A thought experiment: there were no Vatican ll reforms. What is the state of the Church in the Anglophone world in 2018?

[Pup7]

I just read it. It’s interesting. It says Latin is valuable, and that it means clergy can study original texts in the Liturgy and across Church history, and it talks about schooling within the clergy, but it doesn’t say “and all Masses need to be said in it because of all of this”.

I can see why the Pope would’ve stressed clergy education in Latin and Greek - that makes perfect sense. I’m sure a lot of them still study it.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

Putting that aside…why are there two orders in the Latin Church? The Tridentine mass has always been the Order of the Mass for the Latin Church, so what is the purpose of the Novus Ordo?

Because people arent robots?
[/quote]

Yeah, I guess people were robots before Vatican II. LIke all the saints and everybody. Aren’t we lucky not to be robots, we live in such an enlightened time?

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

Xanthippe_Voorhees:

Putting that aside…why are there two orders in the Latin Church? The Tridentine mass has always been the Order of the Mass for the Latin Church, so what is the purpose of the Novus Ordo?

Because people arent robots?

Yeah, I guess people were robots before Vatican II. LIke all the saints and everybody. Aren’t we lucky not to be robots, we live in such an enlightened time?
[/quote]

Have you actually read what I wrote rather than make a comment based on the very end of a conversation?

It wasn’t in reference to the advent of a New order and it’s promogation but why two orders are allowed.

the reality is that with the way communication was the order of the mass and “changes” always overlapped in history.

 

[otjm]

Liceity is not a concern of “Us”, if by “us” you mean those who follow the Magisterium.

If by 'Us" you meant the de facto schismatic group, that may be their concern, but it is not the concern the the Church.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

I apologize for my harshness and I may have misunderstood.
I am trying to figure out what your comment means. “Because people aren’t robots”?

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

I apologize for my harshness and I may have misunderstood.
I am trying to figure out what your comment means. “Because people aren’t robots”?

Why does one rite have two different ways of doing things?

Because people aren’t cookie cutter. Not only was there nearly always more than one way of doing things in the past but it didn’t appear as obvious because distance (and culture) separated those practices.

Things like music used to be stolen from church to church because songs were done from memory and hand notated.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

Loud-living-dogma:

I apologize for my harshness and I may have misunderstood.
I am trying to figure out what your comment means. “Because people aren’t robots”?

Why does one rite have two different ways of doing things?

Because people aren’t cookie cutter. Not only was there nearly always more than one way of doing things in the past but it didn’t appear as obvious because distance (and culture) separated those practices.

Things like music used to be stolen from church to church because songs were done from memory and hand notated.

But the fact remains that the Church had one order for many, many centuries. So, do you think that means that Catholics who lived during that time were "cookie cutter"or “robots”?

“Things like music used to be stolen” - - you mean, the Gregorian chant notation on parchment was stolen? Not sure what this refers to in this conversation?

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

I just read it. It’s interesting. It says Latin is valuable, and that it means clergy can study original texts in the Liturgy and across Church history, and it talks about schooling within the clergy, but it doesn’t say “and all Masses need to be said in it because of all of this”.

I can see why the Pope would’ve stressed clergy education in Latin and Greek - that makes perfect sense. I’m sure a lot of them still study it.

It’s just an interesting example from 1962, right before Vatican II. Many people mistakenly think that “Vatican II outlawed Latin”, so it is fun to read this document that praises Latin and explains the importance of it to the Church.

 

[dochawk]

Additionally, liturgical reforms were already taking place – there is no guarantee that the changes to the Mass would not have occurred without the council.

AFAIK, every Eastern Catholic group in the US handled linguistic change better than the RCC. “Better” as in “with far less side effects.”

After a couple/few generations, the churches were still using the languages of the old countries. Rather than a “whomp”, with an entire new liturgy out of the blue (or more importantly, being perceived as such), a different prayer each week would be offered in both English and the older language. In time, multiple prayers offered this way or just in english.

No sudden shock from everything at once, and the pace varied by parish and how many actual speakers f the old language there were.

hawk

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

Xanthippe_Voorhees:

Loud-living-dogma:

I apologize for my harshness and I may have misunderstood.
I am trying to figure out what your comment means. “Because people aren’t robots”?

Why does one rite have two different ways of doing things?

Because people aren’t cookie cutter. Not only was there nearly always more than one way of doing things in the past but it didn’t appear as obvious because distance (and culture) separated those practices.

Things like music used to be stolen from church to church because songs were done from memory and hand notated.

But the fact remains that the Church had one order for many, many centuries. So, do you think that means that Catholics who lived during that time were "cookie cutter"or “robots”?

“Things like music used to be stolen” - - you mean, the Gregorian chant notation on parchment was stolen? Not sure what this refers to in this conversation?

The liturgy was not the same in 302 as it was in 602 as it was in 1702. The liturgy changed because people changed. Not only that but because literacy was limited and other bariers also remained differences occured. Mass was not nearly as exact from church to church in the 1300s as it was in the 1800’s. Music reflects that

 

[dochawk]

@(name removed by moderator) was there any council who’s decisions were ever wholly reversed or derided?

Yes, but . . .

I used to be able to remember this kind of detai8l when IU needed t,

There were some back-and-forth in the first millennium, and eventually even switching of positions between East and West last to who accepted which. (uhh, Trullo, I think?). Some ping-ponging with emperors deposing and being restored, and so forth.

Post schism, the west has only backtracked once, AFAIK, involving settling the anti-popes.

There is a practical matter of how to have an ecumenical council with no, well, emperor to call it, as that is what the word means . . .

hawk

 

[otjm]

I stand with Cardinal Muller on his public commentary. And I agree that we need to return to the thread.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

Well, when people talk about “pre-Vatican II” I believe they mean the Tridentine Latin Mass, which was virtually unchanged from 1570 to 1962, and celebrated worldwide with the same language, chants, and ritual. So, we weren’t talking about 302, or 602, although we were talking about 1702. And 1902.Etc.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

a-thought-experiment-there-were-no-vatican-ll-reforms-what-is-the-state-of-the-church-in-the-anglophone-world-in-2017

Most phones are made in Asia

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Yes , we get lots of African and Indian missionary Priests now

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

Well, when people talk about “pre-Vatican II” I believe they mean the Tridentine Latin Mass, which was virtually unchanged from 1570 to 1962, and celebrated worldwide with the same language, chants, and ritual. So, we weren’t talking about 302, or 602, although we were talking about 1702. And 1902.Etc.

My argument is that a change needed to be made because technology created an artifical stagnation of changes.

 

[pianistclare]

What’s the difference?

 

[pianistclare]

Indeed, they still do.

 

[gracepoole]

Public views/misconceptions of the Church and Truth?

 

[pianistclare]

Well the Kennedys certainly espoused that!