Vatican II

[Ockham]

I sometimes feel like we’re a bunch of little kids who need to feel like “God loves me better”. If we can grow up just a little and be able to civilly recognize that God loves all of us infinitely maybe we can get by the need to keep playing comparison games. I’ve met some wonderful traditionalists who have no problem at all ceding me my preferences as I do for them. If we all did that instead of bickering I think we would see the Church grow again instead of driving people away in disgust and confusion.

Peace,

I don’t believe it is a question of who God loves better. It’s a question of how much reverence we show God at Mass and the effect that has on the individual and the flock as a whole. Hopefully your NO congregation is reverent and spiritual. Unfortunately, most NO congregations I’ve been to are more focused on the social aspect of worship than the sacred. This worries me as I perceive it as a Protestant feature which over time will undermine the Church’s foundation.

Every post-V2 pope needs to speak well of the NO as we’re stuck with it for now. However, it is simply not true that it shares equal dignity, reverence, devotion, and awe with the TLM. Twice a month I attend a NO Mass at eleven and a TLM at one. The first is a communal supper and the second is a Holy Sacrifice. It’s that clear cut. I’m not judging you for your preference but I won’t go along with the concept of equality.

It’s unfortunate you have such bad memories of the pre-V2 TLM. Your priest had a drinking problem - he was an alcoholic. He’d have been intoxicated at either form. His personal demons is in no way a proof of the legitimacy of any liturgical issue. If it was then an alcoholic lawyer would cast doubt on the legitimacy of the law, a doctor the medical field, an athlete the sport, etc.

There is a significant relevance to the purpose of externals in relation to the internal. How we worship is how we believe. Depending on which survey you use, an alarming percentage of Catholics don’t believe in the Real Presence. I’m willing to bet one hundred percent of any TLM congregation doesn’t have that problem. Correlation? You bet.

Yes, clamshell church architecture is a pet peeve of mine. It removes Christ as the focal point and makes the priest, the mortal, the centre of attention. Like you I have bad memories of my days as an altar server, seated at the centre of a clamshell, with all eyes on me instead of Christ. Tabernacles are moved to the back in many churches ("they have taken the Lord from the tomb and we don’t know where they put him: John 20: 2-3). We should go to church to worship the Lord, not look around at everyone else with worldly distractions entering our minds.

There may have been slight differences in ethnic pre-V2 parishes, but the essential concept was universality. Being Catholic should mean being able to walk into Mass in California, Russia, Australia, China, or anywhere else and be able to participate in the liturgy. The TLM makes that possible, the NO doesn’t. Jesus asked us to be one flock, one Church, one teaching. Our liturgy should be a reflection of that.

Perhaps traditionalist resentment would subside if a TLM was offered in every parish at a convenient time. I live in an area of 500,000 people and there is only one TLM offered at one parish at one o’clock on most Sundays. If it is an equal form of liturgy then why isn’t it given equal time?

 

[ncjohn]

Every post-V2 pope needs to speak well of the NO as we’re stuck with it for now. However, it is simply not true that it shares equal dignity, reverence, devotion, and awe with the TLM. Twice a month I attend a NO Mass at eleven and a TLM at one. The first is a communal supper and the second is a Holy Sacrifice. It’s that clear cut. I’m not judging you for your preference but I won’t go along with the concept of equality.

That is really unfortunate since it is the stated position of the Church that they share equal dignity. You are certainly welcome to feel that your liturgy seems more reverent to you, but to claim that to be objectively true is just not the case. And both, by the consistent teaching of the Church, are both meal and sacrifice.

It’s unfortunate you have such bad memories of the pre-V2 TLM. Your priest had a drinking problem - he was an alcoholic. He’d have been intoxicated at either form. His personal demons is in no way a proof of the legitimacy of any liturgical issue. If it was then an alcoholic lawyer would cast doubt on the legitimacy of the law, a doctor the medical field, an athlete the sport, etc.

No, I’m not judging the TLM by one priest in one parish. That was a single example. I quite frankly can’t remember a single positive experience with the TLM in all of my years of attending and serving at them. I am not condemning it in any way, or judging anyone else preferring it, simply stating my own experience. I have several good friends with very different experience. My own mother, if she was able to get to Mass any more, would greatly prefer to go back to a TLM.

There is a significant relevance to the purpose of externals in relation to the internal. How we worship is how we believe.

With this I totally, 100% disagree. The externals may indeed reflect something, and as I stated previously we are indeed affected by them, but HOW we are affected varies tremendously from person to person. The focus on externals is one of the biggest issues I really do have with many traditionalists. While I certainly don’t make any judgments, having no ability to judge anyone’s interior disposition, it comes across as “holier than thou” piety to a great many people. How I worship and how I believe has absolutely nothing to do with the externals of the environment. I may be more or less distracted by them, just as I may be by a really good or bad choir or selection of music, but it doesn’t affect–or reflect–my interior disposition one bit. Signs and symbols are important, don’t get me wrong. But they are only fingers pointing to the moon; they are not the moon.

Yes, clamshell church architecture is a pet peeve of mine. It removes Christ as the focal point and makes the priest, the mortal, the centre of attention. Like you I have bad memories of my days as an altar server, seated at the centre of a clamshell, with all eyes on me instead of Christ.

I assume you’re addressing a shape of the church. I can’t imagine that being any different than the old straight down the aisle situation though. No matter what, the focus is on the altar area, where the priest and servers are. If someone is going to be distracted into looking at them, or at someone else, I just don’t see the shape making a difference. But like anything else, once something is a distraction, as this clearly is for you, it will be a distraction as long as it exists unless you find a way to overcome it.

Perhaps traditionalist resentment would subside if a TLM was offered in every parish at a convenient time.

Had this existed from the beginning this might be the case. As it is now, I think it will take years to subside unless the Church is proactive in trying to quell the division. The bigger problem though is that I see far too many that share your opinion that the TLM is just objectively superior. As long as that is the case the bickering will continue because of the attitude that almost cannot be avoided when one thinks they have something superior. By definition that makes the other side inferior and those associated with it will suffer being concurrently judged inferior.

I once heard it stated very succinctly, which I thought quite on the money from my experience though I keep working and praying to help change things. The statement was that the traditionalists aren’t at all interested in equality or even to be left alone. What they really want is their foot on the neck of the post-Vatican II Church until they see it gasp its last breath. If that’s the case, the Church will continue to decline and drive people away. I keep hoping though that that is just the opinion of a vocal minority and not the vision of the bulk of the quiet people in the pews. I know there is a fringe element of progressives that can make it seem like anyone who prefers the Pauline Mass is some kind of modernist, but the vast majority of people in the pews have no antagonism toward the TLM or traditionalists as long as they aren’t being judged for their own preferences.

It’s a shame that we have to look more Israelis fighting Palestinians than fellow Catholics.

Peace,

 

[Ockham]

What they really want is their foot on the neck of the post-Vatican II Church until they see it gasp its last breath. If that’s the case, the Church will continue to decline and drive people away.

If you check the leading indicators, it isn’t traditionalists that are driving people away from the Church, it is the modernist irrelevance through all the ‘spirit of Vatican II’ changes like, ahem, a watered down liturgy.

My working theory is that actively engaged NO Mass participants such as yourself are just as reverent as anyone else. Who I am worried about is that less engaged, perhaps apatheic church goer who is influenced by externals. When you take away the reverence and ritual of the Mass, put them in a clamshell church, remove the tabernacle, sing “glory and praise” hymns, put the emphasis on personality instead of God, use EMHCs to distribute Communion in the hand while standing, why are we surprised they stop coming to Mass or stop believing in the Real Presence?

We can learn something from our Protestant friends. Once the liturgy loses relevance the fragmenting starts. There is one Catholic Church; there are thirty thousand Protestant off-shoots and countless individual Christians not afflilated. Our liturgy keeps us together. The NO variations push us apart. This thread doesn’t appear in the “Modernist” forum. We’d be better off if NO supporters accepted the differences in liturgy, encouraged each parish to celebrate a TLM each Sunday, and pray for the best.

 

[shuzo1189]

If you check the leading indicators, it isn’t traditionalists that are driving people away from the Church, it is the modernist irrelevance through all the ‘spirit of Vatican II’ changes like, ahem, a watered down liturgy.

Indeed, I believe the FSSP actually has a Waiting list for new seminarians

The EF has quite an enchanting power over us wild youth’s

 

[Ockham]

Indeed, I believe the FSSP actually has a Waiting list for new seminarians

The EF has quite an enchanting power over us wild youth’s

Very true. I believe that if I had grown up with the TLM I’d be a priest right now.

 

[palmas85]

That is really unfortunate since it is the stated position of the Church that they share equal dignity. You are certainly welcome to feel that your liturgy seems more reverent to you, but to claim that to be objectively true is just not the case. And both, by the consistent teaching of the Church, are both meal and sacrifice.
No, I’m not judging the TLM by one priest in one parish. That was a single example. I quite frankly can’t remember a single positive experience with the TLM in all of my years of attending and serving at them. I am not condemning it in any way, or judging anyone else preferring it, simply stating my own experience. I have several good friends with very different experience. My own mother, if she was able to get to Mass any more, would greatly prefer to go back to a TLM.
With this I totally, 100% disagree. The externals may indeed reflect something, and as I stated previously we are indeed affected by them, but HOW we are affected varies tremendously from person to person. The focus on externals is one of the biggest issues I really do have with many traditionalists. While I certainly don’t make any judgments, having no ability to judge anyone’s interior disposition, it comes across as “holier than thou” piety to a great many people. How I worship and how I believe has absolutely nothing to do with the externals of the environment. I may be more or less distracted by them, just as I may be by a really good or bad choir or selection of music, but it doesn’t affect–or reflect–my interior disposition one bit. Signs and symbols are important, don’t get me wrong. But they are only fingers pointing to the moon; they are not the moon.
I assume you’re addressing a shape of the church. I can’t imagine that being any different than the old straight down the aisle situation though. No matter what, the focus is on the altar area, where the priest and servers are. If someone is going to be distracted into looking at them, or at someone else, I just don’t see the shape making a difference. But like anything else, once something is a distraction, as this clearly is for you, it will be a distraction as long as it exists unless you find a way to overcome it.

Had this existed from the beginning this might be the case. As it is now, I think it will take years to subside unless the Church is proactive in trying to quell the division. The bigger problem though is that I see far too many that share your opinion that the TLM is just objectively superior. As long as that is the case the bickering will continue because of the attitude that almost cannot be avoided when one thinks they have something superior. By definition that makes the other side inferior and those associated with it will suffer being concurrently judged inferior.

I once heard it stated very succinctly, which I thought quite on the money from my experience though I keep working and praying to help change things. The statement was that the traditionalists aren’t at all interested in equality or even to be left alone. What they really want is their foot on the neck of the post-Vatican II Church until they see it gasp its last breath. If that’s the case, the Church will continue to decline and drive people away. I keep hoping though that that is just the opinion of a vocal minority and not the vision of the bulk of the quiet people in the pews. I know there is a fringe element of progressives that can make it seem like anyone who prefers the Pauline Mass is some kind of modernist, but the vast majority of people in the pews have no antagonism toward the TLM or traditionalists as long as they aren’t being judged for their own preferences.

It’s a shame that we have to look more Israelis fighting Palestinians than fellow Catholics.

Peace,

Well, the simple plain fact that the Traditional Mass survived, thrived even and blossomed under the repressive tactics of more than a few Bishops, Priests and yes, laity, speaks volumes.

Volumes. There must be a reason that so many people are attracted to it, and why so many progressives want it totally eliminated or shunted off to some forgotten chapel on the outskirts of town.

I truly believe that had the Pauline Mass been introduced in a better more coherant way and conducted with the same dignity and reverence as the Traditional, there would not have been a need for the Traditional to survive in the first place.

BUT IT DIDN’T HAPPEN THAT WAY

Not by a long shot. And the fact that now, fifty years later people, including the Holy Father are starting to say, hey maybe we need to do a few things to get this thing back on track would seem to prove that. I seriously doubt that the Holy Father would have taken the actions that he has taken if he thought that all was well with the Pauline. There would have been no reason to. None whatsoever.

You reap what you sow. The people wanted something comfortable and pliant and adaptable and above all user friendly. They got it. And now the Traditional Mass is making a huge comeback.

Wonder why?

 

[Aramis]

Very true. I believe that if I had grown up with the TLM I’d be a priest right now.

If I’d grown up with the TLM only, I’d be Russian Orthodox right now.

Fortunately, I had some youthful experiences with the Ruthenian DL of St. John.

 

[ncjohn]

I truly believe that had the Pauline Mass been introduced in a better more coherant way and conducted with the same dignity and reverence as the Traditional, there would not have been a need for the Traditional to survive in the first place.

I can’t disagree with you Palmas. I know that you, like brotherhrolf, had positive experiences at the same time I was having my negative ones. You guys apparently got the reverent, dignified Mass while I was getting the crumbs. I know that I was not alone in my experience, but I’ve also had lots of discussions with people who shared your experience and know that it too was real. Then, as now, it was a mixed bag.

I’m quite sure there was never any expectation of the Pauline Mass taking on the negative things it did run into through the years. And I agree that had that been the case the TLM would have eventually faded out as I’m pretty sure they anticipated it would. I’m not at all surprised though, with much of what has gone on, so many were in fact turned off and went back the other direction.

That being said, there are still a great number of very reverent Pauline Masses out there. Of course they’re not the ones we’ll hear about as good news doesn’t sell papers, but I have personally run into very few real abuses in my many years and extensive travel through different areas. Unfortunately those “bad apples” that do exist are indeed ruining the whole bushel.

I for one am glad to see both options available and just can’t agree that that is the issue as Ockham feels. In the end, with the slow but steady work that the Pope and the CDW are doing, I think we’ll see the Pauline Mass in the form it was really intended. I just hope that the rancor between the two preferences can similarly be contained and turned around. That people who really care about the Church as we do should be at odds is just truly sad. And whatever differences we may have in liturgical preference, I have the greatest respect for you and others who continue to try to uphold the Church despite its struggles and despite having been on the fuzzy end of the lollipop for so long.

Peace,

 

[Ockham]

John, I’m not holding any rancor towards the NO, however I’ll agree with you that I feel it is inferior in reverence. Isn’t reverence exactly what we should be doing in church?

I hope the NO does regain its original reverence globally and the TLM is offered equally in every parish.

 

[TRUTH1960]

THE ANSWER FOR THAT IS to MAKE THE LINK:

1. Secret of Fatima to be revealed in 1960 as requested by Our Most Blessed Mother Mary
2. The signs and sybols on the one dollar bill related to the freemasons and like

NOVOS ORDO SECLORUM’ = New nonreligious Order on the dollar bill

NOVOS ORDO MASS

see the link!!!

1. The Freemasons and John xxiii who was elected in 1958
2. Sister Lucy’s last interview had a last interview by Father Fuentes in 1957
3. Then sister Lucy was not to receive contact with anyone.
4. 1960 spiritual director of sister Lucy for 20 yrs forbidden to see her anymore, during his return to Portugal
5. Different sister Lucy pictures pops up in the 80’s. If you need proof just look at the dentist’s and doctor’s comments and pictures related:
   traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/g11htTwoSisterLucys_Horvat.htm
6. Death of John xxiii in in 1963
7. Vatcan council ii was done during 1962-1965
8. One of the most important moto of Vatican ii: Eucenimism in contradiction to scriptures itself

2 St. John Verse 9-10 : 9 Anyone who advances and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ has not God; he who abides in the doctrine, he has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house, or say to him, Welcome"

1. Need proof about John xiii, take a look at the pictures:

mostholyfamilymonastery.com/John23.html

1. How about the big ecunumical event at Assissi that would sti Saint Francis up!:

John Paul ii which vatican ii is about to canonized can be seen in these pictures:
mostholyfamilymonastery.com/new_JP2_photos.php

1. And also don’t forget the big scandal of the vatican bank linked to the Freemasons in 1982

.After the Vatican Bank scandal erupted in the early 1980’s, French and Italian news publications listed the names of more than 150 high ranking bishops, archbishops and cardinals who were active members of Freemasonry, including the P2 Masonic Lodge and other dark and sinister secret societies.

“did the enemy sow the weed , while the master was sleeping?”

Vatican ii offers total different principles from the True Catholic Church we had for centuries.

If you look at the important years here the 1960’ etc, you will see the link and understand why Our Blessed Mother asked for the secret to be revealed in 1960.

1. also did you know that John xiii did not refused to reveal the secret as required by Our Blessed Mother in 1960. Why is that??? What was the secret about that the Freemasons helped by John xxiii had to bury it??? Why was the True sister Lucy put away.

If you need proof, you are welcome to email me and can give you more evidence…This is not a joke, this is the truth!!!

WE ARE NOT TRADDITIONALIST BUT TRUE CATHOLICS THAT BELIEVE IN THE TRUE CHURCH, NOT THE VATICAN II CHURCH… WE ARE TALKING ABOUT MAJOR DIFFERENCE HERE!!!

" Let those who have ears hear and those who have eyes see"

 

[ncjohn]

John, I’m not holding any rancor towards the NO, however I’ll agree with you that I feel it is inferior in reverence. Isn’t reverence exactly what we should be doing in church?

I hope the NO does regain its original reverence globally and the TLM is offered equally in every parish.

I can fully agree with you that you can find Pauline Masses that would seem to lack in reverence, especially since reverence is in many ways subjective. Reverence is an interior disposition that is hard to define and hard to perceive with any objective clarity. What looks like reverence to one person looks like sterility or even pretension to another. One will tend to perceive it when it “looks” like how we perceive it should look, while overlooking it when it looks different from what we expect. And to be truthful, I’m totally sure that there are some Pauline Masses out there that would lack reverence under almost anyone’s definition, though that doesn’t at all mean that there aren’t still very devoted people in attendance.

I think we do share a hope that things will indeed improve rather than either of us hoping the other gets squashed. And I count that as hopeful indeed and feel like maybe we could even be on the same side in trying to calm the tensions that have been brewing.

I appreciate the exchange. You’ve been a gentleman even in the things we’ve disagreed on.

Peace,

 

[Tsuwano]

Very true. I believe that if I had grown up with the TLM I’d be a priest right now.

That may be, but you would probably also be waiting for the Second Vatican Council to begin. Vatican II was a movement of the Holy Spirit within the Church and the changes brought about were also of the Holy Spirit, including the greater use of the venacular language in the liturgy and the greater theological emphasis on the people of God as a place of God’s dwelling. If the Second Vatican Council had not taken place when it did, it would have taken place shortly afterwards or we would be preparing to hold it now.

 

[diggerdomer]

There may have been slight differences in ethnic pre-V2 parishes, but the essential concept was universality. Being Catholic should mean being able to walk into Mass in California, Russia, Australia, China, or anywhere else and be able to participate in the liturgy. The TLM makes that possible, the NO doesn’t.

I have no idea how you could claim that is true. Anyone participating in the NO is participating in the NO, across the world, just as anyone participating in the so-called TLM is participating in the TLM, across the world.

 

[Malkin71]

I have no idea how you could claim that is true. Anyone participating in the NO is participating in the NO, across the world, just as anyone participating in the so-called TLM is participating in the TLM, across the world.

What I do believe he means is, when participating in a TLM across the world the Mass is said in Latin and has strict ruberics. Meaning you know what is going on during Mass, weather it is in America, France, Poland, Spain, etc… The only part that is different is the Epistle, The Gospel, is said in the local languages as well as Latin. The Homily is said in the local languages.

In the O.F. Mass is said in the local language depending on where you are. Polish, French, English, Italian, Spanish, etc… Also the O.F. does not have strict ruberics. So that is why it is not immune to Liturgical abuses.

 

[diggerdomer]

What I do believe he means is, when participating in a TLM across the world the Mass is said in Latin and has strict ruberics. Meaning you know what is going on during Mass, weather it is in America, France, Poland, Spain, etc… The only part that is different is the Epistle, The Gospel, is said in the local languages as well as Latin. The Homily is said in the local languages.

In the O.F. Mass is said in the local language depending on where you are. Polish, French, English, Italian, Spanish, etc… Also the O.F. does not have strict ruberics. So that is why it is not immune to Liturgical abuses.

Nope.

The “OF” has strict rubrics. Both forms are susceptible to liturgical abuses. I know what is going on in the OF as you call it no matter where I am, what language, etc. whether it is in America, France, Poalnd, Spain, etc. The only part that is different is the language.

 

[palmas85]

Nope.

The “OF” has strict rubrics. Both forms are susceptible to liturgical abuses. I know what is going on in the OF as you call it no matter where I am, what language, etc. whether it is in America, France, Poalnd, Spain, etc. The only part that is different is the language.

In a perfect world you would be correct. However this is not a perfect world, and as long as you have liturgical committees trying to make the Mass more appealing, relevent and who knows what else, and Priests who want and need to be the center of attention, then you are never going to know exactly what you will find at any given time.

 

[diggerdomer]

In a perfect world you would be correct. However this is not a perfect world, and as long as you have liturgical committees trying to make the Mass more appealing, relevent and who knows what else, and Priests who want and need to be the center of attention, then you are never going to know exactly what you will find at any given time.

Yep. And this applies to all liturgy, right? Not just one “form” or “Rite”?

 

[palmas85]

Yep. And this applies to all liturgy, right? Not just one “form” or “Rite”?

Yes, all liturgy, why?

 

[diggerdomer]

Yes, all liturgy, why?

I thought (and please correct me if I’m wrong) that you were pointing out “abuses” that can occur when liturgical norms are not properly followed. I just wanted to ask, if my perception was correct, whether or not anyone was restricting this potential to only ONE liturgical form or Rite.

 

[palmas85]

I thought (and please correct me if I’m wrong) that you were pointing out “abuses” that can occur when liturgical norms are not properly followed. I just wanted to ask, if my perception was correct, whether or not anyone was restricting this potential to only ONE liturgical form or Rite.

I was indeed pointing out why at least in my own experiences abuses, often pretty bad have occurred. I placed no restriction on which form or rite this applied to. Why would you think there was such a restriction? Abuses in the Mass are abuses and must be corrected and condemned. In the strongest possible language.

Wouldn’t you agree with that?