@@BreakingInTheHabithey there! I have a question, will you ever respond to atheist UA-camr Vhiced Rhino? He’s one influential UA-camr that may hinder many to the Catholic faith.
@Hrrjkf821 also been seeing alot of Calvinist pastors that are going out of their way to attack the Catholic faith. I see alot of comments saying and I agree they never actually have discussions with Catholic theologians or priests, It would be perfect for Father Casey and others to go to those guys for debates
I vividly remember the first vernacular Mass in my parish. A Sister had been training us at lunchtime for about a month so that we knew the responses. That Sunday, the responses, printed in little cardboard folders, were in all our pews. I was excited that we were finally able to actively participate, and confident in my responses. My volume matched my confidence, much to my mother’s dismay. “Not so loud!” the loud whisper that accompanied the tug on my sleeve. I was puzzled by the lack of response by those around me. I was much older when I realized that the adults, who all their lives had had to be silent in church, were simply not comfortable speaking out loud. I was decades older when I attended the first Mass that truly encompassed the wishes of Sacrosanctum Concilium. Notre Dame, Paris, 2013. Mass in French, responses in Greek and Latin. Settings of the Latin Gloria & Sanctus that I hadn’t heard since my childhood but that I was now allowed to sing. It was glorious!
I lean more towards this view. I respect Pope Francis and accept his leadership, and I think he must be obeyed, even where we may disagree with his words and decisions. That said, I wish the TLM (which I have never even attended even once in my life) had not been suppressed.
I really appreciate your videos, Father. My youngest just finished college and is now starting out on her own. While she still lives with my wife and me, we find ourselves feeling a little empty. As kids, we attended CCD somewhat unwillingly, then not attending church as young adults, then attending again with our children, putting them through CCD. They are now grown and the need for enlightenment shines brightly. My wife and I again attend willingly, not dragged as kids, nor dragging our kids. Your youth brings modernism; the fact you are reading emails or notes off of a cellphone , rather than a pad of paper is relatable. It’s today. Your plain spokeness, as well as not glossing over mistakes made by the church is wonderful. I don’t know a single Catholic who agrees with everything the church has done. Your approach is commendable. God bless you and your parents who raised you. Thank you
I remember the Latin Mass when I was alter boy in grade school. The priest had his back to the congregation which essentially was more of an group of observers rather than participants. On one occasion I was called upon to read the Epistle in Latin! To be understood the congregation had to consult their English/Latin Missal. By the time I was in 8th grade the mass was now being celebrated in English and most of us couldn't be happier. Those who blame Vatican II for the current state of the Church and the world just don't get it. It is based more on nostalgia than an understanding of a world and Church in transition.
A video on the Old Catholics would be great. Who they are, why they split, what they believe, how are they different, how are they the same, what is their relationship to the Catholic Church, etc Ditto for The Church Of The East.
Both the Traditional Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo have moved me to tears. I believe that no matter what language the Mass is in, our Lord and Savoir is there. To change anything, one must first have the understanding that it will not happen in an instant. There is certainly a revival happening both in and out of the Church. Young people are throwing off the shackles of modernity and hedonism. They are also looking for the one true light in the world. Even in parishes that have an aging populace more families and young men and women are slowing heeding the call of the Good Shepherd. I encourage anyone who is staunchly one or the other, to go an experience the other Mass setting. Do so with a truly open mind; as we are One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. If you want the Traditional Latin Mass to be at your specific parish, talk with the priest and see if he will do it. 1 Corinthians 1:10-17
I agree to a certain point. I think that TLM should be required for 1 mass on Sunday. Latin is the language that unites us. I've traveled extensively and it's quite difficult to follow mass even in languages I speak well as the vocabulary is so different. I find myself longing for TLM to be able to fully participate in mass.
A bit of global perspectiva is useful. In the US many went overboard with reforms, things like gym mass, churches that looked like basements and crying out for women priests and so forth, and people keep bringing it out in heated discussions. In other places people just did what was needed and moved on. I’m from Argentina and grew up with Spanish mass, guitar songs, and the big change was letting girls be altar servers😮 but save for small schismatic groups no one ever brings up Vatican 2 as something problematic or still needing sorting out
If the Mass was still in Latin and the priest still faced away from me throughout, if I didn’t have access to the amazing array of information about my faith (your channel a case in point Br Casey) I honestly can’t imagine I’d be as passionate and engaged with the faith as I am today.
Excellent video. As an Orthodox Christian, I feel like my fellow Orthodox generally don't realize how much we both contributed to the cultural milieu of ressourcement leading up to the council (through figures like Florovsky emphasizing the importance of the church fathers) and adopted some of its pastoral recommendations (having lay readers at the Divine Liturgy, using the vernacular, as well as more sporadically-applied things like reinstating the kiss of peace and encouraging congregational singing).
As a Protestant, Vatican II did one thing of great importance: Unitatis redintegratio. Just the fact that Catholicism was willing to acknowledge that the Sacrament of Baptism could be valid even outside the confines of ordained clergy was one of the biggest steps taken in centuries towards total Christian unity.
Hi Father Casey. I'm an Eastern Orthodox Christian and I'm wondering how Vatican II was meant to court the Eastern Orthodox and engage them in reunification efforts.
well, to create a unified Christian front in the Cold War ... so yes. In 1965 the respective church leaders announced an accommodation for the separation and not to try and convert each other.
I'm not Fr Casey, nor was I invited to VII, but my sense is that • consistent with the objective of _resourcement,_ it was felt the Orthodox might bring some different, relevant insights to the conversation. After so many centuries of institutional cruft building up in the RCC, an Orthodox perspective on ecclesiology and tradition could be illuminating. • after so many years of less than collegial, if not antagonistic, relations, any opportunity for dialog is a step in the right direction. No great seismic agreements would be reached, but the first step is starting on the path of relationships and understanding.
As a senior who experienced both the birth of Vatican II and prior, what I find odd is for the first 50 years, few people had any issues. 50 years!!! Then suddenly, out of nowhere, people who weren't even born or experienced pre-Vatican II suddenly wanted to go back to something they 'feel' needs reviving - with a wild 'movement' ensuing! True, only on social media - but social media is part of who we are today; there is no turning that off. The older I get, and the more I hear the outcries of society - with some wanting to go back to the past, others want to villainize it, while others want to pretend it never happened, or the worst: those that try to rewrite history so those that they want to control will blindly follow - but all coming from people who never experienced any of it, first hand. That all said, there are some people (such as this video) that are trying to set the record straight - and that is a start. Sadly, most people prefer to only listen to those who share their opinions, rather than listen to factual, historical information.
I respect V2 but I love the TLM. I feel something different here. And the Gregorian chants completely fills my soul. And when the priests sings in Latin, especially the preface, I almost get teary eyed. But when the Father hold the body of Christ up and I say in silence “my lord and my god” I feel at peace. And communion in the tongue needs to come back. And finally, ending every single mass with the final gospel need to come back. I love my Catholic Church ❤
you can take communion on the tongue, its not outlawed. My wife & daughter take communion on the tongue each week. I would suggest talking to your priest about it.
No you don't understand! Removing the Last Gospel, prayers at the foot of the altar, gradual, offertory, tract, ad orientem, and signs of the cross...has made us all better Catholics!
I do not know where you guys live, but in my childhood everybody took Comunion on the tongue (now bcs of covid half the people started to get it on their hands), and on latin mass everyone takes it on tongue and on the knees. n@@zacmullins7811
The very movement of the Spirit since Vatican II is the great growth of the Faith in Africa. The retention in toto of the old Latin mass would not have assisted this trend; quite the contrary, as a matter of simple practicality. As Father correctly says, Gregorian chant, and for that matter Latin, were not forbidden or eliminated, which is a good thing as respect for Tradition, history, and catholicity (a universal Church language) are edifying. One more comment: you don't have to go that far back to find that enormous numbers of people were not afforded much opportunity to become literate, hence Bible stody on one's own (which is prolematical to begin with as experience has shown) COULD not be globally widespread. Those who present Vatican II as "rupture" rather than "continuity" need to learn more about it. Thank you as always, Father Casey.
I didn't hear you say the changes that were made. I was in Catholic elementary school. My Dad was so excited that the priest would face the congregation and speak in English rather than Latin
He used the word "vernacular" to describe the change. This change was extremely positive, but Fr Casey's explanation merely skims through it. By giving actual examples, the full impact of this change could be understood.
Yes, it can be good to involve more lay participation in Mass, as long as it’s reverent. But even TLM always used the vernacular for homilies during Mass.
@@jasonrhtx ***when I was gowing up, the celebrant would take the big book and translate the gospel before start the homily, it was in the 1940s. At **10:00** mass there was always more attendants than at **8:00** mass, most attendants just pray the rosary while the mass was going on, but why? at **10:30** mass was for the "catequese" children, a senior catechist always dialog in the local language what the celebrant says in latin. It was in the 40s much before what came after with the Vatican ll.***
I really wish that Upon Friar Review wasn't deleted I realize that there is controversy but that channel and its videos brought me to the Catholic faith. I wish that we could still have the videos but make a video addressing the controversy.
Its not really "only" 60 years since the last ecumenical council. There's plenty of historical precedent for holding another one this soon. Many were even closer together than this, and the world changes far more rapidly than it did then.
I loved the Latin mass. Unfortunately, no one would remember the victims of Vatican II. The Children growing up with the changes being put into place. One week going to mass, relearning the entire mass in English from Latin, from Chants to guitar music (which I still find vulgar) and then rules put into place then yanked out and changed. Yes, we do have alot of people out in the boonies that are still victims. Wish the Pope would allow for one church in a community to have Latin Mass weekly. Then those who are living in fear of the ever changing Post V2 rules can come home.
@@kilandrayeuxdoux2804 No need for that. The Mass of Paul VI may still be celebrated in Latin, ad Orientem, with Gregorian Chant, with the Roman Canon, any time the priest so wishes. And he can even omit the sign of peace at his discretion.
I’m glad you mentioned the music. I think that is what disturbs me the most about v2 masses is the atrocious music. Even when it’s done well, it still isn’t all that great. If I wanted something so generic I’d turn on a non denomination Christian radio station
@@alessandroarsuffi9227 Have you looked at the priests age? Very few of them know the Latin mass enough to even pull it off. And those that do are in high demand. Not sure if its correct right now as it blows in the wind on occasion - many places are limiting the LRM from being done - except by permission.
V2 was a frequent topic of conversation in my house when I was a kid. I remember when my mother stopped pinning the scrap of lace to the top of her head. Watching my parents receiving the communion wafer AND sip from the chalis. I was really jazzed for that part when I was preparing for my first holy Communion. Serving as an altar girl. Watching nuns from my school having more active participation in the Mass. Saturday night "folk" mass. I didn't learn until I was an adult that the bishop didn't really like that one. Secular music, with a spiritual theme, and guitars instead of the organ apparently was going too far. 😂 But I sang in the choir and it was very moving experience for me. I was sad when we moved away and our new church was a very old school parish. No girls allowed. No folk mass. No secular music. Nothing progressive. I had no role there It broke my heart.
I must admit that I feel some concern that your comment talks only about your feelings, and says nothing about redemption or the work of the Holy Spirit in the world or the betterment of humanity or evangelization or anything.
While I totally understand what you are presenting, and I have read the documents of Vatican II. While I do believe what was written in the documents and what was put into practice are not quite the same. I am not a Trad, but their is no doubt that the Tridentine mass is much more reverent and has a greater focus on the Eucharist than the Novus ordo does. I agree with our Orthodox brothers that full and active participation means paying full attention at the liturgy. It seems we would have been better served by translating the mass into the vernacular, keeping familiar prayers, Sanctus, Agnus dei, and the Gloria in Latin. Institute the new lectionary along with lay lectors. We believe in doctrinal development, this includes the mass, which was stripped of much of its beauty and mystery. This seems reductionary. These are my thoughts. Thanks for your presentation. St Joseph parishioner.
I think that both are needed. Eastern Catholics have different Liturgies, and we don't think more or less of them. I personally don't like the TLM as much as NO, but if I were traveling to some place that speaks another language, I can more easily follow the TLM since it will be the same regardless of location
Another point to consider is it seems to me 9 out 10 complaints about vat 2 come from american cradle catholics. Ive never met a convert or heard someone from another country complain about it. My intuition is that they've been influenced by the loud minority voices online. The saddest part is i know 3 rad trads that i have breakfast with once a month where all i do is defend the pope for an hour. I tell them everytime, its ok i was a protestant, im used to people bashing the pope over misunderstandings. Maybe its pride but i feel like its my job to inform them so they dont leave the church over fake news.
Traditionalists often hear alarmist news about further restrictions on the TLM. As I participate in both Novus Ordo (reverently celebrated) and TLM, I hear the concerns of laypeople participating in each-the need for reverence and for addressing our modern lives beyond the walls.
I read a French theologian discuss the recent restrictions on the Tridentine mass as addressing “an American problem”. Even just looking at numbers, there are currently 410 every Sunday venues in the USA, which is roughly equal to the next five countries combined.
I have read the article about the Liturgy. I can't even spell the Latin Vernacular for its title, but because it was the first one that consecrated lay people in the Lincoln NE Diocese had to read, I thought it was pretty clear: priests are men, women are helpers in various ways, but in terms of the Mass itself, we are limited to only certain work, and women can't be priests but we do have a lot to do to promote and protect the Catholic Faith. I read it because Sister Phyllis Hunhoff, OSB read it with us consecrated lay women. She was also the woman who counseled me to continue to seek quality spiritual directions for my own ministry, keep up my studies by myself, and be smart about how I teach subjects, as well.
@@RomaCatholicaThe Church in Latin America definitely wasn't small, but don't you think his other points still applied to the situation in Brazil? Is syncretism still common among segments of non-practising Catholics, as it was before Vatican II? Just imagine what proper catechesis of laymen & active participation in the life of the Church (not just being present at Holy Mass) can achieve for people exposed to those dangerous falsehoods. Brazil has the largest self-identified Catholic population, and considering that the clergy (even if married men were allowed for ordination) & religious will always be an inherently small portion of the Church, it makes sense to have lay men and lay women who are well-educated on Church teaching & well-experienced in faithfully living by it. They can potentially help parishes & schools catechize others, and that is because of Vatican II (a work in progress though)
@@isaiah3872 I'll make it clear by saying it in another language: Todo esse problema começou a ocorrer depois da queda do Império, que era confessional católico, e agravou-se na falta de rigidez do vaticano II. Sabia que havia movimentos reacionários católicos fortes como patrianovismo e populares como Canudos, só que este o governo positivista desviveu a todos?
@@isaiah3872Now back to english, because I proved my point: Even the empire got weakened by Pedro II when he persecuted bishops who were anti-freemasonry, like Dom Vital, but yeah, the catholicism here was weak, to say it so you must be unfamiliar to brazilian history. Only the media and freemasonry hated the fact that his daughter was a radical catholic.
Father, in some respects, I understand this movement of the Roman church back to Latin. I am eastern orthodox and we have our own little groups that think if the liturgy is in Slavonic or Greek it somehow more holy even though they’re losing their young people like water because who the heck can figure out what they’re singing.
Fellow Orthodox here. I definitely agree about using the old languages being a major thing that sends young people away. In my experience, the people who usually want to keep Greek or Slavonic are the old people who don't care about missionary work---in their mind, the church is for Greeks or Russians, and that's that. It seems like people who want to use English run the whole spectrum from trad to whatever our closest equivalent to liberal is---the main thing they have in common is the desire to get people into Orthodoxy.
Not really. Ask people that go to the TLM why, and it being in Latin will be extremely low on the list. You're far more likely to hear complaints such as reverence, removal of exorcistic prayers, versus populosum vs ad orientum, a greater emphasis on Catechism, etc. As for exorcistic prayers, Abp. Bugnini changed literally everything to remove them. Even the rite to create holy water. It used to be made by saying a minor exorcism and over water and salt separately, then combining them and saying another exorcism blessings and specifically asking God to imbue it with the power of exorcism itself. Likewise the Sacrament of Baptism 1962 and before not only performed an exorcism but also _specifically_ sealed all of the senses against the influence of demons. Now it simply contains the very wishy washy rejection "of Satan and all his works" and nothing more exorcistic than that. What possibly could be the motivation of someone doing such a thing? Abp. Bugnini also tried to change the Holy Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary to be completely unrecognisable. That which Our Lady herself instituted and called our spiritual weapon, net of souls, destroyer of heresies. Thankfully pope Paul VI told him to take a hike on this one. Even though the exact same pope quite literally and freely admitted he approved all changes to the liturgy, the prayers of _all_ sacraments, even the divine office, which had been put to him by Abp. Bugnini, without really having read or understood them. But it doesn't take much imagination to guess at the motivations of Abp. Bugnini in removing exorcistic prayers from any and every rite of the Church he possibly could, nor do you have to be unusually sharp to see what has been the effect. Finally I will leave you with a quote by Abp. Bugnini himself, 1965 _“We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Protestants”_
I am not sure we can say the Church was small in Latin America. Latin America is a much more Catholic place than North America. Always has been. I live in Canada. A Catholics mass here is almost indistinguishable from protestant services.
Yeah he definitely misspoke about the size of the Church back then in Latin America. Still, wouldn't you say that his related comments about high Mass attendance, but poor catechesis otherwise limited engagement with the faith, applied to the region? Do people take part in processions, saints' feast days & novenas more today, and is that participation more cultural rather than religiously driven?
The more I live in this world, the more I realise that the catholics were right, despite controversies and fake claims of anti-christian media ( netflix, woke agenda, atheist millenials, etc... ) And the more I realise that we need to bring back more traditions to teach the youth and guide them in these deviant times.
These changes from 1960’s VII were not easy at first, but slowly we adapted the new methods. Since most of these posts are lengthy there was an Australian Mini Series called The Brides of Christ about a group of Nuns trying to adopt Vatican II. Both serious and humorous how some of the changes for Sister’s were difficult, in this series one scene depicts an Elderly Nun who has to change her Habit. All her sisters are praying for her, they help her into the new Habit, she takes a deep breath and faints. There were many things that Vatican II changed internally, as well. Nuns wearing lighter, shorter and more work appropriate Habits, Priests no longer wearing those long black robes - now they wear black slacks and many other minor changes. We began to say “Peace be with You” that was odd to get used to, but then it felt welcoming.
I wish Latin and Gregorian Chant were the preferred and normal use. My local parish priest "dared" to reintroduce incensing the altar and Gospel but the now-older parishioners, young when Vatican II came out, put a quick stop to that. Very sad. There is a real thirst out here for a return to traditions of the Church. Holding hands during the Our Father and ill-rehearsed guitar accompaniments to poor congregational singing is not cutting it anymore. I'm not against the Novus Ordo, in fact I treasure its simplicity and efficiency; I just want the traditions that can go along with it.
I’ve wondered that myself. We had very good elementary Catechism until ‘65, for me my seventh grade. As I am now reading the Catechism, I can’t for the life of me understand why it wasn’t taught in the Church where I grew up. What a difference it would have made for me, and I imagine, the many others I knew who wandered away from faith.
as someone who is almost always in favor of decentralization in most aspects of life, I still think that Vatican 2 gives entirely too much room for interpretation in it's implementation details. or at least, more time needed to be spent in considering the ways in which the reforms could be most efficaciously implemented. The Council spent a lot of time designing a really great bicycle and not nearly enough time figuring out how to teach people how to ride a bicycle without eating dirt for the next 60 years. Maybe you could argue that that was the point, but I've found that so-called "freedom" that simply results in chaos isn't actually all that freeing. Or to follow up with another bike analogy, it's hard to ride to figure out how to ride a bicycle while concussed and dealing with a broken collar bone.
I have an actual case study about liturgy in my on country, Indonesia. In 1971, there are 10 Eucharistic Prayer and many of it like Eucharistic Prayer 8,9 and 10 that Eucharistic Prayer must be Presidential Prayer, but because of "participation" the Laity in some part of that prayer did have a part on it. Next, one of the Gloria song, did not using the same text in order of "inculturation". They change the text and lyrics and for some years i mean 30 years this practice both of the cases are still held, until 2005, the Indonesian Bishop Conference revised that practice and structure. And the next revision is held in 2020 before covid hit Indonesia.
I think Vatican II implementation on Liturgy is a disaster. My diocese there is still have a spirit to go back in those era. Where the experimenting liturgy is still hold. Like using traditional dances for the procession of the priest entering the altar and out of the altar, and change the homily with a show like drama, or a film created by the Youth or even a talkshow sometimes.
By no means i'm anti-inculturation, i still enjoy the Mass that held in a parish from deep Javanese area that far from the city, like using old Javanese language or using traditional Javanese music instrument. But inculturation in a right manor can be good for cathecism and understanding the liturgy for participation. I'm also a youth that still 27 years old, but i dislike the practice done by the youth that want to deform the Liturgy.
@@carolynkimberly4021We don't know what canon was used in Rome before the mention of it but Ambrose - and it didn't even sound like its present version back in the day, though similar. The Latin Church was an exception as all other rites have more than one Anaphora. That said, I prefer the Roman Canon over the later alternatives.
Your answer and reflection on the last question stands out to me as the most important one. We the laity and priests, lead by our bishops, and guided by the Holy Spirit, are all called to be implementing daily the charisms of Vatican II.
Can you make a video about the TLM, and what we are doing right and what we are doing wrong. How we can be more united with the church and still enjoy the extraordinary form?
I watched Vatican II's opening on TV when I was home sick from school. I remember pre-Vatican II Church well, and it wasn't much different from the Church we kick around in today. I agree with you on the chaos in the world after the Council. Vatican II didn't cause it; the 1960s sure did!
In the modern era, of "arrested adolescence", hedonism, and debauchery the Church doesn't need to adapt to society We need to strengthen our commitment to the Faith
Well put overall Father Casey. A very brave undertaking to discuss Vatican II with all of the misunderstandings and misinformstion surrounding it. We need a Vatican II B to reset the record. 😊 Good answer to the question at time stamp 8:22. 🎉🎉🎉
What I'd want answered is how do you respond to the young people that find the mass of Vatican 2 "cringe" or "embarassing" while the traditional Latin mass feels more serious to the general youth
Tell them that it's great that they love the Latin Mass. Then tell them that when you pray you find it useful to know what you're saying just like Christians in the early Church did. Then start asking them about Church history and theology, of which they probably know very little. A lot of these guys find the vestments more important than what's inside the Tabernacle, and usually don't realize it. Just never be mean about it. They're seeking God, that's enough.
tbh I have only ever found young people to find the VII mass to be something they can relate and understand better than the Latin mass which they often claim to be unrelatabe or just redundant
This opinion is held by a fairly small minority of very "online" young people who, for political reasons, have a bias towards traditional ways of doing things. Their default stance is to be wary of anything that can be viewed as "modernist". Certain older, savvy, more traditionally-minded people have noticed this trend and spread their views among fertile soil. That being said, the Latin mass hasn't been soured by a childhood full of boring priests and irrelevent homilies. Ironically, it's newer to them and has accrued less negative baggage for them personally.
Maybe one of the problems that Vatican II brought was the idea that mass had to keep changing to "accommodate" the likings of more people. And as a result in many cases made it a circus, where any respect for traditions and the house of God and His presence has been lost. We see singing that looks more like a bad Hollywood production. People talking before, during, and after mass before they leave, as if it was a restaurant. Announcements about upcoming events, luncheons, and money collections before the priest gives the final blessing ("if you want your blessing, stay seated while we read some announcements"?!!!). Oh, and don't forget the final clapping for the singers and musicians. As with many other things in our culture, we tend to take things too far. I wonder how we would behave if one day we enter the church's building and see at the altar the body of Christ, nailed at the cross, bleeding and giving HIs life for us. Would we talk?, clap?, play the drums?. Oh wait, that's what the Blessed Eucharist is... never mind.
Well said. Vatican 2, while maybe not intentional, certainly allowed churches to gut out any and all reverence for the Eucharist and for the mass. And we wonder why in recent years a majority of Catholics don’t believe in the real presence? (And yes I know that has to do with terrible catechesis too). But seriously, I’ve seen Protestant services and many non Latin masses have been just as irreverent as those. It’s shameful
CoE, 1961: *Reforms their liturgy to more-closely resemble the Catholic Mass: Lots of Latin and Greek, and smells & bells. Catholic Church, 1962: *Vatican II
An Eastern Catholic. I’m never surprised when I meet visitors to my parish who either are professing “trads” or are clearly influenced by engagement with them, when they begin to frame everything by supposed Liturgy “Wars” (that exist mostly online), and alleged-mandated “reforms” from Vatican II, and how they prefer parishes and Liturgies such as mine because they’re “traditional”. Not sure they’ve read a single document from the Council, but definitely not read Ecclesiarium Orientalium, which declared the self-ruling equality of even the smallest SuiJuris Eastern Church, counseled Eastern Catholic Churches to return to their practices, renouncing Latinization and affirming much else.
One could argue that the Latinizations were liturgical innovations, and dropping them and returning to eastern practice was a form of traditionalization.
So why did Eastern Churches, like the Maronite Church, "Latinise" even further, basically making a Novus Ordo versus populum? The Syro-Malabar also Latinised by celebrating versus populum, something breaking against their longstanding tradition stretching back two millenia. Why? The Eastern Churches were supposed to stop looking to Rome for liturgical guidance, but instead did the opposite. The UGCC, for example, and many other Churches, forcefully vernacularised the language from, say, Old Slavonic to Ukrainian, excommunicating and casting out all who opposed. At elast, in that case, it only happened after the fall of the Soviet bloc in the 1990s. Why so much Latinisation?
@@cordasuenaviolin604 you’d have to ask each of their hierarchies, they’re not one Church and didn’t all “do the opposite” and I’m not going to answer for them. This excommunication in 90s Ukraine? - that sound like Society of St Josephat who are SSPX and had organized under Bp. Fellay (Interestingly also favored maintaining Latinizations they had was part of their dissent that led to schism). That was the reason, not simply using Slavonic, which was still used outside Ukraine. I can say I know Primate Shevchuck in 2020 noted Church Slavonic is the language of the UGCC and its importance amid diaspora communities using vernacular in other countries. I’ve only heard English and Slavonic in Uki churches, with one of three in my area liturgy in Ukrainian.
Technically, we do have married priests if an ordained priest is an Anglican and converts to Catholicism. He can become a priest in the Roman Catholic Church and still be married obviously so that’s one of the exceptions and I think the Eastern Roman Catholic churches the same thing they have married priests, so it does exist and always has.
You know what I am just going to say it, if I had my choice I would probably always go to the regular vernacular mass over the Latin mass, I just get more out of it spiritually,! Of course the much anticipated sequel to Vatican 1 isn't just about the mass (Lumen Gentium Ch. 5 is the best) but online conversations about V2 seem to always return to the mass so I thought I would share that I am a complete lover of the ordinary form mass.
Father can you make a video on what the church teaches on what happens to good people that die before they before finding their way to the Church and Christ properly? And what can we do if anything to assist in there salvation after death?
Vatican III could sort out within its congregation, a major problem associated with Christian Churches in general. There would need to be a major emphasis on bringing God into all of livelihood and to clarify the issue of double lifestyles that seem common - for example, the idea of going to Church and carrying out rituals to 'keep God happy' in the absence of any meaningful change to the lives we as Christians live out in the world. True repentance would mean a change of heart and a re-evaluation of the way we live. It's no use going to Church everyday (regardless of denomination) while offending those close by and doing wrong in general. Although I'm of a different Christian faith, I do feel that the Catholic Church could lead the way in solving this widespread problem in the Christian Community.
Interesting trivia. The First Lateran Council (1123), the Second Lateran Council (1139), and the Third Lateran Council (1179) were not dogmatic councils either. They were purely disciplinary councils, and didn't define dogmas or condemn heresies.
@@tonyalongi4409 Precisely. And how can people say that V2 wasn't dogmatic when it literally defines the essence and boundaries of "Extra ecclesiam nulla Salus"? Or when it completes V1 by declaring the role of bishops in synodality? Or when it formulates the title Mother of the Church for the Blessed Virgin? I just don't get it...
My main concern with Vatican to has to do with the Mass itself. Once you allow changes in such a well established tradition, then human beings tend to see how far they can go with changing other things. Not everybody of course, but there are always some. During the times of the traditional Latin mass, a person who could go to any church in the country, I suppose the world, and hear the same mass with nothing and nothing taken away. After Vatican, it seems to me that you had to go “ shopping” around to find a parish that you liked or rather could live with. I was attending at one parish and they went out of the way to behave and look Catholic at least my eyes. When they built their new church, they had no crucifix in the church. It will sound like a very trivial thing, but the final straw for me was when lent started. The statues were covered with cloth as they were traditionally, but the clock was a kind of baby blue color. They tried to explain that it was a shade of purple. So that was it for me. As full disclosure, one reason I feel this way is that I had fallen away from going to Mass sometime in high school right around or maybe just before the changes were implemented. When I came back around 1982 everything seemed glaringly different. So what I’m saying is I didn’t live with any kind of gradual transition. Just my two cents. Stay well all. Deo Gratias.
That we still have these arguments 60 years later speaks volumes about the real nature of Catholic worship. Form versus substance. ‘I want MY Latin mass” versus “I need real communion during mass.” These aren’t necessarily contradictory but have been forced into apposition by the political transformation of Catholic institutions. Mean while, the Eucharist has lost its centrality and no longer invites the believer to dine at the Lords table
Excellent presentation, Father Casey. Perhaps you can make a video on the Canadian Bishops Winnipeg Statement in which they they basically endorse contraception and contradict Humane Vitae and have failed to resend it
For me regardless of what you say I have to look at what happened after the council. What happened to all pertinent metrics after the council? In business when we make a change we measure the result with metrics, perhaps you should make a video at some point where you look at the metrics in front of everyone. I mean look at all of them. The roll-out of the reforms is pretty discrete you should be able to do that. I can think of all kinds of metrics to look at. How about baptisms (infants) and conversions? How about people leaving the religious orders? How about Catholic Schools? Churches Built? Percentage of tithing? Maybe family size? Christ gave us the model. You were praised for your courage taking on this issue, how about take a look at the numbers and dispassionately discuss the conclusion? The real issue is whether or not the Chruch is succeeding in its mission. Once you do that then look for counter-trends. Are there any groups that have bucked those trends (if they are bad) or did better in good trends? What did those groups within the Chruch do differently than others? In a business model we take those data and make an action plan. Based on what you discover, what action plan would you make? We have had 80 years after the council, surely we have adequate data by now?
Father, what are your thoughts on the work of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin? Our collective's works is deeply inspired by his teachings and would love to come on your channel and have a dialogue with you. What's the best way to contact you?
Actually as a protest I've heard of Vatican II that was really never sure what it was and in fact this was the only Catholic meeting then I had ever heard a specific name for and so I appreciate this information that you provided this video
Vatican 2 acknowledged not only changes that had occured over a hundred years, not least of which was the effects of the Oxford Movement and the writings of Newman, Mannix, and Knox but also the effects of the Second World War. At Nuremberg, the Defence that one acted in accordance with the directions of a superior was firmly rejected and individual responsibility for actions was recognised. Vatican 1 attempted to deal with the loss of the Papal States and the implications of a secular Italy as much as anything else. Vatican 1 was about individual responsibility and acting in accordance with an informed conscience. Dumping the decision on the priest became more difficult and priest shopping became irrelevant.
My question is how did Lutheran and Anglican services end up almost identical to the Novus Ordo Mass if they split from Catholicism well before Vatican 2?
Lutheran and Anglican liturgies have always been derived from the Roman rite, albeit in the vernacular. So there has long been a close similarity. Lutheranism especially has always kept much of the content and ceremony of the Catholic liturgy, Luther's Deutsch messe is very recognisable to any Catholic. The Book of Common Prayer's communion service by Cramner was much more distinct, although still ultimately an adaptation of the Roman rite. And the Catholic influence has continued even long after the Reformation. The newer Anglican Book of Common Worship's Order of Communion was remodelled deliberately to be even closer to the Roman Mass.
@@davidcope5736 Thank you for that explanation! I have been to Lutheran and Episcopalian services and was surprised that most of it is familiar to me. The Bible readings are even the same throughout the year (my mom goes to Episcopalian church and we compare notes). I understood that those branches of Christianity came from Catholicism, but I didn't understand how they were still so similar after Vatican II.
The Church operates visibly in the premises of Matthew 16:18. "This Article hinges upon the preceding one; for, it having been already shown that the Holy Ghost is the source and giver of all holiness, we here profess our belief that the Church has been endowed by Him with sanctity."
i was a lay minister for 10 years and i did a session with my people about Vatican 2, without it we wouldn't be watching catechism videos on UA-cam or commenting on them. but i think the problems of old remained, it is just Vatican 2 helped EXPOSING them. simple example: when lay people get together from different parts of the world and they talk about faith and practices which they inherited from their parents or from their local priests, it takes 2 minutes to conclude that there are differences, and sometimes dangerous differences. Here on UA-cam we have for example Father Casey, Father Mike, to name a few, those are faithful and authentic to the faith and church teachings, and it is hard for most people to realize that other channels are wrong just because they resonate with them more.
Father, you say that the goal of the Council wasn't to make the church "more Protestant" without explaining it. But I think it was exactly the goal of the Council. And it's a really good thing because most of the reformers wanted the church to return to the old tracks and bring the practice closer to the practice of the Early Church (as well as eliminate the corrupt practices, which are wrong in general (because they're morally wrong)). I think this is the misconception you feel given the fact you are an American and probably imagine Protestantism in a certain way, not and not focusing on the original Reformation and the original Protestant churches. You mention the role of the laity. In the Protestant churches, the role of the laity is essential - in both, those which use the presbyterian polity to those which use the episcopal polity with synodal laity representation. The collective rather than individual leadership of the churches is, in my view, more accurate to the practice of the Early Church. In Acts of Apostles 14:23, there is a mention of appointment/election/ordination of the elders. This can be interpreted in basically two ways - either by election (the Greek word was used for the election by raising a hand) or by ordination/appointment. Despite this uncertainty (at least in my view given by my limited knowledge) the collective aspect was there in each congregation - the aspect that wasn't present in the medieval church and the mandatory establishment of the Parish Financial Council (with a bit of creativity this can be seen as the Council of the Elders) in my knowledge was only introduced by the 1983 Canon Law. Even if we argue with the episcopos and presbyteros being synonyms, there wasn't a body on the local parish level. Then you mention the reform (funny word, isn't it 😉) of the liturgy and the translation of the Bible. That's another key point of Protestantism. It was Protestantism, which brought us the Lutherbibel, the Bible of Kralice, and the King James Version) and made it the main source of the Good News, when the Catholic church insisted on using the Vulgate Bible. Again, as the name of the Bible shows, it was originally written in the Vulgar (contemporary) Latin so people in the Latin-based language-speaking countries could understand it. But what is the point of sticking to the Vulgar Latin Bible for 8 centuries, when the faith spread into countries like Bohemia, Germany, Sweden or Russia, where people couldn't understand it at all because the language wasn't close enough for the common illiterate man to understand it? I'm happy the Catholic church changed its view and the Latin mass is becoming more and more marginal practice (but I'm glad it's still possible) for the benefit of the hundreds of languages that Christians speak. Then the focus on the communion... Well, obviously the Catholic view has changed. Sort of. For the better. A hundred years ago, there wouldn't be a chance you could receive under both kinds. Now? Even in the Catholic Church, this is becoming more and more common and it started by the Council. Thank God for that! Of course, the disagreement on the "idea" of communion is still there. But it's wrong to think that all Protestants think it's "just bread and wine to remember Jesus". There are such churches, but the original Reformation didn't argue with the doctrine of the real presence. The very original Protestant stream - Lutheranism is very close to the eucharistic theology of the Catholic Church. But not even Calvinists say it's "just bread and wine to remember Jesus" but they believe in "the spiritual presence". Of course, some streams later developed the thought the presence the presence is "just" symbolic (the view I fully respect but it's not my belief). However, this doesn't prove that this is what makes the difference between Catholics and Protestants, because, as I mentioned before, there is quite a wide range of views on communion among Protestants. Then the permanent diaconate. Again, an attempt to be more Protestant. But in a moderate indirect middle way. Since in the vast majority of Protestant churches the celibacy of the clergy isn't mandated (of course Protestant religious orders follow the same rules as their Catholic counterparts) there is no need for deacons, but they have them anyway (ordained but non-full status clergy/ministers). So the establishment of the permanent deacons as well as actually allowing non-Roman-Catholic-but-Catholic priests to celebrate Roman Catholic mass is a move to allow those who don't feel they want to keep celibacy to serve at the altar. One last thought provoked by the question and the answer at 7:46 Regarding the no salvation outside the church. I feel like this is very unjust towards Protestants (especially if mentioning them among other religious groups, which don't come nearly close to the proximity of the Protestant and Roman Catholic theologies) while not mentioning the Orthodox and others. It's sad to see comparing just the Protestants. Let me remind you, that Protestants and Roman Catholics are actually much closer on some basic ideas since both are part of the Western branch of Christianity. Some absolutely basic things. Like whether the Holy Spirit proceeds just from the Father or the Father and the Son (filioque). The other Churches in communion with the Roman Church don't believe that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father as well as the Son and still are accepted. I have a bad feeling that the only thing that actually matters in this kind of "politics" is the position of the pope and other aspects aren't nearly as important. Which in my view is sad and not very consistent from the side of the Roman Catholic Church. How come a Greek Catholic, who doesn't believe that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and the Son is seen as okay, but a Lutheran, who accepts 7 sacraments, the apostolic succession, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and only rejects the papal supremacy is seen as not okay (the papal supremacy and non-belief in the origin of the Holy Spirit are both, in my view comparable deviations from the teaching). You either accept all aspects of the Catholic faith and you some be seen as "okay" by the Roman Church or you don't accept all of them and be seen as "not okay". Of course in my view, the I don't differentiate between the "sections" of the Church and believe in the one apostolic catholic (small c!) church, which is represented by all Christians, who fulfil the basic ecumenic principles. Thanks for reading! I'd be happy to discuss with open heart. :)
I’m a Traditionalist Catholic (FSSPX) since 2006, and althought I enjoy your videos, I completely disagree with your line of defending V II. Saying that V II has not contributed to the secularisation of Catholic nations, is false. For example, in Poland more and more people stop attending Novus Ordo M and attend traditionalist Catholic masses saying they feel Lord’s presence during the mass etc.
The way the NO is celebrated it’s an issue. You really can’t get around that. If it was implemented wrong or priests just do it how they want you can’t find a reverent NO very easily. St John Cantius in Chicago is the only one I know of. I plan to go to Chicago just to experience a reverent NO and that’s pretty sad I have to go state’s away to find something that should be in every Catholic Church.
Yeah, NO isn’t a problem, but the weird Protestant way it gets celebrated is. As long as they keep NO as traditional and reverent as possible it’s great
The Eucharist gets me every time. I don't case if the priest is facing me or not. I see Christ being lifted up, and I get goosebumps. Though, I do think TLM has its own charm and should stay! I just wish some TLM people weren't so high & mighty about it, like they're begging for it to be taken away.
TLM will stay so don’t worry, the Pope has said the special fraternities like FSSP and the one that starts with ick or something I don’t really know will stay and be allowed to celebrate TLM, plus there is SSPX which Pope Francis made a totally valid form of mass which you can go to, take the Eucharist, and even confess in
"For a person is not to be called a heretic as soon as he shall have offended in matters of faith; but he is a heretic who, having disregarded the authority of the Church, maintains impious opinions with pertinacity."
That's true in a way....but....the Church since very early times has used art, music, incense, to try to help people turn their thoughts and souls away from the passing world and toward the divine and the eternal. Aesthetics are not the aim, correct, but they really can help....or not help.
That's one reason I like weekday Masses and low Masses. The aesthetics of liturgies on weekends & major feast days are important, but even they are means to an end & should always be arranged in a way that draws us back to the aspect of faith being preached about & celebrated. During the week, there's far less to be stimulated by & attached to other than hearing the scriptures and receiving Our Lord in the Eucharist.
Time for me to ramble. I have a problem with how Vatican II has worked out in practice. I know it’s anecdotal, but the only packed churches I’ve seen are less “liberal” with the application of Vatican II. My church is an English novus ordo, but it has traditional sounding music, a more traditional looking altar, and a general culture of solemnity. On the other hand, I’ve been to guitar and tambourine-playing, t-shirt and flip flop-wearing “contemporary” churches. There is no question which churches are doing better, numbers-wise (and which ones have more young people) We now have something the Church of the 50s and 60s didn’t have: the known fates of (for lack of a better term) liturgically “liberal” high church faiths. Look at the ELCA, look at the PCUSA, look at the Episcopal church and CoE. They are collapsing and hemorrhaging members. The misapplication of Vatican II needs to stop. I don’t want this fate to happen to these specific churches as well. To speak bluntly as a younger person who once was an atheist, the more modern churches, while well-meaning, feel kinda phony, like they’re trying to look hip and cool and draw the young-ins in. It didn’t work on me. More traditional churches did…. Btw, Look up St. Vincent de Paul Catholic Church in Andover, KS, for the most egregious case of Vatican II misapplication. It is still a Catholic Church, but it is alarmingly and nightmarishly modernist.
Beautifully said brother! (I know father, but I'm only little c catholic 😂 )I really do love your videos and your channel though, you speak in power and truth and my prayer is one day for the whole body to be united, because we got screwed on the Eucharist (Communion is awesome, but it's not the same) we got the lay reach, both together, add in our Greek brothers and sisters, and show unity and uniformity are not the same calling or the same thing.
"Sacrosanctum Concilium did not envision what we have in the liturgy today" -- no that is not correct. Everything that is actually in the liturgy today is consistent with Sacrosanctum Concilium, and you can see that in the extensive GIRM footnotes that cite that document at length. If what you mean is that all the weird liberalism and gross disobedience in celebrating the liturgy, those things which should not be done, which have no permission in the official documents or from the episcopal authorities, and which often contradict the official documents in explicit ways, then yes, that is not what was envisioned.
@@briandelaney9710 Latin is explicitly used in the English translation of the Missal for a variety of parts, including the Agnus Dei, the Pater Noster, the Sanctus, as well as Greek for the Kyrie. Beyond that I myself have heard Latin used in the Gloria or in other parts. As for Gregorian Chant and Sacred Polyphony, GIRM #41 explicitly instructs this to be in the "main place" and asks for Latin to be understood by the laity for parts of the Ordinary and for the Creed and Pater Noster. There are certainly a variety of musical movements in this country that have risen up to bring Gregorian chant and its recent innovations to the forefront in parishes. If you dont see this in your parish, you need to ask, knock, seek, etc. a little more perhaps. Dont let the hippies bully you into accepting their mediocrity. If they wish to ignore the MIssal then they are in the wrong and need to be told this until they recognize it.
The problem with Vatican II and the Liturgy was that it wasn’t implemented properly. The Council called for retaining Latin in parts of the Mass and Gregorian chant and sacred polyphony. What happened was extreme and bad liturgical experimentation
Your comment about including the laity strikes a chord with me. I feel bad for some, emphasis on some, parish pastors. We do not have anywhere near the number of priests that we had when I was growing up, the 1950s through the 1970s. It seems to me when Father has to worry about the leaky roof and finding the money to fix the roof that takes away from his time to pastor the flock. Same with other things like bookkeeping, property maintenance, etc. The laity, many of whom have business backgrounds, are fully capable of taking care of these things. Should they bring it to the attention of the priest, well yeah, but maybe more of the responsibility for such things should be put on the shoulders of the Parish Council. On the other hand, sometimes Father can be a control freak. Micromanaging every little thing. Just a thought.
That is the problem; when folk are confined to fixing leaky roof but have no say in Church governance; they tend to get pissed off. They are paying the priest so why can't they like any other boss tell what they need to do.
A slight correction please. I lived through the Vatican II changes. There was a strong emphasis on interactions with other Christian denominations and other faiths. In fact, V II declared that one need not be a Catholic to get into heaven. Outside of Church-speak, the Oxford dictionary defines "ecumenical" as: representing a number of different Christian Churches. similar nondenominational nonsectarian universal catholic all-embracing all-inclusive promoting or relating to unity among the world's Christian Churches. How can you sing "All Are Welcome" when, in fact, all are NOT welcome.
Yes .. V2 made clear what was always teaching that Jews would not be denied salvation ... The Pops would not have been able to visits Jerusalem as Heads of state.
How would the Mass of Paul VI be considered “Protestant-Resembling” ? In what way because the radical reforms of the Anglican/Episcopal Church didn’t come until after Vatican II was convened
And nevertheless.., latin doesn't change. And the truths which were expressed by means of it remain intangible and unchanged. I keep on searching Father, and God knows I appreciate your knowledge and the way you articulate it, but I have to acknowledge that.... Sedevacantism has become compelling to me...
Sedevacantism is a dead-end. Once you accept the idea that the Pope, and therefore the teaching authority of the Church (which is apostolic, and thus *must* have a visible constitution and unbroken apostolic succession) can fall into error and heresy, you've thrown everything the Church ever taught into question. If the Magisterium can defect in 1962, who's to say it couldn't have happened before? Tradition becomes a free-for-all, subject to everyone's fallible, personal judgment. In short, sedevacantism is protestantism in denial. In my mind, there's no point in being Catholic...or even Christian...if the Church's teaching authority, which brought Christ to us to begin with, is so capable of falling into error.
Your answers are unconvincing; I’ve heard them from other clergy before, and the answers were unconvincing in those instances also. On the other hand, the critics of Vatican II who I’ve heard or read have given convincing arguments to back up their criticism.
Pre Vatican II, Communion on the tongue whilst kneeling, Altar rails, Ad Orientum, Gregorian chant, Altar boys only, Latin, Communion Plate (Paten), Incense, women veiling, people dreesed appropriately Post Vatican II Communion in the hand whilst standing - I have witnessed some terrible sacriligous behaviour towards the Eucharist due to receiving in the hand, Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, Gregorian chant replaced by lay people playing guitar (with lgbtq affirming guitar strap) as the music for Mass with protestant Style hymns, No Gregorian chant, Altar girls, Altar rails removed, Versus populum, Lay people standing up, shaking hands and talking to each other after the consecration of the Body and Blood (peace greeting), clown Mass and all other sorts of sacrilgious Mass, people dressed inappropriately. I'm sure there is more that can be added to both lists. I have to travel accross London to attend a revernet Novus Ordo (Latin) as my local Churches are lacking reverence. Just recently during Commuion the Priest allowed for people to walk away from him with the body of our Lord In their hand over to a Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion that was holding the precious blood, to intinct the Eucharist themselves and self-administer, which is a grave offense. When I'm able to attend a TLM, everyone receives kneeling on the tongue, this not only helps increase reverence it also helps protect the Body of Christ from the abuses that receiving in the hand has encouraged. I know that Vatican II did not implement Commuion in the hand or clown Masses which is why I worded the section as 'post Vatican II' but there has been a shift towrds lay person participation (that was one of the goals for Vatican II) over reverence.
encouraging the layity and empowering effective diciples is the Priests highest responsibility, therefore when the priest can hand over certain aspects of ministry to layity, it is the highest form of reverence to God, as it is a sign of Christians steping up to fulfill the Great Commission
@@helenbond8893that’s not true. The Priest’s highest responsibility is offering Sacrifice to God in the Mass. Clericalism is definitely a problem but don’t be so quick to throw away the baby with the bath water
@@briandelaney9710 I am working towards a PhD in Biblical Theology/ Doctrine, alongside Seminarians in Rome, London and Northern Spain.... The RCC ensures that all seminarians and Priests understand Scripture, and therefore understand that while part of their role is to distribute the Eucherist, their highest responsibility is furthering the Kingdom through empowering the layity
2:27 You use the title “prophets”. Which of your leaders are you referring to? Does that appellation correspond to an office in the Church hierarchy, or are there specific people the Church recognizes as having the spiritual gift of prophecy?
You’re brave father. Vatican II is like discussing politics at Thanksgiving
It certainly chums the water for crazies online.
@@BreakingInTheHabithey there! I have a question, will you ever respond to atheist UA-camr Vhiced Rhino? He’s one influential UA-camr that may hinder many to the Catholic faith.
@@BreakingInTheHabitI love that you tell it like it is 🙌🙌🙌
@@BreakingInTheHabit 😂
@Hrrjkf821 also been seeing alot of Calvinist pastors that are going out of their way to attack the Catholic faith. I see alot of comments saying and I agree they never actually have discussions with Catholic theologians or priests,
It would be perfect for Father Casey and others to go to those guys for debates
I vividly remember the first vernacular Mass in my parish. A Sister had been training us at lunchtime for about a month so that we knew the responses. That Sunday, the responses, printed in little cardboard folders, were in all our pews. I was excited that we were finally able to actively participate, and confident in my responses. My volume matched my confidence, much to my mother’s dismay. “Not so loud!” the loud whisper that accompanied the tug on my sleeve.
I was puzzled by the lack of response by those around me. I was much older when I realized that the adults, who all their lives had had to be silent in church, were simply not comfortable speaking out loud.
I was decades older when I attended the first Mass that truly encompassed the wishes of Sacrosanctum Concilium. Notre Dame, Paris, 2013. Mass in French, responses in Greek and Latin. Settings of the Latin Gloria & Sanctus that I hadn’t heard since my childhood but that I was now allowed to sing. It was glorious!
I love TLM and NO, and I would like both of them to be widely available.
I lean more towards this view. I respect Pope Francis and accept his leadership, and I think he must be obeyed, even where we may disagree with his words and decisions. That said, I wish the TLM (which I have never even attended even once in my life) had not been suppressed.
I really appreciate your videos, Father. My youngest just finished college and is now starting out on her own. While she still lives with my wife and me, we find ourselves feeling a little empty. As kids, we attended CCD somewhat unwillingly, then not attending church as young adults, then attending again with our children, putting them through CCD. They are now grown and the need for enlightenment shines brightly. My wife and I again attend willingly, not dragged as kids, nor dragging our kids.
Your youth brings modernism; the fact you are reading emails or notes off of a cellphone , rather than a pad of paper is relatable. It’s today.
Your plain spokeness, as well as not glossing over mistakes made by the church is wonderful. I don’t know a single Catholic who agrees with everything the church has done. Your approach is commendable.
God bless you and your parents who raised you.
Thank you
I remember the Latin Mass when I was alter boy in grade school. The priest had his back to the congregation which essentially was more of an group of observers rather than participants. On one occasion I was called upon to read the Epistle in Latin! To be understood the congregation had to consult their English/Latin Missal. By the time I was in 8th grade the mass was now being celebrated in English and most of us couldn't be happier. Those who blame Vatican II for the current state of the Church and the world just don't get it. It is based more on nostalgia than an understanding of a world and Church in transition.
A video on the Old Catholics would be great. Who they are, why they split, what they believe, how are they different, how are they the same, what is their relationship to the Catholic Church, etc
Ditto for The Church Of The East.
Both the Traditional Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo have moved me to tears.
I believe that no matter what language the Mass is in, our Lord and Savoir is there.
To change anything, one must first have the understanding that it will not happen in an instant.
There is certainly a revival happening both in and out of the Church. Young people are throwing off the shackles of modernity and hedonism. They are also looking for the one true light in the world.
Even in parishes that have an aging populace more families and young men and women are slowing heeding the call of the Good Shepherd.
I encourage anyone who is staunchly one or the other, to go an experience the other Mass setting. Do so with a truly open mind; as we are One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
If you want the Traditional Latin Mass to be at your specific parish, talk with the priest and see if he will do it.
1 Corinthians 1:10-17
I agree to a certain point. I think that TLM should be required for 1 mass on Sunday. Latin is the language that unites us. I've traveled extensively and it's quite difficult to follow mass even in languages I speak well as the vocabulary is so different. I find myself longing for TLM to be able to fully participate in mass.
@@zachinnes4650Required?
Yes, required.@@InExcelsisDeo24
I think all priests should learn both the Old and New Rite.@@InExcelsisDeo24
@@zachinnes4650 or you could just have the Mass in Latin. You don't need to have the Mass according to the 1962 Missal to make that happen.
A bit of global perspectiva is useful. In the US many went overboard with reforms, things like gym mass, churches that looked like basements and crying out for women priests and so forth, and people keep bringing it out in heated discussions. In other places people just did what was needed and moved on. I’m from Argentina and grew up with Spanish mass, guitar songs, and the big change was letting girls be altar servers😮 but save for small schismatic groups no one ever brings up Vatican 2 as something problematic or still needing sorting out
If the Mass was still in Latin and the priest still faced away from me throughout, if I didn’t have access to the amazing array of information about my faith (your channel a case in point Br Casey) I honestly can’t imagine I’d be as passionate and engaged with the faith as I am today.
@@matthewkennedy6213 Well it inspired hundreds of Saints for many centuries so…..
Is the mass for you or for Christ?
He wasn't facing away from you. He was facing the same direction as you. Leading you in prayer and worship.
@@yuri_sp For Christ. Thank you!
Excellent video. As an Orthodox Christian, I feel like my fellow Orthodox generally don't realize how much we both contributed to the cultural milieu of ressourcement leading up to the council (through figures like Florovsky emphasizing the importance of the church fathers) and adopted some of its pastoral recommendations (having lay readers at the Divine Liturgy, using the vernacular, as well as more sporadically-applied things like reinstating the kiss of peace and encouraging congregational singing).
As a Protestant, Vatican II did one thing of great importance: Unitatis redintegratio. Just the fact that Catholicism was willing to acknowledge that the Sacrament of Baptism could be valid even outside the confines of ordained clergy was one of the biggest steps taken in centuries towards total Christian unity.
Unitatis Redintegratio is heretical
@@carolynkimberly4021 no its not.
@@carolynkimberly4021you're wrong
@@carolynkimberly4021May God our Lord Jesus Christ guide you to realize the truth my beloved friend in Christ.
@@stephenferry3017 Not at all, in fact to call it heretical is to call the decisions made by the church o be wrong, which is hiretical in itself
Hi Father Casey. I'm an Eastern Orthodox Christian and I'm wondering how Vatican II was meant to court the Eastern Orthodox and engage them in reunification efforts.
well, to create a unified Christian front in the Cold War ... so yes. In 1965 the respective church leaders announced an accommodation for the separation and not to try and convert each other.
I'm not Fr Casey, nor was I invited to VII, but my sense is that
• consistent with the objective of _resourcement,_ it was felt the Orthodox might bring some different, relevant insights to the conversation. After so many centuries of institutional cruft building up in the RCC, an Orthodox perspective on ecclesiology and tradition could be illuminating.
• after so many years of less than collegial, if not antagonistic, relations, any opportunity for dialog is a step in the right direction. No great seismic agreements would be reached, but the first step is starting on the path of relationships and understanding.
A lot of unification has already been done, check easter Catholic churches 🙂
@@russellmiles2861 if true that is a heresy. The Church cannot call us not to convert souls to the true faith.
@@scott_johnson_ well it does ... Need to move on
As a senior who experienced both the birth of Vatican II and prior, what I find odd is for the first 50 years, few people had any issues. 50 years!!! Then suddenly, out of nowhere, people who weren't even born or experienced pre-Vatican II suddenly wanted to go back to something they 'feel' needs reviving - with a wild 'movement' ensuing! True, only on social media - but social media is part of who we are today; there is no turning that off. The older I get, and the more I hear the outcries of society - with some wanting to go back to the past, others want to villainize it, while others want to pretend it never happened, or the worst: those that try to rewrite history so those that they want to control will blindly follow - but all coming from people who never experienced any of it, first hand. That all said, there are some people (such as this video) that are trying to set the record straight - and that is a start. Sadly, most people prefer to only listen to those who share their opinions, rather than listen to factual, historical information.
"for the first 50 years, few people had any issues" may be because nowadays the access to information is more decentralized ? Just a thought.
I respect V2 but I love the TLM. I feel something different here. And the Gregorian chants completely fills my soul. And when the priests sings in Latin, especially the preface, I almost get teary eyed. But when the Father hold the body of Christ up and I say in silence “my lord and my god” I feel at peace. And communion in the tongue needs to come back. And finally, ending every single mass with the final gospel need to come back. I love my Catholic Church ❤
you can take communion on the tongue, its not outlawed. My wife & daughter take communion on the tongue each week. I would suggest talking to your priest about it.
No you don't understand! Removing the Last Gospel, prayers at the foot of the altar, gradual, offertory, tract, ad orientem, and signs of the cross...has made us all better Catholics!
@@DoctorDewgong😅😅😅
I love the revised missal and I completely agree with you.
I do not know where you guys live, but in my childhood everybody took Comunion on the tongue (now bcs of covid half the people started to get it on their hands), and on latin mass everyone takes it on tongue and on the knees. n@@zacmullins7811
Thank you for answeing my question, father. May the most holy Trinity continue to bless your apostolate.
The very movement of the Spirit since Vatican II is the great growth of the Faith in Africa. The retention in toto of the old Latin mass would not have assisted this trend; quite the contrary, as a matter of simple practicality. As Father correctly says, Gregorian chant, and for that matter Latin, were not forbidden or eliminated, which is a good thing as respect for Tradition, history, and catholicity (a universal Church language) are edifying. One more comment: you don't have to go that far back to find that enormous numbers of people were not afforded much opportunity to become literate, hence Bible stody on one's own (which is prolematical to begin with as experience has shown) COULD not be globally widespread. Those who present Vatican II as "rupture" rather than "continuity" need to learn more about it. Thank you as always, Father Casey.
I didn't hear you say the changes that were made. I was in Catholic elementary school. My Dad was so excited that the priest would face the congregation and speak in English rather than Latin
I was in high school. I don't remember anyone who was not positively excited by the changes. The phrase most commonly used was 'breath of fresh air.'
He used the word "vernacular" to describe the change. This change was extremely positive, but Fr Casey's explanation merely skims through it. By giving actual examples, the full impact of this change could be understood.
Yes, it can be good to involve more lay participation in Mass, as long as it’s reverent. But even TLM always used the vernacular for homilies during Mass.
@@jasonrhtx ***when I was gowing up, the celebrant would take the big book and translate the gospel before start the homily, it was in the 1940s. At **10:00** mass there was always more attendants than at **8:00** mass, most attendants just pray the rosary while the mass was going on, but why? at **10:30** mass was for the "catequese" children, a senior catechist always dialog in the local language what the celebrant says in latin. It was in the 40s much before what came after with the Vatican ll.***
Personally I prefer tridentine mass than vernacular mass because english is not my first language.
I really wish that Upon Friar Review wasn't deleted I realize that there is controversy but that channel and its videos brought me to the Catholic faith. I wish that we could still have the videos but make a video addressing the controversy.
I’m pretty sure Fr. Pat got investigated by the friars for sexual misconduct or something. Prolly best it’s gone
@@Hedgehogz856 I still miss it though
Its not really "only" 60 years since the last ecumenical council. There's plenty of historical precedent for holding another one this soon. Many were even closer together than this, and the world changes far more rapidly than it did then.
I loved the Latin mass. Unfortunately, no one would remember the victims of Vatican II. The Children growing up with the changes being put into place. One week going to mass, relearning the entire mass in English from Latin, from Chants to guitar music (which I still find vulgar) and then rules put into place then yanked out and changed. Yes, we do have alot of people out in the boonies that are still victims.
Wish the Pope would allow for one church in a community to have Latin Mass weekly. Then those who are living in fear of the ever changing Post V2 rules can come home.
@@kilandrayeuxdoux2804 No need for that. The Mass of Paul VI may still be celebrated in Latin, ad Orientem, with Gregorian Chant, with the Roman Canon, any time the priest so wishes. And he can even omit the sign of peace at his discretion.
I’m glad you mentioned the music. I think that is what disturbs me the most about v2 masses is the atrocious music. Even when it’s done well, it still isn’t all that great. If I wanted something so generic I’d turn on a non denomination Christian radio station
@@alessandroarsuffi9227 Have you looked at the priests age? Very few of them know the Latin mass enough to even pull it off. And those that do are in high demand. Not sure if its correct right now as it blows in the wind on occasion - many places are limiting the LRM from being done - except by permission.
@@kilandrayeuxdoux2804 they never do come home. They haven't come home. Those that left over liturgical changes didn't come back.
Yes, Rock and roll was evil ... do you wonder why your children abandoned the faith.
V2 was a frequent topic of conversation in my house when I was a kid. I remember when my mother stopped pinning the scrap of lace to the top of her head. Watching my parents receiving the communion wafer AND sip from the chalis. I was really jazzed for that part when I was preparing for my first holy Communion. Serving as an altar girl. Watching nuns from my school having more active participation in the Mass. Saturday night "folk" mass. I didn't learn until I was an adult that the bishop didn't really like that one. Secular music, with a spiritual theme, and guitars instead of the organ apparently was going too far. 😂 But I sang in the choir and it was very moving experience for me. I was sad when we moved away and our new church was a very old school parish. No girls allowed. No folk mass. No secular music. Nothing progressive. I had no role there It broke my heart.
I must admit that I feel some concern that your comment talks only about your feelings, and says nothing about redemption or the work of the Holy Spirit in the world or the betterment of humanity or evangelization or anything.
@@alvintcura Someone told you, that she was enthusiastic about mass and you don't see the work of the Holy Spirit.
While I totally understand what you are presenting, and I have read the documents of Vatican II. While I do believe what was written in the documents and what was put into practice are not quite the same. I am not a Trad, but their is no doubt that the Tridentine mass is much more reverent and has a greater focus on the Eucharist than the Novus ordo does. I agree with our Orthodox brothers that full and active participation means paying full attention at the liturgy. It seems we would have been better served by translating the mass into the vernacular, keeping familiar prayers, Sanctus, Agnus dei, and the Gloria in Latin. Institute the new lectionary along with lay lectors. We believe in doctrinal development, this includes the mass, which was stripped of much of its beauty and mystery. This seems reductionary. These are my thoughts. Thanks for your presentation. St Joseph parishioner.
@@Motomack1042 I don’t think it’s the Mass that’s problem with Vatican II. It’s the suggestion of religious liberty and indifference
I think that both are needed. Eastern Catholics have different Liturgies, and we don't think more or less of them. I personally don't like the TLM as much as NO, but if I were traveling to some place that speaks another language, I can more easily follow the TLM since it will be the same regardless of location
Another point to consider is it seems to me 9 out 10 complaints about vat 2 come from american cradle catholics. Ive never met a convert or heard someone from another country complain about it. My intuition is that they've been influenced by the loud minority voices online. The saddest part is i know 3 rad trads that i have breakfast with once a month where all i do is defend the pope for an hour. I tell them everytime, its ok i was a protestant, im used to people bashing the pope over misunderstandings. Maybe its pride but i feel like its my job to inform them so they dont leave the church over fake news.
Traditionalists often hear alarmist news about further restrictions on the TLM. As I participate in both Novus Ordo (reverently celebrated) and TLM, I hear the concerns of laypeople participating in each-the need for reverence and for addressing our modern lives beyond the walls.
I read a French theologian discuss the recent restrictions on the Tridentine mass as addressing “an American problem”. Even just looking at numbers, there are currently 410 every Sunday venues in the USA, which is roughly equal to the next five countries combined.
@@WillHerrmann Wow that statistic pretty much confirms my suspicions.
It was some of the changes that Vat ll recommended that influence my decision to be baptized as an adult back in 1965🙂
"If we want unity. I'd recommend that some people stay of the internet." That is infallibly true.
A Council is the work of the Holy Spirit de Fide!
“ Vatican II blessing or disaster” is a heretical question😳
There was innovation in doctrine. Slavery as an institution was condemned in Gaudium et Spes.
I have read the article about the Liturgy. I can't even spell the Latin Vernacular for its title, but because it was the first one that consecrated lay people in the Lincoln NE Diocese had to read, I thought it was pretty clear: priests are men, women are helpers in various ways, but in terms of the Mass itself, we are limited to only certain work, and women can't be priests but we do have a lot to do to promote and protect the Catholic Faith. I read it because Sister Phyllis Hunhoff, OSB read it with us consecrated lay women. She was also the woman who counseled me to continue to seek quality spiritual directions for my own ministry, keep up my studies by myself, and be smart about how I teach subjects, as well.
Loved this, Father Casey. Thank you for clarifying Vatican II. So many misunderstand it, and I think that’s why we see rad trads rejecting it.
"Latin america the church was small"
Brazilian empire: Under the protection of the Holy Trinity... the official religion is catholicism.
Latin america: portugal and spain colonizing (catholics)
North america: prots
Al smith lose election for being catholic.
@@RomaCatholicaThe Church in Latin America definitely wasn't small, but don't you think his other points still applied to the situation in Brazil? Is syncretism still common among segments of non-practising Catholics, as it was before Vatican II? Just imagine what proper catechesis of laymen & active participation in the life of the Church (not just being present at Holy Mass) can achieve for people exposed to those dangerous falsehoods.
Brazil has the largest self-identified Catholic population, and considering that the clergy (even if married men were allowed for ordination) & religious will always be an inherently small portion of the Church, it makes sense to have lay men and lay women who are well-educated on Church teaching & well-experienced in faithfully living by it. They can potentially help parishes & schools catechize others, and that is because of Vatican II (a work in progress though)
@@isaiah3872 I'll make it clear by saying it in another language: Todo esse problema começou a ocorrer depois da queda do Império, que era confessional católico, e agravou-se na falta de rigidez do vaticano II. Sabia que havia movimentos reacionários católicos fortes como patrianovismo e populares como Canudos, só que este o governo positivista desviveu a todos?
@@isaiah3872Now back to english, because I proved my point: Even the empire got weakened by Pedro II when he persecuted bishops who were anti-freemasonry, like Dom Vital, but yeah, the catholicism here was weak, to say it so you must be unfamiliar to brazilian history. Only the media and freemasonry hated the fact that his daughter was a radical catholic.
Father, in some respects, I understand this movement of the Roman church back to Latin. I am eastern orthodox and we have our own little groups that think if the liturgy is in Slavonic or Greek it somehow more holy even though they’re losing their young people like water because who the heck can figure out what they’re singing.
Fellow Orthodox here. I definitely agree about using the old languages being a major thing that sends young people away. In my experience, the people who usually want to keep Greek or Slavonic are the old people who don't care about missionary work---in their mind, the church is for Greeks or Russians, and that's that. It seems like people who want to use English run the whole spectrum from trad to whatever our closest equivalent to liberal is---the main thing they have in common is the desire to get people into Orthodoxy.
Not really. Ask people that go to the TLM why, and it being in Latin will be extremely low on the list.
You're far more likely to hear complaints such as reverence, removal of exorcistic prayers, versus populosum vs ad orientum, a greater emphasis on Catechism, etc.
As for exorcistic prayers, Abp. Bugnini changed literally everything to remove them. Even the rite to create holy water. It used to be made by saying a minor exorcism and over water and salt separately, then combining them and saying another exorcism blessings and specifically asking God to imbue it with the power of exorcism itself.
Likewise the Sacrament of Baptism 1962 and before not only performed an exorcism but also _specifically_ sealed all of the senses against the influence of demons. Now it simply contains the very wishy washy rejection "of Satan and all his works" and nothing more exorcistic than that.
What possibly could be the motivation of someone doing such a thing?
Abp. Bugnini also tried to change the Holy Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary to be completely unrecognisable. That which Our Lady herself instituted and called our spiritual weapon, net of souls, destroyer of heresies. Thankfully pope Paul VI told him to take a hike on this one.
Even though the exact same pope quite literally and freely admitted he approved all changes to the liturgy, the prayers of _all_ sacraments, even the divine office, which had been put to him by Abp. Bugnini, without really having read or understood them.
But it doesn't take much imagination to guess at the motivations of Abp. Bugnini in removing exorcistic prayers from any and every rite of the Church he possibly could, nor do you have to be unusually sharp to see what has been the effect.
Finally I will leave you with a quote by Abp. Bugnini himself, 1965 _“We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Protestants”_
I am not sure we can say the Church was small in Latin America. Latin America is a much more Catholic place than North America. Always has been.
I live in Canada. A Catholics mass here is almost indistinguishable from protestant services.
Yeah he definitely misspoke about the size of the Church back then in Latin America. Still, wouldn't you say that his related comments about high Mass attendance, but poor catechesis otherwise limited engagement with the faith, applied to the region? Do people take part in processions, saints' feast days & novenas more today, and is that participation more cultural rather than religiously driven?
@@isaiah3872 fair enough
The more I live in this world, the more I realise that the catholics were right, despite controversies and fake claims of anti-christian media ( netflix, woke agenda, atheist millenials, etc... ) And the more I realise that we need to bring back more traditions to teach the youth and guide them in these deviant times.
These changes from 1960’s VII were not easy at first, but slowly we adapted the new methods.
Since most of these posts are lengthy there was an Australian Mini Series called The Brides of Christ about a group of Nuns trying to adopt Vatican II. Both serious and humorous how some of the changes for Sister’s were difficult, in this series one scene depicts an Elderly Nun who has to change her Habit. All her sisters are praying for her, they help her into the new Habit, she takes a deep breath and faints. There were many things that Vatican II changed internally, as well. Nuns wearing lighter, shorter and more work appropriate Habits, Priests no longer wearing those long black robes - now they wear black slacks and many other minor changes.
We began to say “Peace be with You” that was odd to get used to, but then it felt welcoming.
I wish Latin and Gregorian Chant were the preferred and normal use. My local parish priest "dared" to reintroduce incensing the altar and Gospel but the now-older parishioners, young when Vatican II came out, put a quick stop to that. Very sad. There is a real thirst out here for a return to traditions of the Church. Holding hands during the Our Father and ill-rehearsed guitar accompaniments to poor congregational singing is not cutting it anymore. I'm not against the Novus Ordo, in fact I treasure its simplicity and efficiency; I just want the traditions that can go along with it.
I think V2 was important in helping the church understand what is actually important
@@bubbles581 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
❤🙏Amen, thank you once again Fr Casey!!❤🙏 Good St Joseph pray for us
It would seem that it wasn’t the council that was the issue but the generation that implemented it.
Yes. The experimentation from 1965-1970 and continuing on was the problem
@@briandelaney9710 Agreed, and I wonder if Pope Paul, after seeing how the reforms got out of hand, was just too exhausted to do anything about it.
I’ve wondered that myself. We had very good elementary Catechism until ‘65, for me my seventh grade. As I am now reading the Catechism, I can’t for the life of me understand why it wasn’t taught in the Church where I grew up. What a difference it would have made for me, and I imagine, the many others I knew who wandered away from faith.
as someone who is almost always in favor of decentralization in most aspects of life, I still think that Vatican 2 gives entirely too much room for interpretation in it's implementation details. or at least, more time needed to be spent in considering the ways in which the reforms could be most efficaciously implemented. The Council spent a lot of time designing a really great bicycle and not nearly enough time figuring out how to teach people how to ride a bicycle without eating dirt for the next 60 years.
Maybe you could argue that that was the point, but I've found that so-called "freedom" that simply results in chaos isn't actually all that freeing. Or to follow up with another bike analogy, it's hard to ride to figure out how to ride a bicycle while concussed and dealing with a broken collar bone.
Good video Father, thank you for defending the Church 😃
I have an actual case study about liturgy in my on country, Indonesia. In 1971, there are 10 Eucharistic Prayer and many of it like Eucharistic Prayer 8,9 and 10 that Eucharistic Prayer must be Presidential Prayer, but because of "participation" the Laity in some part of that prayer did have a part on it. Next, one of the Gloria song, did not using the same text in order of "inculturation". They change the text and lyrics and for some years i mean 30 years this practice both of the cases are still held, until 2005, the Indonesian Bishop Conference revised that practice and structure. And the next revision is held in 2020 before covid hit Indonesia.
I think Vatican II implementation on Liturgy is a disaster. My diocese there is still have a spirit to go back in those era. Where the experimenting liturgy is still hold. Like using traditional dances for the procession of the priest entering the altar and out of the altar, and change the homily with a show like drama, or a film created by the Youth or even a talkshow sometimes.
By no means i'm anti-inculturation, i still enjoy the Mass that held in a parish from deep Javanese area that far from the city, like using old Javanese language or using traditional Javanese music instrument. But inculturation in a right manor can be good for cathecism and understanding the liturgy for participation. I'm also a youth that still 27 years old, but i dislike the practice done by the youth that want to deform the Liturgy.
The Mass had one Canon for nearly 2,000 years. Then the Modernist crowd decided they knew better.
@@carolynkimberly4021We don't know what canon was used in Rome before the mention of it but Ambrose - and it didn't even sound like its present version back in the day, though similar.
The Latin Church was an exception as all other rites have more than one Anaphora.
That said, I prefer the Roman Canon over the later alternatives.
@@dimasbagus7551 Chicago Spokane Seattle?😂😂😂😂
Your answer and reflection on the last question stands out to me as the most important one. We the laity and priests, lead by our bishops, and guided by the Holy Spirit, are all called to be implementing daily the charisms of Vatican II.
Can you make a video about the TLM, and what we are doing right and what we are doing wrong. How we can be more united with the church and still enjoy the extraordinary form?
He has
@@DoctorDewgong Where?
Here's one simple trick: dump any and all content coming from Una Voce and other "traditionalist" influencers.
@@stephenferry3017 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@ryanscottlogan8459 yeah I'm not joking. It's all tainted with schismatic Lefevbrism.
I watched Vatican II's opening on TV when I was home sick from school. I remember pre-Vatican II Church well, and it wasn't much different from the Church we kick around in today.
I agree with you on the chaos in the world after the Council. Vatican II didn't cause it; the 1960s sure did!
In the modern era, of "arrested adolescence", hedonism, and debauchery the Church doesn't need to adapt to society
We need to strengthen our commitment to the Faith
Thank you for the video!
Well put overall Father Casey. A very brave undertaking to discuss Vatican II with all of the misunderstandings and misinformstion surrounding it. We need a Vatican II B to reset the record. 😊 Good answer to the question at time stamp 8:22. 🎉🎉🎉
What I'd want answered is how do you respond to the young people that find the mass of Vatican 2 "cringe" or "embarassing" while the traditional Latin mass feels more serious to the general youth
Tell them to look for a parish where the priest celebrates seriously.
Tell them that it's great that they love the Latin Mass.
Then tell them that when you pray you find it useful to know what you're saying just like Christians in the early Church did.
Then start asking them about Church history and theology, of which they probably know very little. A lot of these guys find the vestments more important than what's inside the Tabernacle, and usually don't realize it. Just never be mean about it. They're seeking God, that's enough.
In the words of the great theologian Taylor Swift: "Lean into the cringe!"
tbh I have only ever found young people to find the VII mass to be something they can relate and understand better than the Latin mass which they often claim to be unrelatabe or just redundant
This opinion is held by a fairly small minority of very "online" young people who, for political reasons, have a bias towards traditional ways of doing things. Their default stance is to be wary of anything that can be viewed as "modernist". Certain older, savvy, more traditionally-minded people have noticed this trend and spread their views among fertile soil.
That being said, the Latin mass hasn't been soured by a childhood full of boring priests and irrelevent homilies. Ironically, it's newer to them and has accrued less negative baggage for them personally.
Thank you , Father. These videos help to strengthen my faith.
Maybe one of the problems that Vatican II brought was the idea that mass had to keep changing to "accommodate" the likings of more people. And as a result in many cases made it a circus, where any respect for traditions and the house of God and His presence has been lost.
We see singing that looks more like a bad Hollywood production. People talking before, during, and after mass before they leave, as if it was a restaurant. Announcements about upcoming events, luncheons, and money collections before the priest gives the final blessing ("if you want your blessing, stay seated while we read some announcements"?!!!). Oh, and don't forget the final clapping for the singers and musicians.
As with many other things in our culture, we tend to take things too far.
I wonder how we would behave if one day we enter the church's building and see at the altar the body of Christ, nailed at the cross, bleeding and giving HIs life for us. Would we talk?, clap?, play the drums?. Oh wait, that's what the Blessed Eucharist is... never mind.
Well said. Vatican 2, while maybe not intentional, certainly allowed churches to gut out any and all reverence for the Eucharist and for the mass. And we wonder why in recent years a majority of Catholics don’t believe in the real presence? (And yes I know that has to do with terrible catechesis too).
But seriously, I’ve seen Protestant services and many non Latin masses have been just as irreverent as those. It’s shameful
CoE, 1961: *Reforms their liturgy to more-closely resemble the Catholic Mass: Lots of Latin and Greek, and smells & bells.
Catholic Church, 1962: *Vatican II
Excellent responses to a complicated subject
Wow fantastic video, father. Well paced and very informative!
Bless you Fr Casey
An Eastern Catholic. I’m never surprised when I meet visitors to my parish who either are professing “trads” or are clearly influenced by engagement with them, when they begin to frame everything by supposed Liturgy “Wars” (that exist mostly online), and alleged-mandated “reforms” from Vatican II, and how they prefer parishes and Liturgies such as mine because they’re “traditional”. Not sure they’ve read a single document from the Council, but definitely not read Ecclesiarium Orientalium, which declared the self-ruling equality of even the smallest SuiJuris Eastern Church, counseled Eastern Catholic Churches to return to their practices, renouncing Latinization and affirming much else.
Like those who were “liturgical advisers “ in the Latin church never read Sacrosanctam Concilium
One could argue that the Latinizations were liturgical innovations, and dropping them and returning to eastern practice was a form of traditionalization.
@@pablononescobar yes, that Vatican II “caused”.
So why did Eastern Churches, like the Maronite Church, "Latinise" even further, basically making a Novus Ordo versus populum? The Syro-Malabar also Latinised by celebrating versus populum, something breaking against their longstanding tradition stretching back two millenia. Why? The Eastern Churches were supposed to stop looking to Rome for liturgical guidance, but instead did the opposite. The UGCC, for example, and many other Churches, forcefully vernacularised the language from, say, Old Slavonic to Ukrainian, excommunicating and casting out all who opposed. At elast, in that case, it only happened after the fall of the Soviet bloc in the 1990s. Why so much Latinisation?
@@cordasuenaviolin604 you’d have to ask each of their hierarchies, they’re not one Church and didn’t all “do the opposite” and I’m not going to answer for them. This excommunication in 90s Ukraine? - that sound like Society of St Josephat who are SSPX and had organized under Bp. Fellay (Interestingly also favored maintaining Latinizations they had was part of their dissent that led to schism). That was the reason, not simply using Slavonic, which was still used outside Ukraine. I can say I know Primate Shevchuck in 2020 noted Church Slavonic is the language of the UGCC and its importance amid diaspora communities using vernacular in other countries. I’ve only heard English and Slavonic in Uki churches, with one of three in my area liturgy in Ukrainian.
Thanks for the video Fr. Casey!
Technically, we do have married priests if an ordained priest is an Anglican and converts to Catholicism. He can become a priest in the Roman Catholic Church and still be married obviously so that’s one of the exceptions and I think the Eastern Roman Catholic churches the same thing they have married priests, so it does exist and always has.
and celibacy, while long encouraged, was not mandatory in the "western" church for the first thousand years of Christian history.
You shall know a tree by its fruit.
You know what I am just going to say it, if I had my choice I would probably always go to the regular vernacular mass over the Latin mass, I just get more out of it spiritually,! Of course the much anticipated sequel to Vatican 1 isn't just about the mass (Lumen Gentium Ch. 5 is the best) but online conversations about V2 seem to always return to the mass so I thought I would share that I am a complete lover of the ordinary form mass.
Father can you make a video on what the church teaches on what happens to good people that die before they before finding their way to the Church and Christ properly? And what can we do if anything to assist in there salvation after death?
Vatican III could sort out within its congregation, a major problem associated with Christian Churches in general. There would need to be a major emphasis on bringing God into all of livelihood and to clarify the issue of double lifestyles that seem common - for example, the idea of going to Church and carrying out rituals to 'keep God happy' in the absence of any meaningful change to the lives we as Christians live out in the world. True repentance would mean a change of heart and a re-evaluation of the way we live. It's no use going to Church everyday (regardless of denomination) while offending those close by and doing wrong in general. Although I'm of a different Christian faith, I do feel that the Catholic Church could lead the way in solving this widespread problem in the Christian Community.
Interesting trivia. The First Lateran Council (1123), the Second Lateran Council (1139), and the Third Lateran Council (1179) were not dogmatic councils either. They were purely disciplinary councils, and didn't define dogmas or condemn heresies.
That is true. What some people don't understand is that disciplinary decisions help us clarify our dogmatic beliefs.
@@alessandroarsuffi9227 Exactly. You could say that about about Vatican II's Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum, both of which were dogmatic constitutions.
@@tonyalongi4409 Precisely. And how can people say that V2 wasn't dogmatic when it literally defines the essence and boundaries of "Extra ecclesiam nulla Salus"? Or when it completes V1 by declaring the role of bishops in synodality? Or when it formulates the title Mother of the Church for the Blessed Virgin? I just don't get it...
My main concern with Vatican to has to do with the Mass itself. Once you allow changes in such a well established tradition, then human beings tend to see how far they can go with changing other things. Not everybody of course, but there are always some. During the times of the traditional Latin mass, a person who could go to any church in the country, I suppose the world, and hear the same mass with nothing and nothing taken away. After Vatican, it seems to me that you had to go “ shopping” around to find a parish that you liked or rather could live with. I was attending at one parish and they went out of the way to behave and look Catholic at least my eyes. When they built their new church, they had no crucifix in the church. It will sound like a very trivial thing, but the final straw for me was when lent started. The statues were covered with cloth as they were traditionally, but the clock was a kind of baby blue color. They tried to explain that it was a shade of purple. So that was it for me. As full disclosure, one reason I feel this way is that I had fallen away from going to Mass sometime in high school right around or maybe just before the changes were implemented. When I came back around 1982 everything seemed glaringly different. So what I’m saying is I didn’t live with any kind of gradual transition. Just my two cents. Stay well all. Deo Gratias.
That we still have these arguments 60 years later speaks volumes about the real nature of Catholic worship. Form versus substance. ‘I want MY Latin mass” versus “I need real communion during mass.” These aren’t necessarily contradictory but have been forced into apposition by the political transformation of Catholic institutions. Mean while, the Eucharist has lost its centrality and no longer invites the believer to dine at the Lords table
meanwhile very few children who attend Church schools continue going to mass. UI guess while arguing about Latin mass you leave the rest of us alone.
Excellent presentation, Father Casey. Perhaps you can make a video on the Canadian Bishops Winnipeg Statement in which they they basically endorse contraception and contradict Humane Vitae and have failed to resend it
For me regardless of what you say I have to look at what happened after the council. What happened to all pertinent metrics after the council? In business when we make a change we measure the result with metrics, perhaps you should make a video at some point where you look at the metrics in front of everyone. I mean look at all of them. The roll-out of the reforms is pretty discrete you should be able to do that. I can think of all kinds of metrics to look at. How about baptisms (infants) and conversions? How about people leaving the religious orders? How about Catholic Schools? Churches Built? Percentage of tithing? Maybe family size? Christ gave us the model. You were praised for your courage taking on this issue, how about take a look at the numbers and dispassionately discuss the conclusion? The real issue is whether or not the Chruch is succeeding in its mission. Once you do that then look for counter-trends. Are there any groups that have bucked those trends (if they are bad) or did better in good trends? What did those groups within the Chruch do differently than others? In a business model we take those data and make an action plan. Based on what you discover, what action plan would you make? We have had 80 years after the council, surely we have adequate data by now?
Well said
Father, what are your thoughts on the work of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin? Our collective's works is deeply inspired by his teachings and would love to come on your channel and have a dialogue with you. What's the best way to contact you?
Actually as a protest I've heard of Vatican II that was really never sure what it was and in fact this was the only Catholic meeting then I had ever heard a specific name for and so I appreciate this information that you provided this video
Vatican 2 acknowledged not only changes that had occured over a hundred years, not least of which was the effects of the Oxford Movement and the writings of Newman, Mannix, and Knox but also the effects of the Second World War. At Nuremberg, the Defence that one acted in accordance with the directions of a superior was firmly rejected and individual responsibility for actions was recognised. Vatican 1 attempted to deal with the loss of the Papal States and the implications of a secular Italy as much as anything else. Vatican 1 was about individual responsibility and acting in accordance with an informed conscience. Dumping the decision on the priest became more difficult and priest shopping became irrelevant.
My question is how did Lutheran and Anglican services end up almost identical to the Novus Ordo Mass if they split from Catholicism well before Vatican 2?
Lutheran and Anglican liturgies have always been derived from the Roman rite, albeit in the vernacular. So there has long been a close similarity. Lutheranism especially has always kept much of the content and ceremony of the Catholic liturgy, Luther's Deutsch messe is very recognisable to any Catholic. The Book of Common Prayer's communion service by Cramner was much more distinct, although still ultimately an adaptation of the Roman rite.
And the Catholic influence has continued even long after the Reformation. The newer Anglican Book of Common Worship's Order of Communion was remodelled deliberately to be even closer to the Roman Mass.
@@davidcope5736 Thank you for that explanation! I have been to Lutheran and Episcopalian services and was surprised that most of it is familiar to me. The Bible readings are even the same throughout the year (my mom goes to Episcopalian church and we compare notes). I understood that those branches of Christianity came from Catholicism, but I didn't understand how they were still so similar after Vatican II.
The Church operates visibly in the premises of Matthew 16:18. "This Article hinges upon the preceding one; for, it having been already shown that the Holy
Ghost is the source and giver of all holiness, we here profess our belief that the Church has been
endowed by Him with sanctity."
I grew up with the old rite, I never want to go back. But communion wine , incense mor singing etc is needed. Too often mass is just not reverent.
Thank you for another excellent video Father, I would love a video on the church's history with the Jewish people, Zionism and Israel.
i was a lay minister for 10 years and i did a session with my people about Vatican 2, without it we wouldn't be watching catechism videos on UA-cam or commenting on them. but i think the problems of old remained, it is just Vatican 2 helped EXPOSING them.
simple example: when lay people get together from different parts of the world and they talk about faith and practices which they inherited from their parents or from their local priests, it takes 2 minutes to conclude that there are differences, and sometimes dangerous differences.
Here on UA-cam we have for example Father Casey, Father Mike, to name a few, those are faithful and authentic to the faith and church teachings, and it is hard for most people to realize that other channels are wrong just because they resonate with them more.
Father, you say that the goal of the Council wasn't to make the church "more Protestant" without explaining it.
But I think it was exactly the goal of the Council. And it's a really good thing because most of the reformers wanted the church to return to the old tracks and bring the practice closer to the practice of the Early Church (as well as eliminate the corrupt practices, which are wrong in general (because they're morally wrong)). I think this is the misconception you feel given the fact you are an American and probably imagine Protestantism in a certain way, not and not focusing on the original Reformation and the original Protestant churches.
You mention the role of the laity. In the Protestant churches, the role of the laity is essential - in both, those which use the presbyterian polity to those which use the episcopal polity with synodal laity representation. The collective rather than individual leadership of the churches is, in my view, more accurate to the practice of the Early Church. In Acts of Apostles 14:23, there is a mention of appointment/election/ordination of the elders. This can be interpreted in basically two ways - either by election (the Greek word was used for the election by raising a hand) or by ordination/appointment. Despite this uncertainty (at least in my view given by my limited knowledge) the collective aspect was there in each congregation - the aspect that wasn't present in the medieval church and the mandatory establishment of the Parish Financial Council (with a bit of creativity this can be seen as the Council of the Elders) in my knowledge was only introduced by the 1983 Canon Law. Even if we argue with the episcopos and presbyteros being synonyms, there wasn't a body on the local parish level.
Then you mention the reform (funny word, isn't it 😉) of the liturgy and the translation of the Bible. That's another key point of Protestantism. It was Protestantism, which brought us the Lutherbibel, the Bible of Kralice, and the King James Version) and made it the main source of the Good News, when the Catholic church insisted on using the Vulgate Bible. Again, as the name of the Bible shows, it was originally written in the Vulgar (contemporary) Latin so people in the Latin-based language-speaking countries could understand it. But what is the point of sticking to the Vulgar Latin Bible for 8 centuries, when the faith spread into countries like Bohemia, Germany, Sweden or Russia, where people couldn't understand it at all because the language wasn't close enough for the common illiterate man to understand it? I'm happy the Catholic church changed its view and the Latin mass is becoming more and more marginal practice (but I'm glad it's still possible) for the benefit of the hundreds of languages that Christians speak.
Then the focus on the communion... Well, obviously the Catholic view has changed. Sort of. For the better. A hundred years ago, there wouldn't be a chance you could receive under both kinds. Now? Even in the Catholic Church, this is becoming more and more common and it started by the Council. Thank God for that! Of course, the disagreement on the "idea" of communion is still there. But it's wrong to think that all Protestants think it's "just bread and wine to remember Jesus". There are such churches, but the original Reformation didn't argue with the doctrine of the real presence. The very original Protestant stream - Lutheranism is very close to the eucharistic theology of the Catholic Church. But not even Calvinists say it's "just bread and wine to remember Jesus" but they believe in "the spiritual presence". Of course, some streams later developed the thought the presence the presence is "just" symbolic (the view I fully respect but it's not my belief). However, this doesn't prove that this is what makes the difference between Catholics and Protestants, because, as I mentioned before, there is quite a wide range of views on communion among Protestants.
Then the permanent diaconate. Again, an attempt to be more Protestant. But in a moderate indirect middle way. Since in the vast majority of Protestant churches the celibacy of the clergy isn't mandated (of course Protestant religious orders follow the same rules as their Catholic counterparts) there is no need for deacons, but they have them anyway (ordained but non-full status clergy/ministers). So the establishment of the permanent deacons as well as actually allowing non-Roman-Catholic-but-Catholic priests to celebrate Roman Catholic mass is a move to allow those who don't feel they want to keep celibacy to serve at the altar.
One last thought provoked by the question and the answer at 7:46
Regarding the no salvation outside the church. I feel like this is very unjust towards Protestants (especially if mentioning them among other religious groups, which don't come nearly close to the proximity of the Protestant and Roman Catholic theologies) while not mentioning the Orthodox and others. It's sad to see comparing just the Protestants. Let me remind you, that Protestants and Roman Catholics are actually much closer on some basic ideas since both are part of the Western branch of Christianity. Some absolutely basic things. Like whether the Holy Spirit proceeds just from the Father or the Father and the Son (filioque). The other Churches in communion with the Roman Church don't believe that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father as well as the Son and still are accepted. I have a bad feeling that the only thing that actually matters in this kind of "politics" is the position of the pope and other aspects aren't nearly as important. Which in my view is sad and not very consistent from the side of the Roman Catholic Church. How come a Greek Catholic, who doesn't believe that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and the Son is seen as okay, but a Lutheran, who accepts 7 sacraments, the apostolic succession, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and only rejects the papal supremacy is seen as not okay (the papal supremacy and non-belief in the origin of the Holy Spirit are both, in my view comparable deviations from the teaching). You either accept all aspects of the Catholic faith and you some be seen as "okay" by the Roman Church or you don't accept all of them and be seen as "not okay".
Of course in my view, the I don't differentiate between the "sections" of the Church and believe in the one apostolic catholic (small c!) church, which is represented by all Christians, who fulfil the basic ecumenic principles.
Thanks for reading! I'd be happy to discuss with open heart. :)
I’m a Traditionalist Catholic (FSSPX) since 2006, and althought I enjoy your videos, I completely disagree with your line of defending V II. Saying that V II has not contributed to the secularisation of Catholic nations, is false. For example, in Poland more and more people stop attending Novus Ordo M and attend traditionalist Catholic masses saying they feel Lord’s presence during the mass etc.
The way the NO is celebrated it’s an issue. You really can’t get around that. If it was implemented wrong or priests just do it how they want you can’t find a reverent NO very easily. St John Cantius in Chicago is the only one I know of. I plan to go to Chicago just to experience a reverent NO and that’s pretty sad I have to go state’s away to find something that should be in every Catholic Church.
Yeah, NO isn’t a problem, but the weird Protestant way it gets celebrated is. As long as they keep NO as traditional and reverent as possible it’s great
Can't wait for more of my Catholic friends to learn about Vatican Three when I get them in a Cyberpunk campaign with me
The answer lies on how the post-conciliar Church prays the new liturgy.
The Eucharist gets me every time. I don't case if the priest is facing me or not. I see Christ being lifted up, and I get goosebumps.
Though, I do think TLM has its own charm and should stay! I just wish some TLM people weren't so high & mighty about it, like they're begging for it to be taken away.
TLM will stay so don’t worry, the Pope has said the special fraternities like FSSP and the one that starts with ick or something I don’t really know will stay and be allowed to celebrate TLM, plus there is SSPX which Pope Francis made a totally valid form of mass which you can go to, take the Eucharist, and even confess in
"For a person is not to be called a
heretic as soon as he shall have offended in matters of faith; but he is a heretic who, having
disregarded the authority of the Church, maintains impious opinions with pertinacity."
If one feels moved by religious music that is just aesthetics, as pointed out by Fr Benny McHale at the Knock novena a few years ago.
That's true in a way....but....the Church since very early times has used art, music, incense, to try to help people turn their thoughts and souls away from the passing world and toward the divine and the eternal. Aesthetics are not the aim, correct, but they really can help....or not help.
That's one reason I like weekday Masses and low Masses. The aesthetics of liturgies on weekends & major feast days are important, but even they are means to an end & should always be arranged in a way that draws us back to the aspect of faith being preached about & celebrated. During the week, there's far less to be stimulated by & attached to other than hearing the scriptures and receiving Our Lord in the Eucharist.
Time for me to ramble. I have a problem with how Vatican II has worked out in practice. I know it’s anecdotal, but the only packed churches I’ve seen are less “liberal” with the application of Vatican II. My church is an English novus ordo, but it has traditional sounding music, a more traditional looking altar, and a general culture of solemnity. On the other hand, I’ve been to guitar and tambourine-playing, t-shirt and flip flop-wearing “contemporary” churches. There is no question which churches are doing better, numbers-wise (and which ones have more young people) We now have something the Church of the 50s and 60s didn’t have: the known fates of (for lack of a better term) liturgically “liberal” high church faiths. Look at the ELCA, look at the PCUSA, look at the Episcopal church and CoE. They are collapsing and hemorrhaging members. The misapplication of Vatican II needs to stop. I don’t want this fate to happen to these specific churches as well. To speak bluntly as a younger person who once was an atheist, the more modern churches, while well-meaning, feel kinda phony, like they’re trying to look hip and cool and draw the young-ins in. It didn’t work on me. More traditional churches did….
Btw, Look up St. Vincent de Paul Catholic Church in Andover, KS, for the most egregious case of Vatican II misapplication. It is still a Catholic Church, but it is alarmingly and nightmarishly modernist.
Beautifully said brother! (I know father, but I'm only little c catholic 😂 )I really do love your videos and your channel though, you speak in power and truth and my prayer is one day for the whole body to be united, because we got screwed on the Eucharist (Communion is awesome, but it's not the same) we got the lay reach, both together, add in our Greek brothers and sisters, and show unity and uniformity are not the same calling or the same thing.
The council took place and needed. Time to move on and fulfill it's mission love God and one another. I support Vatican 2.
"Sacrosanctum Concilium did not envision what we have in the liturgy today" -- no that is not correct. Everything that is actually in the liturgy today is consistent with Sacrosanctum Concilium, and you can see that in the extensive GIRM footnotes that cite that document at length.
If what you mean is that all the weird liberalism and gross disobedience in celebrating the liturgy, those things which should not be done, which have no permission in the official documents or from the episcopal authorities, and which often contradict the official documents in explicit ways, then yes, that is not what was envisioned.
Where’s the Gregorian Chant and Sacred Polyphony ? Where is the Latin in use in parts of the Mass?
@@briandelaney9710 Latin is explicitly used in the English translation of the Missal for a variety of parts, including the Agnus Dei, the Pater Noster, the Sanctus, as well as Greek for the Kyrie. Beyond that I myself have heard Latin used in the Gloria or in other parts. As for Gregorian Chant and Sacred Polyphony, GIRM #41 explicitly instructs this to be in the "main place" and asks for Latin to be understood by the laity for parts of the Ordinary and for the Creed and Pater Noster. There are certainly a variety of musical movements in this country that have risen up to bring Gregorian chant and its recent innovations to the forefront in parishes.
If you dont see this in your parish, you need to ask, knock, seek, etc. a little more perhaps. Dont let the hippies bully you into accepting their mediocrity. If they wish to ignore the MIssal then they are in the wrong and need to be told this until they recognize it.
@@colinwithonel Nonsense.
@@ryanscottlogan8459i thought my remarks were at very least sensibly drafted. If you have some point to make why dont you make it?
The problem with Vatican II and the Liturgy was that it wasn’t implemented properly. The Council called for retaining Latin in parts of the Mass and Gregorian chant and sacred polyphony. What happened was extreme and bad liturgical experimentation
Lots of truth to this comment. There is a modest yet real comeback in the employment of classical liturgical music in the US.
Your comment about including the laity strikes a chord with me. I feel bad for some, emphasis on some, parish pastors. We do not have anywhere near the number of priests that we had when I was growing up, the 1950s through the 1970s. It seems to me when Father has to worry about the leaky roof and finding the money to fix the roof that takes away from his time to pastor the flock. Same with other things like bookkeeping, property maintenance, etc. The laity, many of whom have business backgrounds, are fully capable of taking care of these things. Should they bring it to the attention of the priest, well yeah, but maybe more of the responsibility for such things should be put on the shoulders of the Parish Council. On the other hand, sometimes Father can be a control freak. Micromanaging every little thing. Just a thought.
That is the problem; when folk are confined to fixing leaky roof but have no say in Church governance; they tend to get pissed off. They are paying the priest so why can't they like any other boss tell what they need to do.
A slight correction please. I lived through the Vatican II changes. There was a strong emphasis on interactions with other Christian denominations and other faiths. In fact, V II declared that one need not be a Catholic to get into heaven. Outside of Church-speak, the Oxford dictionary defines "ecumenical" as:
representing a number of different Christian Churches.
similar
nondenominational
nonsectarian
universal
catholic
all-embracing
all-inclusive
promoting or relating to unity among the world's Christian Churches.
How can you sing "All Are Welcome" when, in fact, all are NOT welcome.
Yes .. V2 made clear what was always teaching that Jews would not be denied salvation ... The Pops would not have been able to visits Jerusalem as Heads of state.
Because God is discriminatory? He is a just God. He is a God of Order. Inclusivity is a poison.
"Let's not confuse high mass attendance with flourishing." Dear, oh dear, oh dear...
How would the Mass of Paul VI be considered “Protestant-Resembling” ? In what way because the radical reforms of the Anglican/Episcopal Church didn’t come until after Vatican II was convened
Father, do you think sometime in my lifetime? I am 22 years old there will be a third Vatican Council.
And nevertheless.., latin doesn't change. And the truths which were expressed by means of it remain intangible and unchanged. I keep on searching Father, and God knows I appreciate your knowledge and the way you articulate it, but I have to acknowledge that.... Sedevacantism has become compelling to me...
Sedevacantism is a dead-end. Once you accept the idea that the Pope, and therefore the teaching authority of the Church (which is apostolic, and thus *must* have a visible constitution and unbroken apostolic succession) can fall into error and heresy, you've thrown everything the Church ever taught into question. If the Magisterium can defect in 1962, who's to say it couldn't have happened before? Tradition becomes a free-for-all, subject to everyone's fallible, personal judgment.
In short, sedevacantism is protestantism in denial. In my mind, there's no point in being Catholic...or even Christian...if the Church's teaching authority, which brought Christ to us to begin with, is so capable of falling into error.
Sedevacantism is just Protestantism wearing the skin of Catholicism when taken to its logical conclusion, friend.
We are Catholic Conservative Puerto Rican Italian and Gay. My partner and I enjoy Fr Casey!
If you practice homosexuality you cannot be catholic. You can be gay but not act on it or practice, to do that is mortal sin
im in RCIA and this is one question I've had for a while
Your answers are unconvincing; I’ve heard them from other clergy before, and the answers were unconvincing in those instances also. On the other hand, the critics of Vatican II who I’ve heard or read have given convincing arguments to back up their criticism.
Pre Vatican II,
Communion on the tongue whilst kneeling, Altar rails, Ad Orientum, Gregorian chant, Altar boys only, Latin, Communion Plate (Paten), Incense, women veiling, people dreesed appropriately
Post Vatican II
Communion in the hand whilst standing - I have witnessed some terrible sacriligous behaviour towards the Eucharist due to receiving in the hand, Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, Gregorian chant replaced by lay people playing guitar (with lgbtq affirming guitar strap) as the music for Mass with protestant Style hymns, No Gregorian chant, Altar girls, Altar rails removed, Versus populum, Lay people standing up, shaking hands and talking to each other after the consecration of the Body and Blood (peace greeting), clown Mass and all other sorts of sacrilgious Mass, people dressed inappropriately.
I'm sure there is more that can be added to both lists.
I have to travel accross London to attend a revernet Novus Ordo (Latin) as my local Churches are lacking reverence. Just recently during Commuion the Priest allowed for people to walk away from him with the body of our Lord In their hand over to a Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion that was holding the precious blood, to intinct the Eucharist themselves and self-administer, which is a grave offense.
When I'm able to attend a TLM, everyone receives kneeling on the tongue, this not only helps increase reverence it also helps protect the Body of Christ from the abuses that receiving in the hand has encouraged.
I know that Vatican II did not implement Commuion in the hand or clown Masses which is why I worded the section as 'post Vatican II' but there has been a shift towrds lay person participation (that was one of the goals for Vatican II) over reverence.
encouraging the layity and empowering effective diciples is the Priests highest responsibility, therefore when the priest can hand over certain aspects of ministry to layity, it is the highest form of reverence to God, as it is a sign of Christians steping up to fulfill the Great Commission
@@helenbond8893that’s not true. The Priest’s highest responsibility is offering Sacrifice to God in the Mass.
Clericalism is definitely a problem but don’t be so quick to throw away the baby with the bath water
@@briandelaney9710 I am working towards a PhD in Biblical Theology/ Doctrine, alongside Seminarians in Rome, London and Northern Spain.... The RCC ensures that all seminarians and Priests understand Scripture, and therefore understand that while part of their role is to distribute the Eucherist, their highest responsibility is furthering the Kingdom through empowering the layity
The Holy Trinity will remain forever ❤
The trinity is something that was never taught by jesus and his apostles
@@theguyver4934snooze
Just so you know, Jesus and the apostles dont have to use the word "trinity" to speak about the trinity@@theguyver4934
@@theguyver4934yes it was. Same concept is found in hindoo books
2:27 You use the title “prophets”. Which of your leaders are you referring to? Does that appellation correspond to an office in the Church hierarchy, or are there specific people the Church recognizes as having the spiritual gift of prophecy?