In the hand doesn't really work for us.
Posted on 02/22/2018 10:20:20 AM PST by Petrosius
You can always come back. Sit down with a priest and get your questions answered.
An Indult Born Out of Disobedience
The practice of receiving Holy Communion in the hand first began to spread in Catholic circles during the early 1960s, primarily in Holland. Shortly after Vatican II, due to the escalating abuses in certain non-English speaking countries (Holland, Belgium, France and Germany), Pope Paul VI took a survey of the world's bishops to ascertain their opinions on the subject. On May 28, 1969 the Congregation for Divine Worship issued Memoriale Domini, which concluded: "From the responses received, it is thus clear that by far the greater number of bishops feel that the present discipline [i.e., Holy Communion on the tongue] should not be changed at all, indeed that if it were changed, this would be offensive to the sensibility and spiritual appreciation of these bishops and of most of the faithful." After he had considered the observation and the counsel of the bishops, the Supreme Pontiff judged that the long-received manner of ministering Holy Communion to the faithful should not be changed. The Apostolic See then strongly urged bishops, priests and the laity to zealously observe this law out of concern for the common good of the Church.
Despite the vote, in 1969 Pope Paul VI decided to strike a compromise with his disobedient bishops on the continent. Given “the gravity of the matter,” the pope would not authorize Communion in the hand. He was, however, open to bestowing an indult – an exception to the law – under certain conditions: first, an indult could not be given to a country in which Communion in the hand was not an already established practice; second, the bishops in countries where it was established must approve of the practice “by a secret vote and with a two-thirds majority.” Beyond this, the Holy See set down seven regulations concerning communion in the hand; failure to maintain these regulations could result in the loss of the indult. The first three regulations concerned: 1) respecting the laity who continue the traditional practice (of receiving kneeling and on the tongue), 2) maintaining the laity’s proper respect of the Eucharist, and 3) strengthening the laity’s faith in the real presence.
Bernardin’s Campaign
So how did Communion in the hand come to America?
In 1975 and again in 1976, Archbishop Joseph Bernardin, the president of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) attempted in vain to garner two-thirds of the bishops to vote in favor of receiving Communion in the hand. The following year – which coincided with the end of Bernardin’s term as president – brought one final attempt. Bernadin appointed Archbishop Quinn, who became Bernardin’s immediate successor as NCCB president, to be the chief lobbyist for Communion in the hand. During the proceedings a brave bishop requested a survey of the bishops be taken – this survey would ask each bishop whether or not Communion in the hand was widely practiced in his diocese, for without the practice’s current wide-use the first condition of the indult would not be satisfied.
*Of course, everyone knew that Communion in the hand was not a previously established practice in the United States.
Though his request was seconded and supported in writing by five other bishops, Bernardin had the motion dismissed as “out of order.” The bishops then voted ... only to once more fall short of the two-thirds majority. This, however, did not end the matter. Bernardin decided to (unlawfully) begin gathering “absentee votes” from any bishop he could find – including retired bishops who no longer administered any dioceses. Consequently, the number was adjusted to meet the two-thirds majority.
Most welcome.
I plead ignorance of the bylaws!
I could not include “Catholic Caucus” in the title because of word limitations. It is included in the first line of the text.
Click on the Religion Moderator’s name above. The rules are all there.
Exceptions to the law destroy the rule.
See! There it is right in the Bible!
Romans 14
To Live and Die for Christ.
1* Welcome anyone who is weak in faith, but not for disputes over opinions.
2 One person believes that one may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables.
3 The one who eats must not despise the one who abstains, and the one who abstains must not pass judgment on the one who eats; for God has welcomed him.
4 Who are you to pass judgment on someone else’s servant? Before his own master he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5 [For] one person considers one day more important than another, while another person considers all days alike.f Let everyone be fully persuaded in his own mind.*
6 Whoever observes the day, observes it for the Lord. Also whoever eats, eats for the Lord, since he gives thanks to God; while whoever abstains, abstains for the Lord and gives thanks to God.
7 None of us lives for oneself, and no one dies for oneself.
8 For if we live, we live for the Lord,* and if we die, we die for the Lord; so then, whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s.
9 For this is why Christ died and came to life, that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living.
10 Why then do you judge your brother? Or you, why do you look down on your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God;
11 for it is written:
“As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bend before me,
and every tongue shall give praise to God.”j
12 So [then] each of us shall give an account of himself [to God].k
Consideration for the Weak Conscience.
13 Then let us no longer judge one another, but rather resolve never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother.
14 I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; still, it is unclean for someone who thinks it unclean.
15 If your brother is being hurt by what you eat, your conduct is no longer in accord with love. Do not because of your food destroy him for whom Christ died.
16So do not let your good be reviled.
17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of food and drink, but of righteousness, peace, and joy in the holy Spirit;
18 whoever serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by others.
19 Let us* then pursue what leads to peace and to building up one another.
20 For the sake of food, do not destroy the work of God.r Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to become a stumbling block by eating;
21 it is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble.
22 Keep the faith [that] you have to yourself in the presence of God; blessed is the one who does not condemn himself for what he approves.
23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because this is not from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin.*
http://www.usccb.org/bible/romans/14
It’s too late now to make the thread a Catholic Caucus.
Standard practice is to put the caucus designation in the title area.
That is where members look to see if a thread is open or a caucus.
A thread won’t be considered a caucus thread unless the title shows that it is a caucus.
The title can be truncated to make room.
If that is done, be sure to include the whole title in post #1 or 2.
Matthew 26:26...for context.....
26While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.”
Exactly! That is my point! The words in the Bible can truly interpreted as in Salvation’s picture. That is the tradition of the Roman Catholic Church, and it is Biblical. There is no reason to change it unless one is working to undermine the Faith. That is what Saint Paul talks about in Romans. IIRC this situation was discussed by Saint Jude. Something about wolves in sheeps clothing.
I was only posting the passage in question for context.
Well, since the Faith is under such Luciferian attack, I now self identify as a Roman Catholic.
That is a nice picture, but not based in reality. Have you seen the movie Risen? That movie gives a person an idea what it was like 2000 yrs. ago.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.