Some answers for my friends


#1

There are many threads pro and con re: the “New Order” of the Catholic Church vs. the Traditional Church. Is the Novus Ordo really the best step with it’s closer communication and accomodation with Protestantism, Judaism, Islam, Hindus, etc.? What has the Catholic Church gained with the aforementioned ecumenism and relaxed standards such as Sunday Mass on Saturdays, meat on Fridays, etc.?
Our Blessed Mother at Fatima gave 3 secrets to Sister Lucia, instructing that they MUST be made public no later than 1960. This was obviously for a reason. In 1960, Pope John XXIII read the 3rd secret(which had not previously been made public) and decided to disobey the Blessed Mother and did not make it public. Then he opened Vatican II in 1963, and changes in the Church began. Those changes accelerated under Pope Paul VI and John Paul II.
What have these changes meant to the Church? According to the “Index of Leading Catholic Indicators” by Kenneth C. Jones;

  1. In 1965 there were 58,000 Priests in the U.S; In 2002 there were 45,000, of whom 16% were from other countries.
  2. In 1965 there were 1,575 ordinations to the Priesthood; in 2002 there were 450.
  3. In 1965 there were 49,000 seminarians; in 2002 there were 4,700.
  4. In 1965 there were 180,000 Sisters; in 2002 there were 75,000 with the average age of 68.
  5. In 1965 there were 1,556 Catholic High Schools; in 2002 there were 786. In 1965 there were 10,503 Catholic Grade schools; in 2002 there were 6,623.
  6. In 1958 weekly Mass attendance was 74%; in 2000 it was 25%.
  7. In 1968 there were 338 annulments; in 2002 there were 50,000.
    And now, 53% of Catholics believe you can have an abortion and still be considered a good Catholic.
    And the above does not include all the parish closings, or the outrageous clerical,sex scandals and episcopal coverups.
    It is time to stop pretending that Vatican II has “renewed” the Church. All these indicators point to the fact that the Catholic Church we love is now seeing the result of disobeying our Blessed Mother and turning our backs on the Traditional Church.
    As a traditional Catholic, I feel I MUST reach out to those of you have been led to believe that the “new way” is the right way. The Lord himself said,…“By their fruits you will know them. A bad tree cannot bear good fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit.” (I paraphrase just a bit.)
    If Vatican II is a “good tree”, why is it bearing so much “bad fruit”?

#2

:yawn:


#3

Hi Gramps,
I think the better question is why have so many Catholics failed to pray for their clergy as they were taught?

Why have so many failed to pray for vocations?

Better yet is the question that always comes to my mind when I read a post like yours.

What is this person doing to help the church other than posting old news (from 2002) and badmouthing Vatican II?

Are you teaching Sunday School or adult faith formation in your parish? You’re retired, so you should have ample time to prepare great lessons, and I don’t know of a parish that will turn down capable help.

Are you evangelizing your family and the lost and unchurched the way we were always taught?

Bad fruit? IMO that would also include complaining and scandalizing members of the Body of Christ instead of praying and working like crazy for Our Lord and His church.

My attitude is simple:
Lead,
Follow,
Or get outta my way…
Pax tecum,


#4

Are all of these figures just from the US or the world?

What happened in the US in the 1960’s was alot more than just Vatican II. Correlation does not mean causation.


#5

These are figures from the U.S. only. My point is that if you do not obey the requests of our Lord and His Mother, they may well withdraw their protections from the Church…and then you see (if you are willing to see) the sad things that happen to our Church. Example; Communion in the hand. Do any of you believe that lay people like ourselves are worthy to hold the body of our Lord in our sinful hands? That has always been a sacrilege. But no more. An unimportant change? Just one of many in the Novus Ordo.


#6

[quote=retiredgrampa]These are figures from the U.S. only. My point is that if you do not obey the requests of our Lord and His Mother, they may well withdraw their protections from the Church…and then you see (if you are willing to see) the sad things that happen to our Church. Example; Communion in the hand. **Do any of you believe that lay people like ourselves are worthy to hold the body of our Lord in our sinful hands? That has ** always been a sacrilege. But no more. An unimportant change? Just one of many in the Novus Ordo.
[/quote]

Sorry but that is rubbish.


#7

[quote=retiredgrampa]Do any of you believe that lay people like ourselves are worthy to hold the body of our Lord in our sinful hands?
[/quote]

I agree, we are not worthy to hold the body of our Lord in our sinful hands…or receive it on the tongue. “Lord I am NOT WORTHY to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed.” It’s a good thing he gave us special permission, huh.


#8

[quote=Church Militant]Hi Gramps,
I think the better question is why have so many Catholics failed to pray for their clergy as they were taught?

Why have so many failed to pray for vocations?

Better yet is the question that always comes to my mind when I read a post like yours.

What is this person doing to help the church other than posting old news (from 2002) and badmouthing Vatican II?

Are you teaching Sunday School or adult faith formation in your parish? You’re retired, so you should have ample time to prepare great lessons, and I don’t know of a parish that will turn down capable help.

Are you evangelizing your family and the lost and unchurched the way we were always taught?

Bad fruit? IMO that would also include complaining and scandalizing members of the Body of Christ instead of praying and working like crazy for Our Lord and His church.

My attitude is simple:
Lead,
Follow,
Or get outta my way…
Pax tecum,
[/quote]

:clapping: :clapping: :clapping:


#9

While it is shameful that so many Catholics have developed liberal attitudes to the point where they think it’s acceptable to take birth control or have an abortion, I don’t think we can place all the blame on the second Vatican Council. There are other factors at work here, such as the modernization of society, media influences, etc.

In regards to your statement about Communion in the hand, I’m with you there. There are actually a great many people who attend the NO Mass who receive on the tounge. But I’m wondering if you can reference where you found that Communion in the hand is a sacrilege. Not that I approve of it, I would really like to know if this was official Church teaching, and where that information is recorded.


#10

answer to any of my so-called Catholic friends who challenge in any way the teaching of the Pope and the Magesterium, including the authority to establish forms of worship and liturgy, to convene Church councils and issue teaching and doctrinal pronouncements based on those councils, and to assess the reliablity and orthodoxy of apparitions and messages, is to remind them that to deny the magesterial teaching of the Church is to embrace heresy.


#11

[quote=paramedicgirl]…In regards to your statement about Communion in the hand, I’m with you there. There are actually a great many people who attend the NO Mass who receive on the tounge. But I’m wondering if you can reference where you found that Communion in the hand is a sacrilege. Not that I approve of it, I would really like to know if this was official Church teaching, and where that information is recorded.
[/quote]

Not a bad question, but one that needs asking in the Liturgy & Sacraments forum. :slight_smile:

I would also point out that the apostles at the Last Supper no doubt took communion in the hand, as did the early church.


#12

[quote=paramedicgirl]In regards to your statement about Communion in the hand, I’m with you there. There are actually a great many people who attend the NO Mass who receive on the tounge. But I’m wondering if you can reference where you found that Communion in the hand is a sacrilege. Not that I approve of it, I would really like to know if this was official Church teaching, and where that information is recorded.
[/quote]

Just a little illustrative story…

The last time I received in my hand was several years ago when, after consuming the Eucharist and making the sign of the cross, I noticed a small particle still on my hand. I had to lick it off to consume it. I’m sure it looked foolish to some, but I coulnd’t care less as I was trying to recover from the thought that for over twenty years, I had no idea how many times that happened and my Lord’s Body just fell off my hand or was brushed to the ground, only to be trampled underfoot or vacuumed up. I then decided it was better to be safe than sorry, and I’ve received on the tongue ever since.

I like the NO Mass, but I have no problem with people who prefer the “Traditional” Mass as long as they do not reject Vatican II as fallible and non-binding. If they choose that route, they might as well reject all of Catholicism, IMHO.

Peace,
javelin


#13

[quote=Michael Francis]I would also point out that the apostles at the Last Supper no doubt took communion in the hand, as did the early church.
[/quote]

Good point!

Peace,
javelin


#14

I read somewhere that his Holiness Benedict XVI said that a smaller church body could mean a return to its humble roots. Remember, the Church only had 12 bishops and no priests until they started selecting elders. And now we are talking about hundreds of new ones per year.

God bless the Church and the Pope!

Aaron Magnan


#15

[quote=javelin]Just a little illustrative story…

The last time I received in my hand was several years ago when, after consuming the Eucharist and making the sign of the cross, I noticed a small particle still on my hand. I had to lick it off to consume it. I’m sure it looked foolish to some, but I coulnd’t care less as I was trying to recover from the thought that for over twenty years, I had no idea how many times that happened and my Lord’s Body just fell off my hand or was brushed to the ground, only to be trampled underfoot or vacuumed up. I then decided it was better to be safe than sorry, and I’ve received on the tongue ever since.
javelin
[/quote]

That is also why I started receiving Communion on the tounge, as is the case with some others at my church. We found we were routinely inspecting and/or licking our hands after Communion to consume the fragments of the Sacred Host. We all felt it’s much safer from that standpoint to receive on the tounge.


#16

i believe that lay people are as worthy to hold the
Host in their hands as anyone else… if a priest’s
hands can be made worthy, then a lay person’s
can also… that’s the purpose of the rite’s leading
up to communion…

:slight_smile:


#17

[quote=paramedicgirl]That is also why I started receiving Communion on the tounge, as is the case with some others at my church. We found we were routinely inspecting and/or licking our hands after Communion to consume the fragments of the Sacred Host. We all felt it’s much safer from that standpoint to receive on the tounge.
[/quote]

This inspection should be done at the moment that you receive the Eucharist anyway. When I receive, I have my eyes riveted on the body (or blood) of My risen Lord and devote myself fully to Him and attend to Him accordingly. (Think of the pictures that you have seen of Padre Pio as he consecrates the Eucharist.) I want to be the height of awareness of Him in all aspects and at the moment of reception especially so.

I haven’t received on the tongue in years, though it wouldn’t bother me, but I know for a fact that when I did do so, it was impossible to see the host all the time and therefore I could well have missed something. (God forbid!).

Another point no one seems to have considered…

Were the hands of Mary Magdalen consecrated when she clung to the risen Lord? Do you suppose that the hands of the Blessed Virgin were likewise consecrated when she touched her risen Son? The other disciples…?


#18

[quote=Church Militant]Better yet is the question that always comes to my mind when I read a post like yours.

What is this person doing to help the church other than posting old news (from 2002) and badmouthing Vatican II?
[/quote]

My questions would be:

Do you not believe in the infallibility of the magesterium of the Church with regard to matters of faith and morals?

Do you not trust the Holy Spirit to guide the Church to the fullness of the Truth?

If so, then how could you possibly regard your opinion over that of the magesterium?

You can’t have it both ways, accept the magesterium protection on old matters but reject it on new matters. You either accept and trust at all times or you don’t.


#19

[quote=retiredgrampa] My point is that if you do not obey the requests of our Lord and His Mother,** they may well withdraw their protections from the Church**…
[/quote]

Please back that up with some references.

No where have I ever come across anything suggesting Jesus gave the Church the protection of the Holy Spirit with conditions.

Remember, hell shall not prevail against the Church
and the Church shall remain intact and protected until He comes again.

What you are suggesting makes Jesus a liar.
You are presuming He would only protect the Church when she does what He wants but He gave the protection of the Holy Spirit to make sure the Church would never err on faith and morals. If you believe in His promise then there could **never **be a time when the Church is not doing His will. Never.

The sad things that are happening to the Church are the result of people turning away from their faith. Just as the Israelites kept forgetting their story, their covenant with God, and fell into the religious practices of the societies around them, we Catholics are doing the exact same thing.

We are forgetting our story. We are not teaching our children the full story. Our children are not getting to know Jesus and His plan for them. They don’t even believe in the core basics of the faith. JPII set in motion the plan to correct this, and in time, the Church will be restored.


#20

[quote=Aaron I.]I agree, we are not worthy to hold the body of our Lord in our sinful hands…or receive it on the tongue. “Lord I am NOT WORTHY to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed.” It’s a good thing he gave us special permission, huh.
[/quote]

Let’s not forget to consider that EMHCs go to confession weekly (at least in our parish) so that they are worthy to distribute the Body and Blood of Christ. Probably more worthy than the bulk of the people going up to receive Him, imo, since there are so many who go up weekly while the confession lines are under 10 people per week, maybe 50 in a month?


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.