C
CesarAugustus
Guest
Thanks for your answer Brother.There are two qualifiers there. The indult is for any country where the conference of bishops agrees to it. **What is always allowed is for an individual bishop not to accept the indult. You can’t force what’s optional.
**
The second qualifier is rather interesting. If your bishop is an exempt religious he can act independently of the conference. If the conference bans CITH and your Franciscan or Dominican bishops wants it, there is no bishop on earth who can intervene. Once the Holy See says that it is permissible, the exempt religious is not bound by any other law except the mind of the pope. The people and the local clergy have no voice over a bishop who happens to be an exempt religious as well.
There was always a confusion in the Code of Canon Law of 1917 about religious who were ordained bishop. The wording was not clear. It made it sound as if they ceased to be religious. The Code of 1983 clarified. They remain members of their religious communities. They retain all of the rights and duties of that come with their profession of vows. They remain bound to the rule and constitutions of their community, except in matters that are in conflict with their duties as bishop. They also retain the right to wear their habit and if they are exempt religious, they continue to be exempt religious. Those people in their diocese have to accommodate to them, as long as it’s not a hardship.
If the Dominicans pray 15 decades of the rosary daily, the Dominican bishop cannot impose this on his diocese. That would be a hardship for some people. On the other hand, if the Dominican bishop sacrifices some ministries in order to put more money and resources into education and catechesis, this is not a hardship and is reasonable for a Dominican Friar. Preaching is their mission.
In Argentina, some Bishops didn’t liked Mons. Laise decision to not apply the indult. For example, Mons Sueldo, then President of the Liturgy Commission, he said:
*“la norma está por encima del obispo y fue aceptada por la Conferencia Episcopal Argentina, en conformidad con la Santa Sede. De ahí en más la cuestión es del fiel, no del pastor.” *
"The norm is above the bishop and was accepted by the Episcopal Conference of Argentina, in accordance with the Holy See. From then on the issue is of the faithful, not the pastor. "
The media also painted him as a rebel.
The info is from (in Spanish):
54462237-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/secretummeummihi/Comunionenlamanoprologos1y2edici%C3%B3n.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7cp4yg8mYIGikhdzA9iKHSjoafsm4nhhAqX1teGyjnAKvrs7IEMimMcQ7FV2AU51ciP_3fTEWx1ruzSD8SpVl5Nqza54rTBPXHoEEG6WuTCGazsW9xGwAiJvjagFN2L8_RXHsVQxJRhTej-hQMMWaJIzkJSd4JXR1QHfpVhhWi7oHY6mHRgnUtq2kgpyWEkUXrBBJEA2x-ecArc4erRxheYk5vY0KKsG5aRJc-dch8-_C2P1Vr5gFpmkg81uwJXMyK-fK_e-&attredirects=0
From Memoriale Domini:
“Where a contrary usage, that of placing holy communion on the hand, prevails, the Holy See—wishing to help them fulfill their task, often difficult as it is nowadays—lays on those conferences the task of weighing carefully whatever special circumstances may exist there, taking care to avoid any risk of lack of respect or of false opinions with regard to the Blessed Eucharist, and to avoid any other ill effects that may follow.”
In Colombia and Argentina, the practice was introduced. The custom was not common before the Indult. Mons. Laise attest to that (the Argentine case). Is explained in his book, and in this link (in Spanish):
www3.planalfa.es/santamariareina/laise.htm
From Colombia, we have this words said by Fr. José Vicente Echeverry, who said "aquí en Colombia hasta ahora se inicia” * (here in Colombia until now starts).
*El Tiempo, Dic-24-1991, page 5B
The Bishops Conference prepared a brochure for the introduction of the practice. *“El cuerpo de Cristo en nuestras manos” * (The body of Christ in our hands)
Blessings!