Stop Blaming Vatican II

[Lobster_Johnson]

Why was it so bad as celebrated in the context of the communal meal recorded by Scripture? Did switching it up to ‘formal’ make it more reverent objectively? Why do you consider the first Eucharists less reverent?

I think you’re overlooking one critical point: the first Eucharistic celebration WAS a formal liturgy. The Jewish Passover meal wasn’t just dinner at mom’s house, it was a liturgical meal that involved ritual actions by the head of the household, scripture readings, strict rubrics, etc… Christ didn’t institute the Eucharist at an ordinary meal.

 

[Motherwit]

Motherwit:

why was it so bad as celebrated in the context of the communal meal recorded by Scripture?

We actually know what the Apostles celebrated because their liturgies were written down: the Liturgy of St. Mark the Apostle and the Liturgy of St. James above - both were incredibly intricate and several hours long

How much knowledge do you have of those liturgies? Is that what all the Christians in the first century practiced? My understanding was that house Eucharists were the ordinary form until the 4th century because Christianity was outlawed until then. What I’m wondering is what is the basis of the claim that the Tridentine Mass is more close to the first Eucharists than the Ordinary Form we celebrate today?

 

[Motherwit]

Motherwit:

Why was it so bad as celebrated in the context of the communal meal recorded by Scripture? Did switching it up to ‘formal’ make it more reverent objectively? Why do you consider the first Eucharists less reverent?

I think you’re overlooking one critical point: the first Eucharistic celebration WAS a formal liturgy. The Jewish Passover meal wasn’t just dinner at mom’s house, it was a liturgical meal that involved ritual actions by the head of the household, scripture readings, strict rubrics, etc… Christ didn’t institute the Eucharist at an ordinary meal.

In what way is the Tridentine Mass more like the first Eucharistic celebration than the Ordinary Form we celebrate today?

 

[Lobster_Johnson]

In what way is the Tridentine Mass more like the first Eucharistic celebration than the Ordinary Form we celebrate today?

I didn’t say it was more like the first Eucharistic liturgy. Externally, neither the Novus Ordo or Tridentine Mass look anything like a Jewish Seder meal. I am maintaining that the Tridentine Mass is closer in appearance and spirit to the various liturgies used by the early church in the few centuries after Christ.

 

[ReaderT]

How much knowledge do you have of those liturgies? Is that what all the Christians in the first century practiced? My understanding was that house Eucharists were the ordinary form until the 4th century because Christianity was outlawed until then. What I’m wondering is what is the basis of the claim that the Tridentine Mass is more close to the first Eucharists than the Ordinary Form we celebrate today?

I don’t think the two have to be mutually exclusive - you can have a long liturgy in a house. In fact even in the present day many Orthodox liturgies in America were done in a parishioner’s house (or field!) before they grew to purchase a building.

As for “Is that what all the Christians in the first century practiced?”, I believe we have to say yes - we have multiple liturgies from the Apostles that all show intricacy, formality and length

 

[otjm]

The Novus Ordo Mass is a far cry from what the early church had. One of the earliest formal liturgies is the Divine Liturgy of St. James, which has been in use since the 4th century at the latest, and is still in use today. It is nothing like the Novus Ordo liturgy.

You have taken my comment out of context and and are trying to put words in my mouth.

Let’s try it again: I was speaking to a specific point; the poster asked if I thought someone talking to popes in the last few centuries would react to the comments in SC seeking to remove duplications and add-ons. I have not said that the OF is "like the first few centuries of the Church; I said that liturgical research went back to the early Church (and obviously compared it to the EF). The short of it was that the EF had become repetitive in parts, added parts (e.g. the prayers at the foot of the altar - previously said before Mass) and the Last Gospel (said after Mass, if I recall) as well as multiple “I confess” types of add-ons.

I have no doubt that the Liturgy of St. James was part of the research; but I have said nowhere that the bishops were seeking to replicate it.

Nor have I said that the bishops sought to “(bring) us back to the traditions of the early church.” What they sought was to bring the liturgy of the Roman rite back from a clericalized liturgy in which the great majority of people had been as mere spectators and involved in pious private devotions, and make the liturgy something which the people could actively participate in.

And I suspect that the Church Fathers would not have a terrible time at an OF - presuming they spoke whatever language the Mass was being said in, should they be able to participate.

The Western Syriac rite may have been the first formal liturgy, but sine we are speaking of the Roman rite, we are talking about the rites which were formalized throughout western Europe with a locus in Rome. So perhaps those Fathers of the Church who were western might be more appropriate to discus. That there were multiple rites in the Western Church is clear both for those which have survived Trent, and for those which were suppressed as having arisen less than 200 years from when Trent was held.

 

[otjm]

I see many people in shorts and sandals,

Sacrosanctum Concilium was decided on December 4th, 1963, and life in general was more formal 57 years ago than it is today; 57 years is a long time in terms of formal/informal dress. There was no such thing as “work casual” in the cities. And the Catholic Church had zero, zip, nada to do with how people dress generally.

It appears that shorts and sandals offends you, and I am not a proponent of it; but I would rather see a parish filled to overflowing with people in shorts and sandals than I would a quarter full of people formally dressed.

At EF Mass I see people following along (or in my case, struggling to follow along) in their missals (I rarely see a missal at a Sunday OF Mass).

One of the reasons you fail to see missals at an OF (and in the parishes I have been to in the last 30 years, all have had missals in the pews) is that the Mass is in English and the priest most generally has a microphone. I don’t use a missal anymore as I can hear and follow along with each and every last word the priest says aloud. So I fail to see your point.

Granted it isn’t a fair comparison, generally people at EF Masses choose to be there rather than at an OF Mass in their own parish.

I will grant you it is not a fair comparison, and since we are on unfair comparisons, a Parish about 5 miles from me has The EF as well as the OF. They have over 3,000 families, and 11 Masses; 5 in English, 3 in Spanish, 1 in Vietnamese and one EF.

And the EF averages less than 100 people. Several of the other masses are standing room only. There are three other parishes surrounding the area within 5 miles or less, so it may well be that some of the fewer than 100 attending the EF come from other parishes - since none of them have an EF.

And as everyone generally can hear each and every word a priest says, presuming the audio is set up correctly, it just might be possible that people hearing the Mass in their own language might give you the feeling they are not actively participating, because they do not use the missals in the pews.

I suspect a bit to the contrary.

 

[27lw]

Is the Novus Ordo Even VALID?​

We can consider the Vatican II changes to the liturgy valid.
In making such a drastic sudden change, was any harm done to the Church?
In balance, has Vatican II done more harm than good?
What harm was on purpose, and what harm was inadvertent?
These recent cases of priests who have found out that they weren’t truly baptized – that would never have happened under the EF, I believe.

 

[otjm]

Presumably they did. Are you saying the OF is identical to the liturgy of the Early Church of the first 6 centuries? I think not.

I speak plainly enough that I think you know what I said; you don’t need to try to spin it.

If I had seen any evidence that our current liturgy was following the directions of Vatican II, rather than the weirdness that followed, maybe I would have something to judge on this point.

If I had seen any evidence that our current liturgy was following the directions of Vatican II, rather than the weirdness that followed, maybe I would have something to judge on this point.

You hve made it clear that you prefer the EF and I have no problem with that in the least. Nor would I expect you to know much of liturgical research and commentary since then concerning the OF, as it is clear you have no interest in it And I will leave it at that.

I noticed that you briefly attempted to justify the use of the word “restoration”, which can be used as a pejorative term. Seemingly to mean that the liturgy had fallen into bad condition. Why were the bishops so rude about the Tridentine Mass?

It appears to me that you have not read Sacrosanctum Concilium.

The bishops used the word “restoration”, so attempting to put that on me is misguided.

The bishops were factual about the changes they wanted made; your comment about them being rude is to take objective language and see it through an emotional response. I see no reason to continue the discussion.

If we could see past popes’ reaction to some OF Mass complete with drumset, amplifiers, and pop-style vocals, (are they watching from heaven?), I wonder what they might say.

Probably the same thing that Pope Benedict 16th might say; it is interesting that out of approximately 17,000 parishes in the US, you single out something which a smattering of parishes have and use that as a weapon. The overall response of the parishes in the US is not “drumset, amplifiers, and pop-style vocals” and your desire to reduce a conversation about SC to that inidcates no desire to dialogue on SC.

God bless. You are now on ignore.

 

[otjm]

These recent cases of priests who have found out that they weren’t truly baptized

The only case I ahve heard of was one priest; not sure why you refer to multiple priests - please reference.

As to your question as to the validity of the Mass you reference, perhaps you could ask the bishop or archbishop saying it. I see no reason he would not affirm not only its validity, but also that it was entirely licit.

The rules which were changed about the liturgy were just that - rules, which are disciplinary and have nothing to do with validity. Christ gave us the Eucharist; he did not give us a list of prayrs which were to be said during the Mass other than the words of consecration; and the validity of the prayers removed is equal to the validity of them being put into the Mass in the first place.

 

[27lw]

Another Case of a Priest Not Validly Baptized - Catholicism.org

 

[27lw]

27lw:

If we could see past popes’ reaction to some OF Mass complete with drumset, amplifiers, and pop-style vocals, (are they watching from heaven?), I wonder what they might say.

Probably the same thing that Pope Benedict 16th might say; it is interesting that out of approximately 17,000 parishes in the US, you single out something which a smattering of parishes have and use that as a weapon. The overall response of the parishes in the US is not “drumset, amplifiers, and pop-style vocals” and your desire to reduce a conversation about SC to that inidcates no desire to dialogue on SC.

God bless. You are now on ignore.

Here’s an example. Mass and music starts at the 10:00 mark. See if this accords with Vatican II. Does it?

 

[whatistrue]

One of the reasons you fail to see missals at an OF (and in the parishes I have been to in the last 30 years, all have had missals in the pews) is that the Mass is in English and the priest most generally has a microphone.

I use a missal that my wife bought for me when I was received into the Church. My wife uses a missal I bought for her as a present early on in our relationship. I use mine mostly so I can follow along with the readings and look at the commentary. I also use it partly because I am new to the Mass and need to read some of the parts said by the Faithful (like the Creed) because I don’t have them memorized completely yet. I also see a fair number of others using a personal one or one of the booklets available at the entrance with that day’s readings in it, but I also see many who apparently have it all memorized as they are definitely saying the responses but don’t refer to a printed or electronic text.

 

[AlNg]

The number of Catholic marriage annulments has increased dramatically after Vatican II, especially in the USA.
1929 - 10 marriage annulments per year.
1993 - more than 50,000 marriage annulments per year.
Recently it has been about 30,000 marriage annulments per year, but fewer Catholics are getting married. Since Vatican II, more Catholics are living together without getting married.

When a Contract Is Broken - Los Angeles Times

According to a recent survey, one-in-four Catholics have gone through a divorce. One-in-ten have not only divorced but also remarried. One-in-ten are living with a romantic partner, sans wedding, and more than four-in-ten have done so at some point in their lives.

U.S. Catholics Open to Non-Traditional Families | Pew Research Center

I don’t see where Vatican II helped to strengthen Catholic family life.

 

[27lw]

Yes it’s like the Catholic Church had a choice in the 1960s:
“okay, Western society is caving in on itself and institutions are basing major decisions on the so-called youthquake. Should we reaffirm our principles, or go with the world?”
Hmmm, what did they choose…

 

[commenter]

Yes it’s like the Catholic Church had a choice in the 1960s:
“okay, Western society is caving in on itself and institutions are basing major decisions on the so-called youthquake. Should we reaffirm our principles, or go with the world?”
Hmmm, what did they choose…

the Vatican 2 documents did reaffirm our principles in my opinion. If you disagree, cite specific instances in the documents themselves.

Part of the problem is that Western societies secularized, even in places where there were few Catholics. Another part is that a group of priests, sisters, and laity, all formed, educated, and promoted to powerful positions before V2, pushed their own agenda afterwards. That generation is mostly gone.

The documents remain. Refer to them, and subsequent Encyclicals. The obsession with “proving” V2 as the source of most modern problems
is a fixation by certain websites.

It’s easier to raise anger, and donations, by zeroing in on a visible fixed target, especially if you can imply lurid, cover-up, manipulation, betrayal, of and by the bishops, with secretive German theologians intriguing from the shadows during the Council. If the websites printed articles urging Laity to work for Evangelism and prolife in 2020, that would not bring in the donations, attract website hits or sell books.

 

[MarkRome]

Yes, the Novus Ordo Mass is valid as he clearly elucidates in this video.

 

[MarkRome]

Can’t blame it on VII.

 

[AlNg]

Can’t blame it on VII.

How did Vatican II and the spirit of Vatican II help support traditional family life? Why did we see an explosion in the number of Catholic marriage annulments right after Vatican II ?

 

[MarkRome]

Again, you make these points but fail to show a causal relationship with VII. VII didn’t cause these things.