In what order did each church appear?

[Lumen_Gentium]

Christ commanded to spread his message, the gospel . He didn’t say to build churches for he built his church upon the rock (Apostolic Succession) to whom he entrusted its care (feed my sheep; feed my lambs). Christ saw the importance of entrusting this great task that’s why he gave him the keys to the kingdom of heaven.

You have a distorted view of who the messenger is. Christ is both the messenger and the message. He is the Father’s messenger and he is the Father’s message. The messenger is NOT the church.

You also have a distorted view of what the foundation is. The foundation is the one and only true church of which Christ is the founder and of which he built upon the rock. The same church the Protestants detached themselves from, built churches upon churches, denominations upon denominations, twisted truths and spread lies. St. Paul warns in the Scriptures against those who disunite themselves from the church. He says they are sinful.

Christ founded the Catholic Church who teaches and spreads the faith that was handed down to us from the Holy Apostles. I do not understand what faith with equal credibility or footing as this universal church is you are talking about. Faith doesn’t have levels of credibility or levels. It’s either true or false. Btw, the core of beliefs is what we call “faith” and those following or adhering to the faith is what we call the faithful.

PAX

CatherineofA:

It is true that Catholicism was the force behind the Christian faith in western Europe prior to the 16th century. To Protestants, the foundation the Catholic Church passed on was the message of Christ. To them, the church was the messenger and not the messenger that was necessary for the message.
I see the term universal church used to apply to the faith set up by Christ in the Catholic Church. If you are outside of this, you are not a faith with equal credibility or footing as this church. Am I correct?

 

[Lumen_Gentium]

There is a big difference between gathering people for a healthy discussion and debate and gathering people to discuss and debate for the purpose of questioning their faith.

It was certainly offensive to point out why a renowned and expert in early church history is Orthodox and not Catholic while certainly there are also other early church history experts who are not Orthodox. Its insinuation is actually more skeptical than convincing discourses.

Since you have just come to read him, It’s best to complete your readings on what he has to say. Then I also suggest you to research on some Catholic early church historians and pick one from them and make a reading too. Then you can present both views and we’ll make commentaries. By presenting both views, we would have the tendency to be more objective in our discourse.

Also, didn’t you also mention him to ask about people’s opinions about how a man who is not Orthodox, or not a protestant, jew, or muslim for that matter, can be regarded also as a specialist in the field of early church history within the academic community?

CatherineofA:

There is no reason for a Catholic historian to be insulted when called to the carpet. In fact, people who are well versed in their topic usually enjoy and encourage discourse. It allows fo them to share their knowledge and enlighten interested parties.
As far as the man I mentioned, I have just come to read him based on his reputation in the academic community. When I have covered enough of his material, I will discuss the details. I mentioned him to ask about people’s opinions about how a man who is not Catholic can be regarded as a specialist in his field about the academic community.

 

[Subrosa]

Fr Ambrose:

Dear Jerry, One red flag which the Church sees when it obsrves the post-Vatican II period in the Roman Catholic Church is the situation regarding liturgy and what has happened to it after Vatican II.

Father Ambrose - I found the argument in the post you provided…et. al…

The Roman liturgical tradition has disintegrated aesthetically. It is our rich, historic, and theologically packed liturgical tradition that is the treasure of Orthodoxy. How might that change if we blended with a church that has rejected so many ancient traditions?
The argument of the mess we are in cocerning Roman liturgy in America is a good one. But that isnt a fully though out argument at the same time. Religion in general is facing a storm of globalization, where even local Orthodox customs are being lost

I’ve pasted both parts of it above.

Let me say that I am old enough to know both liturgies, pre- and post- Vatican II.

At the time of V-II, the church was losing members exponentially. American lifestyle was becoming more and more high paced. Old World values then, and to this day, are consistantly rejected. This is the reality of American society and the Church represented these old world ideals.

In short, the church needed to do something, or risk a constant drain. I am stating this from memory as I was just a schoolboy in St. Matthew’s Parochial when V-II occured.

I personally experienced the changes V-II brought to the Church. They were profound. Priests were somehow brought closer to the laity, while retaining sacramental authority. Nuns were redirected to rethink their place in the church. They removed their traditional garb and started to wear more common clothing. Some don’t wear head veils to this day, appearing as common women one may see anywhere.

In the Roman Rite, Mass took sometimes 2 or more hours. In retrospect, this was shorter than the early church. Consider the letter to the Hebrews in scripture. I am told that this was actually a homliy. This may provide an example of the time that people spent in church when society focused more on sacred issues.

The changes in the liturgy that came from V-II shortened the Mass to about an hour. It varies between Ordinary time and Sacred times. During Holy Week, Mass can take as long as two hours.

The aesthetic changes, which I miss dearly, had the effect of bringing people back to church. They felt respected by priests due to priests redefined positions. The Mass was more approachable because of it’s shorter duration. In short, people enjoyed the celebration more, as opposed to “getting bored” or “wasting time”.

The Mass today consists of 1.) Liturgy of the Word, and 2.) Liturgy of the Eucharist. The FUNDIMENTALS have not changed. The priest still blesses the host to provide transubstantiation. People still recieve the Eucharist with great respect for it.

I, myself, try to take the Eucharist several times per week. I could not do this under the old system.

The realities of American society dictated the changes addressed in V-II. I understand the objection. As I stated, I miss the Latin Rite. But, fear not, there are churches that celebrate the Latin Mass and are sanctioned and sometimes celebrated by the local Bishop.

members.cox.net/holynamechurch/latinmass.htm

The V-II changes made, overall, a positive impact on church attendance and commitment to the faith.

The other option was not really an option: people leaving the church.

Gloria in excelsis Deo,
Jerry

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Subrosa:

At the time of V-II, the church was losing members exponentially. American lifestyle was becoming more and more high paced. Old World values then, and to this day, are consistantly rejected. This is the reality of American society and the Church represented these old world ideals.

Have you looked at the American stats for the Catholic Church, pre-1965 and post-1965. There has been a sad decline since Vatican II. The exponential loss of membership, if we believe the statistics, took place since 1965 and after aggiornamento.

In the Roman Rite, Mass took sometimes 2 or more hours. In retrospect, this was shorter than the early church. Consider the letter to the Hebrews in scripture. I am told that this was actually a homliy. This may provide an example of the time that people spent in church when society focused more on sacred issues.

A regular Sunday Liturgy in an Orthodox Church will take 2 to 2 and a half hours, and longer. What’s the big deal about that? What’s the rush? It’s the day of the Lord. People love to be in church and to pray.

I, myself, try to take the Eucharist several times per week. I could not do this under the old system.

Huh? Prior to Vatican II many people received daily Communion. This was made easier by the fact that every priest said Mass separately. There was no concelebration. So if a parish had five priests, there were five daily Masses. There was plenty of opportunity for daily communion.

 

[Subrosa]

Fr Ambrose:

Have you looked at the American stats for the Catholic Church, pre-1965 and post-1965. There has been a sad decline since Vatican II. The exponential loss of membership, if we believe the statistics, took place since 1965 and after aggiornamento.

A regular Sunday Liturgy in an Orthodox Church will take 2 to 2 and a half hours, and longer. What’s the big deal about that? What’s the rush? It’s the day of the Lord. People love to be in church and to pray.

Huh? Prior to Vatican II many people received daily Communion. This was made easier by the fact that every priest said Mass separately. There was no concelebration. So if a parish had five priests, there were five daily Masses. There was plenty of opportunity for daily communion.

Hi Fr. Ambrose -

The issue in American society is the amount of time spent away from doing personal activities. I see the second paragraph above that the Orthodox Liturgy takes two plus hours and people love it. I also love the liturgy. I feel spiritually fed after Mass. This is why I take the Eucharist often, to partake in the Body and Blood of our Lord.

But I am the exception, I believe. There are certainly devout people who attend Church every Sunday. There are even those who attend more than I. But, in general, people are concerned with thier own lives and getting to that. Something that irks me is when people scoot out of the church after taking communion. It happens at every Mass. Even our priest has mentioned it during homilies. But, people still do it.

By the way, what is your opinion of the link I provided?

Et in terra pax homonibus,
Jerry

 

[Mickey]

Fr Ambrose:

A regular Sunday Liturgy in an Orthodox Church will take 2 to 2 and a half hours, and longer.

Awesome!
Fr Ambrose:

Prior to Vatican II many people received daily Communion.

I still receive daily and feel blessed that I can still do so. :yup:

 

[didymus]

Ignatius:

Do you have any idea when your faith was founded and by whom? You may find this enlightening:

If you are a member of the Jewish faith, your religion was founded by about 4,000 years ago.

If you are Roman Catholic, Jesus Christ founded your Church in the year A.D. 30.

If you are Eastern Orthodox, your sect separated from Roman Catholicism around the year 1054.

I wouldn’t call our Orthodox brothers a “sect”. In fact, since they also have a valid Apostolic Succession, wouldn’t it also be accurate to say that their church was founded by Jesus?

After all, they are schismatics, not heretics.

 

[Ignatius]

didymus:

I wouldn’t call our Orthodox brothers a “sect”. In fact, since they also have a valid Apostolic Succession, wouldn’t it also be accurate to say that their church was founded by Jesus?

After all, they are schismatics, not heretics.

Absolutely correct. There is in fact only one Church which includes both the Catholic and Orthodox. The rift in the family of Christ is a sin which we are all guilty of to the extent that we do not work diligently to heal it. We need to work to reunite the Church which Jesus Christ founded. We must be one as Christ and the Father are one.

May the peace of Christ be with you.

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

So you would agree with the dozens of previous Popes who taught that the Orthodox go into eternal fire as schismatics and heretics?

Are you saying that the Popes since Vatican II who have adoped the contrary teaching are in error? Do you see them as failing to follow the teaching of Saint Paul in this regard?

The teaching of the recent Popes of the last 100 years or so is clear.

**Pope Leo XII **(A.D. 1823 - 1829): “We profess that there is no salvation outside the Church. …For the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. With reference to those words Augustine says: `If any man be outside the Church he will be excluded from the number of sons, and will not have God for Father since he has not the Church for mother.’” (Encyclical, Ubi Primum)

**Pope Gregory XVI **(A.D. 1831 - 1846): “It is not possible to worship God truly except in Her; all who are outside Her will not be saved.” (Encyclical, Summo Jugiter)

**Pope Pius IX **(A.D. 1846 - 1878): “It must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood.” (Denzinger 1647)

**Pope Leo XIII **(A.D. 1878 - 1903): “This is our last lesson to you; receive it, engrave it in your minds, all of you: by God’s commandment salvation is to be found nowhere but in the Church.” (Encyclical, Annum Ingressi Sumus)

**Pope Saint Pius X **(A.D. 1903 - 1914): “It is our duty to recall to everyone great and small, as the Holy Pontiff Gregory did in ages past, the absolute necessity which is ours, to have recourse to this Church to effect our eternal salvation.” (Encyclical, Jucunda Sane)

**Pope Benedict XV **(A.D. 1914 - 1922): “Such is the nature of the Catholic faith that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole, or as a whole rejected: This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.” (Encyclical, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum)

**Pope Pius XI **(A.D. 1922 - 1939): “The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. …Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.” (Encyclical, Mortalium Animos)

**Pope Pius XII **(A.D. 1939 - 1958): “By divine mandate the interpreter and guardian of the Scriptures, and the depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation: She alone, by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit, is the source of truth.” (Allocution to the Gregorian, October 17, 1953)

After this time, after Vatican II, this teaching ceases.

1. You originally quoted Pope Innocent III from 1203, warning the Greeks in the strongest possible way, about division. That was officially before it happened. And you were basically condemning the pope for condemning the division of the Greeks. I said St Paul gave the very same warning to the Galatians and everyone else who divides. Did you answer that point? No! Instead you try and skirt the question by diverting the subject to what popes said 600+ years after Innocent, and after the division took place.

Again, please answer the question. Why is Pope Innocent III criticized for voicing the same warning to the Greeks that St Paul gave to the Galatians, and therfore everyone else who thinks they can divide unity with no consequences?

2… Vatican II is not in conflict with the popes prior to the council. And none of the popes since Vat II contradict the council or any of the popes previously. The council clarifies, that once a person knows the Catholic Church is the one started by Christ and refuses to enter it or remain in it can’t be saved. That is geared to all those who grew up outside the Catholic Church, had no part in the original divisions that took place, didn’t know the Catholic Church for whatever reason they have, didn’t know the Catholic Church was started by Christ. But never the less, understand they are divided from the Catholic Church. Bottomline, division is not okay. It is condemned by St Paul. And I quoted you the passages. Why do you think JPII focused so much of his pontificate on repairing divisions, particularly, the schism between East and West? One might think just leave well enough alone, and to each his own choice. This kind of indifferentism was condemned by Paul.

.

 

[steve_b]

CatherineofA:

Ignatius:

Those who I have known in my own background realize that. However, they see them as Christians who happened to be Catholic and not Christians who did something because they were Catholic.

There were no other Christians but Catholic.

 

[exoflare]

CatherineofA:

MrS:

Many Protestants do not see policies or beliefs outside of scripture as “truth”. They don’t think they picked and chose God made issues. They picked and chose man made ones. They see New Testament teachings as separate from organizational standpoints.

If I decided one day that there were some books in my bible I just didn’t personally agree with, then, would you take issue with me for deleting those books from “my” bible? I still believe in Jesus after all.

 

[Lumen_Gentium]

To outsiders, the Second Vatican Council may be hard to understand or they don’t understand it all. They view it more on a theological and/or perhaps dogmatical level and changes on them, and then cite poor statistics to blame the council.

For Catholics, we know of and experience its profound changes and enrichment of the faith as the effects of the pastoral objectives of the Second Vatican Council. Never have the shepherds, both from the west and the east, been closer to the flock or vice-versa since this council. We have also seen positive results of the ecumenical and peace dialogues and meetings between Catholics, Orthodox, Jews and Muslims as a result of the ecumenical objectives of this council.

The Church certainly recognizes that the world of today is different from the world of yesterday and therefore, without sacrificing and compromising traditions and teachings and the truth, It finds a way of bringing itself closer to the lambs and the sheeps (of today’s world) Jesus was asking Peter to feed.

PAX

Subrosa:

Father Ambrose - I found the argument in the post you provided…et. al…

I’ve pasted both parts of it above.

Let me say that I am old enough to know both liturgies, pre- and post- Vatican II.

At the time of V-II, the church was losing members exponentially. American lifestyle was becoming more and more high paced. Old World values then, and to this day, are consistantly rejected. This is the reality of American society and the Church represented these old world ideals.

In short, the church needed to do something, or risk a constant drain. I am stating this from memory as I was just a schoolboy in St. Matthew’s Parochial when V-II occured.

I personally experienced the changes V-II brought to the Church. They were profound. Priests were somehow brought closer to the laity, while retaining sacramental authority. Nuns were redirected to rethink their place in the church. They removed their traditional garb and started to wear more common clothing. Some don’t wear head veils to this day, appearing as common women one may see anywhere.

In the Roman Rite, Mass took sometimes 2 or more hours. In retrospect, this was shorter than the early church. Consider the letter to the Hebrews in scripture. I am told that this was actually a homliy. This may provide an example of the time that people spent in church when society focused more on sacred issues.

The changes in the liturgy that came from V-II shortened the Mass to about an hour. It varies between Ordinary time and Sacred times. During Holy Week, Mass can take as long as two hours.

The aesthetic changes, which I miss dearly, had the effect of bringing people back to church. They felt respected by priests due to priests redefined positions. The Mass was more approachable because of it’s shorter duration. In short, people enjoyed the celebration more, as opposed to “getting bored” or “wasting time”.

The Mass today consists of 1.) Liturgy of the Word, and 2.) Liturgy of the Eucharist. The FUNDIMENTALS have not changed. The priest still blesses the host to provide transubstantiation. People still recieve the Eucharist with great respect for it.

I, myself, try to take the Eucharist several times per week. I could not do this under the old system.

The realities of American society dictated the changes addressed in V-II. I understand the objection. As I stated, I miss the Latin Rite. But, fear not, there are churches that celebrate the Latin Mass and are sanctioned and sometimes celebrated by the local Bishop.

members.cox.net/holynamechurch/latinmass.htm

The V-II changes made, overall, a positive impact on church attendance and commitment to the faith.

The other option was not really an option: people leaving the church.

Gloria in excelsis Deo,
Jerry

 

[TobyLue]

Have you looked at the American stats for the Catholic Church, pre-1965 and post-1965.** There has been a sad decline since Vatican II. The exponential loss of membership,** if we believe the statistics, took place since 1965 and after aggiornamento…

I’m just curious Fr. Ambrose. What are the stats for the Orthodox Churches?. In my city as a child I remember a small Greek Orthodox Cathedral in the early 50’s. That church had existed for some time already. My city has grown from 500,000 almost 2 million since then. There are quite a few more Catholic Churchs, expansions, my current parish included increasing capacity from 200 to 600. Our archdiocese has been split into 3 additional diocese and mine still has about 800,000 Catholics. But that small Greek Orthodox Church is still the same size. I have not seen any new Orthodox Churches being built other than a small Russian Orthodox church in a rural area that after some sexual allegations were brought against their Bishop (who in if I’m not mistaken just about 6 years prior was doing TV ads) the Russian metropolitan (I think) was trying to distance himself from this church. Where is the increase in the Orthodox Churches? How is it spreading its evangelism? How is it increasing? Just curious.
God Bless

 

[Lumen_Gentium]

I don’t see any big deal on the length of your liturgical service being 2 - 2 1/2 hours long Fr. Ambrose. I also don’t see any rush with the mass being celebrated in one hour. The situation of the Orthodox Church every sunday is simply different from the situation of the Catholics much more the situation of the Catholics in the old world than the situation of the Catholics these days.
We’re 4 or 5 times more than Orthodoxes worldwide and we’re more than ever.Considering the Orthodox church is only heavily concentrated in eastern Europe and Russia where the population densities are low, you should experience how it is to be a Catholic parishioner on Sundays in countries and cities where population densities are very high and the hours are always rush hours (doesn’t matter if it’s Sunday or Friday) like the Philippines and the Latin Americas. I don’t see also any big deal in celebrating the Holy Eucharist in an hour. The Gospels don’t tell how long it took for Jesus and the Apostles to celebrate their last supper together. They don’t tell neither that we should celebrate it 2 1/2 hours longer or one hour shorter.

Concelebrations of the mass certainly has nothing to do with the number of masses that are being celebrated each day in the Catholic Church.

A priest can still say the same mass even if he had just concelebrated a mass with a bishop, for example. He can do it over and over again on the same day, so that gives it even more opportunity to receive the Holy Communion.

Did you watch John Paul II’s funeral mass? You could just imagine, without the Second Vatican Council’s changes on the Mass, how long will it take for Cardinal Ratzinger (the main celebrant) to give Holy Communion to 5 million Catholics in St. Peter’s that day without the concelebrators, the priests, and lay people? Weren’t there more opportunities to receive the Holy Communion because of Vatican 2?

PAX
Fr Ambrose:

A regular Sunday Liturgy in an Orthodox Church will take 2 to 2 and a half hours, and longer. What’s the big deal about that? What’s the rush? It’s the day of the Lord. People love to be in church and to pray.

Huh? Prior to Vatican II many people received daily Communion. This was made easier by the fact that every priest said Mass separately. There was no concelebration. So if a parish had five priests, there were five daily Masses. There was plenty of opportunity for daily communion.

 

[TobyLue]

I also don’t see any rush with the mass being celebrated

I few years ago I happen to be visiting in Guadaljara, Mexico. When we went to mass I noticed from their Sunday Mass Schedule, mass was celebrated at 6am,7,8,9,10,11,12,1pm,2pm
then 5p, 6,7, and 8PM. So can you imagine if the liturgy for each mass 2 1/2 hours?

 

[TobyLue]

Huh?** Prior to Vatican II many people received daily Communion. **This was made easier by the fact that every priest said Mass separately. There was no concelebration. So if a parish had five priests, there were five daily Masses. There was plenty of opportunity for daily communion.

I’m afraid you are mistaken on this Fr. Ambrose. More people receive communion daily now than before. Yes, there were more priests but people had to fast starting at midnight and not even allowed to drink water. So people going to work would go to mass but not go to communion as they would by then already have had something to eat for breakfast. I used to belong to a youth sodality and we were required to attend mass daily. Very few people would go to communion even at the 7AM mass because the adults would go to work and we would go to school. Maybe two or three elderly ladies would go to communion.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

TobyLue:

I’m just curious Fr. Ambrose. What are the stats for the Orthodox Churches?

Here are statistics from 2003, supplied by the Russian Orthodox Representation to the European Union.

orthodoxeurope.org See Bulletin no.28.

Patriarchate of Constantinople 7 000 000
Turkey, Thrace, USA, diaspora

Patriarchate of Alexandria 350 000
Egypt and all Africa

Patriarchate of Antioch 1 500 000
Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, USA, diaspora

Patriarchate of Jerusalem 156 000
Palestine, Israel, Jordan

Patriarchate of Moscow 160 000 000
Russia, Belorus, Ukraine. Moldova, Baltics, disapora

Serbian Orthodox Church 8 000 000
Serbia, Montenegro, Slovenia, Croatia

Romanian Orthodox Church 20 000 000
Roumania, diaspora

Bulgarian Orthodox Church 8 000 000

Georgian Orthodox Church 3 000 000

Cypriot Orthodox Church 500 000

Greek Orthodox Church 10 000 000

Polish Orthodox Church 1 000 000

Albanian Orthodox Church 700 000

Czech and Slovak Orthodox Church 74 000

American Orthodox Church 1 000 000
The autocephalous “Orthodox Church in America”

---

Germany 800 000

United Kingdom 350 000

France 250 000

Austria 150 000

Sweden 100 000

Switzerland 80 000

Spain 20 000

Belgium 40 000

Italy 250 000

Holland 10 000
-oOo-

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Lumen Gentium:

I don’t see any big deal on the length of your liturgical service being 2 - 2 1/2 hours long Fr. Ambrose.

Neither do I! A Saturday night Vigil can be from 2 to 5 hours long depending on the feastday.

We’re 4 or 5 times more than Orthodoxes worldwide and we’re more than ever.

In Europe it is almost 1 to 1. There are 280 million Roman Catholics and 200 million Orthodox. This is why the Orthodox are delighted to have Pope Benedict and are already looking at ways of combatting together with him the European slide away from Christianity
See
**Orthodoxy Welcomes Pope Benedict **
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=52098
and
**Greek Orthodox Church Welcomes Pope Benedict XVI ** forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=52542

Did you watch John Paul II’s funeral mass?

I did.

to give Holy Communion to 5 million Catholics in St. Peter’s that day without the concelebrators, the priests, and lay people?

The commentator said that they had enough communion hosts for 40,000 people.

 

[kmktexas]

Did you watch John Paul II’s funeral mass? You could just imagine, without the Second Vatican Council’s changes on the Mass, how long will it take for Cardinal Ratzinger (the main celebrant) to give Holy Communion to 5 million Catholics in St. Peter’s that day without the concelebrators, the priests, and lay people? Weren’t there more opportunities to receive the Holy Communion because of Vatican 2?

Even before Vatican II, the distribution of Communon wasn’t limited to the celebrating priest. All other available priests assisted in distributing Communion. And there sure was no shortage of priests at the funeral Mass. I watched and I don’t believe that they used any lay EMHC, just a long line of priests (there might have been deacons too).

 

[kmktexas]

TobyLue:

I’m afraid you are mistaken on this Fr. Ambrose. More people receive communion daily now than before. Yes, there were more priests but people had to fast starting at midnight and not even allowed to drink water. So people going to work would go to mass but not go to communion as they would by then already have had something to eat for breakfast. I used to belong to a youth sodality and we were required to attend mass daily. Very few people would go to communion even at the 7AM mass because the adults would go to work and we would go to school. Maybe two or three elderly ladies would go to communion.

The Communion fast changes have nothing to do with Vatican II. They have changed many times, as do other Chuch disciplines. I believe it was in 1958 that the rule changed from midnight to 3 hours. One of my older resources lists midnight but there were several exceptions (mostly liquids) to the fast. I think that missal is one from the 40s. The change to one hour may have been around the same time as VII but was not BECAUSE of VII.

What did change was a softening of the rule that priests celebrate Mass every day and a discouraging of celebrating Mass with noone in attendance. This resulted in fewer opportunities for us to attend daily Mass and parishes cancelling Masses that might have only a handful of attendees.