Gabriela Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 NOTE: I am relatively new to traditional Catholicism, so I am going to ask an honest question here in an attempt to learn. Please, don't understand this as some thinly veiled, backhanded, passive-aggressive attack on Vatican II, and don't turn this thread into a debate about the virtues of Vatican II. I seriously just want to know what happened. A few weeks ago, a good friend bought me a 1962 Missal. Since then, I've been using the 1962 Missal at daily Novus Ordo Masses. The extent of the liturgical changes was not clear to me until I started doing this. Since Lent began, I've noticed in particular that references to "the enemy", the devil, demons, whatnot, all seem to have been purged in the Novus Ordo. In their place are kind of good-feeling things about us doing our best, God helping us, etc., with no mention of any resistance from another source. Am I right that this is a thing, or am I just imagining this? Maybe stuff got taken out of Lent and moved elsewhere (which would not make sense to me, but maybe there's a reason...?). In the course of the entire liturgical year, has there been a shift in the balance of references to evil in the liturgy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maggyie Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 It's true there are not many references in the Novus Ordo. (Note there is a request to save us from final damnation) doesn't bother me though. Mass is for worshipping God. I'm of the persuasion that you mention the devil and he appears etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basilisa Marie Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 I think the people who changed the Mass must have been trying to move away from language that motivates people by instilling a fear of hell and toward language that encourages love of God. We still talk about Satan when we renew baptismal promises, and we include exorcisms during the scrutinies of catechumens. Generally I think the changes were good, we shouldnt be superstitious and we shouldnt act like Christ hasn't already won. But it is unfortunate that a lot of people don't even believe in Satan or demons nowadays. Granted, I'm not sure many actually did in 1962 either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabriela Posted February 25, 2016 Author Share Posted February 25, 2016 9 minutes ago, Basilisa Marie said: But it is unfortunate that a lot of people don't even believe in Satan or demons nowadays. This is my concern, that if you stop talking about it, people will forget it's real. Also, I've noticed that, where there is reference to "the enemy", there's often talk of battle or copious war metaphors. I can't help but wonder whether the removal of all this has contributed (not solely, but partially) to the disproportionate exodus of males from Church participation. I believe there was an article by some trad priest or bishop on this a while back, and I read it and thought, "Uh, what?" But now I think I see what he was talking about. If men's most basic motivation is to protect, and suddenly there's no enemy anymore, then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 16 minutes ago, Basilisa Marie said: Generally I think the changes were good, we shouldnt be superstitious and we shouldnt act like Christ hasn't already won. But it is unfortunate that a lot of people don't even believe in Satan or demons nowadays. Granted, I'm not sure many actually did in 1962 either. How is it superstitious to refer to the fact that the devil does exist, and that it is the grace dispensed to us through the Church and Her rites that we are protected from his influence? I know you are smart and educated. You cannot actually believe that the 1962 and earlier liturgical books "act like Christ hasn't already won." I would challenge you to find one reference in the ordinary or in the propers from the 1962 missal referencing Satan which does not also at that same moment refer us straight back to the authority of Christ and the Church against the adversary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 56 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said: How is it superstitious to refer to the fact that the devil does exist, and that it is the grace dispensed to us through the Church and Her rites that we are protected from his influence? I know you are smart and educated. You cannot actually believe that the 1962 and earlier liturgical books "act like Christ hasn't already won." I would challenge you to find one reference in the ordinary or in the propers from the 1962 missal referencing Satan which does not also at that same moment refer us straight back to the authority of Christ and the Church against the adversary. Chocolate brah. Lots and lots of chocolate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 13 minutes ago, Peace said: Chocolate brah. Lots and lots of chocolate. No chocolate available today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 This is one of those complicated things that has negative consequences either way you go and requires a lot of balance. On the one hand, it is in our traditions to speak of fighting and defeating the Devil, and certainly this was not just a bunch of superstition. The Devil really does exist, and he really does fight us. Certainly this is worth mention sometimes at prayer. On the other hand, there has been what seems to have been an organic evolution in focusing on God's love and goodness, rather than in earlier times when we focused a lot on our horrible sins and the Devil's power. We focus on God's love and mercy, His graciousness, and our Masses revolve around thanking him for these things. We cannot say this is a bad organic movement in the Church seen both in Saints (such as Saint Faustina, John Paul II, etc.), our liturgical calendar (Divine Mercy Sunday, Jubilee Year of Mercy,) and our private devotions (Chaplet of Divine Mercy). Perhaps focusing on one more than the other is not necessarily bad. Perhaps our focus on God's goodness and mercy is simply an organic development of the Church, and is no worse than the organic development when there was great emphasis on our wretchedness and Satan's influence. As both are in the tradition of the Church, I don't see why we should reject one or the other, and both have merit in appropriate doses. As for me, I'm a simple laymen. I will happily attend any valid Mass the Church gives me, pray liturgists are doing their job properly, and be happy that despite my wretchedness, in God's mercy and goodness I get to receive him in the Eucharist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amppax Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 I'll be taking bets on how quickly this ends up on debate table. Over/under of 4 pages sound good? 2 hours ago, PhuturePriest said: As both are in the tradition of the Church, I don't see why we should reject one or the other, and both have merit in appropriate doses. As for me, I'm a simple laymen. I will happily attend any valid Mass the Church gives me, pray liturgists are doing their job properly, and be happy that despite my wretchedness, in God's mercy and goodness I get to receive him in the Eucharist. Well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabriela Posted February 25, 2016 Author Share Posted February 25, 2016 6 hours ago, Gabriela said: NOTE: I am relatively new to traditional Catholicism, so I am going to ask an honest question here in an attempt to learn. Please, don't understand this as some thinly veiled, backhanded, passive-aggressive attack on Vatican II, and don't turn this thread into a debate about the virtues of Vatican II. I seriously just want to know what happened. 3 minutes ago, Amppax said: I'll be taking bets on how quickly this ends up on debate table. Over/under of 4 pages sound good? I expressly forbade it, hence, there's no possible way that could happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 There is no debate if everyone simply submits to my superlative intellect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basilisa Marie Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 4 hours ago, Gabriela said: This is my concern, that if you stop talking about it, people will forget it's real. Also, I've noticed that, where there is reference to "the enemy", there's often talk of battle or copious war metaphors. I can't help but wonder whether the removal of all this has contributed (not solely, but partially) to the disproportionate exodus of males from Church participation. I believe there was an article by some trad priest or bishop on this a while back, and I read it and thought, "Uh, what?" But now I think I see what he was talking about. If men's most basic motivation is to protect, and suddenly there's no enemy anymore, then... I don't like it, but you might be right. I'm a woman, but I think it's silly to say that men need battle imagery to stay in church. To me that's like saying women need flowers by our altars and at least one Marian hymn every Sunday in order to keep the women there. I want to believe that men are better than that. It feels gimmicky. However, you might be right. Women are used to dealing with a culture that assumes men are the "standard" and are used to relating to something that's a little foreign ("brethren" even though I'm not a brother, etc.). Girls read books with male heroes but boys are much less likely to read books with female heroes (for whatever reason). So when we start including more inclusive language in the liturgy (brothers and sisters, etc) and dumping some of the stereotypically masculine stuff it might seem like we're overly feminizing the liturgy. Like the studies done where men feel like women dominate a discussion if they just speak about 30% of the time or whatever. You might be right, we might need to bring it back to get men in the door, but it still feels so condescending to me. 4 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said: How is it superstitious to refer to the fact that the devil does exist, and that it is the grace dispensed to us through the Church and Her rites that we are protected from his influence? I know you are smart and educated. You cannot actually believe that the 1962 and earlier liturgical books "act like Christ hasn't already won." I would challenge you to find one reference in the ordinary or in the propers from the 1962 missal referencing Satan which does not also at that same moment refer us straight back to the authority of Christ and the Church against the adversary. Calm down buddy, you don't need to patronize me. What I mean is the extra kinds of practices and beliefs that start pious and become superstitious or near-superstitious. Not that belief in the devil is superstitious. Demons are very, very real. Nor do I really believe people back then didn't believe Christ hadn't already won. I have a stack of old missals on my desk, thank you very much. I know what's in them. What I'm saying is that the people were trying to shift the focus to be more on the love of God and the triumph of Christ and all that goes with it. In order to do that they had to have already believed that. Duh. I talk to people all the time who grew up in pre Vatican II churches, and many (not all by any means) share stories about their pastors and teachers motivating them using fear of hell rather than love of Christ. Of course I'm simplifying it and they're simplifying it. But if I'm going to charitably consider the mindset of the people who made the changes, they must have been trying to move away from fear and move toward the positive side of the coin. And we all know what some of the results of that were - hardly anyone believes in Satan anymore like the Church teaches. The disbelief in Satan and the demons didn't just happen overnight, it was certainly aided by removing mentions of him in our prayers (along with the general colossal failure of catechesis in the last fifty years, at least). But people had to have stopped believing before the liturgy was changed, for whatever reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Not A Real Name Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 21 minutes ago, Basilisa Marie said: I don't like it, but you might be right. I'm a woman, but I think it's silly to say that men need battle imagery to stay in church. To me that's like saying women need flowers by our altars and at least one Marian hymn every Sunday in order to keep the women there. I want to believe that men are better than that. It feels gimmicky. However, you might be right. Women are used to dealing with a culture that assumes men are the "standard" and are used to relating to something that's a little foreign ("brethren" even though I'm not a brother, etc.). Girls read books with male heroes but boys are much less likely to read books with female heroes (for whatever reason). So when we start including more inclusive language in the liturgy (brothers and sisters, etc) and dumping some of the stereotypically masculine stuff it might seem like we're overly feminizing the liturgy. Like the studies done where men feel like women dominate a discussion if they just speak about 30% of the time or whatever. You might be right, we might need to bring it back to get men in the door, but it still feels so condescending to me. Could it be that the Church uses this imagery, or did, to emphasize the order of creation; man's patriarchy and womens motherhood? I know I just said the P and M word, but these things, which have been willed by God, have also been lost amongst many Catholics, even traditional Catholics. Our priest is doing a men's and womens group at our parish (traditional parish) and he has found there has been push-back and resistance to these basic core teachings of the Church. Most of the push-back though has been from those who have come into the parish from other NO parishes, like myself. Heck even I had an issue with these concepts for the longest time. Likewise with Satan and Hell, I have talked to many Catholics who also push-back and have issues with those core beliefs. Some have said that the Church doesn't hold these things to be important or that they're up to personal opinion like limbo. Some even said purgatory was like limbo. We are living in scary times, and it seems even our own Church has become prime mission territory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amppax Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Darn. I way overshot it on my estimates. It's confirmed, my future definitely isn't as a bookie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 23 minutes ago, Amppax said: Darn. I way overshot it on my estimates. It's confirmed, my future definitely isn't as a bookie. I will take credit for that. You are perfectly welcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now