How is Vatican II closer to the Early Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Iohannes
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Iohannes:
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.
Click to expand...
Today’s chausable is indeed based on the tunics worn by ancient romans and greeks.

I’m not sure what those bulletproof vest looking chausables of pre Vatican II descend from. Probably just bad taste and comfort more than anything else.
 
40.png
Crusader:
I’m not sure what those bulletproof vest looking chausables of pre Vatican II descend from. Probably just bad taste and comfort more than anything else.
Click to expand...
The Gothic type Chasubles cut down to make them more appropriate in warmer Mediterranean climes
 
40.png
Iohannes:
Good, you understand they are just is schism and not heretics.
Click to expand...
“Just” in schism?

One would be better off avoiding the SSPX altogether. Support a group that is in perfect communion with the Church, like the FSSP.
 
40.png
PASCENDI:
The Gothic type Chasubles cut down to make them more appropriate in warmer Mediterranean climes
Click to expand...
That’s simply not true in all cases. The bulletproof vest (or “fiddleback” chasuables) chasuables were used for a great many years throughout the Latin Church – in all climates.

It is nice to see that the Church has returned to more traditional vestments with the advent of Vatican II.
 
Whats is wrong with a bulletproof chausable when it can help defend a priest? 😃
 
40.png
Crusader:
That’s simply not true in all cases. The bulletproof vest (or “fiddleback” chasuables) chasuables were used for a great many years throughout the Latin Church – in all climates.
Click to expand...
You are correct. It’s just how it started. Just as Gothic churches with large windows to take in limited light started in northern latitudes. That doesn’t preclude them from being built other places
 
Questions for JNB :confused:

(1) Was there a ‘separate’ eastern and western church in 325 and at Nicea? Was everyone at that time (a)free to pick the canons they liked, (b) only had to accept the dogmatic canons as they understood them,(c) the canons regarding discipline only referred to a limited region of the church, (d) OR, there was one church in 325 and the canons pertained to all?

(2) Are Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catechetical Letters only for the Eastern church? Aren’t some of his writings in the Office of Reading in the Liturgy of Hours among other things?
 
Dolly, during the early church, different areas had different customs locally, and of course in the context of the entire Catholic church and its rites that is true to this day. The early church was not unified in liturgically, and from what I have read, there is no evidence that communion in the hand was widespread over the entire early church. The council pretianed to the entire church, but again, there were local customs in the various diocese at the time to reflect the differences in the Greek and Latin cultures.

In any event, the biggesr question is why return to the liturgy of the early church? What did they do better, because looking though history, the early church suffered greatly from mass heresies that tore it apart. The liturgy changed slowly from the early church for reasons, to reflect greater thological understanding of the Eucharist and to combat heresies.

By the way, to Crusader, Vatican II said nothing about vestments, and some priests who celebrate only the NO missal use old style vestments.
 
40.png
JNB:
By the way, to Crusader, Vatican II said nothing about vestments, and some priests who celebrate only the NO missal use old style vestments.
Click to expand...
You’re also probably not aware that before Vatican II, priests could wear gothic chasuables, but they could not buy new ones. They had to be “Roman” (fiddleback) chasuables. The gothic models could be used until they wore out.

It’s nice to see that V2 allowed the vestments common to the early church…
 
The Apostles sure didn’t receive on the tongue during the Last Supper.

“TAKE, eat, this is My Body…”
 
The bible does not say what method the body and blood were distributed during the last supper, but in any event, why do people like you Crusader, and you are quite orthodox, have a zeal for the early church? Read about the flaws of the early church, read the whys on the gradual changes to the liturgy over the years. Also ask this, why did communion in the hand fall out of favor in both east and west early on?

Also, can you tell me the Vatican II document that called for vestments to be changed? I certainly did not find a call to change the vestments in the Vatican II document on the liturgy, and here is a link

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html
 
40.png
Crusader:
It is nice to see that the Church has returned to more traditional vestments with the advent of Vatican II.
Click to expand...
Tradition is what is handed down and received, not what was practiced in the ancient Church. That is not tradition, it is the error of archaelogism or antiquarianism.

The unlined “nightgowns” worn by many priests today are not traditional by any stretch of the imagination. Lined gothic vestments are traditional, the fiddleback vestment was never completely universal.
 
Crusader said:
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.
Click to expand...

There is no question that they did not. Msgr. Gamber deals extensively with this question in his book The Reform of the Roman Liturgy. The layout of the old Roman basilicas gives the impression that the priest ‘faced the people’ but this is a false impression as (a) EVERYONE would have turned East during the Mass of the Faithful (Liturgy of the Eucharist) and (b) the sanctuary would have been hidden from the faithful by a choir screen and veil.

A lot of people favor returning to early practices of the Church, but somehow they like to pick and choose which practices to return to. They don’t want to return to the choir screen and veil hiding the sanctuary, or headcoverings for women, or the strict separation of the sexes in the naves during the Holy Sacrifice.
 
Crusader said:
1.) The Mass in the vernacular (Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew, etc.) – not limited to just Latin.
Click to expand...

Hebrew wasn’t a vernacular tongue at the time and Aramaic liturgies existed far beyond the regions in which Aramaic was the vernacular (like India).
2.) The priest faced the people during the Mass in the early church.
Click to expand...
Never.
3.) Receiving in hand. People in the early church received in their hands.
Click to expand...
Indeed, and women wore veils over the hands in order to do this. The veil was called a domenica.
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.
Click to expand...
Very doubtful.
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.
Click to expand...
The Liturgy wasn’t even fully developed until that time. Why should we seek to return to an undeveloped Liturgy?
6.) People received communion under both species in the early church.
Click to expand...
In some places and under some circumstances. But it was not even remotely like the current practice under which the laity are permitted to handle the sacred vessels. For example, the Precious Blood would be received through a golden tube called a fistula.
 
40.png
Iohannes:
Is the New Mass really a return to Patristic sources?
by Fr. Romano Thommasi

seattlecatholic.com/article_20031027.html
Click to expand...
Is Fr. Romano Thommasi anyone who has the Authority with which to decide and be listened to seriously? There are a lot of armchair theologians out there. Some are called Fr. but few actually have the authority to make it worth the while listening to them.

I find the whole TLM Mass vs Norm Mass argument unproductive and for the most part as unholy a demonstration of faith as I can imagine. I see people who come to investigate the faith on various message boards and then leave because the blowhards just have to have their say about how the church should be run and what it should teach to suit them. Not only that, these self same faith killers then blow them off as though they were just a Troll or something.

People of both persuasions should tread very carefully in pushing their opinions. If they cause even ONE soul to become confused and lose hope and trust in Christ and His Church, Lord have Mercy on their soul’s.They are going to have a lot to answer for in eternity.

Rant over. Think about it.
 
Marie
  • I find the whole TLM Mass vs Norm Mass argument unproductive and for the most part as unholy a demonstration of faith as I can imagine. I see people who come to investigate the faith on various message boards and then leave because the blowhards just have to have their say about how the church should be run and what it should teach to suit them.*
I agree. Jesus warned us about white sepulchers that are beautiful on the outside and dead on the inside.

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness.”
Matt. 23:27
 
“bulletproof chausable”

What a perfect name! I always thought the chausable looked like a beetle. I really like the chausables Priests wear today.

Here’s a good book for anyone interested in the early Church’s Mass:

“The Mass of the Early Christians” By Mike Aquilina
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top