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.
I don’t find it ironic at all. Most people have an opinion and then look for confirmation of that opinion. And it doesn’t take a Masters or PhD in statistics to know that there are a goodly number of people whose feelings for the OF range from distaste to disdain.
 
PetraG said:
40.png
straykat:
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…)
Click to expand...
I agree with you about WWI and WWII, but am not following your comment about JFK. What does electing a Catholic president have to do with the ecumenism of the Popes?
 
Last edited:
That’s quite a therory. You claim that people “pre-conditioned” others to believe in something. I am asking for proof of this.
 
Last edited:
Masses in the vernacular have been allowed through special permission since the 1200’s when missionaries went off to Asia. It was not common but tit happened based on the need. This stuff didn’t just magically spring into the head of an errent pope.

Also the “organic change” is very much based on an eurocentric view of what happens in the world. Local customs. Communication was not the same as it is today. Minor changes over decades or even a century don’t seem drastic to the people who are living them. However, when the changes made their way to a remove village decades later it would have been extremely drastic. The advent of new technology and communication in the 1700-1800’s actually artificially stagnated the organic growth as people could be completely exact.
 
Destruction of the Roman Liturgy ?

Then we hear the arguments that traditionalists don’t oppose the Novus Ordo in this forum. 😃

Jim
 
Indeed, one of the Popes exhorted the Franciscans to NOT use Latin. I recall BrJREducation spoke of this often
 
We need to make clear the distinction between revising the liturgy, and writing a new liturgy.
[/quote]

It’s a new order, and strictly speaking the liturgy of the word and the liturgy of the Eucharist are not “different” in any substanitive way. The word of God is read and the Body of Christ is celebrated in an unbloody way and eaten.
 
Why didn’t I know about this? This is the middle ground I’m looking for…

Because I do sympathize with things traditionalists say. I’m just not budging on vernacular. The whole Eastern church has been doing that very thing forever.
 
Nor did I. What I’m saying is that he didn’t just “create” a liturgy as you claim. He allowed for a New Order…hense the name NOM. Nothing new was created. The two vital parts the liturgy of the word and the liturgy of the Eucharist remained intact.
 
Yes.

Of course, it is.

You stated it was fine if it happened organically. However, as I stated above there was a reason for a drastic change and that the “organic” changes that occurred were always Eurocentric organic happenings. To those around the world those “organic” changes would of broken decades if not centuraies of their faithful adherence.

Those drastic changes were eliminated by technology of the 1700 and 1800s…better travel, communication and literacy. That caused a stagnation that needed to be corrected.
 
Revision of the liturgical practices already in existence would have sufficed; why would there be any reason to write a new liturgy?
[/quote]

It wasn’t a new liturgy.

Period.

It was a new order to the same liturgy with allowance for the venacular, which again, was allowed as early as the 1200’s in missionary work.
 
Last edited:
Here we go again - Latin raised to the HOLY.

Christ spoke Aramaic and Hebrew. Greek was the language for a large part of the Mediterranean for commerce and culture, and the Church quickly adopted the language of Greek; and that lasted somewhere into the 4th and 6th centuries.

Latin was the language of the conqueror, the language of the executors of Christ, and a number of the Apostles. Latin was eventually used because Rome, through conquest, had spread its language and law as far as Britain and so became the 2nd language of the multitude of tribes. And as the Roman rite was largely situated in Europe, and Rome the seat of the Church, Latin became adopted as the official language.

But the Church does not and never has consisted of the Roman rite; it contains all of the Eastern rites too, which did not and do not use Latin as their language. Latin is no more holy than Aramaic or Arabic (used in the Maronite Church, for example) or Slavonic, used in other Eastern rites.

Latin is used as the official language of Rome’ but even when John Paul 2 was Pope, he remarked on how few in and around the Vatican used Latin; currently, Italian is the language most used - except for official pronouncements.
 
I’m glad to hear that… but I’m not sure why the Liturgy itself is of prime importance to traditionalists either. I think the breadth of ecumenism is V2’s fault (not that ecumenism itself is bad… but the breadth here).

edit: Because at the end of the day, no matter the liturgy, these people are serving Christ. It’s an altogether different thing to say there are multiple paths to eternal life.
 
Last edited:
Augustinian said:
40.png
Crusader30:
The fact that It is said in a pure and Holy Language which is Latin
Click to expand...
I think you’re trolling a bit here, Latin is a “pure and holy language”? LOL
Click to expand...
“The day the Church abandons her universal tongue [Latin] is the day before she returns to the catacombs.”
-Pope Pius XII

"Preservation of Latin by the Holy See

For these reasons the Apostolic See has always been at pains to preserve Latin, deeming it worthy of being used in the exercise of her teaching authority “as the splendid vesture of her heavenly doctrine and sacred laws.”5 She further requires her sacred ministers to use it, for by so doing they are the better able, wherever they may be, to acquaint themselves with the mind of the Holy See on any matter, and communicate the more easily with Rome and with one another.

Thus the “knowledge and use of this language,” so intimately bound up with the Church’s life, “is important not so much on cultural or literary grounds, as for religious reasons.” These are the words of Our Predecessor Pius XI, who conducted a scientific inquiry into this whole subject, and indicated three qualities of the Latin language which harmonize to a remarkable degree with the Church’s nature. “For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure to the end of time … of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular.”"
-Pope John XXIII in Veterum Sapientia, 1962
 
Last edited:
Not true.

And I ask, why is the Latin Church the only Church which has a two-fold liturgy of the same rite, according to Summorum Pontificum?
Xanthippe_Voorhees said:
It was a new order to the same liturgy with allowance for the venacular, which again, was allowed as early as the 1200’s in missionary work.
Click to expand...
Vernacular, an issue which so many dwell on, is in fact, a very minor issue. In fact, limited vernacular is allowed in the Tridentine mass; even at SSPX masses, the final hymn can be in the vernacular. When I was studying musicology and history, I learned that even in the 1700s, vernacular was used and encouraged in Austria. However, though this is an interesting topic, it is nowhere near the central issue of the Novus Ordo liturgy.
[/quote]

Again, a different order not a different liturgy. Orders of liturgy do happen. The Catholic church is much, much larger than any single protestant church (Protestantism is a relatively new religion anyway). There are different orders to “liturgy” in the Jewish and Islamic religions, too.
 
Absolutely nothing intrinsic to the Liturgy was removed. Period. Nada. Nothing.

We still have our confession of sinfulness; we still implore His mercy; we still have a collect; we still have both the Epistle and the Gospel; we still have the creed; we stillhave the Offeratory; we still have the Epiclesis; we still have the Consecration; we still have prayers for the Church; we still have the Agnus Dei; we still have Communion and post Communion prayer.

I would welcome you to note anything which is intrinsic to the Mass which was eliminated.
 
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?
[/quote]

Because people arent robots?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top