P
pnewton
Guest
- Status
A
Agomemnon
Guest
While I voted that No Good has come from Vatican II I think the poll was too broad.
Vatican II has been an unmitigated failure. - True
The Council Documents of Vatican II are good. Its the fact that they’ve never been followed and ignored is the failure.
Vatican II called abortion an abominable crime.
Since Vatican II 90% of Mass going Catholics contracept (committing mortal sin) and then recieve the Eucharist (risking condemnation on themselves). Bishops and priests say nothing.
Vatican II called the Eucharist the Sum and Summit of our faith…but since V2 the belief in the Sum and Summit of the Faith has been systematically attacked:
I pray Pope Benedict and actually implement V2 and return the TLM to the standard for orthodoxy in the Mass and end the nonesense.
Vatican II has been an unmitigated failure. - True
The Council Documents of Vatican II are good. Its the fact that they’ve never been followed and ignored is the failure.
Vatican II called abortion an abominable crime.
- since V2 pro-abort catholic politicians and clergy have not been excommunicated or corrected. This teaching is almost NEVER taught in Mass.
Since Vatican II 90% of Mass going Catholics contracept (committing mortal sin) and then recieve the Eucharist (risking condemnation on themselves). Bishops and priests say nothing.
Vatican II called the Eucharist the Sum and Summit of our faith…but since V2 the belief in the Sum and Summit of the Faith has been systematically attacked:
- tabernacle moved from the sanctuary
- alter rails removed
- art removed
- etc. etc. etc.
I pray Pope Benedict and actually implement V2 and return the TLM to the standard for orthodoxy in the Mass and end the nonesense.
D
DaleMeyn
Guest
I believe Vatican II, despite horribly inept “implementation” (really sabotage) in many diocese, has done much good for the Church as a whole. However, I want to concentrate on the proposition “Should the Paul VI Mass be suppressed in favor of the TM?”. I’d have to answer “No”. There is nothing liturgically or theologically wrong with the Paul VI Mass. It is a thorough reform of the Latin Mass, corrected and updated, and is in fact the currently authorized Mass of the Latin Rite. You might not know that, since it is seldom celebrated entirely in Latin, though it can be at the celebrant’s option. It is the rather insipid English translation of the various prayers and above all the wholly unauthorized “experimentation” by so many liturgy committees and avant garde priests which have given it a bad name in the Church. Supposing the TM had remained the officially promulgated Mass after Vatican II, the same things would have happened, in the frenzy of a false spirit of aggiornamento (“opening the windows”) and virtual suppression of substantive catechesis following the Council. Please realize that even before Vatican II, the Tridentine Mass was allowed to be celebrated in vernacular (English for US), and frequently was. Furthermore, the TM in its “pristine” pre-Paul VI form had many minor, even serious, liturgical and theological problems, of which I can remember especially the myriad of “blessings” bestowed on the consecrated Body and Blood during the latter part of the Canon (eucharistic prayer). A mere priest presuming to bless and sanctify God Himself! Talk about being on shaky theological ground. The presently permitted form of the TM is somewhat cleaned up to remove at least the most questionable encrustations which built up over the centuries since it was originally promulgated. As to popular liturgical abuses, I still have a pre-Vatican II prayer book which contains a whole series of prayers and devotions to be performed during each section of the Mass, which if done would absolutely preclude any attention to the Mass itself, and which had the usual Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat! Priests, especially in the Boston area, prided themselves on being able to zip thru the TM in 10 minutes or less, and I’m sure there were unofficial speed contests amongst them. Very few could follow the Latin anyway. I distinctly remember Rosaries absolutely flying throughout Mass even during the Consecration in those “good old days”. Nothing wrong with the Rosary, but during Mass, even while our Lord is descending from Heaven before us on the altar?. The reason given by many (lots of immigrants then): “I can’t follow the Latin, and can’t read English” They usually could however follow oral English passably well. This is of course a defense of using vernacular in the Mass; beside the point, which is that the Paul VI Mass is a very good, theologically correct Latin Mass, there is no need to suppress it and bring back the TM. The real need is to improve catechesis, in seminaries as well as amongst the laity, and weed out liturgical abuses in local churches, and I would add, insist on higher standards in liturgical music. Pray for Pope Benedict XVI.
D
Dr.Bombay
Guest
10 minutes or less??? Come on. I find that very hard to believe. It seems every time someone posts a recollection of one of these pre-Vatican II Speed Masses, the time gets quicker.
Do I hear 7 minutes? 6? Who’ll give me 5?
I’m sure someone’s going to now claim that once a priest came to the altar roaring drunk and said Mass in 92 seconds! Scandalous, I say! SCANDALOUS!!!
The Mass of Paul VI is here to stay, but it could stand some “reform”, if I may be so bold as to use that term. I specifically would like to see some, if not all, of the “options” eliminated. My opinion is, options breed abuse. If the missal contained specific instructions without all the “may do” or “may use” or “may say” it would more clearly reflect exactly where the mind of the Church is. Just my opinion of course.
Do I hear 7 minutes? 6? Who’ll give me 5?
I’m sure someone’s going to now claim that once a priest came to the altar roaring drunk and said Mass in 92 seconds! Scandalous, I say! SCANDALOUS!!!
The Mass of Paul VI is here to stay, but it could stand some “reform”, if I may be so bold as to use that term. I specifically would like to see some, if not all, of the “options” eliminated. My opinion is, options breed abuse. If the missal contained specific instructions without all the “may do” or “may use” or “may say” it would more clearly reflect exactly where the mind of the Church is. Just my opinion of course.
D
DaleMeyn
Guest
Dr. Bombay, please try to understand. You weren’t there, I was, and I’m telling you exactly how it was. These were daily Masses, no sermon (didn’t call them homilies then), and very short Communion lines, but we didn’t count Communion in clocking the Mass time. Some priests really took great pride in their speed. Of course not all were like that. We spoke of the priest “saying Mass”, not celebrating, and we went to “hear Mass”, not participate. I wish I had a tape of one of those Masses, it was like that guy who does the speed-talking commercial. Nobody could have told if they used all the words, or simply slurred through whole phrases in one sound or not, few if any attendees could speak Latin. People got to know who said the fastest Masses, and would hop over to the church before work, or during lunch or smoking break and make it back in plenty of time. In the bigger cities and towns, there were several churches within a few blocks of each other, and in many churches there’d be 2 or 3 Masses going on at the same time in different little nooks where an altar was set up, you could take your pick. Priests were permitted to say Mass even if no congregation was present. This was because of no concelebration and the large number of priests. Those were interesting times, very unlike what you’re used to.
D
Dr.Bombay
Guest
Oh, well, if you aren’t counting Communion time that’s a whole different story.
The most realistic story I’ve heard was recounted in Catholic Digest a few years ago. An altar boy recalled how the priests in his parish had an “unofficial” competition to see who could say the quickest low Mass. 17 minutes was the record, and from what he said it stood for many years. And that includes Communion distribution time.
If I was a priest, I’d be terrified at the thought of standing before the Judgement Seat and having to explain why I treated Mass so irreverently. :bigyikes: But that’s just me.
The most realistic story I’ve heard was recounted in Catholic Digest a few years ago. An altar boy recalled how the priests in his parish had an “unofficial” competition to see who could say the quickest low Mass. 17 minutes was the record, and from what he said it stood for many years. And that includes Communion distribution time.
If I was a priest, I’d be terrified at the thought of standing before the Judgement Seat and having to explain why I treated Mass so irreverently. :bigyikes: But that’s just me.
T
TNT
Guest
Agreed. I have said many times that Providence had removed the TM from the storm of apostasy and potential abuse after V-II.
Say what??
Ok, let’s “clean up” the following:
1 Paralipomenon 29:20 And David commanded all the assembly: Bless ye the Lord our God. And all the assembly blessed the Lord the God of their fathers: and they bowed themselves and worshipped God, and then the king.
“Mere priests” and laity “bless the Lord” 55+ times in the OT. There are so many that I would bulge this post beyond limits.
Could you be specific on some of these? A few excerpts from the Roman missal of 1955 would suffice.
Now there’s a model docese since 1948!
M
mgy100
Guest
It would take a moron to say Vatican II didn’t have any good.
Vatican II wasn’t as liberating as you may think.
Read the Vatican II documents. Everyone argues but doesn’t back anything up … except with their GIRM or pocket code of canon law.
Vatican II wasn’t as liberating as you may think.
Read the Vatican II documents. Everyone argues but doesn’t back anything up … except with their GIRM or pocket code of canon law.
U
usqueadmortem
Guest
Dr. Bombay:
Also, the last Gospel and prayers at the foot of the altar should be restored. All the kisses of the altar, signs of the cross and genuflections should be reinserted.
The three non-traditional canons especially should be removed.
Also, the last Gospel and prayers at the foot of the altar should be restored. All the kisses of the altar, signs of the cross and genuflections should be reinserted.
P
PaxVobis1331
Guest
PAX VOBIS ( peace be with you )
mgy100 you got it, noone knows the true Vatican II documents anymore ( They just make things up ). Here is a funny story to prove it. I used to receive the Holy Eucharist kneeling, and I had a Priest tell me that “in the Vatican II document it says you must receive standing” LOL! Not only does it not say that, but it doesnt even mention removing the kneeling rails, which “they” did “in the name of Vatican II”. But anyway, there is nothing wrong with Vatican II, only what happened after it.
Here are some things that I hope will change within the New Mass:
-usqueadmortem, what you said
-the parts that can be said in Latin, must be said in Latin
-lectors, musicians ( singers and piano players ) all moved to the back of the church (in the Choir). For lectors going up on the Altar, destroys the sacredness of the Altar ( especially when they just decide not to genuflect by either bowing or not doing anything [correct me if I am wrong, but I think you must make a full genuflect when passing the Tabernacle, unless unable to do so: old age, etc. ]; and the musicians in front of everyone makes the people feel like they have to clap after the Mass.
-The Mass can only be called: The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, or The Mass. None of this “Celebration” nonsense.
-The words “sacrifice” mentioned much more than it is now, and an emphasis on the Priest’s ( and peoples ) unworthiness, as it was in the Tridintine Mass.
These are just a few things, off the top of my head, that I hope will change.
Kneeling rails, Priests only facing God ( the East ), Saint relics in the Altar ( for the reason the Priest kisses the Altar is to honor the Saint in the Altar ) et cetera…
I wish for all these things, and more…but am I only dreaming? I hope not.
Everyone, I beg, pray for our Mother the Church.
Pray for us, Her children, so that we may be faithful to Her teachings and decrees, even if we disagree with them: for we are bound by the 4th commandment to be obedient to Her, unless what She says causes us to sin ( at least I think so?! ).
but, still, pray! Especially the Rosary, the greatest prayer, save the Mass.
God bless,
:angel1: :bowdown2: Deus Solus! (God Alone!):bowdown2::angel1:
Blessed art thou Mary, our Mother, whose Visitation we remember today.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and at the hour of our death!
mgy100 you got it, noone knows the true Vatican II documents anymore ( They just make things up ). Here is a funny story to prove it. I used to receive the Holy Eucharist kneeling, and I had a Priest tell me that “in the Vatican II document it says you must receive standing” LOL! Not only does it not say that, but it doesnt even mention removing the kneeling rails, which “they” did “in the name of Vatican II”. But anyway, there is nothing wrong with Vatican II, only what happened after it.
Here are some things that I hope will change within the New Mass:
-usqueadmortem, what you said
-the parts that can be said in Latin, must be said in Latin
-lectors, musicians ( singers and piano players ) all moved to the back of the church (in the Choir). For lectors going up on the Altar, destroys the sacredness of the Altar ( especially when they just decide not to genuflect by either bowing or not doing anything [correct me if I am wrong, but I think you must make a full genuflect when passing the Tabernacle, unless unable to do so: old age, etc. ]; and the musicians in front of everyone makes the people feel like they have to clap after the Mass.
-The Mass can only be called: The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, or The Mass. None of this “Celebration” nonsense.
-The words “sacrifice” mentioned much more than it is now, and an emphasis on the Priest’s ( and peoples ) unworthiness, as it was in the Tridintine Mass.
These are just a few things, off the top of my head, that I hope will change.
Kneeling rails, Priests only facing God ( the East ), Saint relics in the Altar ( for the reason the Priest kisses the Altar is to honor the Saint in the Altar ) et cetera…
I wish for all these things, and more…but am I only dreaming? I hope not.
Everyone, I beg, pray for our Mother the Church.
Pray for us, Her children, so that we may be faithful to Her teachings and decrees, even if we disagree with them: for we are bound by the 4th commandment to be obedient to Her, unless what She says causes us to sin ( at least I think so?! ).
but, still, pray! Especially the Rosary, the greatest prayer, save the Mass.
God bless,
:angel1: :bowdown2: Deus Solus! (God Alone!):bowdown2::angel1:
Blessed art thou Mary, our Mother, whose Visitation we remember today.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and at the hour of our death!
O
otm
Guest
That is a somewhat simplistic response. The Viet Nam war was going on at the same time, and probably had more to do with current problems than did Vatican 2.
O
otm
Guest
If you are relying on the polls taken some time ago publicly, then you are misreading the result of them.
You need to separate out belief in the True Presence form a correct understanding of the theological explanation of how that occurs.
Prior to Vatican 2, fewer people came to receive in part because of much more strict periods of fasting before receiving. There are also numerous issue that have affected Catholics in a negative way, but they are not due to Vatican 2, but issues occuring at about the same time in the secular world, and issues subsequent to Vatican 2 that did not arise out of it.
it is easy to blame Vatican 2, particularly if one does not make a careful study of what was all going on at the time.
O
otm
Guest
To take one item - Gregorian Chant. The attempt was made, long prior to Vatican 2, to bring Gregorian chant back, and it is widely admitted that it’s revival was at best half-hearted. It is beautiful music when done correctly, and is much harder to sind correctly thatn most people realize. To be done correctly, it is not something that the congregation can sing; it must be done by a choir. and the move to involve the congregation in singing started before Vatican 2.
D
DaleMeyn
Guest
Mike: Vatican II did not cause that deplorable result. Rather, it was the deliberate efforts by influential Churchmen (& women) to subvert the Council and the idea of an infallible magisterium who did it, with the aid of those outside the Church who had great influence on public opinion. Amazingly, if one reads accounts of those inside the council, the final output of the council was entirely faithful to Tradition and Scripture, despite the efforts of some very powerful members of the hierarchy and their expert assistants (theologians, etc.) to have some very subversive changes made to the official documents. The Holy Spirit was completely in charge: the late Fr. William Most, a renowned scripture scholar who took part in the council, said that was the only explanation for how it all came out. The “Spirit of Vatican II”, which so inspired a whole generation of off-key theologians and liturgists, was completely phony, had no basis in Vatican II nor in Pope John XXIII’s call for agiornamento (“open the windows”) in the Church. His idea was more one of letting people see what the Church really is, and inviting them to cooperate in realizing what could be done to improve evangelization than to change the way the Church was governed, let alone it’s doctrinal and moral teachings. Vatican II will have its effect, history tells us that it takes 50 or more years before an ecumenical council begins to really take hold. It was more than that before the decrees of Trent were implemented in any serious way, we have a tendency to expect immediate results. The Church doesn’t and never did work that way. Keep the faith, you and I won’t get our own way in our own time, but the Holy Spirit will have his. Thank God for that.
O
otm
Guest
If you knew the official liturgy of the Church, then you would know that the Rosary is the best loved and best known devotional prayer of the Church. But I would submit that the greatest prayer of the Church, since it is the other official liturgy of the Church, is the Liturgy of the Hours.
E
EJ79
Guest
Usqueadmortem - there are elements from the Tridentine Mass that we all miss - but these things that you would like to see restored were the were suppressed first the Roman Missal of 1965, not in the Pauline reform of 1970.
The prayers at the foot of the alter (aka Psalm 42) were removed in the 1965 but the double Confiteor was retained - provided that the entire congregation could recite allowed their part and not JUST the servers who usually mumbled it (in 8 seconds at the indult at my parish!) after the priest (usually) mumbled his.
The Last Gospel was always considered a private act of thanksgiving for the priest - and to this day many tradition-minded priests recite it silently when leaving the sanctuary - as with the “Placeat tibi Sancta Trinitas” prayer. The Last Gospel was also supressed by the 1965 Missal, not by the Pauline.
When I first encountered this initial reform of the Missal of 1965, I was puzzled as to why a further, more devastating reform took place under Paul VI in 1970. The Missal of 1965 allowed for a generous use of the vernacular, but required Latin to be used for the Canon of the Mass and the private prayers of the priest. It was essentially a faithful translation of the Roman Missal of 1962. It removed the superfluous elements and the needless repetitions which Sacrosanctum Concilium legitimately called for, but kept the essence of the Roman Missal (whose essential body was had been more or less used for 1,500 years). The translations of the collects are beautiful and faithful to the original latin, and so were the readings.
Interestingly enough, opponents of the 1970 Novus Ordo did not seem to oppose the 1965 version, including Cardinal Ottaviani (who issued the impassioned appeal in vain to Paul VI to seriously reconsider some aspects of his 1970 Missal) and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. The 1970 Missal, under the iconoclastic tendencies of Archbishop Annibale Bugnini and Paul VI’s Consilium, was a radical response to the actual letter of Vatican II…and I have read that even Paul VI had to veto some of Bugnini’s proposals which he felt went too far.
I suppose we are “stuck” with the current Missal, as flawed as it is. Our Pope has asked us in many of his statements to essentially try to recover the authentic spirit of the Liturgy rather than to restore certain ceremonies (but he is an outspoken supporter of ad orientem celebration, use of Latin, polyphony and gregorian chant in the Mass - and seems to weigh in favor of lifting restrictions against the Tridentine Mass). Many young priests favor celebrating the Novus Ordo correctly, devoutly and using as many of the traditional options as possible. This is truly a sign of hope. You can be certain that if my discernment results in a priestly vocation, that I will offer the Mass in this manner - no matter what the language or the rite.
We are very blessed to have Benedict XVI on the throne of Peter. Through him, I think that the letter and the authentic spirit of Vatican II will reach fruition, especially (and finally!) regarding the Sacred Liturgy. Amen!
usqueadmortem:
The prayers at the foot of the alter (aka Psalm 42) were removed in the 1965 but the double Confiteor was retained - provided that the entire congregation could recite allowed their part and not JUST the servers who usually mumbled it (in 8 seconds at the indult at my parish!) after the priest (usually) mumbled his.
The Last Gospel was always considered a private act of thanksgiving for the priest - and to this day many tradition-minded priests recite it silently when leaving the sanctuary - as with the “Placeat tibi Sancta Trinitas” prayer. The Last Gospel was also supressed by the 1965 Missal, not by the Pauline.
When I first encountered this initial reform of the Missal of 1965, I was puzzled as to why a further, more devastating reform took place under Paul VI in 1970. The Missal of 1965 allowed for a generous use of the vernacular, but required Latin to be used for the Canon of the Mass and the private prayers of the priest. It was essentially a faithful translation of the Roman Missal of 1962. It removed the superfluous elements and the needless repetitions which Sacrosanctum Concilium legitimately called for, but kept the essence of the Roman Missal (whose essential body was had been more or less used for 1,500 years). The translations of the collects are beautiful and faithful to the original latin, and so were the readings.
Interestingly enough, opponents of the 1970 Novus Ordo did not seem to oppose the 1965 version, including Cardinal Ottaviani (who issued the impassioned appeal in vain to Paul VI to seriously reconsider some aspects of his 1970 Missal) and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. The 1970 Missal, under the iconoclastic tendencies of Archbishop Annibale Bugnini and Paul VI’s Consilium, was a radical response to the actual letter of Vatican II…and I have read that even Paul VI had to veto some of Bugnini’s proposals which he felt went too far.
I suppose we are “stuck” with the current Missal, as flawed as it is. Our Pope has asked us in many of his statements to essentially try to recover the authentic spirit of the Liturgy rather than to restore certain ceremonies (but he is an outspoken supporter of ad orientem celebration, use of Latin, polyphony and gregorian chant in the Mass - and seems to weigh in favor of lifting restrictions against the Tridentine Mass). Many young priests favor celebrating the Novus Ordo correctly, devoutly and using as many of the traditional options as possible. This is truly a sign of hope. You can be certain that if my discernment results in a priestly vocation, that I will offer the Mass in this manner - no matter what the language or the rite.
We are very blessed to have Benedict XVI on the throne of Peter. Through him, I think that the letter and the authentic spirit of Vatican II will reach fruition, especially (and finally!) regarding the Sacred Liturgy. Amen!
P
Primitive
Guest
I think we Catholics (whether in schism or not) need to stop blaming Vatican II. The problem is not the council, it is the leadership. You could have a council that teaches nothing but error and it all comes down to the integrity of the people who are charged with the mission to be carried out.
The leadership that was at the council was a vast majority of clergy with very extensive education. They knew the truth, and the teachings of the church, but in their negligence, they did not carry out the truth and instead use Vatican II as a scapegoat to advance whatever agenda they may feel fits them best.
No doubt that there are many good religious out there trying to better things, but it is the few rogue leaders who are ruining it for everyone else.
The leadership that was at the council was a vast majority of clergy with very extensive education. They knew the truth, and the teachings of the church, but in their negligence, they did not carry out the truth and instead use Vatican II as a scapegoat to advance whatever agenda they may feel fits them best.
No doubt that there are many good religious out there trying to better things, but it is the few rogue leaders who are ruining it for everyone else.
P
palmas85
Guest
While I am sure that some good did come out of Vatican II for the life of me, I cannot think of anything.
I don’t blame Vatican II entirely, for the fault lies with us for what has happened to the Church. We, the laity are the ones who allowed the zealots to get their way. We stood by and did nothing, trusting that our Bishops, Priests and Religious had the best interests of the Church and us at heart. I don’t think that we realized how much they wanted to change the Church, how much bitterness and hostility to the traditions of the church they had, and how much they wanted to destroy and re-build it. Not all the Clergy mind you, but enough. The others just stood by with us and watched, secure that the will of the Holy Spirit would be done. We allowed the changes to take place, We stood by and did NOTHING .
In some misguided sense of obedience I guess, we allowed the errors to enter and proliferate. Even when we saw things happening, altar rails coming down, the Holy Mass changing almost on a daily basis, catechism classes teaching social justice and liberation theology instead of the essentials of the faith, radicals pushing their own private agendas exclusively etc.
Side note on that last one. Apparently the women that were ordained, or rather ordained themselves as Priests in Europe have ordained a few more, and at least one has been elevated to Bishop. Did their excommunications hold, or did Rome give in on that one?? Anybody know?
Anyway I believe it is now up to us to reverse course. We have to re-take the church from the zealots who have in mind one thing, the total re-birth of the Church into some new unrecognizable form. We have a chance, the Holy father seems to be in agreement with eliminating or rolling back the more egregious examples of Refoms. I hope and pray that he has the will to exert his influence on the Bishops of the world.
COR JESUS SACATISSIMUM MISERERE NOBIS
I don’t blame Vatican II entirely, for the fault lies with us for what has happened to the Church. We, the laity are the ones who allowed the zealots to get their way. We stood by and did nothing, trusting that our Bishops, Priests and Religious had the best interests of the Church and us at heart. I don’t think that we realized how much they wanted to change the Church, how much bitterness and hostility to the traditions of the church they had, and how much they wanted to destroy and re-build it. Not all the Clergy mind you, but enough. The others just stood by with us and watched, secure that the will of the Holy Spirit would be done. We allowed the changes to take place, We stood by and did NOTHING .
In some misguided sense of obedience I guess, we allowed the errors to enter and proliferate. Even when we saw things happening, altar rails coming down, the Holy Mass changing almost on a daily basis, catechism classes teaching social justice and liberation theology instead of the essentials of the faith, radicals pushing their own private agendas exclusively etc.
Side note on that last one. Apparently the women that were ordained, or rather ordained themselves as Priests in Europe have ordained a few more, and at least one has been elevated to Bishop. Did their excommunications hold, or did Rome give in on that one?? Anybody know?
Anyway I believe it is now up to us to reverse course. We have to re-take the church from the zealots who have in mind one thing, the total re-birth of the Church into some new unrecognizable form. We have a chance, the Holy father seems to be in agreement with eliminating or rolling back the more egregious examples of Refoms. I hope and pray that he has the will to exert his influence on the Bishops of the world.
COR JESUS SACATISSIMUM MISERERE NOBIS
- Status