The Vatican II changes in Liturgy

[MagdalenaRita]

I watched the video to the end and he had some very good points, such as, things have happened in the Church since Vatican II but were not called on by Vatican II and I believe he is correct.

One thing he says at the end, though, is that the Council instituted reforms that were meant to increase “reverence” in the liturgy, so with that said, what happened? What happened after this council that has caused less reverence?

 

[MagdalenaRita]

The other thing he said in the video and we hear frequently is regarding Latin. He said the Mass needed to be said in the vernacular so one could understand the liturgy and what was happening at Mass.

I realize that there are those that probably did have a hard time with the Latin, but I have spoken with individuals who said the opposite, that they didn’t have any problem with Latin. They had missals that had both English and Latin in them and they followed along fine and homilies of course were always in English.

So, just wondering, if people didn’t understand the liturgy because it was in Latin, how did Christendom get built? In the past despite the Mass in Latin, people knew enough to build parishes and Cathedrals and Catholic hospitals and preach the gospels and become missionaries and be martyred for the faith, but they didn’t understand the language?

Just wondering.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

So, just wondering, if people didn’t understand the liturgy because it was in Latin, how did Christendom get built?

Mostly by being threatened with spending eternity in hell

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Mostly by being threatened with spending eternity in hell

lol

So the sisters that came here to America and built schools and hospitals did it because they were threatened if they didn’t they would spend eternity in hell? They didn’t do it because they wanted to spread the love of Christ?

I have Irish Catholic ancestors that helped build parishes. They petitioned their bishop for aid to get a parish in the small town they lived in back in the day. They did that because they were threated they would go to hell if they didn’t?

Hmm.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Not all, but most Catholics feared being sent to hell, especially as they were taught Dante’s Inferno.

Many people even today, have religion, but not faith

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Not all, but most Catholics feared being sent to hell,

Well I have to say, it doesn’t sound too appealing to me.

I agree, I don’t think we should love others out of fear of hell .

I think, though, that mostly people were more than likely building Christendom because of their love of Christ and desire to be obedient to Christ, not fear of hell, though fear of hell is there as it should be.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I look at the good people of faith, like St Francis of Assisi, St Teresa of Avila and St John of the Cross, for examples of how to react to the bad things taking place in the Church.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Thank you. That’s how I heard it from my parents too.

 

[GordonP]

There is this false narrative here that the priest did not speak or just whispered. He spoke and we responded.

“Dialogue Masses” were an innovation of the 1920s, and even afterward were far from common. Most Masses were indeed practically inaudible to the congregation, except a few prayers that the priest said facing the congregation, in Latin, which very few of the faithful could understand. Aside from “Et cum spiritu tuo” and “Amen”, congregational responses were minimal.

 

[GordonP]

The priest said nothing to which we said nothing? Not true.

The priest said by far most of the Mass in a low voice, and the “people’s” responses were almost entirely said solely by the altar servers, who rarely had any idea what they were saying.

Like I said, dialogue Masses, in which the “people’s” responses were actually recited by the congregation, were a recent innovation and not common.

As for missals, except at a dialogue Mass, few congregants actually used one. Most were absorbed in their own private devotions.

 

[Canvas]

Many people even today, have religion, but not faith

Excellent observation!

 

[MagdalenaRita]

“Dialogue Masses” were an innovation of the 1920s, and even afterward were far from common. Most Masses were indeed practically inaudible to the congregation,

I think something we tend to forget when they say the Masses of the past were inaudible, is that the micropohone wasn’t invented until the late 1880’s and many churches and buildings didn’t have sound systems or speaker systems until around the 1930’s or some poorer or rural places even later. It wouldn’t matter which way the priest faced or language he spoke before all that was invented, they still would not have heard much of what he said. I read that is why the pulpits in many churches were built up high.

 

[Phemie]

Dialogue Mass may have happened where you lived but it was unheard of in my neck of the woods. When Mass in the vernacular started after Vatican II, people where I lived were almost paralyzed at the thought of speaking in Church, something they were used to being forbidden.

I know there were Missals, I followed along in my Aunt Bessie’s. But the canon was inaudible so it was only the gestures that allowed us to know where we were at any given point.

 

[Phemie]

Parts of the Mass were inaudible since that is what the rubrics called for.

 

[Dovekin]

One thing he says at the end, though, is that the Council instituted reforms that were meant to increase “reverence” in the liturgy, so with that said, what happened? What happened after this council that has caused less reverence?

What makes you think reverence has decreased since the council? Preconciliar masses, even though the ritual is similar/identical to the EF, were often not reverent. My memory of them is of busyness, with people here and there praying the rosary, some walking around (for stations of the cross?), maybe confessions being heard during mass, etc. I later heard of 3 or 4 moments at which attention had to be given, with the implication that inattentiveness was normal most of the time.

On another subject, Latin was the language of the educated elites until the early 20th century. Undergraduate years were dedicated to learning the classics, Latin and Greek, as preparation for further studies. Classics were not a major among many, but the major that was the basis for most academic work. Physics students would read Newton’s Principia Mathematica in Latin, and the like. Latin was dropped by the sciences first, other disciplines later and newer fields never adopted it. The Church is just the last to discard Latin; it was understood by many educated people until the last century. And as I said above, paying attention was not a requirement for most people.

 

[GordonP]

I was there and no private devotions were going on. Get a copy of the St. Joseph Daily Missal and get back to me. I was there. Or watch a video of the Traditional Latin Mass.

I do think you were one of the few who experienced mostly dialogue masses, and did not realize that they were not the norm. Or you selectively remember dialogue masses and forgot about the rest.

Also, you are romanticizing big time as far as congregational involvement and knowledge goes.

 

[Phemie]

What do you mean, “it isn’t true”? Maybe not where you lived, but I was there, we didn’t speak during Mass until after Vatican II. In fact my mother was seriously embarrassed that my voice was the loudest on the first Sunday that we got to respond aloud. She kept trying to get me to shut up.

As for Latin, yes, if you had a Missal you had the translation. But there were lots of illiterate people where I lived and a lot of them who couldn’t afford the luxury of a missal. The responses they heard from the altar servers or the chants by the choir were like Greek to them - oh, I guess some it it was actually Greek.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

The smaller, rural Churches were of a size where the priest could be heard as long as all there were silent and responded when prompted.

Yes, I would certainly believe that to be the case.

Parts of the Mass were inaudible since that is what the rubrics called for.

Yes, I understand that. I have just heard some say they would not want the Latin Mass or preVatican II Catholicism because they couldn’t hear the priest at Mass.

I am just thinking that in the larger churches it would be hard to hear the priest before technology advanced anyhow. I read that one of the reasons for the bell ringing was, to alert the parishioners that a miracle had just happened and Christ was now present on the altar. People would also ask the priest to raise the host higher so they could see it and know what had just happened.

 

[Dovekin]

Reverence and a desire to go to Church has decreased since the Council and there are numerous references that prove this.

What references?

 

[Phemie]

Confession can still occur during Mass as long as two different priests are involved.

Where there was no dialogue Mass people did pray the Rosary during Mass. And where I grew up it wasn’t rare for the men to go for a smoke during the sermon.