Vatican II

[Tsuwano]

The reason we treat it like a heavenly language is because up until 1968 The Church treated it as a language sacra. Much like the Jews have Hebrew and the Muslims have Arabic.

I think this is essentially correct and is another reason the Church felt the need to encourage the use of venacular languages in the liturgy. Unlike the Jews or the Muslims, Christians believe that all languages and cultures can be holy and reflective of God’s presence in the world. We believe that God is the author of all human language and can be found among all peoples and within all expressions of human culture. This belief is endangered when we limit God’s favor to the one particular language and culture that is recognized as sacred and exclude all others as somehow separate from God’s grace.

 

[diggerdomer]

The TLM was not banned but was relegated to the role of an extraordinary form of the liturgy because it no longer adequately reflected the dominant theologies the Church has used to define and explain itself.

INteresting topic, very interesting. I’d agree that the Missal of Pius V was not banned, per se, but I would qualify whether or not it was relegated to the role of an extraordinary form. Meaning, I think it was Benedict XVI who, in a somewhat entirely unprecedented manner, introduced the idea of the Roman Rite having ordinary and extraordinary forms. I really do think this is a novelty in the history and tradition of the Roman Rite.

Yes, one could say certainly that Paul VI did not, following Vatican II and subsequent Church reforms, “ban” the so-called Tridentine Rite…but…read the Apostolic Constitution he wrote when promulgating the Missal of 1969, and it sure seems clear…just as it was at and following Trent when previous liturgies were superceded by the Tridentine reforms…that there was only one Roman Rite that the Church would be celebrating.

Now, with Trent, there were specific exceptions (Rites that could demonstrate they had been in use longer than 200 years), so even then there was not, simply, one and only one way to worship in the Roman Rite. But those exceptions were very limited and rare. Vatican II made no such exceptions that i know of, nor did the subsequent Curial documents on the proper implementation of the liturgical reform leading up to the promulgation of the Missal of Paul VI.

Anyway, just an observation. Paul VI’s Apostolic Constitution can be read here: vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19690403_missale-romanum_en.html

I just tend to think that the intent in the 1960s and following was that there would be one Roman Rite. I think the Church was prudent and gracious in accomodating those who refused to celebrate accordinng to the 1969 Missal, but I think the recent move by Benedict XVI is quite novel (and I am neither criticizing nor endorsing it, just sharing observations and thoughts).

 

[Aramis]

If diversity is a good thing then why was the TLM effectively banned when the NO was thrust upon us? Why doesn’t every pope create his own Mass?

Gee… as a young man, I was exposed to the latin mass… by Dominican Friars. Of course, it was the Dominican Latin Mass, an older form still than the Trent liturgy, and it’s far less rigamarole than the Trent as well.

It was “just another mass in a language I don’t speak” with me mangling responses in Latin. I had an easier time with Spanish or Yupiq masses. Certainly didn’t feel any more reverent to me. Then again, I’ve never seen a particularly irreverent mass from a Dominican.

 

[Tsuwano]

INteresting topic, very interesting. I’d agree that the Missal of Pius V was not banned, per se, but I would qualify whether or not it was relegated to the role of an extraordinary form. Meaning, I think it was Benedict XVI who, in a somewhat entirely unprecedented manner, introduced the idea of the Roman Rite having ordinary and extraordinary forms. I really do think this is a novelty in the history and tradition of the Roman Rite.

Yes, one could say certainly that Paul VI did not, following Vatican II and subsequent Church reforms, “ban” the so-called Tridentine Rite…but…read the Apostolic Constitution he wrote when promulgating the Missal of 1969, and it sure seems clear…just as it was at and following Trent when previous liturgies were superceded by the Tridentine reforms…that there was only one Roman Rite that the Church would be celebrating.

Now, with Trent, there were specific exceptions (Rites that could demonstrate they had been in use longer than 200 years), so even then there was not, simply, one and only one way to worship in the Roman Rite. But those exceptions were very limited and rare. Vatican II made no such exceptions that i know of, nor did the subsequent Curial documents on the proper implementation of the liturgical reform leading up to the promulgation of the Missal of Paul VI.

Anyway, just an observation. Paul VI’s Apostolic Constitution can be read here: vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19690403_missale-romanum_en.html

I just tend to think that the intent in the 1960s and following was that there would be one Roman Rite. I think the Church was prudent and gracious in accomodating those who refused to celebrate accordinng to the 1969 Missal, but I think the recent move by Benedict XVI is quite novel (and I am neither criticizing nor endorsing it, just sharing observations and thoughts).

You know, you may be correct here. I’m not sure I would say the old mass was banned as much as it was superceded by the new mass. The concept of establishing an extraordinary form as opposed to the ordinary form of the mass may indeed be a new line of thinking in the Church and certainly requires more study. Thanks for clarifying this point and for providing the link to Paul VI’s Apostolic Constitution.

 

[palmas85]

Yet the existence of other rites shed light on the artificial aura that surrounds Latin as a special heavenly language.

All data must be considered.

Indeed it must. And with three exceptions, the Maronites, the Italo-Albanian Catholic Church and the Syro-Malabar Church, all of the eastern liturgies were of the Orthodox tradition that at some point separeated from the Holy Mother Church and then returned…

Lets not forget that fact in the orgy of Latin bashing that seems to have become the primary focus of this thread.

 

[palmas85]

The TLM was not banned but was relegated to the role of an extraordinary form of the liturgy because it no longer adequately reflected the dominant theologies the Church has used to define and explain itself.

No, that is not what happened at all. In those days the only Priests that were permitted to celebrate according to the old rite were Priests of an advanced age who were unable to learn the new Mass.

If as you say the Traditional Mass no longer adequately reflected the dominant theologies the Church has used to define and explain itself, then why was it permitted back in the first place?

 

[Ockham]

I sure wish EXTREME Traditionalists would start using websites in complete communion with the Church.

Why do some people feel the need to label others?

Just what is “EXTREME” about the survey? Do you dispute the survey or just the source I posted it from? Come back when you have a solid argument and not some straw man, ad hominen weak excuse for a position.

 

[Ockham]

The TLM was not banned but was relegated to the role of an extraordinary form of the liturgy because it no longer adequately reflected the dominant theologies the Church has used to define and explain itself.

And how has this new approach to defining and explaining ourselves been working? Check the Leading Indicators on a less EXTREME traditional website and let me know.

I said the TLM was “effectively banned”. A priest needed permission from the bishop to say it. In nearly forty years I hadn’t seen it and didn’t know it was still around anywhere. Had it not been for SP I doubt very much that I would have the opportunity to attend a TLM weekly.

For all the talk of diversity from the pro-NO side why can’t anyone tell me the reason most TLM aren’t offered on a regular or convenient time? I live in an area of 500,000 people. There is one TLM offered at one church on first Sundays at 2:30 and then the next at 1:00. Where’s the feel good, diversity rich, "spirit of Vatican II’ love in that schedule?

 

[Eric_Olsen]

I’m just beginning to learn about Catholicism. I’ve been reading all the books I can, and I’ve recently been learning about the changes that took place after the Second Vatican Council.

I’m wondering what the average Catholic thinks about these changes. A good thing? Bad? Both?

Thank you!
Heather

The councile itself was necessary so that the chuch could still evangelize to modern man. The council did not change ANY of her teachings. Many of the changes that came in the wake of VII were not called for and have hurt the church. Bishops, priests and lay people came up with a “spirit of VII” to use as an excuse to make changes that were uncalled for.

 

[ncjohn]

For all the talk of diversity from the pro-NO side why can’t anyone tell me the reason most TLM aren’t offered on a regular or convenient time? I live in an area of 500,000 people. There is one TLM offered at one church on first Sundays at 2:30 and then the next at 1:00. Where’s the feel good, diversity rich, "spirit of Vatican II’ love in that schedule?

While I know it is difficult to be patient after all the years of suppression, I think that things are slowly changing. It has only been a short time, relatively, since the decision was made to make it more available. That decision involves finding the priests to celebrate the rite and training them, and determining where there truly is suffiicient “demand” to justify the effort and expense involved in a Church that already deals with a shortage of priests.

You are right when you say that it was “effectively” banned, and I agree with diggerdomer that the intent was to have only one rite. As palmas noted earlier in the thread, had the Pauline Mass been celebrated properly and reverently in all cases from the beginning, we might have arrived at that point. That didn’t happen though, which made resistance to it even greater in some cases. I, for one, and glad that the decision was made to reinstate the TLM as an equal rite and will be glad when it is available as needed for those who want it, hoping that then maybe some of the division will die down.

Peace,

 

[Tsuwano]

No, that is not what happened at all. In those days the only Priests that were permitted to celebrate according to the old rite were Priests of an advanced age who were unable to learn the new Mass.

If as you say the Traditional Mass no longer adequately reflected the dominant theologies the Church has used to define and explain itself, then why was it permitted back in the first place?

Perhaps,as Diggerdomer has suggested, it was allowed back as a gesture of graciousness on the part of the Holy Father and as a prudent move to accomodate those who were bordering on separation from the Church. It could also be that the Church is seeking to reexamine some of those theologies from the pre Vatican II era to see how they may reflect the Church’s vision of itself in this present day. Please note that I did not say that those theologies were wrong or did not define the Church adequately when they were in use. I said that the Church found them inadequate in defining itself at the time of the Second Vatican Council. Personally, I still find them inadequate, but I am not the Church and I would never seek to impose my personal view over and against those who have been given the responsibility of guiding the Church by the Lord himself. Whatever the reason, the pre Vatican II Mass is permitted by the Church as an extraordinary form of the liturgy and it serves us to ask what theologies are reflected in that particular liturgy and do they reflect the Church in the present age.

 

[Tsuwano]

And how has this new approach to defining and explaining ourselves been working? Check the Leading Indicators on a less EXTREME traditional website and let me know.

I said the TLM was “effectively banned”. A priest needed permission from the bishop to say it. In nearly forty years I hadn’t seen it and didn’t know it was still around anywhere. Had it not been for SP I doubt very much that I would have the opportunity to attend a TLM weekly.

For all the talk of diversity from the pro-NO side why can’t anyone tell me the reason most TLM aren’t offered on a regular or convenient time? I live in an area of 500,000 people. There is one TLM offered at one church on first Sundays at 2:30 and then the next at 1:00. Where’s the feel good, diversity rich, "spirit of Vatican II’ love in that schedule?

As I’ve already said, it is because the theologies behind the “Traditional Latin Mass” do not adequately reflect the vision the Church has of itself in this modern era. Also, the “TLM” is not the ordinary form of the liturgy of the Church. It is the extraordinary form. I would also add that since fewer priests have been trained in the Latin Mass, it is only normal to expect that there would be fewer masses offered and at irregular times. As more priests are trained to say the older Latin Mass, I’m sure this situation will change. In actuality, the “feel good, diversity rich “spirit of Vatican II” love” you so easily deride is present in the very fact that there is an extraordinary form of the liturgy. There doesn’t have to be an extraordinary form, you know, and it is the generosity of the Church which allows one to be offered at all.

 

[Ockham]

As I’ve already said, it is because the theologies behind the “Traditional Latin Mass” do not adequately reflect the vision the Church has of itself in this modern era.

I completely agree with this observation. The TLM’s focus is on the Holy Sacrifice at Calvary. It contains many more gestures like genuflections, sign of the cross, homage to Mary and the saints, kneeling, reverence to the Blessed Sacrament, and an overall decorum of humility and praise. The Novus Ordo’s focus is on a communal supper. It is stripped of most gestures, has a informal decorum of social gathering, and more relaxed atmosphere. Before most TLMs the rosary is recited; before most NOs people chat in the pews about banal worldly things. The focal point of a TLM church is the high back altar/tabernacle - Christ. The focal point of a NO church is the priest, folk group, or maybe a post modern painting. If you compare the NO to the TLM and a Lutheran or Anglican service, which one does it more closely resemble?

How has this modern view of the Church served us? Have you found the Leading Indicators on a more liberal/modern website?

 

[CradleCath]

olrl.org/misc/jones_stats.shtml

This survey is getting old but I don’t see any reason to believe there’s been a change. The seminaries overall are still in decline except for those teaching the Latin Mass and more traditional in their ways.

 

[Tsuwano]

I completely agree with this observation. The TLM’s focus is on the Holy Sacrifice at Calvary. It contains many more gestures like genuflections, sign of the cross, homage to Mary and the saints, kneeling, reverence to the Blessed Sacrament, and an overall decorum of humility and praise. The Novus Ordo’s focus is on a communal supper. It is stripped of most gestures, has a informal decorum of social gathering, and more relaxed atmosphere. Before most TLMs the rosary is recited; before most NOs people chat in the pews about banal worldly things. The focal point of a TLM church is the high back altar/tabernacle - Christ. The focal point of a NO church is the priest, folk group, or maybe a post modern painting. If you compare the NO to the TLM and a Lutheran or Anglican service, which one does it more closely resemble?

How has this modern view of the Church served us? Have you found the Leading Indicators on a more liberal/modern website?

I’m very glad we can agree on some things, but of course, we also disagree on some things. I agree with some of what you’ve written concerning the TLM’s focus, but I disagree with some of what you say about the focus of the Ordinary Form of the liturgy. I think you are right when you say the TLM has a strong focus on the holy sacrifice on Calvary, sometimes, it seems to me, to the exclusion of the resurrection and the continuing presence of Jesus among his people. I think you may be right that there are more gestures often described as “holy” in use at the TLM (more genuflecting, kneeling, and such) but I think you underestimate the extent these same gestures are used in the Ordinary Form of the liturgy. Nevertheless, I think you might agree with me that all of these gestures, if done mindlessly and without awareness, are not really holy at all and serve very little function. I disagree with you opinion that the Novus Ordo Mass focuses on the liturgy as merely “a communal supper.” You did not use the word “merely,” but that seems to be the insinuation. Forgive me if I’m wrong. The Novus Ordo Mass is focused on much more than “a communal supper.” It is focused on the meal in which our Lord gave himself fully to us and established his real presence in our community until he comes again. It is the meal at which we recognize his continuing presence among us and in which we commune, not only with one another, but with God himself. If the liturgy seems to be somewhat less formal that the TLM, it may be because the joy of realizing the Lord’s presence among us is hard to stifle. It could also be because the Lord has told us that unless we genuinely love our neighbor and see the Lord in him or her, then we do not have God within us. My final comment concerns your observation, false in my opinion, that the Novus Ordo Mass finds its focal point in the priest or the folk group or what have you. It doesn’t. Indeed, I think the TLM is more focused on the priest (his vestments, his gestures, his exact words, and such) than the Novus Ordo Mass. The focal point of the Novus Ordo Mass is the altar of the Lord around which the community gathers to reenact the sacrifice of the Lord and celebrate his resurrection. Of course, not every liturgy fully reflects the theology which animates it. This is true of both the TLM (where too much focus may be placed on meaningless gesture and rote recital) as well as on the Novus Ordo (where a sense of informality may indeed distract us from what is happening on the altar). This simply reminds us that we are human and, in the final analysis it is the Lord himself, who has perfected our liturgical sacrifice to the Father.

 

[Ockham]

Check the numbers listed above. What is missing is the percentage of Catholics believing in the Real Presence. Take off the sixties rose coloured glasses at look honestly and objectively at the fruits of the NO Mass and Spirit Of Vatican II.

A Spirit Of Vatican II clamshell architecture church has the tabernacle to the side or in the back. The priest’s chair is often raised and in the centre of the santuary, thus making it the focal point.

I’m glad the NO satisfies your spiritual needs. The numbers suggest the majority of Catholics stay home Sunday morning. As the NO was the only form offered to most I’m going out on a limb and suggesting there is a definite correlation.

 

[pnewton]

In response to the claim that all the statistical news is bad:

“Number of Catholics on the rise in Africa, unchanged in rest of world”

catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=9316

and

teachingaboutreligion.org/Demographics/map_demographics.htm

In response to the claim that Vatican II is to blame:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

A fallacy is a fallacy is a fallacy.

Statistics:

twainquotes.com/Statistics.html

Since the same people people who are use statistics that support their contentions can not even understand the basic fallacy in the way they are used, I have a difficult time accepting their ability to provide statistics with accuracy. In another thread, a poster pulled the same fallacy with a bevy of stats. When I finally found the source of the stats, it was something a personal injury lawyer came up with, yet this made it all the way to the Wall Street Journal, via some random blogger. It is a strange world we live in.

Most statistics are not worth the waste of time reading them, as then are collected via polls conducted for a purpose, flying in the face of all that science stands for. Every election year this becomes apparent. If a lawyer can get picked up by a blogger with and agenda and the end up in a national paper, we must take all this with a grain of salt. We need to return to that great Tradition of our predecesors of not trying to out-pope the Pope. This requires a humility and faith we have largely abandoned in our democratic society.

 

[Ockham]

Make an argument rather than quoting Mark Twain or listing definitions you don’t properly understand. If you dispute the Leading Indicators correlation to Vatican II that’s fine. To accuse those who see one as faulty thinkers is inaccurate and intolerant. I suppose the statistics on parish, seminary and convent closures have been made up by extremists and not to be taken seriously, right?

 

[palmas85]

Perhaps,as Diggerdomer has suggested, it was allowed back as a gesture of graciousness on the part of the Holy Father and as a prudent move to accomodate those who were bordering on separation from the Church. It could also be that the Church is seeking to reexamine some of those theologies from the pre Vatican II era to see how they may reflect the Church’s vision of itself in this present day. Please note that I did not say that those theologies were wrong or did not define the Church adequately when they were in use. I said that the Church found them inadequate in defining itself at the time of the Second Vatican Council. Personally, I still find them inadequate, but I am not the Church and I would never seek to impose my personal view over and against those who have been given the responsibility of guiding the Church by the Lord himself. Whatever the reason, the pre Vatican II Mass is permitted by the Church as an extraordinary form of the liturgy and it serves us to ask what theologies are reflected in that particular liturgy and do they reflect the Church in the present age.

Ok. So why the expansion of the Mass these days? It does appear by all standards to be thriving, even blossoming in some areas. Is it still as you said maybe to hold onto those bordering on separation from the Church? And what of the changes that the Holy Father has made in Masses that he presides at?. Yet another bone to be thrown to the crowds to keep them from schism?

I am interested in why you feel that the Traditional Mass does noty reflect the current thinking and theology of the Church.

From everything the more progressive around here tell us there was no break with tradition and no new advances or differences in theological thought brought forward at Vatican II.

In fact they tell us just the opposite. That Vatican II stood firmly on the timeless traditions and thinking of the Church.and changed nothing in the way the faith is approached, merely explained things in a more modern fashion.

You seem to be saying something completely different.

I am intrigued.

 

[pnewton]

Make an argument rather than quoting Mark Twain or listing definitions you don’t properly understand.

I did. I do.

I suppose the statistics on parish, seminary and convent closures have been made up by extremists and not to be taken seriously, right?

A person doesn’t have to be an extremist to do poor science and research. That is why good research is done blind.