Should We Turn Back The Clock?

[SpiritusSanctus]

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.

It was the “true Mass” before Vatican II. How can a Mass centuries old NOT be the true Mass over the Novus Ordo? I really don’t find the Novus Ordo legit since it was man-made. 80-85% of the TLM was completely removed from it at the Council. MAYBE if it was a reverent Novus Ordo with Latin in it and some of the moden stuff taken out such as Communion in the hand then yes I would consider it legit enough to the point that if would be tolerable to attend if you did not have access to a TLM. However, reverent or not, it’s still the Novus Ordo, and the TLM is the one that is truely legit. The first Masses were done in those languages, but the TLM became the one used by the Church until Vatican II.

And instead of telling me to “cease and desist my radical diatribe”, you could atleast show some respect for my opinion. We’re all Catholic here, no need to bash one another. I’m just simply stating that I find the Traditional Latin Mass as the Mass that ALL Churches should be celebrating.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

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 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.

1.- I did not state anywhere in my post what I think of the Magisterium or the Pope. I have always had great respect for the Pope. And no, the Novus Ordo is not our “true Mass”. It almost completely moves away from all that the Church was doing and teaching prior to Vatican II. It’s a Mass that focuses more on the Lord’s Supper than the un-bloody sacrifice. Communion is even given in the hand. St. Thomas Aquinas said that only Consecrated hands (hands of the priest) should touch the Host, not anyone else. And no Latin, either. And the Novus Ordo is not as much of a Mass as the TLM. It’s only 41 years old!

2.- No, but I don’t need to be given a message. I KNOW Our Lord would rather all Churches celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass. Our Lady of Fatima actually warned us about Vatican II. What does that tell you?

 

[CWBetts]

1.- I did not state anywhere in my post what I think of the Magisterium or the Pope. I have always had great respect for the Pope. And no, the Novus Ordo is not our “true Mass”. It almost completely moves away from all that the Church was doing and teaching prior to Vatican II. It’s a Mass that focuses more on the Lord’s Supper than the un-bloody sacrifice. Communion is even given in the hand. St. Thomas Aquinas said that only Consecrated hands (hands of the priest) should touch the Host, not anyone else. And no Latin, either. And the Novus Ordo is not as much of a Mass as the TLM. It’s only 41 years old!

2.- No, but I don’t need to be given a message. I KNOW Our Lord would rather all Churches celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass. Our Lady of Fatima actually warned us about Vatican II. What does that tell you?

1. Age of a Mass does not make it “more” or “less” of a mass. If you listen to the Eucharistic prayers, the focus of the Novus Ordo is the unbloody Sacrifice. The presence or absence of Latin is irrelevant, but that point doesn’t matter anyways, because the Novus Ordo can be celebrated in either Latin or in the vernacular. Communion in the hand happened in antiquity. SInce it was promulgated by His Holiness Pope Paul VI, it is a true Mass.
2. Fatima is not required to be adhered to by Catholics. Vatican II, as an infallible council, must be adhered to. How do you know what the Lord wants? Do you know more than the Vicar of Christ?

 

[ProVobis]

80-85% of the TLM was completely removed from it at the Council.

Here’s showing how the Novus Ordo was almost a complete break with the natural organic growth of the liturgy since Christ: (and this doesn’t even take into account the language change)

ecclesiadei.nl/docs/timeline.html

(click on the PDF format edition and zoom in a little. Makes for better reading.)

 

[CWBetts]

It was the “true Mass” before Vatican II. How can a Mass centuries old NOT be the true Mass over the Novus Ordo? I really don’t find the Novus Ordo legit since it was man-made. 80-85% of the TLM was completely removed from it at the Council. MAYBE if it was a reverent Novus Ordo with Latin in it and some of the moden stuff taken out such as Communion in the hand then yes I would consider it legit enough to the point that if would be tolerable to attend if you did not have access to a TLM. However, reverent or not, it’s still the Novus Ordo, and the TLM is the one that is truely legit. The first Masses were done in those languages, but the TLM became the one used by the Church until Vatican II.

And instead of telling me to “cease and desist my radical diatribe”, you could atleast show some respect for my opinion. We’re all Catholic here, no need to bash one another. I’m just simply stating that I find the Traditional Latin Mass as the Mass that ALL Churches should be celebrating.

Why should I show respect for an opinion that runs counter to the Church? Both the TLM and the Novus Ordo are valid. In fact, the Novus Ordo is a great gift to the Church, as it added more Scripture readings. You arew obsessed with Latin, which is not somehow “holier than the vernacular”

 

[BettyM]

You have a point that VII was Pastoral. If only the whole VII was explained. Benedict XVI was a Council Father. What I wish would be done is that any remaning church Council Fathers would explain in “LAYMEN’S” wordingand not in “Ambugious” wording the meaning of VII. Also, I wish that they would also explain on what did VII change and What did it not Change. I.E. DID the native Laguage replace Latin in the Mass and did Pop Music replace Chant? Hopefully this would clear things up.

I don’t know if this will help but I found some talks on EWTN in regards to changes from VII. I know some people do not like EWTN but I found these helpful. If you go to their website and search audio, type in Vatican II there is actually quite a bit of information. There is also one audio titled “What Went Wrong with Vatican II.” That one was quite interesting.

 

[ciero]

What would happen if we reversed all of the reforms that came after Vatican II?

Would it be good if Vatican II was forgotten? The Council was not doctrinal and was pastoral in nature. We have seen what the pastoral reforms of Vatican II have produced. Would the Church prosper if the Holy Father decided to reform the reform and reinstate the previous traditions of the Church?

What effect would this have on the Church? Would it be a total disaster or would we see an immediate increase in vocations, conversions and holiness?

As an Eastern Catholic I would be very much against turning back the clock. Vatican II has been WONDERFUL for us Easterners in reclaiming our traditions and returning to a more traditionally Eastern expression of our faith. The Divine Liturgy (Mass) is now celebrated in a much more traditional manner with no shortcuts or latinisations. We now express our faith in our own “language” and no longer are forced to use Latin Theology.

As far as I’m concerned Vatican II has been a Godsend!!

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Here’s showing how the Novus Ordo was almost a complete break with the natural organic growth of the liturgy since Christ: (and this doesn’t even take into account the language change)

ecclesiadei.nl/docs/timeline.html

(click on the PDF format edition and zoom in a little. Makes for better reading.)

Hi ProVobis!
Christ is risen! Christos Anesti! I hope all is well with you. Thanks for posting the link. I found it most illuminating and am wanting to look at it more carefully when I get the chance. I actually saw in it a confirmation of the continuity of the current Roman Missal with the past. There are a few places where the statements made about the OF are simply false - e.g. the “mysterium fidei” being reduced to a responsory. This is actually only true of the current (poor) English translation and is not reflected in the Latin. Nor is it reflected in the soon-to-be-released revised English translation. That’s the only example that I can currently recall, although I do remember seeing a few other examples. But overall I really enjoyed looking at it. Thanks again for posting it.

ICXC + NIKA,
Phillip

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

As an Eastern Catholic I would be very much against turning back the clock. Vatican II has been WONDERFUL for us Easterners in reclaiming our traditions and returning to a more traditionally Eastern expression of our faith. The Divine Liturgy (Mass) is now celebrated in a much more traditional manner with no shortcuts or latinisations. We now express our faith in our own “language” and no longer are forced to use Latin Theology.

As far as I’m concerned Vatican II has been a Godsend!!

I completely agree! Thank God the Melkites had the gonads to “speak on behalf of Orthodoxy,” to paraphrase His All Holiness, the late Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Athenagoras.

 

[BettyM]

I would agree that recent religious education in the Catholic church has been generally abysmal, especially in comparison with what is expected in many Protestant churches. That could be changed regardless of anything else.

But I wonder about those who have grown up in the church over the past 40 years; to them, the liturgy and practices of today ARE the tradition. Most do not know how things were 50 years ago or more. You are an exception to that. Would they understand the “changes”? Wouldn’t many churches have to be retro-fitted to conform to the changes? Some would rejoice if the clock were turned back, but many would be lost.

.

Catholic education has to change or improve. I have been through the RCIA twice. Once years ago with my husband. We left the Church shortly after that. After wandering in the Protestant desert we returned. Went through the RCIA again this time with my teenage son. Both times it was lacking. Both just barely taught the basics. When any questions were asked about traditional Catholic issues such as mortal sin, they were barely given an answer. Don’t get me wrong we did learn about the Church. It is a deep well.

I think because of age of technology today many people are rediscovering some traditional thoughts. This website and other traditional websites have helped me understand long standing beliefs of the Catholic church. Things I did not ever learn in Catholic schools.

I recently attended a teen mass because it was needed that we attend all the different masses held at the church. It reminded me alot of the evangelical churches I had left. Not good. The funny thing was, there weren’t that many teens there. There were alot of elderly people there. I am 50 and looked around and saw many people older than me.
We now attend a more conservative Catholic church that says part of the mass in latin. It is not the TLM but it is great. There are very few contemporary, protestant songs sung and at that mass you will see alot of teens and young adults.

Maybe changes have to come slowly.

 

[Malleus_01]

What would happen if we reversed all of the reforms that came after Vatican II?

Would it be good if Vatican II was forgotten? The Council was not doctrinal and was pastoral in nature. We have seen what the pastoral reforms of Vatican II have produced. Would the Church prosper if the Holy Father decided to reform the reform and reinstate the previous traditions of the Church?

What effect would this have on the Church? Would it be a total disaster or would we see an immediate increase in vocations, conversions and holiness?

Malleus:

What are the Fruits?

Once that question is answered honestly - the answer to your question is obvious.

Pax

 

[CWBetts]

Malleus:

What are the Fruits?

Once that question is answered honestly - the answer to your question is obvious.

Pax

Yes the answer is obvious. The Church would decline as many would not be able to see the relevance of the Church to the modern world.

 

[Malkin71]

I am curious, have you attempted to read the VII documents? I don’t find them too difficult to interpret. I believe they were written for the laymen and women to understand.

In Christ,
Frank

I am going to pick it up next. It is on my list of things to do. I have read passages online in references to. If they were written for the “laymen”, why is there so much confusion about the council and what did it do? Try to tell the Laity, Priests and Bishops that Chant and Latin was to be retained! Why did the Pope issue a Muto Propio about the E.F. was never supressed?

 

[jonpd]

There are some things introduced by VII and the OF Mass which are worth retaining.
Two I can think of offhand:

1. The permanent Diaconate
2. Two readings instead of one epistle, and the 3 year cycle.

I could probably think of others.

 

[ProVobis]

Hi ProVobis!
Christ is risen! Christos Anesti! I hope all is well with you. Thanks for posting the link. I found it most illuminating and am wanting to look at it more carefully when I get the chance. I actually saw in it a confirmation of the continuity of the current Roman Missal with the past. There are a few places where the statements made about the OF are simply false - e.g. the “mysterium fidei” being reduced to a responsory. This is actually only true of the current (poor) English translation and is not reflected in the Latin. Nor is it reflected in the soon-to-be-released revised English translation. That’s the only example that I can currently recall, although I do remember seeing a few other examples. But overall I really enjoyed looking at it. Thanks again for posting it.

ICXC + NIKA,
Phillip

Resurrexit tertia die.

I discovered the website several years ago. They’ve changed and improved it a little and perhaps as they gather more information it might be more accurate. But, it’s a good way of presenting the changes and a good way of showing time-tests on the various changes.

How they got the information since 33AD I don’t know but I’ll give them the benefit of having done some research to get that information. I for one don’t think the Mass was as organized back then as it was in the TLM.

As with all websites where you see falsehoods, you should try to contact the author of the website. Where this can’t be done easily, then you’re justified in questioning the credibility of him/her.

 

[ProVobis]

.

Maybe changes have to come slowly.

One brick at a time.

 

[otjm]

1.- I did not state anywhere in my post what I think of the Magisterium or the Pope. I have always had great respect for the Pope. And no, the Novus Ordo is not our “true Mass”. It almost completely moves away from all that the Church was doing and teaching prior to Vatican II. It’s a Mass that focuses more on the Lord’s Supper than the un-bloody sacrifice. Communion is even given in the hand. St. Thomas Aquinas said that only Consecrated hands (hands of the priest) should touch the Host, not anyone else. And no Latin, either. And the Novus Ordo is not as much of a Mass as the TLM. It’s only 41 years old!

2.- No, but I don’t need to be given a message. I KNOW Our Lord would rather all Churches celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass. Our Lady of Fatima actually warned us about Vatican II. What does that tell you?

Our Lady of Fatima did no such thing, and I have read what she said. You are choosing to interpret what she said and try to apply it to Vatican 2.

The OF is as much our true Mass as is the Maronite rite and the Byzantine rite. It has the same structure as the EF; Liturgy of the Word, Creed, Offeratory, Consecration and Communion and it follws in exactly the same pattern. It is far closer to the EF than is the Byzantine rite.

St Thomas keeps getting dragged out as if he was infallible. He had an opinion on the reception of Communion; as a matter of fact he ignored 1000 years of history with that opinion. He was also 180 degrees dead wrong about one of the major Marian doctrines; and the issue of reception of Communion is not a doctrine, it is a discipline. But no one talks about St Thomas when it comes to that doctrine; they just talk about him when he agrees with their position.

The Pope has not said that the OF is not a true Mass; he has said it is our Ordinary Form of the Mass. As in, it is the form that the vast majority of the Roman rite uses - something like about 99.6% of the Masses said. He has said that it was not organically developed.

And to say that the Mass moves away almost completely leaves one to wonder if you even know what the Church teaches. It actually picks up more of what the Church teaches for one simple reason: the majority of wht the Church teaches comes from the Bible and the OF has expanded, not reduced, the amount of the New Testament which we now hear. So in fact it actually teaches more. I would agree that it focuses more than the EF on the Sacrificial Banquet and that has caused some to say that it no longer focuses on the Sacrifice. Perhaps a count of certain things would help.

To know is to have facts. You think that Our Lord would prefer the EF. Unless He has given you a revelation, you do not know such a thing.

And I would strongly suspect that if you could go back to 41 years after the Ascension, you would not like what you saw as the Mass then either.

I have no problem whatsoever with you liking the EF. I suspect I have attended more of the EF in the space of about 5 years than you ahve attended in your lifetime - unless you are fairly close to my age. I grew up on it. I think it should be available to anyone who wishes to attend it. Sadly, it isn’t, but very very gradually it is becoming more available. Even the Pope in his accompanying letter said he did not expect it to replace the OF. In that same letter he said that he expected eventual changes to the EF. You might read the letter thoroughly some time.

 

[Malleus_01]

Yes the answer is obvious. The Church would decline as many would not be able to see the relevance of the Church to the modern world.

Malleus: Because we all know that Modern Man has “evolved” to the Point that his advanced knowledge sufficiently out paces GOD the FATHER , GOD the SON and GOD the HOLY GHOST , so HE must Change to accomodate right?

 

[Joe_5859]

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.

Thank you for clarifying. This is a far more reasonable request than turning back the clock.

 

[CWBetts]

Malleus: Because we all know that Modern Man has “evolved” to the Point that his advanced knowledge sufficiently out paces GOD the FATHER , GOD the SON and GOD the HOLY GHOST , so HE must Change to accomodate right?

Gos has not changed. Church teachings since Vatican II have attested to this. In fact, no Dogma changed in the slightest because of, or since Vatican II. Perhaps it is time for you to actually read the documents, instead of listening to the fear-mongers.