S
starrs0
Guest
Why was was the Liturgy and Mass reformed after Vatican II did the Magisterium just feel like it was time for a change or what?
- Status
K
kk1727
Guest
You’re going to get a variety of answers and I think it is mostly a combination of several factors. There had been a liturgical movement in the Church since the late 1800’s. Folks like Drews, Baumstark, Rauschen, Fortesque, Cabrol, Casel and many others had been instensely studying the liturgy. Some speculations were made on a variety of sub-topics. As time has gone on, some of these have been realized to have been inaccurate assumptions or that there were alternative interpretations of the data that we have. Regardless, one thing that is certain is that the liturgy did need some type of renewal or reform: something to raise it up from the merely performed ritual to that which is celebrated. Ironically, in many places the drastic reform of the liturgy didn’t achieve this end, but merely supplanted one set of text and rubrics for another. I’ve seen both editions of the Roman Missal (1962 and current) celebrated rubrically, reverently with the true devotion due to the worship of the Blessed Trinity. I’ve also seen both editions awash in liturgical abuses of different stripes. What you normally get today in most parishes is not the result of the revision of the text and rubrics solely but also of the prevailing Low Mass mentality of what came before. If you don’t have an indult for the celebration of the 1962 liturgical books in your dioceses, you might want to check into the availability of a Byzantine Catholic Divine Liturgy. As St. Augustine said “He who sings, prays twice!”
Pax,
Keith
Pax,
Keith
S
starrs0
Guest
Well In RCIA I keep hearing some the older Catholics make reference to the way things used to be vs the way they are now I asked why the reforms were done and I was told that it was done to return the Church to the ancient more simple form of worship practiced in the 1st and 2nd centuries is that a good explaination?
S
starrs0
Guest
Well In RCIA I keep hearing some of the older Catholics make reference to the way things used to be vs the way they are now I asked why the reforms were done and I was told that it was done to return the Church to the ancient more simple form of worship practiced in the 1st and 2nd centuries is that a good explaination?
N
Nota_Bene
Guest
I think at least to some degree, the magisterium wanted to return to a Mass closer to that celebrated in the early church – not something that was codified 1500 years later like the Tridentine Mass.
N
Nota_Bene
Guest
I think at least to some degree, the Holy Spirit through the magisterium wanted to return to a Mass closer to that celebrated in the early church – not something that was codified 1500 years later like the Tridentine Mass.
B
BulldogCath
Guest
I will tell you what-go to a wonderful TLM High Mass-and the same day go to your Novus Ordo ceremony-and tell me what needed reform. Nothing. And then go to your new “revised catechism” and compare it to the Baltimore cathechism -and see what actually makes more sense to you. And then read some of the 16 parts that make up Vatican II-and see if that clears things up for you.
The fastest growing part of the church right now is the traditionalists-those that want reverence and tradition and the old mass back into the church-the other is dying and leaving in droves unfortunately. Try a good FSSP mass or other good Latin Masses as you will know you had been to mass.
And then look at the following and see if the change in the liturgy-really simplified anything or confused an entire generation and generations to come:
**Effects of the Council in the United States of America **
Kenneth C. Jones’s “Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church Since Vatican II” cites the following statistics comparing measurable aspects of Catholic life in the United States before and after the Second Vatican Council:
Priests in USA:
1930-1965 doubled to 58,000
since 1965: 45,000
Projection: by 2020: 31,000, half over 70
Priestless parishes:
1965: 1%
2002: 15%
Ordinations in USA:
1965: 1,575
2002: 450
Seminarians:
1965: 49,000
2002: 4,700 ( -90%)
Seminaries:
1965: 600
2002: 200
Sisters:
1965: 180,000
2002: 75,000, average age 68
Teaching nuns:
1965: 104,000
2002: 8,200 ( -94%)
Christian Brothers seminarians:
1965: 912
2000: 7
Franciscans:
1965: 3,379
2000: 84
Catholic High Schools: -50%
Catholic Parochial Schools: -4,000
Catholic marriages: -33%
Annulments:
1968: 338
2002: 50,000
Mass attendance:
1958: 3 out of 4
2002: 1 out of 4
Lay religious teachers who agree with:
contraception: 90%
abortion: 53%
divorce and remarriage: 65%
missing Mass: 77%
Catholics aged 18-44 who don’t believe in transubstantiation: 70%
Research conducted by Fordham University’s Dr. James Lothian compared statistics similar to the foregoing with equivalent data relevant to Protestantism, finding that no equivalent decline has occurred in Protestant faith communities over the same time period.
starrs0:
The fastest growing part of the church right now is the traditionalists-those that want reverence and tradition and the old mass back into the church-the other is dying and leaving in droves unfortunately. Try a good FSSP mass or other good Latin Masses as you will know you had been to mass.
And then look at the following and see if the change in the liturgy-really simplified anything or confused an entire generation and generations to come:
**Effects of the Council in the United States of America **
Kenneth C. Jones’s “Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church Since Vatican II” cites the following statistics comparing measurable aspects of Catholic life in the United States before and after the Second Vatican Council:
Priests in USA:
1930-1965 doubled to 58,000
since 1965: 45,000
Projection: by 2020: 31,000, half over 70
Priestless parishes:
1965: 1%
2002: 15%
Ordinations in USA:
1965: 1,575
2002: 450
Seminarians:
1965: 49,000
2002: 4,700 ( -90%)
Seminaries:
1965: 600
2002: 200
Sisters:
1965: 180,000
2002: 75,000, average age 68
Teaching nuns:
1965: 104,000
2002: 8,200 ( -94%)
Christian Brothers seminarians:
1965: 912
2000: 7
Franciscans:
1965: 3,379
2000: 84
Catholic High Schools: -50%
Catholic Parochial Schools: -4,000
Catholic marriages: -33%
Annulments:
1968: 338
2002: 50,000
Mass attendance:
1958: 3 out of 4
2002: 1 out of 4
Lay religious teachers who agree with:
contraception: 90%
abortion: 53%
divorce and remarriage: 65%
missing Mass: 77%
Catholics aged 18-44 who don’t believe in transubstantiation: 70%
Research conducted by Fordham University’s Dr. James Lothian compared statistics similar to the foregoing with equivalent data relevant to Protestantism, finding that no equivalent decline has occurred in Protestant faith communities over the same time period.
B
BulldogCath
Guest
I will tell you what-go to a wonderful TLM High Mass-and the same day go to your Novus Ordo ceremony-and tell me what needed reform. Nothing. And then go to your new “revised catechism” and compare it to the Baltimore cathechism -and see what actually makes more sense to you. And then read some of the 16 parts that make up Vatican II (if you want to get really confused dont read Vatican II, so many holes you can drive a truck through it)
The fastest growing part of the church right now is the traditionalists-those that want reverence and tradition and the old mass back into the church-the other is dying and leaving in droves unfortunately. Try a good FSSP mass or other good Latin Masses as you will know you had been to mass.
And then look at the following and see if the change in the liturgy-really simplified anything or confused an entire generation and generations to come:
**Effects of the Council in the United States of America **
Kenneth C. Jones’s “Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church Since Vatican II” cites the following statistics comparing measurable aspects of Catholic life in the United States before and after the Second Vatican Council:
Priests in USA:
1930-1965 doubled to 58,000
since 1965: 45,000
Projection: by 2020: 31,000, half over 70
Priestless parishes:
1965: 1%
2002: 15%
Ordinations in USA:
1965: 1,575
2002: 450
Seminarians:
1965: 49,000
2002: 4,700 ( -90%)
Seminaries:
1965: 600
2002: 200
Sisters:
1965: 180,000
2002: 75,000, average age 68
Teaching nuns:
1965: 104,000
2002: 8,200 ( -94%)
Christian Brothers seminarians:
1965: 912
2000: 7
Franciscans:
1965: 3,379
2000: 84
Catholic High Schools: -50%
Catholic Parochial Schools: -4,000
Catholic marriages: -33%
Annulments:
1968: 338
2002: 50,000
Mass attendance:
1958: 3 out of 4
2002: 1 out of 4
Lay religious teachers who agree with:
contraception: 90%
abortion: 53%
divorce and remarriage: 65%
missing Mass: 77%
Catholics aged 18-44 who don’t believe in transubstantiation: 70%
Research conducted by Fordham University’s Dr. James Lothian compared statistics similar to the foregoing with equivalent data relevant to Protestantism, finding that no equivalent decline has occurred in Protestant faith communities over the same time period.
starrs0:
starrs0:
The fastest growing part of the church right now is the traditionalists-those that want reverence and tradition and the old mass back into the church-the other is dying and leaving in droves unfortunately. Try a good FSSP mass or other good Latin Masses as you will know you had been to mass.
And then look at the following and see if the change in the liturgy-really simplified anything or confused an entire generation and generations to come:
**Effects of the Council in the United States of America **
Kenneth C. Jones’s “Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church Since Vatican II” cites the following statistics comparing measurable aspects of Catholic life in the United States before and after the Second Vatican Council:
Priests in USA:
1930-1965 doubled to 58,000
since 1965: 45,000
Projection: by 2020: 31,000, half over 70
Priestless parishes:
1965: 1%
2002: 15%
Ordinations in USA:
1965: 1,575
2002: 450
Seminarians:
1965: 49,000
2002: 4,700 ( -90%)
Seminaries:
1965: 600
2002: 200
Sisters:
1965: 180,000
2002: 75,000, average age 68
Teaching nuns:
1965: 104,000
2002: 8,200 ( -94%)
Christian Brothers seminarians:
1965: 912
2000: 7
Franciscans:
1965: 3,379
2000: 84
Catholic High Schools: -50%
Catholic Parochial Schools: -4,000
Catholic marriages: -33%
Annulments:
1968: 338
2002: 50,000
Mass attendance:
1958: 3 out of 4
2002: 1 out of 4
Lay religious teachers who agree with:
contraception: 90%
abortion: 53%
divorce and remarriage: 65%
missing Mass: 77%
Catholics aged 18-44 who don’t believe in transubstantiation: 70%
Research conducted by Fordham University’s Dr. James Lothian compared statistics similar to the foregoing with equivalent data relevant to Protestantism, finding that no equivalent decline has occurred in Protestant faith communities over the same time period.
F
frdave20
Guest
it seems to me to show the ‘data’ concerning the results of the council on the US is a bit of a red-herring. Yes, admittedly, a problem has arisen, but to attribute it solely to VII is misleading and gives a false disjunction in the logic of your argument.
consider, that Catholics – which JFK having been elected, RFK on his way – before his assasination… Catholics had and HAVE become mainstreamed in a largely prot population. Thats why there aren’t many ethnic ghettos, with large populations of CAtholics all concentrated in one area.
I will grant you Bulldog that there is a problem, but I would not go so far as to blame that problemon VII, solely.
consider, that Catholics – which JFK having been elected, RFK on his way – before his assasination… Catholics had and HAVE become mainstreamed in a largely prot population. Thats why there aren’t many ethnic ghettos, with large populations of CAtholics all concentrated in one area.
I will grant you Bulldog that there is a problem, but I would not go so far as to blame that problemon VII, solely.
B
BulldogCath
Guest
No I agree it is not only on V2
I think it is on bad teaching and catechism-and Cardinal Ratzinger, whom I do admire dearly I think has mixed feelings on the entire council-it happend at a bad time and was implemented poorly-If the mass was left the same and some of the rules were somewhat laxed over time-no one would have even noticed-but it was done in a way that was shocking- and Christ-being my Lord and savior-and Ecumenism-and I am not talking about ecumenism with our Eastern bretheren-but this push to accept the Jews, the Buddhists, Hindus and Moslems-right in the Vatican II documents is a defection from all past teachings and is totally not acceptable and makes most Catholics scratch their heads.
The way the Jews treated us when the Passion of the Christ came out-and the silence on the part of the Vatican and the Bishops-was earthshattering-it took a Traditionalist in Gibson to make a movie so beautiful and cant wait to watch again during Lent-with the Pope silenced-100 years ago Pope Pius X would have told Foxman to go fly a kite and shut up!
frdave20:
I think it is on bad teaching and catechism-and Cardinal Ratzinger, whom I do admire dearly I think has mixed feelings on the entire council-it happend at a bad time and was implemented poorly-If the mass was left the same and some of the rules were somewhat laxed over time-no one would have even noticed-but it was done in a way that was shocking- and Christ-being my Lord and savior-and Ecumenism-and I am not talking about ecumenism with our Eastern bretheren-but this push to accept the Jews, the Buddhists, Hindus and Moslems-right in the Vatican II documents is a defection from all past teachings and is totally not acceptable and makes most Catholics scratch their heads.
The way the Jews treated us when the Passion of the Christ came out-and the silence on the part of the Vatican and the Bishops-was earthshattering-it took a Traditionalist in Gibson to make a movie so beautiful and cant wait to watch again during Lent-with the Pope silenced-100 years ago Pope Pius X would have told Foxman to go fly a kite and shut up!
D
Dr.Bombay
Guest
Nota Bene:
So much for the development of doctrine and discipline. I suppose the Spirit may also want us to dump all kinds of nonsensical accretions we’ve had inflicted on us over the centuries.
Hey…maybe we should do away with Catholic Churches altogether and every Sunday we’ll just hold our Celebrations in Jewish Worship Spaces. Just like the Apostles did it!
Oooooooh…I’m getting all tingly just thinking about it.
Why didn’t the Spirit inspire the magisterium to mandate the celebration of Mass underground surrounded by hundreds of mouldering, stinky corpses? I think of a lot of things when I step inside my post modern, suburban, climate controlled Worship Space. But “early church” is not one of them.
So much for the development of doctrine and discipline. I suppose the Spirit may also want us to dump all kinds of nonsensical accretions we’ve had inflicted on us over the centuries.
Hey…maybe we should do away with Catholic Churches altogether and every Sunday we’ll just hold our Celebrations in Jewish Worship Spaces. Just like the Apostles did it!
Oooooooh…I’m getting all tingly just thinking about it.
R
romano
Guest
starrs0 said:
Because someone wants to destroy the Church by cutting it off from its traditions.
R
romano
Guest
kk1727 said:
To me, this is as if one were to say: “It’s time we moderns renewed and reformed the symphonies of Mozart and Batehoven! And while we’re at it, why don’t we just repaint the Systine Chapel as well! Yes, let’s raise the past up to our exalted level!”
But what could be more presumptious - and destructive?
T
TNT
Guest
You got…dead on. As my signature agrees.
T
Teresita
Guest
Dr. Bombay:
Seriously, this tendency to ‘archaeologise’ was actually condemned by Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei: it’s always been a Protestant habit, of course, to assume that things get worse as they go on, and things become more and more corrupt, so the best thing to do is to get back to the fountain-head: worship as they did in NT times. The Catholic assumption is that, although practices can indeed be corrupted, the Holy Spirit gradually teaches the Church more and more - no new revelation, but a gradual unfolding and development of what has always been implicit in doctrine and practice. So the ancient Mass (‘codified’ by Pope St Pius V, but in all essentials going back at least to the sixth century) wasn’t regarded as a corruption of primitive purity, but as a full-grown tree grown from Apostolic seed (as in our Lord’s parable).
There’s another point. For the Protestant, the church is simply the aggregate of ‘true’ Christians; if Christians move away from the purity of early Christianity, the church is consequently damaged and must be purified - which normally means breaking away from one’s own community or sect and forming another one, truer (as the splitter-away sees it) to the Bible. The Catholic believes that the Church is independent of individuals: indeed, were the earth swallowed up by a giant black hole (or something) tomorrow, the Church would still be the bride of Christ, His Mystical Body- in Heaven and in Purgatory, if not on earth. And thus, however ghastly the behaviour and teaching of many individual Catholics, many in high places, the Church will nevertheless be protected because She is still, in a sense, the Early Church: and God will raise up saints to reform what needs reforming.
I’ve just read a fantastic book on this whole area of reform, and the modern problems in the Church: Philip Trower’s ‘Turmoil and Truth’. I recommend it thoroughly - one of those books where you keep wanting to read bits aloud to other people, and where you keep yelling “Of course! Why didn’t I think of that?”
The writer shows the background and developments - from the 18th century onwards - which led to Vatican II and the changes - and analyses the liturgical movement, Modernism, Americanism, and so on, and the effects they had on the Church as we see her today. The best thing about the book is the way he picks apart the different agendas that people apparently in the same movement had: and he doesn’t see Vatican II either as the best thing since the catacombs, or as the greatest disaster since Mohammed, but as a council among other councils, which - like many other important councils - will take several generations for the Church to come to terms with. Here’s the URL for the book: do read it! (And no, I don’t know the writer personally!)
christendom-awake.org/pages/trower/turmoil&truth.htm
Sue
LOL!Why didn’t the Spirit inspire the magisterium to mandate the celebration of Mass underground surrounded by hundreds of mouldering, stinky corpses? I think of a lot of things when I step inside my post modern, suburban, climate controlled Worship Space. But “early church” is not one of them.
So much for the development of doctrine and discipline. I suppose the Spirit may also want us to dump all kinds of nonsensical accretions we’ve had inflicted on us over the centuries.
Hey…maybe we should do away with Catholic Churches altogether and every Sunday we’ll just hold our Celebrations in Jewish Worship Spaces. Just like the Apostles did it!
Seriously, this tendency to ‘archaeologise’ was actually condemned by Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei: it’s always been a Protestant habit, of course, to assume that things get worse as they go on, and things become more and more corrupt, so the best thing to do is to get back to the fountain-head: worship as they did in NT times. The Catholic assumption is that, although practices can indeed be corrupted, the Holy Spirit gradually teaches the Church more and more - no new revelation, but a gradual unfolding and development of what has always been implicit in doctrine and practice. So the ancient Mass (‘codified’ by Pope St Pius V, but in all essentials going back at least to the sixth century) wasn’t regarded as a corruption of primitive purity, but as a full-grown tree grown from Apostolic seed (as in our Lord’s parable).
There’s another point. For the Protestant, the church is simply the aggregate of ‘true’ Christians; if Christians move away from the purity of early Christianity, the church is consequently damaged and must be purified - which normally means breaking away from one’s own community or sect and forming another one, truer (as the splitter-away sees it) to the Bible. The Catholic believes that the Church is independent of individuals: indeed, were the earth swallowed up by a giant black hole (or something) tomorrow, the Church would still be the bride of Christ, His Mystical Body- in Heaven and in Purgatory, if not on earth. And thus, however ghastly the behaviour and teaching of many individual Catholics, many in high places, the Church will nevertheless be protected because She is still, in a sense, the Early Church: and God will raise up saints to reform what needs reforming.
I’ve just read a fantastic book on this whole area of reform, and the modern problems in the Church: Philip Trower’s ‘Turmoil and Truth’. I recommend it thoroughly - one of those books where you keep wanting to read bits aloud to other people, and where you keep yelling “Of course! Why didn’t I think of that?”
The writer shows the background and developments - from the 18th century onwards - which led to Vatican II and the changes - and analyses the liturgical movement, Modernism, Americanism, and so on, and the effects they had on the Church as we see her today. The best thing about the book is the way he picks apart the different agendas that people apparently in the same movement had: and he doesn’t see Vatican II either as the best thing since the catacombs, or as the greatest disaster since Mohammed, but as a council among other councils, which - like many other important councils - will take several generations for the Church to come to terms with. Here’s the URL for the book: do read it! (And no, I don’t know the writer personally!)
christendom-awake.org/pages/trower/turmoil&truth.htm
Sue
A
Augustine
Guest
There’s more to it. It’s a worldwide problem affecting the Universal Church.
Back in my home country, Brazil, whose population is about 85% Catholic, similar statistics would be found (my hunch).
O
olegraymere
Guest
If things were so wonderful prior to Vatican II, how is it that the “faithful” became faithless in droves? Here in Quebec, the population in the 1960’s was about 87% Catholic, and as devout as they come. The whole culture was Catholic to the core. And the priests were all modelled on the Curé of Ars. They preached fire and brimstone every week. What needed change? Clearly, the “faith” was superficial, because within 10 years, Quebec led the continent in divorce and abortion, and now leads in out-of-wedlock births, shack-ups, suicides… you name it. It is an increasingly secular culture, hostile to religious sensitivities. Church attendance is in the single digits.
My point is, it is erroneous to think that everything was sunshine and roses and that Vatican II spoiled it all. Many, many people went through the motions out of fear, but they apparently did not know the love of Christ. The pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction, no doubt, but it will find the middle. But don’t kid yourself: the Holy Spirit had good cause to bring us reform. The modernist problems we’re experiencing today could not have happened if the Church was what you think it was fifty years ago. And if you could return us to that today, you would just be trading in one set of problems for another.
God bless,
olegraymere
My point is, it is erroneous to think that everything was sunshine and roses and that Vatican II spoiled it all. Many, many people went through the motions out of fear, but they apparently did not know the love of Christ. The pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction, no doubt, but it will find the middle. But don’t kid yourself: the Holy Spirit had good cause to bring us reform. The modernist problems we’re experiencing today could not have happened if the Church was what you think it was fifty years ago. And if you could return us to that today, you would just be trading in one set of problems for another.
God bless,
olegraymere
- Status