Confusion on Liturgical Obedience and the Truth of Vatican II...Need Some Guidance

[Antonius_Lupus]

Dear brethren and friends,

I really need to knock around some ideas for a little while. Basically, I want to get some ideas from the smart people on this forum regarding what I feel is a deep liturgical “impasse” I have hit of late.

Let me first describe my position:

I have come to believe that Vatican II was one of the greatest Councils in the history of the Church. I see it as a restoration and renewal of the Church within her own Tradition in order to better engage the modern world. In particular, I believe Sacrosanctum Concilium’s liturgical directives and calls for reform of the Roman Liturgy was a God-send. For me, the subsequent reforms that culminated in the Mass of Paul VI represent a restoration to the Roman Rite of her ancient and Patristic form. I see it as a wonderful renewal of the pre-medieval Roman Rite (and hence the form of the Roman Rite before it was so deeply influenced by non-Roman Western liturgies). I attend the Extraordinary Form, I believe it is sacred and more than valid, but I see it as departing from a more “purely Roman” (for lack of a MUCH better description) liturgical tradition.

In a lot of ways I’m kind of an Ultramontanist about all this in that I believe that child-like obedience should be given to the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council and the subsequent acts of the Supreme Pontiffs (including Pope Benedict’s Summorum Pontificum). Even still, I fully accept both forms of the Mass as holy, sacred, and acceptable celebrations of the Roman Rite.

Anyway, my view is not always accepted. Dom Alcuin Reid, Monsignor Klaus Gamber, pre-Pope Benedict, and many others eminent liturgical scholars seriously criticize the liturgical reform and even the liturgical principles of Vatican II itself. This really bothers me because it reminds me of my Protestant past, as we too criticized the Catholic Church for departing from our view of past Christianity. I find it difficult to understand how one can openly disagree with the teachings of an Ecumenical Council.

Can someone please explain to me here how one can be a good Catholic while believing the Mass of Paul VI flawed. It’s almost as if you can hate the Mass of Paul VI all you want just as long as you don’t say it’s invalid. (NOT accusing anyone of course!)

Also: am I wrong in believing that the Mass of Paul VI was a true restoration of the Roman Rite and from the Holy Spirit? Am I wrong to bow my head to Sacrosanctum Concilium as accept it as if it was the Spirit Himself speaking?

I believe that Jesus will never fault us for trusting in the Magisterium “too much.” But am I wrong about that??

It’s all really confusing….

 

[FAB]

Can someone please explain to me here how one can be a good Catholic while believing the Mass of Paul VI flawed. It’s almost as if you can hate the Mass of Paul VI all you want just as long as you don’t say it’s invalid. (NOT accusing anyone of course!)

Also: am I wrong in believing that the Mass of Paul VI was a true restoration of the Roman Rite and from the Holy Spirit? Am I wrong to bow my head to Sacrosanctum Concilium as accept it as if it was the Spirit Himself speaking?

I believe that Jesus will never fault us for trusting in the Magisterium “too much.” But am I wrong about that??

It’s all really confusing….

I am a strong believer and supporter of VII and the OF of the mass. You are not wrong in believing the mass is a restoration of the Roman Rite which did come from the Holy Spirit.

There are those who do not like the reforms of the mass, but the vast majority have accepted them and embrace them. You are not wrong in trusting the Magisterium. You need to understand coming to this site is like taking a concetrated dose of traditionalism. Take the comments in that vain and remember we are one Church. It is the tree from the mustard seed, many kinds of birds find shelter in it’s branches.

Dcn FAB

 

[Servus_Rosarium]

Can someone please explain to me here how one can be a good Catholic while believing the Mass of Paul VI flawed.

The promulgation of the current Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite by the Church ensures the validity of the Holy Sacrifice. However it doesn’t place the liturgy above criticism. If it did one would have to ask how the Fathers at the Second Vatican Council could have been good Catholics whilist beliving the current Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite was flawed and in need of “restoration”.

Also: am I wrong in believing that the Mass of Paul VI was a true restoration of the Roman Rite and from the Holy Spirit?

Yes.

 

[Barbkw]

I attend Mass for the Eucharist. These EF/OF discussions are rediculous to me.

 

[Servus_Rosarium]

I attend Mass for the Eucharist. These EF/OF discussions are rediculous to me.

What is the Mass?

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

I am a strong believer and supporter of VII and the OF of the mass. You are not wrong in believing the mass is a restoration of the Roman Rite which did come from the Holy Spirit.

There are those who do not like the reforms of the mass, but the vast majority have accepted them and embrace them. You are not wrong in trusting the Magisterium. You need to understand coming to this site is like taking a concetrated dose of traditionalism. Take the comments in that vain and remember we are one Church. It is the tree from the mustard seed, many kinds of birds find shelter in it’s branches.

Dcn FAB

Thank you for the words, Deacon.

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

Yes.

Well that doesn’t really help much, LOL. Maybe some more info.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

What is the Mass?

It might be said to be the outward form that clothes the Holy Sacrifice, not the actual Holy Sacrifice Itself, though it facilitates and accomplishes it. As such, it is perfectly acceptable to prefer the context (or clothing) of either the EF or the OF.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Also: am I wrong in believing that the Mass of Paul VI was a true restoration of the Roman Rite and from the Holy Spirit? Am I wrong to bow my head to Sacrosanctum Concilium as accept it as if it was the Spirit Himself speaking?

Well, yes, historically speaking, the first part would be incorrect. As for the second, I’m don’t think EITHER form came about as a word-for-word dictate of the Holy Spirit. Both forms have antecedants that are rooted in Apostolic practice, of course. What is most important to remember (and what you’ve alluded to) is this: both forms exist by the proper authority. I prefer to attend the OF because I prefer to hear the canon and I prefer the Mass in my own tongue. I also think there is a “noble austerity” to the OF that is appealing. But the OF wasn’t really a restoration (and to insist on that is to be guilty of antiquarianism, condemned by Pius XII…of course, both forms have devotees that are guilty of that).

 

[Servus_Rosarium]

It might be said to be the outward form that clothes the Holy Sacrifice, not the actual Holy Sacrifice Itself, though it facilitates and accomplishes it. As such, it is perfectly acceptable to prefer the context (or clothing) of either the EF or the OF.

It is the Holy Sacrifice. It’s simply re-presented in a bloodless manner. But it is still one and the same as that of the Cross at Calvary. However the Ordinary Form fails to accomplish the presentation of the mystery by supplanting it with a Last Supper narrative and community get-together.

 

[YoungTradCath]

It is the Holy Sacrifice. It’s simply re-presented in a bloodless manner. But it is still one and the same as that of the Cross at Calvary. However the Ordinary Form fails to accomplish the presentation of the mystery by supplanting it with a Last Supper narrative and community get-together.

Well, I don’t think anyone will argue that the Epistle reading, for example, is the sacrifice. That’s what he means, I think.

 

[Ohana]

It is the Holy Sacrifice. It’s simply re-presented in a bloodless manner. But it is still one and the same as that of the Cross at Calvary. However the Ordinary Form fails to accomplish the presentation of the mystery by supplanting it with a Last Supper narrative and community get-together.

Hmm, Have you really listened dto the Eucharistic Prayer before the Consecration?

 

[FrDavid96]

Dear brethren and friends,
…

It’s all really confusing….

Part of the reason why you might be confused is because there are marked differences between what the Second Vatican Council actually said and actually meant (on the one hand) and what has become the experience of many Catholics post-council (on the other hand).

Unfortunately, the vast majority of what many people call the changes (or reforms, or whatever) of Vatican II are not at all in harmony with the Council documents. In a certain sense, we can say that Catholics have 2 different realities each claiming to be Vatican II. We have the actual teaching of the Council, and we have the “Vatican II says…” teaching. These are often very different, and often even contradictory.

Like most Catholics, I have heard the words “Vatican Two says…” followed by just about anything the speaker would like to insert into the sentence.

This is true not only of people who identify as “liberals” but also of those who identify as “conservative.”

We have all heard over and over again things like “Vatican Two prohibited Mass in Latin” or “Vatican Two says that we can change the Mass however we please” or “Vatican Two says that we have to remove the statues or altar rails from the churches” or “Vatican Two says that we must do face-to-face Confession” We’ve all heard them. And in many cases, it’s only in more recent times that the “average” Catholic is just now learning that these statements are simply untrue.

As more and more people have been introduced to the actual documents of the Council (something that DID NOT happen in the 60s and 70s, when Catholics only read commentary about the Council, even priests and seminarians) we’ve seen a shift in vocabulary to “The spirit of Vatican Two says…” and again, insert whatever pleases the speaker.

The good news is that today, under the leadership of Bl John Paul II and Benedict XVI we are finally able to remove ourselves from the “excitement” of the Council and begin to actually realize and understand the fruits of the Council. In many ways, we are doing this for the first time in the present day.

The Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI is a completely valid and completely licit Mass. There is no doubt about that.

However, there is nothing wrong with examining it critically and even, on occasion, recognizing that the Missal text (both words and rubrics) is not without its shortcomings in terms of following the actual reforms of the Council. We can do this in a scholarly, adult, and civilized way without denying either the legitimacy or the efficacy of that Missal. We can even do so without being disobedient to the Church.

Remember that the form of the Mass which we now call the Ordinary Form was not promulgated by Vatican II. It happened years later, after the Council was long closed. It is not, as many often refer to it, “the Mass of Vatican II” it would be much more accurate to simply call it “the Mass promulgated after Vatican II”

There is a difference between “disagreeing with Vatican II” and disagreeing with what others mistakenly (or falsely) claim to be the teaching of Vatican II. That’s an important point.

You’ve said that you are struggling with the issue of how some people can claim to be faithful Catholics and yet critical of Vatican II:

First, the ones who are truly critical of Vatican II are not faithful Catholics. These are mostly people who exaggerate what the Council said, or who confuse the misunderstandings of others (like those who say remove all the statues) with the Council itself. Most of these people are on the religious fringe. They are not what one would call “mainstream” Catholics, and indeed in the extreme, many of them are not even practicing Catholics anymore.

Next, there are those who accept the Council, but who criticize what happened to the Church after the Council. There is a difference. They can still be faithful Catholics–and indeed, most of them are very faithful Catholics.

The best example I can give of this is Pope Benedict himself. As Cardinal, he offered some scholarly criticism of the Missal of Pope Paul VI with regard to the placement of the exchange of peace. Then-Cardinal Ratzinger gives us an example of how we can discuss critically the Missal in a civil atmosphere without being disobedient to the Church or to the Council. He did not (most certainly not) say that the Missal is illicit or invalid, but he did present his own views on how it could have been done better. There’s nothing wrong with this, and one does not have to be a Cardinal to engage in such discussions.

In summary, most of the confusion about Vatican II is not about being a good Catholic and following the teachings of the Council. The confusion (and the challenge) is separating the wheat from the chaff. The wheat is the true Vatican II. The chaff, worthy of nothing but to be thrown into the fire, is all of the falsehoods which many people claim to be the teachings of the Council.

 

[Servus_Rosarium]

Hmm, Have you really listened dto the Eucharistic Prayer before the Consecration?

Have you read the Roman Canon of the Extraordinary Form in comparison?

 

[Windmill]

Anyway, my view is not always accepted. Dom Alcuin Reid, Monsignor Klaus Gamber, pre-Pope Benedict, and many others eminent liturgical scholars seriously criticize the liturgical reform and even the liturgical principles of Vatican II itself. This really bothers me because it reminds me of my Protestant past, as we too criticized the Catholic Church for departing from our view of past Christianity. I find it difficult to understand how one can openly disagree with the teachings of an Ecumenical Council.

The Council never issued any anathemas or canons (things which bind Catholics to reject or accept, respectively). The liturgical reforms are not teachings of the Council that are infallible. That does not mean that we should treat them as worthless, but what it does mean is that they are open to scholarly debate…and that is what the two men you listed above are doing (or, in Gamber’s case, what he did).

I trust the critical opinions of Reid and Gamber more than the ultra-traditionalists who insinuate more devious motives. Reid and Gamber do not. In fact, they engage the topic of liturgical reform in a very loyal fashion.

As a side note, the magnum opus of Gamber was the book, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, and the preface to the French edition was written by Cardinal Ratzinger. If Pope Benedict sees nothing wrong with Gamber’s treatment of the liturgical reform, then maybe we should too.

There is an honest debate going on about the fruits of the liturgical reform. Calling into question some of the choices that were made is a far cry from calling into question the indefectibility of the Church. The Church has had this ongoing debate for centuries. It should not be a cause of scandal for you at all.

So relax (and let the professionals, ie. the hierarchy, continue the work of reforming the rites). It’s not our job to be liturgical policemen. We’re called to holiness, and the liturgy is a gift from the Church. It’s their job to preserve and modify the rites as need dictates. It is our job as laymen to pray and spread the Gospel to the world that badly needs to hear it.