Vatican II Happened for a reason

[SourGrape]

Why was there a movement within the Church during VII to remove and/or limit the number of statues in churches? Was there a fear and/or concern that too many of the faithful were “worshiping” these statues or even distracted by their personal devotions to them during the Mass?

 

[LilyM]

Why was there a movement within the Church during VII to remove and/or limit the number of statues in churches? Was there a fear and/or concern that too many of the faithful were “worshiping” these statues or even distracted by their personal devotions to them during the Mass?

There wasn’t - at least not during Vatican II. The worst excesses of the spirit of reform that came about AFTER the Council led to a general dislike of most things ‘traditional’ - including statues.

Mind you, this attitude was not unique to the Church by any means - it was also the era just after civil rights, the era of women’s lib and so on - lots of ‘traditional’ attitudes were being condemned.

 

[adstrinity]

Catholic Churches in American cities once regularly warned parishoners in bulletins and from the pulpit of the dangers of moving away from the parish. I remember once reading a bulletin from my mother’s parish from perhaps over 80 years ago, where the church’s priest reminded those considering moving, that it would prevent them from sharing in the church’s daily spiritual life. Nowdays, we think it’s a big thing if we’re at church 3 times a week, back then it was not uncommon to go to church twice a day, seven times a week. Life revolved around the parish, but once it no longer did, the suburbs looked better and better.

Twice a day? What on Earth for?

 

[LilyM]

Twice a day? What on Earth for?

I was thinking … I know a fair few people who lived 80 years ago, not a one of 'em would’ve been at church twice a day apart from the priests and nuns. They had lives, jobs, children to look after, houses and farms to keep - it would’ve been impossible.

 

[SourGrape]

Twice a day? What on Earth for?

In Chicago, where I used to live, I knew many people who went to the local parish twice or more a day. For morning Mass. In the afternoon on lunchbreak to pray the Rosary in the presence of our Lord. In the evening for Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament. Plus, the Sacrament of Penance is offered there from 6 AM to 6 PM EVERY WEEKDAY!!!

It’s not uncommon even in our own day. It’s just probably not as widespread. Nowadays, most parishes are locked up after the weekday Mass.

 

[ProVobis]

Is that fact? Six protestant ministers were consulted when our Church leaders rewrote the Mass?!?

Who else besides Bugnini, may I ask?

 

[maurin]

I was thinking … I know a fair few people who lived 80 years ago, not a one of 'em would’ve been at church twice a day apart from the priests and nuns. They had lives, jobs, children to look after, houses and farms to keep - it would’ve been impossible.

why would it have been impossible? My great-Aunt, RIP, lost her husband when she was 35 after her 16th child was born (all 16 survived), raised all 16 children by herself, worked full-time and, according to her, was only able to do so because of her frequent and daily trips to Mass and the Blessed Sacrament.

 

[LilyM]

why would it have been impossible? My great-Aunt, RIP, lost her husband when she was 35 after her 16th child was born (all 16 survived), raised all 16 children by herself, worked full-time and, according to her, was only able to do so because of her frequent and daily trips to Mass and the Blessed Sacrament.

Daily, yes, possibly. Twice a day seven days a week? Doubtful.

 

[maurin]

Daily, yes, possibly. Twice a day seven days a week? Doubtful.

And you knew my great-Aunt?

please.

Becuase you don’t have that devotion or piety certainly doesn’t mean others can’t. Thank goodness.

 

[Seamus_L]

Considering that for a good part of the 20th century, it was not uncommon to have churches opened from before 6 am until 10 pm, there was more than enough time to have a full time job and visit church before and after work. When I was little in the 1960’s, I still remember going into neighborhood parishes on a weekday Evening, and seeing 10 to 20 people praying. Busy mothers found a half hour of freedom and often hurried over to the nearby church to light a candle, pray for a few minutes etc. Going to church twice a day was not that uncommon.

 

[LilyM]

And you knew my great-Aunt?

please.

Becuase you don’t have that devotion or piety certainly doesn’t mean others can’t. Thank goodness.

Sheesh, I never even hinted that it was either impossible for everyone or not laudable if possible. Not everyone lives near enough to a church (or has their church open all day) for starters - so don’t presume it’s a sign of lack of devotion or piety. If your great-Aunt could do it then good on her.

Mind you, saints such as Catherine of Siena, Jane Frances de Chantal, Francis de Sales and Josemaria Escriva warned against laypeople spending lots of time in church if it was at the expense of their other duties. Not that I’m saying this was the case for your great-Aunt of course, but it IS possible to overdo it.

 

[PJM]

He may have been a holy man but I disagreed with him changing the canon of the mass by adding St. Joseph into it. Council of Trent I believe specifically said no one was to change the canon.

My dear friend on Christ,

What is being discussed here is but a matter of “Church Practice,” it is not a Dogma, and not even a Doctrine. Of course the Supreme Pontiff can change it:thumbsup:

1984 Code of Canon Law; as defined by Vatican 1(which took place after TRENT)

"Can. 332 §1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. Therefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance. If the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.

Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.

Love and prayers,

 

[maurin]

Sheesh, I never even hinted that it was either impossible for everyone or not laudable if possible. Not everyone lives near enough to a church (or has their church open all day) for starters - so don’t presume it’s a sign of lack of devotion or piety. If your great-Aunt could do it then good on her.

Mind you, saints such as Catherine of Siena, Jane Frances de Chantal, Francis de Sales and Josemaria Escriva warned against laypeople spending lots of time in church if it was at the expense of their other duties. Not that I’m saying this was the case for your great-Aunt of course, but it IS possible to overdo it.

thank you for your clarification, because it certainly wasn’t clear from your posts, and our following exchange:

I was thinking … I know a fair few people who lived 80 years ago, not a one of 'em would’ve been at church twice a day apart from the priests and nuns. They had lives, jobs, children to look after, houses and farms to keep - it would’ve been impossible.

to which I replied:

why would it have been impossible? My great-Aunt, RIP, lost her husband when she was 35 after her 16th child was born (all 16 survived), raised all 16 children by herself, worked full-time and, according to her, was only able to do so because of her frequent and daily trips to Mass and the Blessed Sacrament.

and then to which you replied without clarification:

Daily, yes, possibly. Twice a day seven days a week? Doubtful.

so I’m sure you can see how I could have been excused.

Lily, when you add remarks such as “sheesh” and “smilies” such as the shrug one you used (about which I questioned but did not receive a reply earlier) in a previous post, it makes me question whether or not we are having a conversation or a debate.

It doesn’t seem that the subject calls for argumentation, so wondering why you are making it so?

 

[LilyM]

thank you for your clarification, because it certainly wasn’t clear from your posts, and our following exchange:

to which I replied:

and then to which you replied without clarification:

so I’m sure you can see how I could have been excused.

Lily, when you add remarks such as “sheesh” and “smilies” such as the shrug one you used (about which I questioned but did not receive a reply earlier) in a previous post, it makes me question whether or not we are having a conversation or a debate.

It doesn’t seem that the subject calls for argumentation, so wondering why you are making it so?

You never questioned me on any shrug smiley that I’m aware of - I certainly used none in my posts to you, and I’ve seen no such question on this thread.

And the ‘sheesh’ was because any argumentation between us is far from one-sided.

I started off making one observation *about the people I know *which you somehow took as applying to everyone, when by that very phrasing it clearly wasn’t meant to.

And then a second *which I very carefully and clearly qualified *by saying ‘possibly’ and ‘doubtful’ rather than ‘impossible’ and ‘couldn’t be’ - which you took to be a slur on you or your Aunt or something, when I don’t know either of you from Adam and have no possible reason to say anything much about either of you!

AND then took a swipe at the devotion and piety of people who for good reason cannot get to church twice a day every day for good measure!

 

[maurin]

You never questioned me on any shrug smiley that I’m aware of - I certainly used none in my posts to you, and I’ve seen no such question on this thread.

And the ‘sheesh’ was because any argumentation between us is far from one-sided.

I started off making one observation *about the people I know *which you somehow took as applying to everyone, when by that very phrasing it clearly wasn’t meant to.

And then a second *which I very carefully and clearly qualified *by saying ‘possibly’ and ‘doubtful’ rather than ‘impossible’ and ‘couldn’t be’ - which you took to be a slur on you or your Aunt or something, when I don’t know either of you from Adam and have no possible reason to say anything much about either of you!

AND then took a swipe at the devotion and piety of people who for good reason cannot get to church twice a day every day for good measure!

sure, ok, Lily, if you say so. conversation over. Lily 1, maurin 0.

s’aright?

 

[LilyM]

sure, ok, Lily, if you say so. conversation over. Lily 1, maurin 0.

s’aright?

Well, show me where this alleged question is about the smiley then, if I’m not telling the truth. Which post number is it?

 

[maurin]

For the sake of the thread, I believe we’re done, Lily. Peace to you.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

I think some of the factors which buffeted 'brick and mortar" US Catholicism had nothing to do with Vatican II.

After WWII the moves out to less dense suburbs was on full blast. Fewer ethnic enclaves made it much harder to have cohesive parishes. And the number of ‘mixed marriages’ skyrocketed, sometimes lowering both the number of children and the number of kids of Catholics embracing Catholicism.

The lowering number of vocations had several reasons. In the sixties, I think the seminaries were artificially full. I know of several religious brothers who were basically dodging the draft. And, as there became more alternative, respectful careers for single women, the number of females becoming nuns plummeted.

With the much lower number of folks in religious orders, the costs of running a parochial or diosecan school also went through the roof! So it became much harder for parents to afford to give kids a Catholic education. So I would not attribute all the bad developments to Vatican II.

 

[LilyM]

For the sake of the thread, I believe we’re done, Lily. Peace to you.

If you can’t respond to a very simple question with a truthful and honest answer, maurin, then I believe we are.

 

[daughteroftruth]

You know Luther and other Protestant leaders were offered the option of participating in the Council of Trent, if I remember correctly? The only reason they didn’t is that the Emperor of the time was less tolerant than the Pope and wouldn’t have let them pass through his lands.

It’s not and has never been the Church’s habit to ignore people of other faiths and pretend they don’t exist

But weren’t these Protestants theologically happy with the changes in the Mass?