Post Vatican II Catholics & Converts

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bettye444
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m not the best person to answer this (actually the last) but weren’t there some issues that understandably distressed folks such as the moving the tabernacles, removing the altar rails and (I’m not too sure about the last part but is that accurate) the downplaying of devotions (did fallible implementation of Vatican II cause beautiful devotions to take a backseat or dare I say, disappear in some respects?)? Additionally, the collapse from secularization was almost coincidental so it seems reasonable for some to put two and two together (though correlation doesn’t necessarily mean causation)? Also, I understand some of the laity were distressed and bothered by some of the religious (though that’s probably always been a thing throughout history)?

Posters of CAF, do such concerns have a grain of truth (especially the part about the beautiful devotions, that’s what I want to know more personally) or have they been exaggerated and are being addressed as traditionalism is re-emerging?

On the other hand, regarding Vatican II, did it make Catholics less insular which provided more fertile ground for conversions (by opening up which makes it easier to welcome converts)?
 
Last edited:
No one was given any authority from Vatican II regarding the removal of altar/Communion rails, or removing statues or for moving the Tabernacle to some out of the way place. None of that was even suggested by the Council. The secularization of Western society was not a coincidence. Catholic dissenters/agitators for their idea of change, were hard at work in the 1960s and 1970s, just like the Hippies and Anarchists who were wrecking society at the same time.

 
Do you have hope despite your viewpoint about what happened in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s? Could we end up seeing a new Springtime in the centennial of the Council?
 
having a foot in both camps I can only say that to most young people in the non-romance language world the Latin Mass was unintelligible and boring. The great Truth and Beauty of the Mass was no longer being transmitted because it was bogged down in an outdated language and layers of rituals.

it’s hard to have a spirit or reverence when you aren’t really participating in the action because you have no clue what is going on. People were leaving Catholicism during the TLM era for this reason. All they saw was the ritual and could no longer connect to Jesus who was behind the ritual.

My Latin Mass missal had the Latin on one side and the English on the other. Imagine my shock when we switched to the OF and the Mass was in English and I could still use my old missal and follow along. So the change wasn’t that great.

It never mattered to me which way the priest faced as there was no meaning to it as far as I was concerned. Blame it on poor Catholic education if you wish but I do feel more of a participant since I can see what is going on at the altar.

Likewise I see nothing wrong with getting rid of the communion rail. It was very pretty, but I prefer the open feel I now get with out it. Makes Jesus seem much more approachable. It’s also easier on the old people because some just can’t get up and down to kneel. I remember a lot who wouldn’t go to communion for years when kneeling and receiving on the tongue was the rule and they just physically couldn’t kneel.

Now all they have to do is walk up to receive. I don’t view this as ‘less reverent’ because reverence is in the heart not in outward appearances.

The fact is, both versions of the Mass have much to offer. That’s why I think it is foolish to proclaim one more true, reverent, beautiful etc. than the other. The fact that you can’t see the beauty, reverence, and truth in the OF says more about you than the OF of the Mass.
 
And again for you,

Quit making unsubstantiated accusations about Vat 11 on a thread about it. And don’t throw words around about Trent. Do the reading, do the research. Present an accurate view on a PUBLIC Catholic forum.

I asked you to show me where I said Christ would enforce a single mass if He wanted. That’s a question I asked based on your claim I said it.

Read the posts, again I will ask you again to show me where I said Christ would enforce a single mass if he wanted to.
 
It’s not they are, it’s we are. You and I make up the Body of the Church.
 
My goodness, if we could all move past the communion rails lament. There are dozens of churches in my Diocese with original communion rails still in!

And I am sure my Diocese is not unique. Raise funds and build a church with communion rails. Action!
 
Last edited:
Pretty much my whole post. My arguement is that your interpretation of those passages is wrong. And your reply to me is “no it’s not you don’t know history”. Without actually addressing the scriptures I cited. I’ve shown 3 good references that make it impossible to maintain that tongues must mean a natural human language.

Furthermore you asked for citation of a very specific fact (interpretation of tongues as a spiritual gift) which I gave. No comment on your being totally wrong there I noticed.

You are just tossing opinions about without any citations whatsoever. Please start using sources or at least reference more directly to mine.
 
Last edited:
So her talking about mysterious unintelligible groanings that praise the Lord and edified her isn’t similar at all to you to the modern practice. SMH. Take off the blinders.
 
I cannot believe you would attempt to bring up this debate. (Falls over shocked) let’s just remind ourselves of the last supper and communion in the Early Church. I am sure anything the Apostles did , and most of them martyred, would get your approval, or the martyred Bishops of the Church who confected the Eucharist and then distributed it
 
Last edited:
Again, you are free to trash my posts, you have my permission, however
; do not assume I am trashing yours.
 
We are the Body of the Church. We make up the Body of the Church. Jesus is its head, we are it’s body.
I will list the basic catechism on this later today.
 
And guess what, there were Bishops after they were all killed, as there are now
 
It’s this weird thing called summarizing. Way to focus in on one word of my post. She’s clearly talking about unintelligible prayer that causes a sense of Christ’s peace and joy.

Coming back hoping you had actually replied to my arguement was a mistake. Muting again. I’ll state my arguement one more time before I go. Mostly to make myself feel better. I don’t expect to get anywhere.
  1. Understanding human languages is not a spiritual gift. It’s a simple matter of whether or not you know the language.
  2. St. Paul clearly labels interpretation of tongues as a spiritual gift. (If you deny this you literally can’t read.)
  3. Tongues must not always be human languages.
What follows isn’t strictly an arguement. Its my last ditch attempt at getting you to see it from a different perspective. I suspect, based on your tone and interactions I’ve had with many who have contempt for the CCR, that you really just don’t like it because you see it as Protestant. You then must find a reason to dislike it to prevent seeing good in Protestants. That’s sad.

I’ve read and debated a lot on the matter. I really just don’t see it your way. It doesn’t matter how many degrees someone has. And anyway, if you want to play that game I win. The Pope is on “my side”. Appealing to authority isn’t the game you should be playing.

You’re giving me a hard time about not being specific enough in my references. Take your own medicine and use ANY REFERENCES AT ALL
 
Last edited:
As a cradle Catholic born well before Vatican II, I have seen both ET and NO services. I have seen serious flaws in each. I have found where I am very comfortable now. My advice to you is, search for a mass and a worship atmosphere that nourishes your choice of expression of the Catholic faith. (I know this goes against local bishops insisting that Catholics worship at their local/home parish, but what the heck, I’m a 60’s rebel at heart). There’s an old cliché, “bloom where you are planted.” Put your roots down where you are comfortable.
 
edwest said:
Well, it is a valid form but Church attendance has dropped dramatically in the West
Click to expand...
Are you saying the dramatic drop in church attendance is due to the OF? Because that isn’t realistic, there are many reasons why church attendance has dropped dramatically in the West, including in other Christian communities.
 
I just feel like the mentality of the Church being the people is too emphasized. It can send mixed messages. Yes the church IS the body of believers, but it is also the temple where the true body blood soul and divinity if Christ dwells. He deserves due honor that the King of Kings deserves. His temple is one of his houses and we need to also remember that. It must reflect the home for for the God of gods.

The local parish IS the house of God. Therein his true self is kept in the tabernacle.

Tell me. Why does the mass look exactly the way it does today? Why has it led to people abusing it? Why have and are the younger people leaving and turning towards the more ancient forms of liturgy or leaving the church all together? Because people need authentic Christianity. It is about Christ alone first. We all come second.

In Christ the truth is found. In Christ alone healing and peace is found. In Him we find true live. People can not fulfill those desires. Only Christ can. Our job is to help each other get there. But when mass becomes about the people, we have missed the point.
 
Last edited:
Aside from the media, how does higher education affect young people?

https://www.osv.com/OSVNewsweekly/S...g-people-are-leaving-the-faith-Heres-why.aspx

When young people are told that the material world is all there is, they feel a lack of continuity with the spiritual.

1 Corinthians 2:14

New International Version
The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

New Living Translation
But people who aren’t spiritual can’t receive these truths from God’s Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them and they can’t understand it, for only those who are spiritual can understand what the Spirit means.

English Standard Version
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
 
Last edited:
MiserereMei25 said:
Why has it led to people abusing it?
Click to expand...
People are not abusing the Mass here, What abuses are you talking about?

To answer why mass looks exactly the way it does today, firstly you will have to describe how it looks to day and what you are comparing it to, and what it looked like at that time.
The Ordinary Form has a very healthy young people attendance, and its growing exponentially in non western countries.

All Churches are a house of God, And God does not require gold , riches and ornateness to put His name on the front door. Jesus teaches that our riches are in heaven. work towards riches in heaven. People gather for Mass in bombed out Churches in Syria, in bark huts in the outback, in front yards in indonesian villages, in homes in countries where mass is a dangerous activity.

The Church is about people who are in communion and community together to maintain, sustain and action the Church on earth. We are in the employ of Jesus Christ, we are carrying out His mission in His Church, We are its Body.
The Church is a dynamic living entity, its not a static body of bricks and mortar. Jesus taught us that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top