I was born right after Vatican II and only knew that church. When I left the church and became an evangelical Protestant, I was amazed at the prayer life, the love of scripture, and the way people unashamedly spoke about faith. I returned to the Catholic Church but to a traditional parish that is packed full on Sundays. They are living the faith in a way I only saw in my Protestant church- never in my post-Vatican II church. People read scripture, have devoted prayer life, follow the traditional feast days and fasts of the “old church”, and talk about faith. It’s more than “beauty and transcendence” it’s reverence and awe for God and living a Catholic lifestyle that reflects Christ. At mass, people follow the liturgy in missals. The priest doesn’t have his “back toward the people” but his face toward God. If you look at the old literature, we are not just “attending” traditional mass, we are “assisting”. My thought after my first traditional mass was “I can’t believe they took this away from us”. But as I said, it goes beyond the mass. It’s understanding the faith of our Catholic forefathers and living it out for Jesus. After all, it’s not about me or how “included” I feel. It’s about honoring God to the best of my ability.
But this is typical of anyone who "comes back" to something. Because me too, I was born after the Council. And I experienced the exact opposite of what you eperienced: before, people didn't pay attention to the liturgy, didn't understand what was said, mumbled senslessly mangled words in a totally foreign language, and I can testify this because I saw that among my elderly relatives; faith was made of private prayers and formal devotions, and it wasn't nourished by the Word of God itself; the very Gospel was almost unknown. The only people who were involved and really lived and understood liturgy were the educated ones, the cultured ones. Nowadays we can enjoy traditional mass and understand the liturgy and the word of God in Latin because education is more common: that's why it is possible an appreciation of the traditional ways and an involvement in them that the old generations never experienced. Whomever "return" to the traditional ways can do so because he/her has a level of awareness about faith that wasn't always (and I would say it was almost never) present in the old times, at least in the maority of the faithfuls. And anyway: why we believe? Because we can "follow the traditional feast days and fasts"? Or because we want to follow Christ? Because we can "have a devoted prayer life"? Or because we can live like Christ did? Because we want to "assist" to mass? or because we want to bring the Eucharist to the world? What is the real "essential" of our faith: the rituals? the traditions? the clergy? the hierarchy? or the Spirit who blows wherever He wants? Jesus was a "tradition-breaker": he didn't observe the sabbath, he didn't observe the ritual purification, he didn't give a damn about "pure" or "impure" foods or people, he didn't care about religious hierarchy, he openly spoke against traditions, when they were against people. And for all this time we have been trying to wrap Him again in traditions, hierarchy, rituals, THINGS, until they have become more important than Him, than His Word, than His Word FOR THE PEOPLE..
Prayer request. My dad, John Valenti, has devoted his whole life to the church. He has, in his 65 years, taught and certified 1000 catechists (no joke, that's the real number). He just passed away, please pray for a smooth path to heaven for him. Thank you all.
This playlist is what made me realize I was Catholic and not Lutheran as I was raised. I just became Catholic this Easter. I’m so happy you decided to start making these again, Father Casey, I always recommend this playlist to people looking to learn more about Catholicism!
I am interested in converting, and I have no idea where to start. I don’t have a Catholic Church near me, and my family is very anti-Catholic. I feel lost. 😔
We need a Catechetical revival. So many people are very poorly Catechized today. Fortunately, I was not, but the program I went through is a diamond in the rough so to speak. Proper education in the Catechism is desperately needed.
We can educate people about the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist all we want, but if our mass doesn't actually treat Christ like he is truly present, then no one will believe us
Amen. I help prepare youth for Conrifmation, but I also know our parish's pitfall is not having a youth group! It's keeping the knowledge imparted alive and expanding which would be the first step in better Catechism. Unfortunately, we haven't got very many consistent volunteers to do this work.
@@DoctorDewgong You’re absolutely right! Reverence is defined one of the keys to Mass. A Novus Ordo Mass can be great if done correctly (meaning reverence, which is something that many NO parishes are lacking) and likewise a Tridentine Mass can be pretty bad If done poorly. Although the Tridentine Mass is rarely done poorly.
@@doobat708 I hear you. It seems like nobody wants to volunteer for anything at my parish as well. It’s unfortunate because it’s a way for the Laity to serve the Church more.
did you ever count how many things they are calling for "revival" in in one way or another... since the council. Eucharistic revival Catechetical revival marriage revival and so on.... Kind of makes one think... doesn't it?
@ Evan Nuh-Koo-La Agreed There are practices post-Vatican ii that are good and some that are not. Lack of reverence in worship is a big problem, post Vatican ii. Some of the old ideas and practices that should have died out are still common ["Sunday duty" -- In/out as quickly as possible is a very bad idea. As are complaints about homilies and a lack of reverence for the Liturgy of the Word still exist -- "Get to the important stuff, father"] Just sayin'
I am a cradle catholic that was away from the church since I was a kid. I don't know how anymore but I stumbled on one of father Casey's videos and that's what helped me return to the catholic church. Thank you father for that ❤
Thank you Father for inspiring me as a Catholic, I’ve always loved your videos, especially this one on the Laity and the information on the benefits of the Vatican 2, God bless you 🙏
Sacrosanctam Concilium ordered that Gregorian chant and Sacred polyphony was to be prominent in the Liturgy and that Latin was still the liturgical language of the Church
This. I am involved in the music program in our parish (I am a multi-instrumentalist and involved with 3 different choirs, including director of a children's schola) and music is highly devisive. We are slowly re-introducing music from our own Catholic musical traditions, but it's a slow process. People want to hold onto the Protestant hymns and hippie music. Our current hymnal used in our parish (an official publication of the CCCB) is about 50% Lutheran, we've just plucked them and sometimes adapted them. The USCCB actually has recently done an excellent, very accessible review of some of the material in the current Catholic hymnody and identified things that were problematic. Understanding the history of music in the church and the development of our musical tradition helps make sense of the direction of the Council. Musical innovation is good, but it has to have rails. We have our own musical tradition we too often ignore, which is sad because it is beautiful and rich and reflects the Liturgy back perfectly.
I was born in the year of V2..it was implemented 10 days before my birth. I still experienced the beauty of altar rails, Communion on the tongue, wore a mantilla to Mass growing up... I reverted back to headcovering about 6yrs ago and receiving Communion on the tongue ❤.. slowly teaching myself the prayers in Latin..
I always admired the rich tradition & devotion of the Catholic Church. But as someone who only attended NO masses, I actually never knew the Latin Mass existed until I was talking to a seminarian last year who suggested that I attend one. I found one near me that took place at 9am. I dreaded having to wake up at 8am on a Sunday (since my usual mass was at 10:30am) but I powered through it. All I can remember is being completely in awe at the beautiful gregorian chants, the endless pews full of women in mantillas, the cries of young babies, and the excessive yet rich smell of incense. It was that moment that ultimately changed my life. One year later, while I still attend NO masses, I'm also now a rather frequent TLM goer and I'm still asking myself why I was deprived of this mass for so long. But nothing is an accident, God speaks to us all in extraordinary ways!
I grew up in 90s, and hadn't known what the Church looked like before Vatican II. I was used to having the Tabernacle off to the side and not front and center. I was used to hearing all types of different music in liturgy from the traditional pipe organ type to the Christian contemporary pop/rock/r&b sounds. Growing up, the only Latin I heard, said or sung, during mass was when our pastor decided to start the Eucharistic Preface by singing the "Dominus vobiscum" with his raspy 1/4 Maltese, 1/4 Italian, 1/4 Brooklyn-New York, and 1/4 Toronto accent. And I'm eternally grateful for that. It's because of the changes that Vatican II implemented that the Mass became accessible to me. For example, If I were to only listen to traditional hymnal music from the choir growing up, i probably would have gotten bored out of my mind, and I'd also be annoyed with the choir because of how badly they sang (no matter how liturgically sound the music was). I consider myself blessed that I had a parish that allowed for a diversity of music, and not just the traditional. We had a Filipino folk group, Jamaican praise group complete with steel drums, and our youth ministry sang contemporary music on the Christian billboard charts as well as the choir directors own original liturgical songs. It was because of this I was open to experiencing Jesus in ways I probably would not have been open to. He spoke to me in a language that I could understand: high quality music. And because the tabernacle was not behind the altar but in an area that was much more accessible to the general public, it made it easier for me to go to Jesus in that way. What these non-traditional Vatican II ideas did was it made me appreciate the Church and its liturgy, engaged me in a way that I was motivated to learn more about the "old" ways, and it led me to a place where I could be creative with music in ways i wouldn't have been allowed to. These helped make me the performer and broadcaster I am today, and I have been in numerous praise and worship as well as secular bands and Church music ministries. Eventually, I was able to get over my aversion to traditional church music and part of my ministry for Mass music is to take the old hymns and marry them with a contemporary sound so that I can put my heart even more fully into the music, and with that, lead the congregation into deeper worship with sounds that they are familiar with. And this is not just a ministry, but it is part of the life of mission that Vatican II wanted to bring forth. But what all of these "modern" concepts have done is helped me delve into the history of the Church, and opened me up to encounter things like the Tridentine Mass, being okay with the Eucharist being placed front and center all over again, classical sacred music (provided it is sung/played well by either laity or clergy that have musical training), amongst other things so that I have in more recent years seen and appreciated the beauty of the "old" ways that I never experienced in years past. These experiences and the experiences of others like myself are part of the Springtime of Faith that St. Pope John Paul II was speaking of. And it wouldn't be possible without Vatican II.
The worship isn't about your personal needs and desires, and that personal immanence is the reason the Church is so wounded right now. The word "I" was used 20 times in this personal testimony of yours. Are you aware that religious vocations halved with the advent of Vatican II? You wanted a Mass that focused more on the laity than on God. Well, you've got it.
@@Schrodj1 Is it "more focused on laity" or just allowing them to be more engaged and involved in their Faith? Am not quite sure what the broader problem is there: Trads etc seem to be intent on stretching this bizarre thread from Vat2 pin straight to "clown mass" without recognizing any positives at all. Also, has our Creed not always said "I Believe"? As in, we each, as Individuals reaffirm our Faith during Mass? I'm not sure there's anything particularly self serving about that.
“High quality music”. We traded Gregorian chant, Palestrina, Luis de Victoria, Bach, an inexhaustible treasury of timeless beauty for the glory of God…. for pop music. Is the tabernacle off to the side part of what “spoke” to you “in your own language” as well? V2 wasn’t the problem, it was this very mindset you outlined that’s still dominant. People in the mid 20th century wanted the Church to meet them on their own terms.
Entered the Church as a young adult, and never understood the angst against Vatican II. Having attended an Eastern Orthodox Mass, the beauty is undeniable. The occasional Latin sung during Mass is beautiful. Yet, it’s the Mother Church. How can a heart choose anything over unity with the Church’s decrees? Is one saying it is wrong, and if so, what else does the heart, which our God asks for, believes the Church got wrong? Truthfully, I believe a feeling is being chased rather than holiness itself.
I find it condescending that the heirarchy think that we actually have to be doing things in order to participate in the Liturgy I'm sure our great-grandmothers praying the rosary that mass participated more than most people do today.
Praying the Rosary during Mass is not praying the Mass and its one of the reasons the Vernacular was introduced so that people could understand every word spoken during the Mass
@@atrifle8364 Are you aware that you are saying that hundreds of million of people before Vatican II and for centuries didn't have a motive to go to Mass? They should have stayed in home because they were not repeating the same trite worn-out sentences, some of which were written in an Italian trattoria.
Even before Vatican II one of the Pius popes (I sadly forgot which one) said that people should be focused on the prayers of the mass, not on other prayers like the rosary, when at mass. That's why bilingual missals were introduced, to help the faithful follow the mass. We shouldn't glorify the old practice of people praying the rosary during mass. People back then did this because they didn't know what else to do, not because it was the intention of the church. It wasn't.
As a newly baptized and confirmed catholic (this Easter Sunday) I am very torn about Vatican II, some of the changes are really good when done properly (regular homilies for example), but I miss the mysticism and the latin chants. Also in the west we need to catechize way more and deeper and we need to be actually taught how to sing. I always feel a little bit of shame when the organ drowns out the congregation, because we try to sing quiet enough that nobody hears us stumbling through the song.
The mysticism and latin chants were never supposed to leave. The council wanted those things retained. It was a small committee after the council that stripped those things away
First off, congratulations on your Baptism and Confirmation! I agree that many congregations have difficulties with joining in song. The parish I was Confirmed at emphatically did not, and it was a mild let down when I had to move and found the parish here is a congregation of shy singers! My answer is to think of it this way: it's not the quality or volume that matters, it's the content of our hearts when we sing that does. That said - if you're active in any way in your parish, have good contact with people, etc, you could suggest that, evey so often, you take time before Mass to sing a few songs by way of warm up and familiarisation, so people feel less hesitant about singing them.
I feel like a lot of lay participation in the new Mass is essentially just speaking more or doing more actions. I don’t see any widespread evidence of a renewed interior participation
I think you've hit the nail on the head exactly. There is far less opportunity for interior participation in the new mass. At best you get something like the sense of a school class reciting its lesson together. At worst, the whole thing sounds as if it's wearisome for everybody, including the priest. He generally has far too much to say, and either sounds tired or over-dramatic. Incidentally, the priest's idiosyncrasies can be a significant distraction for anyone trying to pray. The worst example I've encountered is the pronunciation of 'grievous' in the 'penitential act' at the beginning of mass. I wish priests would realise that the word has only two syllables. It does NOT rhyme wirh 'devious'!
@@christopher4192 - Have you tried praying in Latin as a foreign language? It's exhausting if you have the translation in front of you. Participation is hopeless without a translation. Nothing guarantees interior participation. Almost all Latin almost guarantees no interior participation.
@@atrifle8364 I think you probably start by using your missal to pray the Canon in translation. Once you become familiar with the unvarying prayers in this way, it will be easier to pray them using the Latin text. Of course, there's no need ever to move from the vernacular translation, and you probably wouldn't want to do so unless you already had a grounding in the Latin language.
@@atrifle8364 I disagree with your premise. The interior participation promoted by the traditional Mass doesn't come only from the language itself but from the actions, the postures, the prayers, the music, and the silence. An interior disposition is developed in your heart and from this flows a genuine exterior participation.
As someone who entered the Church through the traditional wing, I've lately been feeling like I'm resisting God by being disconnected from the life of the Church in its ordinary expression. I've been making more of an effort to cultivate an appreciation for the current form of the Mass, the current Liturgy of the Hours, etc.. I've been pondering in my gut if the reformed liturgy isn't a means of God preparing his Church for a time when we may not have easy access to the hierarchy and religious. I've certainly experienced the issues you brought up about the old form of the liturgy. Thank you for this video, I feel like the gradual shift I've been making is indeed a response to the Holy Ghost.
What you said resonates with me. I love the TLM; I attend it every Sunday (unless I’m busy), and also attend weekdays TLM every now and then. But I continue to attend Novus Ordo masses as well, and I’m happily part of several ministries that serve at Novus Ordo masses. I think a lot of people - and I personally know a few - once they discover the TLM, they rightly love it for its beauty and reverence, but then they start to see the Novus Ordo as inferior, as something incorrigible. Objectively speaking, yes the Novus Ordo is lacking in many areas compared to the TLM. For some reason Bugnini and his cronies removed 87% of prayers and saw the need to revise the remaining 13%. The amount of allowance for innovations is also startling, resulting in the clown masses and numerous other abuses we are very well aware of. However, the Novus Ordo is still a valid rite, and God is still present there, body blood soul divinity. The vast majority of Roman Catholics attend the NO, and are nourished by it. This includes me; I grew up in it, and while I'm wary now of the liturgical abuses that take place, I still attend (and serve!) at reverent Novus Ordos. In fact, I find I prefer the weekday masses, because there is rarely any music then, so less opportunity for profane music. I've been to masses in Cambodia when I was on mission trips there. We had mass in a simple multi-purpose hall, a wooden table for the altar, and everyone sat on the floor. I always tell people, don't you dare tell me that that place is any less reverent than a Gothic-style cathedral with beautiful stained glass and lovely organ music. The unchanging God, the same yesterday today tomorrow and forever, is equally present in both places. I love the TLM. Yes, it objectively contains more than the Novus Ordo, in terms of the prayer texts. All the different gestures enable us to raise our eyes, hearts, and minds beyond this earthly sphere towards heaven. The priest himself "disappears", because the focus should always be on God. The Latin language is wonderful. Gregorian chant and all other sacred music is ethereal. I lament that all these and so many more are lacking from many Novus Ordo masses today, especially as it is not in accordance with Sacrosanctum Concilium. But that doesn't mean we just throw the Novus Ordo in the dustbin and criticise anyone and everyone who likes it and attends it. God is equally present in the NO as He is in the TLM, and many people are nourished by the NO. I think many people are forgetting Pope Benedict XVI's aim at liturgical peace, by desiring that the Extraordinary and Ordinary Forms coexist alongside each other, that each enriches and is enriched by the other.
@@porygon5 It is not really called the Novus Ordo. It is just the Ordinary Order of the Mass. The Latin Mass today is not the preferred order of the universal Church. The internet makes it sound like like the Latin Mass is a big deal, but really it is a fringe part of the Church.
@@trinidadraj152 Yes, it is. It is very fringe. So why the obsession to forbid it and restrict it as much as possible? Let the people choose. You don't need to encourage the Latin Mass but it is not necessary to launch a yihad against them.
I would suspect that both (Tridentine and Novus Ordo) can peacefuilly co exist and that the spirituality and unity of the Church not be diminished but possibly enhanced.
Vatican II came long before my time and I do see there has definitely been clear benefits but I still maintain the right to be upset with what was lost before I got was even born
@@atrifle8364 Right. The Latin Mass is not the most important thing. The decadence of the Church is appalling. Loss of people and devotion after Vatican II. Next stop: Introducing pagan rites into the Liturgy
I just became officially Catholic at the Easter Vigil with the reception of the sacraments! Fr. Casey, thank you for all you do. We must accept Vatican II not just because it’s a valid council, but also should because of the great spiritual fruits it has grown. From Nicaea I to Vatican II, Holy Mother Church has carried forth the Love of God, His Law, and His Word throughout the ages. Here’s to another two millennia and beyond of Christ’s Church!
Are declining vocations, parishioners, liturgical abuses ,and loss of moral authority spiritual fruits ?. Look at the rate of parish closures, the lack of belief in the real presence and poor catechesis in the laity as a whole, go to a Eastern Rite or TLM to see a reverent mass. At mass your at the foot of the cross, not at an entertainment venue.
We do accept Vatican 2 but there needs to be recognition of the garbage served.up afterwards, that departed from V2. It's been a disaster. Back to Latin Mass is the way that V2 envisaged the liturgy, people need to read Sacrosanctum Consilium not buy this 1969 sales pitch. The prelates were sharply divided...
I agree that laity should definitely be more involved as intended by Vatican II but there I think the problem arises when there are too many laity who are improperly serving at Mass. It's very difficult to focus when it seems like a free for all at times and then you see priests kind of let it happen too. Love your videos Fr Casey, continue your work in all that you do.
The involvement of the laity needs to be dramatically scaled back, because it greatly detracts from the role of the priest and has partially led to the crisis in priestly vocations. Why should I be a priest when I can preach the Word of God as a lector, give communion as an extraordinary eucharistic minister, or lead the congregation in the responsorial psalm?
I think a lot of priests are just tired and worn out. (Too many people, not enough priests to lead) They are happy for whatever help they can get. I do not doubt that many who volunteer to be readers, Eucharistic ministers, etc., are sincere in their beliefs and came forward when asked to serve in those capacities.
i often wonder what we would think if we were transported to a 3rd or 4th century Mass....It would be very different from both the Tridentine and Novus Ordo liturgies...
@@sneed3529 If one enters the priesthood for power and status, they are in the wrong place. There are certain things that should only be left for the priesthood, but it is to God's Glory that the laity are involved in the process as much as possible. It becomes a communion in the literal sense.
@@RedRiverMan Most definitely. The Church like anything else in God's creation is a living organism. its nature is to grow and change for the better. Most often than not, those changes are painful. Jesus went to the synagogue, as a good Jew. He didn't speak Latin and once that curtain reaped from the Holy of Holies, it changed everything.
What you might not know is how much of an impact Vatican II had on the Protestant world too. The Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod) is a good example. Even after a few years had passed, it seemed no denomination knew where they stood anymore. Everyone felt lost.
As a traditionalist who was baptized this Easter Vigil, I think a rite that was 75-90% of the Traditional Latin Mass with some of the renovations of the Novus Ordo. I believe the changes have gone too far and there needs to be a major dial back to what the council really envisioned.
I agree. I'll even go as far as to consider that the tridentine mass structure and format shouldve been kept but translated to the vernacular. A Vernacular Tridentine Mass if you will. Why couldn't they have just done that?
@@gilbertotoledo1421 Because the language of the church is Latin. Imagine the beauty of being able to go to a Catholic Church anywhere in the world and being able to understand it. You can't do that when it's in the vernacular.
@@sneed3529 That is exactly the point on why Latin must be brought back. I think if a pope were to begin bringing us back to the past. A good first step would be ad orientem, only altar boys, and greater use of Latin. It would help current priests get accustomed to using it and decrease the shock of the laity.
Actually Vatican II which ended in 1965 had never mentioned creating or designing a new mass, it was a surprise invention of Monsignor Bugnini working under Pope Paul XI in 1969. It was designed to specifically look like in its rubrics, vestments, songs and to some extent the liturgy like a main line Protestant worship service which it accomplishes very well.
After Pope Paul saw the fruit of Bugnini’s destruction of the liturgy he sent him to Iran as pro nuncio and never spoke to him again. Another point. Father Casey doesn’t mention the proportion of Catholics who attend Mass pre and post Vatican 11. Take France which is typical. In 1960 41per cent attended Mass weekly, 10 years later it was 14 per cent. The destruction of the liturgy was a tragedy.
Actually no it's poorly structured, noisy like the world outside, and mediocre. My wife's Baptist church does it 10 times better. I have some sympathy for priests adding novelties like clown Masses and similar. How else to make it interesting for people? The young, such as there are, sit there looking disengaged, so the wheel has turned full circle. Now, the Sixties rite looks passe, as it has done for 50 years. The revival of quality TLM, driven by those same young people, restores 1500 years of organically grown highly moving ritual where everyone is fully engaged throughout, thus implementing V2 far better than Bugninis basket case Mass. How soon before this can be honestly discussed??
as a convert and someone who loves wearing my veil and kneeling for communion, i can say that if I showed up to my first mass and everyone was speaking Latin I would have walked out confused. its a sacrifice but one that has led me where I am today.
Get a missal, so you can fallow along, the mass is in Latin, the vernacular is used for the homily and the readings before. Have you been to a TLM ?, look at a mass from 1965 then one from 1975, you will see the loss of reverence that you seem to embrace.
@@RickW-HGWT i haven't been to Latin mass, the closest one is 40+ minutes away. nothing against it, I'd love to go one day! lots of the similar reverence at our Cathedral as well. it would have just been confusing as I just showed up one day, with no prior information, with people speaking Latin. I was raised Protestant so it was already very scary just to show up. All I'm saying is it's good to be allowed to use English as it will draw more people in.
@@gdggbdbg see if your Latin Mass rite has parallel translation that you can follow. I don't speak Latin either, no one does really but the TLM is a different beast and when done properly, is a magnificent journey through Christ's sacrifice, utterly on a different level to the Sixties Mass, which by the way was watered down to include a lot of Thomas Cranmers changes, and be more similar to an Anglican/Protestant service. It was built by committees who didn't understand how a ritual flows. A well done TLM is a vehicle for conversion back to Christ. But, all is a journey.
I agree. And you don't have to be in TLM to kneel for communion or to be able to actually pray! To be fair, the only time I went to a TLM it was SO confusing, even though I had been going to (normal) mass for about a year already. The music was beautiful, yeah, but even with the paper/missal it was so difficult to understand and to pray because I had no idea what was going on most of the time and I didn't understand a single word from the chants lol When I came to myself it was already close to communion and I was like 'when did they do the readings or sing glory or everything else' hahah I guess you have to try really hard to understand it all and get into it. If only people put this much effort into praying and actually trying to enjoy the Novus Ordo, maybe we wouldn't be so divided. The new mass helped so many people get closer to God, by being more involved and being simple, clear.
My family welcomed Vatican II. I left the church at 16. My departure had nothing to due with the changes. After 50 plus years I have returned to attending mass most Sundays. I am pleased with the changes. The laity is more involved. There are scripture studies and other ways to participate in the life of the church. Many of the ladies I have gotten to know complain about the loss of reverence. You do not hear this complaint in Baptist churches where there is no concern about the sacraments. Clearly there are different expectations.
From my own observations, it didn't succeed in involving the laity. More often than not the laity that are involved form an in-group that treat their parish as a social club than as a community focused on outreach and missionaries. Puts parish priests in a catch-22 as well.
I can talk for my local parish here in Mexico, brother, that the laity involved do their best to evangelize people, doing Bible study groups, organizing pilmigrages, and some of them are, indeed, missionaries, etc. And that's all possible thanks to Vatican II. In the end, I guess is up to us, on our own, to make an effort to procure such things happen, instead of just pointing fingers out and complain about what others "don't do", know what am I saying?
Catholics who believe in the fundamentals, the divinity of Christ, the virgin birth, atonement, resurrection, inerrancy of scripture and the magisterium, need to band together regardless of which liturgy they attend. I know it sounds like a low bar, but that's where we are at to be honest.
My question as a formerly Protestant convert to Eastern Orthodoxy, is why couldn't much of this be achieved without gutting the liturgy or transcendent quality of the divine services? Why not simply translate the western services in all their beauty into the vernacular so that the laity could understand it?
@Cameron O'Leary and that tradition is far more akin to our liturgy than the NO in the west, in all its ceremony and richness. That was never the problem. The problem was you guys insisted on a liturgical language that nobody spoke except the clergy a few who had intensely studied it. Some Orthodox parishes, particularly those entrenched in immigrant communities abd also function as preservers of the culture they came from are facing similar problems with younger generations not speaking the language, but a lot of them are waking up to this pretty quickly and switching to the vernacular and they're growing.
I am somewhat skeptical of the claims made towards the end of this video, the fruits of the second Vatican council have not bloomed in any respect in western countries and in fact, the church has gone from being an important social factor in places like Ireland and Canada, to being completely irrelevant within the span of a generation, one could hardly call that success. In the United States if lapsed Catholics were their own religious group, they would be the second largest single denomination in the country and the data shows that in America at least only one person joins the church for every five that leave it. Also, the idea that Vatican II was successful because the number of people identifying as Catholics globally has doubled in the last 50 years seems a little erroneous when we take into account that the global population has more than doubled and many of those people identifying as Catholics such as in Canada or Ireland or Spain , France, Italy, etc, do not actually believe in or practice their faith for the most part. And other Christian denominations have also seen a lot of success in Asia and Africa, over the last 50 years in terms of finding new converts so in that respect, the Catholic Church has not been uniquely successful, so all in all, that’s 0 and one against the council, at least for now, Perhaps it will take another hundred years for the fruit of the council to actually come forth and I don’t think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater, but likewise, supposing that the church must reject beauty and tradition for the sake of evangelism seems counterproductive, beauty draws people in even if they don’t understand it, and they can be taught to understand it.
I have seen statistics showing that the decline started before Vatican II and therefore could not be attributed to it. Also, similar declines are happening in other Christian denominations. To me it seems the likely root is actually a change in the cultural philosophy from logical reasoning, first to one of scientism, and more recently, relativism. When relativism first became popular, it people applied it only to things outside of the scientific domain. Now, with pro-choice and transgender ideas facing serious challenges in the realm of logical philosophy, they promote relativism even in scientific matters, ie. "my body, my truth."
Correlation does not equal causation. Do you really think movements like the sexual revolution, postmodern feminism, the rise of atheism, the state of capitalism today, the gay rights movement, and more played no part in the decline of Catholicism in the Western world-that it was all just Vatican II? Moreover, it is not just Catholicism that is in decline in the Western world, but also Protestantism and various community groups, like lions clubs. On the contrary, a case can actually be made that Vatican II helped to save the church from collapsing in the midst of the various social movements in the latter half of the twentieth-century.
Great comment. I like the points you made and the skepticism you brought up. A smaller number of very knowledgeable and deeply devoted Catholics instead of a larger number of loosely practicing and poorly catechized group would yield a greater number of people making it to Heaven. In the end, making it to Heaven and bringing others into Heaven is all that matters. I believe the TLM is the foundation of our journey to Heaven....
@@kaitlynlightfoot9591 I think you’re partially right, but while the greater focus on evangelism, and the laity is important, the very healthy state of most traditional Catholic communities demonstrates that the liturgical reforms were probably much to overreaching in their implementation, catechesis was instill is the main problem not that the liturgy was or is too complicated or beautiful. If we are to defeat this neopaganism sweeping the west, we need not reinvent our selves that was never the answer, the answer was is and always will be Christ, his mother, and his church, one thing I can say now at least, is that there are very few people calling in good faith for the church to move with the world as they see the direction in which the world is moving, namely towards predation.
@@nightyew2160 My argument is not that Vatican II caused the decline of the church in the west as much as my argument is that it failed to arrest it, and is continuing to fail in that respect. Now if the reforms failed in most of the goals and an exchange for them, we gave up huge parts of our tradition and history. I can’t help but question if a reform of the reform is not drastically needed.
The procedural deviousness of Vatican II is one of the worst aspects of it that often goes undiscussed. The modernists set the agendas, stacked the leadership, and connivingly ran the table in every way to minimize the input from the older, more traditional voices. Add to that the deliberate media coordination to add pressure for the reforms, and the whole thing bears the stain of uncharitability, to put it very mildly. Frankly, it can only be by rose-colored glasses that we fail to see what even Paul VI recognized plainly less than a decade after the council: “… It was thought that, after the Council, sunny days would come for the history of the Church. Nevertheless, what came were days of clouds, of storms, of darkness, of searching, of uncertainty … We tried to dig abysses instead of covering them …”
The Catholic Church in America reached its greatest numbers around 1975 or so. Then it began to see a decline, which has accelerated to current time. The goals of Vatican II sounded reasonable and good. But the results have not been good. The church has to get back to its mission of saving souls.
I would add that he mentioned that the number of Catholics has doubled since Vatican II, as if that were a result, but the world's population has more than doubled since it ended, so you can't say Vatican II caused a growth in Catholicism.
My mother was brought up in the pre Vatican II church, and all the children learned Latin and most of the congregation knew enough to follow the service, so I am afraid you are mistaken here.
For a lot of people who go to TLM you have fallen in love with traditions, language and culture and that is not the same thing as Jesus Christ. I live in Europe and for many they have the idea that this is the way to worship God. I have to say most people who are TLM goers are reverts to the faith or converts and this idea of singing Gregorian chants or praying in Latin as the proper way of worshiping is shallow and superficial. You have to know that one thing that is truly catholic and one thing that is truly from the holy spirit is obedience. We know that the holy spirit guides his church through these councils. Do not divide the body of Christ nor rebel with the idea that you know better. Trust that God is leading his church.
Let people choose. 1% of Latin Masses and 99% of Novus Ordo. Wanting a good liturgy is not shallow and you are not a better Catholic than the ones who care because you don't care. For me, shallow things are applauses in Church, mariachis in Church, all kind of shallow guitar songs that are a poor copy of the sixties folk music, shallow sermons that boil down to "be good and help others", while most Catholic don't know the basic of their faith because the priests never teach it. Shallow is to forbid the traditional mass as if it was the devil, while allowing all kind of abuses in the Novus Ordo masses without taking any action (clown masses, pagan masses and so on). Now they want to introduce indigenous rites into the Mass. Sorry, we are not shallow and insulting people is not an argument.
Source: Trust me bro What data point can you point to that demonstrates more active involvement in the process? The only data I see is a chasm opening up as the faith declines into irrelevance. (It’s the SECOND most practices religion now IN FRANCE!)
Smooth talk. Vc2 is a robber council. Ruined the faith. Its bad fruits are there to see.. Not one single good fruit. This young priest may please let us know how many arishes have been closed.. How many churches were closed or sold..
@@neilrangel2075 i read from a comment somewhere that the eucharistic miracles which happen nowadays only occur in NO masses. But how can it be that it would have stopped happening in Tridentine mass?
We can’t pretend that the young generation doesn’t care for the Vatican II Council the church cannot ignore that this generation wants tradition. It’s the older generation clinging to Vatican II
It was their generational project. The Boomer thing. The Sixties. All the old things were useless and they were so cool that they were going to trash 2000 years of tradition and do something new, something better with their half-baked ideas, that they thought they were genius because they were so smart and so superior to all these outdated saints. They said that Vatican II was a New Pentecost, even better than the Old Pentecost. It is hubris to compare oneself with the Apostles. Someone said that "now people are going to enter the Church in droves". They implemented the reform with an iron fist. No amount of pleading or pilgrimages managed to weaken their resolve. These believers that begged for the faith and liturgy of centuries have to know their place, damn it, we are the ones who rule and know. Let's fabricate a new liturgy completely new because we are so brilliant. The believers voted with their feet. Some decades later, seeing the amount of wreck and destruction they produced, they don't want to admit that they were mistaken. They are as proud as they always were. They imagine the flourishment of the Church in the middle of the decadence and they imagine new reforms to justify their life while the Church is in shambles. Vatican II was the project of their life and they will destroy the Church even more, before admitting their mistakes.
Ban is the wrong choice of word as nothing has been banned. Secondly, just a cursory look at the comments on this video shows why a suppression of the TLM could be considered a good idea…
@@kieranisaacsonSo I guess the Mass that’s made saints for the past 1500 years is suddenly bad? And our new mass which has only existed for like 60 years suddenly is so much greater?
I've been greatly appreciating the opportunity to attend a traditional mass near me lately. It really gives the sense that I am being treated as an adult, and not having my hand held or being nudged to say responses continuously. Both forms of the Latin Rite can be great; its just a bit confusing that one of the forms is being thrown under the bus by Church leadership, despite attracting large numbers of faithful
Whilst it is great that you do appreciate the Tridentine Mass, it is misleading to say that it is ‘attracting large numbers’ when only 4% of parishes offer it and it is a bit of a novelty and barely a talking point outside of the United States…
@@kieranisaacson Please note that Traditionis Custodes was released by the Holy See in order to restrict and make it more difficult for laity to attend the TLM amidst all of this. The only reason the Pope would try to restrict something “only 4% of parishes offer” that is “barely a talking point outside the US” is because the TLM is so deeply effective at undermining the heretical teachings of this world. If the TLM was something small and insignificant, the Pope himself would not be spending his Papacy restricting it. The TLM is present all throughout the world, not just the US. Some countries more than others. If you look up pictures, especially of some of the most famous and oldest European Catholic Churches, you will notice the architecture, particularly the Tabernacle and Altar, is built solely upon the TLM. It truly is the Mass of the Ages… Deo Gratias.
@@DoctorDewgong I think there are some pretty simple explanations for this rather than the TLM just being really popular. Generally the TLM is offered in fewer parishes, meaning that people have to go to the fewer parishes which offer the TLM. This means that those fewer parishes which offer the TLM appear to be more popular because the attendees are more concentrated rather than dispersed across many churches. For example, although much less of a talking here in the United Kingdom, a couple of weeks ago I attended a TLM at an 8am Mass on a Monday in central London. Now, in London there is only one church which regularly offers the TLM on a weekday and that is the London Oratory. Now this 8am Mass on a Monday filled a decent side-chapel, however if day ten or more churches offered a TLM on a Monday then this side-chapel would be a lot more empty - possibly completely empty! The statistics show us that the TLM is a fringe group in the larger Catholic Church and the packed churches offering a TLM are not always the best indicator!
@@kieranisaacson Monday 8am mass ok. Counterpoint: TLM masses are full so we should to more of them until they stop being full. Another counterpoint: every time there are surveys of TLM attendees vs NO attendees, the TLM goers believe and follow Church teachings to a WAY higher degree. Trying to shove them into "they're just a fringe group'" box is abhorrent
Certainly the development of the Novus Ordo in the Concilium was definitely meant to appeal to Protestants and all the Protestant observers attest to their involvement. 1967-1970
Kýrie, eléison Novus Ordo was all I knew and then God opened my eyes to the reverence and respect for him in a TLM. The Confiteor isn’t omitted(asking God to forgive us for our venial sins), the priest doesn’t turn its back on our Lord, the faithful say the Our Father as a prayer and not a song, the sign of peace doesn’t distract the faithful from the real presence of our Lord, incense is used, mass is said in the official language of the Roman Catholic Church, entire families attend, the faithful are catechized in the faith and don’t just pick and chose what they want to believe. We receive our Lord kneeling (as a sign of respect that he is our Savior & King) and on the tongue to ensure no particles of his body are stomped on and that everyone consumes him. The priests speak truth and they there to help the laity learn more about our faith. I don’t know when we became divided, but I pray and ask our Blessed Mother that we may love her son the way he deserves. May our Divine Lord forgive us for our sins & may his Mercy save the world from all evil.
Father Casey, forgive me for asking something unrelated to this superbly informative video on Vatican II, but I was wondering what is the name of the intro music for the excellent podcast you do with Father Tito - Everyday Liminality? As always I appreciate your dedication in bringing us this amazing content from Breaking In The Habit, Upon Friar Reviews, and Everyday Liminality. I am flabbergasted that you can juggle all these things, while also fulfilling all your liturgical responsibilities. I am impressed!
I do want tradition and transcendence. I mean, sure. We have more converts today, but how many are properly catechized? How many are actually brought up in this new and “improved” Church when 96% of Catholics have used birth control, or that only 1/3 of U.S. Catholics believe in the real presence in the Most Holy Eucharist? I think we ought to dial things back. FAR back.
Well, do it!! Just in place of Latin, use your own language [that's even way more beautiful if you really think about it, for all of your community will understand each word that is being said for a way greater significance]. Also sing beautiful chorus too, Gregorian style if you want, just again, try them in vernacular to help people comprehend. Make sure to make every aspect of your mass solemn, and you will find the tradition and transcendence we love so much too in there, and all of that while following Vatican II precepts and the official magisterium of the Church!! is a win-win. You are right people should involve themselves more in their faith, though. But that was an even worse problem before Vatican II, for laity was totally disconnected of what was going on, they were barely allowed to question or study anything, it was solely reserved to ordained ministres, and they were asked to obey for the sake of obedience, not of love and understanding. We are, indeed, way better than before the council. In fact, if you as a layman can appreciate and understand anything about our rites, that's solely thanks to Vatican II that allowed it, brother, please be more grateful of it and understand what the council really purposes and expects from us, instead of focusing on what "it didn't do".
@@GranMaese I didn’t join the Catholic Church for rock concerts, clown masses, and people receiving our Lord in their hands. I joined because I am a stickler for tradition, and all things old. It’s because I hate the modern world so utterly and entirely that I only find escape in the Church.
@@Lexarf0rk I've watched episode 1 now.... It was sensationalist at best, brother. Sorry. Don't get me wrong, is a very well made documentary, technically speaking, but is deceptive in what it says, to say the least. Extremely sensationalist, that uses nostalgia as bait. Per example, near the beginning, they mention shortage of priests. There is indeed a shortage of priests, but that shortage would be even worse without Vatican II, because the shortage comes from an illogical fear and anger against all religiosity and responsibility overall in newer generations, not due to Vatican II [the film doesn't say that and rather wants you to believe is the fault of Vatican II, somehow, which is simply a fallacy]. In fact, it wants you to believe everything wrong in the world, like depression, divorces, etc., are due to Vatican II, or better said, due to the lack of the Traditional Latin Mass, which is simply absurd. On the contrary, Vatican II has made it possible for many people in our generations to encounter their way back to Christ, for it has allowed them to finally understand what is even going on with the Church to begin with. Heck, this very film wouldn't be possible if not for the Vatican II allowing laymen to give their opinions on official matters and in vernacular language. Think about it. Then there was this section where a lot of "famous" people that used to be catholic are not anymore... and the film wants you to believe that's Vatican II's fault again... When those people would've abandoned the Church anyways, for they have chosen the path of concupiscence in their lives. As I said, an irrational wave of hatred towards religion is the real cause of such departure, heck all heretics were once Catholics too, and those were centuries before the Vatican II was even a thing... Again, let that sink in for a minute, my friend. Also, a fact the film doesn't even cares to mention is that the Novus Ordo is more similar to the actual masses of the early Fathers times, and while the TLM is beautiful and more complex indeed, it had other extra stuff that was added through the years, which is ironic if you truly think about it. Both masses are valid and both are based on tradition. None is better or more beneficial than the other.. though one is indeed more beautiful. I can grant the TLM that. But is up to us to make NO masses equally beautiful in union with the magisterium, not against. Speaking of beauty in mass, then they also said the "chants are lost"... but that's simply not true. What about singing them in your language? Are you saying there are not talented people any more than can compose equally solemn music or adapt the older ones for mass anymore using vernacular languages? I highly doubt that. The list goes on, my dear brother. But I will also recognize it had some good things, per example, I've to say there was a very interesting part about the funeral mass, where I fully agree with what one of the priests in the film said that we can't just go saying "people are in heaven now" once they die... That was harsh but true, hence a cool part, with profound theology behind. We can hope for that being the case [that they go to heaven], and we can pray for mercy. But is about being ready when the times comes. I totally agree. Anyways, I will try to watch the other two episodes, hopefully there is more stuff like that funeral reflection, and less of the fear-mongering and propagandistic takes, but for now I will definitively recommend taking episode 1 with a grain of salt for anyone interested in watching it.
Father, I agree Vatican II has brought many benefits to the Church and lay participation in all aspects of the Church was a great step in the history of the Church in the modern world. However, the video makes it seem as if beauty and transcendence of our catholic traditions and customs and lay participation are diametrically opposed to each other, that one must be sacrificed for the other to flourish. It is clear that the documents, especially Sacrosanctum Conconcilium, emphasize the need for beauty and the preservation and restoration of the Roman Church's precious traditions such as Gregorian Chant, to educate the laity on the beauty and rich symbolism in the sacred liturgy, to promote the public recitation of the divine office and to support artists and musicians. All of these have been largely ignored. All of this infighting about Vatican II will never end until people stop promoting this false idea that we have to sacrifice beauty and transcendence to fully accept the council.
I want to preface this by saying I'm not a Christian. However, I was raised Baptist and was baptized and learned a lot about the Bible and apologetics in my time as a Christian. I didn't know much about Catholics though. I'm not sure why but I just assumed that the entire Mass was in Latin and consisted of priests singing and walking around speaking only Latin, giving out communion, and then speaking and singing in more Latin. I met my current wife during our high school years, and even though she was raised Catholic she didn't seem to know almost anything about the Bible or Catholic teaching. I assumed the Latin was to blame, but not too long after we got married I discovered that she went to churches where the whole thing was in English. I also didn't know that the priest preached from the Bible. I almost couldn't believe she could have gone to Mass every Sunday while still living with her parents and yet know so little. She couldn't even recite the Lord's prayer by herself; she had to follow along with someone else for her brain to be able to fetch that information. She had never fasted. She had rarely ever gone to confession. She couldn't tell me a single complete story from the Bible, just bits and pieces. She didn't know who Augustine or Aquinas or Francis of Assisi were. She couldn't tell you the name of her bishop, her priest, or even the pope. I couldn't believe it was possible to know so little. In my church you couldn't be baptist until at least 14, though older was much more common, and you had to be interviewed by the pastor and be able to answer a bunch of questions about doctrine. "What is the Trinity? What is the nature of Jesus's humanity and divinity? How can one be saved? Is x a sin? Why do we baptize and what is the proper way to do it? What is communion and why do we do it? How often do we do it? Who can you direct your prayers to? What does it mean for the Bible to be the inspired word of God? What is the priesthood of all believers?" I was grilled especially hard because I wanted to be baptised so young, but everyone went through something similar. Yet my wife use to go to Mass and take communion knowing nothing about what was going on and what she was supposed to believe. If some people think Vatican II was too drastic, they might not realize just how bad things are for y'all.
I was informed that Latin was used because it was the language of the Roman Empire and would have been understood by majority of people. I also love African and West Indian masses, very spiritually uplifting
I lived in the United States for a year. Although I am fluent in English, I was never able to produce my responses of the Mass during the Mass. I knew it in my native language. If I had learned in Latin, no problem, even if I am in Malaysia for one month. This is why every religion has a holy language. Biblical Hebrew for the Jews, Classical Arabic for the Muslims, Sanskrit for the Hindus. All of them dead languages so the meaning of the words cannot change and lead you into confusion.
Dear Father Casey, 2 corrections. The Church was the largest charitable organización BEFORE the Council as well. The number if Catholics has doubled since the Council, but the world population has MORE than doubled. Those important matters aside, the number of priests and religious has declined. The liturgy is a disaster from a worldwide perspective. Every Catholic country today has a lower percentage of Catholics (Mexico, for example). The problem isnt the Council; it's the wicked intentions behind heretical interpretations of it.
But Vatican II never claimed the versus populum mass. It's still ad orientem by the rubrics. Latin mass is cannot be understandable? Tell it to the Pope, who does the Novus Ordo in Latin. For example Pope Francis will come to our country in late April. Mass will be in Latin. So people won't understand it, but will still do it. How cruel is it? We need a Vatican III to stop all Latin... that's your 'argument' in the video. And if the Mass is in your own language now, does that mean that people understand the liturgy more and have a better Christian life than before? As I see, no. You're an American tourist in Mexico/Brazil/France/Italy/Sweden/Egypt etc. You go to Mass and don't understand liturgy in Spanish/Portuguese/French/Italian/Swedish/Arabic. So you must learn all languages to have a good Sunday Mass as a tourist anywhere in the world. Before the Council, it was only one universal language everywhere. How cool was that? If Vatican II was about being up-to-dated to the modern world, then Vatican III should be about being open again, that the world changes, tourism is on the rise, so we need again one language only. And I'm not cynical. What you don't understand is that Vatican II claims things and those things isn't in use. For example it wants Catholic schools to have a choir. Do every school have one? So actually we don't talk about a Vatican II church, but a post-Vatican II. All the priests say this and that because of the council, but in reality many things today is against the council. So you can be even a 'Vatican II traditionalist', that you want back the Vatican II church and not this post-Vatican II. If every Christian congregation is OK, then why the Church let me to convert from Calvinism to Catholicism? Why didn't the priest say to me that you're OK as a Calvinist, stay there, please, because it doesn't matter, what only matters is that I was baptised as a baby? If Ecumenism is OK, then all the Christian churches must agree in common that they don't do conversions. No Calvinists to Catholics, no Catholics to Methodist, no Baptist to Orthodox etc. Because sublabel doesn't matter under Christianity. So you fail as Ecumenical because you're not consistent.
Why people seem to think that the form of mass is why people are "leaving" the Catholic church is baffling: ALL Christian religions are seeing decreases in membership and participation. This has more to do with what is going on in society at large and how it rejects Christian values, not because 'the old mass was better'. Going back to the Latin mass would not further increase more people to become/remain Catholic. The world outside the church is the reason this is happening, and here we have Catholics debating Latin vs new mass...unfortunate.
Did Vatican II improve or worsen the decline of the Church? Please, for each country, see the statistics of attendance before and after the New Mass was implemented. Numbers don't lie
Honest question, was not one Martin Luther's grievances that use of Latin obscures the faith from the laiety? And would it not be a good token of charity, and a valuable step towards unity, to say this? If not, where lies the distinction? (I mean, people used to get burned at the stake over this, perhaps some sort of apology is fair.)
Thank you Friar Casey for bringing this topic. Yes, I once was curious about what people say bad things about Vatican II. Then, a few weeks ago, through a good friend of mine, I bought me a book about Vatican II (yes I consider it as a blessing, because IT WAS THE TRANSLATED DOCUMENT) ... Yes, much to my joy I read it right away and to those that hated Vatican II... I'll say to them "thank you my brothers and sisters, but you must look and read the entire documents, it is great!!! Read and contemplate it" Ever since that day, I can try to refute our silly brothers and sisters that tried to undermine Vatican II... The entire document was not that thick but it was easy reading and meaningful. Even I finally managed to bring light to some friends and families that did not specifically know about Vatican II
People talk about the fruit of V2 but never mention that in essentially every measurable metric the Church is dying. In my home parish we have about 70-100 people converting every year but simultaneously about 700-1000 people leaving the church. I would personally like to hear takes on what people think would have happened today if V2 did not take place. If V2 was so good but yet the Church is dying in every measurable metric, then it would be interesting to see how much worse people think the Church would look like today without V2.
A Church without VII might look worse and smaller than we had today. The Western Church was struggling no later than 1900. Sometimes major surgery improves a really bad situation. It does not always make it perfect.
Depends on your perspective. Globally, Catholicism had grown in adherents dice V2, especially in Asia and Africa. The West is a crap show, likely due to its social values becoming more rapidly degenerate. *Source: Pew Research, World Christian Database
@Robin Nilselid. This is an interesting experiment. See the increasing of attendance in the Latin Mass and the increasing of attendance in the Novus Ordo Mass (in percentage). This is why they don't want to allow the Latin Mass. It makes visible their failure. If there is no point of comparison, they can always say that "it could have been worse".
We honestly needed Vatican II, the fact that so many vocations fell after Vatican II just shows what a poor relationship the people have with Christ. And another thing, the carthusian nuns were allowed to follow a horarium similar to the monks only after Vatican II, before they were thought to be inferior psychologically. Thank GOD for Vatican II!!!! And not to forget: Teresa of Avila was proclaimed doctor of the church after Vatican II. The Doctor of Prayer! We definitely needed Vatican II desperately.
Problems aside, Vatican II was absolutely necessary for the Catholic Church. Christianity is *NOT* a "spectator sport" The Mass should honestly never have gotten to the point where it was delivered entirely in a dead language that the overwhelming majority of parishioners did not speak and could not understand. I get that Latin is beautiful, but the Lord Our God wants Christians who mature as disciples and raise up more mature disciples after them. They--we--cannot do that if are effectively blocked from the understanding of and active participation in of the Worship of God. Our worship should absolutely be reverent, but it should never be obtuse and inaccessible.
The Novus Ordo is so accessible that people left the Church in droves. And people who grew up with it understand the faith so well that a majority of them does not even believe in the Real Presence. Back in 1999 77% of American "Catholics" did not believe that one has to attend mass to be a good Catholic. That is how mature people have become. Wake up.
For centuries, preachers and missionaries have converted, sanctified and saved thousands and thousands of people, much more ignorant than those of today and under the most adverse conditions, relying on this old-fashioned liturgy that now is slandered for excluding those who attend it. Perhaps the inability of people today to reap the spiritual fruits of the old liturgy is an indication not of its inadequacy, but rather of the clergy's relaxation and imprudence with their own habits and doctrine, which as a consequence extends to the laity due to the bad example, bad teaching and lack of spiritual direction. Maybe the clergy needed reformation, not the liturgy.
I watch Traditional Latin Mass every day n found it more spiritual then then the mass celebration at my parish ...... through my experience I found IInd Vatican council did mistake by changing liturgy, jst my opinion, no offense plz 🙏🙏
I was about 10 when Vatican II was implemented. I love the laity being more involved. I love that the priests I am most in contact with are not oriented towards the clergy, but to involving the laity. However, I miss some of the prior traditions, the primary one being abstaining from meat on Fridays. Yes, I can do that on my own but it seems to me that this was a unifying tradition. This was not only sacrifice and religion, but a way of life. It not only unified us but the businesses, etc., around us respected us, providing meatless alternatives on Friday, realizing an accommodation was needed. Now, it seems as if everyone assumes Catholics will eat anything, even during Lent. I used to travel a lot and was amazed at the lack of accommodation on airline menus during Lent. Yes, I could get a lackluster, scaled-down vegetarian meal, but how about one of the main offerings being fish or vegetarian? What about kids' sports? Games and practices are on Sunday mornings, conflicting with church. It is as if the automatic assumption is that no one is going to church. (Catholics have Saturday evening as an alternative but what about Protestants who don't have this?) "They'll know we are Christians by our love." The more we can give example to this the better. The early Christians were such examples to others that many joined them due. Now, some outward signs of our way of life have been reduced and our example to others can no longer be identified with our faith.
The Church (in N. America at least) was sadly losing that leverage power against businesses by the time of V2. Airlines see no point of catering ''Catholic meals'' as the demand for flights skyrocketed year after year anyway. Same goes to the NFL with its action grabbing the youth's attention compared to the ''dull'' Mass. It's a nutshell of the situations around the time of the council and the Church had 2 options: 1) stick to the guns and hope Catholic families breed enough to sustain the numbers (but half of them lapse anyway due to nonexistent catechesis), staying out of the world hoping they leave us enough room for survival, entering the 21st century as an orderly, faithful but MUCH smaller church (which apparently is what many trads want anyway) 2) take a risk, jump out of the shell and dialogue with the world, realize that people outside are not monsters but co-sinners desperate for love, showing them the true and ultimate Love of Jesus present in the Eucharist (certainly can do better in this part, but the vision is consistent). Give the laity much more rights & responsibilities. The risk is obvious a more diverse Church inevitably caught up in more confusion & chaos than most members were ever comfortable with, but 60 years is far from enough time for the council to produce ripe fruits, especially compared to the counter-reformation and Church history as a whole. We humans selfishly want to see our favorite things retained / implemented during our lifetime, not aware that time is irrelevant in God's eyes and our decades of effort on something is but a footnote to Him. I hope to see the amazing fruits of V2 when I get to heaven. Thanks for reading.
@@reintaler6355 I mean, at this point, few airlines even offer actual meals in the first place if it’s under like a 6 hour flight. And if it’s long enough it requires it, it’s probably catching a wide enough net of travelers that decent vegetarian and pescatarian options make sense to offer. Not specifically *intended* as lenten options for catholics, but catholics can certainly take advantage of them.
The divinely inspired traditions and customs need to be upheld, especially in worship. If we get worship wrong, like the Levites allowed in the Old Testament, that’s not good… and it shows with what’s going on today - whether it’s Germany, the poor implementation of Vatican 2, lack of catechizing properly, bishops and cardinals disagreeing on the truths of the faith, etc. Yes, in part, it’s great we get to learn more about our faith as lay faithful and so forth, what’s not great is the fact our worship (the Mass, the most important thing we do as Catholics) gets watered down and isn’t upheld as the most important thing we do…
Thank you for the video, father. Could you deepen a bit more in the tradicionalist arguments? I mean, from.a theological and 'legal' point of view. For example: is It true that conciliar fathers willed the council to remain pastoral in nature? If so, are the documents from the council infallible? Were explicit referencies to the sacrifice eliminated for ecumenical purposes? Is jurisdiction still pontifical in source?
Excellent presentation Father… Thank you! I am pre vatican 2 but reformed in it’s vision and spirituality. This affirms so much of the good I received through the work of the council … praise God for the courage of the council fathers and saintly pope that made it happen.
Listen you guys. Whether you’re a NO goer or a TLM goer, we’re all still One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church. It’s one thing to have a healthy respectful conversation about the differences, but it’s another thing to point fingers and say someone or something is evil just because it’s not how YOU practice the faith. You’re not making ppl wanna come to TLM by calling Novus Ordo evil (and vice versa), if anything you’re pushing them away and making them think, “Those people are so mean and judgmental of their own kind, I don’t wanna be around them.” And seeing how divided we are over this, how do you think this will witness to non-Catholics? Do you think people will WANT to become Catholic when all they see is drama and division? 9/10 people join or leave the Church because of the way people treat them, not because they win or lose an argument. “But we can’t just let people use the title ‘Catholic’ lightly! We need better Catechesis!” You’re right! We do need better catechesis! So how about instead of complaining, YOU work on becoming a better catechist yourself? If you’re not pleased with others not believing in the Real Presence, then study apologetics and testify about how it’s impacted you and why you love it so much! Whether it’s a social media post or talking about it with a friend over coffee! I know I’m rambling. But please remember that we can’t control how the whole Church behaves. You can only control how YOU as an individual behave, and you never know who’s watching. After all, the song says “they’ll know we are Christians by our love…” Not by our arguments. Not by which mass we go to. By our LOVE. 1 Corinthians 13:2 - And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing.
I get the want to have the Laity actively participate but often I feel as if our "participation" is just lip service, I include myself in this. Before I started going to the Latin Mass I may have spoke the words in mass and have been their physically but my words were empty, I had no idea what they truly meant, and I most definitely was not there spiritually. When I go to The Latin Mass I take my copy of The Roman Canon with me and follow along and I feel way more engaged than I ever had in the Novus Ordo. Plus with outside media like your RU-vid channel, Bishop Barren's as well as Ascension's great podcasts such as The Bible in a Year and The Catechism in a Year, I feel as if I'm more equipped to be as active as I can be during Mass.
Spot on. Ask the average Novus ordo attendee (myself included), where the Gloria, the Holy holy holy, the Lamb of God, or the enter under my roof responses come from. They will have no idea
Maybe you are just chasing a feeling. Maybe if you went back a reverent NO parish, it would now have as much meaning It a little silly to attend a Mass that you have ignore to read through.
@@DoctorDewgong - I am an NO attendee, one of unwashed masses. I know at least part of the answer, in part because I pay attention at my vernacular Mass.
@@atrifle8364 “Maybe” is not very confident or re-assuring. What I know is that the Præparatio Ad Pedem Altaris (Prayer at the foot of the Altar) and Confiteor (I confess) and many other sacred prayers were taken out and removed from the Mass entirely. If you attend the TLM many many times, (just as I assume you have at the NO) you do not have to ignore the Mass but participate in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. As I’m sure you have memorized the common prayers responses in the vernacular, the same can be done at the TLM. The TLM has nearly all of the prayers and scripture readings that the NO has, plus more. VII condensed and reduced the length of the Mass, took out involvement in a significant number of Saints, Angels, and Martyrs, and most importantly reduced the importance of our focus on God (Priest no longer faces the Tabernacle, Ad Orientem) and increased the importance of us lay sinners and our “us-ness.”
Is the Latin mass a better mass if you learn Latin and become an active participant in it vs just sitting there not knowing what is going on? Or even if you learned and understood Latin, is the mass still exclusive to the priest and does not engage the parishioners?
“What Vatican II ACTUALLY Did” was empty the seminaries, monasteries, convents, and churches. And introduced the type of simple-minded popular music we hear in your video. If you believe all this was good, have at it.
Could you make a video that illustrates how some of the original beauty and depth was lost ? :) I’d be very interested to understand what you mean by that:) I’ve tried to understand the old mass, but what people say in interviews usually boils down to “It’s so beautiful because I don’t understand anything ! So I can focus on God alone.” As someone who speaks Latin fluently, that’s a point that just drives me crazy. How can you really appreciate the full beauty of anything involving words if you don’t even have an _inkling_ of what they mean?
Hi. Usually at every Latin Mass, they hand out Missals that have Latin and English side by side. These have been the norm for centuries. The beauty is also seen by the numerous actions of the priest and altar servers.
It generally helped the Eastern Catholic churches by bringing them back to their heritage. Prior to Vatican II, a lot of the Eastern Catholic churches had become highly latinized, including the Maronites, who’s liturgy had pretty much become somewhat identical to the Latin Mass. But thanks to the council, the Eastern Catholic churches returned to their liturgical customs and distanced themselves from attempting to replicate the Latin church.
It allows them to practice their rites freely [according to their own proper folklor traditions]. Vatican II was very generous in that regard, indeed! One of the good things that none of its detractors like to talk about. Sadly other people in the west have abused such freedom, for they took such permission to express their local folklor traditions as "we can do whatever we want", which is simply ridiculous and not true. That was never the intent of the Council, but to allow local, proper folklor expressions to be present in the mass.
I'm a young millenial who grew up in Asia. A lot of priests would praise the Vatican II wholeheartedly. I never knew what the world looked like before Vatican II. Being a "lazy Catholic", I always just took the childhood lessons as is. Of course my communities benefit a great deal from Vatican II, assumably so did the congregrations in nations totally foreign with Latin. But what Fr. said is as valid as an argument. It is important for me to learn the rich and traditional history of The Church. Thank you!
Asking people to participate more at a time of culture that was (and still is) shaping less participation was a big L. I'm not a traditionalist, perhaps a "glad trad" if pressed, and attend daily Novus Ordo, but am certainly a product of an experiment gone wrong. I am now doing my best to lead my parents back to the one true Church that their parents (my grandparents) followed in it's traditional form. A form that organically evolved from practical to liturgical; not inorganically from liturgical, explained as practical.
@@briandelaney9710 Yes, the current Mass is not a child of the Vatican II council but of Annibale Bugnini. See episode 2 of the Mass of the ages in RU-vid.
I was in the second grade in, Catholic school before. We spoke the, Latin mass with the transcription on the opposite page, I still remember, Sanctus, Sanctus… I’m glad I was exposed to that time & miss it. I’ve heard said that in-spite of relaxed rules considerable numbers left the Church. Who knows? It’s very alarming to see all the Catholic schools closing & the reduced numbers of the; Priesthood & Sisterhood. My HS closed 2 years ago, I was heartbroken & angry that I never saw an effort by the Church to counter any of this. I was never educated as to joining the Church, they are very bad PR for themselves. Molestation aside, I don’t see the reason for the drastic decline in vocations. God help us. It has to be, God’s will.
I disagree with Father on this. How many Catholic schools and even churches themselves since Vatican II have shut their doors. Instead of Vatican the Church would have been better served by taking care of the priest homosexuality in the ranks issue even then.
I definitely understand why people feel strongly about the loss of the beauty and complexity of the more traditional services, but simpler services are definitely way more "accessible" to people who are new to the church. Is it common for catholic churches to have both tranditional and "modern" services like how some larger protestant ones do? For protestant churches that usually just refers to what kind of music is used in worship, but it sounds like it means a lot more than that in a catholic setting
There are some "blended" masses that will take elements from the Traditional Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo. I went to one with my sister once, and it was a great service. It didn't just try to meet in the middle, but rather looked at what both liturgies did well, and synthesized them. In was in the vernacular, but used some more traditional prayers. The consecration happened ad orientem, but was clearly annunciated for the congregation to hear. There was a communion rail, but the priest still let me receive in the hand (it was towards the end of covid, and I felt safer wearing a mask in crowded areas)
Bro, I kid you not, the radical traditions are literally a nightmare to the church and Christianity in general I haven’t seen such pride, hate, and extremism in any other group more than them. I love trad Catholics, as well as our separated brethren, but those radical ones are truly a problem, I like that the Pope is cracking down on them
The TLM was what drawn me in, now that I'm converting they say it may stop. I drive 2 hours once a week just to attend it because it is so beautiful and gives me joy. I don't get why this is happening. I live in south America and I have no idea what is happening in the rest of the world to make the Latin mass go away. It's not even that radical!
@@sarahisatitagain it’s not the mass that’s a problem It’s ppl obsession with it to the point it became idolatry where ppl r not worshiping Jesus but the worship itself
@GENERAL YOUSIF maybe we should tear down the churches too then. You don't need a basilica to say mass. You don't need a beautiful Bible or Missal or an ornate rosary. You don't need beautiful art and saints images, you don't need a confessional to confess your sins... Where do we draw the line?
