Vatican II Controversies

[Shakuhachi]

Ho, reminds me of when I was asked to serve a private mass. I hardly new anything but when to ring the bells. I guess no one else was available. A point came when the Priest pointed to the book. i am like 10 and wondering what i am supposed to do with it. I didn’t have a clue since it was on a reading stand and he didn’t need me to hold it for him. So I just closed it. I guess that was wrong because he moved it to the other side. TLM is like that. Why move it from one side to the other? Anyway, he was pretty cool about it. Just carried on. He even gave me a candy bar after mass.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

What a cute story. The last time I said Mass in the vetus ordo, my “altar boy” was over 70 years old. I didn’t have any candy bars to give him.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Thanks be to God.

 

[Shakuhachi]

And then Sr Edwardine was going to kick me out of Altar Boys because she thought I was one who threw BINGO cards on top of the school. I didn’t do it, I tell you!

Drama of a ten year old

 

[Debbie_Kono]

Short of malicious behavior today we do not teach children that giving their best to God when serving is a sin at all.

Could you clarify this please? I know I’m tired…but I don’t understand it. The way it’s written it is implying that back in the day children were taught it was a sin to give their best to God while serving.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

Xanthippe_Voorhees:

Short of malicious behavior today we do not teach children that giving their best to God when serving is a sin at all.

Could you clarify this please? I know I’m tired…but I don’t understand it. The way it’s written it is implying that back in the day children were taught it was a sin to give their best to God while serving.

During times before Vatican II making an error in Mass was a sin that ranged from venial to mortal (because it was serious) mind you, these were things so miniscule today we wouldn’t even notice. The position of your hand, a lisp when speaking the responses (the servers spoke because people did not) and even letting the bells clang an extra sound when putting them down (I mean, a small boy should be WAY MORE CAREFUL, of course )

The long short of it is that while one could manage to commit a sin in the pews the stakes were SO MUCH HIGHER for those boys who served. Along the lines of “much is given/much is expected”

So a child who served at Mass was taking a chance that he could fall into grave sins that he would not face while in the pews.

Children, wanting to please and give their all, are naturally willing to take this risk.

In reality, there should be no “risk” a child should not fear that serving on the Alter of God gives them more opportunity to sin. That’s crazy. Children should be able to give their best and be a child who makes mistakes. So long as they are not done out of malice, why raise the bar so high? It wasn’t ever really right to do so.

 

[jas84173]

From Trent Session 7

“CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by every pastor of the churches, into other new ones; let him be anathema.”

 

[Debbie_Kono]

why raise the bar so high? It wasn’t ever really right to do so.

Thank you for explaining so clearly. I’m a practicing Catholic for only 2 1/2 years now and there is so much history I do not know.

This sort of thing makes me wonder if the “Traditional” Catholics who are “not happy” with some things that came from VII are proven right in yet another (though smallish) matter. Isn’t it still Catholic teaching that excellence is something to strive for? That’s the impression I get from reading about the Saints. Obviously VII has lowered the bar in this small instance. And has changed something that used to be sinful into not sinful. Maybe the “Traditionalists” could see the handwriting on the wall and wanted to stop it. And maybe that is why so many of them are screaming that the pope needs to answer the dubia before it becomes even more common than it already is to let the divorced and civilly remarried receive Holy Communion. Or cater to the LGBT community and their demands.

And if you can say “it wasn’t ever really right to do so” (raise the bar so high)…wouldn’t it also be ok if a Traditional leaning Catholic said the opposite? Something like “it wasn’t ever really right to do so” (lower the bar so low)?

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

Xanthippe_Voorhees:

why raise the bar so high? It wasn’t ever really right to do so.

Thank you for explaining so clearly. I’m a practicing Catholic for only 2 1/2 years now and there is so much history I do not know.

This sort of thing makes me wonder if the “Traditional” Catholics who are “not happy” with some things that came from VII are proven right in yet another (though smallish) matter. Isn’t it still Catholic teaching that excellence is something to strive for? That’s the impression I get from reading about the Saints. Obviously VII has lowered the bar in this small instance. And has changed something that used to be sinful into not sinful. Maybe the “Traditionalists” could see the handwriting on the wall and wanted to stop it. And maybe that is why so many of them are screaming that the pope needs to answer the dubia before it becomes even more common than it already is to let the divorced and civilly remarried receive Holy Communion. Or cater to the LGBT community and their demands.

And if you can say “it wasn’t ever really right to do so” (raise the bar so high)…wouldn’t it also be ok if a Traditional leaning Catholic said the opposite? Something like “it wasn’t ever really right to do so” (lower the bar so low)?

Well…I guess I’m of the opinion that it is wrong to put anyone, nevermind a child in a position where they could easily sin. I’m pretty sure that Jesus would be abjectly horrified at the thought, especially since He was very inclined to meet children where they were at and not fault childish behavior.

I don’t think that allowing for human error or disability is “lowering the bar so low”. Excellence IS something that one has to strive for—but we’re not perfect. In some sense, the particulars of Mass had gotten so out of hand that it was a really high gamble.

I really don’t believe that Jesus, who had so much affection for children, would want Altar Serving to run the risk of mortal sin. And again, we’re not talking about malicious behavior but childish error.

I don’t doubt there are some people who believe that “carelessness” of a mere child during Mass should be a mortal sin. I don’t think that idea is correct, or really biblically or cannonically supported.

 

[Reuben_J]

During times before Vatican II making an error in Mass was a sin that ranged from venial to mortal (because it was serious) mind you, these were things so miniscule today we wouldn’t even notice. The position of your hand, a lisp when speaking the responses (the servers spoke because people did not) and even letting the bells clang an extra sound when putting them down (I mean, a small boy should be WAY MORE CAREFUL, of course )

The long short of it is that while one could manage to commit a sin in the pews the stakes were SO MUCH HIGHER for those boys who served. Along the lines of “much is given/much is expected”

So a child who served at Mass was taking a chance that he could fall into grave sins that he would not face while in the pews.

Children, wanting to please and give their all, are naturally willing to take this risk.

In reality, there should be no “risk” a child should not fear that serving on the Alter of God gives them more opportunity to sin. That’s crazy. Children should be able to give their best and be a child who makes mistakes. So long as they are not done out of malice, why raise the bar so high? It wasn’t ever really right to do so.

Interesting. Can you give an example where it was a sin pre-vatican II and not a sin now?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

The world’s Bishops were quite aware of Trent. Since they themselves were no less an ecumenical council, they decreed in Sacrosanctum Concilium

1. In order that the Christian people may more certainly derive an abundance of graces from the sacred liturgy, holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself. For the liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change. These not only may but ought to be changed with the passage of time if they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become unsuited to it.
   In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community.
   Wherefore the sacred Council establishes the following general norms

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

Just what I said before.

REALLY minor things were considered “sins” of carelessness or sloth. For instance, when doing the mea culpa one beats his fist over his chest. Lets say a little boy hurt his arm playing ball the day before and only struck his torso. This would be a sin, because it was against ruberics. One must strike their breast.

Or a boy not being “careful” and allowing a lisp to pass his lips…“In nomana faaaatree” with a sound like an “f” rather than a “p” is innocent enough, but it is mis-speaking and if the boy wasn’t permanently disabled this “laziness” would be a sin. (although from my understanding boys with lisps or speech impediments–heck any handicaps-- were often forbidden from being servers in the first place).

Or a boy who let the bells tinkle a few to many times rather than silencing them as the rubrics call for. It could easily be seen, again, as wilful disrespect, even if it was just a mistake.

There was NO flexibility. There was NO room for error.

Today, if an injured child cannot fold their hands correctly or doesn’t quite touch their forehead when doing the sign of the cross, we understand it’s not a sin because it’s not in their control. The rubrics do not demand perfection.

Today, there is leeway for the deaf, blind, handicapped to assist at mass. Also, a deaf priest can SAY mass. Previous to VII deafness particularly deaf/mute was an unacceptable handicap for entrance into priesthood.

Today we also are not so strict as to call an extra tinkle of the bells a sin. There’s no writing at all that would even classify an extra tinkle before muting the bells wrong.

 

[Reuben_J]

Just what I said before.

REALLY minor things were considered “sins” of carelessness or sloth. For instance, when doing the mea culpa one beats his fist over his chest. Lets say a little boy hurt his arm playing ball the day before and only struck his torso. This would be a sin, because it was against ruberics. One must strike their breast.

Or a boy not being “careful” and allowing a lisp to pass his lips…“In nomana faaaatree” with a sound like an “f” rather than a “p” is innocent enough, but it is mis-speaking and if the boy wasn’t permanently disabled this “laziness” would be a sin. (although from my understanding boys with lisps or speech impediments–heck any handicaps-- were often forbidden from being servers in the first place).

Or a boy who let the bells tinkle a few to many times rather than silencing them as the rubrics call for. It could easily be seen, again, as wilful disrespect, even if it was just a mistake.

There was NO flexibility. There was NO room for error.

Today, if an injured child cannot fold their hands correctly or doesn’t quite touch their forehead when doing the sign of the cross, we understand it’s not a sin because it’s not in their control. The rubrics do not demand perfection.

Today, there is leeway for the deaf, blind, handicapped to assist at mass. Also, a deaf priest can SAY mass. Previous to VII deafness particularly deaf/mute was an unacceptable handicap for entrance into priesthood.

Today we also are not so strict as to call an extra tinkle of the bells a sin. There’s no writing at all that would even classify an extra tinkle before muting the bells wrong.

Thank you. Not sure where you live but I surely missed those (that you call sin) but maybe because I was too young then. I served mass as a little boy probably in 1964-65 where we were still pre-Vatican before changing to the vernacular (English) OF mass.

You know, our backs to the congregation. It was just the alter servers and the priest (celebrant) exchanging dialogues in Latin while the congregation would be led by a prayer leader in English.

Yes, we had to follow the rubrics, taught how to do it. Did not remember though that failing to do them would be tantamount to sin. Of course we always did them right but sin? no, we were not told they were sin if we made mistakes. And boy, catechism teachers those days, capital punishments were the norm. One would not escape the cane when deservingly so.

 

[Debbie_Kono]

There seems to be some confusion here wether an altar boy who made an (honest) mistake while serving the Mass pre-VII was committing sin. Is this something you could clear up for us Father?

 

[jas84173]

Yah but that makes room for future Councils to do whatever they want. Trent also once and for all settled the Canon of the Bible. They reaffirmed all of the deuteroconicals except 3 and 4 Esdras and the Prayer of Mannaseh putting them in the appendix of the Latin Vulgate.

So what a council can come say Trent was wrong and add or subtract books in our Canon?

 

[godisgood77]

Those calling VII heretical are likely not Catholic

 

[Genesis315]

Here’s the thing: Vatican II didn’t at all address the issue of altar boys committing sins by making errors (honest or otherwise at the altar). Furthermore, I’m not aware of anything prior to Vatican II that said altar boys needed to go confession for honest slip-ups while serving Mass other than some random priest said so.

And that’s really the big issue with the Second Vatican Council. Tons of wholesale changes happened afterward–some for good, much for ill–almost always with no specific reference point in the real acts of the Council. Even the liturgical reform mandated by the Pope afterward (as was his prerogative) had little connection left to the Constitution on the Liturgy promulgated by the Council.

The people who gush over Vatican II or have misgivings about it are both usually focused on the stuff that the event of the Council sparked, not on the actual acts of the Council which had pretty much no effect on anything if taken at their letter compared to the aftermath.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

Here’s the thing: Vatican II didn’t at all address the issue of altar boys committing sins by making errors (honest or otherwise at the altar). Furthermore, I’m not aware of anything prior to Vatican II that said altar boys needed to go confession for honest slip-ups while serving Mass other than some random priest said so.

And that’s really the big issue with the Second Vatican Council. Tons of wholesale changes happened afterward–some for good, much for ill–almost always with no actual reference point in the real acts of the Council. Even the liturgical reform mandated by the Pope afterward has little connection left to the Constitution on the Liturgy promulgated by the Council.

The people who gush over Vatican II or have misgivings about it are usually focused on the stuff that the event of the Council sparked, not on the actual acts of the Council which had pretty much no effect on anything if taken at their letter and comparing them to the aftermath.

Outright, no it didn’t “address” the issues. But by eliminating the many minuscule rules regarding Mass, it eliminated the chance to do wrong–and thus eliminated the chance to sin.

And not following the rules was considered sinful, especally given the important role of the Altar Boy during Mass.

 

[Genesis315]

I grew up as an altar boy not long after the reform and while we had a lot less to do than our forbears, what we were still required to do we were expected to do right. Deliberately or negligently (ie by not treating what we were doing with the proper respect) breaking the rules was still a sin, just like for prior generations. To me, having that holy fear was good, since I really knew what I was participating in was of the utmost sacredness and importance.

No pre-Vatican II moralist would tell you that an honest mistake serving Mass was a sin–if this simple issue was corrected, it would have been a good thing. Now however, the misinformation has gone in a totally opposite direction instead.

Now often in the name of Vatican II, priests themselves think they can deliberately make errors (ie make their own changes to the rubrics and rite) without sin at all–something explicitly rejected by Vatican II, not promoted by it. And of course, as a result, from the priests down to the altar boys and those in the pews, Mass began to be treated less seriously. And, as can be expected, the seminaries and pews emptied and belief in the Real Presence and the true meaning of Mass plummeted.

You had some bad stuff in your time, and we’ve both got lots of other bad stuff now in our time–and the actual decrees of Vatican II have nothing to do with either.

 

[pnewton]

Yah but that makes room for future Councils to do whatever they want.

No future council can alter doctrine to where it contradicts with previous dogma. They most definitely can change any discipline, and will I am sure, to meet the needs of the time. In this case, not only a council, but a Pope can change the canonical penalty for monkeying with the Mass, as well as the words themselves. Traditionalists really need to be be careful with that whole “anathema” thing. It is not an indicator of doctrine, but a punishment that is to be imposed by the Church in certain situations. Rather, by its nature of a penalty under canon law, it is changeable.

The reason for its pronouncement, may or may not be changeable, based on whether it was imposed for a violation of a discipline, or for heresy.