Should We Turn Back The Clock?

[cctabb]

IMHO, like anything else there are good things and bad things that occur any time there is a change from the norm.

I can think of what I see as good things which came from VII. I can also see what I think are not so good things.

So, to answer the OP’s original question, no, I do not think the church should scrap VII and go back to the traditional way.

 

[CWBetts]

Why do people suggest that Vatican II was not infallible? “Pastoral” and “Dogmatic” are not mutually exclusive terms, and the two key documents of the Council are “Dogmatic Constitutions.” Besides this, Vatican II was not bad for the Church. Many of the things Vatican II gets blamed for are not the fault of the Council itself.

 

[Timothysis]

Why don’t you tell that to the Coca-Cola company? When the New Coke came out in 1985 and was proven to be a failure, the company went back to its Classical Coke and it still continues to sell.

This is meant as a joke, isn’t it?

ProVobis, I usually enjoy your posts but I have noticed lately that you have been grasping at straws.

As the other poster stated, the documents of Vatican II are easily available for all to read and to understand that there isn’t anything that was done at the Council that is contrary or not in step with the traditions of the Church.

While some may not like the way things have progressed in individuals parishes, it doesn’t mean that it isn’t working in others. If the Church went back to the latin Mass exclusively on January 1, 2011 I would venture a guess that by January 1, 2012 many churches would be closed and consolidated. The Church is here to serve Christ’s flock, not do things the way they want.

 

[Lujack]

As others have said, its impossible to turn back the clock, only to move forward. Now, it certainly is possible to bring many things back: religious education needs to improve, the EF has a place everywhere, the OF can become more reverent in many places…

Most important, though, and this is something I’m starting to think more and more, is architecture. Catholic Churches need to look like Catholic churches. And that means more than just an altar rail. Ironically, there are two articles on the front page of New Liturgical Movement about churches going up in better architecture styles right now.

I think that’s badly underrated. A reverently built church promotes a reverent atmosphere. And this new modernistic style of church design came in before Vatican II. Of course, there’s room to move forward; architecture will always innovate, but it needs to express certain themes.

 

[Genesis315]

The problem is all the the bad stuff that happened after the Council was not done in a spirit of fidelity. It’s not like all the junk was perpetrated by pious people acting in humble obedience. If the Pope enacted a bunch of reform decrees, do you think these individuals are going to all of a sudden receive them with humble obedience?

Reform is not going to come from ecclesiastical legislation–that kind of thing comes in the last periods of reform and snuffs out dying embers and helps ensure them from re-igniting.

It will come from clergy, religious, and laity with the heart of Christ spreading the flame of charity and devotion. That’s how it has always happened.

 

[corsair]

I would be for turning back the clock bit it ain’t gonna happen. The progressive society with its super secular philosophy will not be overturned very easily. I’ve lost two sons and two daughters to them with three surviving Christians and only two of them are Catholic.

 

[edwest2]

“progressive” What an ugly word. I was there the day before and the day after Vatican II. I did not become less Catholic.

In the early 1960s, there was a greater sense of trust between neighbors, for the people on TV and even the government. Then wolves in sheep’s clothing both inside and outside the Church began their attack. A priest posted here about how he was asked to sign a letter of protest against Humanae Vitae in 1968. He refused.

Humanae Vitae was the turning point. The Sexual Revolution was the counterattack. The Hippies who threw marriage out the window, smoked dope and had ‘free love’ with whoever. A coordinated attack that would wreck the sanctity of marriage and even the womb. By 1973, the worst damage had been done. it would be followed by No-Fault Divorce in the 1980s. The family had to be destroyed. The intergenerational bonds had to be dissolved.

We can get all of that back.

God bless,
Ed

---

Choose Jesus.

 

[ProVobis]

In a sense we are turning back the clock in the English Mass, Latinizing it, if you will, moving toward the original Latin in which the OF was promulgated. There is some objection as this seems to be going back but I think it will work eventually. And, hopefully, we’ll be going back to more of the actual Latin in all the vernacular Masses as well.

As for Church architecture, as one pointed out, that could work too. Recently baseball seems to be building parks more along the traditional lines, moving away from the drabbing looking parks of the 70’s which have now been demolished. Given enough money, there is no reason why more Gothic (or style-equivalent) architecture can’t be employed into new buildings.

Personally I’d like to see the 3-hr fast restored for communion, even if only as a “recommendation.”

 

[Raphael777]

You want to go back to the Latin mass? That’s a great idea.
Study after study shows that young people (i.e. 50 and under**) have a strong desire for church services to be delivered in a language which has been effectively dead for 1500 years (outside of the medieval church and English public schools).

At the Extraordinary Form Masses I attend it is always packed with 20-somethings (both families and college-aged folks). I would say the vast majority of the parishioners are between 20 and 40. It’s awesome, and it doesn’t seem to be letting up. I see new faces everytime I go.

I’ve read elsewhere that the TLM/EF seems to have a special draw for Gen X/ Gen Y-ers. Many claim they feel they were somehow robbed of the fullness of their rightful spiritual heritage.

Also, I’ve read many places that the Priests asking for training in the Old Mass are for the most part younger.

 

[otjm]

On an unrelated topic, I have been spending some time trying to sort out how to express how change is viewed, both by those who lived through it and those who have come later. Specifically, I have been considering the Viet Nam war (and my part in it). What brought that to mind several years ago was an hour I spent in a history class - about the Viet Nam war (my daughter was taking the class).

The topices are unrelated, and yet in many ways very related as Vatican 2 occured while we were dying in the rice paddies and jungles over there.

What struck me particularly was that my view as a Specialist 5 was radically different than the view of the generals running the war; and just so, my view of the Church and of Vatican 2 was radically different than the view of the bishops and the popes involved with the council, and those involved with the documents since then. However, I have had the perspective of a) being in the Church before V2; during V2 and since then; those sitting in that history class had never been to war, never been to Viet Nam, never lived through the Cuban Missle Crisis (which gave a certain perspective to the USSR that kids born after the Wall came down simply don’t have) and look at it as a dry intellectual exercise now completed (if anything in life is ever really completed - tht is, no longer has any effect). And they are full of opinions about that war. Just as people are full of opinions about Vatican 2, and the naivety that “if it just didn’t happen, all the bad things would not have happened either”.

Just as my opinions about Viet Nam are related to my personal experiences and are untouched by the realities of the presidencies, Congressional members and the senior military involved with that war (which is largely what the history books now pursue), so people’s opinions of Vatican 2 are largely shaped by their immediate experience of the Church as it is related primarily by their parish, then maybe their diocese, and almost not at all by the world wide Church, nor by the hierarchy which sees things we never see, and deals with issues we never or rarely even hear about, and then only in sound-bite doses.

To give an example: the moral decline of members of the Church is often related (never with any specification, but simply post hoc, ergo propter hoc) with the change of the Mass, and backhandedly, with Vatican 2 documents (none of which are ever specified, let alone a paragraph in one of them). But what this fails to acknowledge is that Moral Theology was infected by something from without the Church, rather than within, and that is Situational Ethics which started with an Anglican pirest and spread throughout the philosophical world and theological world, not simply with some Catholic theologians. Many were infected by it.

It has been said more than once that there never has been a council in the Church but that there was turmoil afterward. Failing to understand that leaves us with no perspective on change and how it occurs. Further, we have had two Popes - Benedict and John Paul - who have both said repeatedly that the documents have still not been fully implemented. I wonder if anyone who is so negative about the council ever has paid any attention to either of them. It took up to 100 years before some of the directives of Trent were fully implemented, but people mostly don’t know that, and some who do ignore it.

Some people want an authoritarian Church that rules with an iron fist and a list of “thou shalt not’s”, However, as the Church has indicated through the council and since then, that is not how Christ led. Doing so leads to reducing people to dumb sheep, cheapens what Moral Theology is supposed to be about, is simplistic, legalistic, neagitivistic and moralistic - none of which the Gopels are. It sounds safe is someone tells you exactly how to behave. It also leads to that famous question before Vatican 2: what is the absolutel least I can do and slide into Heaven? Life in Christ is so much more than that.

None of that is to suggest that the Ten Commandments are now the Ten Suggestions; they didn’t get repealed no matter how many people shack up before marriage. But they are only the starting place and the guide lines of the perimeters on our journey; they are not the journey itself, as Christ himself taught.

People who were not part of the Church before Vatican 2 have rose-colored glasses on when they nostalgically look back on what they think was a far better time, just as the history students have no real clue what life was like back when the USSR was doing its best to take over the world. We don’t need to go back; we need to authentically live out the Gospel. That does not preclude the EF in any way, but it does mean, for example, that people by and large knew little about the rubrics when the OF was introduced, but immediately appreciated the use of the vernacular. And failing to understand the power of the vernacular is going to frustrate those who love the EF and can’t understand why it makes so little overall impact. There is room for both, and as Benedict 16 said in his accompanying letter, he hoped that both forms would learn form the experience of the other. He invisioned changes to the OF; in that letter he also said he invisioned changes to the EF.

 

[pnewton]

This is meant as a joke, isn’t it?

I sure thought it was funny. I am not sure that at least some analogy can be drawn from it.

Coke had a re-designed can. Newer cathedrals and churches have redesigned buildings

Coke offered both Coke and Coke Classic, kind of like the OF and EF.

The smoke of Satan my be compared to a shook-up can of Coke. Okay, maybe only two elements in common, but still kudos to PV for the idea.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

As the other poster stated, the documents of Vatican II are easily available for all to read and to understand that there isn’t anything that was done at the Council that is contrary or not in step with the traditions of the Church.

While some may not like the way things have progressed in individuals parishes, it doesn’t mean that it isn’t working in others. If the Church went back to the latin Mass exclusively on January 1, 2011 I would venture a guess that by January 1, 2012 many churches would be closed and consolidated. The Church is here to serve Christ’s flock, not do things the way they want.

You may want to do some research. There was nothing done at the Council that is not in step with the traditions of the Church? There most certainly was, like creating a New Mass that replaced a Mass that had always been used by the Church until that point. The Traditional Latin Mass is our true Mass, not the new Mass.

And I find it interesting how you think that the TLM will cause more to abandon the Catholic faith, when infact the TLM IS the real Catholic faith. It’s the true Mass. Ever since Vatican II, the number of Catholics has steadily decreased. There are several Novus Ordo parishes around the world in danger of being closed because they will not offer the TLM even when asked directly to do so. If the TLM were brought back and the Novus Ordo was done away with, you would see an increase in the number of Catholics. And celebrating a TLM isn’t so much what people or priests want. It’s what Christ Himself wants.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

As others have said, its impossible to turn back the clock, only to move forward. Now, it certainly is possible to bring many things back: religious education needs to improve, the EF has a place everywhere, the OF can become more reverent in many places…

Most important, though, and this is something I’m starting to think more and more, is architecture. Catholic Churches need to look like Catholic churches. And that means more than just an altar rail. Ironically, there are two articles on the front page of New Liturgical Movement about churches going up in better architecture styles right now.

I think that’s badly underrated. A reverently built church promotes a reverent atmosphere. And this new modernistic style of church design came in before Vatican II. Of course, there’s room to move forward; architecture will always innovate, but it needs to express certain themes.

I do agree with you on the fact that Catholic Churches should look like Catholic Churches. Not only have altar rails, but make both the inside and outside of the Churches look pretty. No more strange seating, put an altar back instead of the covered table, and make the outside of Churches look nice. I don’t want to see any that look like a space ship or a Home Depot.

 

[Aramis]

No but I don’t see what point you are trying to make by asking that question. I attend the Extraordinary Form of the Mass and I am in regular contact with traditionalist priests who celebrate devotions that were widespread before Vatican II; I know what pre-Vatican II worship is like.

No, you do NOT know what it was like; you know what the pre-VII rubrics being followed by devoted priests who love it is like.

But that wasn’t the reality everywhere. I’ve talked with a lot of people who lived with mumbled prayers, no education other than “read the Baltimore Catechism,” and abusive priests. Plus priests who neither spoke, nor even pronounced properly, Latin.

The problems after VII come in several flavors:

1. disobedient to the rubrics - happened pre VII as well
2. altered texts - pre-VII, mostly mispronunciation; post, often willful.
3. Lack of sobriety to worship, so called “happy-clappy” masses - some happened pre-VII, as well… tho far more rarely.
4. Protestant Hymns - some made the leap before VII. Many protestant hymns are just vernacular versions of Catholic hymns, some with altered words due to bad theology.
5. bad music - you’ve never hear Monsignor Murphy sing, have you? Everything he sang was an A-flat. Always an A-Flat. Including his speaking voice. Him chanting (in latin, english, or spanish) was deadly boring.
6. lack of education of the faithful - the presumption pre-VII was that catholics would attend catholic schools, so often, many were ill educated in the faith if their parents couldn’t afford or didn’t have access to catholic schools.
7. female religious teaching error - absolutely nothing new about this since women started teaching. “No Chewing the Host!” being a common enough error taught by zealous and well meaning but erroneous sisters.
8. Lack of vocations - vocations were on a downward slide prior to VII.

And a few of the pre-VII bad items:
a) people praying devotional prayers during the mass rather than paying attention to the mass
b) readings and homily in latin (not always… but…) so the locals often didn’t understand
c) ritualistic catholicism - the “do the red, say the black, go to heaven, don’t have to have a clue otherwise” mentality. Many catholics believed it was the rituals themselves that were the key to heaven, not the effect they should have on one’s behavior by virtue of the sacraments.
d) Catholic Isolation: Many places, Catholics were taught to avoid non-catholics; in others, they simply had no life other than work, school and church, and church and school were usually linked. In some places, the bishop actually banned socialization with non-catholics other than at work.
e) Catholic Ignorance: much decried by the bishops at the council! Many catholics didn’t read scripture; their whole experience of learning the faith was whatever sister taught in school, and the homily. They generally knew the 10 commandments, and the gospel stories, but many had no working knowledge of scripture, and most little contact with the old testament.
f) bishops and priests concealing abuse (sexual and physical) by priests and religious. Been going on for centuries.

Rolling back wouldn’t solve much of anything if it was a true total roll-back.

We need to stop the abuses, both liturgical and criminal (sexual/physical), but a roll-back won’t do that. The same priests who will wear clown noses will still wear clown noses next year even if the OF were abolished tomorrow. The problem is who made it to the priesthood, not the liturgy they celebrate.

 

[CWBetts]

You may want to do some research. There was nothing done at the Council that is not in step with the traditions of the Church? There most certainly was, like creating a New Mass that replaced a Mass that had always been used by the Church until that point. The Traditional Latin Mass is our true Mass, not the new Mass.

And I find it interesting how you think that the TLM will cause more to abandon the Catholic faith, when infact the TLM IS the real Catholic faith. It’s the true Mass. Ever since Vatican II, the number of Catholics has steadily decreased. There are several Novus Ordo parishes around the world in danger of being closed because they will not offer the TLM even when asked directly to do so. If the TLM were brought back and the Novus Ordo was done away with, you would see an increase in the number of Catholics. And celebrating a TLM isn’t so much what people or priests want. It’s what Christ Himself wants.

This is the kind of absolute ridiculousness that I tire of very quickly. The TLM is not the"true Mass" it is a Mass. The Novus Ordo was promulgated by Pope Paul VI, and we must give assent to its legitimacy. The TLM was not “always used” the earliest Masses were in Aramaic or Greek. SO please cease and desist your radical diatribe.

 

[otjm]

You may want to do some research. There was nothing done at the Council that is not in step with the traditions of the Church? There most certainly was, like creating a New Mass that replaced a Mass that had always been used by the Church until that point. The Traditional Latin Mass is our true Mass, not the new Mass.

OK, now we know what you think fo the Magisterium of the Church and the current Pope. He and the magisterium both teach that the OF is as much a Mass as is the Ef and as is the Maronite rite and the Byzantyine rite. They are all our true Mass.

And celebrating a TLM isn’t so much what people or priests want. It’s what Christ Himself wants.

And you received this message directly from Him? Or did you read it somewhere?
I take it you would not be at all happy with the Mass as the Apostles celebrated it. I am sure it would not do at all for you.

 

[ProVobis]

The smoke of Satan my be compared to a shook-up can of Coke.

Perfect analogy.

 

[Dempsey1919]

Vatican II is a valid ecumenical council and its teachings will always have a place in the Church. When I talk about turning back the clock, this is what I mean:

Widespread use of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass in every parish.

More reverent OF Masses with incense, some Latin and Gregorian Chant. I also think we should eliminate all Canons (currently used in the Roman rite) apart from the traditional Roman Canon. I think we should eliminate communion in the hand and I think we should encourage more people to receive communion on the tongue while kneeling. I think we should eliminate altar girls and only use EMHC’s when they are needed.

I think we should restore Church architecture. We should re-install altar rails; bring back stained glass; install high altars; bring back the statues and icons. I think we should build baroque and gothic style Churches. Catholic Churches must look like Catholic Churches.

All priests and religious should wear the habit. Priests should look like priests and Nuns should look like nuns. I don’t want to see Father wearing denim jeans and a sweatshirt; I want to see him in the Cassock.

This is the sort of thing I was thinking about. Vatican II was a great out-pouring of grace for the Church; unfortunately it was hijacked and abused by dissident clerics. It is time for the real Vatican II to bring about a restoration in the Church.

 

[Dempsey1919]

I think we need to restore and rebuild our distinct identity as Catholics. The Spirit of Vatican II has done much to destroy our identity. Catholics should be proud of their Catholic heritage and promote traditional Catholic liturgies, devotions, and practices.

 

[CWBetts]

Vatican II is a valid ecumenical council and its teachings will always have a place in the Church. When I talk about turning back the clock, this is what I mean:

Widespread use of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass in every parish.

More reverent OF Masses with incense, some Latin and Gregorian Chant. I also think we should eliminate all Canons (currently used in the Roman rite) apart from the traditional Roman Canon. I think we should eliminate communion in the hand and I think we should encourage more people to receive communion on the tongue while kneeling. I think we should eliminate altar girls and only use EMHC’s when they are needed.

I think we should restore Church architecture. We should re-install altar rails; bring back stained glass; install high altars; bring back the statues and icons. I think we should build baroque and gothic style Churches. Catholic Churches must look like Catholic Churches.

All priests and religious should wear the habit. Priests should look like priests and Nuns should look like nuns. I don’t want to see Father wearing denim jeans and a sweatshirt; I want to see him in the Cassock.

This is the sort of thing I was thinking about. Vatican II was a great out-pouring of grace for the Church; unfortunately it was hijacked and abused by dissident clerics. It is time for the real Vatican II to bring about a restoration in the Church.

I particularly agree with the point about religious in habits. I NEVER saw a nun in a habit until I came to Steubenville. The first time I came for a campus visit I had to do a double-take. “Is that a REAL NUN?!” lol I definitely think that dress of clergy/religious needs to be restored.