientist used to the concept of trace quantities!
When you invite people to afternoon tea, you don't pass one cup around after all.

What is more important however, is that other practise that was introduced through a general process of retrospective permission and indult, namely, the reception by hand, either from an an emHC, or indeed from a priest.

Routine reception by hand by the laity is contrary to the long established position in the Church. As John Paul II pointed out in Dominicae cenae, to touch and distribute the sacred species is "a privilege of the ordained".

Liturgical Pedant said...

"I can see where permission is given for them in cases of necessity for the distribution of Holy Communion but I cannot see where permission is given for them just so HC can be given under both kinds."

I suppose the enthusiasts for EMHCs would point to GIRM 284(a) in the editio tertia of the Roman Missal, where Extraordinary Ministers are listed among those who may administer the chalice. But in all the other legislation concerning EMHCs (at least all that I'm aware of), their deployment is justified only by necessity, and there are no cases in which communion under both kinds is *necessary*. I would like to argue that 284(a) permits EMHCs to administer the chalice only in the case that a gluten-intolerant member of the faithful wishes to receive holy communion and the ordinary ministers present are unable to administer the chalice through age, infirmity, &c.; or in the even less probable case that the priest celebrant himself is unable to receive from the chalice without physical assistance. That's the only way I can reconcile the GIRM with the 1997 decree on the Collaboration of the Non-ordained & other such documents.

I stronly suspect that in some dioceses communion under both kinds has been promoted BECAUSE it necessitates the use of EMHCs.

Indult Expired said...

Might I make a comment on the photograph? It shows a young man holding the chalice. I am sure I am correct (99.99%) in saying that the instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, (art. 94 - 19 March 2004) states that EMHC must NOT let go of the chalice because of the fear of spillage. And yet this is another instruction that is ignored or has not been explained to those who act as EMHC. This whole area is a shambles and must be abandoned immediately.

nickbris said...

Repeating oneself too often can get sideways looks but I will have to risk it.

Most Catholics in this country go back through the generations as far as St Patrick,we were always taught that the Host was the Body of Christ and can only be touched by the Ordained.The chalice & paten are cleansed on the Altar.

Allowing the Body of Christ to be handled and messed about with was something that could only have been introduced by accident. This practice must be discontinued ASAP.

We did have a PP some time ago who announced from the pulpit that by now we should all be "receiving by hand",a lot of us decamped to a neighbouring Parish.

georgem said...

Liturgical Pedant, regarding your last par, you've got something there!

Brian said...

Discussion of indults is now irrelevant.

The regulation of the distribution of Communion under both Species is now governed by #283 the GIRM whereby local ordinaries are free to establish norms for the laity taking from the Cup in their dioceses.

It seems strange that vociferous supporters of the new translation are not so supportive of the new GIRM as a universal law for those using the Roman Rite.

Amfortas said...

If you're worried about hygiene Jacobi - and my guess is that you're not really - then you'd have a real problem receiving communion in an eastern rite church (from a spoon!).

jonty said...

As a new Catholic (received at Easter) I've been pleasantly surprised at how often I have been able to receive in both kinds in a variety of parishes.

The ablutions seem to vary greatly from parish to parish, a lot of it very casual I'm afraid to say.

jacob neruda said...

I have always felt that blogging has been an art where people express their experiences in the best manner.This is something that is very informational.

P said...

Amfortas, you don't normally touch the spoon with your mouth when receiving Holy Communion.