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

Status
Not open for further replies.
edwest211 said:
Why was it important to get rid of them at the time?
Click to expand...
I can’t speak for all, but not a few believed and believe there was excessive attachment to devotional items and that a return the essential was necessary. This principle of a “a return to sources” was a driving force behind the reform…
 
And your chart is put together with someone with an agenda, as it clearly does not reflect the actual findings of CARA. As in, the document is polemical.

And no, I don’t have to quote charts; you can actually do some research if you wish to contest the matter.

HV was perhaps the most prophetic document produced by a Pope in - well, we can go back to the time the mind of man remembereth not.

And without realizing it, you make my point with your last comment; not only does your reference not detail prior to Vatican 2, but your comment also points out a glaring fact: Vatican 2 was not the cause of the Protestant churches loss of attendance.

Guess what - it was not V2. And contrary to your referenced chart, Gallup, CARA and related polls all show the drop off in attendance starting about 1957.

So if there was a relatively parallel drop in attendance in Sunday observance between the Catholic Church and the mainline Protestant churches, then it must be due to something else. It started before, and continued after.

As to your veiled references to Pope John 23 indicating that there was going to be a Council, the vast majority of people had no idea what that was c=going to review; but at least some knew that Vatican 1 was never completed. Further, before the Council actually started and after a certain Cardinal and his staff were unable to derail any proposal by Pope John, documents were drafted by that same Cardinal and staff which were indicative of a very narrow matter of issues - documents which were rejected resoundingly when the bishops of the world first met, and totally new ones proposed and drafted.

Almost all of which the laity were completely oblivious to.
 
JanetF said:
I was born in '64 so I don’t remember mass in Latin as a child, though I have gone as an adult. I remember communion rails and I miss them, I’d like to kneel for communion, but without the rail that might be problematic getting back up 😉

Can’t really answer as to anything else as I was too young.
Click to expand...
What a difference just two years makes. I was born in January of '66. I’ve only received at a Communion rail as an adult. I have a picture of my first Communion and I received standing, on the tongue.
OraLabora said:
I’m curious about where your mom lived at the time. I’ve spoken to many people who experienced this in Québec, where I live, prior to the Council. Our local Church here was more than a tad Jansenist, with a close Quebec variant, Lacouturism. My understanding is that there were similar experiences in Ireland, that I imagine got exported with the Irish diaspora.
Click to expand...
We were living “overseas.” Dad was military so the priest would have been a military chaplain under the New York diocese. Although I don’t remember it, my parents told me that Mom needed the surgery or she would die. She was essentially bleeding to death, albeit slowly.
 
Both you and I had experience of an ethnic enclave; thank you for making my point in your #1.

If you read my comment again, you might notice that I did not refer to Catholic colleges/universities for several reasons: 1) there were and are far fewer of them than there are of non-Catholic (including state) institutions. And most Catholic institutions were and are much smaller in attendance. They also were and are more expensive. Secularism was alive and well in non-Catholic institutions far earlier than WW2.

I did not say anyone forgot their families. They were no longer under the direct influence and watchfulness of them.

I am quite well aware of the fact that progressives wanted something more than a rote, memorized catechesis, and having been raised on the BC, it had great value; but needed to extend beyond simple memorization. The changes wrought will resound likely for the next century, if not more.

But a point not made is that Europe especially “crashed” harder than the US - and the BC was not European catechesis; it was US. So pounding on an issue we both accept is not answering why the Church has imploded in terms of participation. Secularism is even more prevalent and has been, since the French Revolution
 
otjm said:
Someone on a different thread posted a speech given by a bishop 14 months earlier; the bishop was clearly against the use of the vernacular. I am sure he was not alone; but nowhere is there a tallying of those who were totally against the vernacular, those who would accept a bit, those who would accept a lot, and those who wanted it totally in the vernacular. I recently had someone reference a writer who posited that the vernacular was intended to be far more limited.
Click to expand...
Whatever was intended, the result was far more dramatic than expected:
Therefore, when the Second Vatican Council convened in order to accommodate the Church to the requirements of her proper apostolic office precisely in these times, it examined thoroughly, as had Trent, the instructive and pastoral character of the sacred Liturgy. Since no Catholic would now deny the lawfulness and efficacy of a sacred rite celebrated in Latin, the Council was also able to grant that “the use of the vernacular language may frequently be of great advantage to the people” and gave the faculty for its use. The enthusiasm in response to this measure has been so great everywhere that it has led, under the leadership of the Bishops and the Apostolic See itself, to permission for all liturgical celebrations in which the people participate to be in the vernacular, for the sake of a better comprehension of the mystery being celebrated.
General Instruction on the Roman Missal(2003) 12
Click to expand...
 
At the time, Catholics and Protestants were entirely separate entities. I have seen books written by the appropriate persons that gave detailed information about what to expect if someone who was Catholic wanted to marry a Protestant. It was discouraged.

I point out dates and you want me to believe your defense has any merit? It doesn’t. As I wrote, the Church was watching the world and Pope Pius XII was the one who offered the idea to Pope John XXIII. You weren’t there in 1957. What was going on? An increased push for girlie magazines? After the Kinsey Report about Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953), when did the first issue of Playboy appear? 1953. There’s more. The National Legion of Decency, formerly the Catholic Legion of Decency, was operating at full force. In 1957, the Supreme Court issued a wrong decision about movies.

I made a clear, not veiled reference to Pope John XXIII. Please don’t mischaracterize what I wrote.

I have a publication that was published at the start of the Council to inform the laity. We heard about it in school and on the radio at the time. Please do not make unsupported claims.
 
Last edited:
I wasn’t where in 1957? Roncalli had no idea he was going to be Pope. and Vatican 1 was never completed. Where you are going with this I have no idea, but I am more than happy to stand by what I have said.

As to whatever booklet you may have, it has little or nothing to do with our conversation; and your drift to another topic - the rise in pornography - has next to nothing of our current discussion other than to provide an example of the underlying currents driven by secularism - so thank you again for making my point.

Protestantism and Catholicism are still clearly separate entities, but thank you for the non-point; both have exhibited a gradual decrease in attendance at weekly Sunday observance dating back to the peak well before the bishops filed into the Vatican.

You might want to do a little bit more research about what led up to the start of the Council.

You ignore what I say and come back and partly support what I say; this is not going anywhere except in a circle. Thanks for your participation.
 
Thank you for your reference; I had not ever seen this brought up. It certainly expresses the acceptance of the vernacular, and while I suspect there were a goodly number of bishops who favored at least some of the vernacular, there is the issue of the response of the laity, which was in most part overwhelmingly accepting of the move from Latin to the native language.
 
True but these things do make up the physical element of our faith which is so important because many people connect with physical things that remind them of heavenly truths. Incense is one of them. Candles. Statues. Icons. Even litigurical chant.

I don’t know. When we get into heaven it’s suppose to be radiant and beautiful. I think Beautiful temples and liturgy are just a foretaste of the worship taking place in heaven and should be so.

I went to the Shrine of St. Rose Duschene in MO recently. It was very disheartening to see the chapel her remains are in. It was “renovated” by an artist in the late 60s——white walls. No crucifix. A tiny box to the right which is supposed to be the tabernacle. No art. It was very depressing inside. It’s was almost just a white box with benches.

Is that our beautiful Catholic Faith? No color or Sacred art?
 
Last edited:
MiserereMei25 said:
I went to the Shrine of St. Rose Duschene in MO recently. It was very disheartening to see the chapel her remains are in. It was “renovated” by an artist in the late 60s——white walls. No crucifix. A tiny box to the right which is supposed to be the tabernacle. No art. It was very depressing inside. It’s was almost just a white box with benches.
Click to expand...
These all represent personal preferences… to many people, simple elegance is a wondrous witness
MiserereMei25 said:
Is that our beautiful Catholic Faith? No color or Sacred art?
Click to expand...
This is where it all falls apart… no one is suggesting no color or art… this argument seems to be based on the belief that certain forms of art are the truth, but they are not. I find modern Catholic Churches to be beautiful in their own right. If we distill faith down to personal preferences, we are heading down the wrong path…
 
Last edited:
godisgood77 said:
These are represent personal preferences… to many simple elegance is a wondrous witness
Click to expand...
Indeed. In fact in monasticism, austerity has a long established tradition. It’s what I prefer in fact, and the abbey I’m associated with has a church that is at the same time both plain, and beautiful, and which works wonderfully with light.
 
In the 60’'s, we went to St. Patricks catholic school/parish in New York. Dominican sisters and 3 regular teachers. Mass was every day at school in the gym, confession was in confessionals. About this time, as someone said earlier felt banners started to pop up. Sunday was about an hour and a half to two hours. Kneelers, patens, altar rails were brought in Mass weekdays and weekends. It was transitional at the time, some old some new, daily Mass was for an hour (one school period in the middle of the day). Roman canon dur the liturgy of the Eucharist. Next was Boston in the 70’s, no kneelers etc, but old hymns, dynamic priest (also a family friend, stopped by every night) made me love the faith. NO was the 62 version. Communion still on the tongue. Roman canon during the Eucharist. CCD (catechism classes) was for 2 hours every Thursday for 9 months, same as the school year, lasted for 4 years. ( Really need to bring that back) Confession was still in confessionals. We had 3 parishes in town, St Martins, St Augustines (cathedral) and St. Josephs. Didn’t care for the last one as it was all new with modernish hymns.

Next was Denver in 82 to present. All Parishes were communion by hand, which logically I don’t object to considering the last supper, but it still felt very uncomfortable. Kneelers, patens etc have been absent for the last 37 years. Holding hands during prayer, I really hate that part, just too faux and cheesy to me. First parish, no kneelers etc., basic NO, no confessionals, Altar at the front, later changed to in the round (hated that, still that was) Confession in all parishes face to face, more like a counseling meeting than confession. Really really hated that. Next parish I went to for about a year, band music and all the modernisms that I didn’t like. Went to Queen of Peace, my kids went to preschool there, basic NO, no bands or any of that, though the hymns varied with old and new.

cont.
 
Last edited:
Current parish Our Lady of Loretto is excellent, been going for about 24 years, combination of Old and New, with a great emphasis on the traditional, with parts of the Mass said in Latin. Mass started out at the high school gym til the Parish was built 23 years ago. Confession has been new style counseling, 4 years ago changed back to confessionals, due to our old monseigneur was steering the church back to traditional. Charles Chaput steered the Diocese back toward the TLM , sending quite a few to Omaha to be trained. Our parish, because of our monseigneur, was chosen to train priests for the last 17 years. Currently intermittent use of Patens (being brought back) plans to put in altar rails, Reception is either tongue or hand, mass is the 62 version with the Litany at the end and the St. Michael prayer. (personally I still pray the last gospel, hoping they bring that back) One priest (27 yr old, impressive) does half the Mass in Latin (awesome homilies) Mass is much more reverent than previous parishes, and why I have gone there the last 24 years. Hymns are traditional. Catechism classes have slowly been brought back, mainly due to lack of volunteers to teach (currently only 2) , so a much abbreviated version of what I had growing up. Deciding if I would like to teach but my Job is prohibitive. One priest uses the Roman canon, Liturgy of the word: English, liturgy of the Eucharist: Latin. The new monseigneur uses one of the 4 Eucharistic prayers during the Liturgy of the Eucharist. He also is committed the work of steering the parish back to traditional. Stations of the Cross every friday, confessions 3 days a week or on call as needed. Our New Archbishop, Aquila continues the work started by Chaput.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
 
edwest211 said:
You are promoting a false narrative. Churches are designed to inspire worship and to give glory to God.
Click to expand...
And there are different ways to achieve this. The Benedictine way, and even more so the Cistercian way, is austerity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top