Wanting to understand the pre-Vatican II Church

[otjm]

Having been there, you are mistaken in several places. Mass attendance was higher than now.

I think I said that - in the last paragraph. According to CARA, Mass attendance seems to have peaked in 1957-58 at 74%, and went down gradually over the next 46 years to 40% (as reported by the Gallup Poll, from 1939 to 2003). CARA numbers are somewhat lower but similar in progression, as they asked the question somewhat differently.

Most people I knew in Catholic school at the time, viewed going to Mass as a privilege and reverenced God, only a handful were interested in putting in their hour and punching their time card on the button so they could run out.

I started Catholic grade school in 1952 and was in a Catholic school all the way through my B.A. in 1968. Your perspective and mine differe; that does not maan that either one of them are wrong; only that they were of different groups. My grade school classmates were not particularly any more nor any less pious than, say, the grade school kids in our parish school now (which is the first one to be built in 40 years in this diocese). Kids are kids; some are more attuned to God than others, and on the whole that will prove out in most places. I attended two different high schools; and it was the same there. We had those who were involved in the religious groups, and they were in a minority but not a small one; and we had those who weren’t. We all went to Mass daily in grade school, and peridocially in high school (at school, not the parish). And out of my class in high school, 1 went to the Jesuits, one to the Fransicans, 5 of us to the diocesan seminary, and from the first high school several more joined us at the diocesan one. I spent two years there; and out of the group, one made it through Theology before being turned down for ordination, one was ordained.

so I do have some experience - I, too lived it.

We had Religion Class. It was all explained to us. Not just the rules but the reality of God and how much He loved us. Job one was to love our neighbors as ourselves.

And you think I did not have similar classes? But the first 8 years were the Baltimore Catechism - from which I can still pull information.

We sure did have responses at Mass. I remember them today. Latin was taught in our Catholic school. Translations were not $10 or $20.

Not too sure what your point is here. The majority of people did not own a missal where I was. And $10 was a whole lot more money then than it is now; the house we had when I was 4 was $18,000; today, in a ****** market it is $225,000.

From what I’m hearing on Catholic Radio and reading in the Michigan Catholic and Our Sunday Visitor, there is no explosion of information that is actually reaching people. In fact, too many Catholics today are poorly Catechized and even older Catholics have been ‘persuaded away’ from truths the Church has always taught and have not changed./

It’s good to hear there are more Biblical studies but I want to emphasize, we had an entire class devoted to studying our religion and how it applied to the world around us. It’s one thing to go to Church every Sunday and Holy Days, but it means little if none of what you hear is practiced in your everyday life.

I don’t think having a college education matters much one way or the other. In fact, today, it is difficult to find a Catholic college that is actually Catholic, not the watered down version. More colleges in existence now than then? When do you think most of them were built? There was no explosion in Catholic college building.

Please, check you information before posting.

Respectfully,
Ed

 

[otjm]

An area of change from pre-Vatican 2 to post-Vatican 2 I see little discussion of was the intent of the bishops of Vatican 2 to revisit Moral theology, and where that got off track. there is tremendous discussions of liturgy (and we are obiviously all impacted by liturgical changes). But little discussion is made of what else impacts us seriously in day to day living; and morality and how we view it also gets down to the heart of where we are.

Moral Theology took a strong plus after Trent, when the Manual was made to teach seminarians how to be confessors. In good Thomistic/Aristotelian format, it took major sins and broke them down into their various parts, and parsed that down to its finest degree of no sin at all. In doing so, it provided a very solid, well organized way for confessors to be able to quickly deal with a penitant and their sins.

However, like all good things, it had its difficult parts. And that was that it lead to a tendency towards minimalization, negativity, and a moralistic attitude all too easily. Moral theology was more than just a set of rules, and should lead to a richer, deeper life in Christ. That was hard to accomplish when people reacted to the rules as too often they did. A couple of examples should suffice:

1. (often heard from a student in high school religion class): “Father, how far can I go on a date before I have gone too far?”
2. and lest we thing that is simply hormonal driven: "(from adults): “How late can I come to Mass, and how early can I leave and still fulfill my Sunday Obligation?” The list goes on and on. the focus was for too much on where the boundaries of the rules lay, and far too little on the “why” that we have the rules - they are there to lead us to Christ.

The intent was to get Moral Theology focused on a Scriptural approach and to take us back to why we had Moral Theology. the story of the Young Man who comes to Christ and asks what he must do to attain Heaven is a good example.

Sadly, ourtside the Church, an Episcopal Priest about that time came up with Situational Ethics, a slippery slope to nihilism if there ever was one. And sadly, all too many Moral Theologians got on that band wagon (largely around the various arguments concerning the Pill, and the subsequent breakdown in sexual morality among practioners of the Pill). It seems only recently that some are getting on the track they should have been on to begin with.

And so, along with edwest2, I agree that the sexual permissiveness that became pervasive after the release of Humanae Vitae and the immediate whip-snap dissent it engendered did far more harm to the Catholic population (as well as to the secular) than many people realize or give credit to.

Wishing and speculating doesn’t amount to too much when the day is done. Many people want to speculate where we would be if we had not gone down the path of the OF. But if we pose the question differently: where would the Church be if the Mass had not changed but Moral Theology continued on the path it has been on since the 60’s, vs. where would the Church be if it had had the change in the Mass, but Moral Theology had continued on the path the bishops wanted at Vatican 2, then I would submit that having ony the EF, but the abysmal excuse we have had for Moral Theology would ahve left the Church in a situation similar to where it is now; and if priests, confessors and bishops ahd not wandered down the path of Moral Relativism, but we had the OF, we would be in better condition than now.

 

[edwest2]

We can look back, with documentation, to see how we got from Point A to here. We can identify, in a straightforward fashion, why one event followed another.

It would be good to point to previous heresies in the Church to gain perspective. I’m not calling Vatican II a heresy but the Church has experienced them before throughout her history. It’s important to note that the Church has been through greater and lesser periods of persecution and there were periods where clergy were killed for the faith. How would we react today if the Protestant Reformation began about 40 years ago?

Finally, we must be realistic about what regular Catholics can do in these circumstances. But instead of wondering, we should act and learn about what was there before and after Vatican II. There is no need for speculation.

Has our desire to worship God lessened today? I’m not saying things that were done wrong should not be put right. I’m saying our connection to God needs to be strong in the midst of problems in the Church and in society at large.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Malleus_01]

You seem to be saying that they’re true Popes because they agreed with each other. But if they were wrong from the beginning, then they were merely united in their error.

Mal: On Pentecost Sunday - The Holy Ghost was sent to the Apostles by the Lord Jesus Christ. Up until that point they were men who knew Jesus and were taught by Jesus but only understood as men understand. Jesus was with them for three years teaching them everything that he wanted them to know. But they remained ignorant didnt they. But only then - with the Coming of the Holy Ghost - did everything make sense to them and only then did they come out of Hiding and Spread the Faith. This is the Deposit of Faith. It was given to the Apostles directly from Jesus Christ and enlightened in them and through Apostolic Orders - to todays Clerics. But the Direct Revelation was given to the Apostles and relayed BY THEM. No subsequent POPE after St Peter has added to the Deposit of Faith. Certainly the Holy Ghost has brought to light Truths from time to Time - But make no mistake these come from Our Lord. Each Pope is a Caretaker of the Deposit of Faith and thus do the Faithful remain in the CHURCH He established on Earth. This is Defined in Vatican Council I and I quote :

For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren

A fundemental understanding of this Dogma is necessary if we are to have this conversation. I think several of your questions are answered once you understand the Role of the Pope and the Importance of the Deposit of Faith and his (the Popes) obligation towards it. A True Pope is the Vicar of Christ. He isnt Christ himself. He is to teeach Christ’s Doctrine and to keep the Church Orthodox within it. Thats where the reason for obedience comes from.

Suddenly we had the term “homoousios” added to the Deposit of Faith? Is there a precedent for that?

Mal : And that Heresy was dispelled wasnt it?

Two points – there have been major disagreements in the past about many doctrinal formulations. Without an infallible interpreter there would be no unity. Secondly, without an infallible interpreter, we wouldn’t know if the unity you speak of was built on falsehood or not.

Mal: Which of course leads to my original point regarding the Deposit of Faith and the Guidance of the Holy Ghost…

All heresies cannot last.

Gnosticism has been around since the Apostolic era. So, we need a better way to separate heresy from the truth than merely our own subjective judgement.

Mal: Gnosticism isnt a Heresy perse - so much as it is a false religion that pre existed. Satan himself pre existed the Apostles as well obviously. The workings of False religions and the Influence of Satan leads to heresies of various types. But fidelity to the Deposit of Faith defeats the vestiges of all heresies .

 

[Malleus_01]

The worthy dont abandon her truths no matter what.

How do you know that you are worthy?

Mal : The Truth stands on its own merit - not on the fidelity of men. So long as I remain in fidelity to the truths wholey contained in the Deposit of Faith as described by the Athanasian Creed as judged by GOD. We all can fall from that fidelity - but the Truth still remians.

I am not necessarily doubting that you are. But certainly, if there is a way for you to indicate your worthiness to me,

Mal: Actually - I would have to indicate that I am following an untruth in order for you to condemn that aspect of the message and in doing so charitably for the good of my soul - you would be practising a Spiritual Work of Mercy. And on your own self examination before GOD as a penitent - prior to reception of the Sacraments. John 14:6 Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.
That would be the way.

that will mean more to me because I will look for some sign of authority. Other than that, you’d be a layman offering opinions of various kinds.

Mal: Granted - there is no substitute for living the Faith - for Faith without works is dead. Belief is lived - not spoken about . And likewise seeing the Fruits of good works and of heresy as described in Matthews Holy Gospel is all the evidence you need. Ultimately you have to come to the Knowledge Understanding Wisdom Fortitude Piety Counsel and Fear of offending God on your own through the Grace of GOD in the Gifts of the Holy Ghost. .

35 confirmed Anti Popes prove this. And yet the Church is still here isnt it?

If you’re saying that the Church is still here and is worthy of trust because it is protected by God against anti-Popes and heresies and other evils – then I fully agree and there’s not much reason to discuss more.

The Deposit of Faith is worthy of Trust and the True Church is wherever the Deposit of Faith IS. For the Holy Ghost abides in the Church given the world by Jesus Christ - not imposters. Be careful that you do not mistake buildings and robes for DOGMAS and Sacraments.

Mal: Then if your pet theory is correct you should have little trouble proving it , correct? Have at it and we’ll see how well you do.

When I challenged your subjective approach to accessing the Truth about matters, you turned around and attacked me.

Mal How is defining the Deposit of Faith and fidelity to it an attack on you - unles you arent abiding in it?

You claim that I have a “pet theory” but I merely proposed that without Christ’s promise of protection of the Church, and if I supposedly have to decide for myself what the Truth is

Mal: Well then - Do Jews and Christians Pray to the Same GOD as Ratzinger claims? hint - the Answer is found in the Deposit of Faith. Go ahead and illustrate your decision for us.

(as you claimed), then I’d have no basis to accept what was taught from the beginning.

Mal: You are the one claiming that the Church has no Deposit of Faith or so it would seem ( I claim otherwise)

That the Church is indefectable is de fide teaching. It cannot teach heresy.

Mal: Then there is no contradicttion in 2000 Years in the Deposit of Faith as Stated De fide by Vatican Council I . Which of course is presents a dillemma for you. The Very Scriptures in your Churches - contain by admission Protestant Heresy. (the NAB) Why is that?

I don’t know if you’re agreeing with that or not. You seem to be saying that the Church has lost the Faith – right

Mal: No - I am saying that the Church you think is catholic has lost the faith. Catholics still exist.

 

[FAB]

I was born in 1972 so I have never know what the church was like before Vatican II. I hear stories how strict the church was in those days, but I don’t see why this is an issue. If you thought the church is too strict then maybe it was not for you. Was this the reason for the change? Did they feel the old church was driving people away? Was it because America was becoming more liberal and the church was afraid of losinf its members?Looking at some of the changes that happen I feel I have been cheated that experience. I have never been to a latin mass in my life and now I feel I have missed out on something special. The are a few TLM in my diocese but they are pretty far for me to drive and attend. I am the kind of person who loves tradition and the church to day seems to lack that in some ways. I have been to many different churchs in my diocese and some are pretty conservative, but a lot seem to be a loose in their liturgy. There is no consistency between the parishes. Sorry, I seem to be venting. What I am trying to ask is how can I learn more about pre-Vactian II to better appreciate church past history? Also, how i can take some of those forgotten beliefs and incorporate them better in my life?

There is a lot of fond feelings for the Church before Vatican II, but the church they look back on only existed in that form for about a 100 years from the time of Vatican I. I know before anyone jumps one me, the reforms to the church after the refermation go back to the council of Trent, about 400 years.
The pre Vatican II churhc was marked by three main items. First was clericalism. All the power resised in the hieracy of the church. I would dare say that forums like this, even thinking of questioning the pope, bishops and priest would not exist. The laity had no voice and no part in the life of the church except the come pray and give. The only ones allowed in the sanctuary were the priest and altar severs, seperated from the laity by a fence (altar rail)
Secondly it was very judicial, meaning that the laws and rules in existance trumped any pastoral needs. To be a good Catholic, you followed the rules. You went to mass on Sunday, observed holy day, only married other catholics, were not to associate outside of work with non catholics and many many more. The Baltimore Caticism would give them all.
Then there is the church triumphant, which was the view that only way to salvattion was to be a member of the church and if not a member to want to be a member.
There were also deep restrictions on theological study on science and philosophy as well as biblical studies and critisisims.
So much time is given to the change in the mass which was the most visable. Vatican II marked a change of direction in the church. Instead of the focus on authority , the focus turn to spiritual and pastoral guidance , the role of the laity, the churhc as community, social justice issues, to be part of the world and not seperate from it in thinking and action.
A decent book on the history, changes and future of the church is “Salt, Leven and Light: The community called Church” by T. Howland Sanks.
Peace,
FAB

 

[Malleus_01]

<<<< So much time is given to the change in the mass which was the most visable. Vatican II marked a change of direction in the church. Instead of the focus on authority , the focus turn to spiritual and pastoral guidance , the role of the laity, the churhc as community, social justice issues, to be part of the world and not seperate from it in thinking and action. >>>>>

Vatican II marked a change of direction alright. The Modernists implemented the religion of man.

Now we can discuss the changes made - but it does all boil down to a simple thing.Almighty GOD has been subjugated.

Think about what Our Lord Himself said in Scripture

The Holy Gospel according to St John

18:33. Pilate therefore went into the hall again and called Jesus and said to him: Art thou the king of the Jews?

18:34. Jesus answered: Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or have others told it thee of me?

18:35. Pilate answered: Am I a Jew? Thy own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee up to me. What hast thou done?

18:36. Jesus answered: My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would certainly strive that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now my kingdom is not from hence.

18:37. Pilate therefore said to him: Art thou a king then? Jesus answered: Thou sayest that I am a king. For this was I born, and for this came I into the world; that I should give testimony to the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

And the Church prior to Vatican II operated thus.

 

[FAB]

<<<< So much time is given to the change in the mass which was the most visable. Vatican II marked a change of direction in the church. Instead of the focus on authority , the focus turn to spiritual and pastoral guidance , the role of the laity, the churhc as community, social justice issues, to be part of the world and not seperate from it in thinking and action. >>>>>

Vatican II marked a change of direction alright. The Modernists implemented the religion of man.

Now we can discuss the changes made - but it does all boil down to a simple thing.Almighty GOD has been subjugated.

Think about what Our Lord Himself said in Scripture

The Holy Gospel according to St John

18:33. Pilate therefore went into the hall again and called Jesus and said to him: Art thou the king of the Jews?

18:34. Jesus answered: Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or have others told it thee of me?

18:35. Pilate answered: Am I a Jew? Thy own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee up to me. What hast thou done?

18:36. Jesus answered: My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would certainly strive that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now my kingdom is not from hence.

18:37. Pilate therefore said to him: Art thou a king then? Jesus answered: Thou sayest that I am a king. For this was I born, and for this came I into the world; that I should give testimony to the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

And the Church prior to Vatican II operated thus.

The church though is of this world and will not reach the perfection of the Kingdom of Heaven at the time of end of the world. Vatican II brought the work of the Church back to the message of Jesus, to serve, not to be serve. In our service we share in the kingdom here on earth. This is the work of God.

Peace,
FAB

 

[Malleus_01]

The church though is of this world and will not reach the perfection of the Kingdom of Heaven at the time of end of the world.

Mal: Define the term “Church” WE are the Church. And we all better hope we save our souls and the souls or others. This can only be done by Sanctifying Grace.

Vatican II brought the work of the Church back to the message of Jesus,

Mal: Vatican II was an unmitigated disaster for the Church. With the embrace of false religions to the liturgical changes to the sacraments and scriptures it has distanced the Church from the message of Jesus. Conversion to the One True Faith.

to serve, not to be serve.

Mal: To serve mans will and not to serve the will of God , you mean.

In our service we share in the kingdom here on earth.

Mal: The only way we serve GOD on earth is in his Deposit of Faith. False religions do not share in it.

This is the work of God.

Mal: The work of GOD was accomplished by the cross. But the works of GOD are not at issue. Its the works of Man that are of issue and conforming our will to the Divine Will in all things. This is not accomplished by doing your own will as you see fit.

 

[FAB]

The church though is of this world and will not reach the perfection of the Kingdom of Heaven at the time of end of the world.

Mal: Define the term “Church” WE are the Church. And we all better hope we save our souls and the souls or others. This can only be done by Sanctifying Grace.

Vatican II brought the work of the Church back to the message of Jesus,

Mal: Vatican II was an unmitigated disaster for the Church. With the embrace of false religions to the liturgical changes to the sacraments and scriptures it has distanced the Church from the message of Jesus. Conversion to the One True Faith.

to serve, not to be serve.

Mal: To serve mans will and not to serve the will of God , you mean.

In our service we share in the kingdom here on earth.

Mal: The only way we serve GOD on earth is in his Deposit of Faith. False religions do not share in it.

This is the work of God.

Mal: The work of GOD was accomplished by the cross. But the works of GOD are not at issue. Its the works of Man that are of issue and conforming our will to the Divine Will in all things. This is not accomplished by doing your own will as you see fit.

If you believe that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, you would to believe that Vatican II was His work. The participants, the bishops of the world, including the pope believe this is so. Your comments reveal that some how 45 years ago the Spirit was AWAL which as you know is not the case, so your argument that it was the work of man is false.
Peace,
FAB

 

[brotherhrolf]

The Holy Spirit may have guided Vatican II but what has been done in the “Spirit of Vatican II” are two different things. What the Council actually said in the conciliar documents and what has been done in the last 45 years are two entirely separate things.

 

[Patrick_Eastin]

Reminder: This is the Traditional Catholicism forum. If the views expressed are contrary to what you believe, then perhaps another forum will be more to your preference.

I repeat what I said in my sticky of December 31st:

Non-traditional Catholics, Catholics of other rites, and non-Catholics are welcome to participate in the TC forum, however, they will not be allowed to dominate conversations or to push agendas which are not in keeping with the purpose of this forum.

The topic of this thread is “Wanting to understand the pre-Vatican II Church” not Vatican II. I will not warn any further. Either return to the topic or the thread will be closed.

 

[Malleus_01]

<<< The Holy Spirit may have guided Vatican II but what has been done in the “Spirit of Vatican II” are two different things. What the Council actually said in the conciliar documents and what has been done in the last 45 years are two entirely separate things.>>>>

Mal: Well said. This point cannot be stressed enough. Certainly when all the Bishops of the World assembled they most certainly did not do so in order to beseach the Holy Ghost to implement clown masses - liturgical abuse and all the abuses that have been cronicled ad nauseum. I do not think it a plausible argument to say that the Holy Ghost was behind what has essentially been a revolution of disunity a great loss of faith and a promulgation of questionable teachings. The fact that it has been 45 years and there seems to be no end to these things illustrates the fact that the Council was a failure in that it didnt foster unity nor did demonstrable good fruits eminate from it. At this point I dont think there is any question of that.

 

[FAB]

The Holy Spirit may have guided Vatican II but what has been done in the “Spirit of Vatican II” are two different things. What the Council actually said in the conciliar documents and what has been done in the last 45 years are two entirely separate things.

What the Conciliar documents changed the direction of the Church, most notably Lumen Gentium.
Once again since the Holy Spirit guides the church, how are those thing that are claimed to be wrong because of “Spirit of Vatican II” that were approved and instituted by popes and bishops be in error? What the document say and what has been done are very much related. Were there some unintended consequences, no doubt, but any time there is change to the magnitute of Vatican II that can be expected. But to say it was all bad would be incorrect.
Peace,
FAB

 

[FAB]

<<< The Holy Spirit may have guided Vatican II but what has been done in the “Spirit of Vatican II” are two different things. What the Council actually said in the conciliar documents and what has been done in the last 45 years are two entirely separate things.>>>>

Mal: Well said. This point cannot be stressed enough. Certainly when all the Bishops of the World assembled they most certainly did not do so in order to beseach the Holy Ghost to implement clown masses - liturgical abuse and all the abuses that have been cronicled ad nauseum. I do not think it a plausible argument to say that the Holy Ghost was behind what has essentially been a revolution of disunity a great loss of faith and a promulgation of questionable teachings. The fact that it has been 45 years and there seems to be no end to these things illustrates the fact that the Council was a failure in that it didnt foster unity nor did demonstrable good fruits eminate from it. At this point I dont think there is any question of that.

It depends on if you have a view of if the glass is half full or half emty. You look at the church and see only faults and believe if it were not for VII that the church would have no problems. The changes that were implamented in the Council were in the works for decades, the pressures and need for the church were already evident long before it was called.
I look at the church and see many more good fruits than rotten. Catholics are no longer treated as children who needed to be constantly disaplined from above (not above from God, but from the higheracy). That the work of Christ did not just belong to those Ordained or in holy orders, that the Holy Spirit gives us all gifts to do the Lord’s work. Our failing is when we don’t use those gifts to do so. If you want proof, look at Paul’s letter to the Corithians, look at Christ’s great commision and it can be seen how the Church of today more fully fullfills the mission of Christ than in the past. The Pre VII Church had a siege mentality, us against the world. Now we are part of the world, we freely enter the turmoil to give spirital and pastoral direction to the world. It’s not always easy.

Peace,
FAB

 

[CradleCath]

The church though is of this world and will not reach the perfection of the Kingdom of Heaven at the time of end of the world. Vatican II brought the work of the Church back to the message of Jesus, to serve, not to be serve. In our service we share in the kingdom here on earth. This is the work of God.

Peace,
FAB

I swore I wouldn’t try to reach you again, but the Church is IN this world, but it is NOT “of this world” as you claim.

Btw. Do you serve as an Extraordinary Eucharistic Minister?