What good has come out of Vatican II?

[Paul_Folbrecht]

No, but there were a lot of stereotypes and prejudice arise from it, as in “hocus-pocus”, “smells and bells”. The Hollywood image of Catholicism is also colored by the image of the TLM. Another principle from Pauls letter to the Corinthians above, is that we also keep things where even unbelievers can understand, lest they misinterpret what Catholicism is all about. One of the biggest boons from Vatican II is and will continue to be a lessening of prejudice from Protestants, as Mass is now more understandable for the completely uninformed. I look for this to have long-term fruit in ecumenical dialogue over the next century. More to the point, I believe it makes conversion to Catholicism much easier and is part of the reason for the increase in converts.

Your post deserves another reply, as it just hit me now what is so insidious about it.

Hocus-pocus? Smells and bells?

My friend, the Novus Ordo Mass contains both as well. Certainly, your ‘hocus-pocus’ is transubstantiation? This is typically how its criticized by modernists. Certainly, a valid NO, or most of them at least, have either bells or incense or both?

Your post really does implicitly say that in order to make Catholicism more attractive to unbelievers we should get rid of us much Catholicism as is necessary. I’m not seeing how I could read the intent differently (though I’m very sure you’ll tell me I misunderstood).

By the way, any of the modern Catholic apologists I know of, who are doing great work to bring as many souls into the Church as possible, like Hahn, Keating, Ray, Fr. Corapi, etc., etc., would never endorse this type of thinking.

 

[elts1956]

Notice that nobody said that (certainly your use of the word ‘hate’ is hyperbole).

I was pointing out that there simply are many people who have quite a bit of negativity about the TLM, and do put it down in all kinds of ways. And, that does imply they thought the Church, at least, had some major problems in the liturgy for 14 centuries or so - whether they say that or not!

Dismissive comments about the TLM I’d bet we’ve all heard:

“It’s a show put on by a priest.”

“It’s ALL ABOUT the pomp and ceremony.”

“The priest doesn’t even look at you.”

“Nobody has any idea what’s going on.”

“People are so bored and confused they daydream or pray the rosary.” (In other words, it’s the Mass’s fault and the Church’s fault if people don’t pray the Mass or even pay attention).

Have you heard those types of comments?

Regarding the posture, I can’t say how many times I’d heard in my life, when TLM was something from a dim past I’d never known and never thought much about, I’d heard that line “The priest puts his back to the people.” Well, that is, at the least, editorializing right there - it’s said by people who are either ignorant (like I was) or trying to make a point. But, of course, the right way to look at it, because it actually speaks to the intent of the posture, is to say “The priest faces the same way as the people” and/or “The priest faces Christ.”

So,

1. Preferences between mutually exclusives (such as liturgical language/vernacular) do imply a like/like less or like/not like relationship (even that much is frequently not acknowledged).
2. There is no shortage of harsh criticism for TLM from many quarters (not even considering the Protestants).

I see nothing to criticize in either TLM or NO. Those that do critique either liturgy don’t know much about either one.

 

[Cat]

I would consider myself a serious convert. I was kicked out of the evangelical church (along with my husband children). We spent three years studying Catholicism before making a decision to convert. We are the only Catholics in our family, other than a great uncle of mine and one aunt on my husband’s side.

I prefer contemporary.

I love old architecture, traditional hymns, and I enjoy the art, the vestments, and incense and candles.

But I also love the contemporary music (including Life Teen music), and modern architecture.

And I truly love my own heart language. I really don’t like foreign languages much. I respect the tradition. If Holy Mother Church mandated that all Masses must be said in the foreign language, I would comply. But I hope that we will be able to continue Mass in my heart language.

To me, these things don’t make me a serious or non-serious convert. They are just personal preferences.

 

[pnewton]

By the way, any of the modern Catholic apologists I know of, who are doing great work to bring as many souls into the Church as possible, like Hahn, Keating, Ray, Fr. Corapi, etc., etc., would never endorse this type of thinking.

This type of appeal is called an appeal to false authority, as you have no idea what they would say to my thinking. Again, my opinion is an application of St. Paul’s teaching, so I will stick with his authority, since I know what he said. It is Paul that said speaking where everyone understands is also for the benefit of those who do not believe. Of course the Mass has the same transubstantion as in the older TLM. However, how will this be understood by an unbeliever if it is not in a language the unbeliever can understand?

My post did not say that we should get rid of as much Catholicism as necessary. That is a blantant falsehood. If you would read for understanding and not with the intent to produce propaganda, you would know this. Do not forget who the Father of lies is.

For example, I used the phrase hocus-pocus as an example of something that rose from misunderstanding of the Mass. You re-labelled this “*your *hocus pocus.” Such tactics are beneath anyone with a desire of truth above rhetoric. I gave an honest reply to the thread. Have you given yours yet? I ask this the second time. Are you here just to argue with other people’s observations, as if yours are superior to theirs? So, again, what is the good in Vatican II?

 

[Ridgerunner]

I would consider myself a serious convert. I was kicked out of the evangelical church (along with my husband children). We spent three years studying Catholicism before making a decision to convert. We are the only Catholics in our family, other than a great uncle of mine and one aunt on my husband’s side.

I prefer contemporary.

I love old architecture, traditional hymns, and I enjoy the art, the vestments, and incense and candles.

But I also love the contemporary music (including Life Teen music), and modern architecture.

And I truly love my own heart language. I really don’t like foreign languages much. I respect the tradition. If Holy Mother Church mandated that all Masses must be said in the foreign language, I would comply. But I hope that we will be able to continue Mass in my heart language.

To me, these things don’t make me a serious or non-serious convert. They are just personal preferences.

God bless you, Cat! I have never been a Protestant, but I grew up among fundamentalists, and I think got the idea fairly well. I think if you prefer speaking to God in your own heart language, that’s a wonderful thing and bespeaks earnestness on your part.

 

[jam070406]

I would consider myself a serious convert. I was kicked out of the evangelical church (along with my husband children). We spent three years studying Catholicism before making a decision to convert. We are the only Catholics in our family, other than a great uncle of mine and one aunt on my husband’s side.

I prefer contemporary.

I love old architecture, traditional hymns, and I enjoy the art, the vestments, and incense and candles.

But I also love the contemporary music (including Life Teen music), and modern architecture.

And I truly love my own heart language. I really don’t like foreign languages much. I respect the tradition. If Holy Mother Church mandated that all Masses must be said in the foreign language, I would comply. But I hope that we will be able to continue Mass in my heart language.

To me, these things don’t make me a serious or non-serious convert. They are just personal preferences.

Cat,
I absolutely love the Gloria and Credo in the Latin Mass. I don’t know what it is, but they bring tears to my eyes everytime. They are a foreign language but, just so beautiful! Your post made me think of them.

 

[elts1956]

I would consider myself a serious convert. I was kicked out of the evangelical church (along with my husband children). We spent three years studying Catholicism before making a decision to convert. We are the only Catholics in our family, other than a great uncle of mine and one aunt on my husband’s side.

I prefer contemporary.

I love old architecture, traditional hymns, and I enjoy the art, the vestments, and incense and candles.

But I also love the contemporary music (including Life Teen music), and modern architecture.

And I truly love my own heart language. I really don’t like foreign languages much. I respect the tradition. If Holy Mother Church mandated that all Masses must be said in the foreign language, I would comply. But I hope that we will be able to continue Mass in my heart language.

To me, these things don’t make me a serious or non-serious convert. They are just personal preferences.

Amen to that Cat.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

This type of appeal is called an appeal to false authority, as you have no idea what they would say to my thinking. Again, my opinion is an application of St. Paul’s teaching, so I will stick with his authority, since I know what he said. It is Paul that said speaking where everyone understands is also for the benefit of those who do not believe. Of course the Mass has the same transubstantion as in the older TLM. However, how will this be understood by an unbeliever if it is not in a language the unbeliever can understand?

It looks to me like what you’re doing is behaving like a sola scriptura Protestant and 1) interpreting Scripture on your own along with 2) making yourself your own source of authority.

Why do you think the Church disobeyed your interpretation of Paul’s words for 1400 years?

My post did not say that we should get rid of as much Catholicism as necessary. That is a blantant falsehood. If you would read for understanding and not with the intent to produce propaganda, you would know this. Do not forget who the Father of lies is.

Of course you didn’t say that explicitly, as I acknowledged - you said it implicitly. You gave examples of things about Catholicism that others see as “barriers” and cheered the fact that they’ve been gotten rid of.

You didn’t answer my question regarding what else you think is up for grabs. What about all the liturgical changes the Council didn’t authorize, but occurred anyway? What do you think about those?

What do you think about our Pope describing the resultant liturgy as “banal”?

[Concerning what’s all ‘up for grabs’ - I heard a first-hand account recently about a priest who was upset that Jesus & Mary statues were put into the chapel at his church because “non-Christians come here and might be offended”. What do you think of that?]

For example, I used the phrase hocus-pocus as an example of something that rose from misunderstanding of the Mass. You re-labelled this “*your *hocus pocus.” Such tactics are beneath anyone with a desire of truth above rhetoric. I gave an honest reply to the thread. Have you given yours yet? I ask this the second time. Are you here just to argue with other people’s observations, as if yours are superior to theirs? So, again, what is the good in Vatican II?

Maybe I misunderstood you re: hocus-pocus. It sounded like you said it was a good thing that the mystical element was downplayed as this made the Mass more acceptable to some. Yet, the Mass is mystical and is supposed to be mystical.

Now, you’re saying that the problem was misunderstanding - people just didn’t understand before and now they do. Well, that is very different and I apologize if I misunderstood you.

But, making the Mass completely understandable on the surface to somebody who has not been catechized and knows nothing about it is not really a sensible goal. Worse, though, the main point of the Mass - the making present of Calvary - is at least arguably far more veiled in the NO than the Latin rite. No, not arguably - it simply is.

What a crazy idea that one person’s ideas about something might be “superior” to another’s! Surely, all viewpoints are valid! Was there another way you intended that remark to be interpreted?

As for the reason I responded to your post, it’s because I disagree with your logic & philosophy on the matter as posted in this public forum. That’s really quite a valid reason.

I believe there were some positives of Vatican II. Like anyone orthodox and realistic, however, and like our current Pontiff, I think there were some massive negatives as well, like the false ecumenism that has done so much damage to the faith.

 

[SFD]

This is the question I ask myself often. Anyone?

It’s the wrong question, IMHO. There are two questions that must not be confused.

1. Was Vatican II orthodox?
2. Was what the hierarchy did after Vatican II orthodox?

The answer to question 1 is difficult because of two things: ambiguity in the documents and the fact that the council was purposefully called a “pastoral” council. There’s are great deal of confusion here and rightly so…no one really knows what the term “pastoral” council actually means because it was never defined.

The answer to question 2 can be answered by addressing separately each change in the discipline and doctrine. Each answer need not be tied to the first question and only results in confusion when it is tied with the question about the council. The liberals wanted to confuse these issues to neutralise the opposition they knew they would encounter.

It is also fair to note that any major change in discipline has negative effects that must be weighed when the change is contemplated (Pius XII’s changes in the fasting requirements for the reception of Holy Communion is a good example of this).

SFD

 

[pnewton]

It looks to me like what you’re doing is behaving like a sola scriptura Protestant and 1) interpreting Scripture on your own along with 2) making yourself your own source of authority.

Why do you think the Church disobeyed your interpretation of Paul’s words for 1400 years?

I do not believe in scripture alone. Neither am I hesitant to turn to it. It is the first and greatest Church document. If I had a dollar for everytime some one quoted Trent or Pius X and then put their own interpretation to that I would be rich. The Church at the time of Vatican II had the same knowledge of Church tradition that all the traditionalists here have, yet came to different conclusions. To believe that this is acceptable, yet use of scripture is not is hypocracy in the extreme. Which is greater, the foundation, or the walls? We can rely on individual interpretation of tradition, contrary to Vatican II, but dare not mention Holy Scripture?

When we go to the great document of Holy Scripture, the “P” word gets thrown out. I did not interpret the scripture, if we were to be technical, by the way, but merely pointed to the principle of making the worship we have understandable. That can be Latin in some cases, but not all, although this is just my opinion. You may disagree with my philosophy if you want, but I do not see making our churches into whitewashed tombs. I see too many things in a few traditionalists that are the exact same things Jesus cursed the Pharisees for. Ecumenical? Yes. I believe the Catholic that is not willing to stand as an ambassodor for Christ in the world does not deserve the name Christian. We were not called just to be fed, but to be the light to others. I am very ecumenical and willing to state so.

Finally, again you used false logic in appeal to false authority by saying you are like our Pontiff. I have read what he has written and some of it is extremely postive to Vatican II and liturgical changes. Some of it is very negative. He is a man of balance, neither a traditionalist or a liberal, but seeks the best wherever it may be found.

 

[pnewton]

You didn’t answer my question regarding what else you think is up for grabs. What about all the liturgical changes the Council didn’t authorize, but occurred anyway? What do you think about those?

I am totally deviation and innovation. However, Vatican II was 50 years ago and there have been a few changes authorized since.

What do you think about our Pope describing the resultant liturgy as “banal”?

He also described it as a vibrant fresco revealed after removing the whitewash of the last few centuries.

I believe there were some positives of Vatican II. Like anyone orthodox and realistic

AN you haven’t answered mine? What? BTW - This is also the OP’s question.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

I do not believe in scripture alone. Neither am I hesitant to turn to it. It is the first and greatest Church document. If I had a dollar for everytime some one quoted Trent or Pius X and then put their own interpretation to that I would be rich. The Church at the time of Vatican II had the same knowledge of Church tradition that all the traditionalists here have, yet came to different conclusions. To believe that this is acceptable, yet use of scripture is not is hypocracy in the extreme. Which is greater, the foundation, or the walls? We can rely on individual interpretation of tradition, contrary to Vatican II, but dare not mention Holy Scripture?

Did I imply you should be “afraid to turn to Scripture”? We, as Catholics, however, just can’t be in the habit of quoting it out of context.

I could quote dozens of passages to support my position as well - that wouldn’t get us any farther!

The statement “individual interpretation of Tradition” doesn’t make a lot of sense - Tradition just is; it speaks for itself. Tradition is not a document - it’s what the Church has actually done.

When we go to the great document of Holy Scripture, the “P” word gets thrown out. I did not interpret the scripture, if we were to be technical, by the way, but merely pointed to the principle of making the worship we have understandable. That can be Latin in some cases, but not all, although this is just my opinion. You may disagree with my philosophy if you want, but I do not see making our churches into whitewashed tombs. I see too many things in a few traditionalists that are the exact same things Jesus cursed the Pharisees for. Ecumenical? Yes. I believe the Catholic that is not willing to stand as an ambassodor for Christ in the world does not deserve the name Christian. We were not called just to be fed, but to be the light to others. I am very ecumenical and willing to state so.

Your interpretation lies in the fact that you’re using it to support your claim that an all-vernacular Mass is the way to go. And there’s nothing wrong with using Scripture to support a point of view - when it’s done a little more sensibly. Do you really think Paul had anything close to what we’re discussing here in mind?

Nice personal jab on traditionalists in general there. Your true colors are coming out.

Yes, by the way ecumenism is WONDERFUL - I’m ecumenical all the time - by describing the beauty and Truth of the Catholic Church when I get the chance. I’ve had a hand in bringing several people to or back to the faith. The problem is false ecumenism, as I said earlier, and which you have patently ignored.

Ecumenism, at its heart, is merely following the Great Commission, preaching Christ to the world. But we do this by proclaiming Truth, not in modifying it to make it more palatable to the world. And, well, Ok, removing reverence from liturgy is not the same as contradicting truth (getting rid of the “bells & smells” is definitely removing reverence), but it is a deliberate clouding of it.

You know, the early Christians faced the most pagan culture imaginable, worse even than ours now. Did you know that one of the things the Church was condemned for early on was for being “anti-human” - because it fought things like adultery and homosexual behavior? Yes, that’s one of the charges of one of the emperors at the start of a major persecution. But the early Church never bent, never compromised, not the tiniest bit.

That reminds me, of the several points you never responded on, another was the notion of more conversations (or vocations, or higher Mass attendance, etc.) since V2.

Finally, again you used false logic in appeal to false authority by saying you are like our Pontiff. I have read what he has written and some of it is extremely postive to Vatican II and liturgical changes. Some of it is very negative. He is a man of balance, neither a traditionalist or a liberal, but seeks the best wherever it may be found.

“I used false logic.” Hmm. Your brief replies have been consistent twisting of my words and intent, and not speaking to the heart of the issue. You speak above as if I had, er, condemned ‘ecumenism’ in general - very silly.

Oh, and I certainly didn’t “say” I’m “like our pontiff”. I did point out that he is not the cheerleader for the modernist liturgy you apparently are.

You seem to be bristling with hostility, apparently over the fact that you were called on making statements that clearly don’t reflect the type of ecumenism that is supported and called for by the Church. I’m sorry that it made you angry.

 

[elts1956]

It looks to me like what you’re doing is behaving like a sola scriptura Protestant and 1) interpreting Scripture on your own along with 2) making yourself your own source of authority.

Why do you think the Church disobeyed your interpretation of Paul’s words for 1400 years?

Of course you didn’t say that explicitly, as I acknowledged - you said it implicitly. You gave examples of things about Catholicism that others see as “barriers” and cheered the fact that they’ve been gotten rid of.

You didn’t answer my question regarding what else you think is up for grabs. What about all the liturgical changes the Council didn’t authorize, but occurred anyway? What do you think about those?

What do you think about our Pope describing the resultant liturgy as “banal”?

[Concerning what’s all ‘up for grabs’ - I heard a first-hand account recently about a priest who was upset that Jesus & Mary statues were put into the chapel at his church because “non-Christians come here and might be offended”. What do you think of that?]

Maybe I misunderstood you re: hocus-pocus. It sounded like you said it was a good thing that the mystical element was downplayed as this made the Mass more acceptable to some. Yet, the Mass is mystical and is supposed to be mystical.

Now, you’re saying that the problem was misunderstanding - people just didn’t understand before and now they do. Well, that is very different and I apologize if I misunderstood you.

But, making the Mass completely understandable on the surface to somebody who has not been catechized and knows nothing about it is not really a sensible goal. Worse, though, the main point of the Mass - the making present of Calvary - is at least arguably far more veiled in the NO than the Latin rite. No, not arguably - it simply is.

What a crazy idea that one person’s ideas about something might be “superior” to another’s! Surely, all viewpoints are valid! Was there another way you intended that remark to be interpreted?

As for the reason I responded to your post, it’s because I disagree with your logic & philosophy on the matter as posted in this public forum. That’s really quite a valid reason.

I believe there were some positives of Vatican II. Like anyone orthodox and realistic, however, and like our current Pontiff, I think there were some massive negatives as well, like the false ecumenism that has done so much damage to the faith.

Instead of arguing and pointing fingers and minds at another, let’s get some good Religious education programs in our parishes. Let our priests know we want to learn more and more and more…

 

[pnewton]

Did I imply you should be “afraid to turn to Scripture”? We, as Catholics, however, just can’t be in the habit of quoting it out of context.

Which is why I did not, but rather gave the whole scope and passage.

The statement “individual interpretation of Tradition” doesn’t make a lot of sense - Tradition just is; it speaks for itself. Tradition is not a document - it’s what the Church has actually done.

Then you freely support all that Vatican II did and how the Church there handed down the tradition in this most recent council. Good. We all agree on extra ecclessia null salus and all see it the same. The there is no false ecumenism.

Your interpretation lies in the fact that you’re using it to support your claim that an all-vernacular Mass is the way to go

Do you see why I doubt your connections? I never said, nor do I believe the all-vernacular Mass is the way to go. In fact, I stated, “That can be Latin in some cases, but not all, although this is just my opinion.” Does this sound like I believe in all vernacular Mass to you? Instead of assuming my position and stating your against it, maybe you should take what I say at face value.

And there’s nothing wrong with using Scripture to support a point of view - when it’s done a little more sensibly. Do you really think Paul had anything close to what we’re discussing here in mind?

Begging the question. I am sure you are familiar with that one. If I thought it was used insensibly, I would not have used it. I have yet to here anyone say why the principle Paul used to address the problems with tongues being unintelligible and thereby leading the unbelievers to confusion, does* not* apply. If it is not sensible, then why? If it not something that should be considered, then why?

But we do this by proclaiming Truth, not in modifying it to make it more palatable to the world. And, well, Ok, removing reverence from liturgy is not the same as contradicting truth

Yes. And like I pointed out the pitfalls that some traditionalists fall in, let me take a jab at the rest of us. This is the danger we must not give into. In effort to fulfill the goals of Vatican II, respect for God and for the Mass can not waiver.
"

I used false logic."…I did point out that he is not the cheerleader for the modernist liturgy you apparently are…You seem to be bristling with hostility, … I’m sorry that it made you angry.

I am not angry. I am not against traditionalism. I am no cheerleader for a modernist liturgy. I am loyal to the Church and believe in the Vatican II council for the same reason I believe in the Council of Trent, Ephesus and so one back to Jerusalem. I would change in any manner the Church desired tomorrow if it was asked.

As far as using false logic, it happens all the time. Often an authority figure is called for witness as if his name alone gives weight. Pope Benedict XVI is no modernist, but he also spoke well of the liturgy as he also once called it banal. We must take everything he said into consideration, not one statement.

 

[pnewton]

That reminds me, of the several points you never responded on, another was the notion of more conversations (or vocations, or higher Mass attendance, etc.) since V2.

Then I will now in the interest of fairness admit I might be wrong. I am speaking only from my own experience and unaware of the numbers of converts world wide. I know my parish is at least a third converts. The names you mentioned earlier, two of the four were converts. I do not delve too much into statistics because of the temptation to attach cause and effect where none exists. That and I know how easily they can be skewed. We’ve done that to death here. Also, I am trying to stay on topic.

And elts, I will attempt to turn down the rhetoric. I apologize about what I said earlier about “a few traditionalists”. The topic has been heavy on me lately that we as Catholics (all) often fall into the same patterns that the Pharisees did.

 

[keepitreal]

Your experience may be different than mine, but I do not know the difference between serious converts and, uh… would that be layed-back converts? I have tried to post on topic of what good I have seen come out of Vatican II. Just out of curiosity, is that what you are doing, or are you trying to demonstrate the opposite?

I don’t kniow one single person who has converted because of the New Mass. And, I don’t know anybody who knows anybody who has converted because of the New Mass. I know a lot of people who have left the Church beacuse of the New Mass. I know a heck of a lot of people who have converted because of the Traditional Mass, both before the “Springtime” of VII and after. All these claims are** pure ****fantasy ** but mostly fear. Fear of what the New Mass is and what it has really done.

 

[Cat]

I don’t kniow one single person who has converted because of the New Mass. And, I don’t know anybody who knows anybody who has converted because of the New Mass. I know a lot of people who have left the Church beacuse of the New Mass. I know a heck of a lot of people who have converted because of the Traditional Mass, both before the “Springtime” of VII and after. All these claims are** pure ****fantasy ** but mostly fear. Fear of what the New Mass is and what it has really done.

I would hope that people don’t convert to Catholicism because of Mass. To me that would indicate that they are converting to an “experience” rather than Jesus.

At any rate, I and my husband converted, and I will boldly say that it was the “New Mass” as you call it where we were confronted with Catholicism and its teachings.

Obviously the Lord can work in strange ways, and certainly He can work in a foreign language Mass to convert people.

But I honestly don’t think we would ever have given Catholicism a glance if the Mass were in a foreign language.

Evangelical Protestants emphasize teaching and learning. They are not impressed by beauty. The plainer the better.

Evangelicals tend to despise the flesh and they try very hard to separate the sensual from the spiritual. Yes, it is a heresy, but it’s the way evangelicals are. Calling it a heresy doesn’t mean it isn’t happening among evangelicals.

Evangelicals also tend to reject “traditions of man,” which is what they see liturgy as.

Knowing these things, you can see why a TLM will NOT appeal to most evangelical Protestants.

They can’t be taught or learn if they can’t understand the language.

The “beauty” and “ceremony” means nothing to them except a pageant or stage production.

And liturgy in the OF of the Mass is detestable to them; liturgy in a foreign language Mass is so much gibberish to them.

I am NOT saying that Catholics should try to accomodate the evangelical Protestants by eliminating TLM and other Church traditions. Never.

But at least the OF of the Mass is something that will not repell evangelicals.

And of course, many of you know exceptions, evangelical Protestants who LOVE TLM and embrace all the traditions. Please always remember that these people are EXCEPTIONS. You should not make a conclusion based on the out-liers.

Several people in this thread have said that Vatican II opened the doors of the Church to Protestants. I would wholeheartedly agree with this. There are still a lot of Protestants (evangelical) who refuse to enter a Catholic Church, as they consider it pagan or even Satanic. But at least if they DO enter it now, they will be able to understand the language and follow what’s going on.

 

[keepitreal]

I would hope that people don’t convert to Catholicism because of Mass. To me that would indicate that they are converting to an “experience” rather than Jesus.

At any rate, I and my husband converted, and I will boldly say that it was the “New Mass” as you call it where we were confronted with Catholicism and its teachings.

Obviously the Lord can work in strange ways, and certainly He can work in a foreign language Mass to convert people.

But I honestly don’t think we would ever have given Catholicism a glance if the Mass were in a foreign language.

Evangelical Protestants emphasize teaching and learning. They are not impressed by beauty. The plainer the better.

Evangelicals tend to despise the flesh and they try very hard to separate the sensual from the spiritual. Yes, it is a heresy, but it’s the way evangelicals are. Calling it a heresy doesn’t mean it isn’t happening among evangelicals.

Evangelicals also tend to reject “traditions of man,” which is what they see liturgy as.

Knowing these things, you can see why a TLM will NOT appeal to most evangelical Protestants.

They can’t be taught or learn if they can’t understand the language.

The “beauty” and “ceremony” means nothing to them except a pageant or stage production.

And liturgy in the OF of the Mass is detestable to them; liturgy in a foreign language Mass is so much gibberish to them.

I am NOT saying that Catholics should try to accomodate the evangelical Protestants by eliminating TLM and other Church traditions. Never.

But at least the OF of the Mass is something that will not repell evangelicals.

And of course, many of you know exceptions, evangelical Protestants who LOVE TLM and embrace all the traditions. Please always remember that these people are EXCEPTIONS. You should not make a conclusion based on the out-liers.

Several people in this thread have said that Vatican II opened the doors of the Church to Protestants. I would wholeheartedly agree with this. There are still a lot of Protestants (evangelical) who refuse to enter a Catholic Church, as they consider it pagan or even Satanic. But at least if they DO enter it now, they will be able to understand the language and follow what’s going on.

Let me ask you a question. How many people who attend the New Mass “understand” what is going on?

 

[Thomas58]

I have a question regarding Vatican II that I have not seen addressed in this thread and was hoping that someone could answer it or shed some light on the issue.

Why did modernist, liberal theologians; such as Henri de Lubac, Yves Congar, and Karl Rahner; whose writings and/or teachings had previously been condemned or censured by the Holy Office in the days of Pope Pius XII, become prominent and influential in structuring the documents of Vatican II?

This fact alone could be enough to make one suspicious of the intentions of the Council. Was the Council “hijacked” by the Modernists?

Thomas

 

[pnewton]

Let me ask you a question. How many people who attend the New Mass “understand” what is going on?

Pretty much all down here. I guess we don’t all run in the same circles, but in my neck of the woods, the Mass is loved as it is, changes that are coming are eagerly and obediently awaited. We love the Church upto and through all its history and do not stop in the sixties. I guess that is why we are able to boast so many Protestant converts.

BTW - I can speak of one person that converted, not because of any particular Mass, but the ease of understanding the Mass was a tremendous boon. Me.