Is this the beginning of the end for communion in the hand?

[otjm]

“I think if you go back and read Pnewton’s post, you will find he did not say what you infer. He was, I believe, referring to the fact that JP2 issue3d the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and that Catechism is what trumps the Baltimore Catechism. I think even the good bishops who were behind the creation of the Baltimore Catechism would admit that.”

Of more importance perhaps, are there contradictions between the two catechisms? If so, what are they? Or is the later one an overall clarification of the previous?

The CCC is not a clarification of the Baltimore; the Baltimore was a regional catechism, the CCC is for the universal Church. It (the CCC) is also designed to be the base and basis for wiiting new regional (and other) catechims. The Baltimore was set up primarily for children, was done in a rote fashion (I do not say the negatively) and was not particulary nuanced. It served its purpose and design well; some feel that nothing else is necessary but that would mistake it for an encyclopedia of information, which it was not (and was not intended to be).

It is not an issue of contradiction but rather it is an issue of audience.

 

[Brother_John]

I, for one, am tired of being called ignorant, uneducated or any other synonym like that for being a main stream Catholic. I am well aware of the claims of traditionalist on the subject of communion on the tongue and reject the arguement that it is more reverent. I am at least intelligent enough to recognize that attacks on the knowledge of those like me are nothing more than begging the question - a basic logical fallacy.

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you…I too, am tired of being called "unCatholic, nonCatholic,liberalCatholic, et al, ad nauseum simply because I don’t adhere to the mantra of the pre-Vatican II “traditionalists”.:tiphat: :extrahappy: :bowdown2:

 

[pnewton]

The church did not begin with Vatican II, JPII was not the first pope. Think about what you have just said…JPII knew better that all of the popes, the bishops, saints, martyrs, apostles, and doctors of the church for almost two thousand years?

Of course not. This is typical of the misrepresentation that occurs here. I said he knew better than the Baltimore Catechism, which is what you stated would make one not a Catholic. There is a more recent Catechism, you know. I will adhere with 2000 years of Catholic tradition, including that of of obedience to the pope. This puts me adhering to 40 more years than those that break off at VII.

 

[ac_claire]

Of course not. This is typical of the misrepresentation that occurs here. I said he knew better than the Baltimore Catechism, which is what you stated would make one not a Catholic. There is a more recent Catechism, you know. I will adhere with 2000 years of Catholic tradition, including that of of obedience to the pope. This puts me adhering to 40 more years than those that break off at VII.

But see, some people don’t accept the validity of the more recent Catechism…

 

[piouswoman]

Of course not. This is typical of the misrepresentation that occurs here. I said he knew better than the Baltimore Catechism, which is what you stated would make one not a Catholic. There is a more recent Catechism, you know. I will adhere with 2000 years of Catholic tradition, including that of of obedience to the pope. This puts me adhering to 40 more years than those that break off at VII.

FAITH IS GREATER THAN OBEDIENCE!
stas.org/apologetics/crisis/Vatican_II/obedience.shtml

KYRIE ELEISON!

 

[pnewton]

FAITH IS GREATER THAN OBEDIENCE!
stas.org/apologetics/crisis/Vatican_II/obedience.shtml

KYRIE ELEISON!

I do not see where the two or set in aposition to each other. They are not mutually exclusive.

[
[1 Sam 15:22](http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=9&CHAP=15&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=22)[ And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.

](http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=9&CHAP=15&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=22)](http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=9&CHAP=15&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=22)

 

[piouswoman]

TRUE OBEDIENCE
According to the great theologian, St. Thomas Aquinas, true obedience is a balance between twin errors of defect and excess, which are disobedience and false obedience (IIaIIae, Q104,5 ad 3). Today this second error is common among Catholics who, when they follow orders to depart from Tradition, think they are being obedient.

 

[ac_claire]

TRUE OBEDIENCE
According to the great theologian, St. Thomas Aquinas, true obedience is a balance between twin errors of defect and excess, which are disobedience and false obedience (IIaIIae, Q104,5 ad 3). Today this second error is common among Catholics who, when they follow orders to depart from Tradition, think they are being obedient.

This seems like a contradiction.
Big-T Tradition is determined by the Church, right? It is the Church. If the Church changes something (a discipline, or a small-t tradition) that it has the authority to change, and you reject that and follow your own judgement…you then are rejecting the Church. And the truth. You are saying that you have some authority or wisdom to guide the Church that the Church itself apparently lacks. Definition of protestant.

 

[seekerz]

I believe that the gates of hell shall not prevail against my beloved Church.

I believe that in all things, even those I have personal difficulty with (such as nervousness about dropping the Eucharist while receiving on the tongue), I must obediently submit to the Magesterium.

I believe that when a practice is allowed by the Church it is permissible and when it is changed that change is to be respected.

I believe that it is wrong to quibble over whether this or that Pope right or wrong to make or reverse this or that change because it may deter the weaker among us or prospective Catholics who may see us as obsessed with the form rather than the substance of our religion.

I believe is is wrong to elevate one practice over the next if both have been approved by relevant Church authorities.

 

[pnewton]

Today this second error is common among Catholics who, when they follow orders to depart from Tradition, think they are being obedient.

This is simpl not true and posting it more often does not make it more true. You simply continue to beg the question, run in a circle and chase your tail.

I refuse to depart from Tradition and reject the papacy as has been established in the person of Pope Benedict.

 

[Brother_John]

I refuse to depart from Tradition and reject the papacy as has been established in the person of Pope Benedict.

Could you clarify this statement? It can be interpreted two different ways.

 

[pnewton]

Could you clarify this statement? It can be interpreted two different ways.

Boy, talk about double entendres. Yes, I will. I refuse to depart from Tradition. As part of what I see as the most important parts of tradition, I refuse to reject the papacy in the person of Pope Benedict XVI. Latin, communion on the tongue and many other issues are minor in importance to the important tradition of seeking salvation in the visible Church Jesus established and the postion of the Holy Father as the Vicar of Christ. How one receives communion is a lower priority of tradition for me.

 

[Brother_John]

Boy, talk about double entendres. Yes, I will. I refuse to depart from Tradition. As part of what I see as the most important parts of tradition, I refuse to reject the papacy in the person of Pope Benedict XVI. Latin, communion on the tongue and many other issues are minor in importance to the important tradition of seeking salvation in the visible Church Jesus established and the postion of the Holy Father as the Vicar of Christ. How one receives communion is a lower priority of tradition for me.

t’anks for clearing that up…you had me worried there a bit!

:yup:

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

This seems like a contradiction.
Big-T Tradition is determined by the Church, right? It is the Church. If the Church changes something (a discipline, or a small-t tradition) that it has the authority to change, and you reject that and follow your own judgement…you then are rejecting the Church. And the truth. You are saying that you have some authority or wisdom to guide the Church that the Church itself apparently lacks. Definition of protestant.

I agree that the Church has the authority to change or abrogate small t traditions. However, I want to repost a portion of what Dietrich von Hildebrand has written regarding Big T and small t traditions. It’s from an essay entitled: “Belief and Obedience: The Critical Difference.” It is taken from a book called “The Charitable Anathema” published by Roman Catholic Books, pp. 28-32:

"Our belief in the teachings of the Church de fide must be an absolute and unconditional one, but we should not imagine that our fidelity to the Church’s theoretical authority is satisfied merely by acceptance of ex cathedra pronouncements. We also must adhere wholeheartedly to teachings of the Church in matters of morality, even if they are not defined ex cathedra. The teaching of the encyclical Humanae Vitae, for example, is binding because its content has always been part of the teaching of the Church; in it we are confronted with the theoretical authority of the Church embodied in the tradition of the ordinary magisterium. It is not a mere practical commandment of the Church, like the commandment to go to church on Sunday. It is a statement about a moral fact; that is, it states a truth: that birth control is sinful. It is forbidden not because of the Pope’s policy, but because the theoretical authority of the Church declares its sinfulness. Here, as in all cases of a teaching of the theoretical authority, the old maxim applies: Roma locuta: causa finita.

The situation is different when positive commandments of the Church, practical decisions, are at stake. Here we are not faced with the infallible Church. While we must obey such decisions and submit to them in reverence and deep respect, we need not consider them felicitous or prudent. Here the maxim Roma locuta: causa finita does not apply. If we are convinced that any practical change or decision is objectively unfortunate, noxious, compromising, imprudent, or unjust, we are permitted to pray that it may be revoked, to write in a respectful manner about the topic, to direct petitions for a change of it to the Holy Father–to attempt, in a variety of ways, to influence a reversal of the decision.

…The point, of course, is that obedience to the practical disciplinary decisions of the pope does not always imply approval of them. When such a decision has the character of compromise or is the result of pressure or the weakness of the individual person of the pope, we cannot and should not say: Roma locuta: causa finita. That is, we cannot see in it the will of God; we must recognize that God only permits it, just as He has permitted the unworthiness or weakness of several popes in the history of the Church.

 

[Aramis]

But see, some people don’t accept the validity of the more recent Catechism…

And that makes them minor heretics. Because they are rejecting the teaching authority of the Magisterium, and the Pope.

 

[AlexV]

There’s no such thing as a “minor heretic”.

 

[TMC]

I agree that the Church has the authority to change or abrogate small t traditions. However, I want to repost a portion of what Dietrich von Hildebrand has written regarding Big T and small t traditions. It’s from an essay entitled: “Belief and Obedience: The Critical Difference.” It is taken from a book called “The Charitable Anathema” published by Roman Catholic Books, pp. 28-32:

"Our belief in the teachings of the Church de fide must be an absolute and unconditional one, but we should not imagine that our fidelity to the Church’s theoretical authority is satisfied merely by acceptance of ex cathedra pronouncements. We also must adhere wholeheartedly to teachings of the Church in matters of morality, even if they are not defined ex cathedra. The teaching of the encyclical Humanae Vitae, for example, is binding because its content has always been part of the teaching of the Church; in it we are confronted with the theoretical authority of the Church embodied in the tradition of the ordinary magisterium. It is not a mere practical commandment of the Church, like the commandment to go to church on Sunday. It is a statement about a moral fact; that is, it states a truth: that birth control is sinful. It is forbidden not because of the Pope’s policy, but because the theoretical authority of the Church declares its sinfulness. Here, as in all cases of a teaching of the theoretical authority, the old maxim applies: Roma locuta: causa finita.

The situation is different when positive commandments of the Church, practical decisions, are at stake. Here we are not faced with the infallible Church. While we must obey such decisions and submit to them in reverence and deep respect, we need not consider them felicitous or prudent. Here the maxim Roma locuta: causa finita does not apply. If we are convinced that any practical change or decision is objectively unfortunate, noxious, compromising, imprudent, or unjust, we are permitted to pray that it may be revoked, to write in a respectful manner about the topic, to direct petitions for a change of it to the Holy Father–to attempt, in a variety of ways, to influence a reversal of the decision.

…The point, of course, is that obedience to the practical disciplinary decisions of the pope does not always imply approval of them. When such a decision has the character of compromise or is the result of pressure or the weakness of the individual person of the pope, we cannot and should not say: Roma locuta: causa finita. That is, we cannot see in it the will of God; we must recognize that God only permits it, just as He has permitted the unworthiness or weakness of several popes in the history of the Church.

Here is the problem – who gets to say what is a big T tradition or a what is a “compromise”. I have yet to hear a Pope say “This is probably wrong, and I know I’m changing de fide teaching, but its a decent compromise.” Every case involves a Pope or Council declaring that having studied, prayed, and sought guidance they believe that what they are doing is correct and in accord with the deposit of faith. In every case, the real conflict is a difference in interpretation of the deposit of faith. No matter how much the dissenter believes he is right, and no matter how much authority he assembles in his support, he is disagreeing with Peter’s successor over the meaning of the Faith.

That is not to say that the dissenters aren’t sometimes right, sometimes they are. But we should admit it is a difference in interpretation. Its not the good noble couragous Catholics versus the bad, weak, compromising Catholics.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Here is the problem – who gets to say what is a big T tradition or a what is a “compromise”. I have yet to hear a Pope say “This is probably wrong, and I know I’m changing de fide teaching, but its a decent compromise.” Every case involves a Pope or Council declaring that having studied, prayed, and sought guidance they believe that what they are doing is correct and in accord with the deposit of faith. In every case, the real conflict is a difference in interpretation of the deposit of faith. No matter how much the dissenter believes he is right, and no matter how much authority he assembles in his support, he is disagreeing with Peter’s successor over the meaning of the Faith.

That is not to say that the dissenters aren’t sometimes right, sometimes they are. But we should admit it is a difference in interpretation. Its not the good noble couragous Catholics versus the bad, weak, compromising Catholics.

When I refer to big T Traditions I am referring to the infallible teaching of the Church on Faith and Morals, i.e. abortion, homosexual acts, Purgatory, etc. Decisions such as whether or not to change the liturgy or to allow communion in the hand are prudential, fallible decisions where infallibility does not apply. And they are not teachings concerning faith and morals (although prudential decisions can be quite important, of course).

 

[TMC]

When I refer to big T Traditions I am referring to the infallible teaching of the Church on Faith and Morals, i.e. abortion, homosexual acts, Purgatory, etc. Decisions such as whether or not to change the liturgy or to allow communion in the hand are prudential, fallible decisions where infallibility does not apply. And they are not teachings concerning faith and morals (although prudential decisions can be quite important, of course).

I don’t disagree, but my point remains the same. Who decides what the infallible teachings are? Some on this forum insist that HV is infallible, but I think its not. EENS appears infallible, but there is constant argument about what EENS means. The Church has never, to my knowledge, put out a list of ‘infallibles.’ There is a large body that pretty much everyone agrees is not infallible, so its helpful in that regard. But there is no consensus on what is infallible, or how the infallible teachings should be interpreted, so referring to them is not that helpful.

 

[piouswoman]

This seems like a contradiction.
Big-T Tradition is determined by the Church, right? It is the Church. If the Church changes something (a discipline, or a small-t tradition) that it has the authority to change, and you reject that and follow your own judgement…you then are rejecting the Church. And the truth. You are saying that you have some authority or wisdom to guide the Church that the Church itself apparently lacks. Definition of protestant.

Let me see, now…Would I listen to the words of St. Thomas Aquinas, or the words of ac claire? ** A real no brainer.**…I will hear the truths spoken by St. Thomas Aquinas:

Italian Catholic priest in the Dominican Order, a philosopher and theologian in the scholastic tradition, known as Doctor Angelicus, Doctor Universalis and Doctor Communis. He was the foremost classical proponent of natural theology, and the father of the Thomistic school of philosophy and theology.

and further more:

Aquinas is held in the Catholic Church to be the model teacher for those studying for the priesthood (Code of Canon Law, Can. 252, §3). The works for which he is best-known are the Summa Theologica and the Summa Contra Gentiles. One of the 33 Doctors of the Church, he is considered by many Catholics to be the Catholic Church’s greatest theologian and philosopher.

Thank you for your efforts, but really, think about what you write.

PRAY FOR HOLY MOTHER CHURCH!

KYRIE ELEISON!