Vatican II changes things?

[una_fides]

Jesus, the Church, and the gospel did not exist at that time. How could that be true?

My friend once told me that Abraham was the first Jehovah’s Witness. I told him that was impossible because the Jehovah’s Witnesses started in the late 1800’s.

The Church, and the gospel did not exist in Noah’s day so that would be impossible also. Job said, “I know my redeemer lives” but that does not mean he was a Catholic.

Your first statement is a heresy, whether you realized it or not. Jesus most certainly did exist at that time, and in fact existed from the beginning. He had not yet taken on human flesh and established his Church in time, but He is eternal and always was and always will be. Revelation puts it that he is the Alpha and the Omega. He is also the eternal Word, and Christ’s truth did exist though it was not completely taught until the apostolic age. That said, I’m assuming you just chose poor wording.

You actually answered your own objection with your last line. Job had faith in Christ, the coming Messiah, and Savior, and if you read my post that I referenced from earlier, I explain the rest of the details in between.

 

[una_fides]

No, data that is readily accessible and widely recognized by scholars. See Joseph Jungmann’s “Mass of the Roman Rite” vol. 2. He notes many historical sources and evidence for communion in the hand without relying on an incredibly tenuous interpretation of them (as the source you provided does with the statement of St. Cyril). This is a landmark work in liturgical studies, and was published in 1948. It’s stood up to scholarly critique. There are of course numerous other books that deal with this history, but I thought that would be the best reference because of its fame and date.

Gotcha. Well, to be honest, tend to be suspect of what many “modern scholars” today are saying, as there are very few who are actually faithful to the Church and do not deviate from her teaching or are infected with some form of heresy or another. That does not mean they cannot come to correct understandings of things, but it does mean that they often have an agenda, which I do not trust. That said, even if they could somehow prove that the early Church universally practiced CITH, which they didn’t and can’t prove because there simply are not enough available resources nor are there any sources that say that “this is the way everyone does it” as other sources say concerning infant baptism, etc, it still wouldn’t mean anything, as the Church got rid of that practice and forbade it for a reason, and as I and many priests, bishops, and even cardinals have pointed out there are too many abuses that result as well as problems with particles, etc.

It’s not an indult any more than kneeling during the Eucharistic Prayer is.

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, which was adopted out of adoration for Christ who is truly present at the altar. This site should help: ewtn.com/expert/answers/kneeling_at_the_consecration.htm
“The Latin Norm. In the Latin Rite adoration of Christ in the Eucharist calls for either kneeling or genuflection. In the Liturgy the people are obliged to kneel for the Consecration and the main celebrant to genuflect (both after Consecrating each element and before receiving Holy Communion). Concelebrants are to bow profoundly. Deacons and the laity are to be kneeling.”

I’ve been. I can see why people say they experience reverence.

We can definitely agree on the reverence of the TLM.

 

[ron77nyc]

Your first statement is a heresy, whether you realized it or not. Jesus most certainly did exist at that time, and in fact existed from the beginning. He had not yet taken on human flesh and established his Church in time, but He is eternal and always was and always will be. Revelation puts it that he is the Alpha and the Omega. He is also the eternal Word, and Christ’s truth did exist though it was not completely taught until the apostolic age. That said, I’m assuming you just chose poor wording.

You actually answered your own objection with your last line. Job had faith in Christ, the coming Messiah, and Savior, and if you read my post that I referenced from earlier, I explain the rest of the details in between.

If we are including as church members all those who believed in the savior then we also have to include protestants.

 

[ron77nyc]

The fathers have already explained how the OT saints were saved, and yes, it was through their explicit faith in Jesus Christ and through his Church, once his Church was established.

The thief was baptized by desire, which has been a constant teaching of the Church and poses no problem for those who believe that there is no salvation outside the Church. The thief was most definitely a member of the Church before he died.

Any other questions?

The old testament patriarchs, prophets and saints were in no way subject to the Roman Pontiff. They and even the early new testament believers for example: the phillipian jailer and Cornelius in Acts 10 were not familiar with Catholic Tradition as we know it today. They would be equal to baptized converts of protestant missionsaries in pagan lands who have never known anything else. We don’t know what they believed about the sacraments, the Immaculate Conception, lent, celibacy, the eucharist or the Pope. The bible says they were saved by their faith.

 

[una_fides]

If we are including as church members all those who believed in the savior then we also have to include protestants.

Protestants also deny foundational dogmas that must be held with divine and Catholic faith, which they could know and believe if they researched into it. Before Christ, such knowledge was incapable to be gained. They were held to a different standard of knowledge since Christ had not yet come.

 

[una_fides]

The old testament patriarchs, prophets and saints were in no way subject to the Roman Pontiff. They and even the early new testament believers for example: the phillipian jailer and Cornelius in Acts 10 were not familiar with Catholic Tradition as we know it today. They would be equal to baptized converts of protestant missionsaries in pagan lands who have never known anything else. We don’t know what they believed about the sacraments, the Immaculate Conception, lent, celibacy, the eucharist or the Pope. The bible says they were saved by their faith.

Ron, seriously, where are you getting these protestant lines. Yes, they were saved by faith, but not faith alone. Faith working through charity. And their faith had to be in the Messiah. Did you read my previous post that I linked to when you first started down this line of arguments??? It handles these objections. There was no pope to be subject to at that time nor was the New Covenant in effect. They were under the Old Covenant and were in an entirely different dispensation. They were saved by their faith in Christ and their good works in Christ and as a part of Christ’s Church. They did not get into heaven until after Christ’s death. They were ushered into the Church at that point.

 

[ron77nyc]

Ron, seriously, where are you getting these protestant lines. Yes, they were saved by faith, but not faith alone.

I’m getting them from common sense and personal experience in knowing Protestants. It ties in with the changes in Vatican II. Not all Protestants believe in faith alone. Some people I know were raised as Protestants.They know nothing else. They are not rebelling against the Catholic Church. These are the ones that John Paul II was speaking about in Vatican II when he said we should not let the children inherit the sins of their fathers. Vatican I said you must be in submission to the Pope to be saved but at the same time they included old testament saints and early new testament believers who were not part of Roman Catholicism. That to me is where the contradiction exists.

Faith working through charity. And their faith had to be in the Messiah. Did you read my previous post that I linked to when you first started down this line of arguments??? It handles these objections. There was no pope to be subject to at that time nor was the New Covenant in effect. They were under the Old Covenant and were in an entirely different dispensation. They were saved by their faith in Christ and their good works in Christ and as a part of Christ’s Church. They did not get into heaven until after Christ’s death. They were ushered into the Church at that point.

Many Protestants also fit into this category. They don’t know the history of the Church. They don’t know anything about the pope. I believe that Vatican I was dealing with those who rebelled against the Church and Vatican II was dealing with their descendants.

 

[wisdomseeker]

hi everyone, i dont mean to change the conversation going here. but today i heard the priest saying at Mass that VII says that the Church must be given back to the people. does anyone here knows what he means by this?

God bless all.

 

[una_fides]

I’m getting them from common sense and personal experience in knowing Protestants. It ties in with the changes in Vatican II. Not all Protestants believe in faith alone. Some people I know were raised as Protestants.They know nothing else. They are not rebelling against the Catholic Church. These are the ones that John Paul II was speaking about in Vatican II when he said we should not let the children inherit the sins of their fathers. Vatican I said you must be in submission to the Pope to be saved but at the same time they included old testament saints and early new testament believers who were not part of Roman Catholicism. That to me is where the contradiction exists.

Here is another heresy. You are saying that the early Church was not Catholic. Make no mistake; regardless of what your protestant friends may tell you, Peter was the first pope of the Roman Catholic Church, which Jesus Christ himself established.

Many Protestants also fit into this category. They don’t know the history of the Church. They don’t know anything about the pope. I believe that Vatican I was dealing with those who rebelled against the Church and Vatican II was dealing with their descendants.

If they are not aware of the teachings of the Church through no fault of their own, then they will not be found guilty for that sin before God; however, if their is any fault on their part why they did not look into the matter enough or research it according to God’s standard or if they were in any way prideful when they encountered the true teachings of the Church, then they can no longer claim to be innocent. God’s grace leads all souls to the fullness of truth, which is only found in the Catholic Church. It therefore draws and leads all people to enter the Catholic Church and never away from her.

Here was the reading from Mass today:
John 16:2 “They will put you out of the synagogues: yea, the hour cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doth a service to God. 3 And these things will they do to you; because they have not known the Father nor me.”

Just because someone is sincere does not mean their worship is acceptable to God. “God is a spirit: and they that adore him must adore him in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24). Everyone is obligated to enter the Church, and God draws everyone to this fold and this fold alone.

John 10:14 “I am the good shepherd: and I know mine, and mine know me. 15 As the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father: and I lay down my life for my sheep. 16 And other sheep [Gentiles] I have that are not of this fold [Jews]: them also I must bring. And they shall hear my voice: And there shall be one fold and one shepherd. 17 Therefore doth the Father love me: because I lay down my life, that I may take it again.”

AUG. The sheep hitherto spoken of are those of the stock of Israel according to the flesh. But there were others of the stock of Israel, according to faith, Gentiles, who were as yet out of the fold; predestinated, but not yet gathered together. They are not of this fold, because they are not of the race of Israel, but they will be of this fold: Them also I must bring.

Bull of Pope Boniface VIII. Unam Sanctam. Nov 18, 1302
Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles [Sgs 6:8] proclaims: ‘One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her,’ and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God [1 Cor 11:3]. In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Eph 4:5]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed. … This is the tunic of the Lord, the seamless tunic, which was not rent but which was cast by lot. … Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John ‘there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.’… Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. papalencyclicals.net/Bon08/B8unam.htm

 

[una_fides]

hi everyone, i dont mean to change the conversation going here. but today i heard the priest saying at Mass that VII says that the Church must be given back to the people. does anyone here knows what he means by this?
God bless all.

Sounds heretical to me. But seriously, he is possibly implying a democratic-style of church. The problem with that idea is that it’s not Catholic. Christ appointed apostles to “rule the Church of God, which he has purchased with his own blood” (Acts 20:28). It’s possible that he was trying to emphasize the shift in focus towards the people that V2 induced. That change of emphasis that emerged after V2 to try to placate the people and change the focus of the Mass to them is something that is quite difficult for me to understand. Worship is not about pleasing the people. It is about offering a pleasing sacrifice to God. The TLM clearly had the focus of the entire Mass directed to God: the priest faced Christ in the tabernacle, the entire Mass centered on the sacrifice of the Cross made present in the Eucharist, the reverence towards Christ is clearly demonstrated throughout the entire Mass, and they mystery and divine nature of the Mass is clearly communicated. In the NO mass, the priest faces the people, speaks to the people in their own common languages, often changes the words (which he is forbidden to do) in the name of making the Mass more appealing to people; there have been numerous expirimental masses in the name of entertainment such as clown masses, folk masses, and “life teen masses,” etc; lay people now distribute holy Communion, which before only the priest could do, they do the readings, which only before a priest could do; people hold hands during the our father, receive Communion in their hands after doing a simple bob of the head or often nothing at all to show their reverence for Christ before receiving… I could go on and on, but yeah, how this change of fucus is good is beyond me. It has led to so many abuses and a lack of faith among those who claim to be Catholic. Interestingly, now that Mass is in the vernacular and people can “understand” what the priest is saying so many less people believe in the Real Presence and are much much more ignorant than ever before. True, it’s because of terrible catechsis, but again these are all fruits from the same tree: focusing too much on pleasing people rather than leading the people to please their God.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Sounds heretical to me. But seriously, he is possibly implying a democratic-style of church. The problem with that idea is that it’s not Catholic. Christ appointed apostles to “rule the Church of God, which he has purchased with his own blood” (Acts 20:28). It’s possible that he was trying to emphasize the shift in focus towards the people that V2 induced. That change of emphasis that emerged after V2 to try to placate the people and change the focus of the Mass to them is something that is quite difficult for me to understand. Worship is not about pleasing the people. It is about offering a pleasing sacrifice to God. The TLM clearly had the focus of the entire Mass directed to God: the priest faced Christ in the tabernacle, the entire Mass centered on the sacrifice of the Cross made present in the Eucharist, the reverence towards Christ is clearly demonstrated throughout the entire Mass, and they mystery and divine nature of the Mass is clearly communicated. In the NO mass, the priest faces the people, speaks to the people in their own common languages, often changes the words (which he is forbidden to do) in the name of making the Mass more appealing to people; there have been numerous expirimental masses in the name of entertainment such as clown masses, folk masses, and “life teen masses,” etc; lay people now distribute holy Communion, which before only the priest could do, they do the readings, which only before a priest could do; people hold hands during the our father, receive Communion in their hands after doing a simple bob of the head or often nothing at all to show their reverence for Christ before receiving… I could go on and on, but yeah, how this change of fucus is good is beyond me. It has led to so many abuses and a lack of faith among those who claim to be Catholic. Interestingly, now that Mass is in the vernacular and people can “understand” what the priest is saying so many less people believe in the Real Presence and are much much more ignorant than ever before. True, it’s because of terrible catechsis, but again these are all fruits from the same tree: focusing too much on pleasing people rather than leading the people to please their God.

thanks for replying. i understand what you say. unfornately we have no other place to go each Church i go is worse than the other. i dont like to talk about priests, but sometimes i dont know what to think. i know many people are displeased wiht wht is going in the Church but no one speaks out. i am grateful to God for the priests, i really am. i have the most respect for them… but this priest is really bringing innovations into the Church. he invites visitors to the front so people clapp to them. then he ask about peoples birthday
so we can all sing happybirthday and clap. the music is very unpleasant, almost torturous. i just dont know if our Lord is pleased with all this. i am sure those who loves attention are enjoy all this. what is going in the House of our God? are we really to be shift our attention to ourselves in the House of God? or it is just me? i dont like to criticize but i wonder if i should be supporting what is going in the Church today. it just doesnt feel right to me. i can see that the priests are trying everything they can to bring people to Mass. i would tell them, all you got to do is make the Mass right and people will come. instead he keeps telling us to go after the Catholics who left the Church. people dont want to come. i dont blame them.

God bless

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

.

Originally Posted by wisdomseeker
hi everyone, i dont mean to change the conversation going here. but today i heard the priest saying at Mass that VII says that the Church must be given back to the people. does anyone here knows what he means by this?
God bless all.

I agree on the “spirit” of what UF said on the using Vat II to get a “modern” Church but is not due to Vat II being “modern” but the people being modern and thus trying to get rid of a so-called “feudal” Church. I agree that modernism is a problem and modernism defined in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, which I printed out and studied, is not what Vat II is about. Carl Jung, Kant, and the present day “Jesus Seminar”, are more to the point of this encyclical.

From Vat II document “Apostolicam Actuositatem”:

24…Finally, the hierarchy entrusts to the laity certain functions which are more closely connected with pastoral duties, such as the teaching of Christian doctrine, certain liturgical actions, and the care of souls.

From this you could claim the Church has given the Church to the Laity, but this sentance didn’t stop there but continued:

By virtue of this mission, the laity are fully subject to higher ecclesiastical control in the performance of this work.

Some people are trying to “modernize” the Church by using their interpretation of these documents. All documents must be seen in context of the whole history of the Church’s teaching, much like the whole of the Bible must be seen as a whole and in light of the Church that canonized it. As it was the Church that was the context for the encyclicals given by popes, to use one teaching against another is a “house divided against itself”.

 

[wisdomseeker]

.

I agree on the “spirit” of what UF said on the using Vat II to get a “modern” Church but is not due to Vat II being “modern” but the people being modern and thus trying to get rid of a so-called “feudal” Church. I agree that modernism is a problem and modernism defined in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, which I printed out and studied, is not what Vat II is about. Carl Jung, Kant, and the present day “Jesus Seminar”, are more to the point of this encyclical.

From Vat II document “Apostolicam Actuositatem”:

From this you could claim the Church has given the Church to the Laity, but this sentance didn’t stop there but continued:

Some people are trying to “modernize” the Church by using their interpretation of these documents. All documents must be seen in context of the whole history of the Church’s teaching, much like the whole of the Bible must be seen as a whole and in light of the Church that canonized it. As it was the Church that was the context for the encyclicals given by popes, to use one teaching against another is a “house divided against itself”.

thanks. these quotes are very generalized. i dont really understand. there is no specifics. all i know is that the laity is taking over. mostly the women. well the Church has modernized. the behavior , beginning with priests down to the people it so disrespectfull. everyone is doing whatever. i tell you the truth, i miss the days when the priests behaved with authority. today, it feels like there is ono one to follow.

 

[ron77nyc]

Here is another heresy. You are saying that the early Church was not Catholic. Make no mistake; regardless of what your protestant friends may tell you, Peter was the first pope of the Roman Catholic Church, which Jesus Christ himself established.

My Protestant friends didn’t tell me anything about the pope. Just read the bible. Peter was the bishop of the church in Jerusalem. Roman Catholicism as we know it today did not exist until centuries later. The Corinthians used to go to church hungry and chow down and communion time. Do you think they were worried about communion in the hand?

If they are not aware of the teachings of the Church through no fault of their own, then they will not be found guilty for that sin before God; however, if their is any fault on their part why they did not look into the matter enough or research it according to God’s standard or if they were in any way prideful when they encountered the true teachings of the Church, then they can no longer claim to be innocent. God’s grace leads all souls to the fullness of truth, which is only found in the Catholic Church. It therefore draws and leads all people to enter the Catholic Church and never away from her.

What leads people away from the Catholic Church is the hierarchy. There is a culture of secrecy that has produced skeletons that are still being uncovered from 70 years ago. This is the work of satan. You can’t expect people to come willfully and you can’t blame some for leaving. Some of their reasons are legitimate.

Here was the reading from Mass today:
John 16:2 “They will put you out of the synagogues: yea, the hour cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doth a service to God. 3 And these things will they do to you; because they have not known the Father nor me.”

Just because someone is sincere does not mean their worship is acceptable to God. “God is a spirit: and they that adore him must adore him in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24). Everyone is obligated to enter the Church, and God draws everyone to this fold and this fold alone.

Not always true. In the Old Testament God scattered the flock because of unmerciful shepherds. He said He would gather them to Himself because the sheep were starving and they were being abused by the shepherds.

John 10:14 “I am the good shepherd: and I know mine, and mine know me. 15 As the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father: and I lay down my life for my sheep. 16 And other sheep [Gentiles] I have that are not of this fold [Jews]: them also I must bring. And they shall hear my voice: And there shall be one fold and one shepherd. 17 Therefore doth the Father love me: because I lay down my life, that I may take it again.”
AUG. The sheep hitherto spoken of are those of the stock of Israel according to the flesh. But there were others of the stock of Israel, according to faith, Gentiles, who were as yet out of the fold; predestinated, but not yet gathered together. They are not of this fold, because they are not of the race of Israel, but they will be of this fold: Them also I must bring.

Many of the Jews converting to Christianity are going the way of Evangelical Christians. If they did not know the voice of God they would not be converting.

Bull of Pope Boniface VIII. Unam Sanctam. Nov 18, 1302
Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles [Sgs 6:8] proclaims: ‘One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her,’ and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God [1 Cor 11:3]. In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Eph 4:5]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed. … This is the tunic of the Lord, the seamless tunic, which was not rent but which was cast by lot. … Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John ‘there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.’… Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. papalencyclicals.net/Bon08/B8unam.htm

It would be ideal if it worked out that way but it didn’t. Do you think there will be only Catholics in heaven just because Boniface said it should be that way? The one shepherd is Jesus.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

thanks. these quotes are very generalized. i dont really understand. there is no specifics. all i know is that the laity is taking over. mostly the women. well the Church has modernized. the behavior , beginning with priests down to the people it so disrespectfull. everyone is doing whatever. i tell you the truth, i miss the days when the priests behaved with authority. today, it feels like there is ono one to follow.

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.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

It’s [Communion in the hand - PF] not an indult any more than kneeling during the Eucharistic Prayer is.

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.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

What leads people away from the Catholic Church is the hierarchy. There is a culture of secrecy that has produced skeletons that are still being uncovered from 70 years ago. This is the work of satan.

They may not like the system but it is sinners that make up the Church from top to bottom, just like it is everywhere, and we ascent to the teaching as it has been handed down to us from the apostles. The acquiescence of the leadership to the whims of the people is ubiquitous in protestantism. Like abortion, contraceptives, Jesus as merely human? They will fit you in, 10% please.

You can’t expect people to come willfully and you can’t blame some for leaving. Some of their reasons are legitimate.

If and when God calls them, they will come. If we sacrifice and pray for God to give people the grace for their conversion, they will come in droves. Some of their reasons for hurt and distrust are legitimate, not their leaving. I’m a convert because of the authority of the Church compelled me by looking at the lack of authority of protestantism.

 

[ron77nyc]

They may not like the system but it is sinners that make up the Church from top to bottom, just like it is everywhere, and we ascent to the teaching as it has been handed down to us from the apostles. The acquiescence of the leadership to the whims of the people is ubiquitous in protestantism. Like abortion, contraceptives, Jesus as merely human? They will fit you in, 10% please.

If and when God calls them, they will come. If we sacrifice and pray for God to give people the grace for their conversion, they will come in droves. Some of their reasons for hurt and distrust are legitimate, not their leaving. I’m a convert because of the authority of the Church compelled me by looking at the lack of authority of protestantism.

The Church teaches we have to obey not just believe. That also applies to all from top to bottom. God will answer the prayers of those who are obedient but if there is no obedience He will not lead people to that kind of environment.

 

[una_fides]

My Protestant friends didn’t tell me anything about the pope. Just read the bible. Peter was the bishop of the church in Jerusalem. Roman Catholicism as we know it today did not exist until centuries later. The Corinthians used to go to church hungry and chow down and communion time. Do you think they were worried about communion in the hand?

What leads people away from the Catholic Church is the hierarchy. There is a culture of secrecy that has produced skeletons that are still being uncovered from 70 years ago. This is the work of satan. You can’t expect people to come willfully and you can’t blame some for leaving. Some of their reasons are legitimate.

Not always true. In the Old Testament God scattered the flock because of unmerciful shepherds. He said He would gather them to Himself because the sheep were starving and they were being abused by the shepherds.

Many of the Jews converting to Christianity are going the way of Evangelical Christians. If they did not know the voice of God they would not be converting.

It would be ideal if it worked out that way but it didn’t. Do you think there will be only Catholics in heaven just because Boniface said it should be that way? The one shepherd is Jesus.

Ron,
I’m sorry but you are receiving some really bad information. I do hope you will continue to have an open mind in this whole process, and that you will be especially open to the information from the early Church that I’m about to share with you.

First, the early Church clearly called herself Catholic and held to the same foundational dogmas that the Church does today (baptismal regeneration, Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, apostolic authority of bishops, etc). You mentioned earlier things that have changed such as the requirement for celibacy of the priesthood and religious orders, but these things are not “Catholic dogma” they are Catholic custom. They are developments and disciplines in the life of the Church that the Church, as a living organism, can rightfully make. The apostles clearly were given the authority by Christ to rule the Church, and their successors clearly understood the apostles as having handed them their authority. Christ also promised to always be with his Church until the end of time as they teach all the things that he taught them (Mat 28:20) both from the written word and oral Tradition (2 Thes 2:14). Christ told Peter that on him he would build his Church and gave to Peter the keys of authority to the kingdom of heaven (Mat 16:18). You must be in union with Peter, as he alone was given the keys to enter heaven. You also are aware of this obligation, so invincible ignorance does not apply. Christ’s Church lead by Peter is the “pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim 3:15). Notice that the Bible that was canonized in the end of the 4th century clearly states that the Church is the foundation of truth–not Scripture! Also, you admit that the Church was Catholic at that point, so you only know the Scriptures as exist as based on coming from that authority. Otherwise, how do you possibly know that the books in your Bible are rightly chosen as divinely inspired? Why would you even think they were inspired at all?

 

[una_fides]

Ron,

Here are some early Church fathers for you, writing well before the 4th century:

Clement of Rome
AD 95

(Disciple of the apostles, 4th successor to St. Peter)

Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry (Letter to the Corinthians 44:1).

Ignatius of Antioch
AD 110
(Disciple of St. John the apostle. Bishop and Martyr)

You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church (*Letter to the Smyrnaeans *8:1).

Irenaeus
It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times: men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about. For if the Apostles had known hidden mysteries which they taught to the elite secretly and apart from the rest, they would have handed them down especially to those very ones to whom they were committing the self-same Churches. For surely they wished all those and their successors to be perfect and without reproach, to whom they handed on their authority (*Against Heresies *3:3:1 [A.D. **180-199]).
It is necessary to obey those who are the presbyters in the Church, those who, as we have shown, have succession from the Apostles; those who have received, with the succession of the episcopate, the sure charism of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father. But the rest, who have no part in the primitive succession and assemble wheresoever they will, must be held in suspicion (ibid 4:26:2).

Tertullian
Moreover, if there be any [heresies] bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, so that they might seem to have been handed down by the Apostles because they were from the time of the Apostles, we can say to them: let them show the origin of their Churches, let them unroll the order of their bishops, running down in succession from the beginning, so that their first bishop shall have for author and predecessor some one of the Apostles or of the apostolic men who continued steadfast with the Apostles. For this is the way in which the apostolic Churches transmit their lists: like the Church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the Church of the Romans where Clement was ordained by Peter. In just this same way the other Churches display those whom they have as sprouts from the apostolic seed, having been established in the episcopate by the Apostles. Let the heretics invent something like it. After their blasphemies, what could be unlawful for them? But even if they should contrive it, they will accomplish nothing; for their doctrine itself, when compared with that of the Apostles, will show by its own diversity and contrariety that it has for its author neither an Apostle nor an apostolic man. The Apostles would not have differed among themselves in teaching, nor would an apostolic man have taught contrary to the Apostles, unless those who were taught by the Apostles then preached otherwise.
Therefore, they will be challenged to meet this test even by those Churches which are of much later date – for they are being established daily – and whose founder is not from among the Apostles nor from among the apostolic men; for those which agree in the same faith are reckoned as apostolic on account of the blood ties in their doctrine. Then let all heresies prove how they regard themselves as apostolic, when they are challenged by our Churches to meet either test. But in fact they are not apostolic, nor can they prove themselves to be what they are not. Neither are they received in peace and communion by the Churches which are in any way apostolic, since on account of their diverse belief they are in no way apostolic (*The Demurrer Against the Heretics *32:1 A.D. 200]).