H
Holly3278
Guest
Hi everyone. Could Vatican II have been wrong in instituting the Novus Ordo Mass? I am not sure about this. Please provide me with a fairly simple answer that a laywoman could understand. Thanks.
Could Vatican II have been wrong in implementing the Novus Ordo Mass?
- Status
C
chrisb
Guest
Vatican II didn’t institute the Novus Ordo Mass…
W
WhollyRoamin
Guest
Speaking academically: yes, that is a possibility.
The 1970 Novus Ordo Missae is not exactly the Mass of Vatican 2-- there is an older, more obscure Mass-- from 1965 (coreyzelinski.8m.com/1965_Mass/) that looks like a blend of the 1962 TLM and the 1970 NOM. People look back on it now as a “transitional Mass” (though it’s not historically correct to call it that) that is actually closer to Sacrosanctum Concilum than the Bughini Mass that developed into what we’re used to seeing in the round spaceship parishes of 21st Century Catholicism.
H
Holly3278
Guest
Then when and how was it instituted?
A
ASD
Guest
Do you mean did they lack the authority? Or do you mean was it foolish? Or do you mean did they make changes that were intended to accomplish certain goals, but haven’t succeeded very well?
Please clarify.
ASD
Traditional Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar
W
WhollyRoamin
Guest
The Novus Ordo Mass that we’re used to came from 1970, when Archbishop Bughini offered a “New Order of the Mass” which Pope Paul VI signed off on.Then when and how was it instituted?
People call it the Mass of Vatican 2, but it’s not historically correct to call it that.
A
ASD
Guest
By a committee between roughly 1965 and 1969. All the council did was spell out guidelines in a document called the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.Then when and how was it instituted?
ASD
Traditional Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar
G
Genesis315
Guest
As has been pointed out, the 1970 Missal was promulgated by Pope Paul VI. A slightly revised edition was promulgated in 2002 by Pope John Paul II.
The question depends on what is meant by “was it wrong?” As a prudential decision of the Pope, you will find folks on both sides of the fence–some are of the opinion that it was a good idea, some not. Either is a permissable position for Catholics.
Now, if what is meant is that particular missal is somehow sinful or harmful to souls in and of itself, I don’t think that is an acceptable position for Catholics who are in full communion with the Apostolic See–although it is a position certainly held by some individuals and groups.
The question depends on what is meant by “was it wrong?” As a prudential decision of the Pope, you will find folks on both sides of the fence–some are of the opinion that it was a good idea, some not. Either is a permissable position for Catholics.
Now, if what is meant is that particular missal is somehow sinful or harmful to souls in and of itself, I don’t think that is an acceptable position for Catholics who are in full communion with the Apostolic See–although it is a position certainly held by some individuals and groups.
P
PJM
Guest
No, for the following reason.
Vatican II only desired “more active participation.” It was carefully defined as more as better participation in responces and improved singing, and a much greater emphasis on the Word of God.
The Holy Spirit monitors, enlightens and guide declared Magistrium Teachings, to put them on a authority level equal to Offical Teaching by The Pope. Indeed, the Pope must sign off on all of these documents before they are released. That they are binding on all, even those who choose not to accept the teachings.
The many problems with the Novus Ordo Mass today, is not a result of Vatican II, changes or mandates. Rather they stem from a American catholic church that is effectively in Schism, led by a great many american Bishops who thought that they knew better and knew more than their Pope and the Vatican II Fathers.
Not one of the following innovations was Vatiacan II authorized.
Removal of Communion rails
Communion under both species
Communion in the hand
Altar girls
Lay Lectors
Ordinary ministers of Holy Communion
Removal of the Reservation tabernacle to rooms, that streach the imagination, to be termed “a chapel.” Indeed their is a Vatican II
document that claims that a chapel is not mandated.
From theses errors, others have given birth.
Varican neither mandated or invisioned that the NO would effectively change our Worship from God centerd, to Community, and meal centered.
God bless you
PJM m.c.
BVM please lead us to your Son Jesus
I
I_Believe
Guest
Thanks for that link.
Just an aside, it appears the US bishops didn’t take long to introduce changes.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
pgs 2-3
i193.photobucket.com/albums/z256/hwjennings1/church%20stuff/mustangbas056.jpg
pg 4
i193.photobucket.com/albums/z256/hwjennings1/church%20stuff/mustangbas054.jpg
W
weepixie71
Guest
i cant say that i would consider what vatican II wrong because we all know that dogma wasnt changed. i feel it is important to remember that Jesus promised what is bound on earth is bound in heaven. God will always protect His church.
though, i did used to bartend. and a mason told me when he found out i was a traditional catholic. that the mason’s celebrated and rejoiced the day vatican II passed.
i feel the catholic church tried so hard to welcome the protestant, making the church a community, and worried entertaining the parishioners because they were growing bored, that we forgot how lucky we are to be catholic and how lucky we are (or were) to have our traditions
just my opinion
though, i did used to bartend. and a mason told me when he found out i was a traditional catholic. that the mason’s celebrated and rejoiced the day vatican II passed.
i feel the catholic church tried so hard to welcome the protestant, making the church a community, and worried entertaining the parishioners because they were growing bored, that we forgot how lucky we are to be catholic and how lucky we are (or were) to have our traditions
just my opinion
I
I_Believe
Guest
Have you read the Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita ?
F
Frosty
Guest
For curiousitie’s sake, just what are the changes shown in your links? I have tucked into my old 1959 St. Joseph Daily Missal a four page booklet, exactly the same as the pages shown in the links. The booklets were handed out sometime during Vatican II * so that the parishoner’s would know when to say the responses . And. I am not an American so it wasn’t just in the U.S.*
W
weepixie71
Guest
no i havent. but i do know masons are far from friends of the catholic church and nothing would please them more than to see it destroyed
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
i find it very beautifull. i have not seen much of those prayers anywhere. i find the Mass of today rushed and very few words of praises to our Lord. i just dont understand why give up something so beautiful as that Mass on this website.
Peace.
P
PJM
Guest
Deacon a very perceptive question:tiphat:
Actually I said what I meant, because what I meant was: everyday, in darn near every church can hardly be termed, logically, as “extrodinary.”
What we have is “ordianry” ministers of the Most Blessed Sacrament, while Rome, even with the indult, desires “Extrodinary.”
Actually what Rome would like is a return to the “Ordinary” ministers of the sacred Species, by those Ordained (and I think), ordained by God Himself) to do so.
Taking this trinity of abuses: communion in the hand, communion under both species, and distrubtion by laity, are the very root cause of the Sacred Liturgy having a “new” horizonal emphasis.
This too was no accident:blush:
Specail blessing s ot you Deacon, and thanks for all that you do for us.
D
DavidPalm
Guest
It would be permitted for a faithful Catholic to take the view that, on the whole, it would have been better for the Novus Ordo Mass not to have been promulgated, that on the whole it was a prudential mistake. There’s nothing contrary to our Faith in that.
M
Monica4316
Guest
Some things that we see today were not a result of Vatican II but an incorrect interpretation of VII. The Council was lead by the Holy Spirit, it is not wrong. The changes were just taken too far, beyond what the Council said.
It would be helpful to remember that this pretty much happened after EVERY council ever.
there’s always a period of confusion afterwards, and it takes time to find a balance. We’re blessed to have a Pope who loves tradition as well and I believe with time things would improve.
btw… someone said that much of the Church in America is in schism? I don’t think this is true… even if there are mistakes, it doesn’t mean it’s in schism, that’s a serious thing to say… when someone is in schism they are no longer in the Church and it’s wrong to take Communion with them! and btw, there are traditionalists that are in schism, such as SSPX…
God bless
It would be helpful to remember that this pretty much happened after EVERY council ever.
there’s always a period of confusion afterwards, and it takes time to find a balance. We’re blessed to have a Pope who loves tradition as well and I believe with time things would improve.btw… someone said that much of the Church in America is in schism? I don’t think this is true… even if there are mistakes, it doesn’t mean it’s in schism, that’s a serious thing to say… when someone is in schism they are no longer in the Church and it’s wrong to take Communion with them! and btw, there are traditionalists that are in schism, such as SSPX…
God bless
I
I_Believe
Guest
- Status