ad2000.com.au/articles/1996/mar1996p10_781.htmlHistory tells us that it is far too early to gauge the effect of Vatican II.
The effects of Vatican II are still going on and the changes it has brought are still in process.
Give it a few more decades before making such a harsh judgement upon it.
Yes, but isn’t it possible, given the fact that the council was pastoral in nature, many if not all the documents have lost their meanings? For example, Latin is to be retained in the liturgy alright but, if enough bishops so wish, it could be replaced by the vernacular. This document is now worthless and many other documents would probably fall into the same category. The Council of Trent, on the other hand, taught a lot of doctrine. It took time to digest as you correctly point out but it is also everlasting with its doctrine.History tells us that it is far too early to gauge the effect of Vatican II.
The effects of Vatican II are still going on and the changes it has brought are still in process.
Give it a few more decades before making such a harsh judgement upon it.
I was not being disingenuous. You also know that many things here have been claim to be secrets, some conspiratorially, others through more mundane means. One poster already thought this secret was the Buginni conspiracy. My first thought was that the secret was the available means to request a TLM, or maybe its existence.I think you’re being a bit disingenuous here PNewton. I think that you do know the secret he/she is addressing because it’s been discussed here ad infinatum.
Exactly ! That is the point I was making. One can not assume that just because the Vatican addresses abuses that they are widespread, the majority, of any specific percentage. The Church responds to the act, not the numbers.Our Church does not, nor has it ever, bowed to the majority in anything that concerns the Mass,
The FACTS tell us that the Vatican II & the Novus Ordo Mass has failed in MANYareas.
More to the point, lacking divine omniscence, we will never know what alternative history would have played out without this change. We may speculate, for those that find value in speculation.History tells us that it is far too early to gauge the effect of Vatican II.
Well said.A previous poster asked what was going on within the Church that brought about the changes of Vatican II. I’d also be interested in knowing. I don’t think just happened in the 60s. It had to be discussed before and probably delayed because of WWII. So who and why instigated the changes?
I listed my views in post #18. When the changes happened, it was very difficult to comprehend the need. First, I had just completed 12 years of Catholic education. I knew of no one, certainly not the priests and the nuns, who wanted to change the Mass, get rid of confessionals, tear out the altar rails, etc. Second, never got a straight answer. This was the way it had to be. Apparently, it didn’t have to be that way but the TLM was dropped. Third, the immediate fallout seemed to hit the priests first. Two in our parish left and married and shortly after I met a third who did the same marrying a former nun.
There also seemed to be a lack of interest in the confessional. There seemed to be a feeling that the laity should use their own consciences. I find that this attitude has continued with the lack of time given to confessions and the removal of confessionals in some churches. The emphasis seems to be on reconciliation through general confession done in a group. Recently, I received absolution without confession.
A previous poster noted we should give the NO more time. A few more decades and there aren’t going to be anyone around, priest or laity, who ever went to a TLM. There wouldn’t be anything to compare it to so it wouldn’t matter.
Recently, I attended Mass where a blessing was given by the priest and the congregation also gave a blessing with him extending their arms in a facist salute. (It wasn’t facist. I know that but that was the position of the arm). And I attended another Mass where a show tune was played before the Mass. I’m sorry, I just don’t think it belongs in a Church.
Is there a reason why a TLM cannot be said once on a Sunday in each Church? Has the Church ever canvassed the laity to see what they want in their Churches such as altar rails, statues, confessionals etc?
I can give one reason. If a Church already has a full Mass schedule to where there is no open slot, then one Mass that is being said in the vernacular would have to be changed. If there is not any interest in the TLM, then overcrowded Masses might be pushed to become more overcrowded to accommodate a demograpic that exist elsewhere, but not in every parish.Is there a reason why a TLM cannot be said once on a Sunday in each Church? Has the Church ever canvassed the laity to see what they want in their Churches such as altar rails, statues, confessionals etc?
I am assuming that you are also not insulting Pope Benedict XVI himself when he said that the two Forms are two expressions of the same rite. He never said that one form is better than the other, is more reverent than the other or is more efficacious than the other; he said they are two expressions of the same rite. If you do not share this opinion then your beef is with the Holy Father, not anyone here.Tim may think its laughable to point this out, but I believe it is absurd to pretend they are the same. Yet, I’m not going to insult him or you for thinking otherwise.
a) there are more than enough children and young people who attend and prefer the TLM - and enough seminarians and young priests interested in learning how to say it - at the moment that you know that won’t happen. And numbers of attendees and priests are growing substantially rather than decreasing, so you know that it’s safe for the foreseeable future. Your doom-and-gloom merchanting is totally unwarranted.A previous poster noted we should give the NO more time. A few more decades and there aren’t going to be anyone around, priest or laity, who ever went to a TLM. There wouldn’t be anything to compare it to so it wouldn’t matter.
There is no connection with what you are saying. Just because they are two expressions does not mean that one can’t be more reverent or better. Simply a different expression.I am assuming that you are also not insulting Pope Benedict XVI himself when he said that the two Forms are two expressions of the same rite. He never said that one form is better than the other, is more reverent than the other or is more efficacious than the other; he said they are two expressions of the same rite. If you do not share this opinion then your beef is with the Holy Father, not anyone here.
That’s a lot of speculation, Newt. How do you know people wouldn’t stop going to the NO in favour of the TLM?I can give one reason. If a Church already has a full Mass schedule to where there is no open slot, then one Mass that is being said in the vernacular would have to be changed. If there is not any interest in the TLM, then overcrowded Masses might be pushed to become more overcrowded to accommodate a demograpic that exist elsewhere, but not in every parish.
I will counter the question with one. Why does anyone want the TLM in parishes that one will never live in and attend?
If you follow the Holy Father’s lead you’ll be a regular at a TLM soon enough.I am assuming that you are also not insulting Pope Benedict XVI himself when he said that the two Forms are two expressions of the same rite. He never said that one form is better than the other, is more reverent than the other or is more efficacious than the other; he said they are two expressions of the same rite. If you do not share this opinion then your beef is with the Holy Father, not anyone here.
Cardinal Ratzinger, as a private person, wrote the comment that you and your type love to pull out on demand. As Pope, he has declared the Pauline Missal to be the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite and Mass according to the Tridentine Missal the Extraordinary Form. As Pope, he has celebrated nothing but public Ordinary Forms. I think he realizes his position as Supreme Pontiff better than you, knowing that there is much, much more to being Pope than just changing the liturgy willy nilly according to his or anyone else’s personal preference. Apparently, he is interested enough in the missal to order that accurate translations be made. “High praise?” What do you want him to say? I’m sure that, if pressed, he could voice criticisms of the Tridentine Missal, too. So what?There is no connection with what you are saying. Just because they are two expressions does not mean that one can’t be more reverent or better. Simply a different expression.
Lets not forget what he also said about the NO - that it is a banal, on the spot fabrication. Hardly high praise.
Please explain to me in concise and simple terms how two forms of the Sacrifice of the Mass are “different.” Remember that there is something like 22 different rites that make up the Catholic Church. Are you telling me that one rite somehow makes Christ more present than another, or that another is more efficacious than another?And it is quite clear that they are different. Look at the prayers.
I think the Holy Father’s “lead” is to make both forms readily available to those who desire it. This contention that Pope Benedict is going to turn back the clock and order the reimplementation of the Tridentine Missal is a fool’s dream. The problems of Vatican II would be nothing compared to what would happen if such a thing occurred.If you follow the Holy Father’s lead you’ll be a regular at a TLM soon enough.
The Institute of Christ the King did just that in Chicago restoring the closed St Gelasius parish. Now two Sunday EFs and one daily EF. And who can forget St. John Cantius which was on the verge of closure in the late 80’s. Today they have a very robust EF community as well as a very reverent OF one.Here’s an idea. There are many parishes bordering on bankruptcy/closing. What if one of their Sunday Masses switched to a TLM? What do they have to lose?
Like what happened in 1969?I think he realizes his position as Supreme Pontiff better than you, knowing that there is much, much more to being Pope than just changing the liturgy willy nilly according to his or anyone else’s personal preference.
So why wasn’t there such an uproar when the TLM was banished in 1969?I The problems of Vatican II would be nothing compared to what would happen if such a thing occurred.
In any event, I seriously doubt that the Holy Father plays such childish games as "this one is better than that one."
A question was asked and I answered. When one starts wanting rules to apply to every parish in the world when even the Vatican does not see the need for such rigid universal scheduling, then that is the real speculation.That’s a lot of speculation, Newt. How do you know people wouldn’t stop going to the NO in favour of the TLM?
Here’s an idea. There are many parishes bordering on bankruptcy/closing. What if one of their Sunday Masses switched to a TLM? What do they have to lose?
Reverence.Please explain to me in concise and simple terms how two forms of the Sacrifice of the Mass are “different.”