My husband wants to know: Why were the words of consecration changed?

  • Thread starter Thread starter baylee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

baylee

Guest
Post Vatican II…he said they changed. He wants to know why.

Thanks.
 
Are you kidding? The words of the consecration are only one of the things that were changed in the mass. It was done to make the mass more palatable to protestants. Remember, Vat 11 was convoked in order to maximize the ecumenical efforts of the church. Rip out the kneelerw, get rid of the communion rail, hide the tabernacle - get it out of sight - the protestants don’t like it. What do you think the six protestant theologion/consultants that the bishops invited were doing at Vat11?
 
alforo said:
The words of the consecration are only one of the things that were changed in the mass. It was done to make the mass more palatable to protestants. Remember, Vat 11 was convoked in order to maximize the ecumenical efforts of the church. Rip out the kneelers, get rid of the communion rail, hide the tabernacle - get it out of sight - the protestants don’t like it.
Click to expand...
Vatican II never called for any of the things you list here. Those things were done by progressive, politically correct people who were ashamed to say that the Catholic Church has something that Protestants do not have. Those things were done by people who wanted to turn the Church into nothing more than a company of social workers. They may be harder to find in some parts of the world, but there are priests and bishops out there who are totally in line with Vatican II- and yet their churches have kneelers, communion rails, and they have a tabernacle front and center- right where it belongs.
 
These kinds of things, regarding changes, are of interest to me.

So, in this case, what were the words of Consecration before Vatican II and what were the words of Consecration after Vatican II?

Thanks.
 
m134e5, thank you for your post.

I am sick to death of people who blame V2 for every problem in the Church, especially people who are not old enough to remember what the church was before V2.

I would be interested in the objections of the OP’s husband to the present words of the Consecration and what does he remember them to be. Is he old enough to remember?

:amen:
 
baylee said:
Post Vatican II…he said they changed. He wants to know why.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
He would probably find the book Iota Unum: A Study of Changes in the Catholic Church in the Twentieth Century by John P. Parsons, Romano Amerio an interesting read.
 
alforo said:
Are you kidding? The words of the consecration are only one of the things that were changed in the mass. It was done to make the mass more palatable to protestants. Remember, Vat 11 was convoked in order to maximize the ecumenical efforts of the church. Rip out the kneelerw, get rid of the communion rail, hide the tabernacle - get it out of sight - the protestants don’t like it. What do you think the six protestant theologion/consultants that the bishops invited were doing at Vat11?
Click to expand...
With all due respect, but your post is very confusing. I cannot tell if it’s anti-Catholic or anti-Protestant. In either case, it’s not a very constructive response.

I have no idea how old you are, but I do agree with other people. It does get old to hear people want to blame Vatican II on all the problems of the world. Vatican II achieved many wonderful things too. It would be nice to hear about those.

I was around before Vatican II. Not everything was as perfect as some people want to make it out to be. And not everything is as it appears to be. Please allow me to point out a few things.
  1. Benches and kneelers: Did you know that the Protestants introduced benches into Church buildings, not Catholics? When the Protestant Reformation took place, the sermons got longer and longer. People go tired and began to bring benches to church. As the Protestants spread, they began to design churches with benches. American Catholics copied it and they introduced kneelers. Churches in Europe did not have benches. People stood during the liturgy, as they do in the East.
  2. Tabernacle front and center: Did you know that the tabernacle was not always front and center? The practice was introduced by St. Francis of Assisi around 1212. Tabernacles were on the side altar or in a side chapel. When Francis began to rebuild abandoned chapels around Assisi, they were very small. There was no room for a side altar. Francis has the tabernacle placed on the main altar so that it could be housed in the chapel. As his friars migrated through Europe, they took this model with them. As they built churches they put the tabernacle on the main altar. Other religous who ran parishes followed suit.
  3. Communion rails: Did you know that communion rails were originally erected for political purposes. In Medieval times people often took refuge in churches when invaders came. If you were standing in the sanctuary you could not be arrested. That’s where the word sanctuary was introduced into civil law. The rails had nothing to do with communion per se. People went to communion at a kneeler that was setup in the front of the church, before there were communion rails. In addition, many churches were attached to monasteries. Gradually, people began to kneel at the railing instead of at the kneeler. It made communion faster if the priest would just walk from side to side.
  4. Statues in churches: Did you know that statues in churches were not introduced until the Renaissance? The usual church had a crucifix over the center altar. As architecture became more elaborate and there was more money for it, the altars got bigger with all kinds of nitches for statues. Until the 1200s, the altars were very simple.
  5. Confessionals: Did you know that there were no such things as confessionals until after the 1500s. Even today, many European churches do not have a booth as we know it in the USA. Confessionals were a partition with the priest sitting on one side and a kneeler on the other, but they were open for all to see the confessor and the penitent. People did not go to confession every week until after the Middle Ages. So confessionals were not frequently used.
  6. Protestants at Vatican II: Did you know that they were invited by Bl. Pope John XXIII. He invited them to participate on some committees. But they did not have free reign of the liturgy as some want to say. They did participate in the discussions. There was a proposal for a mass that came out of the discussions. However, that proposal never made it into practice. Bl. John XXIII did not like it and sent it back. The reform that was finally approved by Pope Paul VI was not written by Protestants and it was authorized by a canonically elected pope.
  7. Simple churches: The first big churches in Christendom were part of monasteries. They were called the moanstic church. They were built and designed according to the Benedictine tradition in the West and the Basilian tradition in the East. The Churches in the East were very colorful with many painting and iconography. In the Benedictine tradition, the churches were white-washed and very asutere. Later stained glass was introduced, but the white walls remained and are still part of the Benedictine and Franciscan traditions. Religious art developed, many bishops and popes commissioned artists to paint the great churches. We don’t have too many Giotto’s, Raphael’s and Michelangelo’s around anymore. Which is sad, because they did create beautiful worship spaces.
There are many things that we take as a given, because we were born in the 20th century. But when we speak of them, we have to put them in proper context so that people can see where they came from and not feel as though someone changed the faith of the Church. Should we preserve them? Of course. They are a product of faith. Even if they are not present in a particular church or diocese, the faith does not change, because the faith pre-dates these things.

Finally, the words of consecration were mistranslated in the English. However, the mistranslation does not invallidate the consecration, because the essential words are still there. Be patient. The corrected translation is coming.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Actually, I don’t believe the words of the Consecration itself did change. In fact, the First Eucharistic Prayer is pretty much the same as the Eucharistic Prayer of the Extraordinary Form.
 
fultonfish said:
These kinds of things, regarding changes, are of interest to me.

So, in this case, what were the words of Consecration before Vatican II and what were the words of Consecration after Vatican II?

Thanks.
Click to expand...
The OP said the words had changed.

Would somebody please tell us what the wording was before and after V2.

We can debate “why” all day, but without knowing what the actual wording was before and after, we are really in the dark.
 
mullenpm said:
I am sick to death of people who blame V2 for every problem in the Church, especially people who are not old enough to remember what the church was before V2.
Click to expand...
This is more than counterbalanced by those who think Vatican 2 was the beginning of the Church.
 
The words of consecration in the Latin Rite are the same today as they were in 1960. What happened was that there was a mistranslation from Latin to English.

It should say “for the many” and it says “for all”

The Eucharistic prayers are newer. However, the first Eucharistic prayer is the Canon that was in place before the translation and the revision. The prayers are different, not the consecration. That remains the same from Eucharistic Prayer I thru IV.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
if OP is not going to supply link with quotes for words of consecration “before and after V2” thread should be closed
 
JReducation said:
Vatican II achieved many wonderful things too.
Click to expand...
I agree but the feelings of frugal Catholics should have been respected a little more. Yes, all those incidentals you mentioned only go back so far but where is the justification of spending billions of donated dollars just to prove that that kneelers and communion railings and high altars are not necessary? The New Mass was forced upon Catholics and those priests who didn’t like it were asked to leave. I never saw that as being constructive.

But we must all obey and we have bad attitudes so what else is new? :rolleyes:
 
PKinsale said:
Actually, I don’t believe the words of the Consecration itself did change. In fact, the First Eucharistic Prayer is pretty much the same as the Eucharistic Prayer of the Extraordinary Form.
Click to expand...
The Latin words of consecration did not change nor did Vatican II order them to be changed. The ICEL decided to change them in English and a few other vernaculars followed. Incidentally the words were changed before the New Mass was promulgated.
 
ProVobis said:
I agree but the feelings of frugal Catholics should have been respected a little more. Yes, all those incidentals you mentioned only go back so far but where is the justification of spending billions of donated dollars just to prove that that kneelers and communion railings and high altars are not necessary? The New Mass was forced upon Catholics and those priests who didn’t like it were asked to leave. I never saw that as being constructive.

But we must all obey and we have bad attitudes so what else is new? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I’m not agreeing with the excesses that took place. I was trying to explain where things come from, because even though I have been delaing with you for a while and I realize that you have a historical understanding, not everyone does. Some people really believe that the teachings of the Catholic Church rise and fall on these things. That’s the point I’m trying to make. They are good things. When they are not present, we wish they were. But our Catholic doctrine and dogma does not rise and fall based on these things. These things are a product of our spirituality.

And yes, we must obey and we must also correct out attitudes. LOL

On another note, I have never heard of priests being asked to leave because they did not like the changes in the liturgy. Are you referring to the SSPX situation or something else? You lost me on that one.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
On another note, I have never heard of priests being asked to leave because they did not like the changes in the liturgy. Are you referring to the SSPX situation or something else? You lost me on that one.
Click to expand...
I don’t even think the SSPX had big numbers back then. There were quite a few priests who felt they had better callings in the 60’s and 70’s. In fact, I had an ex-priest as a cubemate once who filled me in with all this stuff. He himself got laicized (sp?) and started a family. He never blamed Vatican II for this, though, but just stated the general attitude and respect for priests had changed. Had to do with acceptance of their orientation or something to that effect. But I don’t want to go there.

I think today some of that respect has been restored but it’s still going to take a while before all Catholic mothers would want at least one of her sons to become a priest. 🙂
 
baylee said:
Post Vatican II…he said they changed. He wants to know why.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Ask your husband what he is talking about. The essential words of consecration are ‘this is my body’ and ‘this is my blood’. Before the changes they were said in Latin. Now they can be said in the language of the country.
 
baylee said:
Post Vatican II…he said they changed. He wants to know why.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Is your husband still considering becoming a sede vacanist or has he become one already? And why doesn’t he come on caf?
 
Hoc est enim corpus meum.

For this is my body.

That’s off the top of my head. It looks the same to me. 🤷 Someone please correct me if I am wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top