Vatican II and changes that followed were necesary changes in the Church

[Angel_Bradford]

My Theology professor was in the seminary during Vatican II. He says it was an exciting time because they were geting teletypes daily of the documents that were being discussed and they were excited about the changes.

One of his teachers told them that he had waited his entire priestly career to look into the eyes of his congregation during Mass and say “Peace be with you”, but he never thought it would happen in his lifetime.

Later that same year, he got his chance and had tears streaming down his face when he was finally able to say those words.

 

[stmaria]

St Maria said "I don’t believe that a casual Catholic, one that goes only to Mass on Sundays and sometimes on Holy Days will appreciate the Traditional Mass.
Serious Catholics that fully understand that the Mass is a sacrifice and not a social gathering will love it. Catholics that reguarly, if not daily, say the rosary, go to confession reguarly, try to go to daily Mass and understand the Tradition of the Mass will be the Catholics most attracted to it.

=Joannm;3362641]I find this very condescending. People who only go to Mass on Sundays are “casual” Catholics?

Please read what I said. Casual Catholics go to Mass only on Sundays and sometimes on Holy Days
If you don’t go to Mass on Holy Dayos of obligation then you are a casual Catholic…

Perhaps they work all week and cannot go to Mass during the week even though they would like to.

Read the post. I said serious Catholics** try to go **to daily Mass.

And how do you know about the prayer habits of those who go to mass only on Sunday

.
I doubt that Catholics that go to Mass only on Sundays and **sometimes on Holy Days **pray the rosary often or go to confession often.

As to the second part…I am, according to your description, a “serious” Catholic who does everything that you wrote, including studying and understanding the Tradition of the Mass, and I have absolutly no interest in the Extraordinary Form outside of an academic interest.

If you truly understand the Traditional Mass they you must honestly admit that it is a more reverent form of worship than the Ordinary Form. The prayers at the foot of the altar, the double confeitor, the numerous geneflections and signs of the cross, kneeling to receive communion on the tongue, no lay Eucharistic Ministers, Traditional music, the priest facing God in the Tabernacle, no running up and down the aisles by the laity to do readings and on and on.

I beleive people should be able to attend it if they prefer it, but no one should catagorize the spirituality of anyone based on what form of the Mass they choose to celebrate

All I am saying is that while serious Catholics do attend and love the Ordinary Form, one **will not find casual Catholics **at the Extraordinary Form except out of curiosity.

 

[bkovacs]

Here are good things I like about Vatican II:

• The NO mass is easier to understand.
• The NO mass is designed to make liturgical abuses easier to spot mainly due to most of it being audible (silent TLM = liturgical abuses easily hidden - silent prayer skipped for example)
• The Catechism of the Catholic Church. Both the 1994 and 1997 versions.
• We are getting lots of protestant conversions.
• Communion under both species available to the laity. Though not in V2 explicitly, the NO mass has this, and I think this is a GOOD THING.
• Vatican I was finally officially closed.
• EWTN (thank you Inter Mirifica)
• Catholic Answers
• Catholic Radio (thank you again Inter Mirifica)
• Coming Home Network
• Other lay apostolates - encouraged by V2
• More respect for the Eastern Catholic Churches - (thank you Orientalium Ecclesiarum) - yes, I agree, definitely overdue and a GOOD THING
• Steubenville - 'nuff said.
• Association of Hebrew Catholics. (thank you Nostra Aetate)

Here are good things I like about Vatican II:

• The NO mass is easier to understand. Agree!. But older style English like the Anglican Use Mass uses sounds better liturgically, . Douay Rheims or RSVCE Translation vs NAB should be used.
• The NO mass is designed to make liturgical abuses easier to spot mainly due to most of it being audible (silent TLM = liturgical abuses easily hidden - silent prayer skipped for example) It wasn’t designed with liturgical abuses in mind. The priest faces East for a reason. Look at the Orthodox and Coptic Churches. They face East as well.
• The Catechism of the Catholic Church. Both the 1994 and 1997 versions. Agree!.
• We are getting lots of protestant conversions. Agree, but we are also getting allot of their bad liturgical customs.
• Communion under both species available to the laity. Though not in V2 explicitly, the NO mass has this, and I think this is a GOOD THING. An excuse for having Eucharistic Ministers. Instead of priest dipping host in wine and placing it on your tongue. The Orthodox (Eastern Catholic), and Coptic Churches don’t have Eucharistic Ministers. Why do we need them. To “speed” up the Mass.
• Vatican I was finally officially closed. Agree!.
• EWTN (thank you Inter Mirifica)
• Catholic Answers. Good Thing
• Catholic Radio (thank you again Inter Mirifica) Any Gregorian chant on Catholic Radio. What about Palestrini or Tallis.
• Coming Home Network. Good Thing
• Other lay apostolates - encouraged by V2. Taking allot of spiritual guidance away from the priest Bad!.
• More respect for the Eastern Catholic Churches - (thank you Orientalium Ecclesiarum) - yes, I agree, definitely overdue and a GOOD THING. Always a good thing. But still far apart!.
• Steubenville - 'nuff said. Care less!.
• Association of Hebrew Catholics. (thank you Nostra Aetate). What about Muslim Catholics?. You mean Catholics living in Israel?. Can’t be both Jewish and Christian.

---

“There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church” - Fulton Sheen.

 

[GerardP]

My Theology professor was in the seminary during Vatican II. He says it was an exciting time because they were geting teletypes daily of the documents that were being discussed and they were excited about the changes.

One of his teachers told them that he had waited his entire priestly career to look into the eyes of his congregation during Mass and say “Peace be with you”, but he never thought it would happen in his lifetime.

Later that same year, he got his chance and had tears streaming down his face when he was finally able to say those words.

Sounds like that priest had no idea of what his role was. He could’ve said “Peace be with you” everytime he stood at the pulpit and gave a sermon.

I think your theology professor’s teacher was a modernist appealing to emotion to “sell the changes.” to the next generation.

I remember similar things in the early 70’s. In grade school when the kids were complaining about how boring the Mass was, the teacher went on a long spiel about how the Church made the Mass “for you” and she subsequently trashed the TLM.

It was like throwing out a warm steak dinner for cold McDonalds.

 

[GerardP]

Then a wise mind remembered that it isnt the number of prayers, its the reverence with which the are said, and the meaning behind them. One reverent sign of the cross is more reverent than a hundred hurried.

Sometimes it takes a number of repetitions to get to the reverent sign of the cross.

You need to practice at bat to hit the ball and you need to practice your instrument to make the music sound right.

I was recently at a discernment dinner at which my bishop, a very conservative priest, said when he still celebrated the TLM, the Pastor of the church he was serving at, told him the night before a important Mass told him “Be pious on your own time”, so at Communion, he said the line they had to say(the really long latin one) as he went down the line, so that each person got one part, in order to get the hundreds through. He said he realized even as he did it, just saying the first part(the body of Christ, except in Latin basically) would have been more reverent then a long prayer said hurredly.

Why did he follow that brazenly sinful command? Why did he engage in liturgical abuse and think that a moron who says “be pious on your own time” is somehow leading the way in sanctity?

Why didn’t he rebuke him then and there?

Liturgical abuse existed in the TLM too, people must konw that before they so harshly judge the OF

The Novus Ordo is the dream rite of the liturgical abusers of the TLM.

Those that mumbled their Latin mumbled their vernacular. I heard high speed English that sounded like an Auctioneer from an old monsignor.

They didn’t like the doctrine. They got half the faith thrown out with the bringing in of the Novus Ordo and they got rid of half of that with abuse of the Novus Ordo.

Next they want an even simpler “communion service” with less meaning.

And they’ll abuse that.

 

[SenorSalsa]

Why did he follow that brazenly sinful command? Why did he engage in liturgical abuse and think that a moron who says “be pious on your own time” is somehow leading the way in sanctity?

Why didn’t he rebuke him then and there?

Becuase he was a priest for less than 2 months, and assumed that a priest that had been there for many years was able to make good judgement calls(after all he celebrated the TLM, that makes him better than priests today, right?), and thus followed the statement obidiently like he is called to do.

 

[Angel_Bradford]

Sounds like that priest had no idea of what his role was. He could’ve said “Peace be with you” everytime he stood at the pulpit and gave a sermon.

I think your theology professor’s teacher was a modernist appealing to emotion to “sell the changes.” to the next generation.

I remember similar things in the early 70’s. In grade school when the kids were complaining about how boring the Mass was, the teacher went on a long spiel about how the Church made the Mass “for you” and she subsequently trashed the TLM.

It was like throwing out a warm steak dinner for cold McDonalds.

It was the seminarians who were excited. After attending the TLM and be able to hear the prayers that the priest was saying because it was not allowed, he said it was wonderful to finally hear everything.

 

[Joannm]

Please read what I said. Casual Catholics go to Mass only on Sundays and sometimes on Holy Days
If you don’t go to Mass on Holy Dayos of obligation then you are a casual Catholic…

Read the post. I said serious Catholics** try to go **to daily Mass.
.
I doubt that Catholics that go to Mass only on Sundays and **sometimes on Holy Days **pray the rosary often or go to confession often.

If you truly understand the Traditional Mass they you must honestly admit that it is a more reverent form of worship than the Ordinary Form. The prayers at the foot of the altar, the double confeitor, the numerous geneflections and signs of the cross, kneeling to receive communion on the tongue, no lay Eucharistic Ministers, Traditional music, the priest facing God in the Tabernacle, no running up and down the aisles by the laity to do readings and on and on.

All I am saying is that while serious Catholics do attend and love the Ordinary Form, one **will not find casual Catholics **at the Extraordinary Form except out of curiosity.

I still take exception to your statements. I know some very serious Catholics who only go on Sundays (and Holy Days), who have no desire to go daily for many reasons. These same people pray the rosary daily, even more than one…they go to confession…go to parish missions…and do a host of other things. And they prefer the ordinary form.

I actually find the ordinary form more reverent. I grew up with the Latin Mass and find I can worship better in English and in a simplier form of the Mass. All that extra stuff is actually distracting and I want to hear the words. But if you like Latin go for it. But many many SERIOUS Cathoics prefer the ordinary form. Latin doe not a serious Catholic make.

 

[stmaria]

=Joannm;3365412]I still take exception to your statements. I know some very serious Catholics who only go on Sundays (and Holy Days), who have no desire to go daily for many reasons. These same people pray the rosary daily, even more than one…they go to confession…go to parish missions…and do a host of other things. And they prefer the ordinary form.

As I posted. Some serious Catholics love the Ordinary Form. But “casual” Catholics also prefer the Ordinary Form. A casual Catholic would not prefer the Extraordinary Form. For one thing the sermon would be offensive to them. They would actually hear the priest tell them that missing mass even on holy days is a sin and they cannot receive communion.

I actually find the ordinary form more reverent. I grew up with the Latin Mass and find I can worship better in English and in a simplier form of the Mass.

How is it more reverent?

All that extra stuff is actually distracting and I want to hear the words.

You mean all that “extra stuff” like genuflections, signs of the cross, the priest humbling himself before God, the double confiteor, the Leonine prayers?

 

[pnewton]

I believe the best thing that came was the long overdue return to the verncular. The last time the Church did that was when Latin replaced Aramaic. While I appreciate the value a dead language brings to theological consitency, it hinders understanding among the majority. Thus I believe that both Latin and vernacular languages serve vital functions. Latin is the standard and the constant, but other languages are needed to communicate well. By the way, tongues in Acts was not a unified language but each person heard their own language on the day of Pentacost, yet they were amazed because of the disciples were Galilean.

I would think also a side benefit of other languages is a correction of some of the mystical aura some grant the Latin language as if it has an inherent holiness.

 

[Joannm]

How is it more reverent?

You mean all that “extra stuff” like genuflections, signs of the cross, the priest humbling himself before God, the double confiteor, the Leonine prayers?

As I said, I find all the extra stuff distracting so it decreases the reverence for me. Also I prepare the liturgies in our parish so I know that we follow the GIRM to the letter and our priests celebrate it with much reverence. Our music is good and while there are some people who are a bit casual, most are very reverent.

 

[stmaria]

As I said, I find all the extra stuff distracting so it decreases the reverence for me. Also I prepare the liturgies in our parish so I know that we follow the GIRM to the letter and our priests celebrate it with much reverence. Our music is good and while there are some people who are a bit casual, most are very reverent.

Sorry that you find all the “extra stuff’” distracting. The Protestant reformers thought the same thing. They wanted to remove all that 'extra stuff" because they considered it distracting. I have been to many Masses of the Ordinary Form where the Host and Chalice are not elevated and the bells are not rung, bowing one’s head instead of genuflecting, standing instead of kneeling, the priest using the shortest Eucharistic prayer intead of the Roman Canon. All are allowed under the GIRM but nontheless lead to a loss of sacredness in the Mass.

The Council of Trent responded directly to the reformers.
*On the solemn ceremonies of the Sacrifice of the Mass. *
And whereas such is the nature of man, that, without external helps, he cannot easily be raised to the meditation of divine things; therefore has holy Mother Church instituted certain rites, to wit that certain things be pronounced in the mass in a low, and others in a louder, tone. She has likewise employed ceremonies, such as mystic benedictions, lights, incense, vestments, and many other things of this kind, derived from an apostolical discipline and tradition, whereby both the majesty of so great a sacrifice might be recommended, and the minds of the faithful be excited, by those visible signs of religion and piety, to the contemplation of those most sublime things which are hidden in this sacrifice.
(Council of Trent, Session 22, Chapter V)

Canon 7. If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety **rather than stimulants to piety ** let him be anathema.

 

[ProVobis]

In my opinion, Paul VI should have never gone against Trent and Vatican II and allow the all-vernacular Mass. God gave a gift of a unifying language to all those who wanted to worship Him together for over 1500 years and look at what we’ve gotten since the introduction of the all-vernacular: The Tower of Babel revisited. Sure English is more understandable to you and me (Duh!) but does it make the Mass necessarily more understandable? Where’s the evidence? Simply saying you understand doesn’t make it so.

Over centuries and millennia, we have had unifying languages in sheet music, musical tones, mathematical symbols, physics constants, chemical symbols, and biological anatomies. All have become worldwide standards. They have helped everyone all over the world to contribute and benefit. Imagine if a group became so arrogant that they suddenly devised their own set of symbols, etc. What would they gain from that? But isn’t that what the vernacular has led to?

No doubt it has led to a certain amount of isolationism. Not only on a worldwide scale but now in local parishes where Spanish and English groups compete with each other for the better Mass times. Ridiculous. But hopefully this Pope has at least started bringing all Catholics back together again.

 

[stmaria]

=ProVobis;3366028]In my opinion, Paul VI should have never gone against Trent and Vatican II and allow the all-vernacular Mass. **God gave a gift of a unifying language **to all those who wanted to worship Him together for over 1500 years and look at what we’ve gotten since the introduction of the all-vernacular

:
Absolutely agree. I wish that the Tridentine Canon would be used in the Ordinary Form in Latin. This would be the unifying element of the Mass. There would no longer be an optional nine Eucharistic prayers.** One Canon **, in Latin, regardless of the vernacular used.
You could have a Spanish vernacular Mass but with the Canon in Latin. Likewise English,German, French vernacular but the Canon in Latin. No matter where you went to mass in the world the Canon would be in the same unifying language.

 

[Brother_John]

So because Hitler made the trains run on time, created the autobahn and the volkswagon then all of Nazi Germany and the “change” that it wrought was good? Your logic is false.

I think the lack of respect for the eucharist, the plummeting attendance, the watering down of theological teaching and tradition, the lack of vocations and the erosion of our Catholic idenity and heritage far outweigh any good that come out of the interpertation an implementation of Vatican II.

You choose to blame Vatican II for all of the above, yet totally ignore the peer pressures of our secular society during the same time period?

 

[Brother_John]

Your analogy is false. The gift of tounges acted as a universal tounge that allowed everyone to understand the apostles. We have this in the Catholic Church today, it is called Latin. What we have to day is multiple tounges. If I went to a foriegn country I could not understand the NO Mass. If all the Masses were in a universal tounge like latin and I knew the Latin Mass I could understand the Mass and more fully participate in it where ever I was. The use of the vernacular besides excluding non-native speakers creates division (i.e. American Catholic, German Catholic, French Catholic etc) because the form of the Mass is no longer universal and specific to that country.

From what authority or Church teaching do you extract this logic?

 

[brotherhrolf]

If you read the 1962 Mass you will notice that OT readings were integrated thoughout the Mass in addition to the Epistle and Gospel reading. I have never made a one-to-one comparison but I would imagine there is just as much scripture in the Tridentine Mass as there is in the NO.

And there you might be wrong. I have my handy-dandy 1962 St. Joseph Missal which was presented to me in when I was confirmed in March of 1963 right here. I can assure you that we hear far more scripture today than back then. There was no three year cycle in which all of Scripture is read. One heard the same scripture readings on the same day every year.

 

[Brother_John]

From what i understand, during the middle ages, people made the sign of the cross 100s of times, as often as they could, during Mass and other prayer time

Baseball players make countless signs of the cross when they come up to bat too…and they aren’t praying for their souls, either…they’re praying to hit a homer.

 

[Brother_John]

Please read what I said. Casual Catholics go to Mass only on Sundays and sometimes on Holy Days
If you don’t go to Mass on Holy Dayos of obligation then you are a casual Catholic…

Read the post. I said serious Catholics** try to go **to daily Mass.
.
I doubt that Catholics that go to Mass only on Sundays and **sometimes on Holy Days **pray the rosary often or go to confession often.

If you truly understand the Traditional Mass they you must honestly admit that it is a more reverent form of worship than the Ordinary Form. The prayers at the foot of the altar, the double confeitor, the numerous geneflections and signs of the cross, kneeling to receive communion on the tongue, no lay Eucharistic Ministers, Traditional music, the priest facing God in the Tabernacle, no running up and down the aisles by the laity to do readings and on and on.

All I am saying is that while serious Catholics do attend and love the Ordinary Form, one **will not find casual Catholics **at the Extraordinary Form except out of curiosity.

I must ask…what party within the Church granted you that authority to judge and categorize Catholics?

 

[Brother_John]

It was like throwing out a warm steak dinner for cold McDonalds.

Or for some, it was like being relased from a mushroom-like existence.