What were the post-Vatican II changes like to live through?

Status
Not open for further replies.
nightshade said:
I am a millennial (and new Catholic) quite fond of the Latin mass.

But they can keep their gross craft beers. Yuck.

I am also quite content with my little parish that seems to combine the best of both worlds- altar rails, guitar music, some Latin depending on the priest, and quiet reverence of Eucharistic Adoration and a rosary before every mass.
Click to expand...
If most parishes were like yours, then most people who gravitate towards the Latin Mass would be content in a parish like yours.

Your parish sounds like the happy medium that Pope Benedict hoped would happen with more Latin Masses being said.
 
Baby boomers is an invented term. Those born between 1946 and 1964 realize that any music that is not sacred music does not belong in church.
 
SMHW said:
In school, we practiced the responses in both English and Latin. I distinctly remember practicing for my first communion. We were told that we should say, “Ah-men,” if the priest said, "“Corpus Christi,” and “Aay-men,” if the priest said, “The Body of Christ.” We didn’t know until the day of our First Communion that the Mass would be in English. (That would have been in 1966.)
Click to expand...
WOW!!! That “Ah-men” vs “Aay-men” thing is fascinating! I knew this was a post V2 thing, but never knew that some were literally taught this.

For the love of me, I still can’t understand why Catholics felt the need to change the way we pronounced Amen?

The Anglicans have been doing their service in English for hundreds of years and they still say “Ah-men.”

What was the reasoning???
 
Last edited:
The reasoning revolved around Religion Class. We were taught how to behave at mass and what was reverent. What we thought didn’t matter. Being reverent and obedient did.
 
edwest211 said:
The reasoning revolved around Religion Class. We were taught how to behave at mass and what was reverent. What we thought didn’t matter. Being reverent and obedient did.
Click to expand...
??

I mean what was the reasoning that the teachers wanted “Aay-men” when speaking English? Why did they want a different pronunciation?
 
At the time, parents trusted schools to give their kids a proper education. As far as a religious education, that meant consistency. So a young person in one school learned the same as a student in a different city. All of my Catholic school books for religion class had to go through a review process. We were even taught how to properly hold our hands together during prayer. Our teachers did not make up anything.
 
It is a great question but the experience was different for every Catholic. I graduated from High School in 1959 so I lived through it. My opinion is that the implementation was purely done. There were major changes and each diocese used a different timeline. Also, we did not have the internet so communication was uneven.
On the other hand major changes were accomplished with a major decision.

I used to alter serve and understood very little of the altar prayers in Latin. I had a missal later on so I could pray in English, but most people didn’t bother. Most masses were longer.

Now over 50 years later, I love the changes!
 
The implementation was done badly. And a correct view of the time period needs to be promoted. Every Catholic experienced the same thing, at the time. Communication was very even. No decision for certain changes was ever made. Pope Benedict:

"In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.

"This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.

“As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.”
 
edwest211 said:
At the time, parents trusted schools to give their kids a proper education. As far as a religious education, that meant consistency. So a young person in one school learned the same as a student in a different city. All of my Catholic school books for religion class had to go through a review process. We were even taught how to properly hold our hands together during prayer. Our teachers did not make up anything.
Click to expand...
Right.

But WHY did the Religious teachers, textbook authors, Catholic publishers, theologians, & clergy feel the need to change the English pronunciation of Amen? We were pronouncing it the same as the Episcopalians (“Ah-men”).

But after Vatican II, we changed to the Baptist way of “Aay-men.” I’m curious why the text books, etc all felt that change was needed?

Why did they feel that the American English pronunciation of Amen needed to be different from the British English pronunciation (which was the same as the Latin pronunciation)?

The ONLY thing I can think of was it was part of the “Americanism” heresy.
 
Last edited:
I have no idea what you are referring to. School teachers had no authority to change anything. They, themselves, were taught the proper words and forms before they became teachers.
 
edwest211 said:
I have no idea what you are referring to. School teachers had no authority to change anything. They, themselves, were taught the proper words and forms before they became teachers.
Click to expand...
I’m referring to what @SMHW said they were taught in school. They were taught to say “Ah-men” if the priest said “Corpus Christi” and “Aay-men” if the priest said “The Body of Christ.”
SMHW said:
In school, we practiced the responses in both English and Latin. I distinctly remember practicing for my first communion. We were told that we should say, “Ah-men,” if the priest said, "“Corpus Christi,” and “Aay-men,” if the priest said, “The Body of Christ.” We didn’t know until the day of our First Communion that the Mass would be in English. (That would have been in 1966.)
Click to expand...
Therefore, my question is: why did the clergy feel that the “correct” American English pronunciation of Amen should be “Aay-men” when we American Catholics historically said “Ah-men” just like the Episcopalians in the US and British Catholics?
 
Last edited:
phil19034 said:
I can tell you that Gen X doesn’t like them either…
Click to expand...
I get a bit irked when I hear so much blamed on baby boomers. I am a late baby boomer. I’m no fan of folksy music but I can tolerate it except at Mass.

Almost all of the members of our Gregorian schola are in fact baby boomers. Our participation in the schola leaves no doubt about where our sacred music allegiances lay. I’m also a member of the Gregorian Institute of Canada and guess what… we have many baby boomer members.

Plenty of baby boomers come to Mass at the abbey I’m affiliated with specifically to escape bad music (and liturgy) in local parishes.

So please folks, stop blaming baby boomers for all that is wrong with Church music.

Bad taste is not the exclusive preserve of baby boomers.
phil19034 said:
They were taught to say “Ah-men” if the priest said “Corpus Christi” and “Aay-men” if the priest said “The Body of Christ.”
Click to expand...
I’m francophone and I attend Mass at a French-speaking abbey and French-speaking parishes.

We’ve always said “ah-men”, and on the rare occasions I go to Mass in English, my habits carry over 😉
 
Last edited:
phil19034 said:
But WHY did the Religious teachers, textbook authors, Catholic publishers, theologians, & clergy feel the need to change the English pronunciation of Amen? We were pronouncing it the same as the Episcopalians (“Ah-men”).

But after Vatican II, we changed to the Baptist way of “Aay-men.” I’m curious why the text books, etc all felt that change was needed?

Why did they feel that the American English pronunciation of Amen needed to be different from the British English pronunciation (which was the same as the Latin pronunciation)?

The ONLY thing I can think of was it was part of the “Americanism” heresy.
Click to expand...
I don’t think it was at all related to the Americanism heresy. I use both pronunciations interchangeably, and have never given it a lot of thought, but if pressed, I would say that AH-MEN is the Latinate pronunciation, and AY-MEN is the vernacular English pronunciation. Either is correct.

It may have been an attempt to imitate the Baptist et al pronunciation. Even if so, it’s not incorrect. Just two ways of saying the same word and expressing the same idea. I have heard “Extreme Unction” pronounced as both “EX-treme Unction” and “Ex-TREME Unction”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top