Another frustrated soul regarding Vatican 2

[The_Catholic]

Someone is telling me that Vatican 2 watered down the Church dramaticly. She was even saying that the Catecism has changed, and that in the old one it specificially stated that a Catholic CANNOT marry a Protestant. She also claims that the “true” church taught that Vienal sins MUST be spoken to a priest, that at communion we MUST be on our knees and cannot touch the wafer (which makes absolutley NO sense what so ever to me, the apsostles would have most likely held it themselves at the last supper and by openeing up your hand instead of just your mouth, your are implying: “please give me the life of Christ.”), and that the Table of the Lord has been moved to the side instead of in the center.

Now, are there any answers to these accusations?

Also, to me, this is why I think many people shun away from the church, arguing over such ridiculos things as this. To me, TRUE problems begin when one begins to CHANGE or CORRUPT MORALS or DOCTRINES, NOT rules and regulations. If some Church consel changes the Eucharist to purely symbolic, or that Jesus is not God, or that a priest cannot forgive sins, well THEN I see a problem.

But according to her the church has “changed” the sacraments. But I have yet to get a straight answer from her on that. Only that she says the old Tridentine prayers have changed and the “new” prayers have taking away the sacraments. I have no idea what that means.

 

[The_Catholic]

I also wanted to point out that in the first 5 to (I think) 1000 years of christianity you could only be forgiven twice, at your baptism and at your one-time reconciliation, after that, you could not (which contradicts Christ own words on forgivness). But the Church changed that to as many times as you sin and repent. I just want to say that the doctrine of confession remained the same, it didn’t change, just the fact on how the Church brought it further on (forgive seventy times seven times, and to a private priest instead of publicly)

So a change like that was once made. So why all the complaints about Vatican 2?

I just don’t understand.

 

[blackrobe]

Now, are there any answers to these accusations?

Certainly, but the proper question is what is your informant’s authority for any of these preposterous assertions? If I were to tell you that aliens took over the Church in 1789 and all the Popes since Pius XII have been 32nd Degree Masons, wouldn’t you ask me to substantiate my claims rather than ask someone else to refute them?

JSA

 

[LilyM]

I also wanted to point out that in the first 5 to (I think) 1000 years of christianity you could only be forgiven twice, at your baptism and at your one-time reconciliation, after that, you could not (which contradicts Christ own words on forgivness). But the Church changed that to as many times as you sin and repent. I just want to say that the doctrine of confession remained the same, it didn’t change, just the fact on how the Church brought it further on (forgive seventy times seven times, and to a private priest instead of publicly)

So a change like that was once made. So why all the complaints about Vatican 2?

I just don’t understand.

I think that’s wrong about confession only being available once - what is your evidence on this? People used to wait for deathbed baptisms, since they understood that baptism washed away all sin, and since penances were sometimes very tough, lasting years. People were perhaps reluctant as a result, but I don’t think it was ever forbidden to confess more than the once.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Someone is telling me that Vatican 2 watered down the Church dramaticly. She was even saying that the Catecism has changed, and that in the old one it specificially stated that a Catholic CANNOT marry a Protestant. She also claims that the “true” church taught that Vienal sins MUST be spoken to a priest, that at communion we MUST be on our knees and cannot touch the wafer (which makes absolutley NO sense what so ever to me, the apsostles would have most likely held it themselves at the last supper and by openeing up your hand instead of just your mouth, your are implying: “please give me the life of Christ.”), and that the Table of the Lord has been moved to the side instead of in the center.

Now, are there any answers to these accusations?

Also, to me, this is why I think many people shun away from the church, arguing over such ridiculos things as this. To me, TRUE problems begin when one begins to CHANGE or CORRUPT MORALS or DOCTRINES, NOT rules and regulations. If some Church consel changes the Eucharist to purely symbolic, or that Jesus is not God, or that a priest cannot forgive sins, well THEN I see a problem.

But according to her the church has “changed” the sacraments. But I have yet to get a straight answer from her on that. Only that she says the old Tridentine prayers have changed and the “new” prayers have taking away the sacraments. I have no idea what that means.

I also wanted to point out that in the first 5 to (I think) 1000 years of christianity you could only be forgiven twice, at your baptism and at your one-time reconciliation,
So a change like that was once made. So why all the complaints about Vatican 2?

I just don’t understand.

Someone is telling me that Vatican 2 watered down the Church dramaticly.

Some of the ways in which the Vatican II documents were interpreted and implemented did have negative effects.

She was even saying that the Catecism has changed, and that in the old one it specificially stated that a Catholic CANNOT marry a Protestant.

It may have understanding that the practices in the old catechism were based on the old 1917 code of canon law which was in some respects more detailed and restrictive.

She also claims that the “true” church taught that Vienal sins MUST be spoken to a priest,

I have never seen this anywhere. Except that venial sins should also be confessed in the Sacrament of Confession.

that at communion we MUST be on our knees and cannot touch the wafer

Again the old practice was to kneel at the altar rail and receive on the tongue and never touch the Host. Many places received special permission to stand, and receive in the hand. Doing so is NOT the norm, but is allowed in many places.

and that the Table of the Lord has been moved to the side instead of in the center.

I have no idea what she means by that.

To me, TRUE problems begin when one begins to CHANGE or CORRUPT MORALS or DOCTRINES, NOT rules and regulations. If some Church consel changes the Eucharist to purely symbolic, or that Jesus is not God, or that a priest cannot forgive sins, well THEN I see a problem.

I agree.

But according to her the church has “changed” the sacraments. But I have yet to get a straight answer from her on that. Only that she says the old Tridentine prayers have changed and the “new” prayers have taking away the sacraments. I have no idea what that means.

She must feel that the Church has no authority to change the liturgy in any way.

I also wanted to point out that in the first 5 to (I think) 1000 years of christianity you could only be forgiven twice, at your baptism and at your one-time reconciliation, after that, you could not (which contradicts Christ own words on forgivness). But the Church changed that to as many times as you sin and repent. I just want to say that the doctrine of confession remained the same, it didn’t change, just the fact on how the Church brought it further on (forgive seventy times seven times, and to a private priest instead of publicly)

That is correct it was at one point, a one time deal. Changing how often someone received a Sacrament does not change the Sacrament.

So a change like that was once made. So why all the complaints about Vatican 2?

Because most people have never studied Vatican II and have no idea what they are talking about.

 

[The_Catholic]

I think that’s wrong about confession only being available once - what is your evidence on this? People used to wait for deathbed baptisms, since they understood that baptism washed away all sin, and since penances were sometimes very tough, lasting years. People were perhaps reluctant as a result, but I don’t think it was ever forbidden to confess more than the once.

Oh ok, is that how it was? I said what I said from a history of the Catholic Church book I had about early reconciliation.

 

[The_Catholic]

Certainly, but the proper question is what is your informant’s authority for any of these preposterous assertions? If I were to tell you that aliens took over the Church in 1789 and all the Popes since Pius XII have been 32nd Degree Masons, wouldn’t you ask me to substantiate my claims rather than ask someone else to refute them?

JSA

What are you talking about!!!

 

[The_Catholic]

I think that’s wrong about confession only being available once - what is your evidence on this? People used to wait for deathbed baptisms, since they understood that baptism washed away all sin, and since penances were sometimes very tough, lasting years. People were perhaps reluctant as a result, but I don’t think it was ever forbidden to confess more than the once.

“In the early church, formal forgiveness for sin, or absolution, was reserved for those who had committed very serious sins (such as murder, adultery, and apostasy), and it was acommpanied by a long period of severe public penance. A person could normaly receive absolution for these sins only ONCE in a lifetime; if he sinned seriously again he could be remitted to the church only as a public penitent…A change in the understanding of this sacrament took place in the sixth and seventh centuries, Christian monks, probaly in the context of spiritual direction, developed the practice of forgiving sins in Jesus’ name as part of a more frequent private confession that includded less serious sins. This eventually became the form of the sacrament.”

That was from “Catholic and Christian” a book by alan Schreck.

 

[ConvertChris]

The Ultra-Traditionalist Page on the following site may help you here:

matt1618.freeyellow.com

 

[Teflon93]

Someone is telling me that Vatican 2 watered down the Church dramaticly. She was even saying that the Catecism has changed, and that in the old one it specificially stated that a Catholic CANNOT marry a Protestant. She also claims that the “true” church taught that Vienal sins MUST be spoken to a priest, that at communion we MUST be on our knees and cannot touch the wafer (which makes absolutley NO sense what so ever to me, the apsostles would have most likely held it themselves at the last supper and by openeing up your hand instead of just your mouth, your are implying: “please give me the life of Christ.”), and that the Table of the Lord has been moved to the side instead of in the center.

Now, are there any answers to these accusations?

Also, to me, this is why I think many people shun away from the church, arguing over such ridiculos things as this. To me, TRUE problems begin when one begins to CHANGE or CORRUPT MORALS or DOCTRINES, NOT rules and regulations. If some Church consel changes the Eucharist to purely symbolic, or that Jesus is not God, or that a priest cannot forgive sins, well THEN I see a problem.

But according to her the church has “changed” the sacraments. But I have yet to get a straight answer from her on that. Only that she says the old Tridentine prayers have changed and the “new” prayers have taking away the sacraments. I have no idea what that means.

I would ask for direct references in support of these claims.

Prayers are not sacraments. There are 7 sacraments: Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Confession, Holy Orders, Anointing of the Sick, Matrimony.

Church practices do change, but it is surprising that one can read Justin Martyr from the 2nd century and see how similar the Mass is to the one he knew.

Also, if one is going to make these claims AGAINST the Catholic Church, one had better be quite sure that the practices of one’s own denomination haven’t changed over time. Log in the eye and all.

 

[dthurmond]

This Is A Test

 

[LilyM]

“In the early church, formal forgiveness for sin, or absolution, was reserved for those who had committed very serious sins (such as murder, adultery, and apostasy), and it was acommpanied by a long period of severe public penance. A person could normaly receive absolution for these sins only ONCE in a lifetime; if he sinned seriously again he could be remitted to the church only as a public penitent…A change in the understanding of this sacrament took place in the sixth and seventh centuries, Christian monks, probaly in the context of spiritual direction, developed the practice of forgiving sins in Jesus’ name as part of a more frequent private confession that includded less serious sins. This eventually became the form of the sacrament.”

That was from “Catholic and Christian” a book by alan Schreck.

In other words his sins COULD be forgiven more than once, a hundred times even, under the condition that his penance each time was a public one.

 

[mdcpensive1]

To The Catholic:

Ask your friend what church she belonges to. It doesn’t sound like the Catholic Church I know of that practices the faith of the Church founded by Christ 2000 years ago.

mdcpensive1

 

[The_Catholic]

In other words his sins COULD be forgiven more than once, a hundred times even, under the condition that his penance each time was a public one.

Yes, EXCEPT if it were “adultery, murder, apostasy.” And, as you highlighted: “he could be remitted to the Church,” BUT he could be remitted " ‘ONLY’ as a public penitent."

 

[uther]

On the question of receiving in the hand or on the tongue;

Both ways have been done at various times in the history of the Church. And, as it stands right now, those who wish to receive on the tongue are permitted to do so.

It seems, I’ll grant, less reverant to pass our Lord from hand to hand, and I think that is what bothers a lot of people. But this is not a novelty in the context of the entire history of the Church.

There is another practical reason for receiving on the tongue, which may have been in the minds of the Church leaders some time ago. I recently listened to a talk given by a Dr. Raymond De Souza in which he says that certain Satanic cults will come to communion, or send couriers to communion, to obtain the Body of Christ, which they take back to their black masses to blaspheme the Body of Christ. He said that he had seen a young woman taking a host and not consuming it and when he questioned her later he found that was what she had been sent to do.

This points out that it is the responsibility of the priest or EMHC to make sure that the host is placed in the mouth before the communicant returns to their seat, but apparently it isn’t always the case. And, of course, if the host were only placed on the tongue as was the case before V2, it would make that kind of diabolical deception and abuse of our Lord much more difficult.

 

[Fergal]

In the words of Blessed Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI the Second Vatican Council CHANGED NOTHING.

If anything changed it was the responsibility of those who took it upon themselves to introduce illicit changes under the less than dutiful gaze of their local ordinaries. Whenever I read Psalm 95 I feel that it almost speaks aboiut these deformers, when it says “For forty years they wearied me, that generation. I said: their hearts are wandering, they do not know my paths."

The Second Vatican Council neither changed nor intended to change any doctrine, rather it developed, deepened and more fully explained it.

This was exactly what John XXIII said at the beginning of the Council. Paul VI affirmed it and commented in the act of promulgating the Constitution Lumen gentium: “There is no better comment to make than to say that this promulgation really changes nothing of the traditional doctrine. What Christ willed, we also will. What was, still is. What the Church has taught down through the centuries, we also teach. In simple terms that which was assumed, is now explicit; that which was uncertain, is now clarified; that which was meditated upon, discussed and sometimes argued over, is now put together in one clear formulation.” The Bishops repeatedly expressed and fulfilled this intention.

Looks like your friend judges books by covers and never reads beyond them. Perhaps you should give your friend a copy of the Vatican II documents and tell her to come back to you when she locates within them a true rupture with tradition and established Doctrine.

 

[The_Catholic]

On the question of receiving in the hand or on the tongue;

Both ways have been done at various times in the history of the Church. And, as it stands right now, those who wish to receive on the tongue are permitted to do so.

It seems, I’ll grant, less reverant to pass our Lord from hand to hand, and I think that is what bothers a lot of people. But this is not a novelty in the context of the entire history of the Church.

There is another practical reason for receiving on the tongue, which may have been in the minds of the Church leaders some time ago. I recently listened to a talk given by a Dr. Raymond De Souza in which he says that certain Satanic cults will come to communion, or send couriers to communion, to obtain the Body of Christ, which they take back to their black masses to blaspheme the Body of Christ. He said that he had seen a young woman taking a host and not consuming it and when he questioned her later he found that was what she had been sent to do.

This points out that it is the responsibility of the priest or EMHC to make sure that the host is placed in the mouth before the communicant returns to their seat, but apparently it isn’t always the case. And, of course, if the host were only placed on the tongue as was the case before V2, it would make that kind of diabolical deception and abuse of our Lord much more difficult.

Wow, that is a pretty horrendous sin of blaspheme against God, I would not want to be in her and her pathetic ( I say “pathetic” not to offend, but that’s basically what this is…pathetic) follower’s shoes.

But for me I like taking it with my hand, to me I’m implying, and begging, and reaching out to the Lord saying: please give me the life of Christ."

 

[The_Catholic]

In the words of Blessed Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI the Second Vatican Council CHANGED NOTHING.

If anything changed it was the responsibility of those who took it upon themselves to introduce illicit changes under the less than dutiful gaze of their local ordinaries. Whenever I read Psalm 95 I feel that it almost speaks aboiut these deformers, when it says “For forty years they wearied me, that generation. I said: their hearts are wandering, they do not know my paths."

The Second Vatican Council neither changed nor intended to change any doctrine, rather it developed, deepened and more fully explained it.

This was exactly what John XXIII said at the beginning of the Council. Paul VI affirmed it and commented in the act of promulgating the Constitution Lumen gentium: “There is no better comment to make than to say that this promulgation really changes nothing of the traditional doctrine. What Christ willed, we also will. What was, still is. What the Church has taught down through the centuries, we also teach. In simple terms that which was assumed, is now explicit; that which was uncertain, is now clarified; that which was meditated upon, discussed and sometimes argued over, is now put together in one clear formulation.” The Bishops repeatedly expressed and fulfilled this intention.

Looks like your friend judges books by covers and never reads beyond them. Perhaps you should give your friend a copy of the Vatican II documents and tell her to come back to you when she locates within them a true rupture with tradition and established Doctrine.

She’s not really so “hardcore” into this, but her sibling is, very much so, to the point that God is not in the Novus Order masses, and that no one NOT bearing the name “Catholic” will be saved.

She said that he has read the prayers side-by-side and you can hear the changes made. I have yet to hear these prayers though, and I can’t see how that matters. The wording of a prayer is changed, big whoop!

 

[JeanneH]

.

and that the Table of the Lord has been moved to the side instead of in the center.

I have no idea what she means by that.

I was to a Catholic church in Rapid City, SD and could NOT FIND the tabernacle. I finally found it in a room off by itself and out of the way. I felt like I was in a protestant church and couldn’t find Jesus.
I questioned the young priest there and was told that the Vatican, thought that it would be better for us if we were not “distracted” by the tabernacle when the priest was consecrating the bread and wine.
I told the priest that that was the stupidest thing that I had ever heard. How can you possibility be distracted by the tabernacle and if the tabernacle is not in the main body of the church why would any one go there in the first place. You could just as well be in one of the big auditoriums that the “happy clappy” non-denominationals use.

I found the book The Suicide of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy interesting and it answered some questions for me.
Just my 2 cents worth.
JeanneH

 

[JeanneH]

Hi

So a change like that was once made. So why all the complaints about Vatican 2?

I just don’t understand.

I would suggest that you read The Suicide of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy to get some answers.
JeanneH