Are Ecclesiastical Disciplines Infallible?

[pnewton]

(emphasis added)
Hand Communion has made MOST Catholics hold the position that the Real Presence is merely symbolic and therefore not real at all. The same is true for Canon Law. The Church now allows a mere one hour fast before Communion, again showing less reverence that is at BEST dangerous to the belief in the Real Presence.

Communion in Hand and a one hour fast has cause the decline in belief in the Real Presence? Not lack of catachesis from the priest? Not the decrease in Mass attendence or the materialism of our country?

Because belief in the Real Presence has declined and Communion in hand has gone up does not indicate a cause and effest relationship. Global warming or the increase in life span might have a similar correlation.

 

[Prometheum_x]

pnewton:

Communion in Hand and a one hour fast has cause the decline in belief in the Real Presence? Not lack of catachesis from the priest? Not the decrease in Mass attendence or the materialism of our country?

Because belief in the Real Presence has declined and Communion in hand has gone up does not indicate a cause and effest relationship. Global warming or the increase in life span might have a similar correlation.

Exactly: Correlation is not the same as causation.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

“difficult to follow?” i.e., burdensome? That too was condemned, no?

Certainly there’s no guarantee that all ecclesiastical discplines will have their intended effect for the faithful who may be poorly catechized. (Like EENS) Although, with exception to the Sacrament themselves, which, given proper disposition, are valid and effectual even for those who don’t understand what might be going on.

I haven’t read all the above posts, yet. I have to get ready for work. Perhaps there’ll be time to read through this thread then.

I also found another source asserting what I think is undeniable…

P. Hermann, Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae (4th ed., Rome: Della Pace, 1908), vol. 1, p. 258:

“The Church is** infallible in her general discipline**. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments. . . .

“If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible.”

---

 

[theMutant]

“difficult to follow?” i.e., burdensome? That too was condemned, no?

Assuming that you are responding to what I wrote in post #16…

I did not say burdensome and did not mean burdensome. I meant exactly what I said in the Universal Indult thread; difficult [for the faithful in the pews] to follow or even to know what is legitimate. When there are almost 40 million legitimate variations for a mass on a given day, it is practically impossible for the average Catholic in the pew to recognize when an abuse is introduced. This fact makes it easier for abuses to be introduced and to adversely affect the faith of the Catholics these abuses are heaped upon.

Having said that, however, the abuses are not part of the liturgy and, therefore, cannot be counted when discussing whether or not the liturgical discipline itself is harmful to the faith of Catholics. As I have maintained all along, there is nothing inherently against the faith with the current rite of Mass in the Latin Church. The current rite is valid and, if the liturgical laws are completely followed, poses no harm to the faith of Catholics who know their faith. My views comparing the current versus the traditional liturgies of the Latin rite are not on the basis of validity, licitness, or adherence to the Faith. It is strictly on the basis of effectively presenting and supporting the Faith and the ease in which the faithful in the pews can be a participant. These represent my opinions and do not represent a rejection of Vatican II or the authority of the Pope to govern the rite of mass. As I believe I basically stated in that other thread, the Pope is the Supreme Pontiff and has the complete authority to govern the rites used in the entire Catholic Church. This is why I maintain the licitness of the current rite of mass in the Latin Church even though I firmly believe that it clearly goes against the guidelines set down by Vatican II.

Regarding the capability of the Church to establish a liturgical discipline for the Sacraments that is “fallible.” I guess I really need a further explanation of what you mean. I agree that those disciplines can not be directly harmful to the faith and must always be valid. However, I do not agree that any change to the liturgies must always be considered improvements, or even “as good” compared to what was done previously.