Wanting to understand the pre-Vatican II Church

[neiacatholic]

I was being sarcastic! ! !

I don’t blame Vatican II for any of the churches problems.

But it seems that is what most people do blame every single issue on.

The world was changing ever since WWII and the church also had to change.

I believe Vatican II was a blessing for the church and if people would quit wanting to go backwards and move forwards – we would all be better off.

 

[newearth]

jesus in plain words gave us the prayer to say when we pray to him. the lords prayer. and told us the words to say in the prayer… the changes in the church changed that . the creed was changed. the mass was changed. where part of it the priest talks about just anything thats on his mind just like non catholic churches do. all the changes to make the catholic church more inviting to non catholics. my point is how is the changes leeding non catholics to the true church founded by god the son himself. when the ways befor the changes are omited and put aside and replaced what non catholics allready know from there church. and the king james bible. which removed 7 books found only in the origional roman catholic bible like the douay rheems. i saw in the kng james bible some text that shows god as saying that jesus is a friend of god… thats wrong… jesus is god the son in the trinity. how can that bible be accepted reading… with truths missing… and text in it that shows you what god is suposed to be saying… and i dont see the part of the mass where we say the confeter any more… you know… (i confess to god and all the saints that i have sinnd)) ect… and the real reason for these changes is because of prosecution of the church from the non catholic churches complaining the roman catholic church is to strict and set in its ways as the only true appostilic church… which accused the roman catholic church of roman catholicisum… is it still the only true church?/ by changing its prayers that god and the saints showed us. which are changed… kids not born yet when they come will never know what some of gods words were… because some was changed or removed…

 

[newearth]

i want to add to my last post… man has no right to change the meening or words of prayer and scripture. in order to keep up with the times… thats a lie. to use as a excuse for the changes… this is gods words and church were talking about. dont you think he knows that. when he gave us his words… dont you think peter knew this. who built the first roman catholic church. this is saint peter were talking… the first pope.
i think vatacan 2 is wrong. oh nuthings changed they say. like mans words in the bible to explain gods words… oh nuthings taken out they say… like the book of enoch… removed by the cannon. and as the church changes so will what tomorrows kids will believe… does this site have a option of voiceing my opinion to the pope. even he sees the change in the church as not good.

 

[neiacatholic]

Where do you think these prayers came from?

Do you think that Jesus wrote them all out before he ascended into heaven.

They have been written and changed throughout the ages.

There is nothing wrong with changing prayers.

You can blame Vatican II for all the problems in the Church if you so choose.

But the Church has been through worse times than this – and even despite those who want to return to the glory days of Catholicism – whenever that was – the Church will go one – and will continue to make a positive impact in people’s lives.

Even though many on here want you to believe otherwise.

 

[alforo]

Such a statement is without foundation. Please explain how Vatican II created the following:

1960 The Pill.

1966 The radical National Organization for Women is founded.

1968 Pope Paul VI has Humanae Vitae published, encouraging Catholics to avoid the temptation of The Pill and other forms of artificial birth control. He lays out the consequences, including increased promiscuity. His warning is drowned out by the Hippies.

1969 The movie Bob, Carol, Ted & Alice introduces viewers to wife swapping.

1973 Abortion legalized by the Supreme Court.

1973 Homosexuality is removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual by nonscientific vote.

1970s Adult Bookstores take people beyond nudity and offer graphic photos of prostitutes. They are backed by organized crime and judges and lawyers who claim ‘freedom of speech,’ freedom of the press,’ and the protection of the First Amendment (which they never receive). Topless bars and strip clubs appear.

1980s Porn on cable designed to be outside the control of the FCC. And in motels. TV begins its slide into depicting graphic dysfunctional behavior. A women drinking liquor straight from the bottle while driving.

1980s No-Fault Divorce completes its sweep of the country. Lawyers are the primary beneficiaries. “No kids? $75 and you’re out.”

1990s Thanks to NOW which created the fertile ground of mistrust and suspicion between women and ‘male chauvenist pigs,’ divorce rates increase. What is left in the '90s are parts of families. The pain felt by the wife, the husband, the children, the In-Laws. Church parking lots empty and mall parking lots fill up.

Shock jocks appear on the radio talking filth and interviewing prostitutes. Partial nudity and profanity appears on ABC. Then, the internet becomes the world’s biggest purveyor of porn 24/7.

In the background are organized and corrupt individuals who legalized all this. There are more porn addicts, and more TV addicts.

The 2000s usher in an assault on religion in general and Christianity in particular. The fruits of the decisions of lawyers, judges and organized crime are here for all to see.

Peace,
Ed

No, the council did not directly institute these unfortunate developments in society. However, the council, while not actually mandating, did encourage permissiveness, experimentation, innovation and relativism each of which had a direct effect on the thinking of the people that led directly to acceptance, or at least not effectively suppressing, these deleterious consequences.

 

[Lamafacaja]

I was being sarcastic! ! !

I don’t blame Vatican II for any of the churches problems.

But it seems that is what most people do blame every single issue on.

The world was changing ever since WWII and the church also had to change.

I believe Vatican II was a blessing for the church and if people would quit wanting to go backwards and move forwards – we would all be better off.

Tradition isn’t about going backwards, as you suggest. Tradition is about moving forwards with what is sacred, it’s moving forwards with what is good and important and holy and worth keeping for us as Catholics. I wouldn’t want to go backwards.

What do I remember about the pre-VII church? Not a lot. I was a baby when the changes hit. But many of my contemporaries from that generation, the ones I went to Catholic school with were all lost to the Faith, including myself for a good long while there.

 

[edwest2]

No, the council did not directly institute these unfortunate developments in society. However, the council, while not actually mandating, did encourage permissiveness, experimentation, innovation and relativism each of which had a direct effect on the thinking of the people that led directly to acceptance, or at least not effectively suppressing, these deleterious consequences.

Relativism? Please. I was there the day before and the day after Vatican II. I did not become less Catholic. My mind didn’t turn to sinful thoughts.

One day, I woke up to something. Colorfully dressed people in my neighborhood with peace symbols and jackets with large A patches on the shoulders, and sit-ins and love ins. And Woodstock with naked people rolling in the mud.

What was the Church going to suppress?

Consequences? Of what? The Legalization of Sin? To this day, Catholics and other Christians are protesting against the Supreme Court decision of 1973.

Who was selling dope? The Church? No, I saw it sold out of private homes in nickel bags. And a Head Shop opened in my neighborhood selling stuff for Dope Heads like roach clips. So you could smoke your joint without getting your fingers burned.

And those underground newspapers in those head shops. Intro to Anarchy 101 and general disobedience.

If anything, some Catholics were guilty of naivete. Not knowing that we were being lied to and being led down the flower child lined path to sin.

The Beatles sang, Love, Love, Love but it was really, Sex, Sex, Sex. John and Yoko even posed nude as a bad example to others.

Get it straight. Only a few years previous, people watched Ozzie & Harriet, then they were introduced to Ozzy Osbourne.

At the time, we could not see just how bad it would get. At first, it seemed odd, at times outrageous and a little risque but most of us thought it was not that bad, including me, at first.

We were constantly bombarded by so-called intellectuals who told us we needed to be free, to express ourselves and other things without realizing they might be leading us astray in the process. Remember, this was a time when trust extended to almost everything in the country. Our trust in others was abused and our compassion for others was taken advantage of. These two factors allowed the enemy to get within striking distance. Some decided to give sin a try. The Church certainly was not doing this.

Peace,
Ed

 

[newearth]

did somone here say leeding astray?..
i cant find the lords prayer on the internet befor it was changed. as for misinformed i was there and saw the changes around 1965. the church was not allowed to interact with other non catholic churches. this was the rule all the way to vatican 2. now roman catholic church and non catholic churches are interacting in scripture like the king james bible in place of the roman catholic bible as accepted reading of scripture. with changes …
yes there have ben changes from way back like the removal of the book of enoch which was not suposed to be removed the fact is people…man decided this book is not good reading or the king james in place of the true bible is accepted reading. the point is this is not what god intended and what we read and believe is partly from the changes of man.
we ARE being led astray.

 

[reggieM]

No, the council did not directly institute these unfortunate developments in society.

That is a very good start. The Church did not directly institute hard-core pornographic television, topless bars and legalized abortion.

However, the council, while not actually mandating, did encourage permissiveness, experimentation, innovation and relativism each of which had a direct effect on the thinking of the people that led directly to acceptance, or at least not effectively suppressing, these deleterious consequences.

This, however, lacks precision and the logic is inconsistent with your previous view.
I think we should slow it down a bit, and look more carefully and reflectively. Otherwise, there is the risk of rash statements being published in a public forum – which can lead people into more confusion.

The Council, “while not actually mandating” …

Ok, you qualify the term “mandating” with the word “actually”.
You now imply that the Council “sort of” mandated topless bars. It didn’t “actually” mandate them BUT it “did encourage” …

So, the Council encouraged things that … “led directly” … to legalized abortion.

What were these things that “led directly”?

First, we have “permissiveness” – a term that is found nowhere in the Conciliar Documents. And the claim is that the Council “encouraged permissiveness”.

Some might stop here and simply conclude that you are a liar. But I feel that you’re just exaggerating to make a point – and that exaggeration and false claim is caused by a personal reaction to what you’ve seen and concluded.

Second, we have “experimentation” – this word found once Conciliar documents.

“However, to establish the norms of adaptation and renewal, to embody it in legislation as well as to make allowance for **adequate and prudent **experimentation belongs only to the competent authorities, especially to general chapters.”

So, we have “prudent experimentation”, which must emerge from “the competent authorities”. And this, you claim, “led directly” to the acceptance of pornography, divorce and abortion.

For the record, the Church has always permitted experimentation in some very serious matters including the founding of religious orders, the composition of rules for such orders (observe St. Francis’ experimentations with organizational policies), methods of prayer and meditation, liturgical music and art … the list can go on.
But you have it that experimentation is, by nature, evil enough to lead directly to societal collapse.

Third, we have “innovation” – again, a term used just once:

“Finally, there must be **no innovations **unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them …”

So, instead of “encouraging” innovation, the Council actually states that there are to be “no innovations”. The following clause demands that only if there is a “genuine requirement” can there be any innovation at all.
You’ve claimed here again, that this “led directly”, etc. as we’ve seen.

Finally, you claim that the Council encouraged “relativism”.
This term is not found in the Council’s documents.

 

[bobrec]

Oh brother, The Sign of Peace turned me into a reprobate.

The Catholic community goes to Mass, not individuals. The more we acknowledge each other, the less likely we’ll turn into people who are isolated as Catholics.

Peace,
Ed

No one thinks you are a reprobate, Ed. We’re all friends here, we just don’t see eye to eye.

In your last two sentences you’ve found the sticking point in the argument between proponents of the Novis Ordo and the Tridentine Mass.

The former consider the mass a social event. The latter, like myself, see it as a chance to privately and personally experience Christ’s sacrifice on the cross.

My opinion; whatever that’s worth.

Pax vobiscum.

 

[jeanannemarie]

Thank you, Malleus 01 for explaining in post 116 about Mother Teresa and communion in the hand. I am glad to know what she thought.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Well, the culture didn’t tell us to throw out the statues and stained glass, stop teaching the faith in homilies, completely alter an ancient liturgy, throw out the altars, abandon our musical heritage, and desacralize our art and architecture. These are the most immediate and proximate effects for Catholics, and apparently they happened quite suddenly.

Cardinal Ottaviani prophetically warned (and obviously he knew the Church prior to Vatican II):

"1. The accompanying critical study of the Novus Ordo Missae, the work of a group of theologians, liturgists and pastors of souls, shows quite clearly in spite of its brevity that if we consider the innovations implied or taken for granted which may of course be evaluated in different ways, the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The “canons” of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery.

1. The pastoral reasons adduced to support such a grave break with tradition, even if such reasons could be regarded as holding good in the face of doctrinal considerations, do not seem to us sufficient. The innovations in the Novus Ordo and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place, if it subsists at all, could well turn into a certainty the suspicions already prevalent, alas, in many circles, that truths which have always been believed by the Christian people, can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic faith is bound for ever. Recent reforms have amply demonstrated that fresh changes in the liturgy could lead to nothing but complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful who are already showing signs of restiveness and of an indubitable lessening of faith."

fisheaters.com/ottavianiintervention.html

People are going to (wrongfully) assume that if you can alter and change so much of what was previously held to be sacred and precious then perhaps all the other “stuff” (like Faith and Morals) doesn’t really apply either.

At least one can safely say that completely altering the liturgy (which was done by a specific committee and introduced changes most Bishops had no idea they were going to get) in the midst of a cultural revolution may not have been the best move we could have made.

 

[edwest2]

No one thinks you are a reprobate, Ed. We’re all friends here, we just don’t see eye to eye.

In your last two sentences you’ve found the sticking point in the argument between proponents of the Novis Ordo and the Tridentine Mass.

The former consider the mass a social event. The latter, like myself, see it as a chance to privately and personally experience Christ’s sacrifice on the cross.

My opinion; whatever that’s worth.

Pax vobiscum.

Opinions don’t solve problems or give clarity to issues like this one.

Respectfully,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Well, the culture didn’t tell us to throw out the statues and stained glass, stop teaching the faith in homilies, completely alter an ancient liturgy, throw out the altars, abandon our musical heritage, and desacralize our art and architecture. These are the most immediate and proximate effects for Catholics, and apparently they happened quite suddenly.

Cardinal Ottaviani prophetically warned (and obviously he knew the Church prior to Vatican II):

"1. The accompanying critical study of the Novus Ordo Missae, the work of a group of theologians, liturgists and pastors of souls, shows quite clearly in spite of its brevity that if we consider the innovations implied or taken for granted which may of course be evaluated in different ways, the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The “canons” of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery.

1. The pastoral reasons adduced to support such a grave break with tradition, even if such reasons could be regarded as holding good in the face of doctrinal considerations, do not seem to us sufficient. The innovations in the Novus Ordo and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place, if it subsists at all, could well turn into a certainty the suspicions already prevalent, alas, in many circles, that truths which have always been believed by the Christian people, can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic faith is bound for ever. Recent reforms have amply demonstrated that fresh changes in the liturgy could lead to nothing but complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful who are already showing signs of restiveness and of an indubitable lessening of faith."

fisheaters.com/ottavianiintervention.html

People are going to (wrongfully) assume that if you can alter and change so much of what was previously held to be sacred and precious then perhaps all the other “stuff” (like Faith and Morals) doesn’t really apply either.

At least one can safely say that completely altering the liturgy (which was done by a specific committee and introduced changes most Bishops had no idea they were going to get) in the midst of a cultural revolution may not have been the best move we could have made.

Uh huh. Now, instead of “The devil made me do it,” “Vatican II made me do it.”

“cultural revolution”? What cultural revolution? It was Only a Sexual Revolution. Pill manufacturers were fighting Humanae Vitae in 1968. And it would have been considered tasteless and totally inappropriate for a man to appear on TV in 1968 with the following:

“Hi. Do you want to have sex whenever you want and not worry about Natural Family Planning? Use The Pill! Increase your pleasure because pleasure is what sex should be all about.”

So, Their alternative marketing campaign came out in the form of Hippies yelling Free Love! Have sex with anyone. “Hey man. If it feels good, do it.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Here’s a TIME magazine cover story about The Pill from 1967:

time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19670407,00.html

Women listening to the Pope one year later would have had a negative effect on sales and lowered profits.

Peace,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

Opinions don’t solve problems or give clarity to issues like this one.

Especially false opinions like …

The former consider the mass a social event.

I guess that would include Pope Benedict and all of the Catholic bishops and priests of the world who celebrate the Novus Ordo.

… not what I would call an accurate statement at all.

 

[reggieM]

People are going to (wrongfully) assume that if you can alter and change so much of what was previously held to be sacred and precious then perhaps all the other “stuff” (like Faith and Morals) doesn’t really apply either.

As I suggested earlier in this thread – the final chapter of the liturgical reform story has not yet been written. One cannot, therefore, draw a full conclusion. Our protagonist (to use the analogy of a story) has drifted into some stormy waters – but let’s not propose that the situation is hopeless. Is it possible that we will see even greater benefits from the liturgical reform in the future? For myself, think that will be the case.

The fact, as I see it, is that virtually all of the bishops of the Catholic world signed on to a change in the pre-Vatican II liturgy. That says something. I draw some conclusions. One conclusion that cannot be drawn is that the bishops (all pre-Vatican II trained, all offering only the Tridentine Mass) did not want any liturgical changes at all. Even Archbishop Lefevbre signed the liturgy document. Why did they think the Tridentine Mass should be changed, even a little? That’s an important question that shouldn’t be ignored or dismissed (even keeping in mind understandable suspicions and distrust due to various states of collapse that we can see today).
Peacefully and objectively … we have to look at the situation that way, with prudence. Seeing the reality as much as we can.

At least one can safely say that completely altering the liturgy (which was done by a specific committee and introduced changes most Bishops had no idea they were going to get) in the midst of a cultural revolution may not have been the best move we could have made.

It may not have been – but it also may well have been. As I see it, some future generation may look back (with far more detachment and neutrality than we are able to have) and see the power of God’s hand at work in this entire plan.

Maybe, for one small thing, we learn to appreciate the traditions of the Church more, when perhaps they were taken for granted in the past.

 

[malphono]

The fact, as I see it, is that virtually all of the bishops of the Catholic world signed on to a change in the pre-Vatican II liturgy. That says something. I draw some conclusions. One conclusion that cannot be drawn is that the bishops (all pre-Vatican II trained, all offering only the Tridentine Mass) did not want any liturgical changes at all. Even Archbishop Lefevbre signed the liturgy document. Why did they think the Tridentine Mass should be changed, even a little? That’s an important question that shouldn’t be ignored or dismissed (even keeping in mind understandable suspicions and distrust due to various states of collapse that we can see today).
Peacefully and objectively … we have to look at the situation that way, with prudence. Seeing the reality as much as we can.

Organic change to the liturgy is normal. Yes, the bishops in Council agreed to a certain amount of aggioromento, but in the form of organic change, as it has always been. I doubt that many had any inkling of what the Consilium had in store. And I doubt they signed-on with foresight of the de facto pronouncement by that cabal that what was previously held to be sacred and precious was no longer so. We are fortunate that PP Benedict XVI addressed that very issue in Summorum Pontificum, but much remains to be done.

It may not have been – but it also may well have been. As I see it, some future generation may look back (with far more detachment and neutrality than we are able to have) and see the power of God’s hand at work in this entire plan.

That may be so, and it may be wishful thinking. I tend toward the latter, but time will tell.

Maybe, for one small thing, we learn to appreciate the traditions of the Church more, when perhaps they were taken for granted in the past.

Hopefully.

 

[edwest2]

A few more words about the Revolution:

catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=23817

Hope this helps,
Ed

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Uh huh. Now, instead of “The devil made me do it,” “Vatican II made me do it.”

“cultural revolution”? What cultural revolution? It was Only a Sexual Revolution. Pill manufacturers were fighting Humanae Vitae in 1968. And it would have been considered tasteless and totally inappropriate for a man to appear on TV in 1968 with the following:

“Hi. Do you want to have sex whenever you want and not worry about Natural Family Planning? Use The Pill! Increase your pleasure because pleasure is what sex should be all about.”

So, Their alternative marketing campaign came out in the form of Hippies yelling Free Love! Have sex with anyone. “Hey man. If it feels good, do it.”

Peace,
Ed

Hi Ed,

I posted that quote (and the link to the article) because I consider it a thoughtful critique of the new liturgy. And a warning which has turned out to be quite prescient. So it’s a bit more nuanced than “Vatican II made me do it.”