Someone I know told me the VII didn't create the OF

[newyorkcatholic]

If the priest does one thing which isn’t explicitly stated in the rubrics it is immediately denounced as an incremental adoption of protestantism or everyone flies to CAF to denounce it as a liturgical abuse and write letters to the bishop.

Or if a mother somewhere in Missiouri decides to hold hands with her son, it is an unnatural perversion of the sacrificial nature of the Mass.

Or if someone in April of 1467 prayed with their palms facing up, or some convert from Fundamentalism in 1953 looked to the sky when they prayed instead of closing their eyes, it is modernistic incremantalism.

Four bell chimes instead of a single bell. Liquid parafin candles instead of wax candles. Praying with palms facing each other instead of hand’s clasped. The shape of the processional cross. Whether a church has statues or not. Tabernacles in the center vs off to the side…

I really think that some people won’t be happy until their preferred form of the Mass and every piece of church architecture, art and music becomes dogma and we all become the spiritual robots non-Catholics accuse us of being.

-Tim-

Straw man. This is an unfair post that lumps together legitimate, illegitimate, and really minor practices.

First of all, you should recognize that disobedience is wrong, and so even if the nature of how the candles are made seems silly to you, if the law says candles should have a certain portion of beeswax, we should follow it. If the law forbids a certain practice, we should avoid it, even if it seems like not a big deal.

It’s as if deliberately ignoring liturgical law is just a joke?

Secondly, you ignore that fact that there are countless legitimate changes that traditionalists have accepted whether or not they liked them.

Changing feast days, simplifying the way feasts are classified, reducing the commemorations, reducing the times when “Benedicamus Domino” is used, adding St Joseph to the Canon … these are all changes that I see no serious issue with and no trad really would (even though I don’t understand or personally like some of them, which is besides the point).

If your post were correct, trads would be up in arms about such things, but of course they are not.

Many of the people I know who do fit your mocking post aren’t trads at all but are conservative NO-attending Catholics, but they don’t represent that group really either, they are just a bit inflexible that’s all.

 

[TimothyH]

Straw man. This is an unfair post that lumps together legitimate, illegitimate, and really minor practices.

First of all, you should recognize that disobedience is wrong, and so even if the nature of how the candles are made seems silly to you, if the law says candles should have a certain portion of beeswax, we should follow it. If the law forbids a certain practice, we should avoid it, even if it seems like not a big deal.

It’s as if deliberately ignoring liturgical law is just a joke?

Secondly, you ignore that fact that there are countless legitimate changes that traditionalists have accepted whether or not they liked them.

Changing feast days, simplifying the way feasts are classified, reducing the commemorations, reducing the times when “Benedicamus Domino” is used, adding St Joseph to the Canon … these are all changes that I see no serious issue with and no trad really would (even though I don’t understand or personally like some of them, which is besides the point).

If your post were correct, trads would be up in arms about such things, but of course they are not.

Many of the people I know who do fit your mocking post aren’t trads at all but are conservative NO-attending Catholics, but they don’t represent that group really either, they are just a bit inflexible that’s all.

I really have no idea what the difference is between trads and conservatives and who represents what group. I kneel in the pew and sit in the chair as an altar server and see people weep after recieving the Eucharist. Groups within the church mean little to me.

My post could have been more charitable. I am sorry that I took a mocking tone. The drama wasn’t necessary and was perhaps - not perhaps - it was pride. I have been falling into this trap a bit lately and not praying as much as I need to.

My point was specific to YoungTrad, who insists that slow development is good because it is always deliberative and intentional while fast changes are always reckless and ill thought out. I look at the Church and see othewise. I see many slow, organic and natural changes within the Church which trads hate and many things they love which have been radical changes imposed rapdily, even violently. That’s my point.

Sometimes change within our Church is radical but that doesn’t make it irreverant, irreligous, or any other word that starts with “irr” that I can’t think of right now.

-Tim-

 

[Megan7]

None of these changes can be seen as overhauls. I don’t think anyone could walk into a tridentine mass and say, “What is this?”.

From some of the accounts I’ve seen on here, there were people who left the Church right around the end of VAT II, came back and didn’t know what they were seeing.

More on the changes.

The Missal of Pope Paul VI was an “overhaul” in my opinion.

It also seems that when the then Cardinal Ratzinger first saw the changes, he commented in “From My Life: Remembrances 1927-1977”, a book written in German:

Now mind you, I don’t tend to quote Catholic Culture cause I don’t like their site reviews.

But they are right about this.

And no, I don’t have the German book itself to check primary references.

Now, our Holy Father has since changed his mind, but that was his initial impression.

I’m only quoting this to show that there were knowledgeable people who agreed that the changes to the Tridentine were minimal compared to the newer liturgy.

WOW!!! Amazing!

Thanks for posting this “True Light” Is this book available now?

If this is how he felt then…
He is a very bright gentleman, God Bless him!

Pax,

Megan

 

[CarloMagnus]

I have searched far and wide for a way to express how I view this whole debacle. Finally, yesterday I found a succinct little nugget from an interview with a certain Fr. Thomas Kocik that generally expresses the way I feel:
This is exactly how I view it. The Pauline Missal represents–the Missal itself and the manner in which it is usually celebrated–a break with that “stream of tradition within the family of the Roman liturgy,” implicitly or explicitly, symbolically or actually, take your pick. Whether or not ancient practices were restored, these things do in fact represent a break with tradition, because tradition is a thing that must develop naturally. And I believe I am fully within my intellectual rights to say this without contradicting or “going against” the Pope, or being a “rad trad,” or being a “sedevacantist schismatic” or whatever.

It’s like a line of letters, representing practices, following a certain pattern:

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOP <<This represents unbroken tradition, at least as a whole. Changes happen, but they are modest. P is VERY much different than A, but they can be said to be in full harmony with each other because the “stream of tradition” is unbroken and is natural.

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPEFGH <<This represents broken tradition, at least as a whole, even if “EFGH” has already been done before. It breaks the flow because it puts us “back” to where we once were, ignoring later developments. H is only in harmony with A inasmuch as the first occurrence of it is. The second is not and cannot be.

Tradition isn’t like saying, “Oh, we’ve done that before so we can do it again.” Tradition is an uninterrupted stream of practice. That is not to say that ancient things cannot be restored sometimes, or that new things cannot be introduced. In fact, I think tradition begs for continual development, for that is what tradition is. It is natural development in harmony with the stream of the practices of the past. The key phrase there being “natural development.”

It is not traditional to restore 15 things to the Mass, things that we did in the year 600. Not because they aren’t ancient (they are), not because the practices themselves aren’t traditional (they can certainly be said to be), but because their restoration is unnatural and jarring to the stream of development of tradition. And again, I believe I can comfortably say all this without offending the supreme Papal dignity of the decisions of Paul VI and subsequent Popes and without condemning my immortal soul.

• Interview link here: ignatiusinsight.com/features2007/tkocik_intervw_july07.asp

So far, I’ve found this one to make the most sense.

That bit about the ABC’s? Priceless. It was genius. It’s so simple, yet so profound. It was like a father talking to his son. I loved it. (Don’t let that get to your head, stay humble)

-Karl

 

[ProVobis]

Pentecost itself is a celebration of spreading the word of God through vernacular languge (and if you look it up, you’ll find that the Pentecost was a Jewish celebration of Gods word which was done at that time in Hebrew). Christ changed the language. If he did not we would either be speaking Hebew or Aramaic. And yes, there is a Hebew and an aramaic mass, there’s even an indian jewish hybrid catholic church, which most “tradiationalists” would argue against.

I had to think about this for a while.

While what you say may be interesting and true, if we didn’t have the preservation of the languages of the cross, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, our faith would have even more denominations than we have today and we’d have less and less direct connection to the cross. As it is we have an increasing number of ex-Catholics and Catholics who don’t attend Mass. With 500 vernaculars, we understand the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass less and we blame it on some old scapegoat, poor catechesis. Well, yeh, but what happened at the Tower of Babel may give us a better clue as to why, although the principle of entropy may explain it better in scientific terms.

When person A relates a story to B and B relates the story to C, and so on, what are the odds person K will even remotely know what person A was talking about or what his point was? As an aside, there’s something being circulated on the internet about Cicero saying something about balanced budgets and it’s being accepted as the truth. Anyone knowing a little bit of Latin, however, will immediately know this to be totally false once he or she sees what Cicero actually wrote.

But then again, I could be wrong and lots and lots of new languages will breed nothing but more Catholics, more unification, and more people coming out to church.

 

[Brooklyn]

I had to think about this for a while.

While what you say may be interesting and true, if we didn’t have the preservation of the languages of the cross, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, our faith would have even more denominations than we have today and we’d have less and less direct connection to the cross. As it is we have an increasing number of ex-Catholics and Catholics who don’t attend Mass. With 500 vernaculars, we understand the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass less and we blame it on some old scapegoat, poor catechesis. Well, yeh, but what happened at the Tower of Babel may give us a better clue as to why, although the principle of entropy may explain it better in scientific terms.

When person A relates a story to B and B relates the story to C, and so on, what are the odds person K will even remotely know what person A was talking about or what his point was? As an aside, there’s something being circulated on the internet about Cicero saying something about balanced budgets and it’s being accepted as the truth. Anyone knowing a little bit of Latin, however, will immediately know this to be totally false once he or she sees what Cicero actually wrote.

But then again, I could be wrong and lots and lots of new languages will breed nothing but more Catholics, more unification, and more people coming out to church.

 

[OraLabora]

Many traditionalists prefer the 1962 Divine Office. Yet that Office was a radical change imposed by Pius X in 1910. Unilaterally, with no options except for monastics.

That strikes me as inconsistent, and makes me think that “traditionalism” is more nostalgia for a specific time and place. I may be wrong but that’s the feeling I get.

I’m a railway enthusiast, it reminds me of enthusiasts nostalgic about steam engines.

There were many reasons for the changes of Vatican II. I trust the Church on that. The abuses should not detract from the real reasons for the change. What is needed is more discipline, not a return to the fire-and-brimstone Church of parents which crushed hope, made us all feel depraved and built walls around our community.

That aspect of the pre-Vatican II Church, at least in quasi-Jansenist Quebec, is usually lost in this debate, which always tends to focus on often arcane liturgical rules.

Unless the Church is working to effect true and lasting personal transformation, and I mean deep transformation and not just superficially following rules, then her liturgy isn’t working.

The Holy Father recognizes that we may be reached in different ways, which is why he allows two forms of the same rite. I myself have been deeply reached by monastic liturgy in the modern form. Anyone who hears and participates in it won’t see the major break in tradition many here accuse the OF of being.

I would rather see more effort put into making the OF what it was meant to be.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I had to think about this for a while.

While what you say may be interesting and true, if we didn’t have the preservation of the languages of the cross, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, our faith would have even more denominations than we have today and we’d have less and less direct connection to the cross. As it is we have an increasing number of ex-Catholics and Catholics who don’t attend Mass. With 500 vernaculars, we understand the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass less and we blame it on some old scapegoat, poor catechesis. Well, yeh, but what happened at the Tower of Babel may give us a better clue as to why, although the principle of entropy may explain it better in scientific terms.

When person A relates a story to B and B relates the story to C, and so on, what are the odds person K will even remotely know what person A was talking about or what his point was? As an aside, there’s something being circulated on the internet about Cicero saying something about balanced budgets and it’s being accepted as the truth. Anyone knowing a little bit of Latin, however, will immediately know this to be totally false once he or she sees what Cicero actually wrote.

But then again, I could be wrong and lots and lots of new languages will breed nothing but more Catholics, more unification, and more people coming out to church.

But then you have to deal with the larger picture. The Orthodox Churches have been preaching the same Faith in the vernaculars since the time of the Apostles, and they have less problems than Roman Catholicism when it comes to people leaving, poor catechesis, poorly celebrated Liturgies, etc., etc., etc.

 

[ProVobis]

But then you have to deal with the larger picture. The Orthodox Churches have been preaching the same Faith in the vernaculars since the time of the Apostles, and they have less problems than Roman Catholicism when it comes to people leaving, poor catechesis, poorly celebrated Liturgies, etc., etc., etc.

Phil, you’re right. But certain “vernaculars” like the Slavic tongues, Spanish, Italian, and others can claim a much higher percentage of Catholics than English, for example; how does one explain that? The principle of entropy doesn’t state that the profession of faith corrupts itself at an equal rate amongst the available new or more mutable languages. But it sure seems a Church Latin or Greek or Old Church Slavonic nuanced or inflected language will preserve the faith more than other languages. Just my observation, though.

 

[TimothyH]

Phil, you’re right. But certain “vernaculars” like the Slavic tongues, Spanish, Italian, and others can claim a much higher percentage of Catholics than English, for example; how does one explain that? The principle of entropy doesn’t state that the profession of faith corrupts itself at an equal rate amongst the available new or more mutable languages. But it sure seems a Church Latin or Greek or Old Church Slavonic nuanced or inflected language will preserve the faith more than other languages. Just my observation, though.

Roman Catholicism was the official state religion in Spain 1978. Italy similar. The tax code in Canada favors Roman Catholicism. Such is the case in many parts of the world.

The number of people self identified as Catholic has less to do with some inherent value of the language to communicate Catholic values than does politics, history, and in some cases the tax code.

-Tim-

 

[Mike30]

Many traditionalists prefer the 1962 Divine Office. Yet that Office was a radical change imposed by Pius X in 1910. Unilaterally, with no options except for monastics.

That strikes me as inconsistent, and makes me think that “traditionalism” is more nostalgia for a specific time and place. I may be wrong but that’s the feeling I get.

I’m a railway enthusiast, it reminds me of enthusiasts nostalgic about steam engines.

There were many reasons for the changes of Vatican II. I trust the Church on that. The abuses should not detract from the real reasons for the change. **What is needed is more discipline, not a return to the fire-and-brimstone Church of parents which crushed hope, made us all feel depraved and built walls around our community.**That aspect of the pre-Vatican II Church, at least in quasi-Jansenist Quebec, is usually lost in this debate, which always tends to focus on often arcane liturgical rules.

Unless the Church is working to effect true and lasting personal transformation, and I mean deep transformation and not just superficially following rules, then her liturgy isn’t working.

The Holy Father recognizes that we may be reached in different ways, which is why he allows two forms of the same rite. I myself have been deeply reached by monastic liturgy in the modern form. Anyone who hears and participates in it won’t see the major break in tradition many here accuse the OF of being.

I would rather see more effort put into making the OF what it was meant to be.

You are of course right. Why should we feel that sin is wrong and harmful and can banish us to Hell? Nothing could be further from the truth!!. Why should we feel depraved at our utter indifference to God. Wasn’t He created in our image? Or didn’t that used to be the other way around? I forget. Why should we kneel down in front of Jesus in the Eucharist. After all He is our buddy, our pal and not our Lord and Master as people used to believe. In life, at times, walls are necessary to keep harmful things out, because we as people tend to grab at those things harmful to us and our relationship with God, part of that old seldom taught thing called original sin.

You do remember that don’t you?

 

[TimothyH]

You are of course right. Why should we feel that sin is wrong and harmful and can banish us to Hell? Nothing could be further from the truth!!. Why should we feel depraved at our utter indifference to God. Wasn’t He created in our image? Or didn’t that used to be the other way around? I forget. Why should we kneel down in front of Jesus in the Eucharist. After all He is our buddy, our pal and not our Lord and Master as people used to believe. In life, at times, walls are necessary to keep harmful things out, because we as people tend to grab at those things harmful to us and our relationship with God, part of that old seldom taught thing called original sin.

You do remember that don’t you?

As a oblate to a Benedictine monastery, I’ll bet OraLabora knows a few things about walls and keeping things out.

-Tim-

 

[Lujack]

You are of course right. Why should we feel that sin is wrong and harmful and can banish us to Hell? Nothing could be further from the truth!!. Why should we feel depraved at our utter indifference to God. Wasn’t He created in our image? Or didn’t that used to be the other way around? I forget. Why should we kneel down in front of Jesus in the Eucharist. After all He is our buddy, our pal and not our Lord and Master as people used to believe. In life, at times, walls are necessary to keep harmful things out, because we as people tend to grab at those things harmful to us and our relationship with God, part of that old seldom taught thing called original sin.

You do remember that don’t you?

Yes, because there is no middle ground because dour, joyless Jansenism and hippie-ness.

 

[ThatOneGuy92]

You are of course right. Why should we feel that sin is wrong and harmful and can banish us to Hell? Nothing could be further from the truth!!. Why should we feel depraved at our utter indifference to God. Wasn’t He created in our image? Or didn’t that used to be the other way around? I forget. Why should we kneel down in front of Jesus in the Eucharist. After all He is our buddy, our pal and not our Lord and Master as people used to believe. In life, at times, walls are necessary to keep harmful things out, because we as people tend to grab at those things harmful to us and our relationship with God, part of that old seldom taught thing called original sin.

You do remember that don’t you?

What is the point of preaching the Gospel, let alone anything about God at all, if all the preaching does is focus on the imminent peril of eternal damnation? At that point, I’d rather take the damnation, because my hope has already been damned anyway.

The Gospel is good, sweet news. Christ has triumphed over the powers of darkness. He has slain death. He has crushed Satan’s head. He has shattered the gates of Hell. He has made reconciliation between God and man.

Hell is the eventual and eternal consequence of sinners, of whom I am chief. But the Gospel must predominate, the Gospel must be the headline, the Gospel must have center focus. Reminding people of how their every sin and fault will condemn them to eternal flames and torture deprives one of hope, and this leads to despair, and despair to hatred.

St. Anthony the Great said, “I no longer fear God, but I love Him. For love casts out fear.”
If all we see God as is the judge of our immortal souls, then it is easy to fear and feel no love. But when we understand that, while we shall be judged, that God’s love is greater than we can imagine, then we do not despair. Instead of wrangling our consciences with scrupulosity, we can focus on instead on God’s love for us in Christ Jesus, and in His renewing of our beings in the Holy Spirit.

There is a right time for everything. Constantly preaching on hell fire and sin, with no mention of Christ’s salvific work, is an abuse of this principle, no?

 

[CarloMagnus]

My opinion:

I’ve come to appreciate the Mass more as of late. I haven’t been to Church in forever, and I’m going to start going again. As a Catholic, I find that the Church decided on what they decided in Vatican II because they believed it would help the Church. I have doubts they did what they did out of spite or hate.

The Catholic Church declares that the Novus Ordus Mass is valid, ergo, having the power and the seat of St. Peter simply means that it’s a part of us Catholics now. While I wish that there was more solemnity in it, like the Traditional Latin Mass, there’s no denying; no escaping, the fact that the NO Mass is Catholic, through and through, until decided against by another Vatican Council or another Pope.

-Karl

 

[spiral]

The tax code in Canada favors Roman Catholicism.

I’ve never heard of that before. Could you please explain how the Canadian tax code favors any particular religion?

 

[YoungTradCath]

My opinion:

I’ve come to appreciate the Mass more as of late. I haven’t been to Church in forever, and I’m going to start going again. As a Catholic, I find that the Church decided on what they decided in Vatican II because they believed it would help the Church. I have doubts they did what they did out of spite or hate.

The Catholic Church declares that the Novus Ordus Mass is valid, ergo, having the power and the seat of St. Peter simply means that it’s a part of us Catholics now. While I wish that there was more solemnity in it, like the Traditional Latin Mass, there’s no denying; no escaping, the fact that the NO Mass is Catholic, through and through, until decided against by another Vatican Council or another Pope.

-Karl

Most traddie Catholics do acknowledge that it is a valid liturgy.

 

[CarloMagnus]

Most traddie Catholics do acknowledge that it is a valid liturgy.

I understand, but I was just putting in my two cents. Not sure if it was contributory enough…

-Karl

 

[Mike30]

What is the point of preaching the Gospel, let alone anything about God at all, if all the preaching does is focus on the imminent peril of eternal damnation? At that point, I’d rather take the damnation, because my hope has already been damned anyway.

The Gospel is good, sweet news. Christ has triumphed over the powers of darkness. He has slain death. He has crushed Satan’s head. He has shattered the gates of Hell. He has made reconciliation between God and man.

Hell is the eventual and eternal consequence of sinners, of whom I am chief. But the Gospel must predominate, the Gospel must be the headline, the Gospel must have center focus. Reminding people of how their every sin and fault will condemn them to eternal flames and torture deprives one of hope, and this leads to despair, and despair to hatred.

St. Anthony the Great said, “I no longer fear God, but I love Him. For love casts out fear.”
If all we see God as is the judge of our immortal souls, then it is easy to fear and feel no love. But when we understand that, while we shall be judged, that God’s love is greater than we can imagine, then we do not despair. Instead of wrangling our consciences with scrupulosity, we can focus on instead on God’s love for us in Christ Jesus, and in His renewing of our beings in the Holy Spirit.

There is a right time for everything. Constantly preaching on hell fire and sin, with no mention of Christ’s salvific work, is an abuse of this principle, no?

Indeed there is a right time for everything. Just as no mention of Gods mercy is defective and an abuse, so is no mention of the consequences of sin just as defective, abusive and terribly dangerous…

You do recall just how often Jesus spoke about Hell do you not? He must have thought it fairly important that people were aware of its existance and just how easy it is to get there. From what I have seen, that particular truth has been practically banished in these enlightened and progressive times.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Phil, you’re right. But certain “vernaculars” like the Slavic tongues, Spanish, Italian, and others can claim a much higher percentage of Catholics than English, for example; how does one explain that? The principle of entropy doesn’t state that the profession of faith corrupts itself at an equal rate amongst the available new or more mutable languages. But it sure seems a Church Latin or Greek or Old Church Slavonic nuanced or inflected language will preserve the faith more than other languages. Just my observation, though.

The best response I could give to this is simply to say that English-speaking countries such as England and the United States have been traditionally predominantly Protestant. Obviously England has been Protestant since the time of Henry VIII, and the U.S. was founded by Protestants. The Protestant majority in those countries has nothing to do with language and nearly everything to do with culture.

Most other English-speaking countries were, at one point, colonies of England during its imperial period. During that time England itself greatly persecuted and suppressed the Church. Those in power were Protestant and the countries were forcibly formed according to the image and likeness of England. Again, language has nothing to do with it. Anti-Catholic bigotry still exists in those countries (as in this one), and Catholic less knowledgeable in the Faith are easily led astray by the constant repetition of false teachings and false accusations against the Church in the main-stream media.