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

  • Thread starter Thread starter FiveLinden
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
@Crusader30

Is the Novus Ordo Mass an authentic Catholic liturgy? Yes or no? And why?
 
otjm said:
However, the 1917 Code of Canon law had the fast from midnight until reception. But the literal fast was from whenever someone last ate, prior to midnight, until Communion. That did not change until 1957, when fasting was for three hours (backward) from the reception of Communion. And that in large part had to do with who received and who did not; if one was going to the 9 a.m. Mass and had a family of young children it was logistically near impossible to get all fed by 6:30 a.m. And if the evening meal was over by 7 p.m. the night before, that meant a fast 14 and a half hours, more than some people could deal with.

And as a young child, I remember comments being made about frequency of reception by people who were 2 generations older than me, and there were still lingering aspects of Jansenism.

Both of these had a strong influence on how often and when one received.
Click to expand...
Maybe this is why Mediterranean cultures (who are historially Catholic) eat late dinners. So the fast wouldn’t be quite so long! 🤣
 
Last edited:
I think a lot more happened in Vatican II than liturgical change. The ecumenism (even with non Christians) was unthinkable before. At the highest levels, where even the Pope (now St. JP II) presided over some of it.
 
Loud-living-dogma said:
I would love to see the actual newspaper, but then, I can’t speak Italian so I would still be relying on someone’s translation.
Click to expand...
The link you gave reproduces the newspaper page. Know anyone who speaks Italian? Unfortunately, I don’t.
 
I find it interesting that people who attempt to go the route of “the OF was a result of Protestantizing the Mass” are just about completely illiterate as to the history of liturgical research starting well over 100 years ago.
 
gracepoole said:
I never thought of this as a big deal and I’ve tried it myself from time to time. Fasting from midnight to communion is a far bigger challenge for some. Still doable in many circumstances
Click to expand...
Regarding the three hour pre-Communion fast, with the medications we have today, this is nearly impossible for a lot of people. There are plenty of medications taken in the AM that people need to take with food.

I can’t answer to many of the differences, but I think this is assuredly a good one.
 
For those of us unfamiliar with pre-V2, what are the differences?

I promise this isn’t a pointed question. If it’s better for me to read about it, and you know a good source, I’m willing to do that.

I know one of the changes was away from Latin. I thought I read the Council of Trent said Mass should be in the vernacular - or am I wrong? Keep in mind I’m learning. Honestly not trying to stir the pot.
 
Last edited:
Crusader30 said:
and went against what every Pope before Him knew what should not be touched.
Click to expand...
You do realize, don’t you, that the Tridentine Mass didn’t appear full-blown in the 1st century? And didn’t remain untouched between Trent and Vatican II?
 
Respect is part of Jesus command to love our neighbor.

We don’t need another savior to save our souls, we already have one in Jesus Christ.

Jim
 
Yes but it grew organically and had very small changes
 
Last edited:
Is the Extraordinary Form found in every Roman practice of the liturgy from the first century on?

What is it about the EF that is essential?

Does the Novus Ordo Mass not also have the Sacrifice of the Mass — the Real Presence of the Eucharist? Does it not also have the liturgy of the Word?

What other aspects of the liturgy are necessary? What is it about the EF that makes it more of a liturgy?
 
Trent actually said the vernacular should not be used. V2 said Latin should be preserved, but allowed for the vernacular. I am not an EF advocate, but the extent that the vernacular is used today appears to contradict the plain language of V2.

I think the OP’s point in the thought experiment is to question whether we would still have the declines in faithfulness, mass attendance, etc. had V2 not occurred. I am a child of the 80s, so no first-hand knowledge of pre-V2 life and liturgy. But, I would guess that we’d still have declines. I think that the issues plaguing the faithful today are largely (but not entirely) a result of changing culture, not changes in the Church (again, largely, but not entirely).
 
I can agree with this. Wouldn’t you agree that the language of the mass, from day one to the present, is also a matter of liturgical discipline?
 
straykat said:
I think a lot more happened in Vatican II than liturgical change. The ecumenism (even with non Christians) was unthinkable before. At the highest levels, where even the Pope (now St. JP II) presided over some of it.
Click to expand...
If it was unthinkable, how did Kennedy get elected? That was November 1960. Vatican II opened in Oct. 1962.

I think a great deal more societal change, including changes among Catholics, came about because of World War I and especially World War II–the cooperation between groups that were separate before to fight a unified fight, the loss of faith and damage to the family due to the atrocities seen by and probably the widespread and untreated PTSD suffered by the veterans, especially the youngest ones, the period of prosperity that went with it, and so on. (Europe, meanwhile, has much more societal devastation to work through, of course!!)

Those world wars did far more damage than many give them credit for. Had they not happened, there is a good chance the societal upheaval that lead Pope John XXIII to conclude Vatican II was needed may have been absent or very different. (It is also difficult to say what would have happened in the world if World War II had not. It depends so much on what would have replaced it, which is of course impossible to say…)
 
Last edited:
Pup7 said:
40.png
gracepoole:
I never thought of this as a big deal and I’ve tried it myself from time to time. Fasting from midnight to communion is a far bigger challenge for some. Still doable in many circumstances
Click to expand...
Regarding the three hour pre-Communion fast, with the medications we have today, this is nearly impossible for a lot of people. There are plenty of medications taken in the AM that people need to take with food.

I can’t answer to many of the differences, but I think this is assuredly a good one.
Click to expand...
Pre-Vatican II, dispensations were possible under the guidance of a priest for those with a “serious reason concerning health or the ability to work.”
 
I am not trolling. Yes it is for the Church’s official language is Latin plus it is the iconosatis of the Mass

It separates the ordinary from the Divine for this reason Holy Mother Church has always supported it’s use
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top