Vatican II

[diggerdomer]

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?

Yes, I agree.

My experience is that most people who complain about liturgical abuses are those who are opposed to the Catholic Mass that has been the norm since Vatican II. 99% of the time I come across anyone complaining about “liturgical abuses” they are referring to what we now often call the “Ordinary Form” of the Roman Rite and they hold up the (now so-called) “Extraordinary Form” of the Roman Rite (i.e. the Missal of Pius V, or perhaps more accurately the 1962 Missal) as an example of where such abuses do not occur.

Hope this helps. Sorry for any confusion. Thanks.

 

[palmas85]

Yes, I agree.

My experience is that most people who complain about liturgical abuses are those who are opposed to the Catholic Mass that has been the norm since Vatican II. 99% of the time I come across anyone complaining about “liturgical abuses” they are referring to what we now often call the “Ordinary Form” of the Roman Rite and they hold up the (now so-called) “Extraordinary Form” of the Roman Rite (i.e. the Missal of Pius V, or perhaps more accurately the 1962 Missal) as an example of where such abuses do not occur.

Hope this helps. Sorry for any confusion. Thanks.

There could be a reason for that you know.

 

[Tsuwano]

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.

Exactly! The notion that one wouldn’t recognize the ordinary form of the liturgy as Catholic everywhere in the world is pure poppycock in my experience. I’ve attended mass in churches throughout Asia, in North America and in Europe. I have always known I was participating in a Catholic liturgy. Languages may differ and church structures may look different from what is normally seen in my home country, but the mass has always been the same and I have never had any trouble understanding what is going on. I think the myth that the TLM offers no liturgical abuse or completely met the needs of the worldwide Church before Vatican II begs the question as to why so many Bishops advocated and supported the liturgical changes brought about at the Council. They were all Freemasons seems to be the not very logical answer according to many who deny the authenticity of the Novus Ordo Mass. The changes brought about at the Second Vatican Council were a gift of the Holy Spirit, in my opinion, and have brought the Church closer to the vision Jesus had when he first called his disciples to follow him and to preach the word of God.

 

[shuzo1189]

Exactly! The notion that one wouldn’t recognize the ordinary form of the liturgy as Catholic everywhere in the world is pure poppycock in my experience. I’ve attended mass in churches throughout Asia, in North America and in Europe. I have always known I was participating in a Catholic liturgy. Languages may differ and church structures may look different from what is normally seen in my home country, but the mass has always been the same and I have never had any trouble understanding what is going on. I think the myth that the TLM offers no liturgical abuse or completely met the needs of the worldwide Church before Vatican II begs the question as to why so many Bishops advocated and supported the liturgical changes brought about at the Council. They were all Freemasons seems to be the not very logical answer according to many who deny the authenticity of the Novus Ordo Mass. The changes brought about at the Second Vatican Council were a gift of the Holy Spirit, in my opinion, and have brought the Church closer to the vision Jesus had when he first called his disciples to follow him and to preach the word of God.

But even JPII and B16 will admit that the implementation of Vatican II leaves a great deal to be desired and has caused in essence several decades of confusion among Catholics of all stripes.

If we actually followed what the documents of VII Ascribe (Gregorian as Pride of Place, ad orientam worship, Latin as the norm and vernacular if needed) I doubt there would be as much confusion and finger pointing as there is now. Its true i am heavily biased towards the TLM. I will acknowledge that the TLM has had abuses and can be abused, but the Rubrics are far stricter and do not allow the parish pastoral council to have free reign over how the mass is performed.

(Ordinary Form:Latin Mass)
youtube.com/watch?v=9EQbnGi6NCI
I imagine that if the OF was performed as above you would even have schismatic groups like the SSPX?

 

[Ockham]

For someone to claim there is no variation in the NO Mass anywhere in the world, you have to be sadly misinformed, obtuse, or pursuing ulterior motives. Investigate what goes on in some California or Austrian parishes and compare it to your own.

If I’m at a NO Mass in a foreign country I wouldn’t be able to participate due to the language barrier. If I attend a TLM I wouldn’t have this problem as the Mass would be said in the universal language of the Church.

It seems to me those who most strenuously defend the NO Mass are very quick to accuse anyone who doesn’t share their view as an extremist bordering on schism. If the NO Mass meets your spiritual needs then great. Why come into a Traditionalist forum and jump on a thread discussing Vatican II? Who is causing the division in the Church?

 

[Tsuwano]

For someone to claim there is no variation in the NO Mass anywhere in the world, you have to be sadly misinformed, obtuse, or pursuing ulterior motives. Investigate what goes on in some California or Austrian parishes and compare it to your own.

If I’m at a NO Mass in a foreign country I wouldn’t be able to participate due to the language barrier. If I attend a TLM I wouldn’t have this problem as the Mass would be said in the universal language of the Church.

It seems to me those who most strenuously defend the NO Mass are very quick to accuse anyone who doesn’t share their view as an extremist bordering on schism. If the NO Mass meets your spiritual needs then great. Why come into a Traditionalist forum and jump on a thread discussing Vatican II? Who is causing the division in the Church?

Those who do not share the Church’s view that the Novus Ordo is the ordinary form of the liturgy in use in the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, and as such, a legitimate liturgy through which the Church offers praise and thanksgiving to God and receives his grace through the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is, indeed, “an extremist bordering on schism.”

 

[Ockham]

Those who do not share the Church’s view that the Novus Ordo is the ordinary form of the liturgy in use in the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, and as such, a legitimate liturgy through which the Church offers praise and thanksgiving to God and receives his grace through the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is, indeed, “an extremist bordering on schism.”

There are those who reject the NO and Vatican II who could be described as bordering or indeed in schism. However, just because someone doesn’t appreciate the NO as much as others doesn’t mean they are outside the Church. The suggestion that everyone has to love the NO and no criticism permissable is the extremist viewpoint.

 

[wisdomseeker]

For someone to claim there is no variation in the NO Mass anywhere in the world, you have to be sadly misinformed, obtuse, or pursuing ulterior motives. Investigate what goes on in some California or Austrian parishes and compare it to your own.

If I’m at a NO Mass in a foreign country I wouldn’t be able to participate due to the language barrier. If I attend a TLM I wouldn’t have this problem as the Mass would be said in the universal language of the Church.

It seems to me those who most strenuously defend the NO Mass are very quick to accuse anyone who doesn’t share their view as an extremist bordering on schism. If the NO Mass meets your spiritual needs then great. Why come into a Traditionalist forum and jump on a thread discussing Vatican II? Who is causing the division in the Church?

this has been such a big problem. the change of language. i see many Catholics, lets say Brasil, they come here and stop going to the CC, the reason is because they cannot understand the english language. they all become evangelicals because brasil exports pastors to America to cater to portuguese speaking people. sudenly they become anti Catholic. i have seen and continue to see it… just in my area we have many evangelical congregations all full of Catholics who cannot go to Mass because they cannot understand what is being said in the Mass. it is a big problem for the Catholic Church.

 

[ncjohn]

There are those who reject the NO and Vatican II who could be described as bordering or indeed in schism. However, just because someone doesn’t appreciate the NO as much as others doesn’t mean they are outside the Church. The suggestion that everyone has to love the NO and no criticism permissable is the extremist viewpoint.

I would totally agree with what you say here, Ockham, while having to disagree with a differently-stated point of view in your previous post

Why come into a Traditionalist forum and jump on a thread discussing Vatican II? Who is causing the division in the Church?

The problem is that 99% of the time when Vatican II or the OF liturgy comes up in the Traditionalist forum it is for purposes of condemning either them or anyone who supports them. If there was a “live and let live” philosophy more like the first part of your post, I don’t think you’d find many people coming in to debate the subject. It is the attitudes of superiority and condemnation of what the Church calls its Ordinary form that will most certainly bring a spirited defense.

Both liturgies call people to worship; both contain all the elements that the Mass has always contained; and both can be, and have been, abused by those whose judgment is clouded on their role in the liturgy.

If threads are posted in the TC forum for the purpose of picking a fight or condemning Vatican II or the current liturgy, I think it’s clear where the source of division is in that case, although there are almost always reasonable people on both sides as well as those who get caught up in the heat of things and perpetuate the turmoil. Realistically, if it weren’t for the need on the part of some to continually vent on those two subjects I don’t think the TC forum would continue to exist.

I sure would love it if there could just be a cease-fire for a while and we could all just go for pizza and beer.

Peace,

 

[ncjohn]

this has been such a big problem. the change of language. i see many Catholics, lets say Brasil, they come here and stop going to the CC, the reason is because they cannot understand the english language. they all become evangelicals because brasil exports pastors to America to cater to portuguese speaking people. sudenly they become anti Catholic. i have seen and continue to see it… just in my area we have many evangelical congregations all full of Catholics who cannot go to Mass because they cannot understand what is being said in the Mass. it is a big problem for the Catholic Church.

There is a certain amount of validity to the “universal language” idea, but it is far from a perfect solution either. In the U.S. and the highly-developed countries it is less of an issue, but in the rest of the world, where illiteracy rates are very high, it is still a huge problem.

The “universal language” idea presumes that a) there are missalettes or some other form of written translation available to everybody, and that b) people are able to read them. Since a good proportion of the world is not literate and does not have written resources available to them, they would be in the dark when liturgy is in anything other than their native tongue.

Is it an issue when we go to another country? I would say less so than when it was in Latin. If one is visiting another country, it is usually either for a limited time, which would reduce the number of times where you might not be able to participate in the responses (though you would almost surely still understand what is going on at any given time). If one is in the country long-term, the need to learn the language will become important anyway.

It also doesn’t wash if the Mass is in Latin. Whether it’s in Latin or the country’s native language you’ll not be able to understand unless you know Latin. And unlike being in your own country, the translation is going to be into that country’s language so it will do you no good at all unless you can at least follow that translation, which again implies literacy.

There just isn’t an ideal solution for the language issue in the long run. I really think the acknowledgment of the literacy issue was a prime reason for the vernacular where at least everyone who spoke the language, the overwhelming majority, would have the most complete access to what was going on and the most ability to engage the the level of participation the Church was seeking. I see it overall as a “greater good” rather than a “lesser of evils” solution though I claim no infallibility on that opinion.

Peace,

 

[wisdomseeker]

There is a certain amount of validity to the “universal language” idea, but it is far from a perfect solution either. In the U.S. and the highly-developed countries it is less of an issue, but in the rest of the world, where illiteracy rates are very high, it is still a huge problem.

The “universal language” idea presumes that a) there are missalettes or some other form of written translation available to everybody, and that b) people are able to read them. Since a good proportion of the world is not literate and does not have written resources available to them, they would be in the dark when liturgy is in anything other than their native tongue.

Is it an issue when we go to another country? I would say less so than when it was in Latin. If one is visiting another country, it is usually either for a limited time, which would reduce the number of times where you might not be able to participate in the responses (though you would almost surely still understand what is going on at any given time). If one is in the country long-term, the need to learn the language will become important anyway.

It also doesn’t wash if the Mass is in Latin. Whether it’s in Latin or the country’s native language you’ll not be able to understand unless you know Latin. And unlike being in your own country, the translation is going to be into that country’s language so it will do you no good at all unless you can at least follow that translation, which again implies literacy.

There just isn’t an ideal solution for the language issue in the long run. I really think the acknowledgment of the literacy issue was a prime reason for the vernacular where at least everyone who spoke the language, the overwhelming majority, would have the most complete access to what was going on and the most ability to engage the the level of participation the Church was seeking. I see it overall as a “greater good” rather than a “lesser of evils” solution though I claim no infallibility on that opinion.

Peace,

that is it. everyone in the CC had to know and understand latin. because all were trained on them. all the responses. so if you went to europe and went to Mass obviously you would understand latin because that was the language of the Church everywhere.

it just seems to me that if VII had the purpose of ecumenism it seems it worked against the Church somehow. instead of bringing others into the CC, it chased many into the protestant and other faiths. while few came in to the Church.

 

[Aramis]

that is it. everyone in the CC had to know and understand latin. because all were trained on them. all the responses. so if you went to europe and went to Mass obviously you would understand latin because that was the language of the Church everywhere.

it just seems to me that if VII had the purpose of ecumenism it seems it worked against the Church somehow. instead of bringing others into the CC, it chased many into the protestant and other faiths. while few came in to the Church.

Wrong. If you went to certain places in the Balkans, you’d have been aware of what was happening, but not the language used nor the responses… and in many places, not even the liturgy is the same.

The Byzantines use Greek and Slavonic as Liturgical Languages, and often, the vernacular. The Melkites use Greek, Aramaic, and Arabic. The Chaldeans use Aramaic and Arabic. Etc. And the various eastern churches’ liturgies are very different, and have been so for centuries.

Further, in Dalmatia and a neighboring ecclesiastical province, the Roman Mass has been done in Church Slavonic for centuries (since before Trent), and NOT in Latin.

 

[ncjohn]

that is it. everyone in the CC had to know and understand latin. because all were trained on them. all the responses. so if you went to europe and went to Mass obviously you would understand latin because that was the language of the Church everywhere.

That might be fine if all you have to know is the couple responses that the laity make. There is a whole lot more to the Mass than that though and if one does not know the language and is either unable to read or doesn’t have a translation handy, you’re left out in the cold as much of the world was. What you end up with then is exactly what we had, and a major reason for the changes: people sitting in the pews as spectators at best or doing other things like rosaries and holy cards instead of praying the Mass.

 

[pnewton]

That might be fine if all you have to know is the couple responses that the laity make.

Even that which is said lacks depth if it is not understand. I have sung the Tantum Ergo for years and have no idea the translation or what half the words mean.

 

[palmas85]

Even that which is said lacks depth if it is not understand. I have sung the Tantum Ergo for years and have no idea the translation or what half the words mean.

That my friend is completely and totally on you.

 

[pnewton]

That my friend is completely and totally on you.

And?

Do you think I am unique in this or do you think most Catholics in the past knew the translation of “genitoque”? People really can memorize phrases without knowing the meanings. The fact that people can recite Latin phrases is no evidence at all that they know what they mean. The argument that people knew all about Mass in Latin in the past because they can recite the words is flawed logic.

 

[Tsuwano]

There are those who reject the NO and Vatican II who could be described as bordering or indeed in schism. However, just because someone doesn’t appreciate the NO as much as others doesn’t mean they are outside the Church. The suggestion that everyone has to love the NO and no criticism permissable is the extremist viewpoint.

Agreed. I for one have never suggested that everyone should love the Novus Ordo Mass or that it is not permissable to critique it. If it was impermissable to critique the ordinary form of the mass, Catholic Answers would have been shut down a long time ago.

 

[Tsuwano]

And?

Do you think I am unique in this or do you think most Catholics in the past knew the translation of “genitoque”? People really can memorize phrases without knowing the meanings. The fact that people can recite Latin phrases is no evidence at all that they know what they mean. The argument that people knew all about Mass in Latin in the past because they can recite the words is flawed logic.

No, you aren’t unique. Even seminarians had to study Latin before ordination. In many religious orders, if you weren’t able to master Latin you were encouraged to become a brother. If Latin was so easily understood by the people in the pews, why was it necessary to have classes in Latin when one entered the seminary? The truth is that Latin was not the great unifier of the Catholic Church prior to the Second Vatican Council. The great unifier of the Church liturgy, just as it has been since the Council, was always the eucharist itself.

 

[Ockham]

The great unifier of the Church liturgy, just as it has been since the Council, was always the eucharist itself.

You should check the numbers. The majority of Catholics don’t go to Mass on Sunday and the majority of the ones who do don’t believe in the Eucharist. Those are not exactly two numbers of unity now are they?

 

[palmas85]

And?

Do you think I am unique in this or do you think most Catholics in the past knew the translation of “genitoque”? People really can memorize phrases without knowing the meanings. The fact that people can recite Latin phrases is no evidence at all that they know what they mean. The argument that people knew all about Mass in Latin in the past because they can recite the words is flawed logic.

No, but what I think is that if someone is truly interested in something they will take the time to learn it. Thats all. The common, apparently idea, that we just parroted the responses is hogwash.Some people did. No doubt. Most did not.

I was among that group. But then again, since we had translations of everything readily available it wasn’t that difficult. And I apparently unlike many, actually wanted to know what was being said.