Pre-Vatican II Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter Flavius_Aetius
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It was a mistake, elitism, clericalism, excluding people from the actuosa participation.
Click to expand...
Was it a mistake to adhere to the Magisterium of the Church which defined binding doctrine in the Council of Trent? Was God better served when some committee decided to redefine the Holy Spirit’s council doctrines as practices which later could be changed at whim?

Was God better served when people demanded microphones and vernacular and have the priest face THEM instead of facing God?

Was God better worshipped when people were allowed to freely talk to one another in Church? Or when people loitered aimlessly around the altar during the Holy Sacrifice? Or deprive others of quietly praying the Mass?

Sursum corda, hearts upwards, remember? That’s participation, actual or otherwise.
 
Originally posted by laszlo:
It was a mistake, elitism, clericalism, excluding people from the actuosa participation.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, I read this statement as somewhat of a mischaracterization and a misperception of what it means to have “actuosa participatio”.

Authentic “actuosa participatio” means much more than vocalizing the prayers. In my experience with the EF, I found myself participating more by uniting my prayers with those of the celebrant. “Actuosa participatio” must include the heart, the soul and the will. If I were to go to Mass in the OF in French, I am not participating any less because I do not speak the language. I can quietly pray in Latin and still be united with the French-speaking assembly.

Having the priest facing the altar when he is addressing God on our behalf is not elitism nor does it exclude the faithful. On the contrary, the priest is leading the faithful in their encounter with Jesus.
 
TrueLight said:
I’ve read a lot of comments criticizing Vatican II. But reading what you just wrote, these changes look like good changes.
Click to expand...
Good changes to protestants. I hate when people try to “blame” the liberal “liturgical movement” of the 40s onward on Pope St Pius X - have they read any of his encylicals and do they think he would like the New Mass? The whole idea of Priests talking to servers and the laity being an “audience” watching on is ridiculous. This was never the case with Padre Pio, any of the Saints since the 6th Century and is a fable of the liberals of the left wing liturgical movement.

1/ The priest did not have his back to the people: he had his front to God. So did the laity. So do I when I go to Mass. He faced east, as did the laity. All were one unified group. There was no sentiment of:" I feel excluded - why doesnt he talk to me" etc to any catholic who had learned their catechism in School.

2/ The priest said Mass and the faithful understood this. Lay people did not say Mass with the priest and did not mind saying a confeitor independently of the priest and waiting when he said his. There was no supression in not having responses for the laity to say. To follow mass entirely did not require it. There was NO exclusion of the laity. When we go to mass we do not feel excluded, nor did my relatives or the Saints. Another myth of those in the left wing liturgical movement.

3/ Latin posed no probem for nearly 2000 years in the Mass. My grandparents knew what the mass meant more than people who attend today. They used missals and knew the mass in latin by heart. I do also. Again, it posed no problem to the saints and was no obstacle for participation.

Many are happy to paint a picture of a Mass where the priest whispers gobbledy gook to a server with his back to people who are bending their necks trying to understand what is said and feel ever so excluded and dismayed and want so much to make responses. This was never the case and the tradtional Mass is growing in popularity again. One who puts foward such a position, no matter how sublte, does not understand what Mass was to the laity for over 1500 years. It was a lot better than the new rite, to say the least and the people walking out of the doors after the last gospel knew a whole lot more of their faith than many do today.
 
Although I am not permitted (nor do I have a real desire to) to condemn the Novus Ordo in any manner and suggest that it is not “on par” with the Mass of 1962, I can say the following with respect to the 1962 Mass - back when it was the official Mass of the Church and beginning again in 2007 with Summorum Pontificum:
  1. I have yet to see anyone leave early, unless they were ill.
  2. I have yet to see anyone during Mass begin imitating the priest by assuming the “orans” position and making “movements” like the priest celebrating the Mass, as though THEY are celebrating it as well.
  3. I have yet to see anyone shooting the “peace sign” to anyone in Church (it may seem harmless to some, but come on people - a peace sign in church?)
  4. I have yet to see anyone (and I mean this - no exaggeration) attend in shorts or inappropriate dress.
I have seen ALL of the above at a Novus Ordo mass, and I have witnessed very few correction by the priest (except for No. 1 - and this was done when it was obvious that approixmately 1/4 of the church was “missing” after the last communion wafer was given).

I cannot quite put my finger on it, but there is definitely something about the 1962 Mass that simply, for lack of a better word, “demands” a level of respect I find missing at Novus Ordo masses.
 
bkovacs said:
My point with the Eastern Churches was the direction they face, said nothing about languages.

Read this article from Diocese of Tulsa Oklahoma especially the part which says "“Turning Towards the Lord”. And you will be enlightened.

dioceseoftulsa.org/section.asp?secID=97
Click to expand...
I am sorry, but you made a much bolder statement

Take a good look at your Eastern Churches, which **never changed or will change their liturgies. **

I reacted us. Your name sound Hungarian. Ask your ancestors if they remember, that the chief communist way on disputes was to pint out their point, different from the prvious statement, if they did not liked some answer. They believed that the truth is only that segment of the facts, which serves the interest of the elite: themselves. We, shall consider always the fulness of the facts.

I agree with the ‘turning toward the Lord’ principle, only state that this is possible only to turning your back to the world and the people; and no euphemism can change that.

I have problem with the ‘leading people’. This means either to show them the way, and this is not true for the lower clergy, they are not part of the teaching office of the Church; or to be the first in the fight; and this in the real wars was abandoned sometimes during the high Middle ages, when the enemy sent the foot-soldiers forward, and they killed the leader no matter how brave he was.

If you think it over that the priest represents Jesus Christ the victim, and that the holy women and John stood on front of the cross, that may be you will be more understanding about turning toward the people: God is everywhere anyway.
 
Your right, my ancestors were Hungarian. If I remember correctly. St Stephen’s mother was a Greek Catholic. I prefer the Eastern way. The changes made to the Roman Rite after Vatican 2 are to hard for my soul to bare. I like all things traditional and ancient.
 
I read somewhere that the spirit of Vatican II is an attempt to de-Romanise, de-clericalise and democratise the Roman Catholic Church. I think it’s had a strong effect.

I don’t require a posted answer to this question, because you can’t quantify it, but ask yourself in your heart:

“How many people in your parish do you think would be secretly glad if they could ‘preside’ at a ‘Communion Service In The Absence Of A Priest’?”

I think that’s the ultimate de-Romanisation, de-clericalisation, and democratisation and excessive use of EMHCs and other lay participation is paving the way for it.
 
bkovacs, InquisitorMax

I can’t agree more. I am still trying to make sense of it all as there is such a difference within the Roman Liturgy between the two forms. I wonder why VII was needed at all and still have a hard time accepting it when I’ve noticed nothing but a watering down of the faith since the council, whether properly blamed on the council or not, though I do blame the council regardless of what others may argue. The TLM to me is very rich and nourishing for the soul but it is tossed aside for the NO with such weak music…sometimes even protestant songs! The worst part is everyone is OK and doesn’t care including priests and bishops! Only a small minority really do care and are not indifferent. I admire the Eastern Catholics for retaining their tradition and wisely keeping it unchanged. I myself I have grown to enjoy the Divine Liturgy but it too suffers from little widespread use in the Americas along with the TLM. 😦
 
ProVobis said:
Was it a mistake to adhere to the Magisterium of the Church which defined binding doctrine in the Council of Trent? .
Click to expand...
Yes. It was a mistake to set the XIX Ecumenical Council to the same pedestal as the pharisees in Jesus time set the Law.

The Law was God’s word, when it was given, the decisions of the XIX Ecumenical council were inspired by the Holy Spirit when they were defined.

But the times and the priorities changed. This is why Jesus gave binding and loosing power to his vicars (Matt 16:16) and to the college of Apostles the Church (Matt 18:18)

Related to the Liturgy the real mistake was the 400 years hibernation, which provided the most important element for the explosion: the suppression. People became literate, they wanted to understand the world. The Church should have lead them capturing the media, showing the proper direction, but for several reasons the Church completely lost the media , the instrument to influence people, and tried to govern only by negatives: like the index, and like the Syllabus or Anti-modernist Oath.

This was the main understanding of the XXI Ecumenical Council.

I worked for 4 years in my life in chemical factories, with containers under high pressure. We tried to control the pressure, with water, with ice, with opening some safety valves. Usually it worked. Usually it worked, but the order was, that if the pressure reaches the critical level : forget everything and run, it will explode.anyway.

Vatican II was the safety valve, and it was late. Thanks to God the explosion was moderate, only some extremes were lost, the Church is still One, under the Vicar of Christ and the college of bishops.
 
laszlo said:
Related to the Liturgy the real mistake was the 400 years hibernation, which provided the most important element for the explosion: the suppression. People became literate, they wanted to understand the world. The Church should have lead them capturing the media, showing the proper direction, but for several reasons the Church completely lost the media , the instrument to influence people, and tried to govern only by negatives: like the index, and like the Syllabus or Anti-modernist Oath.
Click to expand...
I would say this pressure you speak of was diabolic and the suppression necessary. Look what’s happened when people go their own way in religion: The Reformation and ‘The Spirit Of Vatican II’.

It leads to heresy and apostasy.

I work on the periphery of ‘The Media’. The media is principally interested in one thing: making money from scandalising people. Look at the lives of ‘creative’ people; they are often scandalous, too.

In chasing after ‘The Youth’ and worrying about ‘The Media’ the Church has been distracted from its primary goal; the saving of souls who are willing to hear The Word Of Christ and act on it.

The old rite Mass, especially the much-derided Low Mass, was a way of safe-guarding our holy rite from casual tampering by mere intellectuals or parishes who just weren’t up to a proper Mass; a sung, High one, with beautiful vestments, candles and icons in an impressive building: Heaven on Earth.
 
Related to the Liturgy the real mistake was the 400 years hibernation, which provided the most important element for the explosion: the suppression. People became literate, they wanted to understand the world. The Church should have lead them capturing the media, showing the proper direction, but for several reasons the Church completely lost the media , the instrument to influence people, and tried to govern only by negatives: like the index, and like the Syllabus or Anti-modernist Oath.
Click to expand...
400 years of 80% Catholic attendance at Sunday Mass was a mistake? Are you disparaging the Council of Trent again?

I don’t know if you caught the latest figures but the U.S. has dropped to about 25th in reading, math, and science. I don’t understand this literacy you’re referring to, unless it’s in Asia.

As far as moral leadership goes, the Church has basically lost its leading role in the world since the 60’s. I wouldn’t say that’s a good thing.

And if negatives are so bad why did God give Moses so many negative commandments?:confused:
 
If Jesus were alive on Earth and he began talking to his Father, and he looked towards God and his back happened to be facing us - would anyone suggest that Jesus had “turned his back on the people”?

I think not . . .

We are there to celebrate and give thanks to GOD - I don’t need to have a priest facing me to make me feel “important”. That is not the reason why I went to mass - I went to worship God.

Am I the only one who thinks this business about “the priest turned his back on the people” sounds like vanity? Is our encounter with God REALLY that dependent on the direction the priest faces?

I must be attending mass for the wrong reasons . . . 😦
 
InquisitorMax said:
I would say this pressure you speak of was diabolic and the suppression necessary. Look what’s happened when people go their own way in religion: The Reformation and ‘The Spirit Of Vatican II’.

It leads to heresy and apostasy.
Click to expand...
From the reform of Cluny (beginning of the X Century) to (end of XI century) the Hierarchy was quite weak and earthly, the reform came from the lower clergy and the people. Also in the time of the reformation the moral of the hierarchy was low, and the impetus for the reform came through the reformation, also a movement from the lower clergy and the people on their own.

It is too early to judge our times, but it seems to me, that there is no problem with our pope, but the real change is expected again from the lower clergy and the people. Not on the way of judging everybody and everything what they dislike, but changing their own life to better.

Laymen have no authority over heresy and apostasy, only about the moral behavior of themselves and their families. A significant number is good, unrelated whether they are traditional of not.
 
laszlo said:
From the reform of Cluny (beginning of the X Century) to (end of XI century) the Hierarchy was quite weak and earthly, the reform came from the lower clergy and the people. Also in the time of the reformation the moral of the hierarchy was low, and the impetus for the reform came through the reformation, also a movement from the lower clergy and the people on their own.
Click to expand...
Ummmm … I don’t see how that’s related to what I said.

We’re heading towards a state whereby you won’t hear correct Catholic doctrine preached and won’t see a Mass said, according to the rubrics, in Catholic Churches. You hear laypeople who’ve had a reasonable secular education in Catholic schools preaching heresy and acting on it.

People are doing what they want, led astray by their own intellectual pride and baser desires. The clergy don’t want to upset people, so if you want to put a picture of your mammy on the altar at her funeral mass, you can.

The Reformation and The Spirit Of Vatican II are part of the same impulse; we don’t want to heed the hard teachings of Christ. We don’t want to allow that there is some mystery in our rites which is beyond our mortal understanding. We don’t want to acknowledge that priests and bishops have a Spirit beyond their mere mortal faculties. We don’t want to acknowledge that our forefathers answered a lot of questions we think are new. We certainly dislike that the Roman Catholic Church is Roman and that its conservative prelates have authority to tell us how to behave. We don’t want to believe that we are small and our chances of going to Hell, significant. That’s too humbling.

So we pick and choose and try to bring it down to our level.
 
ProVobis said:
400 years of 80% Catholic attendance at Sunday Mass was a mistake? Are you disparaging the Council of Trent again?

I don’t know if you caught the latest figures but the U.S. has dropped to about 25th in reading, math, and science. I don’t understand this literacy you’re referring to, unless it’s in Asia.

As far as moral leadership goes, the Church has basically lost its leading role in the world since the 60’s. I wouldn’t say that’s a good thing.

And if negatives are so bad why did God give Moses so many negative commandments?:confused:
Click to expand...
The XIX Ecumenucal council was one of the Ecumenical Councils, the same level of the participation of Truth like the XXI Ecumenical council. No more,no less.

Since there are internatioal comparisions the US is among the last ones comparing to the technologically developed countries. I recommend you the Why Johnny cant’s read booklet, written by an Austrian in 1956. The tragedy is, that in 1900 the US was the first; but it has nothing tyo do with the changes in the Liturgy.

The Church lost her leadership in the second half of the 19th century, when she hoped to regain the Papal state, and that was more important that to keep the leadership in the information technology. When basically Pacelli lather Pius XII wanted to reverse it, it was too lathe. God allowed it, so we will survive, but again to blame the sixties for it is misleading.

Moses gave 635 commandments, the majority is about to do something. Only decadent dieing cutures emphasize the negatives, it takes less energy to keep them in mid, that the positive equivalent: honor the life, honor the chastity, honor the property, honor the truth and justice.
 
Roman Catholic Doctrine Vs. The Doctrinal Teaching of the Word of God

Eternal life is a merited reward [1821, 2010]. - Roman Catholicism
Eternal life is the free gift of God (Romans 6:23)

No one can know if he will attain eternal life [1036, 2005] - Roman Catholicism
The believer can know that he has eternal life by the Word of God (1 John 5:13)

The Roman Catholic Church is necessary for salvation [846]. - Roman Catholicism
There is salvation in no one but the Lord Jesus Christ, “for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12)

Purgatory is necessary to atone for sin and clean the soul [1030-1031]. - Roman Catholicism
Purgatory does not exist. Jesus made purification for sins on the cross (Hebrews 1:3)

Mary was preserved from all stain of original sin from the first instant of her conception (the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception) [490-492].
Mary, a descendant of Adam, was born in sin (Psalm 51:5; Romans 5:12)

Mary is the Mother of the Church [963, 975]. - Roman Catholicism
Mary was the earthly mother of Jesus ( John 2:1)

The Magisterium is the authoritative teacher of the Church. [85-87]. - Roman Catholicism
The Holy Spirit is the authoritative teacher of the church (John 14:26; John 16:13, I John 2:27)

The pope, as the Bishop of Rome, is the successor of Peter [882, 936] - Roman Catholicism
Peter had no successor, nor was he a pope.

The pope is infallible in his authoritative teaching [891]. - Roman Catholicism
God alone is infallible (Numbers 23:19)

Scripture and Tradition together are the Word of God [81, 85, 97, 182]. - Roman Catholicism
Scripture is the Word of God (John 10:35, 2 Timothy 3:15-17, 2 Peter 1:20-21). Tradition is the words of men (Mark 7:1-13).

The sacrificial work of redemption is continually carried out through the Sacrifice of the Mass. [1364,1405, 1846]. - Roman Catholicism
The sacrificial work of redemption was finished when Christ gave His life for us on the cross (Ephesians 1:7, Hebrews 1:3).

God desires that consecrated bread and wine be worshiped as divine. [1378-1381] - Roman Catholicism
God forbids the worship of any object, even t hose intended to represent Him (Exodus 20:4-5, Isaiah 42:8)

Justification is lost through mortal sin [1033, 1855, 1874] - Roman Catholicism
Justification cannot be lost. Those whom God justifies will be saved from the wrath of God (Romans 5:8-9).

Justification is furthered by sacraments and good works [1212, 1392, 2010] - Roman Catholicism
Justification is the imputation of the perfect righteousness of God (2 Corinthians 5:21). In Christ the believer has been made complete (Colossians 2:10).

Salvation is attained by cooperating with grace through faith, good works, and participation in the sacraments [183, 1129, 1815, 2002]. - Roman Catholicism
Salvation is attained by grace through faith apart from works (Ephesians 2:8-9). Good works are the result, not the cause, of salvation (Ephesians 2:10).

Mary, “the All-Holy,” lived a perfectly sinless life [411, 493]. - Roman Catholicism
Mary was a sinner; God alone is sinless (Luke 18:19, Romans 3:23, Revelation 15:4).

Mary was a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Christ [496-511]. - Roman Catholicism
Mary remained a virgin until after the birth of Jesus (Matthew 1:25). Later she had other children (Matthew 13:55-56, Psalm 69:8).

Each Sacrifice of the Mass appeases God’s wrath against sin [1371, 1414]. - Roman Catholicism
The once-for-all sacrifice of the cross fully appeased God’s wrath against sin. (Hebrews 10:12-18).

The Bishops, with the Pope, as their head, rule the universal church. [883, 894-896]. - Roman Catholicism
Christ, the head of the body is the Head of the Church. (Colossians 1:18).

The faithful receive the benefits of the cross in fullest measure through the Sacrifice of the Mass [1366, 1407]. - Roman Catholicism
Believers receive the benefits of the cross in fullest measure in Christ through faith (Ephesians 1:3-14).

God has exalted Mary in heavenly glory as Queen of Heaven and Earth [966]. She is to be praised with special devotion [971, 2675]. - Roman Catholicism
The name of the Lord is to be praised, for He alone is exalted above heaven and earth (Psalm 148:13). God commands, “You shall have no other gods before Me.” (Exodus 20:3).

Mary is the co-mediator to whom we can entrust all our cares and petitions 9 968-970, 2677] - Roman Catholicism
Christ Jesus is the one mediator to whom we can entrust all our cares and petitions (1 Timothy 2:5, John 14:13-14, 1 Peter 5:7).

Mary is the co-redeemer, for she participate with Christ in the painful act of redemption [618, 964, 968, 970]. - Roman Catholicism
Christ alone is the Redeemer, for He alone suffered and died for sin (1 Peter 1:18-19).

The sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated in the Sacrifice of the Mass [1323, 1382] - Roman Catholicism
The Sacrifice of the cross is finished (John 19:30).

Indulgences dispensed by the Church for acts of piety release sinners from temporal punishment [1471-1473]. - Roman Catholicism
Jesus releases believers from their sins by His blood. (Revelation 1:5).

The Magisterium has the right to define truth found only obscurely or implicitly in revelation. [66, 88, 2035, 2051]. - Roman Catholicism
No one has the right to go beyond what is written in Scripture (1 Corinthians 4:6, Proverbs 30:5-6).

Scripture and Tradition together are the Church’s supreme role of faith [80, 82]. - Roman Catholicism
Scripture is the church’s rule of faith (Mark 7:7-13, 2 Timothy 3:16-17).
 
I beg to differ with the person who answered the question about what kind of mass was said pre Vatican II. The responder told the questioner to find a 1962 missal. :tsktsk: This is the missal mandated by John XXIII and is not the one said pre Vatican II. You need to find a missal going back from at least 1958 and back from there. We use ones that are from 1942. Good luck with your quest.

ps. We reject post Vatican II anything as much of our faith has been stripped of its truth since then. The modern day church reviles us and sees us as haters and ones who will not conform. We cannot conform to error. We stay with the faith that has been handed down to us from St. Peter up to Vatican II. 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top