Vatican II changes things?

[una_fides]

Ron,

Here are two more:

Clement of Alexandria
After the death of the tyrant, the [Apostle John] came back again to Ephesus from the Island of Patmos; and, upon being invited, he went even to the neighboring cities of the pagans, here to appoint bishops, there to set in order whole Churches, and there to ordain to the clerical estate such as were designated by the Spirit (*Who is the Rich Man that is Saved? *42:2 [inter **190-210 A.D.]).

Firmilion of Caesarea
But what is his error, and how great his blindness, who says that the remission of sins can be given in the synagogues of the heretics, and who does not remain on the foundation of the one Church which was founded upon the rock by Christ can be learned from this, which Christ said to Peter alone: “Whatever things you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed in heaven;” and by this, again in the gospel, when Christ breathed upon the Apostles alone, saying to them; “Receive the Holy Spirit: if you forgive any man his sins, they shall be forgiven; and if you retain any mans sins, they shall be retained.” Therefore, the power of forgiving sins was given to the Apostles and to the Churches which these men, sent by Christ, established; and to the bishops who succeeded them by being ordained in their place (*Letter to Cyprian * 75:16 A.D. 255-256]).

Perhaps you were confusing customs such as a celebrate priesthood (which the Catholic Church can change) with actual dogmas and the Church’s authority, which was in place from the beginning. To clarify, the Church is not defined by celebrate priesthood, which is changeable. Nor is the Church defined by the behavior of her individual members. Every Catholic on earth could live an evil life and die in that state if they chose to and would all deservingly perish. Tough that would certainly hurt the Church’s testimony, it would not change the truth of her message, for it does not depend on the holiness of its members. That said, throughout the centuries, the Catholic Church has produced the holiest people the world has ever seen. I could list the lives of the saints, the miracles attributed to them, and all the good works they have done in support, but you can look this information up easily to see how great holy men and women the Church has produced, through those who actually live according to her teachings, given to her by Christ. Those who deviate from her moral teachings, even if they are priests and bishops or even a pope, act contrary to the Church’s teachings and will be judged by God accordingly. Nevertheless, Christ clearly founded an apostolic Church, governed by bishops, entrusted with His message, and preserved throughout the centuries. One can either accept or reject her. But one cannot claim to belong to her if he does not accept her teachings or rejects her authority.

 

[una_fides]

Ron, regarding your interpretation of the passage in 1 Corinthians regarding the “chowing down” etc, I don’t know where you got such an interpretation, but it certainly was not from the early Church fathers. You seem to be reading something into the text that was not originally intended. Furthermore, St. Paul rebukes them for their behavior, so either way, what they were doing was wrong and unacceptable.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Here is a specific: The devil is attacking the Church and people who don’t want to be obedient to the Church are the minions used to do it. Bad catechetics, spiritual sloth, a lack of suffering, etc. are all the fruit of a lack of holiness because holiness is tough and it hurts. The Church, through the Holy Spirit (or otherwise the Holy Spirit has left the building) is trying to bring them back. God does come to meet us, all the way to the cross, and draws us to Him. Doing the minimum is for beginners, the saints point out the professional league. Vat II is the bringing people in, some see it as more sinister because it is misused by the misinformed. Vat II must be seen in light of what has come before it as no teaching is nullified by a Church teaching. The discussion in this thread is whether a teaching is trying to be changed or if a particular teaching can be understood or explained in an expanded way. Welcome to thunderdome.

i understand all you say. it seems like the blame has been on the people. maybe, maybe not. for example, i go to a Church, the music is sung in modern ways, there is no kneelers, people are dressed in shorts and sandals. do you think this is all the people’s doing? who took the kneelers? the people or the Church? where is the leaders of the Church? we follow them? dont we? how about the music? is it us or is it the Church’s choice? i am sure if the priests bring back all we had before, people would not reject. God Bless.

 

[una_fides]

i understand all you say. it seems like the blame has been on the people. maybe, maybe not. for example, i go to a Church, the music is sung in modern ways, there is no kneelers, people are dressed in shorts and sandals. do you think this is all the people’s doing? who took the kneelers? the people or the Church? where is the leaders of the Church? we follow them? dont we? how about the music? is it us or is it the Church’s choice? i am sure if the priests bring back all we had before, people would not reject. God Bless.

There can be no question that the abuses have been from the priests and have often come from seminaries overseen by bishops. I know of many priests who openly teach contrary to the Catholic faith. I’m sure the bishop is aware of them, but they are allowed to continue, and we hear of no censures given. If it were prior to V2, the Church would have made sure her priests were teaching Catholic doctrine or else there would have been penalties and excommunications given. Without ecclesial discipline, what is to prevent futher abuses and heresies being promulgated in the name of Catholicism?

 

[ron77nyc]

Perhaps you were confusing customs such as a celebrate priesthood (which the Catholic Church can change) with actual dogmas and the Church’s authority, which was in place from the beginning. To clarify, the Church is not defined by celebrate priesthood, which is changeable. Nor is the Church defined by the behavior of her individual members.

The above looks good on paper and makes a nice argument for church authority but in real life no other religion has a long standing celibate priesthood. That is as Catholic as the pope himself and it’s not changing anytime soon.

The Church IS defined by the behavior of her individual members. “You will know a tree by the fruit it bears.”

Every Catholic on earth could live an evil life and die in that state if they chose to and would all deservingly perish. Tough that would certainly hurt the Church’s testimony, it would not change the truth of her message, for it does not depend on the holiness of its members. That said, throughout the centuries, the Catholic Church has produced the holiest people the world has ever seen. I could list the lives of the saints, the miracles attributed to them, and all the good works they have done in support, but you can look this information up easily to see how great holy men and women the Church has produced, through those who actually live according to her teachings, given to her by Christ. Those who deviate from her moral teachings, even if they are priests and bishops or even a pope, act contrary to the Church’s teachings and will be judged by God accordingly. Nevertheless, Christ clearly founded an apostolic Church, governed by bishops, entrusted with His message, and preserved throughout the centuries. One can either accept or reject her. But one cannot claim to belong to her if he does not accept her teachings or rejects her authority.

That’s like saying everyone should eat at my restaurant because we used to serve good food 10 years ago.

Here is the big difference between the early church and the present church and I include both Catholic and Protestant. The early church did not tolerate lying, stealing and sexual misconduct.

 

[una_fides]

The above looks good on paper and makes a nice argument for church authority but in real life no other religion has a long standing celibate priesthood. That is as Catholic as the pope himself and it’s not changing anytime soon.

The Church IS defined by the behavior of her individual members. “You will know a tree by the fruit it bears.”

That’s like saying everyone should eat at my restaurant because we used to serve good food 10 years ago.

Here is the big difference between the early church and the present church and I include both Catholic and Protestant. The early church did not tolerate lying, stealing and sexual misconduct.

The fruit of the Catholic Church is nothing but good because it is holy and teaches holiness. The Church is not merely defined by her members; she is the Mystical Body, and many who claim to be in her are not. Those who actually follow her teachings will arrive at perfection. The fact that most do not follow her teachings does not disprove her message is true in the slightest. Christ clearly taught that many are called but few are chosen.

Pope St. Gregory the Great (AD 540-604), Forty Gospel Homilies:
“Only the good are in heaven, and only the bad are in hell… The Church admits them now without distinguishing them, but separates them later when they leave this life” (p 344).
“In the Church, then, there can be no bad without good, nor good without bad” (p. 345).
“You see, dearly beloved, how in nearly all the examples we have run through we recognize no good person who was not tested by the wickedness of the bad. If I may say so, the sword of our soul does not acquire a keen, sharp edge unless another’s wickedness has honed it” (p. 345-6).
“That there are many in the Church who are bad and few who are good should not frighten you. The ark in the floodwaters, which was a type or image of our Church, was spacious below and narrow above… Where it contained the wild animals it was wide, where it kept the human beings safe it was narrow. This was because the Church is spacious in respect to materialistic, narrow in respect to the spiritual. (quotes then from Mt 7:13-14*). (p. 346)
“The ark became narrow at the top, down to one cubit, because in the Church the holier the people are, the fewer they are. …Therefore we must bear with the bad even though they are more numerous, since on the threshing floor the grains of wheat we store in the barns are few, and the heaps of straw we burn in the fire are large.”
351: For many are called, but few are chosen. “What we hear, dearly beloved, is truly dreadful. All of us have been called, all of us have come to the marriage feast of the heavenly King. … Everyone should be anxious and fearful for himself the more ignorant he is of what is in store for him, because—this must be said often and not forgotten—Many are called, but few are chosen.”

Just because the Church lacks discipline today does not mean she ceases to be the Church. Christ promised to be with her until the end of time, but he did not promise that all of her members will be obedient. The parable with the tree and the fruit does not mean that wherever you find the most holy people is the truth. Such would be absurd when you think about it. There would be no standard of truth other than your own subjective understanding of how holy certain people are. Furthermore, you will find seemingly holy people in virtually every religion, yet they all teach very different things. How do you know the truth? Truth is not based on how many people follow it. For this reason Christ warned us that many care called but few are chosen and that many will go through the wide gate to destruction. Satan has planted weeds among the wheat in the Church and the weeds are spreading, but that does not mean that the wheat does not exist.

The Church is the ark of salvation and is currently going through some very stormy waters. Many are trying to steer her off course including even some of her own crewmen. The Church–the ark–however will reach her eternal destination despite the troublesome times and stormy waters.

 

[ron77nyc]

Pope St. Gregory the Great (AD 540-604), Forty Gospel Homilies:
“Only the good are in heaven, and only the bad are in hell… The Church admits them now without distinguishing them, but separates them later when they leave this life” (p 344).
“In the Church, then, there can be no bad without good, nor good without bad” (p. 345).
“You see, dearly beloved, how in nearly all the examples we have run through we recognize no good person who was not tested by the wickedness of the bad. If I may say so, the sword of our soul does not acquire a keen, sharp edge unless another’s wickedness has honed it” (p. 345-6).
“That there are many in the Church who are bad and few who are good should not frighten you. The ark in the floodwaters, which was a type or image of our Church, was spacious below and narrow above… Where it contained the wild animals it was wide, where it kept the human beings safe it was narrow. This was because the Church is spacious in respect to materialistic, narrow in respect to the spiritual. (quotes then from Mt 7:13-14*). (p. 346)
“The ark became narrow at the top, down to one cubit, because in the Church the holier the people are, the fewer they are. …Therefore we must bear with the bad even though they are more numerous, since on the threshing floor the grains of wheat we store in the barns are few, and the heaps of straw we burn in the fire are large.”
351: For many are called, but few are chosen. “What we hear, dearly beloved, is truly dreadful. All of us have been called, all of us have come to the marriage feast of the heavenly King. … Everyone should be anxious and fearful for himself the more ignorant he is of what is in store for him, because—this must be said often and not forgotten—Many are called, but few are chosen.”

Just because the Church lacks discipline today does not mean she ceases to be the Church. Christ promised to be with her until the end of time, but he did not promise that all of her members will be obedient. The parable with the tree and the fruit does not mean that wherever you find the most holy people is the truth. Such would be absurd when you think about it. There would be no standard of truth other than your own subjective understanding of how holy certain people are. Furthermore, you will find seemingly holy people in virtually every religion, yet they all teach very different things. How do you know the truth? Truth is not based on how many people follow it. For this reason Christ warned us that many care called but few are chosen and that many will go through the wide gate to destruction. Satan has planted weeds among the wheat in the Church and the weeds are spreading, but that does not mean that the wheat does not exist.

The Church is the ark of salvation and is currently going through some very stormy waters. Many are trying to steer her off course including even some of her own crewmen. The Church–the ark–however will reach her eternal destination despite the troublesome times and stormy waters.

Perhaps the Church was steared off course by Gregory the Great long before Vatican II. Compare his homily to this apostolic instruction to the church.

1 Corinthians 5

1 It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife. 2 You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst.
3 For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
6 Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough? 7 Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed. 8 Therefore let us celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; 10 I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. 11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? **Do you not judge those who are within the church?**13 But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

i understand all you say. it seems like the blame has been on the people. maybe, maybe not. for example, i go to a Church, the music is sung in modern ways, there is no kneelers, people are dressed in shorts and sandals. do you think this is all the people’s doing? who took the kneelers? the people or the Church? where is the leaders of the Church? we follow them? dont we? how about the music? is it us or is it the Church’s choice? i am sure if the priests bring back all we had before, people would not reject. God Bless.

I am making a distinction between people and the teaching, Bishops and priests are people too, some obedient some not. The devil’s attack isn’t in the Church teaching or otherwise we wouldn’t know what to believe. The teaching is where the Holy Spirit is in the Church, I think, and not exclusively in the people that write the documents (not to say they aren’t influenced by the HS or that the HS can’t be living in them, I am not saying that at all) but the Spirit of God that leads us to right action is in the teaching, in the orthodoxy. Pope Benedict XVI said:

“To the early Christians, there was no difference between what today is often distinguished as orthodoxy and orthopraxis, as right doctrine and right action…for they rightly understood the word “orthodoxy” not to mean “right doctrine”, but to mean the authentic adoration and glorification of God”.

ewtn.com/library/Theology/EUCOMSOL.HTM

This means to me that if Vat II documents lead us to error, we can’t know what to believe, because other documents could also be erroneous. If the problem is in the interpretation, that is, in some of the peoples interpretation and implementation, then we are safe in the teaching and can know what is right practice from looking at the past teaching and practice. But not in a legalistic and rigid view that would deny what is being taught by the more recent teaching document, such as, Vat II. Otherwise, the pope and the bishops in union with him couldn’t actually teach, they could only repeat, without any additions what-so-ever, what the apostles said and did.

 

[diggerdomer]

That is absolutely false. Do your homework.

Furthermore, when Cardinal Bernadin was trying to get the votes in the USCCB to permit CITH, it took him three tries. In the end, he trotted out retired bishops. He was gonna get it done no matter what.

Show me the indult, please, I’ve been looking for a long time and have found no currently effective thing. thanks. CITH, like kneeling during the Eucharistic Prayer, is an adaptation requested by the U.S. Bishops and approved by Rome as part of liturgical law. It’s not a permission contrary to law, or one only for a certain group or duration.

 

[diggerdomer]

Gotcha. Well, to be honest, tend to be suspect of what many “modern scholars” today are saying,

I’m disappointed but not surprised that you simply dismiss a scholar’s work based on his birthday. There’s really no point in continuing the discussion if that’s the attitude you take, it indicates a mind already made up and not open to others’ ideas or perspectives, and so really I don’t see a point in dialogue. I specifically cited Jungmann because I was concerned some might dismiss anyone post-vatican II due to their being post-Vatican II (just as some dismiss anything pre_Vatican II simply due to it being pre-Vatican II). I’ve never encountered anyone who criticized Jungmann as “modern.” You accuse him of an agenda without even considering his work? I didn’t do that with the links and sources you provided.

Actually if you belong to the Latin Rite Catholic Church, which I’m pretty sure you do, the proscribed universal law of the Church is kneeling during the Eucharistic Prayer

I think you mean “prescribed”? Not “proscribed?”

The universal posture is kneeling for the consecration, not the entire Eucharistic Prayer. In the U.S., the approved law is for the normal posture during most of the Eucharistic Prayer to be kneeling, which is a particular adaptation of the universal law.

We can definitely agree on the reverence of the TLM.

I don’t know that we could, I only observed that I can see why others do.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I am making a distinction between people and the teaching, Bishops and priests are people too, some obedient some not. The devil’s attack isn’t in the Church teaching or otherwise we wouldn’t know what to believe. The teaching is where the Holy Spirit is in the Church, I think, and not exclusively in the people that write the documents (not to say they aren’t influenced by the HS or that the HS can’t be living in them, I am not saying that at all) but the Spirit of God that leads us to right action is in the teaching, in the orthodoxy. Pope Benedict XVI said: ewtn.com/library/Theology/EUCOMSOL.HTM

This means to me that if Vat II documents lead us to error, we can’t know what to believe, because other documents could also be erroneous. If the problem is in the interpretation, that is, in some of the peoples interpretation and implementation, then we are safe in the teaching and can know what is right practice from looking at the past teaching and practice. But not in a legalistic and rigid view that would deny what is being taught by the more recent teaching document, such as, Vat II. Otherwise, the pope and the bishops in union with him couldn’t actually teach, they could only repeat, without any additions what-so-ever, what the apostles said and did.

i am not point out that there is anything wrong with the teachings of the Church. there is none. it has been the same. what i am concerned with and so are many whom i talk to is the way things are being conduct during Mass. how priests are doing whatever they feel is right for them. the consistency has been shattered. i am concerned about the leadership of the Church. it seems they are afraid to speak against the wrongs and so forth.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

i am not point out that there is anything wrong with the teachings of the Church. there is none. it has been the same. what i am concerned with and so are many whom i talk to is the way things are being conduct during Mass. how priests are doing whatever they feel is right for them. the consistency has been shattered. i am concerned about the leadership of the Church. it seems they are afraid to speak against the wrongs and so forth.

“when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?”

Is one’s faith contingent upon what the vox populi is doing?

Obedience and humility is what seems to be better than worry about “straining out the gnat”. St Faustina talked to Jesus Himself but told her to confirm with the priest as to what she should do.

When I left the confessional and started to recite my penance, I heard these words. I have granted the grace you asked for on behalf of that soul, but not because of the mortification you chose for yourself. Rather, it was because of your act of complete obedience to My representative that I granted this grace to that soul for whom you interceded and begged mercy. Know that when you mortify your own self-will, then Mine reigns within you. (365)

Yes… when you are obedient I take away your weakness and replace it with My strength. I am very surprised that souls do not want to make that exchange with Me. I said to the Lord, “Jesus, enlighten my heart, or else I, too, will not understand much from these words.” (381)

My daughter, know that you give Me greater glory by a single act of obedience than by long prayers and mortifications. (894)

My daughter, you please me more by eating the oranges out of obedience and love of Me than by fasting and mortifying yourself of your own will. A soul that loves Me very much must, ought to live by My will. (1023)

The teachings of the Church all lead to a relationship with Jesus, it isn’t just following rules which could lead to pride of accomplishment but is an ascent in humility to the Person of Christ, the second Person of the Blessed Trinity. As Red Green says, “We are all in this together”, so I do what is not apparently wrong with humility, instruct with love (I’ve even pointed out stuff to the priest, of course with proof in hand), and do my best in faith and with hope.

 

[una_fides]

Perhaps the Church was steared off course by Gregory the Great long before Vatican II. Compare his homily to this apostolic instruction to the church.

1 Corinthians 5

1 It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife. 2 You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst.
3 For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
6 Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough? 7 Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed. 8 Therefore let us celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; 10 I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. 11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church?13 But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.

Ron,
Thank you for bringing those verses to my attention. I highlighted a very significant part. You see even in the days of the apostles, people who were in the Church in body were not in the Church in spirit. They were not exercising proper Church discipline as they were supposed to and people were committing sins among those who were in the Church to an even worse extent than those who were not even in the Church! Does that mean that the Church at Corinth was not a real part of the Catholic Church or that they had completely strayed from the faith or the teachings of the apostles? No, what it means is that they were not practicing the Church’s moral teachings. You see there is a big difference. They also had other problems, yet they are still Catholic and continuing to carry the message of God.

The Church goes through times of purging. God permits evil to bring about a greater good. Just as we read in the OT during the reign of the judges, the children of Israel would be in a time of prosperity, then they would fall into sin, then would come judgment, then repentance, then forgiveness and restoration. The same happens in the Church. We unfortunately are going through a time of trouble, murky waters, and storms, but the Church has overcome in difficult times in the past. Well before the days of St. Gregory the Great was the Arian heresy when the majority of the bishops in the world denied the divinity of Christ. The true Church, however, remained faithful, in union with the successors of St. Peter, who holds the keys to the kingdom of heaven. He held them then and still holds them now.

During that time of mass heresy, faithful St. Athanasius, said the following:
“Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ” (Saint Athanasius, AD 373).

You see that we remain faithful to Christ and remain a part of his Church by remaining faithful to the Church’s Tradition. We cannot presume to interpret the Bible alone for the Bible itself is a product of and a part of Tradition.

You still did not answer my questions earlier: how do you even know the books of the Bible should be in there apart from the Church who compiled them? You are trusting in the faith of the Church fathers to compile the correct books and label them as divinely inspired, yet would you deny any of their other teachings that were explicitly Catholic?

 

[una_fides]

I’m disappointed but not surprised that you simply dismiss a scholar’s work based on his birthday. There’s really no point in continuing the discussion if that’s the attitude you take, it indicates a mind already made up and not open to others’ ideas or perspectives, and so really I don’t see a point in dialogue. I specifically cited Jungmann because I was concerned some might dismiss anyone post-vatican II due to their being post-Vatican II (just as some dismiss anything pre_Vatican II simply due to it being pre-Vatican II). I’ve never encountered anyone who criticized Jungmann as “modern.” You accuse him of an agenda without even considering his work? I didn’t do that with the links and sources you provided.

I honestly have not read his work, and I’m not saying that I write off all modern scholars. I just said that what I’ve seen come from many of them is contrary to the Catholic faith. A very great majority of them are beginning with the assumption that the Catholic Church was wrong on this point or that, or they simply try to ignore Catholic Church teachings and do not approach history with the mind of faith. If we believe the Church to be true and her teachings to be true, then when we read the Church’s early history, we will naturally see them to correlate, which they do. Often times, however, many modern scholars are trying to read something entirely different into what they think the early Church was like. They often come to these conclusions without faith in the teachings of the Church and in isolation therefrom. Pope Benedict greatly criticized such an approach, and any rightly minded Catholic should do the same.

But as I said, whether or not the practice was widespread in the early Church is inconsequential to my belief that it should not be practiced today. I’ve already stated why I do not believe it should be practiced today: the abuses, particles, etc. Also if you read about how the early Church did receive it in the hand, it was quite different than how they are doing it today. The modern method is more protestant in adaptation than how the early Church received. They never touched it with their left hand. They received in their right hand, then brought it up to their mouths and very carefully consumed being extremely reverent and careful in the process. There was also the practice to have the host touch the sensory organs of the eyes to protect them from evil. The Church in her wisdom outlawed the practice altogether and anyone who received in the hand did so under the penalty of sin for many centuries. Then in the 60s, people started receiving unlawfully and sinfully against Church law. Then likely to avoid any schisms, to help foster unity, and to please people, the Church permitted an indult–a temporary permission–in certain locations to permit reception in the hand, and she is considering to repeal that permission because of the abuses that have taken place.

 

[una_fides]

Show me the indult, please, I’ve been looking for a long time and have found no currently effective thing. thanks. CITH, like kneeling during the Eucharistic Prayer, is an adaptation requested by the U.S. Bishops and approved by Rome as part of liturgical law. It’s not a permission contrary to law, or one only for a certain group or duration.

So after a long and grueling 5 seconds of typing in “Communion in the hand indult” into Google, the first page that popped up is what you were looking for: ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_in_hand.htm
I also posted this earlier in the thread. It was one of my three links for you.

Here’s a link where the Vatican refers to it as an indult and only in certain areas:
adoremus.org/0203CommunionHand.html

Here are a few more that if you read, would also prove helpful:
catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp
forestmurmurs.blogspot.com/2008/06/communion-in-hand-indult.html

Can you please show me where CITH is part of “liturgical law” and not an indult that can be repealed at any time? Can you show me where it says that it is a part of the law that applies to everyone and not only to certain areas or locations too? Thanks.

 

[I_Believe]

Vatican II changed things alright. We now have the 8th, 9th, and 10th dolors of Mary.

 

[ron77nyc]

Ron,
You still did not answer my questions earlier: how do you even know the books of the Bible should be in there apart from the Church who compiled them? You are trusting in the faith of the Church fathers to compile the correct books and label them as divinely inspired, yet would you deny any of their other teachings that were explicitly Catholic?

There is no question in my mind that the Catholic Church is the true church established by Jesus and also the people who assembled the bible. Why do they not follow their own book? I just gave you 1 corinthians 5. Here it is again:

Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough? 7 Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed. 8 Therefore let us celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

We can’t worship in sincerity and truth if we are worshipping with the heathen and being led by the heathen. Remaining silent when evil is persistent is cooperation with evil. The Church is dedicated to protecting the unborn children but does not protect the born children.

 

[una_fides]

There is no question in my mind that the Catholic Church is the true church established by Jesus and also the people who assembled the bible. Why do they not follow their own book? I just gave you 1 corinthians 5. Here it is again:

Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough? 7 Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed. 8 Therefore let us celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

We can’t worship in sincerity and truth if we are worshipping with the heathen and being led by the heathen. Remaining silent when evil is persistent is cooperation with evil. The Church is dedicated to protecting the unborn children but does not protect the born children.

I agree with you that there is a serious need for discipline today in the Church. But we must be careful that the imperfection of the leaders does not make us question the truthfulness of the teachings of the Church. I think we should raise these questions and challenge the bishops to take a stand and to discipline those who are in error, but the most important thing we can do is to pray for them. It’s not easy being a bishop, especially now-a-days. They are in need of much grace and prayers.

 

[ron77nyc]

I agree with you that there is a serious need for discipline today in the Church. But we must be careful that the imperfection of the leaders does not make us question the truthfulness of the teachings of the Church. I think we should raise these questions and challenge the bishops to take a stand and to discipline those who are in error, but the most important thing we can do is to pray for them. It’s not easy being a bishop, especially now-a-days. They are in need of much grace and prayers.

The teachings of the Church are true but why make the people pledge to turn from satan when the bishops don’t. I don’t think it’s a discipline problem. I think cooperation with evil has taken a strong hold because of the unwritten tradition of protecting members of the clergy. Those who speak up for righteousness in an environment of corruption are troublemakers.

A quote from the movie Serpico: “Frank, let’s face it, who can trust a cop that won’t take money?”

 

[PJM]

=Canardmom85;5123357]How do I answer this?:

"the RCC had a meeting from 62-65 called Vatican II. What is the Vatican II? My understanding is it took place in October of ‘62. There were 2,540 bishops and others of the RCC gathered in Rome for this session. This session was to make some innovations to the old laws that the RCC followed.

**Oh how I love being taught my faith by people who are not even Catholic! Practice can change, bit never Dogma or Dovtrine! **

and when they were finished meeting they basically announced that a lot in the RCC was changing. Changing? No, they don’t change. Let’s see if they do or not…

One thing that changed was the Language of the Mass. Which there wasn’t even Latin in the New Testament church. Latin didn’t even come about until the 6th century, but anyway, they changed their mass Language.

You may want to check you’re source. Latin was used byTertullian for the Mass in about 160 Ad. The Bible was translated into Latin, the common language of the RCC by St. Jerome in about 350 AD.

Fasting also changed at this meeting. Before all this fasting was anything after midnight before you could receive the Holy Communion. It was changed to from midnight for 3 hours.

Eat Meat on Friday was another not aloud before this meeting atleast in the US. Other countries still follow the “Do not eat meat on Friday” rule and it even is part of their new Code of Canon Law, Canons.

Without comment, these are only Church Practice that can be changed. Should they is another quwation.

Another change was Sunday Attendance at mass. Before Vatican II, Catholics were required and was considered a mortal sin if they didn’t attend Mass on Sundays. Now they have Saturday evening Mass to take the place of Sunday Mass which before the Vatican II was unheard of.

Another issue of “practice” open to change. The fact that the Sabbath Eve was considered sacred played into this decision.

Before Vatican II, the Catechisms stood that you must go in a room and tell the priests your sin to obtain forgiveness of that sin. Since then there has been a Introduction to the New Order of Penance, something called “general absolution” The document states "Individual and integral confession and absolution remains the only ordinary way by which the faithful may be reconciled with God and with the Church, except when this is physically or morally impossible….without individual confession of sins.

The words you write are correct, but you seem not to understand them? That is Dotrinal and unchangeable.

Celibacy of the Priest is another one that changed.
Pope Paul VI on Priestly Celibacy: In** virtue of the fundamental norm of the government of the Catholic Church, to which we alluded above, while on the one hand, the law requiring a freely chosen and perpetual celibacy of those who are admitted to the Holy Order remains unchanged**, on the other hand, a study may be allowed of the particular circumstances of married sacred ministers of Churches or other Christian communities separated from the Catholic communion, and of the possibility of communion and to continue to exercise the sacred ministry. The circumstances must be such, however, as not to prejudice the existing discipline regarding celibacy (#42)
Recently, married Episcopal priests have been permitted to become Roman Catholic priest while remaining married. Changed? or not?

Again the issue is one of PRACTICE, not Doctrinal.

Ecumenicalism
Pre-Vatican II teaching on this subject was “All are obliged to belong to the Catholic church in order to be saved.” (129). This same doctrine was often expressed, Outside the church there is no Salvation." Since the Vatican II Catholic priest take part in ecumenical (the idea that all Christian churches are one) services and functions in various cities and at various times. Not all priests but some do.

Dogmatic Teaching that remains TRUE, with a broader but identical understanding

846 "How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain "

Reminding you that most if not all of these were mortal sins. This is not just a statement but something that is wrong one day and not the next day. How can something be sin one day and not the next? "

Actually NOT!

Mortal sin requires:

Serious and Grave matter

Knowledge of the gravity

Williness to sin anyway

You are speaking here of mostly Church Practices that are NOT GRAVE, can be changed, and were.

Love and prayers,
Pat