Should We Turn Back The Clock?

[franklinf]

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.

**Would **decline? The Church has been in a great decline since V2. Take a look at the “Index of Leading Catholic Indicators.”

How exactly did V2 help Catholics see the relevance of the Church to the modern world?

Was it by the de facto abrogration of the TLM? Was it by the homosexual infiltration into our seminaries? Was it by the refusal of Catholic clergy to stand up for Church teachings in the public sphere?

 

[franklinf]

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.

Why do you like the 3 year cycle? Mass isn’t a bible study and I think it really diminishes the liturgical year.

 

[mick321]

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.

Nuns in Steubenville?

Was it Halloween?

 

[otjm]

Why do you like the 3 year cycle? Mass isn’t a bible study and I think it really diminishes the liturgical year.

Sure, no problem; we most defintiely don’t need three years of readinhg our Sacred Scripture. Let’s cut it down to one year.

In fact, We don’t need four Gospels. Let’s just throw out three of them. Makes as much sense.

Mass isn’t a Bible Study? Did you think we didn’t all know that already? The Gospels are the Good News; why would you want to cut back on that? Too much Good News? Since the earliest Church, we have read and meditated on our Scripture as part of our worship. How does cutting it back enhance that? Someone else is complaining that we have cut out wht the Church taught before V2 with the OF (how we did that by expnding the base {Scripture} that we hear in the Mass he hasn’t yet explained) and now you want to cut back further? How does a three year cycle “diminish” the liturgical year when it acts to enhance and expand it? Or ar you suggesting we just don’t need to hear all that other stuff? We don’t need the different points of view of the Gospel writers? Which ones shall we throw out?

 

[franklinf]

Sure, no problem; we most defintiely don’t need three years of readinhg our Sacred Scripture. Let’s cut it down to one year.

In fact, We don’t need four Gospels. Let’s just throw out three of them. Makes as much sense.

Mass isn’t a Bible Study? Did you think we didn’t all know that already? The Gospels are the Good News; why would you want to cut back on that? Too much Good News? Since the earliest Church, we have read and meditated on our Scripture as part of our worship. How does cutting it back enhance that? Someone else is complaining that we have cut out wht the Church taught before V2 with the OF (how we did that by expnding the base {Scripture} that we hear in the Mass he hasn’t yet explained) and now you want to cut back further? How does a three year cycle “diminish” the liturgical year when it acts to enhance and expand it? Or ar you suggesting we just don’t need to hear all that other stuff? We don’t need the different points of view of the Gospel writers? Which ones shall we throw out?

I really don’t quite understand your tone - it was a simple question. Was genuinely curious about why. So, perhaps you could tone down the sarcasm a tad? Especially because never said any of the stuff you are insinuating.

I don’t think adding scripture ot Mass for the sake of hearing more Scripture is a good reason. I agree we need to and should read Scripture. What I disagree on is the Mass being the forum for that. We have 167 other hours to do that with.

By diminish I meant that it breaks up the continuity of the liturgical year. The liturgical year should be a closed cycle. Each individual reading should point towards the Mass of that day and towards the cycle itself. By making it a 3 year cycle you are making it an open cycle.

 

[Malleus_01]

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.

Malleus: Assuming you meant “GOD” has not changed. As for DOGMA - tell me then - Can Jews be saved through the Merits of Judaism? Or Islamics through the Merits of Islam? After all - you just said that DOGMA has not changed. Did Adam Eat of the forbidden Fruit? Did GOD create everything in 6 days and rest on the seventh. Are all flase religions OUTSIDE of the ONE TRUE CHURCH or do parts of them SUBSIST within the ONE TRUE CHURCH. Is the BODY and BLOOD of Jesus Christ present in both species after Transubstantiation? Can women be Priests? And now the most important question of all.

IF all these questions WERE asked THIS SUNDAY in every Catholic CHURCH obedient to Benedict as POPE would they all be answered the same ?

A Yes

B No

If B then your point has been defeated.

pax

 

[franklinf]

Sure, no problem; we most defintiely don’t need three years of readinhg our Sacred Scripture. Let’s cut it down to one year.

In fact, We don’t need four Gospels. Let’s just throw out three of them. Makes as much sense.

Mass isn’t a Bible Study? Did you think we didn’t all know that already? The Gospels are the Good News; why would you want to cut back on that? Too much Good News? Since the earliest Church, we have read and meditated on our Scripture as part of our worship. How does cutting it back enhance that? **Someone else is complaining that we have cut out wht the Church taught before V2 with the OF (how we did that by expnding the base {Scripture} that we hear in the Mass he hasn’t yet explained) **and now you want to cut back further? How does a three year cycle “diminish” the liturgical year when it acts to enhance and expand it? Or ar you suggesting we just don’t need to hear all that other stuff? We don’t need the different points of view of the Gospel writers? Which ones shall we throw out?

For example, the removal of the Offertory prayers and joining of the priest’s fingers after the Consecration.

 

[CWBetts]

Malleus: Assuming you meant “GOD” has not changed. As for DOGMA - tell me then - Can Jews be saved through the Merits of Judaism? Or Islamics through the Merits of Islam? After all - you just said that DOGMA has not changed. Did Adam Eat of the forbidden Fruit? Did GOD create everything in 6 days and rest on the seventh. Are all flase religions OUTSIDE of the ONE TRUE CHURCH or do parts of them SUBSIST within the ONE TRUE CHURCH. Is the BODY and BLOOD of Jesus Christ present in both species after Transubstantiation? Can women be Priests? And now the most important question of all.

IF all these questions WERE asked THIS SUNDAY in every Catholic CHURCH obedient to Benedict as POPE would they all be answered the same ?

A Yes

B No

If B then your point has been defeated.

pax

I have neither the time, nor the inclination, to debate someone who refuses to assent to the teachings of the Church, all the while insisting his version of Catholicism is superior to all others…including the Pope.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Malleus: Assuming you meant “GOD” has not changed. As for DOGMA - tell me then - Can Jews be saved through the Merits of Judaism? Or Islamics through the Merits of Islam? After all - you just said that DOGMA has not changed. Did Adam Eat of the forbidden Fruit? Did GOD create everything in 6 days and rest on the seventh. Are all flase religions OUTSIDE of the ONE TRUE CHURCH or do parts of them SUBSIST within the ONE TRUE CHURCH. Is the BODY and BLOOD of Jesus Christ present in both species after Transubstantiation? Can women be Priests? And now the most important question of all.

IF all these questions WERE asked THIS SUNDAY in every Catholic CHURCH obedient to Benedict as POPE would they all be answered the same ?

A Yes

B No

If B then your point has been defeated.

pax

All who are saved are saved through the merits of Jesus Christ, not through the merits of a particular religion. The Eastern tradition of the Church has a great saying: “We know where the Church is, what we don’t know is where it isn’t.” Of course, Adam ate the forbidden fruit, no one denies that. What is debated is whether Scripture is speaking of a literal forbidden fruit, or if metaphorical/symbolic language is being used. Likewise with the creation account. The Church has never taught that God affected creation in six literal days (how could he since the means of measuring days and nights wasn’t created until the second day). I suggest you take a look at some of Scott Hahn’s writings and talks on the first chapters of Genesis. According to him, and many other Catholic as well as Protestant scholars (I’m not sure about Orthodox), the six day creation/seventh day rest actually has some very heavy liturgical connotations. Finally, your question regarding transubstantiation really has nothing to do with Vatican II because the Council never denied or even modified the Roman Church’s beliefs regarding transubstantiation (note: the language transubstantiation is a purely Western phenomenon. The East [at least the Byzantine East] has no language to describe how the Real Presence is affected because it has never seen/had the need to debate how the change takes place - the attitude here being silence before one of the greatest mysteries of our Faith). So, no, the dogmas of the Church have not changed when one takes into account the universal Tradition of the Church and not just the particular tradition of the Roman Church.

 

[cecilia97]

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?

I think a reversal would just cause more confusion and chaos. I think a true “reform of the reform” is slowly starting to happen in some parishes. I’m always bragging on my parish and our pastor, who has instituted the “true” spirit of Vatican II; our parish is deeply reverent and our pastor does not tolerate liturgical abuses.

Honestly, I believe pre-Vatican II was just a different time. The 50s were an entirely different culture than we have today. We can’t go back, folks. Both my parents were pre-Vatican II Catholics and frankly, I have a more active spirituality and more obedience to Church teachings than I believe they do today. Granted, this is no thanks to the DISMAL catechesis CCD gave me in the 80s…it is thanks to the grace of God and my own studies.

It’s my theory that we see more “piety” and “reverence” and fruits of devotions in current-day EF parishes because of the people who choose to attend them…not because of the details of the Mass. My friends who attend EF were holy BEFORE they started to attend. I and many in my OF parish are doing just fine keeping our eyes on holiness without the EF. Do I think the EF is beautiful? Yes. Do I think the OF is beautiful when celebrated correctly? Yes. Was the old Mass always celebrated with reverence in 1945? Sadly…no.

We must remember that the earliest Catholic Church had liturgy in the vernacular and different devotions than we have today (or even in the 1950s) and it produced some of Christ’s greatest Saints and Martyrs.

 

[Joe_5859]

Nuns in Steubenville?

Was it Halloween?

Have you been to Steubenville? There are nuns all over the place (and all of them in habits).

 

[CWBetts]

Nuns in Steubenville?

Was it Halloween?

There is a house of TOR sisters on campus. I just love how someone completely ignorant of how faithful FUS is feels that they have the knowledge to pass judgment.

 

[RockyRoad]

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!!

And I think you are absolutely correct. You should not be forced to give up the richness of the Eastern Churches.

I’ve not read all of the posts…but I think sometimes people lump the NO in with a general criticism of Vatican II. For many there have been positive affects. For some…that may not SEEM to be the case. I grew up with the TLM and remember it well. It seemed more solemn. But…too many people couldn’t understand what was going on and were practicing private devotion…especially praying the rosary instead of participating in the Mass. I can still here the sound of the rosary beads gently banging against the pew as people were kneeling. They really should have been participating in the Mass.

In the vernacular…that doesn’t happen anymore.

 

[RockyRoad]

Why do you like the 3 year cycle? Mass isn’t a bible study and I think it really diminishes the liturgical year.

No Mass is not bible study…but it is where the Word of God is proclaimed. What is wrong with proclaiming as much as possible?

Now…as far as homilies are concerned…I think that is where the church is not doing justice to the 3 readings. When do you ever hear a homily where the homilist is trying to explain the cultural implications of the time these things were written? They are full of richness and all apply to today…but when is it explained to the people just how important they were to the people of the time. For instance…

Jesus on the cross telling John that Mary is his mother. Mary would have nobody to care for her had Jesus not giving her John. Jesus had no brothers.

Jesus talking to the Samaritan at the well. OMGosh…a male Jew talking to a Samaritan woman ALONE.

The widows mite. The significance of loosing any money.

There are lots more…but never fully explained to the people.

Oh…another favorite. The parable of the prodigal son. That isn’t about the son…it’s about the forgiving Father. Our Father in heaven that is always looking to welcome us back to the fold. It’s the parable of the Forgiving Father!

 

[ProVobis]

We must remember that the earliest Catholic Church had liturgy in the vernacular and different devotions than we have today (or even in the 1950s) and it produced some of Christ’s greatest Saints and Martyrs.

Yes but some of us don’t like the oversimplified and dumbed-down OF. Reverence is not the issue. Some of us can read and understand Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, for example, without having to read Cliff’s Notes version of it, which is what most students do today. If I have a half-hour for lunch, then I’ll look for the shortest OF Mass. Otherwise I’ll savor the art and beauty and language and mystery of the EF.

 

[RockyRoad]

Yes but some of us don’t like the oversimplified and dumbed-down OF. Reverence is not the issue. Some of us can read and understand Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, for example, without having to read Cliff’s Notes version of it, which is what most students do today. If I have a half-hour for lunch, then I’ll look for the shortest OF Mass. Otherwise I’ll savor the art and beauty and language and mystery of the EF.

Do you think it’s proper to call a form of Mass dumbed down? While I agree the TLM seems more solemn…the same Real Presence of Christ is brought by the HS in both. I think you mean to say the more basic Mass… in that a lot of the ritual beauty no longer exists. But I think it crosses a line to say dumbed down. That implies inferior. Christ is equally present and equally God and equally superior at both.

 

[cecilia97]

Yes but some of us don’t like the oversimplified and dumbed-down OF. Reverence is not the issue. Some of us can read and understand Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, for example, without having to read Cliff’s Notes version of it, which is what most students do today. If I have a half-hour for lunch, then I’ll look for the shortest OF Mass. Otherwise I’ll savor the art and beauty and language and mystery of the EF.

Thanks be to God and His Church, it is your preference to attend the EF. But the OF is still a Mass and deserves our respect, whether you like it or not. I’m a 34-yr-old graduate student who enjoys Shakespeare and the opera, I was a national merit scholar, full scholarship recipient, left high school early, tested out of a year of college math and english, and I’ve had two years of Latin instruction. I’ve worked in industry and I now own a small business. I’m no fool, but I prefer the OF. I see no additional “art and beauty and language and mystery” in the EF. It is a matter of preference, as the Church allows us.

I go to Mass to worship God, to meet Christ in the Eucharist, and to show thanks for all the blessings I have received. I do not go to be entertained.

I’ll add that the OF at my parish is a dignified 90 minutes long. Does that meet with your approval?

 

[RockyRoad]

Thanks be to God and His Church, it is your preference to attend the EF. But the OF is still a Mass and deserves our respect, whether you like it or not. I’m a 34-yr-old graduate student who enjoys Shakespeare and the opera, I was a national merit scholar, full scholarship recipient, left high school early, tested out of a year of college math and english, and I’ve had two years of Latin instruction. I’ve worked in industry and I now own a small business. I’m no fool, but I prefer the OF. I see no additional “art and beauty and language and mystery” in the EF. It is a matter of preference, as the Church allows us.

I go to Mass to worship God, to meet Christ in the Eucharist, and to show thanks for all the blessings I have received. I do not go to be entertained.

I’ll add that the OF at my parish is a dignified 90 minutes long. Does that meet with your approval?

90 minutes long! Mine…usually about 50 to at most 60 minutes. But its reverent!

 

[Malkin71]

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.

I have a Brother who is the Diaconate Candiate Class. I get into discussions with him about the church. My issue about the Diaconate is their hands are Ordained, They can open and go into the Tabernacle. They can read the Gospel and say a Homily. They can Baptize, Marry and Buried the Decease.

Now when during a Wedding or Funeral the important part is missing “The MASS” I feel that it is important to have a Mass at either a Funeral or Wedding!
ent

The problem that I have when the Deacon assists at Mass is will it lead to a Blurring of the roles like how the EMHC’S Have done? Will the Priests get lazy and let the Deacons take control? Also When I was growing up the Deacon was in the process of becomming a Priest. I understand the differences between the Transitional Deacon and Permanent Deacon.

 

[CWBetts]

I have a Brother who is the Diaconate Candiate Class. I get into discussions with him about the church. My issue about the Diaconate is their hands are Ordained, They can open and go into the Tabernacle. They can read the Gospel and say a Homily. They can Baptize, Marry and Buried the Decease.

Now when during a Wedding or Funeral the important part is missing “The MASS” I feel that it is important to have a Mass at either a Funeral or Wedding!
ent

The problem that I have when the Deacon assists at Mass is will it lead to a Blurring of the roles like how the EMHC’S Have done? Will the Priests get lazy and let the Deacons take control? Also When I was growing up the Deacon was in the process of becomming a Priest. I understand the differences between the Transitional Deacon and Permanent Deacon.

But it is not REQUIRED to have a Mass at either of those. In fact sometimes it shouldn’t be done, and on a few occasions it CAN’T be done. Your objections are personal preference, and nothing more