How is Vatican II closer to the Early Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Iohannes
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

Iohannes

Guest
I am asking you people, how Vatican II was closer to the early church especially dealing with the liturgy.
 
Vatican II was not meant to make everything “closer to the early Church”. In fact, it was billed as a council that was meant to “modernize” the Church. By this it is meant that the purpose of the Council was to make the Truth more accessible to Joe Catholic today, not 2000 years ago. Often people have a problem with this, thinking that the Church changed everything. But in reality, the Church has been holding ecumenical councils since the beginning of its existence. Just because Vatican II didn’t deal directly with new definitions of dogma, it doesn’t mean it didn’t bring the Church closer to the truth.
 
Persecution is common to both times and in each the laity has no memory(one has forgotten, the other is too young). Heresies run rampant and many doubt that the Church will survive. The world outside is very pagan and needs to be converted.
 
40.png
Iohannes:
I am asking you people, how Vatican II was closer to the early church especially dealing with the liturgy.
Click to expand...
The “early church”? Say from the crucifixion to the time of Constantine? For starters:

1.) The Mass in the vernacular (Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew, etc.) – not limited to just Latin.

2.) The priest faced the people during the Mass in the early church.

3.) Receiving in hand. People in the early church received in their hands.

4.) The priests’ chasuable and the deacons’ dalmatics of today resemble those of the early church, and not the “bullet-proof vest” look of the pre-Vatican II days.

5.) No sanctus bells existed in the early church. The Church did not begin to employ bells of any kind in the liturgy until the mid 600’s AD.

6.) People received communion under both species in the early church.

That’s a half dozen. Is that enough? Be careful what you ask for…
 
Actually the priest in the early church did not face the people. Little evidence to support that, they prayed facing the “east”, in front of a tomb of a Martyr. As for communion on the hand, yes, some of the eraly churches did it, but evidence suggests that customs were different in different areas, by the 500s-600s, in both the East and West, communion in the hand fell out of favor, also if one looks at how communion in the hand was done in the parts of the church that did have this practice, it was different than the more casual approach we see today.

People also need to ask why things such as communion on the tounge, and kneeling for communion in the West were instituted, and they were instituted to both reflect the greater understand of the Eucharist developed though the various councils and two, combat heresies. The early church had its own set of problems such as a series of mass heresies that tore the church apart, caused actual civil wars such as the Arian Heresy.

But in any event, Crusader, much of the “scholarship” that said the aerly church was this or that, especially by Fr. Jung SJ, has been called into question by Cardinal Ratzinger and Fr. Fessio SJ. Also, the liturgy of the early church did not resemble the almost non sacramental approach to liturgy that is all too typically seen today.
 
JNB said:
1.) Actually the priest in the early church did not face the people. Little evidence to support that, they prayed facing the “east”, in front of a tomb of a Martyr. As for communion on the hand, yes, some of the eraly churches did it, but evidence suggests that customs were different in different areas, by the 500s-600s, in both the East and West, communion in the hand fell out of favor, also if one looks at how communion in the hand was done in the parts of the church that did have this practice, it was different than the more casual approach we see today.

2.) People also need to ask why things such as communion on the tounge, and kneeling for communion in the West were instituted, and they were instituted to both reflect the greater understand of the Eucharist developed though the various councils and two, combat heresies. The early church had its own set of problems such as a series of mass heresies that tore the church apart, caused actual civil wars such as the Arian Heresy.

3.) But in any event, Crusader, much of the “scholarship” that said the aerly church was this or that, especially by Fr. Jung SJ, has been called into question by Cardinal Ratzinger and Fr. Fessio SJ. Also, the liturgy of the early church did not resemble the almost non sacramental approach to liturgy that is all too typically seen today.
Click to expand...

1a.)Actually the Apostles celebrated the earliest Masses in homes or the catacombs – often over a coffin. There is no question the priests faced the people in the early church.

2a.) So? We’re talking about the early church here, not the 1950’s pre-Vatican II Catholic Church that some people equate to the early church.

3.a.) “non sacramental approach to liturgy that is all too typically seen today”? That’s certainly not true in the parishes that I attend the Mass, and I’m sure that’s true of most Catholics today. Speak for yourself.
 
1, where is your proof? The priests in the Early church faced East, towrds the rising sun as a symbol of the reserection.

2.) I am not talking about the pre Vaticna II 1950s church, I am telling you, yes telling you how the liturgy evolved organically thoughout the years,
  1. I say a mass that has poor liturgical music, be it protestant in nature, or even much of the OCP hymnal, a small army of EMEs and a wishy-washy priest who says nothing in his sermons, and celebrates the mass in a non reverent manner externally starts to lose its sacramental nature. Speak for myself? No, I am telling you what I have seen crusader.
 
JNB said:
1, where is your proof? The priests in the Early church faced East, towrds the rising sun as a symbol of the reserection.

2.) I am not talking about the pre Vaticna II 1950s church, I am telling you, yes telling you how the liturgy evolved organically thoughout the years,
  1. I say a mass that has poor liturgical music, be it protestant in nature, or even much of the OCP hymnal, a small army of EMEs and a wishy-washy priest who says nothing in his sermons, and celebrates the mass in a non reverent manner externally starts to lose its sacramental nature. Speak for myself? No, I am telling you what I have seen crusader.
Click to expand...
1.) Where is your proof? A priestly celebrant can face towards the east and versus populum you know…

2.) Organically?

3.) Maybe in your world. Not mine.
 
Ad Orientum is leading a conregation in prayer, all together facing the East. The oldest known liturgy still in use within the Catholic church, the Maronites face the East during mass during the parts of the mass when God is being adressed, all of the Eastren Liturgies face the East(ad orientum) during their devine liturgy. The mass in the catacombs were said facing the East, with the priest facing the tomb of a martyr leads the conregation in prayer together.

2.) Organically means the mass eveolved as the understanding of doctrines and dogmas grew though the various councils. It happened with small changes. As doctrine developed, so did liturgy. Now a case can be made that after the mass was frozen for almost 400 years at Trent that some developments could have been made, and the 55 changes of Holy Week was an example, and even the 65 missal could be viewed as an example of this, but the wholesale trashing of rubrics(and this started in 63-64), design from comittie is not an organic change
3.) I grew up in California, in the Bay Area Crusader, and what I saw during mass, while not blatant liturgical abuses, did not re enforce what the Eucharist was. I had to learn for myself. To be blunt, going to mass with the OCP hymnals, a politically correct priest and little else was and still is a banl affair, and does little to re enforce why Catholics are there, and what its about, and what the church teaches. Again, not saying it was invalid, but it did little for me, and as for my family, and my close friends, I am the only “active” Catholic left.

What gets me is how faithful well meaning Catholics try to defend modernism and innovation pushed by radicals simpily because for now, many of these things are “lict”.
 
JNB
40.png
JNB:
Ad Orientum is leading a conregation in prayer, all together facing the East. The oldest known liturgy still in use within the Catholic church, the Maronites face the East during mass during the parts of the mass when God is being adressed, all of the Eastren Liturgies face the East(ad orientum) during their devine liturgy. The mass in the catacombs were said facing the East, with the priest facing the tomb of a martyr leads the conregation in prayer together.

Sounds kind of New Age does’nt? Facing a specific direction I mean. It makes me wonder if someone would introduce this in the present. Would they be a radical innovator or an ultra conservative, or just a well meaning Catholic?

It sounds like your formative Catholic experience was less than it could have been. I grew up in the Chicago area and had the opposite experience. I received a decent education on catechism, but an outstanding education on humility, serving the less fortunate, loving all people, especially ones who are different than myself.
Which way a priest stood was not an issue, but being truly filled with the Body of Christ sacramentally then livining his call to love others was important.

What gets me is how faithful well meaning Catholics try to defend modernism and innovation pushed by radicals simpily because for now, many of these things are “lict”.
Click to expand...
Pardon my extreme simpleness, what does “lict” mean. Thank you.

Again pardon me this is my first reply and I am not at all sure what all these reply options are and I lack patience.

God Bless,

Nod
 
“lict” means allowed, or legal. If the Vatican declares somthing “lict”, such as allowing Bishops to grant an indult(Indult means somthing being allowed apart from the norm), we are to accept it, no matter how much we may disagree with somthing declared lict.
 
in the early Church:
-There was no dialogue with pagans, heretics or schismatics
-There was not interreligious meetings or assisi
-pagans did not worship on top of altars of Catholic churches
-Mass was often celebrated on top of tombs and facing east.
-Those tombs were often contained relics of martyrs.
 
There’s one custom from the “Early Church” I’d like to see catch on at so many of the parishes I’m unfortunate enough to attend----- Priests not getting paid
 
40.png
Iohannes:
in the early Church:
-There was no dialogue with pagans, heretics or schismatics
-There was not interreligious meetings or assisi
-pagans did not worship on top of altars of Catholic churches
-Mass was often celebrated on top of tombs and facing east.
-Those tombs were often contained relics of martyrs.
Click to expand...
Like the SSPX for instance?
 
The SSPX is not a heretical group, get that out of your mind.
I talked a priest about this and said that the SSPX does have a valid consecration.

Maybe we should not try to go back to some early church pratices after all? After all the Truth is gradually revealed.

Dialoguing is only helpful only if the intent is to try to bring people into the Church. It seems that what we call dialogue today seems to be based too much upon partial truth and wrong kind of ecumenism.

Why did you bring up the SSPX? To try to prove that those nasty traditionalist only want latin and kneel for Communion?

I do not support the SSPX for your information, and yes one can attend their Mass if it is out of devotion of the 1962 Missal and the intent is not schism. The laity is not in schism, only the clergy is.

Becareful of using the word heretic, it may just spit right back at you. Dissendents are often rewarded with red birettas these days and are not excommunicated for violation of Church teachings.
 
I think the Roman Chausable came from important Roman officials. The Clergy later adopted it. I could be wrong, but I believe the Roman Chausable came from ancient times.
 
In approaching therefore, do not come up with your wrists apart or with your fingers spread, but make your left hand a throne for the right, since you are about to receive into it a King. And having hollowed your palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it Amen.

St Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, [23 (*Mystagogic 5), 21]
ca. A. D. 325]

Since there are some who are bending their knee on Sunday and on the days of Pentecost, the holy council has decided, so that there will be uniformity of practice in all things in every diocese, that prayers are to be directed to God from a standing position.

[Canon 20] The First Council of Nicaea A. D. 325]

Jurgens, Faith of the Early Fathers
 
Those were the liturgical customs in the East, what Jurgens failed to note was reception in t he hand and standing were not the universal custom of the entire early church.
 
40.png
JNB:
Those were the liturgical customs in the East, what Jurgens failed to note was reception in t he hand and standing were not the universal custom of the entire early church.
Click to expand...
The Easterners do a lot of standing, but why are we so selective in the Eastern practices we try to incorporate? They also have some very loooong liturgies. I don’t know how many want to run over to their churches and STAND through one of their masses.

And in the Eastern rites, communion in the hand would be messy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top