M
Maximilian75
Guest
Yessssss
you get cookies
you get cookies
A thought experiment: there were no Vatican ll reforms. What is the state of the Church in the Anglophone world in 2018?
- Status
G
Gorgias
Guest
That was my first thought, too.
So, if the world isnāt beating a path to the Extraordinary Form of the Mass in the world as it currently exists, then why would we expect that it would do so if that were the only expression of Catholic liturgy?
(Mind you, Iām not saying that people arenāt drawn to the EF, but merely that the claims like @Crusader30 makes (ānew Golden Ageā, āpeople running to Confessionā, āconverts everywhereā) seem unrealistic.)
G
Gorgias
Guest
Any Church document or teaching can be interpreted in a āheretical mannerā. One need only read the 2000-year-history of the Church to see that this is true.
M
Maximilian75
Guest
I donāt argue this, but it may be said that that is happening now as a result of Summorum Pontificorum, and that the conditions before SP made such path-beating impossible.
Just being Devilās Advocate
Just being Devilās Advocate
Last edited:
T
Tulitas
Guest
The prince of lies really doesnāt need an advocate. 
What Deacon Jeff says is spot on.
What Deacon Jeff says is spot on.
X
Xanthippe_Voorhees
Guest
Despite what people who hang on to tradition seem to think, God had to have a hand in VII or it wouldnāt of happened. @(name removed by moderator) was there any council whoās decisions were ever wholly reversed or derided?
If God wanted it to happen, whatever could of happened would of been far, far worse for Catholics.
If God wanted it to happen, whatever could of happened would of been far, far worse for Catholics.
Last edited:
G
goout
Guest
Hypotheticals can be the cause of so much unnecessary dissension IMHO.
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
True. There was a desire for the EF among the faithful. And, the fact that this need is now being met is a good thing.
Where we start going off the rails is with the assertion that āEF onlyā is the answer, or is being flocked to by the world. That just doesnāt seem to be the case.
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
I try my best to sympathize with this view, since I was raised well into post-Vatican II era. I have hardly any knowledge of Latin, etc. That being said, my appreciation of Latin liturgy is mostly a nod to our Catholic tradition and history.
But I am personally grateful for the liturgical reforms via Vatican II, insofar as the liturgy is not Latin-centered. I donāt see my spirituality benefiting from a language I have no knowledge of. I try to be sympathetic to others, but I am more appreciative of the diversity of liturgical expression. Jesus didnāt celebrate Mass in Latin, after all.
I donāt want Latin liturgy to go away, as I donāt want the Byzantine or Coptic or Maronite liturgies to go away either. But none of these should be exalted, as if Catholic orthodoxy depended on a certain liturgy, language, or expression of the faith.
Last edited:
M
Maximilian75
Guest
Absolutely.
Reversing Vatican 2 will not fix the culture shock of the '70s
Reversing Vatican 2 will not fix the culture shock of the '70s
M
Maximilian75
Guest
Eh? Itās splitting hairs at this point, but the council ended in '69.
(edit: nope, '65. See post 47)
Either way, same result.
(edit: nope, '65. See post 47)
Either way, same result.
Last edited:
M
Maximilian75
Guest
Ah, okay. My bad then. Will edit post.
O
otjm
Guest
It was fine before the Council?
The peak of attendance at Mass was about 1957. According to CARA, That equated to 60% of Catholics attending Mass weekly. and the lines for confession were not particularly any different than than they are now for the number of people attending Mass regularly - in fact, due to the drop off, they may actually be effectively ālongerā - in other words, the percentage of those attending Mass may now be higher.
Mass attendance started dropping off then, and has continued at a fairly even pace since then, in spite of the anecdotal comments about large numbers quitting after the OF was put in place; but then, anecdotal commentary never likes the reality of numbers.
Significantly fewer than half of any given group of attendees had a missal. The rest were saying their Rosary or were engaged in reading other devotional tracts, none of which were centered on the Eucharist. and we would continue to have some men, sitting in the last pews, who as before likely came late and left early, and some of whom could be could reading the local Catholic paper during Mass. Note: all of this comes from sociological surveys made during Mass, in research done in the early to mid 1950ās, and is consistent with my experience (having been born in 1946).
The use of the Baltimore Catechism would still be in place, so people would know doctrine. But, as before, the majority would be doctrinally educated, but too often have little connection to faith, other than as a rule-based behavior. One of the constant questions was āHow late can I come to Mass and still fulfill my obligationā, the corollary of āhow soon can I leaveā¦ā. Both questions show an attitude of enduring Mass - a Low Mass on Sunday taking 30 to 40 minutes at most; a High Mass adding 10 to maybe 20 minutes depending on what the choir sang And we did not have Solemn High Masses every rainy Tuesday - one a year (Christmas at or near midnight).
We would not have the lay theologians like we do now, as much of that was an opening to the faithful to study theology - so likely no Scott Hahnās, or Brant Pitre. And likely we would have seen the continul erosion of Perpetual Adoration.
We would, however, have had the sexual abuse crisis, as a high percentage of the abusers were ordained prior to the Council. And the bishops who failed so terribly to respond properly to the crisis would have done so because so many were the product of pre-Vatican 2; a Church which had the 1st Vatican Council with focus on the Pope, but little or no focus on the bishops, and they in large part would have continued with the bureaucratic mindset rather than the shepherd mindset. What drove the secrecy aspect of the bishopsā reactions would still be firmly in place.
The peak of attendance at Mass was about 1957. According to CARA, That equated to 60% of Catholics attending Mass weekly. and the lines for confession were not particularly any different than than they are now for the number of people attending Mass regularly - in fact, due to the drop off, they may actually be effectively ālongerā - in other words, the percentage of those attending Mass may now be higher.
Mass attendance started dropping off then, and has continued at a fairly even pace since then, in spite of the anecdotal comments about large numbers quitting after the OF was put in place; but then, anecdotal commentary never likes the reality of numbers.
Significantly fewer than half of any given group of attendees had a missal. The rest were saying their Rosary or were engaged in reading other devotional tracts, none of which were centered on the Eucharist. and we would continue to have some men, sitting in the last pews, who as before likely came late and left early, and some of whom could be could reading the local Catholic paper during Mass. Note: all of this comes from sociological surveys made during Mass, in research done in the early to mid 1950ās, and is consistent with my experience (having been born in 1946).
The use of the Baltimore Catechism would still be in place, so people would know doctrine. But, as before, the majority would be doctrinally educated, but too often have little connection to faith, other than as a rule-based behavior. One of the constant questions was āHow late can I come to Mass and still fulfill my obligationā, the corollary of āhow soon can I leaveā¦ā. Both questions show an attitude of enduring Mass - a Low Mass on Sunday taking 30 to 40 minutes at most; a High Mass adding 10 to maybe 20 minutes depending on what the choir sang And we did not have Solemn High Masses every rainy Tuesday - one a year (Christmas at or near midnight).
We would not have the lay theologians like we do now, as much of that was an opening to the faithful to study theology - so likely no Scott Hahnās, or Brant Pitre. And likely we would have seen the continul erosion of Perpetual Adoration.
We would, however, have had the sexual abuse crisis, as a high percentage of the abusers were ordained prior to the Council. And the bishops who failed so terribly to respond properly to the crisis would have done so because so many were the product of pre-Vatican 2; a Church which had the 1st Vatican Council with focus on the Pope, but little or no focus on the bishops, and they in large part would have continued with the bureaucratic mindset rather than the shepherd mindset. What drove the secrecy aspect of the bishopsā reactions would still be firmly in place.
O
otjm
Guest
Some of us were around when Jack Kennedy went to the Baptists and said, in so many words, āI will be Catholic in private, but I will not let the Church tell me what to do as Presidentā.
He made it very clear that the Church would not have a place at the table when it came to conversations about Politics Yes, we were in retreat from the world, if one listened to him.
He made it very clear that the Church would not have a place at the table when it came to conversations about Politics Yes, we were in retreat from the world, if one listened to him.
G
gracepoole
Guest
Is it better, then, to have Catholic politicians who set aside Church teachings to get elected?
A
Augustinian
Guest
When I was a kid, born in 1956, most people attending Mass didnāt approach for communion. This is a major change provoked in part by the V2 council. The idea of virtually everyone in attendance receiving is something relatively new
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
People just need to accept Vatican II happened. The idea was to make the Church more accessible for the era.
I donāt know about you, but fasting for 3 hours before Communion? No thanks.
I donāt think that not having those reforms just to say we didnāt change in the 1960s is very flawed reasoning for a couple of reasons.
First, a lot of the problems in the West didnāt start with Flower Power or the sexual revolution. The kind of cultural changes they are talking about made their way long before that.
Second, the Church has historically been very malleable on certain cultural practices. Thatās why a lot of people get confused and think the Church just took in pagan rituals willy-nilly, but in reality, itās been a powerful force for evangelization.
Third, any argument that the Protestants are infiltrating the Church is really bogus at this point. I wonāt even say it happened, but the main driving cultural force is not Protestantism. Itās a conflict between Western liberalists of all stripes vs. post-modernists and to some degree the emergence of sharia law.
I think rehashing Vatican II (which may be a banned topic on here) is a complete waste of time. We need to move on as a Church, see the world for it is today and head up those new challenges. Iām tired of us being tossed around by other Faiths/philosophies which has not served us well in the last 50 years.
I donāt know about you, but fasting for 3 hours before Communion? No thanks.
I donāt think that not having those reforms just to say we didnāt change in the 1960s is very flawed reasoning for a couple of reasons.
First, a lot of the problems in the West didnāt start with Flower Power or the sexual revolution. The kind of cultural changes they are talking about made their way long before that.
Second, the Church has historically been very malleable on certain cultural practices. Thatās why a lot of people get confused and think the Church just took in pagan rituals willy-nilly, but in reality, itās been a powerful force for evangelization.
Third, any argument that the Protestants are infiltrating the Church is really bogus at this point. I wonāt even say it happened, but the main driving cultural force is not Protestantism. Itās a conflict between Western liberalists of all stripes vs. post-modernists and to some degree the emergence of sharia law.
I think rehashing Vatican II (which may be a banned topic on here) is a complete waste of time. We need to move on as a Church, see the world for it is today and head up those new challenges. Iām tired of us being tossed around by other Faiths/philosophies which has not served us well in the last 50 years.
G
gracepoole
Guest
Iām taking the OP at his/her word. Itās just a thought experiment.
Huh. I never thought of this as a big deal and Iāve tried it myself from time to time. Fasting from midnight to communion is a far bigger challenge for some. Still doable in many circumstances.
Holy cow, I hope that doesnāt happen. One of the most significant events in the last 100 years of Church history should never be a banned topic here.
O
otjm
Guest
Oh, we cared about saving souls back then; we had penny collections to save pagan babies. But the greater majority of active Catholics (meaning whose who attended Mass regularly) focused on doctrine and discipline as their primary focus. If those babies could be baptized, they could be saved. And being saved was following the rules, but extended precious little beyond that for the average pew warmer.
And I am a firm believer that Bishop Robert Barron is exactly on point. He calls himself a āpost liberalā. not retreating to pre-Vatican 2 perspective, and moving beyond the post Vatican 2 perspective. As he notes, post Vatican 2 was centered on the experiential side - what am I experiencing. By his definition, post liberal is a move to a Christocentric faith.
And I am a firm believer that Bishop Robert Barron is exactly on point. He calls himself a āpost liberalā. not retreating to pre-Vatican 2 perspective, and moving beyond the post Vatican 2 perspective. As he notes, post Vatican 2 was centered on the experiential side - what am I experiencing. By his definition, post liberal is a move to a Christocentric faith.
O
otjm
Guest
And that āonly pastoral Councilā had the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation,and the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, so maybe we can get past that bit of blather implying that doctrine and dogma were not part of the Council. No, it did not define any new doctrine or dogma, but the bit of it only being āpastoralā is used to minimize and by implication, trivialize any significance of the Council.
- Status