Apostolic exhortation cannot go against the Catechism, says cardinal
- Status
L
Luigi_Daniele
Guest
Good. 
A
ARSpade
Guest
Oh, they don’t want to change the preaching part, just the practice part.
C
carefullytread
Guest
What does that mean? I mean that as a serious question, not to be snarky.
A
ARSpade
Guest
As many have said even here, they don’t want to throw out the preaching/teaching that “divorce is bad” they just want to change the practice of how we treat divorce to be “divorce is okay”. Thus making it so we don’t practice what we preach, which is step one of not preaching it at all.
Marriage will be a “worldly thing” as somebody important once said, and then we can start ditching the other old fashioned beliefs. They can’t go against the Catechism now, but we can change it later… The Protestants went down this path. I hear it is wide.
P
phil19034
Guest
Please be careful with “they”
I believe this German Cardinal is orthodox and is not among the group that wants to change the teaching.
1
1Lord1Faith
Guest
I suppose that questioning the Church is a two way street.
A
ARSpade
Guest
Oh, I’m certain he is and never thought to question him.
P
Pulvis
Guest
Communion in the hand came about because certain Bishops in a certain country allowed it, and then an indult was given, then it spread around the world. This is the same as what “could” occur with divorce and remarriage. Some Bishops in a certain country decide it is ok for them to receive, it will spread, then the rules will just quietly change. It is referred to as mission creep in military operations. In practical applications it is known as give an inch, give a mile.
I sincerely hope i am wrong, but this is a true turning point in the Church.
I sincerely hope i am wrong, but this is a true turning point in the Church.
P
Pat_Payne
Guest
According to Fr. Z, in his opinion (and he HAS seen the final document), and I quote:
Make of that what you will, but it is probably not going to open the floodgates unless it’s willfully misinterpreted by the usual suspects (and Fr. Z did admit that some portions are very vaguely written).
O
otjm
Guest
Communion in the hand was a practice of the early Church’ and according to Br. JR, the Franciscans requested and received permission to continue to do so, centuries ago. Communion in the hand is a discipline, not a doctrine.
J
J_Peterson
Guest
I tried finding something about that once but couldn’t. It’s not that I don’t believe him, I absolutely believe him. He definitely knew his Franciscanism. I’m just curious about a source.
O
otjm
Guest
He was the source. You might try to contact him. He is in poor health, but periodically gives us an update.
T
twf
Guest
That’s not the point though. Yes, receiving in the hand isn’t intrinsically wrong. It was practiced by Franciscans. It is also the traditional means of receiving in the Assyrian / Chaldean tradition (though I believe traditionally one would purify one’s hands in the incense before receiving). That is all legitimate. What concerns some people is how the practice was introduced in the wider post-Vatican II Latin Church. It started as an abuse, an act of disobedience against the Church… Then after it had already caught on, Rome reluctantly granted an indult to some lands. (Note receiving on the tongue always remains the universal law of the Latin Church- receiving on the hand Is an indult From the law).
O
otjm
Guest
Br. JR addressed the issue of abuse in a thread in the forum, and he did so, vigorously stating that it was not an abuse. I have not the time right now to dig it out, but you might want to look for it, as he details why.
I truly tire of people waving the banner of “abuse”. If you don’t want to receive in the hand that is perfectly fine; but there is an implication within the charge of abuse that it - receiving in the hand - is somehow inferior, and certainly comes across as a judgmental attitude. The Church has approved of it, reluctant or not. It is approved, so how about not dragging that out at every opportunity you get - okay?
What method you choose is none of my business; it is your spirituality, and I have no right to criticize, belittle, denigrate, or imply that it is somehow “not quite right” - and you owe the same to others.
T
twf
Guest
It’s not an abuse today in those countries where the indult is in place. It was an abuse when it was first introduced at the time - as early as the 1960s in some regions. At the time it was in direct violation of the law. I said it was introduced as an abuse, not that it continues to be an abuse (where it is permitted).
In the Latin tradition it is not the canonical norm. By definition, something that is allowed only as an indult is not the Church’s preference, even if it is allowed and licit.
For the record I have received in the hand on numerous occasions.
In regards to dragging it out every opportunity I get, I don’t recall discussing the question of receiving on the tongue vs hand in some years to be honest (prior to right now).
T
twf
Guest
We can quibble over whether it was an “abuse” (this is a subjective term), but it is a matter of historical fact that it was illicit when first introduced in certain regions (Holland seems to be prime example). (For the general Latin Church - exceptions may have existed). For example, the Congregation for Divine Worship issued Memoriale Domini in 1969 (well after VII). In this document, from the Church’s highest authority on liturgical matters (other than the Pope himself), the Congregation clearly states that the practice of receiving on the hand has crept up in defiance of the law, and that reception on the tongue must be retained. This isn’t an article or an opinion piece - this is the law of the Church as it stood in 1969. Of course the indults were given to various countries after this point. That certain Franciscans practiced communion in the hand licitly, as Brother says, I do not doubt. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the practice.
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWMEMOR.HTM
In reality, on the ground, I don’t think there’s been widespread judgment for those who receive in the hand. That judgment is only heard from a few vocal traditionalists online in my experience. Rather, those who prefer to receive on the tongue have been lied to for decades, in many places, and told that this norm was no longer permitted. Countless examples of this happening have been cited on this very forum. Thankfully, at my local Cathedral a succession of archbishops have been very generous and both reception on the hand while standing and reception on the tongue while kneeling are equally encouraged and equally practiced (if you want the former you process up the centre aisle, if you want the latter you process up either side aisles and kneel at the altar rail).
- Status