Can we judge Vatican II by its fruit?

[Onegin]

We can now dismiss everything you have said as mere polemics. It was reaffirmed with the council. Read Lumen Gentium.

Betts, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Being repeatedly abrasive is making me less inclined to want to consider your arguments.

 

[cathguy]

We can now dismiss everything you have said as mere polemics. It was reaffirmed with the council. Read Lumen Gentium.

I am no longer responding to issues on this thread.

I will simply say this: Charity… Charity… Charity…

Everyone…

Please remember two things:

1. We are Catholics, and we must act that way even in chat rooms
2. Meanness of spirit is not acceptable.

As tempted as I am to address the substance raised here, I am exercising discipline and walking away. I would like to see this thread I started remain charitable if at all possible.

May God bless all of you.

 

[CWBetts]

I am no longer responding to issues on this thread.

I will simply say this: Charity… Charity… Charity…

Everyone…

Please remember two things:

1. We are Catholics, and we must act that way even in chat rooms
2. Meanness of spirit is not acceptable.

As tempted as I am to address the substance raised here, I am exercising discipline and walking away. I would like to see this thread I started remain charitable if at all possible.

May God bless all of you.

Fraternal rebuke is an act of charity. Letting you continue in your error is an act of apathy.

 

[CWBetts]

Betts, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Being repeatedly abrasive is making me less inclined to want to consider your arguments.

Not abrasive. Bold. Forgive me if I get annoyed when people misrepresent the teachings of the Church.

 

[Yggdrasil]

You know, the thing is, the vast majority of Catholics wouldn’t know the difference between the new Mass at the EF if the OF was celebrated in a manner consistent with what the Council called for.

I beg to differ. The Council itself called for massive changes. Most notable is the vernacular. This alone would account for a huge difference. But let’s consider the other changes that the Council called for. These are found in two liturgical documents: Inter Oecumenici, which the Council itself recommended to the Consilium, and Tres Abhinc Annos, which was an instruction from the Congregation of Rites.

Starting at the beginning, the Council specifically asked for the removal of the forty-second Psalm. Notice that the Council also asked for the removal of all the prayers at the foot of the altar (except, for some strange reason, during the first Mass of the day.)

In the prayers at the foot of the altar at the beginning of Mass Psalm 42 is omitted. All the prayers at the foot of the altar are omitted whenever there is another liturgical rite immediately preceding. (IE 48c.)

That’s a pretty familiar part of the Mass to almost anyone. It was de rigueur for Catholics to go down on their knees for the penitential prayers at the In Nomine. It’s a stark contrast to standing for a friendly greeting, followed by a truncated (see option C in the Novus Ordo) “confession.”

As far the conclusion of the Mass is concerned, the Council also called for the deletion of the Last Gospel and, at Low Mass, the prayers for the conversion of Russia:

The last gospel is omitted; the Leonine Prayers are suppressed. (IE 48j.)

This would surely constitute a noticeable difference, even for people who were barely interested in the Mass: “hey, look, we don’t have that long thing where we genuflect at the end. And we don’t have to kneel for all those prayers! We’ll be out of here in no time!” Meanwhile, Russia’s conversion must’ve been a quiet one.

Those who were attuned to what was happening at the altar might notice that the priest no longer goes through a flurry of signs of the cross, since the symbolic seven during the final doxology were removed:

Throughout the whole doxology the celebrant slightly elevates the chalice with the host, omitting the signs of the cross (IE 48f.)

Not to mention more than a dozen genuflections on the part of the priest (TA 7a-e). Many other symbolic gestures were removed. If “the vast majority of Catholics” wouldn’t notice these, they would at least be cognizant of the fact that they were saying the Our Father along with the priest (IE 48g).

Even though the Council of Trent anathematized the Canon being recited in a loud voice, Tres Abhinc Annos recommended it:

In Masses celebrated with a congregation, even when not concelebrated, the celebrant may say the Canon aloud. (TA 10)

Imagine the sacred and profound orisons of the most hallowed passage in the Missal—recited in sotto voce since time out of mind—suddenly given the same level of respect you’d find in any old Protestant chapel. This would have to be considered a noticeable departure.

All of this was undertaken, according to the Council, “in order that liturgical services may manifest a noble simplicity more attuned to the spirit of the times.” Which is why the Novus Ordo is a uniquely modern creation and the Tridentine Rite is obvious in its antiquity. The differences are striking.

It’s a common misconception that “the implementation of the Council’s directives was wrong” or “the Mass isn’t celebrated reverently.” Not true at all. Surely John Paul II (or especially everyone’s favorite, Benedict XVI) would know how to properly celebrate the Novus Ordo, but the visual record of papal masses (particularly the World Youth Day celebrations) demonstrates otherwise. Even the ultra-reverent EWTN masses, sprinkled with touches of Latin, are glaringly different from the true Roman Rite. So much for implementation. A great testament to this is that even the Anglican Use (culled almost entirely from the Book of Common Prayer) is far more “Tridentine” in its text and design than the Novus Ordo.

I appreciate your call for charity, Cathguy, and hopefully this post wasn’t too harsh by those standards. I, too, despair of the endless bickering over these issues. Personally, I give up. “It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.”

 

[cathguy]

Fraternal rebuke is an act of charity. Letting you continue in your error is an act of apathy.

Okay… I’ll bite

Lets say for the sake of argument that I have misrepresented the teachings of the Church.

Could you show me where concisely and without venom?

I would be curious to read it.

I notice from your posts you are in Stubenville. May I assume that you are at the University? Do you have a background in theology?

If so, I would remind you of some key central concepts:

1. The best theologians ask good questions. The key to not misrepresenting someone is asking questions. Make sure you understand where the people you are speaking with are coming from. I point out that you have consistently failed to meet this standard thus far in this thread. This isn’t a personal attack, its an observation from your posts.

Have you read G.K. Chesterton? He is my FAVORITE. Have you read Heretics?

It is amazing how charitable G.K. Chesterton is. His critique of Wells especially is so amazing… did you know that they were friends? I would challenge you, if you think me a heretic, to kindly try and treat me like G.K. Chesterton treated Wells. Reveal the weakness of my position without being rude. You think you are bold? I say you are acting in a fundamentally un-Catholic manner.

I assure you, you are being very abrasive… and rude… and more than one poster has noticed it.

I am open to fraternal correction. Go ahead and make your case.

I lay only one ground rule for this discussion:

WE MUST ANSWER EACH OTHERS QUESTIONS, and we must ask questions. Yelling at people isn’t bold. Its a sign of bullying. I am open to correction, so long as you are actually correcting what it is I am saying, not building strawmen to tear down.

Peace!

 

[cathguy]

I beg to differ. The Council itself called for massive changes. Most notable is the vernacular. This alone would account for a huge difference. But let’s consider the other changes that the Council called for. These are found in two liturgical documents: Inter Oecumenici, which the Council itself recommended to the Consilium, and Tres Abhinc Annos, which was an instruction from the Congregation of Rites.

Starting at the beginning, the Council specifically asked for the removal of the forty-second Psalm. Notice that the Council also asked for the removal of all the prayers at the foot of the altar (except, for some strange reason, during the first Mass of the day.)

That’s a pretty familiar part of the Mass to almost anyone. It was de rigueur for Catholics to go down on their knees for the penitential prayers at the In Nomine. It’s a stark contrast to standing for a friendly greeting, followed by a truncated (see option C in the Novus Ordo) “confession.”

As far the conclusion of the Mass is concerned, the Council also called for the deletion of the Last Gospel and, at Low Mass, the prayers for the conversion of Russia:

This would surely constitute a noticeable difference, even for people who were barely interested in the Mass: “hey, look, we don’t have that long thing where we genuflect at the end. And we don’t have to kneel for all those prayers! We’ll be out of here in no time!” Meanwhile, Russia’s conversion must’ve been a quiet one.

Those who were attuned to what was happening at the altar might notice that the priest no longer goes through a flurry of signs of the cross, since the symbolic seven during the final doxology were removed:

Not to mention more than a dozen genuflections on the part of the priest (TA 7a-e). Many other symbolic gestures were removed. If “the vast majority of Catholics” wouldn’t notice these, they would at least be cognizant of the fact that they were saying the Our Father along with the priest (IE 48g).

Even though the Council of Trent anathematized the Canon being recited in a loud voice, Tres Abhinc Annos recommended it:

Imagine the sacred and profound orisons of the most hallowed passage in the Missal—recited in sotto voce since time out of mind—suddenly given the same level of respect you’d find in any old Protestant chapel. This would have to be considered a noticeable departure.

All of this was undertaken, according to the Council, “in order that liturgical services may manifest a noble simplicity more attuned to the spirit of the times.” Which is why the Novus Ordo is a uniquely modern creation and the Tridentine Rite is obvious in its antiquity. The differences are striking.

It’s a common misconception that “the implementation of the Council’s directives was wrong” or “the Mass isn’t celebrated reverently.” Not true at all. Surely John Paul II (or especially everyone’s favorite, Benedict XVI) would know how to properly celebrate the Novus Ordo, but the visual record of papal masses (particularly the World Youth Day celebrations) demonstrates otherwise. Even the ultra-reverent EWTN masses, sprinkled with touches of Latin, are glaringly different from the true Roman Rite. So much for implementation. A great testament to this is that even the Anglican Use (culled almost entirely from the Book of Common Prayer) is far more “Tridentine” in its text and design than the Novus Ordo.

I appreciate your call for charity, Cathguy, and hopefully this post wasn’t too harsh by those standards. I, too, despair of the endless bickering over these issues. Personally, I give up. “It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.”

All excellent points brother!

Here is the thing though.

Vatican II did not call for the vernacular always and everywhere.

Imagine this: the Novus Ordo celebrated, in latin, ad orientem. I know a priest who did this, and then introduced the TLM in his parish. The laity were really confused when he said he was introducing the Latin Mass. “Don’t we already have this?” He had to explain… a lot.

You and I know about the prayers at the foot of the altar, the asperges, the rich prayers, the symbolism of the Gospel and Epistle sides of the altar, the altar stone, and on and on.

Your average Catholic today?

Absolutely no clue.

You can attend a so called “orthodox” Catholic college and not learn about any of these things.

Really.

It is that bad.

Let us work on charity though… especially with those who insist on being mean and belittling. It is the only way forward. Folks can see through the nonsense really well. People are smart. And they are waking up.

Patience brother. Things are getting better.

Peace.

 

[ProVobis]

I beg to differ. The Council itself called for massive changes. Most notable is the vernacular.

The council allowed for some vernacular. But first and foremost, it voted to retain Latin in the liturgy, which was in line with Pope John’s encyclical Veterum Sapientia.

 

[CWBetts]

The council allowed for some vernacular. But first and foremost, it voted to retain Latin in the liturgy, which was in line with Pope John’s encyclical Veterum Sapientia.

And what is your Vatican II document removing Psalm 42 and the Last Gospel again?

Those were changes that came after the council, and not from a council document. At any rate, this is a case of practice (which can change), and not dogma (which cannot)

 

[archangel04]

What’s always made me wonder is this, many Bishops and theologians (not all) were older, wiser, and deep rooted in the Faith, so how is it that this big change happen? It’s not like during the council they woke up one day and said hey why not do some changes and tweaking to our faith. It’s seems that maybe this problem started way before V2,perhaps as far back during the seminarian days of some of these people? I don’t have that proof, but it’s something to think about?

Also great point on the protestants, they have suffered great loss of membership, especially with newer generations.

 

[Adeodatus]

Vatican II did not take the Church ahead, but rather, took the Church closer to the Early Church.

The Early Church had Clown mass, liturgical dance, parishes controlled by radical Leftists, rampant heresy and dissent and touchy-feely-Protestant spirituality? Wow. That’s amazing.

So much for the hermeneutic of continuity…

 

[ProVobis]

Those were changes that came after the council, and not from a council document. At any rate, this is a case of practice (which can change), and not dogma (which cannot)

Practice, shmactice. The pastoral value of removing Psalm 42, the Last Gospel, and St. Michael’s Prayer was what again? Make the Mass move faster?

 

[CWBetts]

Practice, shmactice. The pastoral value of removing Psalm 42, the Last Gospel, and St. Michael’s Prayer were what again? Make the Mass move faster?

Is that your response? “Practice, shmactice?”

 

[ProVobis]

Is that your response?

Quod scripsi, scripsi.

 

[albertziggy]

The Early Church had Clown mass, liturgical dance, parishes controlled by radical Leftists, rampant heresy and dissent and touchy-feely-Protestant spirituality? Wow. That’s amazing.

So much for the hermeneutic of continuity…

Hahaha! You got me there!

 

[archangel04]

The Early Church had Clown mass, liturgical dance, parishes controlled by radical Leftists, rampant heresy and dissent and touchy-feely-Protestant spirituality? Wow. That’s amazing.

So much for the hermeneutic of continuity…

To be honest there has not been any proof on “clown Catholic masses.” Please don’t say to look at youtube, because all those pics are fake, or part of other denominations, i.e. Anglican & Episcopal. Has it occured? Maybe…and so have abuses, but it still could have happen in pre-v2

 

[CWBetts]

Quod scripsi, scripsi.

Sorry, I don’t know Latin. The point is just because you don’t like a change in practice does not make it invalid. The TLM is available. There is also the Novus Ordo, which is also valid. Something you have to accept is that practices change from time to time.

 

[Yggdrasil]

The council allowed for some vernacular. But first and foremost, it voted to retain Latin in the liturgy, which was in line with Pope John’s encyclical Veterum Sapientia.

Yes, of course, but with a huge caveat: that the vernacular be permitted. I don’t think think we need another discussion of modernist tactics, so it will probably suffice to say that the article written to “retain Latin in the liturgy” was … diplomatic, let’s say. After all, there were at least some conservative bishops who had to be placated.

Clause 2 contains everything necessary to create a massive loophole through which all innovation can pass:
SACROSANCTUM CONSILIUM (36):

1.Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

1. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.

In “subsequent chapters,” the loophole is widened:

1. In some places and circumstances, however, an even more radical adaptation of the liturgy is needed, and this entails greater difficulties.

1. And wherever a more extended use of the mother tongue within the Mass appears desirable, the regulation laid down in Art. 40 of this Constitution is to be observed.

This amounts to free reign, which was precisely what happened. All this before the Novus Ordo was even devised. It was a calculated campaign for incremental change: it was a turning up of the flame ever so slowly; the laity were the frog in the pot.

And what is your Vatican II document removing Psalm 42 and the Last Gospel again?

Inter Oecumenici. Although it was a document properly of the Congregation of Rites, it cites the Vatican II document Sacrosanctum Consilium §50 as its reason for removing those orisons, so apparently the Council considered them “elements which, with the passage of time, were added with but little advantage.”

Inter Oecumenici was fully approved by Paul VI and it was hardly controversial during the Council (which hadn’t yet concluded). If it wasn’t in line with what the Council Fathers intended, then it’s curious that it raised few hackles among the vast majority, nor was SC given reconsideration in light of the Consilium “running away with it”—an excuse that only surfaced much later.

 

[archangel04]

Practice, shmactice. The pastoral value of removing Psalm 42, the Last Gospel, and St. Michael’s Prayer was what again? Make the Mass move faster?

To be honest St. Michael’s prayer occurs after the mass, so it never really was part of it. Although I would be more than happy to see it come back and said in every church.

 

[fish90]

To take a different stance and one that is more optimistic, I want to point out the faithful Traditional Catholic groups out there today. Catholic.com and EWTN come to mind. Which Saint said something to the effect that persecution breeds Christians? Maybe these Christians today are those who listen and see questionable practices.

The problem with Vatican II is that we have not seen its fruits. Contrary to what people say, I cannot yield that the current NO follows Sacrosanctum Concilium. The fruits of Vatican II may be the purging and restoration of Catholic faithful in the long run.

I can bring up some other points, but this is a Traditional Catholic forum.

Best to all,
fish90