Defending the Novus Ordo Mass

[Pious_Mat]

I think that some of the points being discussed here are taken out of context.

First of all, we must consider Pope Paul VI’s intentions in promulgating the Pauline Missal. We all ought to remember how cloistered the Pope often was before John Paul II “opened the doors of the Vatican” and travelled the world. The Holy Father Paul would have hardly left Rome after his election to the Petrine office, a land of Missa Canatas, Vespers, and hundreds of priests bustling thorughout numerous chapels.

Paul VI probably envisioning a mass that was still said mostly in Latin (the Readings and Gospels being the most prominent part of the vernacular bits), versus orientum, with communion being recieved while kneeling and on the tongue.

All-English, Communion-grabbing, ad populum all the time, altar girl-using masses would probably not have met Pope Paul’s standard of approval, and none of the above are considered abuses.

And because he probably would have offered mass in Latin in the Vatican most of the time, and since St. Peter’s is unique in its ad populum structure, he probably would not have been completely aware of the abuses that were going on in the trenches.

That said, I deeply love the Tridentine Mass, but I also think that those who want a liturgy in vernacular ought to have this need met. However, I think that the NO ought to be revised to be more of an organic development of the liturgy.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

That said, I deeply love the Tridentine Mass, but I also think that those who want a liturgy in vernacular ought to have this need met. However, I think that the NO ought to be revised to be more of an organic development of the liturgy.

Do you know why they added 3 new eucharistic prayers? What was wrong with the old canon?

 

[tacitus]

first of all .to leave the chuch becasue one doesnt like the NO mass is very cafeteria. why not change rites then? the maronite rite is amazing. and very old. i prefer the tradentine but i go to daily NO. we must obey.
there was much that i did not like about the NO. until my spiritual director told me thats its not the NO its me. its my spiritual life my prayer life that was lacking not the mass. i found the tradentine and its perfect. bu the NO is perfect too. so is the maronite and other rites. a church i know has no kneelers so i take the time to make sure i spend alot of time kneeling on the floor when i pray there. good mortification. now i prefer to go there. the point is this. to disobey and leave the one true church because one doesnt like the mass is childish and dangerous. i implore those on this thrad that have left the church because of the lack of understanding of the NO to come back. go to confession. there is planty of rites in the catholic church for you to explore. to put ones soul at risk for likes and dislikes is-------
i hope this has found you well

 

[GerardP]

Matt,

There’s a few points of history that have to reconsidered.

First of all, we must consider Pope Paul VI’s intentions in promulgating the Pauline Missal. We all ought to remember how cloistered the Pope often was before John Paul II “opened the doors of the Vatican” and travelled the world. The Holy Father Paul would have hardly left Rome after his election to the Petrine office, a land of Missa Canatas, Vespers, and hundreds of priests bustling thorughout numerous chapels.

Paul VI was the first Pope to actually make papal trips. He chose the name Paul after the Apostle because he wanted to travel. He was known as “The Pilgrim Pope” because of this. JPII took his cues on travel from Paul VI.

But you are correct that Pope Montini was a creature of Roman custom both good and bad. This was why his pontificate was difficult for everyone (including him) he was very sympathetic to the idea of the Pope diminishing his influence in the name of collegiality. So he would not quash abuse and leave it to the bishops. But when he did see the need to correct, he would exercise papal authority. Then he would later reverse himself.

He originally promulgated the Novus Ordo as an option and then imtimated without ever legally that it was to be the standard liturgy.

John XXIII named him “Hamlet” because he was an indecisive and troubled man.

Paul VI probably envisioning a mass that was still said mostly in Latin (the Readings and Gospels being the most prominent part of the vernacular bits), versus orientum, with communion being recieved while kneeling and on the tongue.

Not only Paul VI but virtually every bishop at Vatican II. Cardinal Ottaviani said we were on the way to “all vernacular masses” and the halls filled with laughter.

All-English, Communion-grabbing, ad populum all the time, altar girl-using masses would probably not have met Pope Paul’s standard of approval, and none of the above are considered abuses.

Absolutely. Fr. Malachi Martin relates a story told to him by a prelate about Paul VI being dismayed at all the illicit changes being made in France. He believed he could not stop it.

And because he probably would have offered mass in Latin in the Vatican most of the time, and since St. Peter’s is unique in its ad populum structure, he probably would not have been completely aware of the abuses that were going on in the trenches.

That said, I deeply love the Tridentine Mass, but I also think that those who want a liturgy in vernacular ought to have this need met. However, I think that the NO ought to be revised to be more of an organic development of the liturgy.

If the texts were more explicitly Catholic, the vernacular in certain parts of the Mass would be fine. I remember that Archbishop LeFebvre said that the TLM in the vernacular was better than the Novus Ordo in Latin.

The Ottaviani Intervention is essential reading to understand this.

Also in English, the works of Micheal Davies show many of the problems. Cranmer’s Godly Order, Pope Paul’s New Mass and his later works like the booklet “Liturgical Shipwreck” and “Liturgical Time Bombs in Vatican II” are indispensible.

Or go to Keep the Faith and download some of his lectures.

 

[bear06]

Then you’ve never visited my parish, or Assumption Grotto (also near where I live).

Also, you have never visited St. Margaret Mary’s in the Oakland Diocese.

 

[GerardP]

first of all .to leave the chuch becasue one doesnt like the NO mass is very cafeteria. why not change rites then? the maronite rite is amazing. and very old. i prefer the tradentine but i go to daily NO. we must obey.

You are not always safe in another rite. I went to an Eastern priest and wound up in a conversation with him. Before the end of the discussion, he was telling me that there are no angels, there is no devil. Transubstantiation doesn’t accurately explain the reality of the Eucharist. The Filioque is incorrect, the Resurrection of the Body doesn’t matter. Oh, and everyone is saved.

there was much that i did not like about the NO. until my spiritual director told me thats its not the NO its me. its my spiritual life my prayer life that was lacking not the mass.

How do you know he wasn’t lying to you?

i found the tradentine and its perfect. bu the NO is perfect too. so is the maronite and other rites. a church i know has no kneelers so i take the time to make sure i spend alot of time kneeling on the floor when i pray there. good mortification. now i prefer to go there.

I suggest you read some of the works I’ve listed. None of them are by controversial people. None were censured even for political reasons and Michael Davies was a personal friend of Cardinal Ratzinger.

With regards to the mortification. You are making the best out of an abuse. (ie. removing the kneelers) but that doesn’t make the abuse a good thing. The lack of kneelers is meant to encourage disrespect and disbelief in God. That is never good.

he point is this. to disobey and leave the one true church because one doesnt like the mass is childish and dangerous.

You have to separate disobedience from leaving the Church. Not all disobedience separates one from the Church. St. Thomas Aquinas makes the distinctions among perfect, true and false obedience.

i implore those on this thrad that have left the church because of the lack of understanding of the NO to come back.

I agree with you here. But I think the Novus Ordo was designed to encourage people to leave the Church. Bugnini described 4 phases of the Novus Ordo. I think he only managed to get to phase two before his exile. But ultimately all ideas of the sacrifice of Christ were to be extinguished.

go to confession. there is planty of rites in the catholic church for you to explore. to put ones soul at risk for likes and dislikes is------- i hope this has found you well

Well said.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Ironically the Protestant Reformers also cut out the same prayers. They did it for doctrinal reasons. What a good compromise- saying we do it for brevity- but have them believe we do it for doctrinal changes.

Martin Luther would be proud of you son. He felt the same way as you do. It looks just like the last supper paintings now doesn’t it.

This charge is made by many but every Luthern parish I’ve been in has the pastor celebrating the liturgy ad orientum, not versus populum. If Luther said this, he certainly didn’t practice it.

Participate in what? The same thing Luther, Calvin and Zwingly believed in?

Luther believed in the real presence in a different way than we Catholics do and despised Zwingli and Calvin for their symbolic view of holy communion.

“More Loudly”? The reason prayers in the TLM are pronounced in a low tone are for a purpose. There are some parts of the Mass so sacred that a veil is purposely placed there to show the sacredness of what is happening.

Ken

Actually, my understanding is that the purpose of this was to demonstrate, emphatically, that the sacraments are valid ex opere operato. The priest doing the action without us hearing or seeing what’s going on is what makes the action sacramental.

I don’t know (and don’t care) what Zwingli or Calvin believed about the matter, but I know for a fact that Luther wanted the Words of Institution pronounced out loud because he believed that the faith of the receiver of the sacrament is what validated it and the words spoken are necessary for faith to come about (faith comes by hearing).

Now, as a Catholic, I believe what the Church teaches. I can attend both forms of the Holy Mass and benefit from both.

 

[Pious_Mat]

Thanks for the insight, Gerard.

I think that the Mass of Vatican II is about as much change as there ought to be brought about to the mass, and I still find that perhaps it isn’t just right.

Whatever mass is used in the vernacular, it needs to be close to the Tridentine Mass.

The first step would be to bring some points back to tradition, like communion on the tongue and versus orientum. This is probably what Pope Benedict is trying to do with the Motu Proprio–traditions from the Old slowly any needless innovations of the new.

 

[AJV]

Get a priest who does not believe, does not intend on doing what the Church does- and the Mass is invalid.

Get a priest who does not believe, does not intend and even the Traditional Mass would be invalid. You probably wouldn’t even know whether he said “Hoc est enim Corpus meum” or not.

The same words as Eucharistic Prayer #2 are being used by those who do not believe in what the Mass actually is, or what happens on the altar. (Anglicans, Episcopalians, Methodists and Lutherans I believe)

Actually not exactly. For example the Anglicans. This is a redaction of Hippolytus as found in Common Worship./ A few highlighted phrases (there are other differences also)

Lord, you are holy indeed, the source of all holiness;grant that by the power of your Holy Spirit, and according to your holy will, these gifts of bread and wine may be to us the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ

And so, Father, calling to mind his death on the cross, his perfect sacrifice made once for the sins of the whole world; rejoicing in his mighty resurrection and glorious ascension, and looking for his coming in glory, we celebrate this memorial of our redemption.

As we offer you this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, we bring before you this bread and this cup and we thank you for counting us worthy to stand in your presence and serve you.

Send the Holy Spirit on your people and gather into one in your kingdom all who share this one bread and one cup,

And this is Eucharistic Prayer II:

Let your Spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy, so that they may become for us the Body and Blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

In memory of his death and resurrection, we offer you, Father, this life-giving Bread, this saving Cup. We thank you for counting us worthy to stand in your presence and serve you.

May all of us who share in the Body and Blood of Christ be brought together in unity by the Holy Spirit.

“Life giving Bread” and “Saving Cup” are Eucharistic terms borrowed from the Roman Canon (they aren’t in the original Hippolytus) Also notice the “be to” versus “become for” in the epiclesis. “Be to” can also be thought of as “represents”, “become for” is not exactly open to that meaning.

Strangely enough, this similar tactic (similar prayer omit important phrases) was employed by a short-lived Lutheran liturgy in Sweden (fortunately they had a Latin version- I don’t understand Swedish).

Here for example is the beginning (I’ll try and put a document online tomorrow with the thing- its quite interesting):

Te igitur, clementissime Pater, per Iesum Christum, Filium tuum, Dominum nostrum, supplices rogamus ac petimus, **uti preces nostras acceptas habere easque exaudire digneris, **in primis, quae tibi offerimus pro Ecclesia tua sancta catholica: quam pacificare, custodire, adunare et regere digneris toto orbe terrarum: una cum **omni magistrate ecclesiastico et politico, cujuscumque dignatis praeeminentiae et nominis sint ** et omnibus orthodoxis atque catholicae et apostolicae fidei cultoribus.

The Tridentine (which you’re probably familiar with, but I’m just putting it for ease of comparison)

Te igitur, clementissme Pater, per Iesum Christum Filium tuum Dominum nostrum, supplices rogamus ac petimus uti accepta habeas, et benedicas, haec dona, haec munera, haec sancta sacrificia illibatain primis, quae tibi offerimus pro Ecclesia tua sancta catholica: quam pacificare, custodire, adunare, et regere digneris toto orbe terrarum: una cum **famulo tuo Papa nostro N. et Antistite nostro N., **et omnibus orthodoxis, atque catholicae, et apostolicae fidei cultoribus.

The same, it just has the oblationary language (and of course the reference to the Pope) snipped out.

Another part:

Nobis quoque peccatoribus famulis tuis, de multitudine miserationum tuarum sperantibus, partem aliquam et societatem donare digneris cum tuis sanctis Apostolis et Martyribus

[Canon adds here: cum Ioanne, Stephano, Matthia, Barnaba, Ignatio, Alexandro, Marcellino, Petro, Felicitate, Perpetua, Agatha, Lucia, Agnete, Caecilia, Anastasia]

et omnibus Sanctis tuis: intra quorum nos consortium, non aestimator meriti, sed veniae, quaesumus, largitor admitte. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Per quem haec omnia, Domine, semper bona creas, sanctificas, vivificas, benedicis, et praestas nobis. Per ipsum, et cum ipso, et in ipso, est tibi Deo Patri omnipotenti, in unitate Spiritus Sancti, omnis honor et gloria per omnia saecula saeculorum

 

[AJV]

Get a priest who does not believe, does not intend on doing what the Church does- and the Mass is invalid.

Get a priest who does not believe, does not intend and even the Traditional Mass would be invalid. You probably wouldn’t even know whether he said “Hoc est enim Corpus meum” or not.

The same words as Eucharistic Prayer #2 are being used by those who do not believe in what the Mass actually is, or what happens on the altar. (Anglicans, Episcopalians, Methodists and Lutherans I believe)

Actually not exactly. For example the Anglicans. This is a redaction of Hippolytus as found in Common Worship./ A few highlighted phrases (there are other differences also)

Lord, you are holy indeed, the source of all holiness;grant that by the power of your Holy Spirit, and according to your holy will, these gifts of bread and wine may be to us the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ

And so, Father, calling to mind his death on the cross, his perfect sacrifice made once for the sins of the whole world; rejoicing in his mighty resurrection and glorious ascension, and looking for his coming in glory, we celebrate this memorial of our redemption.

As we offer you this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, we bring before you this bread and this cup and we thank you for counting us worthy to stand in your presence and serve you.

Send the Holy Spirit on your people and gather into one in your kingdom all who share this one bread and one cup,

And this is Eucharistic Prayer II:

Let your Spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy, so that they may become for us the Body and Blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

In memory of his death and resurrection, we offer you, Father, this life-giving Bread, this saving Cup. We thank you for counting us worthy to stand in your presence and serve you.

May all of us who share in the Body and Blood of Christ be brought together in unity by the Holy Spirit.

“Life giving Bread” and “Saving Cup” are Eucharistic terms borrowed from the Roman Canon (they aren’t in the original Hippolytus) Also notice the “be to” versus “become for” in the epiclesis. “Be to” can also be thought of as “represents”, “become for” is not exactly open to that meaning.

Strangely enough, this similar tactic (similar prayer omit important phrases) was employed by a short-lived Lutheran liturgy in Sweden (fortunately they had a Latin version- I don’t understand Swedish).

Here for example is the beginning (I’ll try and put a document online tomorrow with the thing- its quite interesting):

Te igitur, clementissime Pater, per Iesum Christum, Filium tuum, Dominum nostrum, supplices rogamus ac petimus, **uti preces nostras acceptas habere easque exaudire digneris, **in primis, quae tibi offerimus pro Ecclesia tua sancta catholica: quam pacificare, custodire, adunare et regere digneris toto orbe terrarum: una cum **omni magistrate ecclesiastico et politico, cujuscumque dignatis praeeminentiae et nominis sint ** et omnibus orthodoxis atque catholicae et apostolicae fidei cultoribus.

The Tridentine (which you’re probably familiar with, but I’m just putting it for ease of comparison)

Te igitur, clementissme Pater, per Iesum Christum Filium tuum Dominum nostrum, supplices rogamus ac petimus uti accepta habeas, et benedicas, haec dona, haec munera, haec sancta sacrificia illibatain primis, quae tibi offerimus pro Ecclesia tua sancta catholica: quam pacificare, custodire, adunare, et regere digneris toto orbe terrarum: una cum **famulo tuo Papa nostro N. et Antistite nostro N., **et omnibus orthodoxis, atque catholicae, et apostolicae fidei cultoribus.

The same, it just has the oblationary language (and of course the reference to the Pope) snipped out.

Another part:

Nobis quoque peccatoribus famulis tuis, de multitudine miserationum tuarum sperantibus, partem aliquam et societatem donare digneris cum tuis sanctis Apostolis et Martyribus

[Canon adds here: cum Ioanne, Stephano, Matthia, Barnaba, Ignatio, Alexandro, Marcellino, Petro, Felicitate, Perpetua, Agatha, Lucia, Agnete, Caecilia, Anastasia]

et omnibus Sanctis tuis: intra quorum nos consortium, non aestimator meriti, sed veniae, quaesumus, largitor admitte. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Per quem haec omnia, Domine, semper bona creas, sanctificas, vivificas, benedicis, et praestas nobis. Per ipsum, et cum ipso, et in ipso, est tibi Deo Patri omnipotenti, in unitate Spiritus Sancti, omnis honor et gloria per omnia saecula saeculorum

 

[Mickey]

VII and the NO continues to mutate the Latin church. The following article is disturbing and makes me very sad for my Catholic brethren. Pope Benedict really has his work cut out for him.

chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/170066?eng=y

 

[RomanRevert]

VII and the NO continues to mutate the Latin church. The following article is disturbing and makes me very sad for my Catholic brethren. Pope Benedict really has his work cut out for him.

chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/170066?eng=y

Absolutely nauseating. While the NO in and of itself certainly does not promote this type of apostate service (it is certainly no Mass), I feel that it facilitates or encourages it to a certain degree - far too many options, terrible translations out of the Latin, etc. This is where the “Spirit of Vatican 2” has lead this particular church and others, I am afraid, and why it must be stopped. There is certainly no room for this type of buffoonery in the documents of Vatican 2. wow. Are there any Bishops worth their salt in Holland that have enough of a spine to stop this? Fortunately, this is by far the exception and not the rule. the problem is that it make us all look foolish and it blurs the message of the Church by muddying Her waters with heresy. Nauseating. Ugh!

 

[stmaria]

Absolutely nauseating. While the NO in and of itself certainly does not promote this type of apostate service (it is certainly no Mass), I feel that it facilitates or encourages it to a certain degree - far too many options, terrible translations out of the Latin, etc. This is where the “Spirit of Vatican 2” has lead this particular church and others, I am afraid, and why it must be stopped. There is certainly no room for this type of buffoonery in the documents of Vatican 2. wow. Are there any Bishops worth their salt in Holland that have enough of a spine to stop this? Fortunately, this is by far the exception and not the rule. the problem is that it make us all look foolish and it blurs the message of the Church by muddying Her waters with heresy. Nauseating. Ugh!

In 1974 Archbishop Bugnini explained that his reform had been divided into four stages. His fourth stage was the adaptation or “incarnation” liturgy into the usages and mentality of each individual Church. In other words, he envisioned a day when each individual parish would have its own liturgy according to the local customs.
That is what your are seeing happen in Holland as discribed in the article. Bugnini was removed form his position in 1975 before he could personally implement his plan. Others took up his cause and that is why you see “creativity” in the liturgy throughout the world.
The article mentions Father Edward Schillebeeckx. He was one of the experts at Vatican II along with Hans Kung. Both have heretical views on the Church yet neither has been excommunicated. It makes you wonder why?

 

[Mickey]

Absolutely nauseating. While the NO in and of itself certainly does not promote this type of apostate service (it is certainly no Mass), I feel that it facilitates or encourages it to a certain degree - far too many options, terrible translations out of the Latin, etc. This is where the “Spirit of Vatican 2” has lead this particular church and others, I am afraid, and why it must be stopped. There is certainly no room for this type of buffoonery in the documents of Vatican 2. wow. Are there any Bishops worth their salt in Holland that have enough of a spine to stop this? Fortunately, this is by far the exception and not the rule. the problem is that it make us all look foolish and it blurs the message of the Church by muddying Her waters with heresy. Nauseating. Ugh!

Yes. This turns my stomach also.

 

[Mickey]

The article mentions Father Edward Schillebeeckx. He was one of the experts at Vatican II along with Hans Kung. Both have heretical views on the Church yet neither has been excommunicated. It makes you wonder why?

Why indeed!

 

[Neil_Anthony]

You guys misinterpret Vatican II just as badly as the people who created this service. Stop blaming Vatican II for things it didn’t do. Sure, the people who do this kind of heresy were probably all for Vatican II, but that doesn’t make Vatican II bad. They misinterpret Vatican II, but if you are blaming what they do on Novus Ordo or V2, then you’re misinterpreting it as well.

V2 adapted the Liturgy to modern situations and thinking to a reasonable extent as allowed by the Holy Spirit. Of course complete abandonment of the faith in the name of modernism is wrong. So is rejecting the guidance of the Holy Spirit through Vatican 2.

In 1974 Archbishop Bugnini explained that his reform had been divided into four stages. His fourth stage was the adaptation or “incarnation” liturgy into the usages and mentality of each individual Church. In other words, he envisioned a day when each individual parish would have its own liturgy according to the local customs.
That is what your are seeing happen in Holland as discribed in the article. Bugnini was removed form his position in 1975 before he could personally implement his plan. Others took up his cause and that is why you see “creativity” in the liturgy throughout the world.
The article mentions Father Edward Schillebeeckx. He was one of the experts at Vatican II along with Hans Kung. Both have heretical views on the Church yet neither has been excommunicated. It makes you wonder why?

 

[Mickey]

You guys misinterpret Vatican II just as badly as the people who created this service. Stop blaming Vatican II for things it didn’t do. Sure, the people who do this kind of heresy were probably all for Vatican II, but that doesn’t make Vatican II bad. They misinterpret Vatican II, but if you are blaming what they do on Novus Ordo or V2, then you’re misinterpreting it as well.

V2 adapted the Liturgy to modern situations and thinking to a reasonable extent as allowed by the Holy Spirit. Of course complete abandonment of the faith in the name of modernism is wrong. So is rejecting the guidance of the Holy Spirit through Vatican 2.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I see it differently. Misinterpretation of V2 is the reason there are so many abuses and heresies in the Church today. It seems that Rome can no longer reign it in–it is spiraling out of control. Once you begin the process of “modernization”, (or adapting the Liturgy to modern situations as you label it), it sets the fire ablaze. And the fire is out of control. There are countless “Catholic” retreat centers now teaching things such as reiki, mandalas, enneagram, eco-spirituality, sophia worship, and wiccan-like rituals. There are popular movements within the Catholic Church promoting women’s ordination. Gender-neutral language has been adopted and supported by the majority of U.S bishops (it was recently adopted by the Byzantine Catholic Church). The list goes on. How will Rome stop this? You can continue to say that this is not the “official” teaching of the church, but it gets to place where the people no longer know the official teaching of the church because their pastors and bishops teach something different. I ask again. How will Rome stop all this nonsense?

 

[RomanRevert]

You guys misinterpret Vatican II just as badly as the people who created this service. Stop blaming Vatican II for things it didn’t do. Sure, the people who do this kind of heresy were probably all for Vatican II, but that doesn’t make Vatican II bad. They misinterpret Vatican II, but if you are blaming what they do on Novus Ordo or V2, then you’re misinterpreting it as well.

V2 adapted the Liturgy to modern situations and thinking to a reasonable extent as allowed by the Holy Spirit. Of course complete abandonment of the faith in the name of modernism is wrong. So is rejecting the guidance of the Holy Spirit through Vatican 2.

Well, this begs the question then (and perhaps this should be another thread) … what is the probability that abuses such as these and those listed in other threads would have occurred had Vatican 2 NOT occurred? I realized that it is speculation but what are your feelings about that? If I dig a hole in the back yard and you fall into it, I may not have inteded you to fall into it, I may not have pushed you into, but you still fell into the hole. Had I not dug the hole, you would not have fallen into it. Maybe that is a bad analagy, but that is how I view Vatican 2 in this particular sense.

 

[AJV]

Well, this begs the question then (and perhaps this should be another thread) … what is the probability that abuses such as these and those listed in other threads would have occurred had Vatican 2 NOT occurred? I realized that it is speculation but what are your feelings about that? If I dig a hole in the back yard and you fall into it, I may not have inteded you to fall into it, I may not have pushed you into, but you still fell into the hole. Had I not dug the hole, you would not have fallen into it. Maybe that is a bad analagy, but that is how I view Vatican 2 in this particular sense.

The hole was being dug before Vatican II and IMO the digging would have continued. Only it wouldn’t have being able to claim the support of bishops or the instructions of a Council - it would have just been Papal fiat.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I see it differently. Misinterpretation of V2 is the reason there are so many abuses and heresies in the Church today. It seems that Rome can no longer reign it in–it is spiraling out of control. Once you begin the process of “modernization”, (or adapting the Liturgy to modern situations as you label it), it sets the fire ablaze. And the fire is out of control. There are countless “Catholic” retreat centers now teaching things such as reiki, mandalas, enneagram, eco-spirituality, sophia worship, and wiccan-like rituals. There are popular movements within the Catholic Church promoting women’s ordination. Gender-neutral language has been adopted and supported by the majority of U.S bishops (it was recently adopted by the Byzantine Catholic Church). The list goes on. How will Rome stop this? You can continue to say that this is not the “official” teaching of the church, but it gets to place where the people no longer know the official teaching of the church because their pastors and bishops teach something different. I ask again. How will Rome stop all this nonsense?

Now that the Tridentine mass is back, I’m sure they’ll be printing an updated missal where they’ll correct the proper of saints calendar. While they’re at it they can update the english translation, which of course will be gender-neutral.

See, they’re two different things. I suspect people like the TLM because it’s like a time capsule from 1962. They want to go back to a time before so many Catholics fell away from the true faith.

The priests can’t preach the simple truth because most of their congregation would get up and leave. They’re preaching at the level of the people they have. It’s not the priests who introduced sophia worship and the push for female priests, it’s the people.

And if they banned the Novus Ordo today, how would that would stop retreat houses from teaching reiki and all that stuff? What’s the connection?