When The Vatican Changes Things

  • Thread starter Thread starter OneTrueCathApos
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
O

OneTrueCathApos

Guest
When the Vatican changes things, like the Liturgy of the Mass, or something else, NEVER any doctrines are ever changed, so when I speak about change, it is only within the church and NOT the doctrines because they have never changed in 2,000 years.
My question is why make such a fuss about it? There is change for a reason. The pope knows the reason and they are for the good of the church. People come on here and say, they wish the Mass was still in Latin, receiving Communion in the hand, etc…(I only receive it on the tongue). But we must adhere to the pope and the pope before that one. Because there are reasons for these changes like Vatican II. Things are not changed to aggravate us. There are valid reasons for this within the faith.
 
Are you saying there are valid reasons, just that we can’t know what they are? Only the Pope can know and he doesn’t need to tell us?

I am not sure what your point really is, here. You haven’t offered a single reason for the changes. You’ve merely asserted that there are good reasons.

All my best . . .
 
OneTrueCathApos said:
When the Vatican changes things, like the Liturgy of the Mass, or something else, NEVER any doctrines are ever changed, so when I speak about change, it is only within the church and NOT the doctrines because they have never changed in 2,000 years.
My question is why make such a fuss about it? There is change for a reason. The pope knows the reason and they are for the good of the church. People come on here and say, they wish the Mass was still in Latin, receiving Communion in the hand, etc…(I only receive it on the tongue). But we must adhere to the pope and the pope before that one. Because there are reasons for these changes like Vatican II. Things are not changed to aggravate us. There are valid reasons for this within the faith.
Click to expand...
I think you’d get more response in the Liturgy and Sacraments forum, as non-Catholics don’t have a dog in that hunt.

Jon
 
OneTrueCathApos said:
When the Vatican changes things, like the Liturgy of the Mass, or something else, NEVER any doctrines are ever changed, so when I speak about change, it is only within the church and NOT the doctrines because they have never changed in 2,000 years.
My question is why make such a fuss about it? There is change for a reason. The pope knows the reason and they are for the good of the church. People come on here and say, they wish the Mass was still in Latin, receiving Communion in the hand, etc…(I only receive it on the tongue). But we must adhere to the pope and the pope before that one. Because there are reasons for these changes like Vatican II. Things are not changed to aggravate us. There are valid reasons for this within the faith.
Click to expand...
Basically, it is because people don’t handle change very well. Alot of times, our non catholic brethren look at any type of change being a change in doctrines.

Many people think that Vatican II liberalized church practices, but actually it didn’t

For example,it was explained to me by my pastor, when Christ instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist at the Last Supper, there is no indication that he placed the bread (his body) on the Apostles tongues. He broke bread, and “Gave it to his disciples”., and that is why we are able to receive it in our hand.

Now, with that being said, is it wrong to receive on the tongue? Absolutely not. I was also told that In the earlier days of the Church, people felt they were unworthy to hold something so precious and holy in their hands, and the form of receiving on the tongue grew.

Personally, I see the beauty of both. I usually receive in the hand, but when I am feeling especially unworthy, or beating myself up over something, I receive on the tongue.

I truly meditate on “Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word, and I shall be healed”.
 
twopekinguys said:
Many people think that Vatican II liberalized church practices, but actually it didn’t

For example,it was explained to me by my pastor, when Christ instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist at the Last Supper, there is no indication that he placed the bread (his body) on the Apostles tongues. He broke bread, and “Gave it to his disciples”., and that is why we are able to receive it in our hand.
Click to expand...
Actually, universal church law does not permit reception of the sacred host in the hand.

*6. Dictating the manner of reception of the Eucharist.

Vatican II never mentioned receiving the host in hand. But when some countries introduced the practice illicitly Pope Paul VI surveyed the world’s bishops to see if it should be allowed where it already existed. Rather than suddenly suppressing reception in the hand, the pope granted an indult intended to let the practice continue for a time in those areas where it already existed. Oddly enough, the bishops of the United States—where the practice did not exist—asked permission of the Holy See to introduce it here. Even more amazingly, they got it.

Still, universal Church law does not permit reception of the Sacrament in the hand, and John Paul II disapproves of the practice. The indult that allowed it specified that reception in the hand “must not be imposed” (CSDW, En réponse, 1969). Absolutely no priest or extraordinary minister of Holy Communion may refuse to administer the Eucharist on the tongue. Your right to determine which lawful manner you use is stated in the GIRM (Appendix for the United States, 240b).

The chalice cannot be left on the altar for people to pick up and drink from, not even during lightly attended Masses. The celebrant must distribute the Sacrament (United States Bishops’ Directory on Communion Under Both Species, 47). In fact, you’re not allowed to dip your host into the chalice; you have to take the cup and drink from it (DCUBS 45).

By the way, as to Eucharistic ministers, it’s important to note that they’re not supposed to help distribute the Sacrament routinely; only if there’s an unusually large number of people at Mass or if they’re sent to distribute extraordinarily outside of Mass, as to the sick. They are not supposed to assist at all when a priest is in attendance. Their office has nothing whatever to do with increased participation by the laity. *

From Here:

catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9901fea1.asp
 
OneTrueCathApos said:
When the Vatican changes things, like the Liturgy of the Mass, or something else, NEVER any doctrines are ever changed, so when I speak about change, it is only within the church and NOT the doctrines because they have never changed in 2,000 years.
My question is why make such a fuss about it? There is change for a reason. The pope knows the reason and they are for the good of the church. People come on here and say, they wish the Mass was still in Latin, receiving Communion in the hand, etc…(I only receive it on the tongue). But we must adhere to the pope and the pope before that one. Because there are reasons for these changes like Vatican II. Things are not changed to aggravate us. There are valid reasons for this within the faith.
Click to expand...
At one time Protestants were outside the Catholic Church and thus outside the salvation through the Church this is a doctrine that has changed.
 
Guyonthestreet said:
Actually, universal church law does not permit reception of the sacred host in the hand.

*6. Dictating the manner of reception of the Eucharist.

Vatican II never mentioned receiving the host in hand. But when some countries introduced the practice illicitly Pope Paul VI surveyed the world’s bishops to see if it should be allowed where it already existed. Rather than suddenly suppressing reception in the hand, the pope granted an indult intended to let the practice continue for a time in those areas where it already existed. Oddly enough, the bishops of the United States—where the practice did not exist—asked permission of the Holy See to introduce it here. Even more amazingly, they got it.

Still, universal Church law does not permit reception of the Sacrament in the hand, and John Paul II disapproves of the practice.* The indult that allowed it specified that reception in the hand “must not be imposed” (CSDW, En réponse, 1969). Absolutely no priest or extraordinary minister of Holy Communion may refuse to administer the Eucharist on the tongue. Your right to determine which lawful manner you use is stated in the GIRM (Appendix for the United States, 240b).

The chalice cannot be left on the altar for people to pick up and drink from, not even during lightly attended Masses. The celebrant must distribute the Sacrament (United States Bishops’ Directory on Communion Under Both Species, 47). In fact, you’re not allowed to dip your host into the chalice; you have to take the cup and drink from it (DCUBS 45).

By the way, as to Eucharistic ministers, it’s important to note that they’re not supposed to help distribute the Sacrament routinely; only if there’s an unusually large number of people at Mass or if they’re sent to distribute extraordinarily outside of Mass, as to the sick. They are not supposed to assist at all when a priest is in attendance. Their office has nothing whatever to do with increased participation by the laity.

From Here:

catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9901fea1.asp
Click to expand...
And then we have this.

In 1969 Memoriale Domini provided for the reception of Communion in the hand in limited areas and under special circumstances. Then, in the 1973 instruction Immensae Caritatis , the Church granted wider permission because many episcopal conferences had asked for permission to allow Communion in the hand

4marks.com/articles/details.html?article_id=592

I also agree with JonNC, that this question would ultimately be better suited on the Liturgy and Sacraments forum
 
twopekinguys said:
And then we have this.

In 1969 Memoriale Domini provided for the reception of Communion in the hand in limited areas and under special circumstances. Then, in the 1973 instruction Immensae Caritatis , the Church granted wider permission because many episcopal conferences had asked for permission to allow Communion in the hand

4marks.com/articles/details.html?article_id=592

I also agree with JonNC, that this question would ultimately be better suited on the Liturgy and Sacraments forum
Click to expand...
So what does it all mean. ???
 
Convert66 said:
Are you saying there are valid reasons, just that we can’t know what they are? Only the Pope can know and he doesn’t need to tell us?

I am not sure what your point really is, here. You haven’t offered a single reason for the changes. You’ve merely asserted that there are good reasons.

All my best . . .
Click to expand...
I believe the pope even knows whether there is life on other planets…I’m serious.
I believe the reasons for these changes has to do with satan himself. The pope just knows things we don’t know, and that’s fine with me. I don’t want to know everything he knows, I just want him to guide our church as best as he possibly could for the reasons that he has.
 
Does the Pope KNOW that you know that he knows? Rhetorical question…no answers needed…
 
Hisalone said:
this is a doctrine that has changed.
Click to expand...
Hi Hisalone. Church doctrine doesn’t change. To quote Cardinal Newman:

“the proposition defined will be without any claim to be considered binding on the belief of Catholics, unless it is referable to the Apostolic depositum, through the channel either of Scripture or Tradition”
 
Peter_J said:
What do you mean, what does it all mean?
Click to expand...
What do you mean, what do I mean what does it all mean :confused:

😛

I was referring to the links gave from this rock and the links TPG gave.

Still, universal Church law does not permit reception of the Sacrament in the hand, and John Paul II disapproves of the practice

and

In 1969 Memoriale Domini provided for the reception of Communion in the hand in limited areas and under special circumstances. Then, in the 1973 instruction Immensae Caritatis , the Church granted wider permission because many episcopal conferences had asked for permission to allow Communion in the hand

So, I guess Im asking is there a contradiction here - or is it the case that the official churchs position is that reception in the hand is not permitted, however, due to indults in various regions, this was tolerated, and has now become so widespread it is considered the norm, but still not **official **church position.

A bit like the way the extrodinary eucharistic ministers are now ubiquitous where as in fact they are supposed to be used only in the most exceptional circumstances.
 
Guyonthestreet said:
I was referring to the links gave from this rock and the links TPG gave.

Still, universal Church law does not permit reception of the Sacrament in the hand, and John Paul II disapproves of the practice

and

In 1969 Memoriale Domini provided for the reception of Communion in the hand in limited areas and under special circumstances. Then, in the 1973 instruction Immensae Caritatis , the Church granted wider permission because many episcopal conferences had asked for permission to allow Communion in the hand

So, I guess Im asking is there a contradiction here - or is it the case that the official churchs position is that reception in the hand is not permitted, however, due to indults in various regions, this was tolerated, and has now become so widespread it is considered the norm, but still not **official **church position.

A bit like the way the extrodinary eucharistic ministers are now ubiquitous where as in fact they are supposed to be used only in the most exceptional circumstances.
Click to expand...
I don’t think there’s a contradiction. The rules state that communion in the hand is allowed in some places, by indult.

BTW, the insertion of the filioque into the Creed was done for about 200 years before permission was granted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top