As everyone who reads my blog knows, I attended a very liberal “spirit of Vatican II” seminary in Baltimore, Maryland from 1976 to 80.
I have said it before and I will say it again, my experience there was great. I loved the academic challenges and the expansion of my experiences of the Church of that period. While there was certainly liturgical and theological hogwash, not all of it was. I had great professors for Scripture and Systematic (Dogmatic) theology. Moral theology was quite iffy there as well as pastoral theology, a new subject foisted on us with the most boring, touchy-feely kinds of teachers.
What I loved, though, which has helped me later in my priesthood was that the methodology of our teachers for both Scripture and Systematic theology was to show us how the subject would have been taught prior to Vatican II and what Vatican II allegedly taught about how to teach it after Vatican II. Even in the 1970’s I could see the post-Vatican II ethos was questionable compared to the pre-Vatican II ethos.
In terms of Scripture, we had great Scripture scholars for both the Old ad New Testament. One professor would always point out in the Old Testament what constituted “sick” or “corrupt” religion compare to “healthy” religion.
When Israel became self absorbed with themselves, their focus was on worship and structures rather than following the Lord and unity. Jesus came to shake Israel from its self-absorbed status and go out to the world and bring everyone into God’s kingdom.
Prior to Vatican II there were no liturgy wars, self absorbed discussions about inculturation, self absorbed discussions about ecclesiology, councils, structures and programs.
Prior to Vatican II the family which was strong, knew they were the Church in miniature and had to formed good Catholic children to become good Catholic adults. They had to provide vocations to the priesthood and religious life which were abundant for most of the 20th Century until about 1968.
Religious life and the priesthood were not preoccupied about their life and structure but more concerned about their apostolate and “ministries.” And the lay apostolate was important too.
THERE WERE NO LITURGICAL WARS. The Mass was the Mass and people poured into the Mass and overflowed the Church.
What era of the Church is the most corrupt in terms of self-absorption? The Church of the 1950’s or the Church post 1965 to this day?
Here is an interest comment from a Praytell post on Gregorian Chant prior to Vatican II in parishes:
We had several early Low Masses, a Solemn Mass at 10:30 and a Low Mass with sermon at 12 noon, which was a standard pattern in large parishes in England. The 12 was always packed out, from the age of twelve (1950) I and most men would stand because of a lack of seats. The 10:30 was full but not packed. The same picture in the neighbouring parish, where the crowd overflowed the church and we stood in the forecourt. No one took Communion.
20 comments:
I'm going to ask a really ignorant question. Why in the praytell description of mass did "no on take Communion"?
The money quote from Rorate Caeli:
The demission of Benedict XVI will be remembered as one of the most catastrophic events of our century, as it opened the door, not only to a destructive pontificate, but above all to a situation of increasing chaos in the Church. After seven years since that disastrous February 11, 2013, the life of Benedict XVI and the pontificate of Pope Francis are drawing inexorably to a close. We don’t know which of the two events will precede the other, but in both cases, the “smoke of Satan”” risks enveloping the Mystical Body of Christ as perhaps has never happened in history
The Bergoglian pontificate has reached its end, perhaps not from a chronological point of view, but most certainly from the point of view of its revolutionary impact. The Post -Amazonian Synod has been a failure and the Exhortation Querida Amazonia of last February 2, was the tombstone placed on the many hopes of the progressive world, mainly in the German zone. The Coronavirus, or Covid 19, has definitively brought to an end the ambitious pontifical projects for 2020, presenting us with a historical image of a solitary and defeated Pope, immersed in the emptiness of a spectral St. Peter’s Square. On the other hand, Divine Providence, which always regulates all human events, allowed Benedict XVI to witness the debacle following his abdication. But the worst is probably still to come.
They may have broken the fast, were in a state of mortal sin, or, and quite likely, since the EF Mass does not have a Rite of Holy Communion for the Faithful, and it is optional to invent one for them, the priest decided no one would receive at a late hour.
Those older than me, though, have to chime in on the veracity of that.
Thank you Father.
TJM, these commentators are not infallible teachers of history, the future or of the Church. I would suggest you consider their opinions as precisely that, opinion, having nothing to do with soothsaying, historical accuracy or anything else. God in His good time and Divine Providence, according to the Magisterium, will sort things out, especially at the Last Judgment.
Rorate Caeli - not a surprising opinion from an SSPX website.
If it's corruption you want, there are mounting reports that China has been bribing Pope Francis with billions of dollars per year. If proven true, would this be grounds to remove him from the papacy?
https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/why-chinese-whistleblower-may-be-right-that-communists-paid-vatican-to-shut-up-about-its-war-on-catholics
Hmmmm Fr McD is now ticking off TJM about his extremist and schismatic comments. I guess the US Nuncio has applied some pressure throughout whatever channels to remind FR McD of his pastoral responsibilities.
A while back I heard it preached at the EF that it was common to not receive communion at the late morning Masses before Vatican II due to the stricter fasting rules.
One of the perks of attending the EF is that there is no stigma attached to not receiving communion. I recall when growing up in the 90s numerous occasions where adults assumed those not receiving were either in mortal sin or "probably not Catholic." Those sorts of comments really put the pressure on to receive no matter what. To not receive is basically an admission of guilt since you'd have to be eating on the church steps minutes before Mass to break the fast. Even though the EF now follows the one hour fast according to the 1982 Code of Canon Law, it's widely assumed that many attending it follow the older rules by choice (be it the three hour or midnight fast). On the rare occasion someone is pointed out for not receiving, the assumption is always that they must be following the old rules and broke the fast by eating breakfast.
TJM.....equally as bad as Benedict XVI resignation was Pope Francis starting off his pontificate by saying we should not focus on abortion and homosexuality. That gave the left the opening it was looking for to push their agenda. Our Lady said the final battle will be the attack on marriage and the family and the head of the Catholic Church retreats.
There are also mounting reports that Elvis, JFK, and Jimmy Hoffa are alive and well and living with a frozen Walt Disney at Area 51 waiting for a phone call from ET and a Close Encounter with Dr. Smith from "Lost In Space."
Mounting, I tell you, mounting!
Fr. McDonald said.... God in His good time and Divine Providence, according to the Magisterium, will sort things out, especially at the Last Judgment.
How bout the saving of souls in the meantime Father? You know, the key mission given to the Catholic Church by Christ.
I'm 72, so I have a clear memory of Mass before Vatican II. My family belonged to a "mission" parish attached to a larger one in a neighboring village; we had one Mass on Sunday.
First, to receive Communion you abstained from all food and drink starting at midnight. Our priest used to tell a story about Carmen Basilio, a famous boxer in the 50s who grew up nearby. Basilio, after one victory and after the obligatory press conference, was famished. But he didn't eat anything, as it was after midnight and he wanted to go to Communion in the next morning.
Second, parishioners actually believed that you shouldn't approach the altar rail to receive Communion with any serious, unconfessed sins on your soul. Of course almost everyone went to Saturday afternoon confession at least once a month (the time our pastor allotted for confessions was an 1-1/2 hours, not 15 minutes just prior to Mass).
I'd estimate that, on a typical Sunday, fewer than 40% of those who were of age went to Communion, and our Mass was early (8am).
P.S. If you ever wondered why the International Boxing Hall of Fame is in Canastota, NY, that's Basilio's hometown. If you never knew there was such a Hall of Fame, well, now you do.
Mike L, there is much truth in your comment about the times for confessions in many parishes today, "not the 15 minutes just prior to Mass."I often wonder if some of these priests believe that confession is a sacrament? In the town I live in there are a number of parishes with varying times for confession. The largest parish has almost 3,000 families. The pastor has confessions just twice a month at eight o'clock on a Saturday morning. People have written to the bishop (Milwaukee). He does nothing.
Thanking everyone who enlightened me on the Communion statement. Lucky Horseshoe mentioned the "stigma" of not receiving and that's probably why my question arose in the first place. I grew up with that "Stigma" not knowing anything else. So when the author commented on the lack of communicants in my head it was like huh?
Also Mikel, what a great boxer story. My husband is from Poland. I will have to ask him if he knows the story. He followed those strict fasting rules growing up.
The three-hour rule meant that you could breakfast at 8 a.m. and still receive at the 11 a.m. Mass.
There is an old Anglican joke about the wine expert sipping from the chalice and pronouncing: 'Jesus, slightly corked.'
According to the liturgy the Eucharist is 'a safeguard and a healing remedy both of mind and body' (ad tutamentum mentis et corporis, et ad medelam). It's not a reward for the righteous. All the same, those receiving should be properly disposed, or as we used to say 'in a state of grace'.
TJM's quote from Rorate, which is not an SSPX website, is by Roberto de Mattei, an Italian historian who is highly critical of the Second Vatican Council which he has researched extensively. Not so long ago I heard him lecture on the subject. I believe that the Council needs to be seen in historical terms but de Mattei's doctrinal opinions sometimes call his objectivity into question. Historians don't usually refer to the workings of Divine Providence.
That said, his analysis of the current state of the Church cannot be simply dismissed. By all means disagree with it, but criticism should be based on something other than ignorant prejudice.
Unlike TJM and Big Nose, I would not presume to lecture a priest on his pastoral resposibilities, whether we're talking about Fr Kavanaugh or Fr McDonald.
Thank you John.....especially for the Latin translation which I love. The line "It is not a reward for the righteous" speaks volumes and will be a source of reflection.
Give Fr Ruff at PrayTell his due, he is a renowned authority on Gregorian chant and does not want to see it banished from the reformed liturgy of which he is an advocate.
The replies to his post were interesting. Solemn Mass was rare in Britain or North America outside of a cathedral or monastery, since few parishes had enough clergy to fill the roles of deacon and subdeacon. They were allowed by indult to have lights and incense at a Missa Cantata, but this was not universally allowed until John XXIII's reign.
My grandfather (1885-1954) didn't recall much chant at Mass; he used to say the music was mostly 'Terry and Tozer'. There was a revival of interest in the 1930s with the publication of 'Plainsong for Schools' (1934 but in print until the 1960s) but progress was abruptly cut short by the headlong rush to vernacularize after 1964.
No one "took" (should have been "received" Holy Communion because in the earlier parts of the 20th century, the rule was a strict fast from both food and drink (including water) from midnight til the time one received Holy Communion. I can remember nuns telling us in class that if they got out of bed and absent mindedly brushed their teeth, it was considered to be breaking the fast and reception of Holy Communion was out of the question. Quite frustrating if one wanted to receive.
In the 1950's and 1960's it would have been a 3-hour fast.
In many churches there was a 6 or 7 a.m. Mass where more people would have been able to receive.
Post a Comment