Protestant responses to VII?

[ASD]

I think there is a pretty broad consensus that ecumenism had a huge influence on the debates and results of VII. See, e.g., Michael Davies and M. J. Wilde at opposite ends of the spectrum. One result was the changes to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass that apparently were intended, in large part, to make it less objectionable to Protestants.

On one level, this makes sense. In the U.S.A., e.g., as Catholics moved out of their old ethnic neighborhoods and entered the American mainstream after WWII, maybe their bishops wanted better relations with their Protestant neighbors. In post-war Europe, on the other hand, a Christianity that had not been able to prevent the disasters of the 20th century wanted to fall back and regroup.

In other ways it’s puzzling. E.g., it’s not clear exactly what the bishops expected. Did they think that changing the Mass would attract Protestants back to the Church? Sometimes people suggest that it has had that effect in come cases, that Protestants have been able to convert who would not have done so if NO/OF were not available.

Similarly, I don’t know whether the bishops expected some kind of reciprocal changes by Protestants. I certainly don’t know of any.

So, several related questions with a theme, viz, Has it succeeded on its own terms?

• Is it true that bishops thought changing Mass would attract Protestants?
• If so, does anyone know some reliable facts and figures about Protestant conversions to Catholicism in years after the Mass was changed.
• Did the bishops expect the Protestants in the ecumenical movement to respond with similar changes?
• If Protestants were expected to reciprocate, have they? Have there been changes comparable to, e.g., changes in Mass or the declaration on religious liberty?

 

[JonNC]

I think there is a pretty broad consensus that ecumenism had a huge influence on the debates and results of VII. See, e.g., Michael Davies and M. J. Wilde at opposite ends of the spectrum. One result was the changes to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass that apparently were intended, in large part, to make it less objectionable to Protestants.

On one level, this makes sense. In the U.S.A., e.g., as Catholics moved out of their old ethnic neighborhoods and entered the American mainstream after WWII, maybe their bishops wanted better relations with their Protestant neighbors. In post-war Europe, on the other hand, a Christianity that had not been able to prevent the disasters of the 20th century wanted to fall back and regroup.

In other ways it’s puzzling. E.g., it’s not clear exactly what the bishops expected. Did they think that changing the Mass would attract Protestants back to the Church? Sometimes people suggest that it has had that effect in come cases, that Protestants have been able to convert who would not have done so if NO/OF were not available.

Similarly, I don’t know whether the bishops expected some kind of reciprocal changes by Protestants. I certainly don’t know of any.

So, several related questions with a theme, viz, Has it succeeded on its own terms?

• Is it true that bishops thought changing Mass would attract Protestants?
• If so, does anyone know some reliable facts and figures about Protestant conversions to Catholicism in years after the Mass was changed.
• Did the bishops expect the Protestants in the ecumenical movement to respond with similar changes?
• If Protestants were expected to reciprocate, have they? Have there been changes comparable to, e.g., changes in Mass or the declaration on religious liberty?

I don’t have any documented info, but in general terms Vatican II has, in my view, had a significant effect on ecumenical relations between Catholics and Lutherans, anyway. The USCCB website has many of the ecumenical statements between our 2 communions, including the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification.
As for reciprocity, our liturgies have always been similar, as that of the Lutherans has its roots in the Catholic mass. As a personal observation, VII and the ecumenical discussions seem to have influenced Lutheran worship and practice, including but not limited to a return to weekly communion in many Lutheran churches. Some, though not many Lutherans have rediscovered, if you will, the Rosary (modified, or course) as a form of meditative prayer. In fact, the ELCA had a Rosary on its website during Lent.

Don’t know if that answers your questions. Maybe others can do better.

Jon

 

[puzzleannie]

I. One result was the changes to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass that apparently were intended, in large part, to make it less objectionable to Protestants.

?

this was not the reason for reforms of the liturgy. this was a continuation of work begun as early as the pontificate of Pius X, and excelerated by Pius XII after WW2…

 

[ralphinal]

My sinus meds must be messing me up. I read the title on this and could not figure out why Protestants had issues with the number 7

 

[JonNC]

My sinus meds must be messing me up. I read the title on this and could not figure out why Protestants had issues with the number 7

I was wondering the same thing at first.
Jon

 

[ralphinal]

I was wondering the same thing at first.
Jon

I mean I know that you folks will protest anything, but come on…

I am glad it was not just me.

Seriously, though that may have been part of the thought, the overall reason for mass changes was to make the mass more “approachable” for the common man, thus fostering more devotion.

Personally, I think that the opposite occured. That is just me. I am not a Traditionalist and i like the NO, I just think that Catholics became more lax. Then again, so did all of America in the last 40 or so years.

 

[JonNC]

=ralphinal;4651666]

I mean I know that you folks will protest anything, but come on…

Next Sunday tens of thousands of us will be protesting the number VII in front of Catholic parishes nationwide.

Seriously, though that may have been part of the thought, the overall reason for mass changes was to make the mass more “approachable” for the common man, thus fostering more devotion.

Personally, I think that the opposite occured. That is just me. I am not a Traditionalist and i like the NO, I just think that Catholics became more lax. Then again, so did all of America in the last 40 or so years.

Weren’t some of the “rules” relaxed, as well? Fasting, headcovers, frequency of confession?

I appreciate NO because I can attend a Catholic mass and know what’s going on.

Jon

 

[ASD]

ASD;4651182:

One result was the changes to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass that apparently were intended, in large part, to make it less objectionable to Protestants.

this was not the reason for reforms of the liturgy. this was a continuation of work begun as early as the pontificate of Pius X, and excelerated by Pius XII after WW2…

Well, you’re right that it certainly wasn’t the only reason. However, consider, e.g., the very beginning of Sacrosanctum Concilium, which suggests ecumenism, I think:

1. This sacred Council has several aims in view: it desires to impart an ever increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful; to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change; to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church. The Council therefore sees particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy.

ASD​

Let us Foster Discussion of Seven

 

[ASD]

Seriously, though that may have been part of the thought, the overall reason for mass changes was to make the mass more “approachable” for the common man, thus fostering more devotion.

Sure. But, in itself that seems like an accomodation of Protestant attitudes. The old Catholic idea, in contrast, is that the most intense devotion is focused on the sacrificial altar shrouded in mystery.

Personally, I think that the opposite occured…Then again, so did all of America in the last 40 or so years.

Right. Another topic when we’re done discussing Protest Responses to Seven.

ASD​

Seven

 

[ralphinal]

Next Sunday tens of thousands of us will be protesting the number VII in front of Catholic parishes nationwide.

The Jesuits had already warned me about that

Weren’t some of the “rules” relaxed, as well? Fasting, headcovers, frequency of confession?

Yes, Yes, no.

I appreciate NO because I can attend a Catholic mass and know what’s going on.

Jon

And that is the biggest advantage of the mass in the vernacular. It is the best part to me as well.

 

[ralphinal]

Sure. But, in itself that seems like an accomodation of Protestant attitudes. The old Catholic idea, in contrast, is that the most intense devotion is focused on the sacrificial altar shrouded in mystery.

I can see that, but in some ways it is looking at the outcome and then forcing the cause. Let’s take one part of it: mass in the vernacular. Now, you can claim that there is a Prostestant attitude in that. That, however, really isn’t the case. At one time, the language of the educated was Latin. It was the most common laguage taught in schools, outside of the native tongue. It was not uncommon for high school grads in the US to know it to some lever. By the 20th century that was no longer the case. Generations of Americans had no exposure to it at all, save those who studied Law or were Catholic. Basically, people could not follow the mass. The Church thought that if people understoofd the words, they would focus more on the mystery of the Mass and thus have a greater devotion.

Right. Another topic when we’re done discussing Protest Responses to Seven.

ASD​

Seven

Now, as far as the rest of how Seven was accepted or responded to by Protestants, I can see several schools of thought. For example, those like Lutherans saw the Church as trying to become more accessable. That would be seen as a positive. Those who are not sacramental to begin with see nothing good in anything we do, so they do not care.

An interesting concept to me would be how do they see the divisions that this caused. For example, many Catholics made sweeping changes before the ink was even on the paper. It took over three decades to purge the false “spirit” that did not reflect the documents or the true spirit of them. How many alter rails were torn down? High alters dismantled for no reason? I think that there are some Protestants who see the intents then how it was corrupted before it was implemented and wonder what the heck is going on.

 

[With_Questions]

My sinus meds must be messing me up. I read the title on this and could not figure out why Protestants had issues with the number 7

Well I must be stupid because I still dunno what “VII” is.

 

[ralphinal]

Well I must be stupid because I still dunno what “VII” is.

No, you are not stupid. The Second Vatican Council, or Vatican II.

 

[ASD]

As a personal observation, VII and the ecumenical discussions seem to have influenced Lutheran worship and practice, including but not limited to a return to weekly communion in many Lutheran churches. Some, though not many Lutherans have rediscovered, if you will, the Rosary (modified, or course) as a form of meditative prayer. In fact, the ELCA had a Rosary on its website during Lent.

Well, OK. Some reciprocation from Lutherans.

 

[With_Questions]

No, you are not stupid. The Second Vatican Council, or Vatican II.

After reading this thread through again, I thought that was what it might be.

However, I never thought of Vatican II as changing the mass.

I have thought of Vatican II as some sort of change in thought of what exactly us Protestants are. We are now separated brethren outside of the “fullness of truth” as opposed to heretics damned to hell because there is no salvation outside of the Catholic church. So at least under Vatican II we are Christians, it is just that you are superior to us. But to be fair, claims of superiority run two ways.

Of course I have read some here who dislike even to the extent of claiming that there has not been a valid pope since prior to Vatican II. I find this to be quite curious.

 

[ralphinal]

After reading this thread through again, I thought that was what it might be.

However, I never thought of Vatican II as changing the mass.

I have thought of Vatican II as some sort of change in thought of what exactly us Protestants are. We are now separated brethren outside of the “fullness of truth” as opposed to heretics damned to hell because there is no salvation outside of the Catholic church. So at least under Vatican II we are Christians, it is just that you are superior to us. But to be fair, claims of superiority run two ways.

Of course I have read some here who dislike even to the extent of claiming that there has not been a valid pope since prior to Vatican II. I find this to be quite curious.

That is part of it. It is a better understanding after time cooled the tempers of some.

Some people do claim that there has not been a valid pope in years. They are WAY off.

 

[JonNC]

=ASD;4651752]Right. Another topic when we’re done discussing Protest Responses to Seven.

ASD

Sorry, ASD. Didn’t mean to hijack with humor.

Jon