Should We Turn Back The Clock?

[Dempsey1919]

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?

 

[archangel04]

I really don’t have an answer, but a question. Where you alive pre-Vatican 2?

 

[Dempsey1919]

I really don’t have an answer, but a question. Where you alive pre-Vatican 2?

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.

I grew up with poor catechism classes, folk masses, and doctrinal dissent. I often wonder if these things would have happened if Vatican II did not occur. I look at the statistics and I see a massive, steep decline in vocations and church attendance after Vatican II. I wonder if Vatican II caused this.

I want to know if reversing Vatican II reforms is the antidote to many of the problems we face as a Church?

 

[shondrea]

I dunnno nothin’ bout pre or post V2, but I’m all for talking about how poor catechism classes are. Most years, you might as well be in any non denominational protestant youth group for all the Catholic learning you get.

 

[Dempsey1919]

I dunnno nothin’ bout pre or post V2, but I’m all for talking about how poor catechism classes are. Most years, you might as well be in any non denominational protestant youth group for all the Catholic learning you get.

Exactly! I left the faith during my teenage years because I did not know or understand my faith. I was not taught the faith in my catechism classes. I knew nothing about the faith or what it meant to be a Catholic! I came back to the faith when I discovered the EF Mass and began learning about the faith. I would have remained in the Church had I received proper catechesis as a youth.

 

[chaunceygardner]

Exactly! I left the faith during my teenage years because I did not know or understand my faith. I was not taught the faith in my catechism classes. I knew nothing about the faith or what it meant to be a Catholic! I came back to the faith when I discovered the EF Mass and began learning about the faith. I would have remained in the Church had I received proper catechesis as a youth.

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.

In another thread recently, the discussion was about head coverings for women. So I did my own little unscientific survey, just observing if any women wore them to Mass (which they could do, irregardless of what is allowed). Over several weeks, I saw none, even with elderly women who were obviously brought up in pre Vatican II times. Actually, the only covering I saw was at Easter Mass on the head of a child! First Communion, perhaps?

It seems that most Catholics today, even those who were raised in a different era, accept the changes in liturgy and practices. I say most, not all, as perhaps those who don’t are going to other churches with more traditional liturgies.

 

[Dempsey1919]

It seems that most Catholics today, even those who were raised in a different era, accept the changes in liturgy and practices.

But most don’t know any different. I didn’t know any different. I was shocked when I discovered traditional worship! The reverence was completely alien to me! But it is what has brought me back into the faith.

 

[Cominghome89]

I have to say, the lack of reverence was NOT caused by Vatican II. Step outside of the Church and take a good look at history at this time, particular here in America. Free “love”, rampant drug use, and a general sense of “I don’t need tradition, I know what’s best” pervaded our entire culture. Society was in the process of massive changes, and we can see many of the effects today in our media, our educators, etc.

Have you read the Vatican II documents? They are extraordinary. The eternal truths of our faith are presented to a changing culture that is much less interested in the One, True Faith. The mass in the vernacular has been difficult to apply (due to some weak translations) but all in all have encouraged a greater understanding by the laity of what is going on. Vatican II encourages more lay participation in evangelization and parish ministry, which is wonderful. The role of the priest is administering the Sacraments and shepherding Christ’s flock, the laity SHOULD be involved in evangelizing, we are ALL disciples, not just the ordained.

The bad religious education, liberal theology, and other things we have seen in the wake of Vatican II are NOT a cause of the council and documents themselves. They are 1 products of the general elitist, “I can do what I want” mentality that has taken over our society and 2 the fact that many priests and religious left the Church during this time, leaving teaching, theology, etc. in the hands of liberal, perhaps incompetent people.

So, to answer your question, did Vatican II cause these problems? Absolutely not. In fact, if the same liberal and often devastating changes had occurred and the Church had NOT implemented Vatican II, what would we have? The same culture that rejects tradition and history…looking at a Church that worships in Latin, and seems utterly unapproachable to the “modern” person.

It’s great to worship in many pre-Vatican II traditions. But, remember, they are traditions with a lower-case “t”. They can and often should be changed; they are not essential to Catholic faith. I love the prayers in Latin, Gregorian chant is my favorite type of music, but there is room in the Church for many tastes and “t” traditions.

Looking at history, it has general taken the Church about 30-50 years to effectively and successfully implement the changes of a major Church council. Given the history at the time, I believe we are just now getting to the point where Vatican II is seeing it’s proper role, mostly because now people have read and understood the documents, rather than misinterpreting them as a liberal free-for-all, which it was never meant to be.

I strongly suggest everyone pick up a copy of the Vatican II documents, it can be found paperback rather cheaply, and it is well worth the study.

In Christ and Our Blessed Mother,
Frank

 

[hansard]

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).

Way to get them back in, dude.

**50 and under: those who have never heard a Latin mass and have probably never learned a word of Latin in their lives.]

 

[Joe_5859]

I just have to point out that there is no Ctrl-Z button on history. Turning back the clock is not an option.

The Holy See is not going to one day say, “Oh well, Vatican II didn’t work out the way we hoped, so let’s just ignore it and everything that came after it. Let’s gather the documents of Vatican II, the new Universal Catechism, the 1983 Code of Canon Law, the new Roman Missal, all the encyclicals, all the Apostolic Exhortations, all the messages and homilies, the Theology of the Body and all the Wednesday catecheses and purge them from the annals of Church History. Then we’ll pretend that we’re in the exact same place we were at in 1962 and move forward from there.”

Sorry, but that would not win anyone over to the faith. It would only (1) undermine the Church’s infallibility; and (2) reinforce the stereotype that the Church is antiquated and afraid of new things.

History only moves forward, not backward. There will always need to be reform in the Church. We don’t need to turn back the clock to achieve it. We definitely want to look at history and we may seek to recapture certain good things that were lost. But that’s a far cry from a total and pervasive turning back the clock.

 

[shondrea]

Exactly! I left the faith during my teenage years because I did not know or understand my faith. I was not taught the faith in my catechism classes. I knew nothing about the faith or what it meant to be a Catholic! I came back to the faith when I discovered the EF Mass and began learning about the faith. I would have remained in the Church had I received proper catechesis as a youth.

I know, right? I attended CCD since Kindergarten, and missed only 2 years in late middle school, before returning for several years before confirmation classes. I was a high school JUNIOR before I ever, ever heard that the Catholic church was the Church founded by Jesus, that St Peter was the first Pope, etc. I was OUT of CCD classes and learning on my own via the internet before I ever heard about mortal sins. All I ever heard growing up was, All you have to do to go to Heaven was believe in Jesus. Period,. That’s all. I never knew why we genuflected, why we bowed. We never learned about the rosary or prayers to saints in CCD, and FORGET about Queen Mary, or ANY Bible. At all. I was, again, a junior, before I ever even SAW a Bible in my CDD classes. All that was ever taught was feel-good, Jesus loves you, watered down spirituality.

 

[PA650]

I know, right? I attended CCD since Kindergarten, and missed only 2 years in late middle school, before returning for several years before confirmation classes. I was a high school JUNIOR before I ever, ever heard that the Catholic church was the Church founded by Jesus, that St Peter was the first Pope, etc. I was OUT of CCD classes and learning on my own via the internet before I ever heard about mortal sins. All I ever heard growing up was, All you have to do to go to Heaven was believe in Jesus. Period,. That’s all. I never knew why we genuflected, why we bowed. We never learned about the rosary or prayers to saints in CCD, and FORGET about Queen Mary, or ANY Bible. At all. I was, again, a junior, before I ever even SAW a Bible in my CDD classes. All that was ever taught was feel-good, Jesus loves you, watered down spirituality.

I believe one thing that has to be remembered is that the role of the parents in the formation of the Catholic faith of a child cannot be abandoned to just a religious/theology course in a Catholic school.

In another thread recently, the discussion was about head coverings for women. So I did my own little unscientific survey, just observing if any women wore them to Mass (which they could do, irregardless of what is allowed). Over several weeks, I saw none, even with elderly women who were obviously brought up in pre Vatican II times. Actually, the only covering I saw was at Easter Mass on the head of a child! First Communion, perhaps?

The amount of head coverings for women can vary from parish to parish. I attend a orthodox OF parish and it’s never surprising to see females of all ages wearing a mantilla during Mass. Although, the norm of course is a lack of head coverings these days.

 

[shondrea]

I believe one thing that has to be remembered is that the role of the parents in the formation of the Catholic faith of a child cannot be abandoned to just a religious/theology course in a Catholic school.

Yes, but it’s pretty pointless to have classes of religious education that do nothing to educate, don’t you think?

 

[pnewton]

Time only flows one way. We are not given the luxury or the right to live in the past. I say “No”, mainly because it is an impossibility and pointless to consider. Also, I do not think I like the precedent of doing a King’s X on a Church council.

 

[Joe_5859]

Time only flows one way. We are not given the luxury or the right to live in the past. I say “No”, mainly because it is an impossibility and pointless to consider. Also, I do not think I like the precedent of doing a King’s X on a Church council.

Good call. Even is it were possible, it would set a horrible precedent. If the Church can renege on an Ecumenical Council, what else will people demand the Church to renege on? Humanae Vitae would be a good one for starters. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis would be another. It would create an atmosphere of doctrinal chaos.

 

[Malkin71]

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?

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.

 

[Cominghome89]

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).

Actually, this is not true at all. Latin was THE language of the basically anyone who was literate in the Western world well into the middle ages. 1,500 years ago, Latin was far from dead.

There are very practical reasons that the mass and papal documents have been kept for so long in Latin. The most important being that the translations into the countless vernaculars can create different meanings. For example, in English we have “The Lord be with you” “And also with you”. In Spanish, Italian, and most others, the response is “and with your spirit” (y con tu espiritu in Spanish). This has caused problems with the vernacular, and the English mass we currently have is a good example. There are many weak translations that are in the process of being changed. Keeping the mass in Latin was difficult to understand for many, but the Church rightfully feared mistranslation and misinterpretation when the world wasn’t experiencing the same exact mass.

That being said, I understand your sentiments. But, it is important to remember that it is perfectly legitimate to prefer the Latin mass. It is completely unacceptable, however, when people wish to claim that their preference is superior, somehow more Catholic. This is what has led to disunity on both sides, including SSPX on the side of clinging to old tradition as necessary, and many liberal theologies that reject important Tradition on the left.

In Christ,
Frank

 

[Cominghome89]

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 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

 

[ProVobis]

I just have to point out that there is no Ctrl-Z button on history. Turning back the clock is not an option.

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.

 

[PA650]

Yes, but it’s pretty pointless to have classes of religious education that do nothing to educate, don’t you think?

I certainly agree. And hopefully religious education at Catholic schools has improved over the years.