Anonymous asked in Society & CultureReligion & Spirituality · 9 years ago

Would you answer a few questions about the Vatican II's changes?

I have to interview someone for a homework assignment. I was going to interview my grandma, but she told me that she wasn't even Catholic during that time, so...great. Please help? And please only answer with real answers, like you really know what I'm talking about.

1. What were your impressions of the Mass before and after Vatican II?

2. Did you like the changes that the Vatican II implemented? Why/why not?

3. Is there anything you wish the Vatican II didn't change in the Mass?

Please, please, PLEASE...I'M BEGGING YOU. If I don't find someone, I'll have to make up the answers myself, which won't be pretty.

8 Answers

  • 9 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Sounds like you are being "baited." Whoever asked you that knew that you will not find a true Catholic to interview. This "homework assigner" knows there are true Catholics out there & that he(she) is not one of them. A person would have had to be the age of Majority in 1958 (or very lucky to have real Catholic parents who knew their Catholic Faith)--and if so, he would NOT be a Novus Ordo!

    This 'assignment' is meaningless. What is paramount is that you become a Catholic at last! . You can find the Catholic Faith in a Catholic catechism, such as the Catechism of Trent or Fr. DeHarbe. Use the internet for the real reason God gave it to us. Innovators BEFORE V-2 tampered with the matter & form of all sacraments & threw out Catholic instruction. In 1969 Montini invalided the sacraments. Catholics in parochial schools were weakly catechized prior to 1958 & were coerced into accepted "new mass." & did not know the other sacraments were being "gamed" into invalidity & in 1968 were totally sabotaged; others (a billion of them) did not care.

    Impressions were the problem, not the answer. Whether a person "liked" Montini's signature on an invalidated 1969 "Mass" was beyond the thought-process of most people, including the elite. In 1969, Paul VI invalidated all the other sacraments. Again, most people couldn't have cared less. They were weak when Vatican 2 began & became weaker throughout its tinkerings. Traditionalists who tried to help them were rebuffed in favor of listening to bishops & priests in collusion with V-2. Traditional laity & clergy knew "de fide" meant perpetual, not "changeable". Bishops knew it, too, but they were cowards in the face of banishment. Only Abp. Lefebvre & Bacci held the Catholic Faith against Vatican 2. Interview them!

    Yahoo has a meager near-invisible supply of true Catholic replies which are consistently challenged by Novus Ordo apostates who do not understand anything about sacrament "changes." Look up those answers. Find a Catholic chapel & priests. Who ordained them? What rite was used? Was the bishop validly ordained before 1968? This is a salvific obligation, not a choice. Any priest is obliged to show you his ordination papers. Speak to a Catholic--not a novus ordo. Traditionalist once meant Trent. Today the Novus Ordo is garnering the word for its own use to create obfuscation. This will mean future loss of souls, unable to discern just what Traditional means.

    Traditional Catholics of Trent at

    1: Old Mass vs. New:…

    2: The Change Agents:

    3: Creation of New Mass:

    4: Latin to Lost Translation:…

    5: Mass as Assembly:…

    6: Clever Revisers:…

    7. Church Decore’

    Youtube thumbnail


  • 9 years ago

    I don't know how much help I'll be because I was bout 6 years old when the change occurred, so it's from the point of view of a child.

    1. What were your impressions of the Mass before and after Vatican II?

    My impression of the Mass wasn't all that different at first. It was still a time to be quiet and respectful and had to wear a dress. Before Vatican II wore a veil to church - and as a little girl I actually liked that. I kept wearing a veil in the beginning after Vatican II, but eventually I stopped.

    2. Did you like the changes that the Vatican II implemented? Why/why not?

    Some I did, some took some getting use to. Before Vatican II only the bible readings and the homily were in English. While I could recite the Our Father in Latin, I really didn't understand all the pryaers. But after Vatican 2 could understand more. However, after Vatican 2 I remember as a child being scared that the priest was facing us now and could see me and so I had to be more quiet.

    3. Is there anything you wish the Vatican II didn't change in the Mass?

    It's not so much that I don't like the change - it's just that as a society we've become more casual so that now there isn't the sense of mystery and respect when attending Mass that I had as a kid. One one hand I like that my teen like the guitar Mass and participates and doesn't mind going to Mass. On the other hand, she lacks the awe I had and the understanding of the miracle that is happening at the Mass.

  • 9 years ago

    Hey this is a great question! I currently go to the Traditional Latin Mass ( the one before Vatican II) I go to the current Mass every so often. I'll answer your questions honestly.

    1. To me Traditional Mass is so much more serious and solemn. It is more focused on the real purpose of the Mass, that is the Sacrifice. The new Mass has so many distractions from the type of music, the silly ladies singing in front of everyone when you try to focus on the Mass, AND Eucharistic Ministers. I would so much rather receive Our Lord from the priest on my knees.

    2. The new Mass has truly taken away from the solemnity of the Mass and the sacrament of the Eucharist. Instead you have the priest acting like a Baptist preacher when he should be saying Mass. I feel like I'm at a social event when we give each other the sign of peace.

    3. Just realized that this isn't an accurate question. *take note: Vatican II really only changed the Mass from Latin into English. However, liberal within the church rather illicitly used Vatican II as an excuse to make the Mass more "modern" and "up to date"

    I would be so happy if you mentioned this to your religion teacher!

    Hope this helped! God Bless!!

  • 9 years ago

    You need to understand that the changes in Vatican two did not happen overnight they took years to develop and then additional time to implement. How one was effected by the changes depends on what you role ion the church was and how old you were and how good your Latin was.

    Many american Catholics did not speak latin, and had limited knowledge of what was actually being said.

    Plus the changes of Vatican II were not just in the language of the Mass. There were many administrative and doctrinal changes that were part of Vatican II.

    You also need to know that many of the changes made during Vatican II were not implemented correctly or universally. Because of this the Catholic Church has spent the past 10 years developing a Mass that now is more standardized world wide nad reflects a more accurate translation of the original mass of the Catholic Church then was reflected in the changes made during Vatican II.

    Just as many older members of the church (as well as the ordained ministers of the Church) need to get comfortable with new changes back in the late 50 and early 60s with Vatican II there are changes implemented just a few weeks ago that are more similar to pre-Vatican II than post Vatican II.

    As for your specific questions...

    1) Most people who are familiar with the pre-Vatican II Mass are 60 years old or older.

    2) Most Catholics have grown up only knowing the post Vatican II Catholic church and so they have no previous knowledge to compare the changes with.

    3) What I wish for is irrelevant. It is not the role of lay members of the Church to determine the contents of the Mass or the doctrine of the faith. The elements and order of the elements of the Mass have changed very little since the days of Christ.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Eire7
    Lv 7
    9 years ago

    When Holy Mass was in Latin it was more respectful to Our Lord present during Mass, as the Priest also had his back to the people at all times.

    People should not be taking Holy Communion in the hand it is very disrespectful & we are not suppose to touch the Host as when we or Eucharist ministers do it, it turns back into bread because a Priest is ordained & has sacred hands to do this. People don't have the same respect for Holy Communion anymore which is disgraceful as it is Jesus we are receiving. We should still have to genuflect before we receive. Also the old Hymns should be kept & the modern Hymns should be gone, because they were beautiful hymns.

  • 9 years ago

    the latin mass prior to vat. 11

    in every ones own language which is great

    to many extra ordinary eucharist ministers not serious about their task

    i go to the odd latin mass which is fine ,especially if it sung

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    1 masses were in latin

    2 yes beacuse now you can understand what the prist say

    3 no nothing

    Source(s): atheist former catholic
  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    It's been 20 years... don't you Catholics know by now? :op

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.