Protestantizing heresies of Vatican II

[pnewton]

I
Should we stop using the words of the Eucharistic Institution? That is also a part of the liturgies of Protestants, goodness, we even read that over the Lord’s Supper Table of my Baptist youth.

If we could return to the subject of the thread and stop the lamenting and throwing of fluffy statistics.

What are the heresies? As JKirk points out, does the fact that Baptist use the same scripture as we do in the words of consecration make if a heresy. Other ridiculous axamples have been, The Lord’s Prayer (that’s real heretical), that evil Apostle’s Creed and the absolute horror of girl altar servers. Time to through a few heretics on the fire.

Forgetting the obvious doctines we all hold in common (only one of us has an issue with those things), what Catholic specific doctrines were attacked? We believe in the real presence of Christ. We hold to the authority of the pope (except for a few dozed traditionalist, ironically enough). Apostolic succession wasn’t eliminated. No Marian doctrine was denied. What are the heresies?

 

[Uxor]

The Church’s interpretation of Scripture is the correct one (I mean, according to TRADITIONAL Catholic teaching).

The ability to connect what the Holy Father wrote and what leftist radicals think is nothing short of astonishing. This post would take the gold medal for “leaps in logic.”

Sorry it is what left radicals think.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Sorry it is what left radicals think.

And Humane Vitae is what the Vicar of Christ has taught to the whole of the Church.

 

[paramedicgirl]

If we could return to the subject of the thread and stop the lamenting and throwing of fluffy statistics.

What are the heresies? As JKirk points out, does the fact that Baptist use the same scripture as we do in the words of consecration make if a heresy. Other ridiculous axamples have been, The Lord’s Prayer (that’s real heretical), that evil Apostle’s Creed and the absolute horror of girl altar servers. Time to through a few heretics on the fire.

Forgetting the obvious doctrines we all hold in common (only one of us has an issue with those things), what Catholic specific doctrines were attacked? We believe in the real presence of Christ. We hold to the authority of the pope (except for a few dozed traditionalist, ironically enough). Apostolic succession wasn’t eliminated. No Marian doctrine was denied. What are the heresies?

The title of this thread is actually a bit misleading, since Vatican II didn’t teach any heresies. It’s what happened (or failed to happen) in our Churches afterwards that has people thinking this. Take for example, the failure of the hierarchy to incorporates these teachings of the second Vatican Council:

From the document Sacrosanctum Concilium:

1. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established…3. Therefore, no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.

36.1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

54…steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.

115…Composers and singers, especially boys, must also be given a genuine liturgical training.

1. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.
2. In the Latin Church the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem, for it is the traditional musical instrument which adds a wonderful splendor to the Church’s ceremonies and powerfully lifts up man’s mind to God and to higher things.
3. The texts intended to be sung must always be in conformity with Catholic doctrine; indeed they should be drawn chiefly from Holy Scripture and from liturgical sources.

124…Let bishops carefully remove from the house of God and from other sacred places those works of artists which are repugnant to faith, morals, and Christian piety, and which offend true religious sense either by depraved forms or by lack of artistic worth, mediocrity and pretense.

 

[Uxor]

But that hardly means the NO has turned Protestant, Uxor- the Creed and the Our Father are universal throughout many sects and Churches.As for the Gospel, it might have been from the RCL- though it was the RCL that copied the Roman lectionary and not vice versa. Nothing new- many of the Anglican BCP readings for Sundays are identical to those of the TLM.

I can well see a judgment on externals but I feel that the words used also matter-after all was it not one “i” that lead to one of the largest heresies?

What is so heretical about a Methodist saying that the N.O. Mass reminded them of the Methodist service they grew up with in the 60s? Where did the N.O. Mass come from if it is similiar today (we’ll stick with externals, I’ve never attended a Methodist Service) to Protestant or Methodist Services before Vatican II?

Yes I also feel words matter too, like the Mystery of Faith under the Memorial Acclamation and all.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

The title of this thread is actually a bit misleading, since Vatican II didn’t teach any heresies. It’s what happened (or failed to happen) in our Churches afterwards that has people thinking this. Take for example, the failure of the hierarchy to incorporates these teachings of the second Vatican Council:

From the document Sacrosanctum Concilium:

1. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established…3. Therefore, no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.

36.1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

54…steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.

115…Composers and singers, especially boys, must also be given a genuine liturgical training.

1. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.
2. In the Latin Church the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem, for it is the traditional musical instrument which adds a wonderful splendor to the Church’s ceremonies and powerfully lifts up man’s mind to God and to higher things.
3. The texts intended to be sung must always be in conformity with Catholic doctrine; indeed they should be drawn chiefly from Holy Scripture and from liturgical sources.

124…Let bishops carefully remove from the house of God and from other sacred places those works of artists which are repugnant to faith, morals, and Christian piety, and which offend true religious sense either by depraved forms or by lack of artistic worth, mediocrity and pretense.

But NONE of these things should lead anyone to the conclusion that the Church has copied the Protestants in our liturgies. What you have written above should clearly indicate how ABUSED our liturgy is in some places, by some people, not how ABUSIVE our liturgy is.

 

[Uxor]

I guess we’re to assume that we copied THEM, huh? Always the WORST case scenario when it comes to the motives of the Church authorities. “Traditionalists” simply cannot accept the idea that the various Christian liturgies have common antecendents. They also cannot accept that Protestants have borrowed freely from our tradition as they have seen the real human need for liturgical worship.

Look at this link. Scroll down to “liturgy.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Church_of_Canada

You’ll note that the UCC is a product of a union with Methodists, whose service is derived from Anglicans, whose service is similar to Catholics, drawing on the same antedents.
Did the minister tell you friend how freely the UCC borrows from other liturgical traditions?

Should we stop baptizing in the name of the Trinity? Our baptismal formula is, word for word, the same as 99% of the Protestants.

Should we stop using the words of the Eucharistic Institution? That is also a part of the liturgies of Protestants, goodness, we even read that over the Lord’s Supper Table of my Baptist youth.

Is that the new or old Baptismal rite you are referring to?

The words of Eucharistic Institution are the same as read in the Baptist Church? Interesting…Do you mind me asking what year in your Baptist youth this was?

 

[paramedicgirl]

Is that the new or old Baptismal rite you are referring to?

The words of Eucharistic Institution are the same as read in the Baptist Church? Interesting…Do you mind me asking what year in your Baptist youth this was?

That’s a good point. I wonder if the omission of the Catholic prayers of exorcism from our baptismal rite is what now makes our rite identical to the protestant baptismal rite.

 

[tcraig]

Where did the N.O. Mass come from if it is similiar today (we’ll stick with externals, I’ve never attended a Methodist Service) to Protestant or Methodist Services before Vatican II?

I’m a former Methodist, and it is true that the structure of the NO Mass is similar to a Methodist service. But it is also true that there are many ways that a Methodist service is also similar to a Presbyterian service, a Lutheran service and an Episcopalian (Anglican) service.

These are all very old protestant religions that came into being around the time of the protestant reformation. Presbyterianism is an offshoot of Calvinism, and the Methodist church broke off from the Anglican denomination.

Since these churches all have similar services/liturgies that also have a lot in common with Catholic services, it would seem that they have borrowed more from Catholics than Catholics have borrowed from them. After all, it isn’t just a coincidence that they all just came up with similar structures at the same time. And these denominations do have quite structured services, compared to the evangelical denominations.

As to the NO Mass being “protestantized”, I would suggest that before a Catholic makes this claim they actually attend a Latin NO Mass, such as required by VII. It bears little to no resemblance to the average “Oregon Catholic Press scripted” mass most parishes are subjected to these days, and has a lot of similarities to the TLM.

I’m not defending bad masses or abuses (except for my former TLM parish I’ve pretty much been fed stones for five out of seven years of being a Catholic), but I sometimes wonder if the changes called for by VII had been implemented properly and in a spirit of obedience if there would be such a big push these days for the TLM.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

What is so heretical about a Methodist saying that the N.O. Mass reminded them of the Methodist service they grew up with in the 60s? Where did the N.O. Mass come from if it is similiar today (we’ll stick with externals, I’ve never attended a Methodist Service) to Protestant or Methodist Services before Vatican II?

Yes I also feel words matter too, like the Mystery of Faith under the Memorial Acclamation and all.

One more time:

Outside the really fundamentalist evangelical ecclesial communities, most mainline Protestant have, to a greater or lesser degree, some form of liturgical worship. This can include a confession of sin of some sort, the reading of scripture, the sermon, the recitation of a creed (either the Apostles creed, or the Nicene Creed (usually touched up by liberals and feminists) or some creed a committee came up with), then prayers (formal written prayers or a prayer time when prayer can be offered extemporaneously, but usually includes the Lord’s Prayer. This may also preceed the sermon). IF they have frequent communion (or even infrequent), the form is usually a thanksgiving, the gospel recitation (the setting of the Institution), then the words of the Institution (during which the minister may or may not extend his hands over the elements). After that is the communion of the ministers and assisting elders (“priests” in the Anglican tradition) or the minister may wait until the bread and wine/juice is distributed to the congregation. They consume it, sing a benediction, and, Bob’s your uncle, go home and have a nice pot roast.

Their service is similar to ours because they come from the same PLACE, ancient Christian liturgies from which they borrowed elements. Our Mass has elements of the old Sarum Missal, which Cranmer consulted in contriving the Anglican liturgy. John Wesley was an Anglican priest, and he founded Methodism. We have common antecedents.

AJV can fill in the gaps and correct me where I’ve strayed in my haste. But that’s a rough skeletal outline. AND, as I’ve said, even some Baptists have seen the need for more liturgical worship. Methodist parsons are wearing chasubles these days. If you were looking for liturgical worship to copy, where would you look? The Catholic or the Orthodox Churches, of course.

The answers to your question on the Mysetrium Fidei went to six pages. I think it was answered.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Is that the new or old Baptismal rite you are referring to?

The words of Eucharistic Institution are the same as read in the Baptist Church? Interesting…Do you mind me asking what year in your Baptist youth this was?

They still use it. The Eucharistic Institution is the reading of the Gospel Account of the Last Supper. It’s about as liturgical as Southern Baptists get.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Is that the new or old Baptismal rite you are referring to?

Which one DOESN’T use water and the Trinitarian formula?

 

[Uxor]

I’m a former Methodist, and it is true that the structure of the NO Mass is similar to a Methodist service. But it is also true that there are many ways that a Methodist service is also similar to a Presbyterian service, a Lutheran service and an Episcopalian (Anglican) service.

These are all very old protestant religions that came into being around the time of the protestant reformation. Presbyterianism is an offshoot of Calvinism, and the Methodist church broke off from the Anglican denomination.

Since these churches all have similar services/liturgies that also have a lot in common with Catholic services, it would seem that they have borrowed more from Catholics than Catholics have borrowed from them. After all, it isn’t just a coincidence that they all just came up with similar structures at the same time. And these denominations do have quite structured services, compared to the evangelical denominations.

As to the NO Mass being “protestantized”, I would suggest that before a Catholic makes this claim they actually attend a Latin NO Mass, such as required by VII. It bears little to no resemblance to the average “Oregon Catholic Press scripted” mass most parishes are subjected to these days, and has a lot of similarities to the TLM.

I’m not defending bad masses or abuses (except for my former TLM parish I’ve pretty much been fed stones for five out of seven years of being a Catholic), but I sometimes wonder if the changes called for by VII had been implemented properly and in a spirit of obedience if there would be such a big push these days for the TLM.

What changes do you think were called for by V2. From my readings no major changes were called for by V2. The Bishops wanted to maintain the integrity of the Traditional Mass.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

Well, in that case you might just as well condemn the Council of Trent, which likewise “invited” Protestant observers in its sessions as is clear from its Decree on Reformation:

I agree as long as no Protestant practices were added at all.

Were the fathers at Trent wrong as well for inviting Protestants (who were to be treated as more than just observers) in its sessions?

NO, as long as they Followed this from:

St .Mt 18:3 Amen, I say to you, unless you become converted…
St Mk 4:12 …lest at any time they should be converted…
St. Lk 7:47-50
Acts 15:3 …relating the conversion…

Unless you disagree?

 

[tcraig]

What changes do you think were called for by V2. From my readings no major changes were called for by V2. The Bishops wanted to maintain the integrity of the Traditional Mass.

I’m talking about the revised liturgy, often called the NO or the mass of Paul VI.

What I am basically saying is that VII, while it revised the liturgy, did not call for churches to be stripped of statues and sacred art, altar rails ripped out, and bad folk music-style tunes to take the place of Gregorian chant. It did not call for “pizza masses” or Clown Masses or Halloween Mases, etc.

Someone who is not familiar with the TLM would probably not know that a Latin NO is not the TLM. I was confused myself the first time I attended one. As I’ve said, I often wonder if the revisions to the liturgy had been implemented in a spirit of obedience if there would be such an interest in the TLM.

 

[AJV]

This is a scare tactic that the proponents of population control ( and we know who all those groups are) have stated for years…Man is a curse on the land, a plague, man will be so jammed together that the earth will glow orange-red from the heat, there will only be 1 square yard to live in, people pollution, holes in the ozone, global warming, they are even blaming cows farts now. LOL Argh…I can’t believe this.

What exactly are the drastic remedies that people are to use to reduce birth rates? (He states remedies, not remedy)

He says people are *inclined *to do so. Which is quite correct-in India a short time after this, under Indira Ghandi, her son started forced sterilization.

Like China’s One child policy law.

No not at all. In China it is applied strictly, in some places to the point that abortions are performed. This is not “in conformity with the dictates of moral law”. Nor is insisting that couples have only one child within “the rightful freedom of married couples”. Very clearly the Pope says that right of procreation cannot be taken away.

I thought the Lord said “Go Forth and Multipy”.

Yes indeed: but hand in hand with that- parents also have a responsibility to see about the welfare of their children, particularly in countries where there is no such system. My uncle is a member of the St. Vincent De Paul society in India-and it is pathetic to see such tiny children starving and all the trafficking and other evils that grow up around it. Responsible parenting in no way means articifical contraception.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I’m talking about the revised liturgy, often called the NO or the mass of Paul VI.

What I am basically saying is that VII, while it revised the liturgy, did not call for churches to be stripped of statues and sacred art, altar rails ripped out, and bad folk music-style tunes to take the place of Gregorian chant. It did not call for “pizza masses” or Clown Masses or Halloween Mases, etc.

Someone who is not familiar with the TLM would probably not know that a Latin NO is not the TLM. I was confused myself the first time I attended one. As I’ve said, I often wonder if the revisions to the liturgy had been implemented in a spirit of obedience if there would be such an interest in the TLM.

You mean if the silly season (burlap chasubles, felt banners, folk music, liturgical dance, etc.), as Fr. Neuhaus calls it, hadn’t happened. No, I doubt that there would be such a call for the TLM. Despite the fact that the smug arrogance of some who self-identify as “traditionalists” doesn’t really help the cause of the TLM, I reckon most bishops who quake in their miters at the thought of the TLM have only themselves to blame. They never should have allowed the “silly season.”

 

[Uxor]

I’m talking about the revised liturgy, often called the NO or the mass of Paul VI.

What I am basically saying is that VII, while it revised the liturgy, did not call for churches to be stripped of statues and sacred art, altar rails ripped out, and bad folk music-style tunes to take the place of Gregorian chant. It did not call for “pizza masses” or Clown Masses or Halloween Mases, etc.

Someone who is not familiar with the TLM would probably not know that a Latin NO is not the TLM. I was confused myself the first time I attended one. As I’ve said, I often wonder if the revisions to the liturgy had been implemented in a spirit of obedience if there would be such an interest in the TLM.

Pope Paul VI called for a new mass…not VII. As I said before the Bishops only asked for minor updating, not a new mass. The Latin NO is still deficient…it still lacks the traditional elements of the Mass…i.e. the Sacrifice, the Virgin Mary and contrition.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Pope Paul VI called for a new mass…not VII. As I said before the Bishops only asked for minor updating, not a new mass. The Latin NO is still deficient…it still lacks the traditional elements of the Mass…i.e. the Sacrifice, the Virgin Mary and contrition.

What do you mean by deficient? Are you saying that it cannot confect the Sacrifice?

It still retains the essentials of the Sacrifice, it still includes the Blessed Virgin Mary, and it still involves contrition.

 

[tcraig]

You mean if the silly season (burlap chasubles, felt banners, folk music, liturgical dance, etc.), as Fr. Neuhaus calls it, hadn’t happened. No, I doubt that there would be such a call for the TLM. Despite the fact that the smug arrogance of some who self-identify as “traditionalists” doesn’t really help the cause of the TLM, I reckon most bishops who quake in their miters at the thought of the TLM have only themselves to blame. They never should have allowed the “silly season.”

Exactly! Because the good NO Masses that I’ve attended (none at my parish unfortunately) are quite beautiful and the parishes are healthy. Traditional practices (such as praying the rosary, novenas, litanies, adoration etc.) are thriving.

I’m hopeful for the MP, because I think that the TLM should be allowed to be celebrated by any willing priest with an interested congregation. But I don’t think it will become the normative rite of the Church again, and as someone who has a lot of experience with the TLM I just don’t think that it will appeal to the vast majority of Catholics (as opposed to a properly celebrated NO). I think that more energy should go to fixing the abuses in the NO.