We Changed the Church and Regret It

[thealtonroute]

At my grandparents parish in the late 80s, a new pastor buzzed in and immediately stated he intended to renovate. The parishioners, of all stripes, fought it loudly. The pastor brought in some examiners and they stated the altar had termites. Termites! Out of nowhere.

He then laid out his new plans which entailed taking out not only the high and side altars, but all of the statues and the stations as well. The parish said, “NO WAY!”

So he ripped out the altars and kept some of the statues and the stations and repainted the church in hideous mauve tones.

My grandfather, a convert and daily communicant, stated, “If they take out the altar, I’ll never step foot in that church again!” And he didn’t. He died during the reckovations and the funeral mass had to be said in the gymnasium.

Shortly after, it came out the pastor had lied and there had been no termites and that he had misappropriated parish funds to go to Europe for the World Cup. He was transfered to another parish and another church was made ugly.

The Ghost of Vatican II in action!

Sadly a very common story! Good for your grandfather. I’m happy that people stand up to these priests. The people paid for these altars, statues, etc., and they have every right to fight to keep them. I tell you, these priests have zero respect for their own parishioners. You should hear the priest we have now at my parish. He’s been caught in so many lies it’s unbelievable. The sad thing is that there are people who still revere him merely because he’s a priest.

 

[thealtonroute]

My question stands though. For all of what people rail against “the spirit” of VII (and in many cases for good reasons), I wonder if people thought the same thing during the time of the Reformation. Seeing the corruption and heresies spread, it would be easy to place the blame on previous Councils and leaders within the Church.

What is also lost in all of this is Pope Paul VI has, without question, made some of the biggest impact on the Church as any Pope has. He reigned during a very difficult time and brought us three things;

• The conclusion of VII.
• The Ordinary Form (which will no longer be the “Novus Ordo” once the Anglican Use gets officially ratified, assuming it hasn’t already, because the AU will be the newer form).

I think many of the changes people talk about regarding the “spirit of VII” would have happened anyway due to society and the way things were progressing. And I think Pope Paul VI knew this, which is why he brought us a third thing. Something we should all read and take to heart. Something that continues to shepherd us to this day:

Humanae Vitae.

This is all just my opinion of course. But for standing defiant in the wave of controversy, Pope Paul the Sixth remains one of my favorite Popes.

I recently visited the Museum of the Reformation in Wittenberg, Germany. I really think the young Luther would have been very opposed to what was going on in the Catholic Church in the late 1960s. I read that in his early days as a priest Luther complained to his bishop that people weren’t going to confession because they were buying indulgences instead.

 

[zab]

Sadly a very common story! Good for your grandfather. I’m happy that people stand up to these priests. The people paid for these altars, statues, etc., and they have every right to fight to keep them. I tell you, these priests have zero respect for their own parishioners. You should hear the priest we have now at my parish. He’s been caught in so many lies it’s unbelievable. The sad thing is that there are people who still revere him merely because he’s a priest.

We have no way of knowing if your priest is a liar and so on. No-one is here to back up or to refute what you have to say. And I believe there is a board rule against this (making uncharitable remarks about priests, bishops and religious).

 

[Tamsulosin]

I like the Latin Mass, where you come to kneel at the rail,next to the altar, to receive communion in the tongue, with reverence.It is much better than to be walking around while bringing the host from your hands to the mouth, on your way to the pew.That was not the way in the last supper.
Changes should be for the better.Not for the sake of looking more modern.
Coffee and browny consecrated?If liturgy gets degraded,there would be nothing left that is special about our rites.We may as well join the next mega church where grape juice and crackers are passed around.

 

[archangel04]

We fought to change the Church and then walked away, leaving those who loved it as it was with the remnants of our botched attempt.

I have to wonder if we should have started the revolution at all.

Her blog: minichino.com/wordpress/

Very interesting she says that. Yeah they left true Catholics with a mess, just like the mess after the “dark ages” or after WWII, so is the Church left in Spiritual ruins, but just like Spring, new life is coming, and dawn is here. Too bad some of the 60’s people still cling to those erroneous ways and now push their agendas on the young crowd, but guess what? Most of those generations they were, unfortunately, able get their hands on are gone from the Church.

 

[Javl]

I’m a “traditional Catholic”. All I can say is that after VII, not only did the Altar rails and the rest get thrown out but Spirituality and Piety as well. Before VII, everyone attended mass in their “Sunday best” Hardly any talking or noise during mass and everyone knew and sang all the Hymns. Every mass, no matter what the time, had “standing room only”, no matter which parish I was in, and everyone genuflected before the altar. Compare all this with the OF mass today. Paraphrasing the Pepsodent ad, “You’ll wonder where all the Catholics went if the mass is not Trident…”

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Roy5]

At the time of Vatican II the church faced two alternatives. Remain as it was or become more attuned to a changing world. The Latin mass with all of its solemnity had been engrained in millions of Catholics. and there was considerable division when it was changed. A sister-in-law actually left the church because of this and ended up without a church connection of any kind.

 The idea of returning to pre-Vatican ways would only succeed in alienating millions today who never knew the old mass and are content with the present one. It has much more participation by the people, has done away with the notion that a priest is the end-all ruler in his parish, has introduced some wonderful contemporary music that did not go back centuries, has adopted the vernacular so that everybody can understand all parts of the mass, has diminished an emphasis on ornate statuary which made many non-Catholics think of Catholics as pagans, etc. Frankly, I would suggest a few additional changes, but this is not the place to do that.

 Okay, so a few of the 40,000 or so parish priests went overboard. That was inevitable.

 Catholicism in the US and Europe has suffered massive losses, true, but those losses would have been even greater had Vatican II not moved the church from medievalism into the world of today.

 

[Rocky]

One of the biggest losses for the Church after Vatican II was the end of the Friday fast from meat. It gave Catholics identity along with a reminder of what Christ did for us on Good Friday. I know, we are supposed to do another penitential act— but how many of us do so?

 

[damooster]

At the time of Vatican II the church faced two alternatives. Remain as it was or become more attuned to a changing world. The Latin mass with all of its solemnity had been engrained in millions of Catholics. and there was considerable division when it was changed. A sister-in-law actually left the church because of this and ended up without a church connection of any kind.

The world can change all it wants to, but the Church is the anchor of faith. The Church did just fine all those years prior to Vatican II and there was no need to change it to appease the modernists.

The idea of returning to pre-Vatican ways would only succeed in alienating millions today who never knew the old mass and are content with the present one.

True. But where was this mentality when the Mass was changed in the first place? Who stood up for the people, like your sister-in-law, who were alienated and discarded?

It has much more participation by the people…

If I wanted to participate in something, I’d go to a ball game. I’ll leave the celebration of the Lord’s sacrifice to the people appointed to do it.

…has done away with the notion that a priest is the end-all ruler in his parish…

The priest is responsible for the spiritual well-being of his parish. I’d rather take my cues from him rather than some lay person with an interpretation.

…has introduced some wonderful contemporary music that did not go back centuries…

Correction: “has attempted to replace wonderful music that goes back centuries.”

has adopted the vernacular so that everybody can understand all parts of the mass

The other day I attended a fundraiser at an ethnic parish. When it came time to pray, we prayed in Latin because everyone knew the Latin. I don’t know Vietnamese, and they weren’t comfortable with English, but we all prayed as one group when we used Latin.

has diminished an emphasis on ornate statuary which made many non-Catholics think of Catholics as pagans, etc

First time I’ve ever heard of a Catholic being considered a pagan…

Frankly, I would suggest a few additional changes, but this is not the place to do that.

Why not? All in the spirit of Vatican II!

Catholicism in the US and Europe has suffered massive losses, true, but those losses would have been even greater had Vatican II not moved the church from medievalism into the world of today.

How can you possibly make that assumption?

 

[PA650]

At the time of Vatican II the church faced two alternatives. Remain as it was or become more attuned to a changing world. The Latin mass with all of its solemnity had been engrained in millions of Catholics. and there was considerable division when it was changed. A sister-in-law actually left the church because of this and ended up without a church connection of any kind.

 The idea of returning to pre-Vatican ways would only succeed in alienating millions today who never knew the old mass and are content with the present one. It has much more participation by the people, has done away with the notion that a priest is the end-all ruler in his parish, has introduced some wonderful contemporary music that did not go back centuries, has adopted the vernacular so that everybody can understand all parts of the mass, has diminished an emphasis on ornate statuary which made many non-Catholics think of Catholics as pagans, etc. Frankly, I would suggest a few additional changes, but this is not the place to do that.

 Okay, so a few of the 40,000 or so parish priests went overboard. That was inevitable.

 Catholicism in the US and Europe has suffered massive losses, true, but those losses would have been even greater had Vatican II not moved the church from medievalism into the world of today.

One of the greatest charges leveled at certain clergy of the Church following the Second Vatican Council was embracing a “hermeneutic of rupture,”

For over two centuries now, Western intellectual life has been dominated increasingly by a “hermeneutic of rupture”, a broad principle of interpretation of the Good which dismisses tradition and opts instead for the latest ideas, as if by the very fact of coming later in time, these ideas must be superior—a misconception arising largely from the Western notion of “progress." Dr. Jeff Mirus of CatholicCulture.org catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?ID=296

This idea is certainly foreign to the Holy Catholic Church as Pope Benedict XVI has continually stressed a “hermeneutic of continuity” with regard to the implementation of the Second Vatican Council and the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. Therefore, you certainly raise some valid points, but I sense an embrace of the “hermeneutic of rupture” within your particular post since some changes witnessed in parishes today fall on the side of a “rupture” than a “continuity.”

 

[moon1234]

Nostalgia? How about a sense of the sacred.

The comments of this young man (not much younger than myself) answer your concerns beautifully:

Brian Walden says:

I can’t speak for everyone, but here’s my opinion as an under-30 Catholic: There’s a shift going on and more and more Catholics want to return to standing out from the general culture. I hope this isn’t a full repeal of Vatican II, but rather a correct implementation of it where we engage and change the world around us without becoming part of it. I think this may be the real story; the liturgy is just the field where this battle is played out.

I’m noticing more and more that I desire the Church to not only be a spiritual refuge for sinners through the sacraments but to also be a physical refuge. Where my friends and family tell me to ignore the hard teachings of the Church, I wish my fellow parishioners would push me to try to live them to their fullest. Where mass media and culture tries to force relativistic values on everyone, I wish there was a strong Catholic culture to help create a buffer and affirm absolute truth. Where art has turned into a medium of conveying an artist’s personal agenda rather than the truths of the human condition, I wish my church were filled with stained glass windows and statues and hymns to flood my senses with inspiration.

This is how it should be, but all too often it’s not. And more than the examples above, the liturgy should be a refuge from the world around us. It should take us both to the foot of the cross and to the great wedding feast when Christ comes for his Bride. Because Mass is the most important thing in a Catholic’s life, I think the liturgy is where this difference between what the average parish should be and what it really is becomes the most evident.

While I support the liberal use of the Traditional Latin Mass, I don’t think it’s the only option. What people, especially those too young to ever have attended a TLM before the new missal, want more than anything is reverence - a Mass that lifts them up to God. Because the Novus Ordo Mass is so frequently abused, or at the very least not celebrated as reverently as it easily could be, young people turn to the TLM. If they could find a reverent NO Mass near them with incense and altar bells and high quality hymns and meaty homilies and the priest facing East and Latin for common prayers if not the entire Mass, I think most orthodox Catholics would be happy. These things are the standard for the NO Mass, yet sadly they’re hard to find so people opt for the TLM if there’s one available.

No matter how much you try to reform and improve the N.O. you will always in the end wind up back at the TLM. The plain fact is the N.O. is a made up, man centered liturgy. The council never called for it. Once you learn more about your faith you will wind up wondering what in the world happened. You will start attending the TLM. You may not like it at first. That will change and you will find yourself being more and more attracted to the TLM. Ultimately you will find yourself wondering how we got in the mess we are in now and how long Rome will take to ultimately get back to the TLM as the ordinary form.

 

[po18guy]

Nostalgia? How about a sense of the sacred.

The comments of this young man (not much younger than myself) answer your concerns beautifully:

Brian Walden says:

I can’t speak for everyone, but here’s my opinion as an under-30 Catholic: There’s a shift going on and more and more Catholics want to return to standing out from the general culture. I hope this isn’t a full repeal of Vatican II, but rather a correct implementation of it where we engage and change the world around us without becoming part of it. I think this may be the real story; the liturgy is just the field where this battle is played out.

I’m noticing more and more that I desire the Church to not only be a spiritual refuge for sinners through the sacraments but to also be a physical refuge. Where my friends and family tell me to ignore the hard teachings of the Church, I wish my fellow parishioners would push me to try to live them to their fullest. Where mass media and culture tries to force relativistic values on everyone, I wish there was a strong Catholic culture to help create a buffer and affirm absolute truth. Where art has turned into a medium of conveying an artist’s personal agenda rather than the truths of the human condition, I wish my church were filled with stained glass windows and statues and hymns to flood my senses with inspiration.

This is how it should be, but all too often it’s not. And more than the examples above, the liturgy should be a refuge from the world around us. It should take us both to the foot of the cross and to the great wedding feast when Christ comes for his Bride. Because Mass is the most important thing in a Catholic’s life, I think the liturgy is where this difference between what the average parish should be and what it really is becomes the most evident.

While I support the liberal use of the Traditional Latin Mass, I don’t think it’s the only option. What people, especially those too young to ever have attended a TLM before the new missal, want more than anything is reverence - a Mass that lifts them up to God. Because the Novus Ordo Mass is so frequently abused, or at the very least not celebrated as reverently as it easily could be, young people turn to the TLM. If they could find a reverent NO Mass near them with incense and altar bells and high quality hymns and meaty homilies and the priest facing East and Latin for common prayers if not the entire Mass, I think most orthodox Catholics would be happy. These things are the standard for the NO Mass, yet sadly they’re hard to find so people opt for the TLM if there’s one available.

Well, good on Brian Walden! But mark these words, because they are not mine: TLM will be a let down, as those in attendance will still arrive late, leave early, be looking around, minds wandering, letting their kids run and make noise, and cell phones will still be going off. It’s nostalgia that cannot be relived. If some demand Latin, fine. Give me something I understand, just as the last 5 Popes have declared.

 

[po18guy]

Very interesting she says that. Yeah they left true Catholics with a mess, just like the mess after the “dark ages” or after WWII, so is the Church left in Spiritual ruins, but just like Spring, new life is coming, and dawn is here. Too bad some of the 60’s people still cling to those erroneous ways and now push their agendas on the young crowd, but guess what? Most of those generations they were, unfortunately, able get their hands on are gone from the Church.

The man who lived before V2, through V2 and since V2, with his heart hurting from how it was carried out, is now at the helm. The Church is a big ship and takes time to turn around. Leave him alone at the wheel and rejoice in the new tack she takes.

 

[moon1234]

Give me something I understand, just as the last 5 Popes have declared.

Show me where they declared it. I don’t think you will find a single one.

If you want to quote Vatican II documents how about SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM: 36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

Your nostelgia comment is offensive and shows a bias against the Mass that nutured and formed the greatest of saints.

 

[Melchior_1]

Your nostelgia comment is offensive and shows a bias against the Mass that nutured and formed the greatest of saints.

This is why these things can be fairly subjective. What we know now as the Extraordinary Form was not around at the beginnings of the Patristic period, which happens to have had many of our greatest Saints (such as St. Justin the Martyr, arguably one of the most influential apoligists in the history of the Church).

 

[wisdomseeker]

Looking at the big picture, the evil one is an opportunist. I can easily see how he incited, then exploited social conditions to add impetus to changes in the Church. On a time line, look at the changes that are roughly centered around WWII: social and political unrest, a liberalizing of morals, technological advancement; nuclear weapons; communications improvements; great overall social change; rebellious attitudes; increased divorce and contraception, and the streamlining and polishing of abortion for profit. The greatest changes that the world has seen, compressed into a quite short span of time, and either leading up to a world-wide war, or immediately following it. The Church was caught in the middle of this, attempting to make sense of it all.

I am a post-V2 Catholic and have never attended a Latin mass. But, I can’t help but think that we are experiencing a misplaced sense of nostalgia in wanting to “go back”. We have suffered from disobedience over the course of the last century. We are now here, moving forward, with liturgical improvements soon arriving. There is a new and more reverential tone developing in the Church. It is being reawakened. God is in charge. Let’s allow Him to lead us.

when we sin against God, the only thing to do is to go back and repent. you dont just continue in the error. no wonder we have this attitude that we dont have to repent. by the way, this seems to be a word of the past. modernists dont want anything to do with the past. the past means repent.

 

[HCC]

But mark these words, because they are not mine: TLM will be a let down…It’s nostalgia that cannot be relived.

Dear po18guy,

Please take a moment to read our Holy Father’s brief letter to Bishops:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi_en.html

If you didn’t just read that and have no interest in hearing another perspective or having your points addressed by the Pope himself, then please stop posting put downs of the Latin Mass.

People, good people, people adherent to the Magesterium have for too long bought into unfounded notions that the Latin Mass is everything ranging from evil to superstitious to magic for sick, sad souls to nostalgia for old timers. Nothing could be further from the truth.

If you are so progressive and open minded to change, try understanding why millions of people all over the world want the Extraordinary Form. Otherwise, enjoy the Mass you attend and God’s blessings to you.

 

[wisdomseeker]

At the time of Vatican II the church faced two alternatives. Remain as it was or become more attuned to a changing world. The Latin mass with all of its solemnity had been engrained in millions of Catholics. and there was considerable division when it was changed. A sister-in-law actually left the church because of this and ended up without a church connection of any kind.

 The idea of returning to pre-Vatican ways would only succeed in alienating millions today who never knew the old mass and are content with the present one. It has much more participation by the people, has done away with the notion that a priest is the end-all ruler in his parish, has introduced some wonderful contemporary music that did not go back centuries, has adopted the vernacular so that everybody can understand all parts of the mass, has diminished an emphasis on ornate statuary which made many non-Catholics think of Catholics as pagans, etc. Frankly, I would suggest a few additional changes, but this is not the place to do that.

 Okay, so a few of the 40,000 or so parish priests went overboard. That was inevitable.

 Catholicism in the US and Europe has suffered massive losses, true, but those losses would have been even greater had Vatican II not moved the church from medievalism into the world of today.

The Church is to be the light of the world and not to go with the world. of course since you have no idea what the Church is, you could not agree with her.

the Church is to hold the unchangeble Faith from age to age, she is not supposed to change with times. she holds the world accountable to God. in teh Church, the priest is ordained to lead the people. we are not one in the same. of course after VII, the priests lost their places in the Church. but this is going to change because the Church belongs to Christ and not ot us.
we Catholics specially our leaders must repent and return to God.
we have been humiliated time and time again by the world because of the situation of the Church now and days. but this will change and she once again will be the light of the world.
there was never so much confusion in teh Church as it is today. how can that be since everybody understands the language?
the babel tower all over again. that is what happened when we try to do away with things that are of God. confusion.

the Latin is abSacred language of the Church. it must remain forever.

 

[georgewithfaith]

Nostalgia? How about a sense of the sacred.

Brian Walden says:

While I support the liberal use of the Traditional Latin Mass, I don’t think it’s the only option. What people, especially those too young to ever have attended a TLM before the new missal, want more than anything is reverence - a Mass that lifts them up to God. Because the Novus Ordo Mass is so frequently abused, or at the very least not celebrated as reverently as it easily could be, young people turn to the TLM. If they could find a reverent NO Mass near them with incense and altar bells and high quality hymns and meaty homilies and the priest facing East and Latin for common prayers if not the entire Mass, I think most orthodox Catholics would be happy. These things are the standard for the NO Mass, yet sadly they’re hard to find so people opt for the TLM if there’s one available.

The Tridentine Mass will become the norm one day because it lifts us to a level of reverence that I don’t believe an OF Mass can do. The priests who offer Tridentine Mass tend to be strict to Church teaching. They are the under represented heroes of the Church today.

Young Catholics and young priests have been raised with the “revolution” and they have seen enough. We are slowly turning our faces back to God in the Most Holy Trinity with the full honor, worship and praise the Holy Trinity deserves. I was born and raised with the Novus Ordo Mass. It was formally forced on the Church months after I was born. Last spring I attended my first Tridentine High Mass and have been going regularly since then.

 

[wisdomseeker]

No matter how much you try to reform and improve the N.O. you will always in the end wind up back at the TLM. The plain fact is the N.O. is a made up, man centered liturgy. The council never called for it. Once you learn more about your faith you will wind up wondering what in the world happened. You will start attending the TLM. You may not like it at first. That will change and you will find yourself being more and more attracted to the TLM. Ultimately you will find yourself wondering how we got in the mess we are in now and how long Rome will take to ultimately get back to the TLM as the ordinary form.

very true. i wonder today how we can ever get back. it seems like people have an aversion to the past. yesterday watching EWTN, alex jones said something like: worship was a dialogue, i think, by his explanation, this dialogue was between the priest and the people in the Church. that is wrong. the worship is not a dialogue between the people, it may be a dialogue between the priest and God, in which the priest offers the Sacrifice to our God for the sins of the people. some protestants come into the Church but never abandoned their ways and their believes and try to impose their beliefs into Catholics. they sure have succeeded somewhat. their music being incorporated into Catholic worship and everything else. it just doesnt work. today we have something like protestant Catholic worship. very disarmoniac.