A rant in defense of the Novus Ordo

[Lazerlike42]

There are probably only a handful on these forums that grew up with the Latin Mass. I am one of those. To say that praying the rosary during Mass was an abuse is nonsense. Did it sometimes occur? Of course. But it was not the norm and it certainly was not an abuse.

I never said I had heard it exclusively on these forums. The fact is that I have heard it from those who did attend the Mass prior to the renewal of the Missal. It is a truth. You can either choose to accept it, or accuse me of lying. I would prefer the former.

In any case, it is certainly an abuse to pray the Rosary during Mass. The Holy Mass is not a time for private prayer. It is itself the highest form of prayer a human being can engage in. To use one’s mind for any other prayer while the Holy Sacrifice is taking place in your very presence is appalling and shows an utter lack of comprehension of just what it is actually going on in the sanctuary.

How many Traditional Masses have you gone to? If the EF lends itself to this “sort of thing” then there should be massive praying of the rosary at today’s Traditional Mass. That is not happening .You act as if saying the rosary during Mass is demonic.

No, saying the Rosary during Mass does not irise to the level of participating in the demonic, but it is certainly of demonic inspiration just like any other sin. One must never disregard the Holy Mass for anything else, whether that be a personal thought or a lesser form of prayer.

The reason that there is not a massive amount of praying the Rosary during today’s Tridentine Masses is twofold. Firstly, those who attended indult Masses and who now attend the Extraordinary Form thanks to Benedict XVI are those who are most devoted. They cared enough about the Lord to desire the Extraordinary Form and to seek out indult Masses and now to seek out and go to celebrations of the Extraordinary Form, rather than just accepting a Mass they considered inferior or less desirable. The people that are attending today’s Extraordinary Form are the ones who would have been paying attention rather than praying the Rosary back in the 50s and 60s.

The other reason is because there was a general spiritual laziness that had taken hold of the Church prior to the Second Vatican Council. Catholics took their faith for granted and did not exercise it as they ought. I am certain you will disagree, but I cite as my authority not only Church historians, but priests of the SSPX.

SSPX priests have said that the Tridentine Mass was taken away from the people because they had come to take it for granted and to treat it with less than the reverance it deserved and required, by doing things such as praying the Rosary during Mass. Now one can certainly disagree with their conclusions - it may indeed be argued that God did not in fact “take away” the Tridentine Mass as a punishment. However, their *observations *of what was going on in the Church during the pre-Conciliar era cannot be discounted.

There is no harm to traditional Catholicism in admitting the malaise in which the Church’s spiritual life was in at that time. The Tridentine Missal and other aspects of traditional Catholicism are not tied to that negative. They are good, and merely suffered due to the spiritual bereftness that had fallen upon the Church at the time. The Church was in many ways in a better position in those days. Certainly its temporal and social presence was ***far ***greater. However, in many ways it had lost its spiritual heart. This is the very reason that John XXIII sought to call a Council in the first place, after all - to let some light into the Church, to clear the dust out, as he had put it. The vast majority of the traditionalist Catholics I know of agree with Blessed John’s intention, and consider the Council to have gotten off track from his original plan.

Again, I am not speaking of my own authority. Even the SSPX priests readily acknowledge and teach this. If they are willing to, I see no reason you shouldn’t be able to. Perhaps you grew up in a very good area, but you must recognize that what you saw was by no means the whole Church.

So for almost 1400 years the Holy Spirit remained silent? The Mass could have been said in the vernacular at anytime had that been the will of the Holy Spirit. And to suggest that people are paying more attention at Mass now and not when I was growing up is not true. The statistics show that in 1958 mass attendance was at 74%. In 2004 it was at 31%. Care to explain that?

I do not believe the Holy Spirit remains silent for any period of time. What I said is that I believe the Holy Spirit inspired the renewal of the Liturgy as an antidote to our current microwave culture - a culture which did not exist until the late 1950s. There was no reason for the Holy Spirit to have inspired the changes I am referring to until our time. Our time is the first time in the history of the world that is so full of noise, distractions, and is such a microwave culture - we are used to getting everything in a matter of seconds.

I believe that the spiritual malaise in the Church in the 1940s and 50s was a result of the beginnings of this modern culture, a culture which has stolen the minds and hearts of men. My firm belief is that the Holy Spirit inspired the Council and the new Liturgy to help cut across this mess we have gotten ourselves into. It is in my opinion an extension of the Incarnation, that just as Jesus came down to become man for us to reach past our own sins, so too did He deign to speak to us in a renwed Liturgy to cut through the sins keeping us from hearing Him.

I agree with the many who argue that if not for the Council, things would be far, far, far, far worse than they are today. You cite the decline in Mass attendance, but the problem is you cannot show any causality. You are committing the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc, which contends that just because one thing comes after the other, that it was caused by the other. In order to show this, one must show causality. In the case of Mass attendance, there are several other factors which very easily can be held accountable and which coincided almost precisely with the promulgation of the Pauline Missal, most notably Humanae Vitae, which I am sure you are aware brought forth a wave of dissent the likes of which had never been seen in the Church.

The promulgation of Humanae Vitae is considerd by everyone I am aware of who has studied modern Church history to be the singular identifying event of modern ecclesial history. This coupled with the rebellious, sex and drug driven period of the late 1960s and early 1970s would have spelled a terrible decline in Mass attendance regardless of what Missal was in use. It is impossible to say whether the Pauline Missal had a significant, if any, effect. You are certainly free to believe that it did, but there is unfortunately no way of accurately assesing whether or not it is in fact the case.

Peace and God bless!

 

[ethelzguy]

I grew up with the Latin Mass. We knew what was being said and the majority were not saying the rosary at Mass. They were reading from their missal and following the Mass. This lie about the way things were is getting old.

This was not common and eveyone was not praying with different intentions.The old mass was the mass of saints, martyrs and hundreds of saints and the common laity.
.

I would beg to differ. In 70+ years of life, I’ve attended more than one Catholic church in my day. While the Latin Mass certainly has it’s beauty, the REAL LIFE truth is, that a large portion of congregants WERE saying their rosaries, praying to saints, etc., because even though we could recite the words by rote memory, we didn’t necessarily understand the depth of the meaning (or we didn’t respond at all because the altar boys did it).

It was, indeed, beautiful, but as we weren’t exactly “participants”, we “participated” in other ways.

While it may not have been going on in EVERY Catholic church, the fact remains that it DID go on in many if not most. It is NOT a LIE.

 

[Auntie_M]

I appreciate all your post. But there is another thing I am confused about and maybe some of you could explain.

What is the “burning of the Alelulia Man”, where did this custom come from and what is it about?
Thank you all

 

[AJV]

I never said I had heard it exclusively on these forums. The fact is that I have heard it from those who did attend the Mass prior to the renewal of the Missal. It is a truth. You can either choose to accept it, or accuse me of lying. I would prefer the former.

In any case, it is certainly an abuse to pray the Rosary during Mass. The Holy Mass is not a time for private prayer. It is itself the highest form of prayer a human being can engage in. To use one’s mind for any other prayer while the Holy Sacrifice is taking place in your very presence is appalling and shows an utter lack of comprehension of just what it is actually going on in the sanctuary.

No, saying the Rosary during Mass does not irise to the level of participating in the demonic, but it is certainly of demonic inspiration just like any other sin. One must never disregard the Holy Mass for anything else, whether that be a personal thought or a lesser form of prayer.

While I agree that there is such a thing as a more perfect form of participation in the Mass, I would not attribute to the reciting of the rosary during the Mass even demonic inspration, nor any sinfulness. The praying of any prayer during the Mass in union with the thoughts, intentions and aspirations of the priest canot be condemned - the Church has condoned it in the past, in at least one case ‘encouraged’ it (I refer here to the October devotions prescribed by Leo XIII).

To be sure, one may say that a greater fruit is obtained by prayerful meditation and praying of the actual prayers of the Mass, perhaps even that praying the rosary is not ideal - but it’s another thing to attribute sinfulness to praying of the rosary during Mass if it is prayed in union with the priest

Catechism of St. Pius X

19 Q: Does the recitation of the Rosary or other prayers during Mass prevent us from hearing it with profit?
A: The recitation of the Rosary and other prayers during Mass does not prevent us from hearing it with profit, provided we try as far as possible to follow the parts of the Holy Sacrifice.

Mediator Dei:

Who, then, would say, on account of such a prejudice, that all these Christians cannot participate in the Mass nor share its fruits? On the contrary, they can adopt some other method which proves easier for certain people; for instance, they can lovingly meditate on the mysteries of Jesus Christ or perform other exercises of piety or recite prayers which, though they differ from the sacred rites, are still essentially in harmony with them.

 

[Mystic_of_God]

sigh

I thought I was leaving WWIII over liturgy behind when I entered the Church. Heck, I thought I was leaving dissent behind. My mistake.

 

[patrick457]

I appreciate all your post. But there is another thing I am confused about and maybe some of you could explain.

What is the “burning of the Alelulia Man”, where did this custom come from and what is it about?
Thank you all

The “burning of the Alleluia Man” is a variant in a symbolic custom of ‘burying’ the Alleluia on the Saturday before *Septuagesima Sunday *(the third from the last Sunday before Lent. This, and the following two Sundays before Lent, known as Sexagesima and Quinquagesima were dropped from the calendar after the liturgical reforms, and thus, the use of violet vestments and omission of “Alleluia” in the liturgy do not start until Ash Wednesday in the present calendar). The joyful “Alleluia” is thus laid to rest for seventy days until it ‘rises again’ in the Easter Vigil.

The depositio (discontinuance) of the Alleluia on the eve of Septuagesima assumed in medieval times a solemn and emotional note of saying farewell to the beloved song. Despite the fact that Pope Alexander II had ordered a very simple and somber way of “deposing” the Alleluia, a variety of farewell customs prevailed in many countries up to the sixteenth century. They were inspired by the sentiment that Bishop William Duranti (1296) voiced in his commentaries on the Divine Office: “We part from the Alleluia as from a beloved friend, whom we embrace many times and kiss on the mouth, head and hand, before we leave him.”

The liturgical office on the eve of Septuagesima was performed in many churches with special solemnity, and alleluias were freely inserted in the sacred text, even to the number of twenty-eight final alleluias in the church of Auxerre in France. This custom also inspired some tender poems that were sung or recited during Vespers in honor of the sacred word. The best known of these hymns is, Alleluia, dulce carmen (“Alleluia, Song of Gladness”), composed by an unknown author of the tenth century.

In some French churches the custom developed in ancient times of allowing the congregation to take part in the celebration of a quasi-liturgical farewell ceremony. The clergy abstained from any role in this popular service. Choirboys officiated in their stead at what was called “Burial of the Alleluia” performed the Saturday afternoon before Septuagesima Sunday. We find a description of it in the fifteenth-century statute book of the church of Toul:

“On Saturday before Septuagesima Sunday all choir boys gather in the sacristy during the prayer of the None, to prepare for the burial of the Alleluia. After the last Benedicamus * they march in procession, with crosses, tapers, holy water and censers; and they carry a coffin, as in a funeral. Thus they proceed through the aisle, moaning and mourning, until they reach the cloister. There they bury the coffin; they sprinkle it with holy water and incense it; whereupon they return to the sacristy by the same way.”

In Paris, a straw figure bearing in golden letters the inscription “Alleluia” was carried out of the choir at the end of the service and burned in the church yard.

With the exception of these quaint aberrations, however, the farewell to alleluia in most countries was an appropriate addition to the official ceremonies of the liturgy. The special texts (hymns, responsories, antiphons) used on that occasion were taken mostly from Holy Scripture, and are filled with pious sentiments of devotion.

ALLELUIA, DULCE CARMEN

*Alleluia dulce carmen,
Vox perennis gaudii,
Alleluia laus suavis
Est choris coelestibus,
Quam canunt Dei manentes
In domo per saecula.

Alleluia laeta mater
Concivis Jerusalem:
Alleluia vox tuorum
Civium gaudentium:
Exsules nos flere cogunt
Babylonis flumina.

Alleluia non meremur
In perenne psallere;
Alleluia vo reatus
Cogit intermittere;
Tempus instat quo peracta
Lugeamus crimina.

Unde laudando precamur
Te beata Trinitas,
Ut tuum nobis videre
Pascha des in aethere,
Quo tibi laeti canamus
Alleluia perpetim.*

(translation by John M. Neale, 1851 alt.)

Alleluia, song of gladness,
Voice of joy that cannot die;
Alleluia is the anthem
Ever dear to choirs on high;
In the house of God abiding
Thus they sing eternally.

Alleluia thou resoundest,
True Jerusalem and free;
Alleluia, joyful mother,
All thy children sing with thee;
But by Babylon’s sad waters
Mourning exiles now are we.

Alleluia we deserve not
Here to chant forevermore;
Alleluia our transgressions
Make us for a while give o’er;
For the holy time is coming
Bidding us our sins deplore.

Therefore in our hymns we pray Thee,
Grant us, blessed Trinity,
At the last to keep Thine Easter
In our home beyond the sky;
There to Thee forever singing
Alleluia joyfully.*

 

[LilyM]

The “burning of the Alleluia Man” is a variant in a symbolic custom of ‘burying’ the Alleluia on the Saturday before *Septuagesima Sunday *(the third from the last Sunday before Lent. This, and the following two Sundays before Lent, known as Sexagesima and Quinquagesima were dropped from the calendar after the liturgical reforms, and thus, the use of violet vestments and omission of “Alleluia” in the liturgy do not start until Ash Wednesday in the present calendar). The joyful “Alleluia” is thus laid to rest for seventy days until it ‘rises again’ in the Easter Vigil.

The depositio (discontinuance) of the Alleluia on the eve of Septuagesima assumed in medieval times a solemn and emotional note of saying farewell to the beloved song. Despite the fact that Pope Alexander II had ordered a very simple and somber way of “deposing” the Alleluia, a variety of farewell customs prevailed in many countries up to the sixteenth century. They were inspired by the sentiment that Bishop William Duranti (1296) voiced in his commentaries on the Divine Office: “We part from the Alleluia as from a beloved friend, whom we embrace many times and kiss on the mouth, head and hand, before we leave him.”

The liturgical office on the eve of Septuagesima was performed in many churches with special solemnity, and alleluias were freely inserted in the sacred text, even to the number of twenty-eight final alleluias in the church of Auxerre in France. This custom also inspired some tender poems that were sung or recited during Vespers in honor of the sacred word. The best known of these hymns is, Alleluia, dulce carmen (“Alleluia, Song of Gladness”), composed by an unknown author of the tenth century.

In some French churches the custom developed in ancient times of allowing the congregation to take part in the celebration of a quasi-liturgical farewell ceremony. The clergy abstained from any role in this popular service. Choirboys officiated in their stead at what was called “Burial of the Alleluia” performed the Saturday afternoon before Septuagesima Sunday. We find a description of it in the fifteenth-century statute book of the church of Toul:

“*On Saturday before Septuagesima Sunday all choir boys gather in the sacristy during the prayer of the None, to prepare for the burial of the Alleluia. After the last Benedicamus * they march in procession, with crosses, tapers, holy water and censers; and they carry a coffin, as in a funeral. Thus they proceed through the aisle, moaning and mourning, until they reach the cloister. There they bury the coffin; they sprinkle it with holy water and incense it; whereupon they return to the sacristy by the same way.**”

In Paris, a straw figure bearing in golden letters the inscription “Alleluia” was carried out of the choir at the end of the service and burned in the church yard.

With the exception of these quaint aberrations, however, the farewell to alleluia in most countries was an appropriate addition to the official ceremonies of the liturgy. The special texts (hymns, responsories, antiphons) used on that occasion were taken mostly from Holy Scripture, and are filled with pious sentiments of devotion.

What a lovely custom - and a lovely song too. I wonder if we could try to revive it for Ash Wednesday?

 

[Our_Refuge]

=Lazerlike42;3685080]
In any case, it is certainly an abuse to pray the Rosary during Mass. .

I don’t believe that Saint Pius X would allow saying the rosary during Mass if it were an abuse.
Catechism of St. Pius X
Quote:
19 Q: Does the recitation of the Rosary or other prayers during Mass prevent us from hearing it with profit?
A: The recitation of the Rosary and other prayers during Mass does not prevent us from hearing it with profit, provided we try as far as possible to follow the parts of the Holy Sacrifice.

No, saying the Rosary during Mass does not irise to the level of participating in the demonic, but it is certainly of** **demonic inspiration ****just like any other sin

Pius XII approved of Demonic inspiration?
Mediator Dei:
"Who, then, would say, on account of such a prejudice, that all these Christians cannot participate in the Mass nor share its fruits? On the contrary, they can adopt some other method which proves easier for certain people; for instance,** they can lovingly meditate on the mysteries of Jesus Christ **or perform other exercises of piety or recite prayers which, though they differ from the sacred rites, are still essentially in harmony with them. "

there was a general spiritual laziness that had taken hold of the Church prior to the Second Vatican Council. Catholics took their faith for granted and did not exercise it as they ought. I am certain you will disagree, but I cite as my authority not only Church historians, but priests of the SSPX.

.78% attended Mass in 1958. That is hardly ‘spiritual laziness’. The Knight of Columbus, the Altar Soceity were large organizations back then, not so now. You probably don’t even know what a Christ the King procession is do you? No one took their faith for granted. Catholic Schools were full. We went to Mass at 8am every school day. Does that happen today?

SSPX priests have said that the Tridentine Mass was taken away from the people because they had come to take itfor granted- it may indeed be argued that God did not in fact “take away” the Tridentine Mass as a punishment.

As a punishment? This thread should be entitled, “Let’s bash Traditional Catholics”

There is no harm to traditional Catholicism in admitting the malaise in which the Church’s spiritual life was in at that time

.
How old are you? Malaise in the spiritual life?

The Tridentine Missal and other aspects of traditional Catholicism are not tied to that negative. They are good, and merely suffered due to the spiritual bereftness that had fallen upon the Church at the time.

Interesting choice of words. “At the time " Catholic’s were discriminated against. You could be denied a job because you were Catholic. The Masons were strong in the 50’ s and 60’s. I remember reading some of their material on what they called the 'whore of babylon”. Catholics were strong in those days. We had to be.

The Church was in many ways in a better position in those days. Certainly its temporal and social presence was ***far ***greater. However, in many ways it had lost its spiritual heart. /

Lost its spiritual heart? Please enlighten me.

This is the very reason that John XXIII sought to call a Council in the first place, after all - to let some light into the Church, to clear the dust out, as he had put it. The vast majority of the traditionalist Catholics I know of agree with Blessed John’s intention, and consider the Council to have gotten off track from his original plan.

Again, enlighten me. What was his original plan?

Again, I am not speaking of my own authority. Even the SSPX priests readily acknowledge and teach this.

Are you with the SSPX? You have mentioned them several times.

I believe that the spiritual malaise in the Church in the 1940s and 50s was a result of the beginnings of this modern culture, a culture which has stolen the minds and hearts of men

.

Do you have statistics or maybe some quotes from Bishop Fulteen Sheen to back up this perceived “spiritual malaise”?

My firm belief is that the Holy Spirit inspired the Council and the new Liturgy to help cut across this mess we have gotten ourselves into. It is in my opinion an extension of the Incarnation, that just as Jesus came down to become man for us to reach past our own sins, so too did He deign to speak to us in a renwed Liturgy to **cut through the sins **keeping us from hearing Him.

 

[JReducation]

In a This Rock article, holding hands during the Our Father is listed as being one of the top ten liturgical abuses and of it is said:

• catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9901fea1.asp

Unless the Congregation has released a new statement on this, I believe you are mistaken.

I read Dr. Johnson’s article. I was wondering about some of what you cited, then I realized that it was written in 1999. Since that time the Conference of Bishops have asked for a number of permissions and they have been granted.

Once granted, then it’s up the to Conference to decide whether they will regulate on a national level or leave it up to the local level or some intermmediate level.

For example, female altar servers was left up to th Bishop of each diocese. Holding of hands during the Our Father was left of the the Provincial Archbishop or Metropolitan.

The use of non ordained persons to preach was left pretty much the same, only those who have the dispensation. Dr. Johnson mentions the I believe the Propagation of the Faith as one, but not the only one. Certain religious orders also have the dispensation and in orders of nuns (not sisters) the abbess has this dispensation, she must be an abbess, not a Mother Superior.

For example, Mother Angelica is not an abbess, though she is a nun. The Poor Clares do not have abbesses. They are directly under the bishop, not autonomous.

Another thing that the bishops of the USA asked for and was granted was for the RCIT. I don’t believe too many other conferences have an RCIT. This is indirectly related to the liturgy. It has proven to be very good in some parishes where it’s done well. In our diocese it works very well. The Bishop leads it.

Religious bishops asked for permission, through the Congregation for Religious Life, to continue to celebrate the mass according the the traditions of their religious orders or congregations, because the new Code of Canon Law says that any religious who is consecrated a bishop CONTINUES to belong to his religious community and is not dispensed from his vows, as was the case in the past. These bishops felt that they wanted the option to celebrate the form of the mass practiced in their communities, but for the faithful of their diocese and it was granted. This means that they can choose to use the OF or the form of their community, if their community has a form of its own. Not all communities have a form of their own.

From what I have studied the reasoning is the Vatican’s desire to preserve the integrity of the liturgy and at the same time include the reverence that is traditional to local cultures. For example, among the indigenous people of South America, clapping and percussion instruments have always been used in worship. When these people became Catholics this was the form of worship and reverence that they knew and that lifts up their hearts. The Bishops’ Conferences of Latin America where there are still large concentrations of Native Americans, have asked and received permission to include these forms of reverence in the liturgy, the same in some Caribbean islands.

There is a very famous order of monks called the Brothers of the Poor founded in Jamaica that has introduced a beautiful form of liturgical music that is rooted in Jamaican music. They have received Pontifical Right to do so, from Benedict XVI.

Over the years, the bishops have asked for different dispensations, not only iin the USA but in many countries.

JR )

 

[JReducation]

In any case, it is certainly an abuse to pray the Rosary during Mass. The Holy Mass is not a time for private prayer. It is itself the highest form of prayer a human being can engage in. To use one’s mind for any other prayer while the Holy Sacrifice is taking place in your very presence is appalling and shows an utter lack of comprehension of just what it is actually going on in the sanctuary.

No, saying the Rosary during Mass does not irise to the level of participating in the demonic, but it is certainly of demonic inspiration just like any other sin. One must never disregard the Holy Mass for anything else, whether that be a personal thought or a lesser form of prayer.

With all due respect, I believe you are confusing two different things here. While it is true that the mass is the highest form of prayer and that the only other prayer that ties into the mass and continues the prayer of the Church is the Liturgy of the Hours, which should be prayed by everyone, the rosary is not a demonic practice inside or outside the mass.

The rosary, by its very nature is Christocentric, for it is a meditation on the mysteries of Christ’s life. Therefore, it is acceptable to pray the rosary before or after mass. What is not allowed is for the rosary to form part of the mass.

That being said, if an individual prays the rosary during mass, they run the risk of being distracted from following the mass. But this does not constitute a sin of any kind.

The law of the Church regarding sin is that the action has to be materially sinful. Praying the rosary is not materially sinful. There are no conditions that say that it is sinful in this setting and not sinful in that setting. What is materially sinful is sinful in any setting.

At best, praying the rosary during mass is bad timing on the part of the individual. If bad timing were materially sinful, we would all be in trouble for the many times that we have committed such a sin.

The reason that there is not a massive amount of praying the Rosary during today’s Tridentine Masses is twofold. Firstly, those who attended indult Masses and who now attend the Extraordinary Form thanks to Benedict XVI are those who are most devoted.

This is an a priori assumption on your part and a subjective judgement. The Church does not believe or teach this. Make sure that you say so to your target audience, that this is your belief, not the Church’s belief.

They cared enough about the Lord to desire the Extraordinary Form and to seek out indult Masses and now to seek out and go to celebrations of the Extraordinary Form, rather than just accepting a Mass they considered inferior or less desirable.

Because people considered the Of inferior does not make it so. The Holy See disagrees with this. The Motu Proprio clearly states that both forms are equal in dignity and sanctity. There is no superior or inferior form. Any person who makes such a judgement is making it on their own, not with the support of the Church.

he other reason is because there was a general spiritual laziness that had taken hold of the Church prior to the Second Vatican Council. Catholics took their faith for granted and did not exercise it as they ought. I am certain you will disagree, but I cite as my authority not only Church historians, but priests of the SSPX.

There is no harm to traditional Catholicism in admitting the malaise in which the Church’s spiritual life was in at that time. The Tridentine Missal and other aspects of traditional Catholicism are not tied to that negative. They are good, and merely suffered due to the spiritual bereftness that had fallen upon the Church at the time. The Church was in many ways in a better position in those days. Certainly its temporal and social presence was ***far ***greater. However, in many ways it had lost its spiritual heart. This is the very reason that John XXIII sought to call a Council in the first place, after all - to let some light into the Church, to clear the dust out, as he had put it. The vast majority of the traditionalist Catholics I know of agree with Blessed John’s intention, and consider the Council to have gotten off track from his original plan.

The spiritual decline of the second half of the 20th century was not a Catholic phenomenon, it was a world-wide phenomenon. In other words, it was a sociological event due to many reasons, including materialism, communism and changes in family structures.

Vatican II did not get off track from its plan. It fulfilled it’s plan. It is impossible for a council of the Church to get off track, because the Holy Spirit is leading it. You can say that individuals got off tract trying to implement it, that would be fair, but not the council itself. If you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the writings of Benedict XVI and John Paul II, they constantly refer back to Vatican II.

Again, I am not speaking of my own authority. Even the SSPX priests readily acknowledge and teach this. If they are willing to, I see no reason you shouldn’t be able to. Perhaps you grew up in a very good area, but you must recognize that what you saw was by no means the whole Church.

Right now the SSPX priests have no authority in Church matters until they are reunited with the Holy Father. That’s a mute issue.

I do not believe the Holy Spirit remains silent for any period of time. What I said is that I believe the Holy Spirit inspired the renewal of the Liturgy as an antidote to our current microwave culture - a culture which did not exist until the late 1950s. There was no reason for the Holy Spirit to have inspired the changes I am referring to until our time. Our time is the first time in the history of the world that is so full of noise, distractions, and is such a microwave culture - we are used to getting everything in a matter of seconds.

I agree with the movement of the Holy Spirit. I disagree with this being the first time in history with so many distractions and noise, etc. Have your forgotten why the Fathers of the Desert started the Cenobitic Life?

I agree with the many who argue that if not for the Council, things would be far, far, far, far worse than they are today. You cite the decline in Mass attendance, but the problem is you cannot show any causality. You are committing the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc, which contends that just because one thing comes after the other, that it was caused by the other. In order to show this, one must show causality. In the case of Mass attendance, there are several other factors which very easily can be held accountable and which coincided almost precisely with the promulgation of the Pauline Missal, most notably Humanae Vitae, which I am sure you are aware brought forth a wave of dissent the likes of which had never been seen in the Church.

This is very true

The promulgation of Humanae Vitae is considerd by everyone I am aware of who has studied modern Church history to be the singular identifying event of modern ecclesial history. This coupled with the rebellious, sex and drug driven period of the late 1960s and early 1970s would have spelled a terrible decline in Mass attendance regardless of what Missal was in use. It is impossible to say whether the Pauline Missal had a significant, if any, effect. You are certainly free to believe that it did, but there is unfortunately no way of accurately assesing whether or not it is in fact the case.

In Europe, the USA and Canada Humanae Vitae was viewed as the Church interfering in the private affairs of the individual. The error that people committed was to treat the Church as they treat the government. They over generalized a good concept. They wanted government out of people’s personal lives. This was a result of centuries of government invasion of people’s lives, especially in countries with monarchies such as the European countries. There was also an atempt to liberate women from an oppressive political and economic system, which was a good thing.

But when you take a good thing and you over generalize it, it can then turn sour. The same people believed that the Church was introding in their private lives and attempting to control women’s choices. This made many angry and they cooled down or left. This was just the beginning. There were other issues that came up.

Some people were very attached to externals, such as sisters in full habits, Catholic Schools run by sisters or religious brothers, as if lay people could not provide good Catholic education. As religious left the field of education or changed the way they dressed some people felt abused, abandoned, angry and so forth.

I even heard of people who opposed the fact that women were named Doctors of the Church. As if women do not possess the intelligence to be theologians who can teach the universal Church.

There were many reasons which had nothing to do with the mass for leaving or losing faith.

JR

 

[consumedconvert]

Well put, JR.

JR, I hope I always have enough sense to stay out of an argument with you!

 

[Jeanette_L]

Well put, JR.

JR, I hope I always have enough sense to stay out of an argument with you!

:yup:

 

[ethelzguy]

I don’t believe that Saint Pius X would allow saying the rosary during Mass if it were an abuse.
Catechism of St. Pius X
Quote:
19 Q: Does the recitation of the Rosary or other prayers during Mass prevent us from hearing it with profit?
A: The recitation of the Rosary and other prayers during Mass does not prevent us from hearing it with profit, provided we try as far as possible to follow the parts of the Holy Sacrifice.

But now, you’re using the same logic that tradtionalists use to bash the OF/NO to defend goings on in the TLM.

If you’re busy saying your rosary, you can’t be “trying as far as possible to follow the parts of the Holy Sacrifice”

 

[JReducation]

As I try to stand back and take a better look at this debate about the NO, EF, Rosary, the Piuses (is there such a word?) and the Post Vatican II popes, I am reminded of when my children were very young and their mother was still alive. It’s called splitting.

“I like what Dad said better than what mom said” or vis a vis.

Since the Church is a good mother, I believe that these holy men: Pius V, Pius X, Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI would say to us what every good parent says. “Knock it off. This is not a mall. You can’t go shopping for answers. The last word is the final word.” Unless you’re being asked to do something that is dangerous to life, health or spirit, which is not the case here.

JR

 

[catharina]

As I try to stand back and take a better look at this debate about the NO, EF, Rosary, the Piuses (is there such a word?) and the Post Vatican II popes, I am reminded of when my children were very young and their mother was still alive. It’s called splitting.

“I like what Dad said better than what mom said” or vis a vis.

Since the Church is a good mother, I believe that these holy men: Pius V, Pius X, Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI would say to us what every good parent says. “Knock it off. This is not a mall. You can’t go shopping for answers. The last word is the final word.” Unless you’re being asked to do something that is dangerous to life, health or spirit, which is not the case here.

JR

JR, your post?
Love it. Thanks.

 

[stmaria]

But now, you’re using the same logic that tradtionalists use to bash the OF/NO to defend goings on in the TLM.

If you’re busy saying your rosary, you can’t be “trying as far as possible to follow the parts of the Holy Sacrifice”

I don’t think he is saying that at all. To say the rosary during Mass was accepted by the Church. A priest making up his own Eucharistic prayers is not accepted by the Church. A priest saying that you cannot kneel to receive communion or that you must stand during the Consecration are wrong and need to be addressed.

 

[Jeanette_L]

As I try to stand back and take a better look at this debate about the NO, EF, Rosary, the Piuses (is there such a word?) and the Post Vatican II popes, I am reminded of when my children were very young and their mother was still alive. It’s called splitting.

“I like what Dad said better than what mom said” or vis a vis.

Since the Church is a good mother, I believe that these holy men: Pius V, Pius X, Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI would say to us what every good parent says. “Knock it off. This is not a mall. You can’t go shopping for answers. The last word is the final word.” Unless you’re being asked to do something that is dangerous to life, health or spirit, which is not the case here.

JR

JR, your post?
Love it. Thanks.

This whole debate, which is ongoing all over the ‘Traditional’ threads, sadly brings to mind the biblical story about King Solomon and the two women who claimed to be the mother of the same child. They wanted Solomon to decide who the child should go to - who was going to win the argument and win the beloved child.

His wisdom was astounding. He ordered the child split in half so each woman could have her share.

The true mother gave up her rights so the child could live and begged it be given to the other woman. Of course Solomon was counting on love reigning.

One who truly loves, never wants to tear down or injure that which is loved, but will give up their ‘rights’ in order to save or heal or keep the beloved whole.

So many people claiming to love the Church. Very few willing to give anything up for Her to keep the peace and let God move. It is very telling.

 

[consumedconvert]

As I try to stand back and take a better look at this debate about the NO, EF, Rosary, the Piuses (is there such a word?) and the Post Vatican II popes, I am reminded of when my children were very young and their mother was still alive. It’s called splitting.

“I like what Dad said better than what mom said” or vis a vis.

Since the Church is a good mother, I believe that these holy men: **Pius V, Pius X, Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI **would say to us what every good parent says. “Knock it off. This is not a mall. You can’t go shopping for answers. The last word is the final word.” Unless you’re being asked to do something that is dangerous to life, health or spirit, which is not the case here.

You forgot John Paul 1?

(Okay, so he didn’t say much )

Love the post.

 

[JReducation]

You forgot John Paul 1?

(Okay, so he didn’t say much )

Love the post.

There’s not much he could say in one month. Though he did write some very interesting works of theology when he was Cardinal Luciani. He was a mystic. His works are very difficult to read, because he writes in the style of John of the Cross, using a lot of metaphor, poetry and a strong Venetian Italian which is not spoken outside of Venice.

I speak Italian fluently, but have a difficult time reading his stuff, because of the Venition in it. I try to get it in English when I can find it. He wrote a great deal on mystery and mercy.

JR

 

[Jeanette_L]

There’s not much he could say in one month. Though he did write some very interesting works of theology when he was Cardinal Luciani. He was a mystic. His works are very difficult to read, because he writes in the style of John of the Cross, using a lot of metaphor, poetry and a strong Venetian Italian which is not spoken outside of Venice.

I speak Italian fluently, but have a difficult time reading his stuff, because of the Venition in it. I try to get it in English when I can find it. **He wrote a great deal on mystery and mercy.
**
JR

Now that sounds like someone I’d like to read, although the language could be an issue…