Liturgical unrest of the Latin Church


#1

Has there ever been another example in the history of the Latin Church of liturgical unrest similar to what happened after Vatican II? Is this unique, or is it simply the latest in a string of liturgical incidents? Seeking understanding here. I don't want spiritual treatises, simply history. Thanks.

If no, thank you.

If yes, details?


#2

Not sure what you're looking for as far as "liturgical unrest"...if you simply mean such significant changes to the liturgy itself, then certainly when the form of the mass was standardized...and probably the entire period preceding.


#3

[quote="mburn16, post:2, topic:311941"]
Not sure what you're looking for as far as "liturgical unrest"...if you simply mean such significant changes to the liturgy itself, then certainly when the form of the mass was standardized...and probably the entire period preceding.

[/quote]

By liturgical unrest I mean radical disaffection with liturgical changes and what seems like a ceaseless bickering. I know that liturgical changes and standardizations have happened before, but I am specifically asking about the response, such as: qualities of the response and magnitude of the response. Has the kind of post-change response that we experienced (and continue to experience perhaps) after Vatican II ever happened before? Is this unique or typical for liturgical changes?

Again, not interested in changes themselves, I know what happened. I am interested in the response.


#4

Well, since there was no Internet, and more than not couldn't read their own language, let alone Latin, I would say what has happened the last 50 years is is probably "not typical" of what has happened after other councils.

While having all sorts of information at our fingertips now, I believe that we are "more informed" than ever before. I am also convinced that this is not always a "good thing". When reading documents of the past, one needs to remember to look at the context of the time, and sadly that does not happen often. Often I hear, "well Pope so & So said this 425 years ago, and it contradicts what our Pope now says, but I think the old way is right, so our Pope must be wrong..."

One of the other problems, and I think Br. Jay has touched on this a few times, is that many of the documents that you see get thrown around are written in "Church-speak", and not necessarily for the "lay person". Many tmes, is is just implied/assumed that the reader knows things that the typical person in the pew would have no idea of.


#5

Vatican II didn't actually change the liturgy but I gather that you are speaking of the Mass of Pope Paul VI. This was the most significant change to the Latin rite liturgy since the Council of Trent standardized the Mass . The situation in the Church today is not really comparable with the 16th century Counter-reformation period. Then the Church was losing northern Europe to schism and also at war with the Muslims. Today the Church struggles with secularism.


#6

Probably when the Western Liturgy changed from Greek to Latin
Those Rad-trad greekfiles caused a stir.


#7

[quote="YoungTradCath, post:3, topic:311941"]
By liturgical unrest I mean radical disaffection with liturgical changes and what seems like a ceaseless bickering.

[/quote]

I really do not think there is much unrest. Most Catholics I know just kind of go with the flow.

As to history, I remember reading that there was some resistance, or at least a lack of understanding, when the Church switched to communion under one species. I would say in such a case the resistance was indicative of the need to change for the purpose of teaching Catholic doctrine, in that case, that the one species contained the Body and the Blood of Christ.


#8

[quote="pnewton, post:7, topic:311941"]
I really do not think there is much unrest. Most Catholics I know just kind of go with the flow.

[/quote]

I agree with this.

I think what we're having trouble with in this time in history is AUTHORITY issues.

In the past, people simply obeyed. Certainly there were occasional rebels (e..g, Martin Luther). But most people simply obeyed because they accepted that God has established certain authorities over them, and that it was their duty to obey and not question the God-established authorities.

Modern people don't accept authority as readily.

Parents are no longer "authority figures," but are "guides."

School teachers struggle to balance "discipline" with "self-esteem issues."

Clubs of all types have elected Boards and written bylaws, but many club members utterly disregard these people and documents and do as they please.

Criminals defy law enforcement officials, and even "regular people" defy the "cops" and push the limits on laws against speeding, drinking and driving, etc., and argue that they are justifed in doing so because the law is "silly" or "unrealistic."

Right now there is a 50/50 split in the leadership of our nation (United States), and this is causing many of us to be cynical and doubtful about the qualifications of these men and women to hold the authority positions. It's very difficult to submit to authority figures that you don't trust or respect.

And of course, there are huge issues with authority in the Church, and IMO, THAT'S the issue here, not "liturgical unrest," which is a term that I have never heard before. Where did this term come from, YoungTradCath?

Most Protestants have territorial leaders, but maintain individual freedom to walk away from those authorities without fear of loss of salvation if they believe that the Bible teaches something different. What this means, of course, in practical terms, is that each Protestant is their own authority. I've been there (for 47 years), and it's the main reason why I became Catholic. I no longer wanted to be "in charge," but I wanted to submit to the authority that I believe Jesus Christ established on this earth--His Holy Catholic Church.

Catholics have a very well-defined system of authority, but many Catholics have taken cues from the Protestants, and insist that they must obey their consciences first, or that they have the right to study the Church documents and draw their own conclusions rather than simply accepting the authority of their priests, bishops, and Pope, and obeying those authorities. This has created a feeling of "unrest" about issues like the liturgy, and about moral issues like contraception. Catholics are unwilling to accept the authority of their bishops, and instead, want to find a way to make their "Church" agree with what they personally want to do.

I think the problem in the U.S. is that we have an inherent distrust of obeying "men and women" and instead, we want to obey written documents.

The problem with that is "Who shall interpret the documents?"

And that's where we're running into trouble with the liturgy. Many Catholics feel that THEY as individual Catholics have the "right" to interpret the documents and if their interpretation disagrees with their bishops, they assume that they are right and their bishop is wrong.

I think we need to get back to simply trusting and obeying the Shepherds that the Lord Jesus has placed over us.


#9

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.