The Mass of Vatican II

[Caesar]

I must first extend my thanks to Michael (Traditional Ang) who found this article for me. It helped me understand the position of the Second Vatican Council on the issue of the Liturgy, and while I still support the celebration of our glorious Tridentine Mass, the “Mass of Vatican II” as Fr. Joseph Fessio SJ calls it, is what should be celebrated in our parishes today.

ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/fessio_massv2_1_jan05.asp

I would like to point out several quotes from the article that may interest some of you, especialy those who dont want to go through the entire article:

Paragraph 23 continues: “And care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.” Organic growth - like a plant, a flower, a tree - not something constructed by an intellectual elite, not things fabricated and tacked on, or brought back from ten centuries ago, or fifteen centuries ago, but an organic growth. That’s what the Council itself said.

… the Council did not abolish Latin in the liturgy. The Council permitted the vernacular in certain limited ways, but clearly understood that the fixed parts of the Mass would remain in Latin. Again, I am just telling you what the Council said.

The Council also permits Communion under both species here, but under very limited circumstances. For example, “to the newly ordained in the Mass of the Sacred Ordination, or the newly professed in the Mass of Profession, and the newly baptized in the Mass which follows baptism.”

Paragraph 114 adds: “The treasure of sacred music is to be preserved and fostered with great care.” Then in paragraph 116 we find another shocker: “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.” That’s what the Council actually said. If you are in a parish which prides itself on living the spirit of Vatican II, then you should be singing Gregorian chant at your parish. And if you’re not singing the Gregorian Chant, you’re not following the specific mandate of the Second Vatican Council.

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.

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.

Hmmm

 

[Aureole]

That article is quite interesting. Fr. Fessio is celebrating the Mass as it ought to be celebrated today. The Oratorians in Toronto celebrate a Mass like this.

 

[Caesar]

That article is quite interesting. Fr. Fessio is celebrating the Mass as it ought to be celebrated today. The Oratorians in Toronto celebrate a Mass like this.

I’ve had a few people on these forums mention the Oratorians to me

 

[Caesar]

Anyway, this article gives us an interesting perspective on the Liturgical Reforms of Vatican II and the the late 1960s. This very much shows us that while the Council proposed that the Liturgy “grow organically from forms already existing”, we got a whole new Liturgy instead. After all, the Liturgy has been developing organically for 2000 years (the Tridentine Mass celebrated by traditional priests is the 1962 version- it’s not quite the same Liturgy from the Council of Trent- we just didnt continue that development).

I do believe that the Council was on the right track. But unfortunately, how many Masses today are celebrated with Gregorian Chant, Latin Ordinaries, an Altar ad orientem, and the Roman Canon? Very few.

 

[kleary]

I believe that is why Pope Paul VI banished Archbishop Bugnini to the land of the Ayatollah Khomeni for these very reasons.

Ken

 

[Caesar]

I believe that is why Pope Paul VI banished Archbishop Bugnini to the land of the Ayatollah Khomeni for these very reasons.

Ken

If Paul VI disapproved of the New Mass put forth by Archbishop Bugnini, why didnt he simply reject it as Cardinal Ottaviani suggested?

 

[kleary]

If Paul VI disapproved of the New Mass put forth by Archbishop Bugnini, why didnt he simply reject it as Cardinal Ottaviani suggested?

I guess too much work had been done and it took a lot of time to concoct it and the world already knew it was coming sort of thing. Maybe he was weak and felt he couldn’t stop it, similarly with Communion in the hand.

Maybe the whole curia was for it sort of thing, I really don’t know… but why oh why would you want to send a good friend who had just did the best job ever on the New Liturgy to the land to Iran? Makes you wonder.

Ken

 

[Caesar]

I guess too much work had been done and it took a lot of time to concoct it and the world already knew it was coming sort of thing. Maybe he was weak and felt he couldn’t stop it, similarly with Communion in the hand.

Maybe the whole curia was for it sort of thing, I really don’t know… but why oh why would you want to send a good friend who had just did the best job ever on the New Liturgy to the land to Iran? Makes you wonder.

Ken

I find it hard to see the Pope placing the future of the Mass, the pinnacle of the Catholic faith, in the hands of someone he didnt trust, without good reason. Various conspiracy theories suggest he was forced by the Masons/Jews/Protestants/ect. to accepting it.

I also cannot see his decision to accept based on curial approval- after all, Cardinal Ottaviani and other top officials and theologians were against the New Mass.

A perplexing mystery.

 

[Rolltide]

St. Agnes Parish in St. Paul, MN celebrates the liturgy in this way. As I mentioned on the music thread, check out their amazing CD’s! You can download their music, too!

stagnes.net/music.html

 

[Caesar]

St. Agnes Parish in St. Paul, MN celebrates the liturgy in this way. As I mentioned on the music thread, check out their amazing CD’s! You can download their music, too!

stagnes.net/music.html

I downloaded several of the tracks for my mp3 player

 

[kleary]

I find it hard to see the Pope placing the future of the Mass, the pinnacle of the Catholic faith, in the hands of someone he didnt trust, without good reason. Various conspiracy theories suggest he was forced by the Masons/Jews/Protestants/ect. to accepting it.

I also cannot see his decision to accept based on curial approval- after all, Cardinal Ottaviani and other top officials and theologians were against the New Mass.

A perplexing mystery.

Most likely Pope Paul VI did trust Archbishop Bugnini and the Consillium under him. I know the stories like you do obviously. And yes it is a mystery of how this all happened. I guess things operate in a certain way “inside the vatican” that we really do not know about. I guess if Pope Paul VI totally scrapped what Bugnini came up with he wouldn’t have looked good at that time so to say…remember we are talking about the hippie culture here in America at that time.

Also, I do believe I read somewhere that Bugnini’s version was changed somewhat by the Pope from the first version he issued.

Anyway, God sent Paul VI for a big reason. Remember it was him who wrote Humanae Vitae, something that I myself am daily riduculed for following. Maybe Paul VI wan’t strong in liturgical matters… but I think he is horrified by what he sees in the world today, that is if he is in heaven and can see the results of the Novus Ordo Missae.

Ken

 

[Caesar]

Most likely Pope Paul VI did trust Archbishop Bugnini and the Consillium under him. I know the stories like you do obviously. And yes it is a mystery of how this all happened. I guess things operate in a certain way “inside the vatican” that we really do not know about. I guess if Pope Paul VI totally scrapped what Bugnini came up with he wouldn’t have looked good at that time so to say…remember we are talking about the hippie culture here in America at that time.

Also, I do believe I read somewhere that Bugnini’s version was changed somewhat by the Pope from the first version he issued.

Anyway, God sent Paul VI for a big reason. Remember it was him who wrote Humanae Vitae, something that I myself am daily riduculed for following. Maybe Paul VI wan’t strong in liturgical matters… but I think he is horrified by what he sees in the world today, that is if he is in heaven and can see the results of the Novus Ordo Missae.

Ken

I would have thought that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was more important than one’s public image. The rejection of the Novus Ordo may have damaged Paul VI’s reputation, but it would have been sacrificed for the greater good of the Church. A minor sacrifice in defense of the greatest sacrifice of all time.

I do agree with you on the topic of Humanae Vitae. Paul VI did a great thing defending the traditional position of the Church on the issues regarding human life. If only he had been able to do the same with the Liturgy.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

I guess too much work had been done and it took a lot of time to concoct it and the world already knew it was coming sort of thing. Maybe he was weak and felt he couldn’t stop it, similarly with Communion in the hand.

Maybe the whole curia was for it sort of thing, I really don’t know… but why oh why would you want to send a good friend who had just did the best job ever on the New Liturgy to the land to Iran? Makes you wonder.

Ken

Ken:

I think that we should remember that many of the deliberations about and the release of the Ordo Missae occured after the Mass rebellion by many in the Church over Humanae Vitae (released July 25, 1968).

I still remember when Fr, Fessio and the St. Ignatius Institute wanted to celebrate the 10th Anniversary of the Promulgation of the Enclyclical at USF. The University initially refused to allow it until the symposium was rescheduled to coincide with another symposium on the Authority of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church with speakers talking about Humanae Vitae in a few sessions.

If the spirit of rebellion was so strong that members of the clergy didn’t want to hear about the encyclical 10 years later, I can only imagine the uproar when it was released - I understand the Canadian National Council of Bishops refused to teach it in the seminaries or to the faithful, and that a majority still hold that position 38 years later.

I can only imagine that, after that bruising confrontation, Pope Paul VI wasn’t exactly eager for another round with some of these same clergy over the liturgy. OTOH, some of those on the other side were probably all too eager to push things as far as they could.

This is where I thank God for the alternative media and the Internet - If such a thing were to happen now, not only would we know about the rebellion by bishops and other members of the clergy, but we who support the Pope could shower the Pope with encouragement and support within hours of the initial revolt. We could let him know that he wasn’t alone and that we had some idea of what was being called into question, and that we were going to continue submitting to his authority as the “Holder of St. Peter’s Keyes”, and that he had our support and our prayers.

I can’t see how a Pope who received such support from the faithful and clergy who clearly stated their submission to him wouldn’t be more able to deal with a situation such as what Pope Paul VI faced.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[Caesar]

Anyway, just to get back to my main point here, what does everything think of the “Mass of Vatican II”? Is the Novus Ordo really what the Council wanted, or is it just an invention of Archbishop Bugnini? Does the Liturgy need reform/renewal today to get back to what the Council called for?

 

[whosebob]

Anyway, just to get back to my main point here … Does the Liturgy need reform/renewal today to get back to what the Council called for?

JMJ + OBT​

An excellent question, Caesar! My view is “yes,” to put it simply.

Fr. Jonathan Robinson, who was instrumental in the founding of the Oratory of St. Philip Neri in Toronto, Canada (just a few hours driving distance from you), wrote an important book which touches on this subject:

The Mass and Modernity
Walking to Heaven Backward

From the book’s page on Ignatius.com:

The second aim of the book is to show that that the sources of a genuine liturgical renewal are to be found in a heightened sense of the centrality of the Mass and a return to a theology compatible with the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

“Fr. Robinson’s book is a philosopher’s gift to the Catholic liturgy. He provides a thoroughly lucid account of the climate of ideas which handicaps the celebration of Catholic worship in the modern world. This is a diagnosis which shows just how far reaching must be the cure.”

— Fr. Aidan Nichols, Author, Looking at the Liturgy

If ever you are able and inclined to visit the Oratory in Toronto, I’m sure Fr. Robinson would be glad to sit down and talk to you about this important subject (you might want to make an appointment first). By the way, those Oratorians are very open to visitors sharing their communal meals (which are conducted in a classic Benedictine fashion, per the traditions of St. Philip’s ideal for his Oratory) and also praying with them in their private chapel, and of course assisting at their beautiful traditional liturgies celebrated in the parish(es) that they oversee. When I made my visit, I had the great blessing of being able to assist at one of Fr. Robinson’s (quasi)private Masses in the private chapel. He celebrated it strictly according to the Pauline Rite, but it was done in the “spirit” of the Tridentine Rite, if that makes any sense – everything in Latin except for the readings (no homily and general intercessions, which may be ommitted), ad orientem posture, etc. Thank goodness I had with me my copy of the Daily Roman Missal from Scepter Publishers which has the Latin and English for all of the congregation’s responses in the Pauline Rite! It was just me and the alcolyte – who was/is one of the seminarians there – assisting at that Mass. What an amazing experience – the Mass of Vatican II as it was intended to be! If I hadn’t been as versed in the Trid. Rite as I was at the time, I probably wouldn’t have been able to readily point out the differences between that Mass and Low Mass according to the 1962 Missal.

You really should consider making a visit. The Oratory as a whole has a great concern for fostering and transmitting the fullness of Catholic tradition and teaching in terms of liturgy, morality, culture, music, and everything else. At one of the parishes which they oversee, the Sunday Mass is always according to the Tridentine Rite (at least it used to be, and it may still be).

May Our Lord bless you and keep you.

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

P.S. Fr. Robinson is elderly – you might not want to wait too long to go have a long chat with him and pick his brain, otherwise you might altogether miss your opportunity to do so.

 

[steve_green_2]

Anyway, just to get back to my main point here, what does everything think of the “Mass of Vatican II”? Is the Novus Ordo really what the Council wanted, or is it just an invention of Archbishop Bugnini? Does the Liturgy need reform/renewal today to get back to what the Council called for?

You know what the problem with the NO mass is ???

Answer: No one likes it.

Modernists (for a better word) want to always change it to be inclusive, or more “relevant” or yadda, et yadda. They are always having liturgical conferences, are they not ??

Traditionalists don’t care for it at all for obvious reasons. A full return to the TLM is the ticket for the Roman Church by golly.

 

[LilyM]

You know what the problem with the NO mass is ???

Answer: No one likes it.

Modernists (for a better word) want to always change it to be inclusive, or more “relevant” or yadda, et yadda. They are always having liturgical conferences, are they not ??

Traditionalists don’t care for it at all for obvious reasons. A full return to the TLM is the ticket for the Roman Church by golly.

Speak for yourself! I don’t like abuses of the NO, and most of the music that accompanies it is cringeworthy, but in and of itself I like the simplicity and intimacy of it.

 

[Rykell]

Kleary:

I guess too much work had been done and it took a lot of time to concoct it and the world already knew it was coming sort of thing. Maybe he was weak and felt he couldn’t stop it … Post #7

I guess if Pope Paul VI totally scrapped what Bugnini came up with he wouldn’t have looked good at that time so to say…remember we are talking about the **hippie culture **here in America at that time. Post #11

These are utterly offensive and blasphemous statements about the Pope … that he alone made these lawful changes out of personal weakness and “looking good?” See forum section rule V:16.

Caesar:

I find it hard to see the Pope placing the future of the Mass, the pinnacle of the Catholic faith, in the hands of someone he didnt trust, without good reason. Various conspiracy theories suggest he was forced by the Masons/Jews/Protestants/ect. to accepting it. Post #8

Utter nonsense! There is no substantiated evidence that this is true and it has been disproved in other threads on this forum.

Caesar:

Is the Novus Ordo really what the Council wanted, or is it just an invention of Archbishop Bugnini? Does the Liturgy need reform/renewal today to get back to what the Council called for? Post #14

For someone who is considering the priesthood, I find this totally unacceptable to project upon others the idea of the mass being the sole invention of another. You know better than that, Caesar, and if you were really interested, it would not be hard to obtain true information.

Consider the words of Marian Carroll:

It may be well to ponder what one of our posters has written about the Mass: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1417737

“The Novus Ordo Mass is neither less authentic nor holy than the Tridentine Mass; each, as a service of worship directed to God, has its own intrinsic holiness when served faithfully and reverently. To the extent that abuses exist within either, they must needs be addressed; but the form is only that - an external; ultimately, worship comes from within oneself, one’s heart and soul. That said, any valid celebration of the Mass is a recreation of the Last Supper and cannot be other than intrinsically holy, albeit it may be licit or illicit, depending on the circumstances surrounding its service. The Church can and does judge its validity, as well as its licity; the former being established, it is an impossibility for it to be “sinful”. The sinfulness, if any (and that is for God’s judgment, not ours) lays in the disobedience of lawful spiritual authority by the presbyter who elects not to submit to the authority of the Pope…”

Steve Green:

Modernists (for a better word) want to always change it to be inclusive, or more “relevant” or yadda, et yadda. Post #16

Again, this is disrespect for the Hierarchy who has the lawful “keys of Peter” to make changes, and they are not “modernists.” If you read the actual definition of Modernism in Pius X’s encyclical, you would see that your definition is not correct.

 

[oat_soda]

the problem with the critizism of the novus ordo mass is there as many opinions of how the liturgy should be as there are critics, which is a million.

for instance, some criticize the lectionary but approve the new offeratory prayers. other the exact opposite. some are happy with the removal of the last gospel, others aren’t. some notice how most prayers are addressed to the Father and not the holy Trinity like the old mass and eastern liturgies.

i don’t like the fact that the priest doesn’t face the altar at the start of the mass, especially during the kyrie like in the tridentine. i feel this sets the mass in its proper place, as an act of worshiping the Trinity. look at the new eucharistic prayers–everyone has a diffrent opinion of them.

B16 while celebrating the mass in latin had also said that the translation of the entire liturgy into english was a good thing. where do we set limits on the use of latin in mass??

some don’t want any latin, some what all latin. some want a return to the altar rail and tounge only, others don’t see it as an issue like the pope himself.

the pope has written about the giveness of the mass, that the less it changes the better it is. but at the same time i heard another quote of him saying the reforms of the liturgy of vatican ii was a good thing.

to me this says that maybe there isn’t one right way. clearly, we are not reaching any agreement. the fact that the church set up a committiee to reform the liturgy says that it isn’t set in stone and is composed of immutable parts and parts that should be changed. they have the final say in the end which gives the perception that the changes of vatican II are partly arbitrary and dependent on the fancy and historical circumstances of the reformer.

which brings me to a point. the roman rite hasn’t figured it out yet. it will take a long time before we see where this liturgical movement takes us. its been going on at least from the time of st. pius x. for now, i go to the divine liturgy which to me is perfect, and is subject to far less change.

 

[Trident59]

I tend to agree with Steve Green in the overall picture.

It is not disrespectful to critisize a Pope when he is not speaking excathedra. Popes are very human and subject to making mistakes as are we all.

It would be disrespectful to speak slander of anyone.
But truth is not to be avoided.