When The Vatican Changes Things

[Guyonthestreet]

:tsktsk:

Don’t make me come over there and teach you a lesson!

Gulp !!!

I don’t think there’s a contradiction. The rules state that communion in the hand is allowed in some places, by indult.

How many iundults have been issued? It would seem that reception in the hand is now universal but thats no the official position of the church is it. It should only be allowed where theres an indult. So if the indults are in fact universal, then why is the official position of the church that recoetion should be on the tongue?

BTW, the insertion of the filioque into the Creed was done for about 200 years before permission was granted.

So is that an example of the official church catching up with ‘‘modern’’ practices? If so, couldnt that be worrying for issues like contraception for example?

 

[Peter_J]

Don’t make me come over there and teach you a lesson!

I’ve been waiting for someone to say “I guess we will just have to teach him to wear the ribbon!” But it’s possible – probable, in fact – that nobody’s going to say that. Oh well.

How many indults have been issued? It would seem that reception in the hand is now universal but thats no the official position of the church is it. It should only be allowed where theres an indult. So if the indults are in fact universal, then why is the official position of the church that recoetion should be on the tongue?

I haven’t researched it precisely, but I don’t believe the indults are universal.

So is that an example of the official church catching up with ‘‘modern’’ practices?

Yes, you could look at it that way.

But of course, the fact that something is permitted today doesn’t necessarily mean it will be permitted tomorrow.

If so, couldnt that be worrying for issues like contraception for example?

Speaking for myself, I’m not worried.

 

[VARC]

I’ve been waiting for someone to say “I guess we will just have to teach him to wear the ribbon!” .

WHO…WHO DOES NOT WANT WEAR ZEE RIBBON!!!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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.

So why is the Liturgy being revised all over again ? These things cost money - not the bishops’ (don’t be ridiculous), not the Pope’s (ditto), but the laity’s, yours, mine. But why should we be out of pocket just because men who have already shown their true characters by lying their faces off about abuse, for decade after decade, want to muck about with the Liturgy, yet again ? If they & their predecessors could not get it right in 1969 - what reason is there to imagine they won’t make a total hash of it all over again ? How can anyone be so naive as to trust them ? It’s our Liturgy - not theirs.​

You are far too trusting, if you trust them

 

[Religio71]

So why is the Liturgy being revised all over again ? These things cost money - not the bishops’ (don’t be ridiculous), not the Pope’s (ditto), but the laity’s, yours, mine. But why should we be out of pocket just because men who have already shown their true characters by lying their faces off about abuse, for decade after decade, want to muck about with the Liturgy, yet again ? If they & their predecessors could not get it right in 1969 - what reason is there to imagine they won’t make a total hash of it all over again ? How can anyone be so naive as to trust them ? It’s our Liturgy - not theirs.​

You are far too trusting, if you trust them

So you mock the clergy yet you still voluntarily give money?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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”.

As for Communion in the hand:​

The Cardinals and Bishops members of the Congregation voted almost unanimously in favor of a greater sacrality of the rite, of the recovery of the sense of eucharistic worship, of the recovery of the Latin language in the celebration, and of the remaking of the introductory parts of the Missal in order to put a stop to abuses, wild experimentations, and inappropriate creativity. **They have also declared themselves favorable to reaffirm that the usual way of receiving Communion according to the norms is not on the hand, but in the mouth. There is, it is true, and indult which, on request of the [local] episcopates, allows for the distribution of the host sic ** also on the palm of the hand, but this must remain an extraordinary fact.

• [http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/08/urgent-reform-of-reform-is-in-motion.html (http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/08/urgent-reform-of-reform-is-in-motion.html)

So much for reception in the hand. I love the way the Vatican reverses itself without admitting it - you couldn’t make this stuff up. Tom Lehrer should add this to his “Vatican Rag” Silly old Paul VI - what else did he get wrong ?

 

[Religio71]

Correct, there is an indult for Communion in the hand. This is not the ordinary form of reception, but extraordinary. It is also correct that there is a push towards the ordinary form, as in, those that have an indult. Another indult was for the use of the Tridentine Mass. This indult ended with Summorum Pontificum, which allows for the Tridentine Mass basically whenever the faithful request it.

Indults come and go.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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

Since when were the likes and dislikes of JP2 or his predecessors any kind of law for others ? I don’t like people from the USA that much, but I don’t expect the world to adjust itself to my likes and dislikes. Nobody is that important. Neither are the whims of Popes.​

Besides, JP2 is rotting in his grave - he’s no longer Pope, any more than Benedict XIV or Clement XII is. So what he might like or dislike is neither here nor there.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

So you mock the clergy yet you still voluntarily give money?

They deserve far more than mockery. I don’t give a penny to a body like the CC, nor will I - but the OP & other Catholics, you included, almost certainly do. So the call on the money of the laity is no less real, & no less shameful because no less exploitative: why should anyone pay a penny for something that is forced upon them without their consent ? Have these people never been warned against buying a pig in a poke ? Yet that is what they expect the laity of the Roman Rite to do. It’s absolutely disgraceful. And the nerve of it ! The laity, are supposed to trust the judgement of someone like Cardinal Law ?!? Why on earth should they ? Or didn’t he vote ? That would be something - not much, but something.​

This could be of interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasquinade

 

[Religio71]

They deserve far more than mockery. I don’t give a penny to a body like the CC, nor will I - but the OP & other Catholics, you included, almost certainly do. So the call on the money of the laity is no less real, & no less shameful because no less exploitative: why should anyone pay a penny for something that is forced upon them without their consent ? Have these people never been warned against buying a pig in a poke ? Yet that is what they expect the laity of the Roman Rite to do. It’s absolutely disgraceful. And the nerve of it ! The laity, are supposed to trust the judgement of someone like Cardinal Law ?!? Why on earth should they ? Or didn’t he vote ? That would be something - not much, but something.​

This could be of interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasquinade

Ok, so it isn’t “your” money that would theoretically be used to revise an implement the a new Liturgy then.

Thank you.

This thread doesn’t belong in Non-Catholic Religions.

 

[Guyonthestreet]

Since when were the likes and dislikes of JP2 or his predecessors any kind of law for others ? I don’t like people from the USA that much, but I don’t expect the world to adjust itself to my likes and dislikes. Nobody is that important. Neither are the whims of Popes.​

Besides, JP2 is rotting in his grave - he’s no longer Pope, any more than Benedict XIV or Clement XII is. So what he might like or dislike is neither here nor there.

The relevant part of what I bolded for me was not so much about what JP2 disliked, but rather the categorical statement that universal church law does not permit reception in the hand.

But that is not what I observe and Ive travelled pretty much all of the world, and every where Ive been, Ive never been to a catholic mass where reception was not in the hand. That would seem to imply that just about every bishop in the world has applied for and been given an indult. Which kinda makes a mockery of church law saying one thing and practice being something else completely. In my non-catholic, observers opinion of course.
Im aware that the traditional latin mass is different and those attending have to kneel and receive on the tongue. That seems far more reverential to me.

Peter also brought up a point about the filioque - that the creed was being prayed with ‘‘procedes from the Father and The Son’’ for several hundred years before it was sanctioned by the church - and led to all sorts of problems as a result !!!

If that is accurate - then surely this is a case of the Church not leading, but being led. A criticism that catholics levy at many other denomintions.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

The relevant part of what I bolded for me was not so much about what JP2 disliked, but rather the categorical statement that universal church law does not permit reception in the hand.

But that is not what I observe and Ive travelled pretty much all of the world, and every where Ive been, Ive never been to a catholic mass where reception was not in the hand. That would seem to imply that just about every bishop in the world has applied for and been given an indult. Which kinda makes a mockery of church law saying one thing and practice being something else completely. In my non-catholic, observers opinion of course.
Im aware that the traditional latin mass is different and those attending have to kneel and receive on the tongue. That seems far more reverential to me.

Peter also brought up a point about the filioque - that the creed was being prayed with ‘‘procedes from the Father and The Son’’ for several hundred years before it was sanctioned by the church - and led to all sorts of problems as a result !!!

If that is accurate - then surely this is a case of the Church not leading, but being led. A criticism that catholics levy at many other denomintions.

So many non-Catholic Christians like this one, always trying to make up things about the Catholic church. Why do Protestants CONSTANTLY worry about the Catholic church? Why not worry about your own? Because I would if I were you.
What problems can you name that caused the Creed to be heard “proceeds from the Father and the Son”. Can you list them? BTW, the church has stood for 2,000 years as you are forgetting by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, not the cleverness of the Bishops. Yup, hard to swallow…

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

They deserve far more than mockery. I don’t give a penny to a body like the CC, nor will I - but the OP & other Catholics, you included, almost certainly do. So the call on the money of the laity is no less real, & no less shameful because no less exploitative: why should anyone pay a penny for something that is forced upon them without their consent ? Have these people never been warned against buying a pig in a poke ? Yet that is what they expect the laity of the Roman Rite to do. It’s absolutely disgraceful. And the nerve of it ! The laity, are supposed to trust the judgement of someone like Cardinal Law ?!? Why on earth should they ? Or didn’t he vote ? That would be something - not much, but something.​

This could be of interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasquinade

Ya because Wikipedia is a great Catholic source…not.

 

[4EverHis]

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.

well the Church never got rid of the Latin Mass it’s still there. We’re just given a choice between the Ordinary and the Extraordinary forms. I don’t think there’s anything wrong in the Ordinary form in itself, but that it’s been implemented in some incorrect ways, perhaps… but I’ve found that there was unrest after every council. It’s still too early… I think in some time, the Novus Ordo Mass would be such that it wouldn’t aggravate anyone. Some things just need to be regularized… if everyone followed what VII actually said, we wouldn’t have these problems right now.

I like the Latin Mass, I also like the NO when it’s done reverently and correctly, without liturgical abuse

God bless

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

well the Church never got rid of the Latin Mass it’s still there. We’re just given a choice between the Ordinary and the Extraordinary forms. I don’t think there’s anything wrong in the Ordinary form in itself, but that it’s been implemented in some incorrect ways, perhaps… but I’ve found that there was unrest after every council. It’s still too early… I think in some time, the Novus Ordo Mass would be such that it wouldn’t aggravate anyone. Some things just need to be regularized… if everyone followed what VII actually said, we wouldn’t have these problems right now.

I like the Latin Mass, I also like the NO when it’s done reverently and correctly, without liturgical abuse

God bless

But where is this Liturgical abuse??? Am I the only one here who doesn’t mind what the pope does? there are reasons for these changes, even though you may not understand them.

 

[Bill_Pick]

but you seem to have all the answers, answer your own question.

amen and he/she can tell you what you believe

 

[Guyonthestreet]

amen and he/she can tell you what you believe

It can be hard to work out sometimmes what catholics believe. Catholics decry contraception yet catholics contracept at the same rate as the rest of the population.

The Real Presence is at the heat of the catholic faith, yet millions of catholics dont beleive in it.

One Pope Leo III puts the Nicene creed on silve plates in the vatican without the filioque and delares the Creed cannot be changed without the full agreement of an ecumenical council, while for hundreds of years, starting in Spain, the Filioque had been recited openly and publicly by bishops, priests and the faithful.

Rome then declares the East heretical for not including the Filioque in the creed !!!

Some Catholics think the Latin Mass was banned but the Vatican says otherwise.

Some catholics think the Orthodox do not have apostolic succession but this is recognised by the Papacy as undeniable.

Some catholics think protestants have no holiness yet the Catechism of the catholic church states clearly God can use ecclesiastical communities for salvation.

One catholic here even thinks Jesus came to lead the Jews to the Gentiles

It can be quite difficult at times for an enquirer to work out exactly what it is catholics believe, never mind tell them.

 

[4EverHis]

But where is this Liturgical abuse??? Am I the only one here who doesn’t mind what the pope does? there are reasons for these changes, even though you may not understand them.

I’m not against VII or the NO… liturgical abuse is in fact going against VII, not for it

and it does happen…it’s happened at my parish. (though thankfully it doesn’t anymore.)

It can be hard to work out sometimmes what catholics believe. Catholics decry contraception yet catholics contracept at the same rate as the rest of the population.

The Real Presence is at the heat of the catholic faith, yet millions of catholics dont beleive in it.

One Pope Leo III puts the Nicene creed on silve plates in the vatican without the filioque and delares the Creed cannot be changed without the full agreement of an ecumenical council, while for hundreds of years, starting in Spain, the Filioque had been recited openly and publicly by bishops, priests and the faithful.

Rome then declares the East heretical for not including the Filioque in the creed !!!

Some Catholics think the Latin Mass was banned but the Vatican says otherwise.

Some catholics think the Orthodox do not have apostolic succession but this is recognised by the Papacy as undeniable.

Some catholics think protestants have no holiness yet the Catechism of the catholic church states clearly God can use ecclesiastical communities for salvation.

One catholic here even thinks Jesus came to lead the Jews to the Gentiles

It can be quite difficult at times for an enquirer to work out exactly what it is catholics believe, never mind tell them.

you got to look at the official doctrines… read the Catechism there will always be Catholics who are not faithful to the Church teachings. But the Church teachings remain…

God bless

 

[Guyonthestreet]

you got to look at the official doctrines… read the Catechism there will always be Catholics who are not faithful to the Church teachings. But the Church teachings remain…

God bless

Excellent advice - which is why I own one

If I were a catholic, I would be far more concerned about the millions of catholics that neither know, nor are faithful to, their churchs teaching, rather than lauding it over non-catholics in a non-catholic forum on the internet, like some pitiful individuals here

May God Bless and keep you too

 

[Peter_J]

One Pope Leo III puts the Nicene creed on silver plates in the vatican without the filioque and delares the Creed cannot be changed without the full agreement of an ecumenical council

No, he didn’t say that the Creed cannot be changed without an ecumenical council. To quote from The Filioque: A Church-Dividing Issue? “While Leo III affirmed the orthodoxy of the term Filioque, and approved its use in catechesis and personal professions of faith, he explicitly disapproved its inclusion in the text of the Creed of 381, since the Fathers of that Council - who were, he observes, no less inspired by the Holy Spirit than the bishops who had gathered at Aachen - had chosen not to include it.”

But anyhow, the Council of Florence – which is regarded by Catholics as an ecumenical council – approved the insertion of the filioque in the Creed. (What’s really interesting is that there are a great many Protestants who do not consider Florence to be an ecumenical council, but say the filioque in the Creed nevertheless. )