Vatican II and its necessity...where do i belong?

[ProVobis]

The Council of Trent anathematized anyone who asserts that the rites and ceremonies employed by the Church are ‘incentives to impiety’. The new Mass fits well within the definition of a rite or ceremony employed by the Church. And saying that of itself, absent abuses of its rubrics, it lessens reverence comes dangerously close to saying it is indeed an incentive to impiety, and so flirts with anathematized views.

Fair enough but I think only one Pope called it “new.” It is now de facto officially the Forma Ordinaria of the same rite. “New” rites were also anathematized by Trent. Just saying.

 

[Armor_of_Light]

“Yesterday at mass, we started by greeting each other warmly. Then we had a financial pitch after a short homily. Then we ‘affirmed’ and applauded all the birthdays. Then the same for all the anniversaries. etc, etc, etc… It is all too much!! Are there any reverent OF masses and parishes left?”

The problem with traditionalist comments is they are filled with opinion, and preference. I prefer mass one way. You prefer it another. But I assure you, that no matter how much you think you are upholding traditionalist values, there will always be someone who is more. It’s all comparison. Focus on the positives of each persons faith. Look for the good qualities. I like peace and quiet! I like 8 hour masses. I like vigils that go into morning. I love cantors and incense. But it’s necessary sometimes to see how those who celebrate birthdays and hug and sing “happy” modern songs feel as well. It’s necessary to flip things around a bit. Yes what is irreverent to you and to me, is quite rude to say in the way we can sometimes say it. The word used to describe the process necessary to understand what our brethren feel is called “empathy”. Empathy is to put ourselves in someone else’s shoes. Do you really think those who hug or announce birthdays think their being “Irreverent”? No! They think they are actually brining love into church. Until we traditionalists can see this, we will never get the point of Vatican II.

Your point is why I am filtering my own opinions through catholic lenses!! I am trying to keep false pride at bay…so thank you for this!

I’d appreciate more discussion on some things in your statement.

Focus on the positives of each persons faith. Look for the good qualities. I like peace and quiet! I like 8 hour masses. I like vigils that go into morning. I love cantors and incense. But it’s necessary sometimes to see how those who celebrate birthdays and hug and sing “happy” modern songs feel as well.

The focus of the mass is the Lord. Pre-and-post vatican II…the Lord is the focus. I like birthdays, etc…and I universally love people. I even like some “happy modern” music. Just not at mass. My concern is that the real reason why we are there, and the way we are ALL TRULY connected is being lost. It seems that the old ways are in fact better for the whole of the community to remained focused. Now, I realize that as an individual, I can remained focused, but how many of my brothers and sisters can? We are united in Christ…especially at mass, but if our focus is being broken into individual birthday groups, etc…then are we as unified as the Lord wants? That is not vatican II’s fault in itself, but we are no longer being reminded. It seems that we didn’t NEED to be reminded before.

Do you really think those who hug or announce birthdays think their being “Irreverent”? No! They think they are actually brining love into church.

…but according to church teaching, it IS irreverent. Nobody says anything to the contrary. We are not instructed differently. Love in the church is a fine thing, but since the church is Christs mystical body…it IS love. We don’t really need to ‘bring’ it. (not opinion)By ‘bringing’ it we are in fact losing it. (opinion).

 

[TrueLight]

“Yesterday at mass, we started by greeting each other warmly. Then we had a financial pitch after a short homily. Then we ‘affirmed’ and applauded all the birthdays. Then the same for all the anniversaries. etc, etc, etc… It is all too much!! Are there any reverent OF masses and parishes left?”

The problem with traditionalist comments is they are filled with opinion, and preference. I prefer mass one way. You prefer it another. But I assure you, that no matter how much you think you are upholding traditionalist values, there will always be someone who is more. It’s all comparison. Focus on the positives of each persons faith. Look for the good qualities. I like peace and quiet! I like 8 hour masses. I like vigils that go into morning. I love cantors and incense. But it’s necessary sometimes to see how those who celebrate birthdays and hug and sing “happy” modern songs feel as well. It’s necessary to flip things around a bit. Yes what is irreverent to you and to me, is quite rude to say in the way we can sometimes say it. The word used to describe the process necessary to understand what our brethren feel is called “empathy”. Empathy is to put ourselves in someone else’s shoes. Do you really think those who hug or announce birthdays think their being “Irreverent”? No! They think they are actually brining love into church. Until we traditionalists can see this, we will never get the point of Vatican II.

Couponfit, I guess the question is what is the purpose of mass?

One thing I love about the Catholic mass is that it is the same everywhere. Or it should be. It is the sacrifice of the mass.

I am all for hugs and birthday celebrations. In fact, I have always decried unfriendliness among some Catholics. We are brothers and sisters. This is why I am a strong believer in coffee hours, Bible studies, Knights of Columbus, women’s groups – in essence anything that provides an opportunity for parishioners to get to know one another and to be true brothers and Sisters in Christ.

But not at the mass.

There is beauty in not having a loosey-goosey structure, but a mass where every rubric and every reading has multi-layered spiritual truths that enrich our souls.

 

[TrueLight]

Your point is why I am filtering my own opinions through catholic lenses!! I am trying to keep false pride at bay…so thank you for this!

I’d appreciate more discussion on some things in your statement.

The focus of the mass is the Lord. Pre-and-post vatican II…the Lord is the focus. I like birthdays, etc…and I universally love people. I even like some “happy modern” music. Just not at mass. My concern is that the real reason why we are there, and the way we are ALL TRULY connected is being lost. It seems that the old ways are in fact better for the whole of the community to remained focused. Now, I realize that as an individual, I can remained focused, but how many of my brothers and sisters can? We are united in Christ…especially at mass, but if our focus is being broken into individual birthday groups, etc…then are we as unified as the Lord wants? That is not vatican II’s fault in itself, but we are no longer being reminded. It seems that we didn’t NEED to be reminded before.

…but according to church teaching, it IS irreverent. Nobody says anything to the contrary. We are not instructed differently. Love in the church is a fine thing, but since the church is Christs mystical body…it IS love. We don’t really need to ‘bring’ it. (not opinion)By ‘bringing’ it we are in fact losing it. (opinion).

Good responses, Armor of Light.

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

There are 4 ends of the Mass.

Picked at random:
svdprcia.wordpress.com/2010/03/25/the-four-ends-of-the-sacrifice-of-the-mass/

The Four Ends of the Mass:

1. Adoration – through the Mass, we give God solemn worship, praise and honor.
2. Thanksgiving – through the Mass, we thank God for all He has bestowed.
3. Propitiation – through the Mass (the re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Christ upon Calvary), God’s justice for the sins of mankind is satisfied.
4. Petition – through the Mass, we present God with our needs and ask for graces.

Feeling good about yourself, entertainment, greeting your neighbour, promoting justice-n-peace are not among them.

 

[giuseppeTO]

As to the need for Vatican II, you might be surprised to know (if you already didn’t) that one Bishop who was particularly enthused about the upcoming Second Vatican Council was Archbishop Lefebvre. I believe that in one of his dissertations as Superior General to the Holy Ghost Fathers, he remarked about his excitement of the spiritual re invigoration that was anticipated to result from the Council.

So obviously, even among the conservative bishops at the time, the upcoming Council was regarded as a good and needed thing.

 

[Melchior_1]

As to the need for Vatican II, you might be surprised to know (if you already didn’t) that one Bishop who was particularly enthused about the upcoming Second Vatican Council was Archbishop Lefebvre. I believe that in one of his dissertations as Superior General to the Holy Ghost Fathers, he remarked about his excitement of the spiritual re invigoration that was anticipated to result from the Council.

So obviously, even among the conservative bishops at the time, the upcoming Council was regarded as a good and needed thing.

This is the first I’ve heard of this (thank you for sharing!), but I’m not shocked that His Grace on board with things. I’ve said it countless times on this board:

• Two War Wars.
• A few OTHER wars.
• The Roaring 20’s (aka tonnes of greed)
• The Great Depression
• The rise of the sexual revolution.
• The general disregard for the dignity of human life.

And of course, religious orders in some cases not being anywhere near their original charism.

The Council had to happen, it was needed. Especially regarding the last point, with religious orders getting back on track.

Ironically, the Ecumenism documents everyone complains about are actually describing mendicant teaching which has been down since the beginning of the movement back in the 1200’s.

Then again, maybe it’s not ironic at all that several documents were written as if through the lens of people like Francis, Dominic, Terese, and others, all while being mandated to go back to the roots.

 

[TempleServant]

As to the need for Vatican II, you might be surprised to know (if you already didn’t) that one Bishop who was particularly enthused about the upcoming Second Vatican Council was Archbishop Lefebvre. I believe that in one of his dissertations as Superior General to the Holy Ghost Fathers, he remarked about his excitement of the spiritual re invigoration that was anticipated to result from the Council.

So obviously, even among the conservative bishops at the time, the upcoming Council was regarded as a good and needed thing.

My bold. I’ve read elsewhere that that was a warning signal. Many clergy were very excited at about V2, whereas in the past, such Councils were called to combat serious heresies or the like.

 

[edwest2]

While Vatican II did not proclaim any new dogmas or canons or anathemas, it DID promote certain ways of viewing existing teaching.

For example, certain views on scripture and scriptural interpretation, certain views on what our proper understanding is to be of other faiths, and how we are to relate to people of other faiths, and so on.

While the Council documents did not enshrine these views in canon or dogmatic pronouncement, they nonetheless promoted them with the force of the Ordinary Magisterium, and we owe religious submission of intellect and will to their teaching.

‘Living as if they never happened’ does not, to my mind, approach anywhere near the proper attitude of religious submission of intellect and will.

And saying, as one poster here has, that the newer form of the Mass is in and of itself less reverent and so on is treading dangerous ground.

The Council of Trent anathematized anyone who asserts that the rites and ceremonies employed by the Church are ‘incentives to impiety’. The new Mass fits well within the definition of a rite or ceremony employed by the Church. And saying that of itself, absent abuses of its rubrics, it lessens reverence comes dangerously close to saying it is indeed an incentive to impiety, and so flirts with anathematized views.

I heard a priest on Catholic Radio state that the Mass needs to be more reverent - period. No more guitars and so on. It needs to be more conducive to worship.

Peace,
Ed

 

[M-Dent]

I heard a priest on Catholic Radio state that the Mass needs to be more reverent - period.

The words by Cardinal Ratzinger agree and explains the outcome.

A renewal of liturgical awareness, a liturgical reconciliation that again recognizes the unity of the history of the liturgy and that understands Vatican II, not as a breach, but as a stage of development: these things are urgently needed for the life of the Church.

I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy, which at times has even come to be conceived of etsi Deus non daretur: in that it is a matter of indifference whether or not God exists and whether or not he speaks to us and hears us. But when the community of faith, the world-wide unity of the Church and her history, and the mystery of the living Christ are no longer visible in the liturgy, where else, then, is the Church to become visible in her spiritual essence? Then the community is celebrating only itself, an acitivity that is utterly fruitless. And, because the ecclesial community cannot have its origin from itself but emerges as a unity only from the Lord, through faith, such circumstances will inexorably result in a disintegration into sectarian parties of all kinds — partisan opposition within a Church tearing herself apart.

This is why we need a new liturgical movement, which will call to life the real heritage of the Second Vatican Council.

Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977, p. 149

 

[Melchior_1]

My bold. I’ve read elsewhere that that was a warning signal. Many clergy were very excited at about V2, whereas in the past, such Councils were called to combat serious heresies or the like.

Heaven forbid people are excited about something, especially the Faith.

Besides, I listed off several reasons why a Council could have been called.

 

[ProVobis]

I heard a priest on Catholic Radio state that the Mass needs to be more reverent - period. No more guitars and so on. It needs to be more conducive to worship.

I have yet to attend a Spanish Mass which didn’t have guitars and handclapping. It’s their culture and it’s reverent to them.

 

[TempleServant]

Heaven forbid people are excited about something, especially the Faith.

I said they were excited about a Council being called, not the Faith. The Council certainly did produce a lot of excitement, afterwards.

 

[Melchior_1]

I said they were excited about a Council being called, not the Faith. The Council certainly did produce a lot of excitement, afterwards.

Councils are about the Faith, which means to be excited for the Council is to be excited for the Faith.

And a lot of Councils produced excitement afterwards.

 

[TempleServant]

No, they weren’t excited about the Faith, it was the Council, I’m sure of it.

 

[Melchior_1]

No, they weren’t excited about the Faith, it was the Council, I’m sure of it.

And you talked to each one of those who participated? Of course you didn’t, you have no way of knowing or proving your claims.

 

[Lormar]

And you talked to each one of those who participated? Of course you didn’t, you have no way of knowing or proving your claims.

He has as much a right to say that as you did when you stated:

The Council had to happen, it was needed.

How do you know that with such certainty? Did you ascertain that by speaking to each and every Catholic in the world?

 

[asd72]

I heard a priest on Catholic Radio state that the Mass needs to be more reverent - period. No more guitars and so on. It needs to be more conducive to worship.

Peace,
Ed

At my parish we mostly have to sing with no musical instruments. It is great when we have an organist or guitarist. A guitarist is ok to sing hymns with. Certainly better than nothing. I think a lot of parishes cannot afford paid musical directors etc or musicians, we rely on volunteers within the parish. I think no more guitars is a little over the top.

 

[Melchior_1]

He has as much a right to say that as you did when you stated:

How do you know that with such certainty? Did you ascertain that by speaking to each and every Catholic in the world?

Reading the hearts, minds, and attitudes of those within the Council is a bit different than examining the reasons why the Council happened. I gave a list of quantifiable events that have happened, which when added up is a fierce combination. All told, it’s a safe bet that eventually a Council would have been formed at some point, as a reaction to these things

In my opinion, the Council was needed to address a few issues, specifically the role of the consecrated religious within the Church. If that was not addressed, we’d be in a much worse position than we are now.

This is a bit different than saying “people didn’t care about the Faith, only about making stuff happen at the Council”.

 

[pnewton]

…but according to church teaching, it IS irreverent.

What Church teaching is that? I am unfamiliar with this topic ever being addressed, although I know announcements are allowable.