Communion in the hand and medjugorie?

  • Thread starter Thread starter johnjacob2004
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

johnjacob2004

Guest
One was approved by the Holy See and another wasn’t
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Is there a point to this statement? A purpose for this Thread?
 
johnjacob2004 said:
One was approved by the Holy See and another wasn’t
Click to expand...
Communion in the hand was permitted. That is not the same as approved.
And the Holy See does not issue positive confirmation of apparitions. At most they will announce that there is nothing to be condemned in the reports.
 
Zaccheus said:
Communion in the hand was permitted. That is not the same as approved.
Click to expand...
How is it different?
Zaccheus said:
And the Holy See does not issue positive confirmation of apparitions. At most they will announce that there is nothing to be condemned in the reports.
Click to expand...
You mean, they don’t make statements like this: "I declare with moral certainty and in accord with the norms of the Church that the events, apparitions and locutions given to Adele Brise in October of 1859 do exhibit the substance of supernatural character, and I do hereby approve these apparitions as worthy of belief (although not obligatory) by the Christian faithful,”?
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Zaccheus said:
Communion in the hand was permitted. That is not the same as approved.
Click to expand...
At the council of Trent when communion was limited to only consecrated host and the precious blood. This was permitted by the Holy See. The practice of believing that in order to fully receive Jesus one had to receive the consecrated host and the precious blood. The church was trying to deal with this heresy. The church has the power to change how a sacrament is administered…(not changing the substance of the sacrament but how it is administered)
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04175a.htm
. (d) In reference to the sacraments generally, apart from their substance, salva eorum substantia, i.e. apart from what has been strictly determined by Divine institution or precept, the Church has authority to determine or modify the rites and usages employed in their administration, according as she judges it expedient for the greater profit of the recipients or the better protections of the sacraments themselves against irreverence. Hence “although the usage of Communion under two kinds was not infrequent in the early ages [ab initio] of the Christian religion, yet, the custom in this respect having changed almost universally [latissime] in the course of time, holy mother the Church, mindful of her authority in the administration of the Sacraments, and influenced by weighty and just reasons, has approved the custom of communicating under one kind, and decreed it to have the force of a law, which may not be set aside or changed but by the Church’s own authority” (Trent, Sess. XXI, c. ii). Not only, therefore, is Communion under both kinds not obligatory on the faithful, but the chalice is strictly forbidden by ecclesiastical law to any but the celebrating priest.
 
The church reserves the right to how the church is to administer the sacraments.

This was done with communion being allowed to be received via hand
 
Last edited:
Medjugorie
Is not approved by the church,

Did I pass?
 
Last edited:
Communion in the hand and medjugorie?

Well the link for me is that I have been to Medjugorje where I received Communion in my hand .

Does that mean that I am doomed ? :confused:
 
CITH is not approved per se; rather an indult allowing it has been issued, meaning it’s temporaneously being allowed and without the indult would not be allowed.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps, it’s an inspiration by the Holy Spirit that lead to the disobedience and the indult. It’s here to stay.
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
What does indult mean

We cannot know the mystery of the way the Holy Spirit works. And the argument first was one of kneeling.
And early Christians were receiving in the hand,
USA was third last country to receive the indult, almost a decade after the first.
It’s still the decision of the Diocese Bishop.
 
Last edited:
You’re totally unaware of what occurred internally directly after Vatican II and even basic tenets of the Church but still making arguments anyways. An Indult is an authorization of the Pope allowing something that is otherwise not lawful. In this case his hand was forced (and this reply will be deleted for my saying so). From what I’m seeing from my perspective, many things that are considered quite traditionally Catholic will soon make quite a resurgence (despite no requirement) once the younger generations start taking over.
 
Last edited:
So the Vicar of Christ had his hand forced by diabolic forces that wanted to undermine belief in the Real Presence. That is what you are saying?

Yeah, ok. :roll_eyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top