Post or Pre Vatican II

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sftyvlv1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
As a convert to the holy Catholic faith from Protestantism, I prefer pre-Vatican II. It is distinctly Catholic, in my experience. Post-Vatican II appears more Protestant to me and if I wanted that, I would have remained so.

My two talents…
 
Is there any argument as to why it would be impossible for the Church to propagate an inferior mass? I think that argument could be made, but has it ever been argued in history?
 
You are confusing efficaciousness with personal devotion and aesthetics. The level of devotion of the priest does not impede or advance the merits one attending receives from Christ.

Pope Benedict 16 answered this issue; but some wish to look to other comments he has made and attempt to build a foundation which contradicts his commentary on the two forms of the Mass in terms of efficaciousness.

The laity could be exceedingly devout, and the priest do something (or fail to do something during the Mass which renders it invalid. Their devotion does not influence the validity.

I have attended a multitude of Masses by a priest who at times was seriously inebriated (when I was a youth). The Masses were not invalid; and they were every bit as efficacious as the ones he celebrated sober. Christ’s merits are not dependent upon the devotion of the priest; rather they are dependent upon the intention of the priest to do what the Church does.
 
That depends on what you mean by the term “inferior”. Most certainly, the Mass can have more or less aesthetical appeal - such as the difference between what we used to call a Low Mass, a High Mass, and a Solemn High Mass. And many, if not most would agree that the Low Mass certainly had less aesthetical appeal than the other two. But all 3 were the Mass; just as the Divine Liturgy in the Ruthenian Rite is; and going into one of those may leave you completely lost, as well as possibly delighted, and possibly upset and turned off. Your personal feelings may be lifted up or put down; but they are your feelings. In each case, there is a Liturgy of the Word, and a Liturgy of the Eucharist.
 
Having been to numerous Protestant rites, I would suggest that your reading of conservative authors who maintain the urban myth that the OF is modeled on or made to appear Protestant is completely and absolutely wrong. They show a complete lack of any knowledge whatsoever of the liturgical renewal which started under Pope Pius 10th and had more than half a century of research and scholarship prior to the release of the OF.

If you prefer the EF, that is fine; but your knowledge of the OF and its background is seriously tainted if you propose that it appears Protestant.
 
You are not the pope nor are you God to determine what is true or to proclaim what is right being guided by the Holy Ghost with assurance when speaking infallibly.
The whole of the Church is the Church.
 
That’s why I’m posing the question. It seems pre and post have verying differences on what that is.
 
otjm said:
If you prefer the EF, that is fine; but your knowledge of the OF and its background is seriously tainted if you propose that it appears Protestant.
Click to expand...
Indeed! And if you went to a (Protestant!) Anglican High Church mass, you would find that it in fact resembles… the EF Mass very closely except for Language!!! This is probably the case in most liturgical Protestant churches (Anglican, Lutheran). The non-liturgical churches don’t even superficially resemble a modern Catholic Mass. Just a bunch of hymns, Bible readings and sermons at the whims of the pastor. I was at a Pentecostal funeral not that long ago and I couldn’t discern anything that even remotely resembled a Catholic Mass.

The Anglicans have their own “EF vs OF” controversy: the Book of Common Prayer (traditional) vs the Book of Alternative Services (modern). The minister at my wife’s Anglican parish has to offer both. The traditional one is done quietly without music, and the modern one with (too loud!) pop/rock/Gospel style music.

Not unlike what we see in our own Church.
 
Sftyvlv1, as many others have noted, you don’t have to be confused or think you have to “choose.” The doctrine of the Church has not changed, and that’s what’s important. It is one, holy, apostolic, Catholic Church.
The Church “fine tunes” some points of its teaching, but never changes the essentials, at every Council.
Don’t sweat it. Just start to immerse yourself in the great treasury of the Catholic Church where you have 2000 years of Catholic teaching, doctrine, and culture to draw on.
 
To anyone who actually knows what the Church teaches, and has been teaching for 2,000 years, there simply is no question.

Some people cannot understand that discipline - the rules - is ultimately subject to the decisions of the current Pope. There are a multitude of threads showing there are people who cannot comprehend that issue. A very simple example is the change in Canon law, from 1917 to the 1983 code. There was an expansion of the issues which could show that as of the date of the marriage, there was a failure to confect the sacrament. In short, much more emphasis was put on the sacrament of marriage as a covenant, rather than as a contract.

As to the Mass, over the centuries, bits and pieces were added to it which originally were not part of the Mass. For example, the Last Gospel was originally not part of the Mass; but somewhere along the line it was decided to add it. The Bishops wanted to go back to things which had been discarded over time, and remove some of the things which had been added. The Mass in its form was retained; a few prayers were eliminated; some of the rubrics were changed. It was nowhere near as big a change as some like to make out.

Pre and post Vatican 2 “being a Catholic” has expanded, for example, in the Mass; rather than as simply showing up and staying for the length of the Mass (i.e. “meeting one’s obligation”) we are asked to participate in it. At least in theory, we were to participate in the Mass pre Vatican 2; but many simply endured it. That, in part, was why so many devotions were so popular; people actually involved themselves in them. And that is why, in part, so many devotions are far less popular, or in many areas, are not to be seen. Our first and highest participation should be the Mass; and thanks to Vatican 2, we the laity have been invited and encouraged to participate in the other liturgy of the Church - the Liturgy of the Hours.

Being Catholic may certainly include saying the rosary; but that, as a private devotion, is far secondary to participating in Mass. Our duty to the poor did not start with Vatican 2; but certainly there has been even more focus on it. The 10 Commandments didn’t go away, nor has the moral teaching of the Church. Adult catechesis is far, far greater than it was before Vatican 2. Scripture study is far more emphasized than it was pre Vatican 2; and we have wonderful scripture scholars such as Scott Hahn and Brant Pitre providing that to the laity in understandable terms.

In short, we have moved away from an all too common attitude of laity were there to “pray, pay and obey” to recognizing they too have a vital role in the Church.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
There is no Pre-Vatican II church.

All that exist is the Church now, so be part of it.

Jim
Click to expand...
This is the answer. The “Pre-Vatican II” Church disappeared completely and utterly when Vatican II happened. You don’t get to pick and choose which councils you wish to keep.
 
The Church remains the Church, both pre and post. The only difference that stands out to me just from personal observation is that a great many Catholics seem to have become a lot dumber with respect to knowledge of basic Catholic doctrine, practice, and history in the post-V2 era compared to the pre V2 era. (Whenever I find a Catholic book published before 1960, I hold on to it!)

On the other hand post Vatican 2 ventures such as the Catholic Answers website and the Catholic Answers magazine are a beacon of light in the darkness and were unknown in the prior era.
 
Altogether too much of that “dumbness” is the result of the move within catechetical circles, post Vatican 2, to throw out the Baltimore Catechism, and replace it with a namby pamby “Love one another and glue cotton balls to sheep cutouts and cut out butterflies for Easter Mass” malarkey that replaced it. It was not until the 1990’s that we started to get catechetical materials for teaching grade and high school students.

That should have been the responsibility of the bishops, but they got caught flat footed. for whatever reasons they failed to see where the catechesis was going, the results were disastrous.

and granted that the Baltimore Catechism had deficiencies or lacked updating, throwing it out was not a solution. Rote learning has its place; what was needed was an addition to the rote learning; but what was provided accomplished neither an update nor a better solution.

And by the way, there are some fantastic books out there post Vatican 2.
 
Arguments regarding pre or post V-II are like chicken and egg discussions. And the answers given will reflect the preconceived notions of the respondents. Those who like the novelties and changes wrought post V-II will argue passionately that all is well. Those who see a rupture will argue that turning back is the only solution.
To the OP, the best advice is to study all of Church teaching, hold fast to the Perinial teachings, and live a holy life in accordance with the Sacraments. Do Not let your spirit be consumed with useless fighting over past vs present.
God Bless.
 
For a few decades after Vatican II, people would promote some agenda in a parish, diocese, or institution, and say “If you support Vatican II, you have to support my agenda”, and imply, “If you oppose my agenda, you are not following Vatican II, and are disobedient to the Church”. In many cases the agenda promoted had little to do with Vatican II. The fact that scoundrels misused Vatican II does not mean it is bad.

The fact that Vatican II did not feel the need to reinvent the wheel does not mean they regarded the “wheel” as no longer valid or useful. They were careful not to repeal dogma, made only slight refinements. The documents are primarily pastoral application, dependent on, and understandable only in the context of the dogmatic foundation, which continued to be necessary.

Sadly, many have ignored or even attacked that dogmatic foundation, especially in religious orders that are rapidly shrinking. Younger priests and religious today seem to be accepting of both the foundation, and the pastoral application. The “young Church” is much more faithful, but smaller, in a world growing much more secular.
 
Catholics are no less informed about Church doctrine than before Vatican II.

I grew up in pre-Vatican II and Catholics followed what the priests and nuns told them, blindly. They could not explain doctrine, just give yes and no answers.

They even accepted bigotry against non-Catholics as being God’s will. Heck, in my own dioceses there is a religious order who still follow the demagoguery of the past. They do not have Papal Approval, thank God !

Today, Catholics who are devote and seeking closer union with God, are living a contemplative lifestyle, something rarely heard of before Vatican II.

But the attitude is that of the culture and people treat the government with skepticism, as before Vatican II, they accepted what the government said without question.

This is why there was so much division between the so-called, “Greatest Generation,” and young people who protested against the Vietnam War.

It explains much of the division in our country on politics, but also in the Church.

Some are still stuck in the past and want everyone to be conformist, rather than educated thinking human beings.

Jim
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top