Please give me a good explanation for these V2 changes

[John-the-Seeker]

And the correct answers is … TAH DA …‘Abogation’. Don’t change anything, just don’t promote it. Subtly ridicule the practice and support this subtle ridicule with outside the church practices that seem to support practices contrary to tradition. Change occurs then without change.

’Yeah and the slave is to be obedient’
Aren’t we all to be obedient to all authority because all authority comes from God? See how subtly opposition to slavery can be used to induce opposition to obedience?

 

[buffalo]

JSmitty2005:

I believe that Vatican II was a valid council, however, I don’t understand two changes that occurred after the council (although I’m not sure if they were direct results of the council). The two changes that I’m referring to are: (1) the priest facing the altar & (2) headcoverings for women. Both of these practices are apostolic and from what I understand, there was no historical precendent to the contrary. I would appreciate it if someone could give me a good explanation as to why these traditions are no longer being done in the Church. Thanks!

PS - I have actually read that women should still be wearing headcoverings because the 1983 Code of Canon Law didn’t address the subject.

The Mass of Vatican II - Fr Fessio

Pope John Paul II Addresses the Bishops

Here’s what the Pope said to the bishops of the Northwestern United States: “The two-thousandth anniversary of the birth of the Savior is a call to all Christ’s followers to seek a genuine conversion to God and a great advance to holiness. Since the Liturgy is such a central part of the Christian life, I wish today to consider some aspects of the liturgical renewal so vigorously promoted by the Second Vatican Council, as the prime agent of the wider renewal of Catholic life.” So, the Council itself wanted to renew Catholic life. And within that, it wanted to renew the liturgy. The Pope is saying here that as we look toward the year 2000, we must go back and see what the Council wanted for liturgical renewal, because that is the prime agent of the wider renewal of Catholic life.

He continues: “To look back over what has been done in the field of liturgical renewal since the Council is first to see many reasons for giving heartfelt thanks and praise to the Most Holy Trinity for the marvelous awareness which had developed among the faithful of their role and responsibility in the priestly work of Christ and his Church. It is also to realize that not all changes have always and everywhere been accompanied by the necessary explanation and catechesis. As a result, in some cases there has been a misunderstanding of the very nature of the Liturgy, leading to abuses, polarization, sometimes even grave scandal.”

The Pope generally speaks diplomatically, especially to bishops. These are pretty hard words, and this is the introduction, so obviously he’s going to give some guidelines for avoiding this polarization, this grave scandal and these abuses. He says, “After the experience of more than thirty years of liturgical renewal we are well placed to assess both the strengths and weaknesses of what has been done . . .” (listen carefully now)“ . . . in order more confidently to plot our course into the future, which God has in mind for His cherished people.” The Pope, here, speaks to our bishops, looking toward the new millennium and says, in effect, Here is what I think is the plan God has for all of his people as we move to the next millennium. And, specifically, here is the liturgical blueprint that, I, the Holy Father, believe we are to follow.

“The challenge now,” he continues, “is to move beyond whatever misunderstandings there have been and to reach the proper point of balance, especially by entering more deeply into the contemplative dimension of worship, which includes a sense of awe, reverence and adoration which are fundamental attitudes in our relationship with God.”

What does the Pope say we must do to restore balance? Enter more deeply into the contemplative dimension of worship. Can you contemplate when you’ve got drummers up in the sanctuary? Where do we find the sense of awe? Not in this “chatty” stuff at Mass: “Good morning, everybody.” Does that inspire a sense of awe? “Have a nice day.” The Pope mentions reverence and adoration. Standing is a sign of respect; but kneeling is a sign of adoration. The Pope says we must restore the sense of adoration.

The Pope says to the liturgists and the bishops, “The Eucharist gathers and builds the human community, but it is also ‘the worship of the Divine Majesty’.” That’s from Sacrosanctum Concilium, paragraph 33. He continues: “It is subjective in that it depends radically upon what the worshippers bring to it, but it is objective in that it transcends them as the priestly act of Christ himself to which he associates us, but which ultimately does not depend upon us.”

 

[buffalo]

cont’d

This is why it’s so important that liturgical law be respected: an objective act is taking place. “The priest, who is the servant of the liturgy and not its inventor or producer, has a particular responsibility in this regard, lest he empty the liturgy of its true meaning or obscure its sacred character,” says the Holy Father.

Then he talks about “The core of the mystery of Christian worship.” Is the core of the mystery of Christian worship a sense that we are the people of God? Is it feeling united with each other? Spiritual bonding? Not according to the Pope, who says, “The core of the mystery of Christian worship is the Sacrifice of Christ offered to the Father and the work of the Risen Christ who sanctifies his people through the liturgical sign.” The sacrifice of Christ, sanctification. That’s what the Pope says. Remember, he’s looking now to lead the Church in the new millennium liturgically. He continues: “It is, therefore, essential that in seeking to enter more deeply into the contemplative depths of worship, the inexhaustible mystery of the priesthood of Jesus Christ be fully acknowledged and respected.”

There is a movement to refer to the celebrant as the “presider,” instead of the “celebrant” or the “priest.” Now it’s true, he is a presider. But that’s an abstraction; and I think there’s an agenda behind the abstraction. You see, all the Sacraments need someone who presides: at Confirmation, at the Eucharist, at Confession — and at Baptism. And who can preside at Baptism? The priest is the ordinary minister and presider, but under certain unusual circumstances a layman — man or woman — and even a non-Catholic can preside at Baptism. And, so, I believe some people want to get us in the habit of thinking of the priest as a presider primarily because that’s an abstract term, which could include women.

What does the Pope say about the matter? “The priest, therefore, is not just one who presides, but one who acts in the person of Christ.” You see, only the priest can act in persona Christi capitis, in the name of the Bridegroom (Jesus) over against the Bride (the Church) in the nuptial act, which is the Mass.

 

[MariaG]

Hi Buffalo,

Nice post. Following liturgical law is important. The problem from my point of view is that good people on both sides seem to disagree on what exactly the law is.

Just because a person here or elsewhere say that because Paul said it, we can’t change it doesn’t make it true. There apostles also told us to sell all our possesions, but we don’t do that now either.

And my fundamental Bible alone Christians used to tell me things the Bible said that just weren’t so. Being able to correctly interpret a passage is important.

So far I have two interpretations of Scripture and two interpretations of liturgical law. And a nice post on how important it is to follow liturgical law.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[buffalo]

MariaG:

Hi Buffalo,

Nice post. Following liturgical law is important. The problem from my point of view is that good people on both sides seem to disagree on what exactly the law is.

Just because a person here or elsewhere say that because Paul said it, we can’t change it doesn’t make it true. There apostles also told us to sell all our possesions, but we don’t do that now either.

And my fundamental Bible alone Christians used to tell me things the Bible said that just weren’t so. Being able to correctly interpret a passage is important.

So far I have two interpretations of Scripture and two interpretations of liturgical law. And a nice post on how important it is to follow liturgical law.

God Bless,
Maria

I recommend giving the whole article a read.

 

[elvisman]

JSmitty2005:

I believe that Vatican II was a valid council, however, I don’t understand two changes that occurred after the council (although I’m not sure if they were direct results of the council). The two changes that I’m referring to are: (1) the priest facing the altar & (2) headcoverings for women. Both of these practices are apostolic and from what I understand, there was no historical precendent to the contrary. I would appreciate it if someone could give me a good explanation as to why these traditions are no longer being done in the Church. Thanks!

JSmitty -
I don’t know where you got you information regarding the priest with his back to the people being an ancient practice but I would refer you to the book, “Church History” by Fr. John Laux (TAN Books).
In it, he covers all these matters and says that the mass was celebrated with the priest and/or Bishop facing the congregation from the earliest of times. It was later changed.
Hyper-traditionalists such as SSPX would have you believe otherwise because of the Papal Bull of St. Pius V - who insisted that the mass be celebrated one way because of the many liturgical abuses that were being practiced in his day. He sought to rid the Church of the abuses that were undermining the mass.
Many of these hyper-traditionalists today believe that his was an edict that could not be changed - such as the rule on female ordination. This is simply not true.

"Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ." - St. Jerome

 

[Pug]

JSmitty2005:

Sungenis is right because he refuted every point that Jimmy Akin tried to make!

Assuming than S refuted each point that A made, that is not proof that S is right about his issue. It just means A couldn’t come up with a point that S didn’t refute. Either such a point doesn’t exist OR A didn’t think of it.

If it is a canon law issue, Church discipline/tradition issue, or scripture interpretation issue, our local is bishop better suited to determine the facts than the average internet denizen. That is partly why no one is super interested in binding themselves under the pain of sin about headcoverings.

 

[buffalo]

elvisman:

JSmitty2005:

I believe that Vatican II was a valid council, however, I don’t understand two changes that occurred after the council (although I’m not sure if they were direct results of the council). The two changes that I’m referring to are: (1) the priest facing the altar & (2) headcoverings for women. Both of these practices are apostolic and from what I understand, there was no historical precendent to the contrary. I would appreciate it if someone could give me a good explanation as to why these traditions are no longer being done in the Church. Thanks!

JSmitty -
I don’t know where you got you information regarding the priest with his back to the people being an ancient practice but I would refer you to the book, “Church History” by Fr. John Laux (TAN Books).

In it, he covers all these matters and says that the mass was celebrated with the priest and/or Bishop facing the congregation from the earliest of times. It was later changed.

Fr Fessio says different:

What the Council Didn’t Say

That’s essentially what the Second Vatican Council actually said about the renewal of the liturgy. Let me tell you what it did not say. The Council did not say that tabernacles should be moved from their central location to some other location. In fact, it specifically said we should be concerned about the worthy and dignified placing of the tabernacle. The Council did not say that Mass should be celebrated facing the people. That is not in Vatican II; it is not mentioned. It is not even raised in the documents that record the formation of the Constitution on the Liturgy; it didn’t come up. Mass facing the people is a not requirement of Vatican II; it is not in the spirit of Vatican II; it is definitely not in the letter of Vatican II. It is something introduced in 1969.

And, by the way, never in the history of the Church, East or West, was there a tradition of celebrating Mass facing the people. Never, ever, until 1969. It happened occasionally in Germany, in between the wars; it was done sometimes at the castle where Romano Guardini would have his group of students meet; it was done in Austria near Vienna by Pius Parsch in a special church, in what he called a “liturgical Mass.” That’s an odd expression, a “liturgical Mass.” The Mass is the liturgy.

But in any event, I can say without fear of contradiction from anyone who knows the facts that there is simply no tradition whatsoever, in the history of the Church, of Mass facing the people. Now, is it a sin? No. Is it wrong? No. Is it permitted? Yes. It is required? Not at all. In fact in the Latin Roman Missal, which is the typical edition that all the translations of the Missal are based on (not always translated properly, but at least based on it) the rubrics actually presuppose the Mass facing East, the Mass facing the Lord.

Now, for the first 25 years of my priesthood, I celebrated Mass like you see it when you go to a typical parish: in English, facing the people. It can be done reverently; I’ve seen it done reverently; I’ve tried to do it reverently myself. But the last three years, after study and reflection, I’ve changed. I actually think the Mass facing the people is a mistake. But, even if it’s not, at least this much we can say: there is no permission required to say Mass facing God, facing the tabernacle, facing East, facing with the people. And it should be given equal rights, it seems to me, with Mass facing the people. It’s been around for 1800 years at least, and it should be allowed to continue. I happen to think it’s symbolically richer.

It’s true that when the priest faces the people for the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, there may be a sense of greater unity as a community. But there is also a danger of the priest being the performer and you being the spectator — precisely what the Council did not want: priest performers and congregational spectators. But there is something more problematic. You can see it, perhaps, by contrasting Mass facing the people with Mass facing East or facing the Lord. I don’t say Mass “with my back to the people” anymore than Patton went through Germany with his “back to the soldiers.” Patton led the Third Army across Germany and they followed him to achieve a goal. The Mass is part of the Pilgrim Church on the way to our goal, our heavenly homeland. This world is not our heavenly homeland. We don’t sit around in a circle and look at each other. We want to look *with *each other and with the priest towards the rising sun, the rays of grace, where the Son will come again in glory on the clouds.

 

[buffalo]

cont’d
And so, in Mass celebrated in the traditional way, the priest does face the people when he speaks on God’s behalf to proclaim the Word and explain it. And he does face the people when he receives their gifts. And then he turns to face with the people and to offer those gifts up to our common Father, praying that the Holy Spirit will come down and transform those gifts into the Body and Blood of Christ. And when that most sacred act takes place, the priest turns to offer the gifts back to the people. I think that is much more dramatic. Whether I am right or not, all I’m asking is a right to exist. If not peaceful coexistence, at least coexistence.

Now strange as it may appear, there is absolutely no permission required to say Mass facing East. The Pope does it every morning in his chapel. But there is such a taboo against it that most pastors would be afraid to do it for fear they would be exiled to some lowly parish.

The Council also said nothing about moving the Tabernacle. It said nothing about removing altar rails. It said nothing about taking out kneelers. It said nothing about turning the altar around. It said nothing about multiple canons. That, too, is an invention; a pure invention.

 

[JSmitty2005]

Pug:

Either such a point doesn’t exist OR A didn’t think of it.

That is partly why no one is super interested in binding themselves under the pain of sin about headcoverings.

I already stated earlier that I would like to see what Akin has to say about Sungenis’s refutation now that he’s had time to think about it. I think that we should be interested in fully participating in the Church and doing God’s will in everything. We are commanded to observe all that Christ revealed to us. How does that not include the attire for being in church? I think that everyone should be concerned about the lackadaisical attitude towards this tradition and discipline.

 

[JSmitty2005]

MariaG:

Being able to correctly interpret a passage is important.

I totally agree and that’s why I side with the folks who actually knew Christ and His teachings.

 

[MariaG]

Thank you buffulo. Your article seems to clear up that facing people during Mass is allowed but also allowed not to. As well as the facing East.

My posts have been refering to head coverings for women. If you could post a link about those specifically, that addresses this as well as yours did about which way the priest should face I would appreciate it. (Unless I missed that? Don’t think so, but it is possible.)

God Bless,
Maria

 

[MariaG]

JSmitty2005:

I totally agree and that’s why I side with the folks who actually knew Christ and His teachings.

Okay, so they said women needed to wear head coverings in and of themselves or women needed to wear head coverings because it was a modest way to dress and was the way to set Christian women apart from their pagan counterparts?.

And as I have said, I have never heard in the fundamental churches or Catholic until now, that those verses meant anything but proper modest dress as expressed in cultural times. Up until 1920 no woman could vote. And it was extremely improper to leave the house without hat and gloves. Today both of those things have changed. A woman can be modestly dressed without wearing hat and gloves as well as vote in the United States.

 

[wabrams]

As anyone who IS arguing for headcovers done a little research on the times and customs when this was stated by Mary? Perhaps maybe it was a regional custom that most women did? Try looking at things in an historical context.

I’ve got a better idea, let’s do everything JUST like in the bible. Since Jesus was at a wedding celebration that lasted several days, we should do the same thing here in the 20th century! No more 4 hour receptions, just 5-7 day celebrations!

 

[DaMaMaXiMuS]

Greetings and peace unto you all,

I have something to point out and then would like edification by hearing some opinions.

Here’s is 1st. Corinthians 11:4-16:

4 Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered, disgraceth his head. 5 But every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered, disgraceth her head: for it is all one as if she were shaven.

6 For if a woman be not covered, let her be shorn. But if it be a shame to a woman to be shorn or made bald, let her cover her head. 7 The man indeed ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. 9 For the man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man. 10 Therefore ought the woman to have a power over her head, because of the angels.

10 “A power”… that is, a veil or covering, as a sign that she is under the power of her husband: and this, the apostle adds, because of the angels, who are present in the assemblies of the faithful.

11 But yet neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12 For as the woman is of the man, so also is the man by the woman: but all things of God. 13 You yourselves judge: doth it become a woman, to pray unto God uncovered? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that a man indeed, if he nourish his hair, it is a shame unto him? 15 But if a woman nourish her hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.

16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor the church of God.

Ok, this is taken out of the Douay-Rheims Online Bible, the red lettering is what you’ll find on there and giving an explanation for verse 10. But that’s not my question. Rather it’s in verses 15 - 16 which I highlighted in blue lettering.

What do these verses mean? They seems to be part of the previous verses on the topic of covering the head.

What is meant by “if any man seem contentious, we have no such custom”?

What is meant by, “her hair is given to her for a covering”?

Finally, does the time, place, people and climate of the time when Paul is saying this have any bearing on how these verses are to be understood? Was it something to transend all generations?

I look forward to all of your (name removed by moderator)ut.

God bless You All,

Nelson

 

[stanley123]

MariaG:

. Just as slavery wasn’t endorsed, neither was the headcoverings specifically, just a moderate manner of dress, as was explained to me.

I believe that you are wrong on the idea that headcovering was not endorsed. I thought that it was a Tradition in the Roman Catholic Church up until Vatican II, perhaps about 1970, and that it was mandated by the Bible as was mentioned previously.

 

[JSmitty2005]

Please don’t get offended by this, but I don’t understand what some of you don’t understand about this. Women covered their heads in church from the time of the apostles up until about 30 years ago. It just seems like you’re trying to find contextual or historical evidence but their is none. Historically women have always covered their heads. Why the change? Was there a need for the change or is it simply more convenient? What’s the big deal, are the women afraid to mess their hair up or what? Rather than trying to scramble for reasons to exempt women from wearing head coverings, I’d just like to know why you are so personally opposed to it when it’s traditionally a teaching of the Church and part of your heritage? Here’s where I think the feminism comes in whether you know it or not. It’s just part of our culture. Men *aren’t * supposed to cover their heads in Church, at least traditionally. You don’t see men protesting to be able to wear baseball caps during Mass, now do you?

 

[JSmitty2005]

stanley123:

I believe that you are wrong on the idea that headcovering was not endorsed. I thought that it was a Tradition in the Roman Catholic Church up until Vatican II, perhaps about 1970, and that it was mandated by the Bible as was mentioned previously.

Headcovering was mandatory throughout the history of the Church and it is found in the Bible. Vatican 2 didn’t address it and the practice continued after the council. It wasn’t until a few years later in the 70’s that women began to not wear them. Then, in 1983 with the release of the new Code of Canon Law, the issue was not addressed either! Now, some people feel that this new Code of Canon Law overrides the old one from 1917. This was Jimmy Akin’s argument. Still others maintain that just because it was not addressed doesn’t imply that the practice was to be abrogated. This is what Robert Sungenis said. Furthermore, he added that the Codes of Canon Law should not be in direct conflict with each other (which is what is implied by those in favor of the change) and should be able to be reconciled with each other. He also added that traditions that have been practiced for over 100 years are considered an unwritten law. He made these points using the Canon itself. I agree with him that this still applies to women today despite the fact that many Church leaders are indifferent to the issue and do not enforce it.

 

[stanley123]

JSmitty2005:

Women covered their heads in church from the time of the apostles up until about 30 years ago. .

That’s what I thought. For example, if I look at an icon of Mary, the Mother of God, I always see her head covered.

 

[Axion]

I believe most of the changes mentioned in this thread were brought in in a spirit if trendyism that dominated many in the Church in the late sixties and seventies.

Any thing that looked specifically Catholic or which set Catholics apart in any way from the secular or protestant world was to be discarded as quickly and unceremoniously as possible. In other words the church was to conform to the world in the name of “relevance.” So we saw:

• Abandonment of Latin in the mass
• Abandonment of specifically Catholic hymns
• Change of many Sisters habits from formal to “shorter skirt and kerchief”.
• Many clergy cease wearing clerical garb when not in Church.
• Abandonment of compulsory fasting on fridays.
• Abandonment of Gregorian Chant, organs, choirs.
• Headcovering for women not enforced.
• Kneeling to receive Eucharist abandoned.
• Facing East for Mass changed to facing congregation.
• Tabernacles removed from altars to side chapels.
• New Table-like altars appear.
• Church decoration cut down.
• Bells no longer mandatory for new Churches.
• Traditional Church designs replaced by modernist ones.
• Many Churches abandon incense, and curt down on servers.
• Benediction becomes rare.
• Salve Regina and Marian Hymns start to vanish.