Help to make sense of Vatican II and New Mass Controversy

[dmar198]

See the above. If it’s dangerous to souls, is it valid?

The SSPX USA position seems to come down to this: the New Mass is sometimes valid, sometimes not, but in either case, it’s so bad you shouldn’t go to it even if it’s the only Mass in your area. Based on that, what does it matter if it’s sometimes valid? You won’t be there anyway. (According to them.)

 

[john81]

The SSPX USA position seems to come down to this: the New Mass is sometimes valid, sometimes not, but in either case, it’s so bad you shouldn’t go to it even if it’s the only Mass in your area. Based on that, what does it matter if it’s sometimes valid? You won’t be there anyway. (According to them.)

I think you sum it up well. But the original statement that they hold all OF to be invalid is not true. That was all I wanted to clarify. I think they are also saying they have no authority to declare it invalid, which is also true.

 

[john81]

As my question might show, I still have a bunch to learn about the Catholic church so I appreciate any help and guidance

As per the title, why do these controversies exist? Why do some consider Vatican II and the new mass as invalid? What arguments and justifications do they use to try and further their claims? Perhaps most importantly, what are the church’s counter arguments to these claims?

Any readings or links to good theologians on these matters would be most helpful.

Thanks!

I can give you my personal experience with both. I grew up going to the OF (Norvus Ordo Mass) until my teenage years. What my family found was that there were many abuses in this Mass by the clergy and lay people and that it was causing the parishioners we knew to loose their faith and identities as Catholics. My parents searched and searched for good priests and a good parish but could not find one. We then started going to the EF (Latin Mass) and found a few stark differences:

1. Much more reverence in the Church for the Blessed Sacrament, more modest dress by the lay people, and in general priests who did not preach heresy (which was found very common by us at OF parishes.)
2. The Latin, though hard to follow at first, provided a unity with Catholics of all places and times in the Western Church
3. The liturgy itself was so much more in depth and beautiful, just reading the 1962 missal will show you that.
4. More reverence by the priest and servers (boy did I see some crazy stuff at the OF masses)

There are many more examples I could go through but hopefully you see the point. I read one time that “everything that is good in this world comes from the Mass, because the Mass is the continuance of the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross”. I don’t think it’s a surprise, then, that the abuses in the new Mass (from what we saw, anyway) ended up weakenening the faith of our friends and family. I think the changes made a much easier channel for the devil to
infiltrate the Catholic Faith. This is why I will stay with the EF.

God bless

 

[Upgrade25]

When I get a car, I’m going to feel out the EF, but I’m in a fairly traditional OF parish, with a priest that would crack down on abuses immediately. I’m a semi-traditionalist, if labels even matter, which I think they don’t. Honestly, Ukranian Catholicism appeals to me a lot right now. That’s where I am with Mass and such.

 

[mattp0625]

As my question might show, I still have a bunch to learn about the Catholic church so I appreciate any help and guidance

As per the title, why do these controversies exist? Why do some consider Vatican II and the new mass as invalid? What arguments and justifications do they use to try and further their claims? Perhaps most importantly, what are the church’s counter arguments to these claims?

Any readings or links to good theologians on these matters would be most helpful.

Thanks!

Hello there.

I was born after Vatican II, so I have not lived the “arguments” as much as others have.
Here is my take-

We believe the Roman Catholic Church is the church founded by Jesus Christ. Peter the apostle was commissioned by Jesus to lead the Church after Jesus ascended. We all agree on that.

The focus of the mass is Jesus and the sacrament of the Eucharist. That has never changed since the first century.

The bible was maintained in Latin since it was first compiled by Jerome, Augustine, and Pope Damascus in the late fourth or early fifth century. Latin was the language of the clergy and helped to protect the bible from heretics. Mass was said in Latin using the extraordinary (Latin) form.

Catholic schools always taught Latin for this purpose. In the 16th century, the bible was translated to English. Mass was not changed to English until Vatican II.

In order to make the mass more accessible to all, and as society became more secular, they changed the form of the liturgy and the celebration. I think the essential words of the mass were maintained.

We still trust our magisterium as the successors to Peter. However, some view this change as a break with an approximately 1,600 - 1,900 year old tradition.

Pope Benedict declared the Latin mass a valid form but some still view it as something that resembles division in practice. However, not everyone views it as controversial. We all still hold the same dogmas and doctrines.

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)