Vatican II

[Ockham]

An actual example of a fallacy rather than a mere accusation is pointed out in the post prior to your last.

I’m starting to think if anyone is causing division in our Church these days it’s the pro-NO Mass crowd. How many posts in this thread found in the Traditional Catholic forum have been singing the folky praises of Bugnini’s masterpiece?

It would be nice when the TLM is readily and conveniently available at all parishes and then those who prefer more reverence in their worship can attend their Mass and those seeking a less formal service can have their needs met too. Hopefully it will quiet these attempts to keep the form that served us all for hundreds of years repressed.

 

[CradleCath]

Check the numbers listed above. What is missing is the percentage of Catholics believing in the Real Presence. Take off the sixties rose coloured glasses at look honestly and objectively at the fruits of the NO Mass and Spirit Of Vatican II.

They won’t do it. The liberals who post so much on the Traditional Catholic Forum???, will never admit that the rotten fruits of the council/Novus Ordo Mass. They will offer up excuse after excuse…rather than examine the facts objectively. I have tried to figure out why, to no avail. The only reason that makes sense to me, at all…is that they are afraid of a religion that they don’t really know?? Perhaps you could help me understand the mind-set that obstinately keeps hanging on to something that has proved harmful to the Church & to themselves, Oakham. Thanks!

 

[pnewton]

Okay, here is another link:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

I am neither “folky” or liberal. I have also never had anything to say here but support for those who want and obedient TLM. In fact, I think it is the duty of all Catholics to support this, whether they prefer it or not. The Holy Father has made his support clear. It is also our duty as part of the body of Christ to put the needs of others first, ahead of what we desire.

I post here because the thread is not about Traditional Catholic spirituality. The title is “Vatican II”. As a Catholic, this last ecumenical council is my teacher. As a Catholic, I support the doctrine of the the Catholic Church. As a Catholic, I do not play at sola magesterium. As a Catholic, I defend attacks from without and within against the Church. I hope this clears things up.

 

[ncjohn]

I have also never had anything to say here but support for those who want and obedient TLM. In fact, I think it is the duty of all Catholics to support this, whether they prefer it or not. The Holy Father has made his support clear. It is also our duty as part of the body of Christ to put the needs of others first, ahead of what we desire.

I post here because the thread is not about Traditional Catholic spirituality. The title is “Vatican II”. As a Catholic, this last ecumenical council is my teacher. As a Catholic, I support the doctrine of the the Catholic Church. As a Catholic, I do not play at sola magesterium. As a Catholic, I defend attacks from without and within against the Church. I hope this clears things up.

Amen.

I’ve not seen anyone attacking the TLM in this thread, or being less than supportive of people being able to have it available. That does not mean however, whatever forum it gets posted in, that a thread dedicated to condemning the Ordinary Form of the Mass in the Church, or the Ecumenical Council, gets to just be a rant party and go unchallenged.

CradleCath:

…is that they are afraid of a religion that they don’t really know?? Perhaps you could help me understand the mind-set that obstinately keeps hanging on to something that has proved harmful to the Church & to themselves

No, it’s not that we don’t know our religion. It’s exactly the opposite. We do in fact understand and love our religion and dislike attacks on it, whether from within or without.

What I have a hard time understanding is why it is so important to some that everyone march in lockstep on liturgical preference? Why is it such a problem that some people worship a little differently than you prefer? More importantly, why is it so hard to understand that there is holiness and devotion to be found in both forms and that traditionalists have no lock on that? Or that the Church does not agree that the Pauline Mass is harmful to it or us?

Having an opinion or a preference is one thing; attributing things as objective fact when contrary to what the Church officially states is something else.

Peace,

 

[Aramis]

Make an argument rather than quoting Mark Twain or listing definitions you don’t properly understand. If you dispute the Leading Indicators correlation to Vatican II that’s fine. To accuse those who see one as faulty thinkers is inaccurate and intolerant. I suppose the statistics on parish, seminary and convent closures have been made up by extremists and not to be taken seriously, right?

They are not proof of V II being to blame; the rapidly increasing secularization of american society could as likely be to blame, a trend started in the 1950’s, and coming to fruition in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Which lead to the anti-religious 80’s and 90’s.

Devout Christianity is under attack, and has been for 50 years, in the United States.
It’s likely that this has been at least in major part to blame.

Further, similar secularization has been happening in europe all along as well.

So blaming it on V II is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. I’m not saying that the facts are wrong, just the attribution of root cause.

 

[Tsuwano]

Ok. So why the expansion of the Mass these days? It does appear by all standards to be thriving, even blossoming in some areas. Is it still as you said maybe to hold onto those bordering on separation from the Church? And what of the changes that the Holy Father has made in Masses that he presides at?. Yet another bone to be thrown to the crowds to keep them from schism?

I am interested in why you feel that the Traditional Mass does noty reflect the current thinking and theology of the Church.

From everything the more progressive around here tell us there was no break with tradition and no new advances or differences in theological thought brought forward at Vatican II.

In fact they tell us just the opposite. That Vatican II stood firmly on the timeless traditions and thinking of the Church.and changed nothing in the way the faith is approached, merely explained things in a more modern fashion.

You seem to be saying something completely different.

I am intrigued.

You’re right that the Latin Mass is growing in some areas, so if the Vatican has allowed the extraordinary form of the mass for the sake of keeping folks within the fold of the Church, then I guess it is working. As for the changes the Holy Father has initiated in his liturgies, I have no argument with that. As I’ve already stated, I certainly won’t let my personal preference for any aspect of the liturgy get in the way of any decision the Church decides to make regarding whatever changes it deems fit, and furthermore, unlike many who criticise Pope Paul VI and those bishops who convened the Second Vatican Council, I won’t second guess those whom the Lord himself made responsible for guiding the Church. I may not like those decisions, but my faith tells me that the Holy Spirit is at work in the Church and I trust in that presence.

Are you interested in why I feel the theology of the old Latin Mass does not adequately reflect the way the Church sees itself in the modern world or are you interested in how I think the theology of the old Latin Mass does not adequately reflect the way the Church sees itself in the modern world? The theology of the old Latin Mass suggested a triumphant Church where lines of authority also delineated degrees of holiness. The Pope was considered the most holy, followed by the various degrees of bishop, the clergy, the religious, and finally the laity. The priest offered the sacrifice of the mass to God for the laity, while the laity primarily observed the sacrifice with little actual participation. It wasn’t necessary for the laity to observe the actions of the priest or even understand what he was saying for the liturgy to be full and complete. The Second Vatican Council, without saying that this theology was wrong, did feel that it was incomplete and encouraged more active participation of the laity in the sacrifice of the Mass. The altar was moved to the forefront and into the midst of the community to facilitate this participation. The language was changed to the venacular for the same reason and to express an ancient belief on the part of the Church, first declared by St. Paul and later by St. Peter, that Christ resides in all cultures. The Church, since the Second Vatican Council, has emphasized the communal aspect of worship and the notion that the people of God, together with the priest, offer the sacrifice of the Mass. I do not think the pre Vatican II Mass emphasized this theology to the same extent as the Novus Ordo. I’m sure there are other aspects of the theology of the TLM that also do not adequately reflect the Church’s vision of itself in this day and age, but I’m not a liturgist or a theologian and such a reflection would require a book rather than a posting on this website.

The Second Vatican Council did not break from the tradition of the Church, but rather has used that tradition to emphasize a different view of itself in this day and age. The Church has done this again and again in its history, beginning with the Council of Jerusalem when the Church opened its doors to the Gentiles. I don’t think I’m saying anything different from what those folks you call “progressives” are saying. The Church does and has evolved throughout its history to answer the “signs of the times” as the the Vatican Council documents suggest, but this doesn’t mean a rejection of previous theology or tradition. It means a different emphasis on various aspects of Church theology and a renewal of tradition. Tradition doesn’t necessarily or primarily refer to such things as the position of the altar or the language of the liturgy. It refers to the deposit of faith that the Church has faithfully kept throughout its history and which the presence of the Holy Spirit guarantees will remain unchanged until the coming of our Lord.

 

[shuzo1189]

I think what people are forgetting is that the dramatic Change in the Liturgy was unprecedented in Catholic history. Yes the Council of Trent codified and tweaked the mass as have other councils but nothing even close to what took place at VII.

I am truly…truly grateful and thankful for the Motu Proprio

All in all, I think the problem lies less with the Council and more with the Implementation.

Also i would encourage anyone who is interested to read some of the writings by Historian/Economist Thomas E Woods Jr.

 

[Ockham]

The Second Vatican Council, without saying that this theology was wrong, did feel that it was incomplete and encouraged more active participation of the laity in the sacrifice of the Mass. The altar was moved to the forefront and into the midst of the community to facilitate this participation. The language was changed to the venacular for the same reason and to express an ancient belief on the part of the Church, first declared by St. Paul and later by St. Peter, that Christ resides in all cultures.

Can you provided sources for these changes?

 

[wisdomseeker]

does anyone here know Sungenis from international apologetics?

here are his comments about BVXI and VII.

catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/pope-benedict.htm

 

[palmas85]

You’re right that the Latin Mass is growing in some areas, so if the Vatican has allowed the extraordinary form of the mass for the sake of keeping folks within the fold of the Church, then I guess it is working. As for the changes the Holy Father has initiated in his liturgies, I have no argument with that. As I’ve already stated, I certainly won’t let my personal preference for any aspect of the liturgy get in the way of any decision the Church decides to make regarding whatever changes it deems fit, and furthermore, unlike many who criticise Pope Paul VI and those bishops who convened the Second Vatican Council, I won’t second guess those whom the Lord himself made responsible for guiding the Church. I may not like those decisions, but my faith tells me that the Holy Spirit is at work in the Church and I trust in that presence.

**Are you interested in why I feel the theology of the old Latin Mass does not adequately reflect the way the Church sees itself in the modern world or are you interested in how I think the theology of the old Latin Mass does not adequately reflect the way the Church sees itself in the modern world? ** The theology of the old Latin Mass suggested a triumphant Church where lines of authority also delineated degrees of holiness. The Pope was considered the most holy, followed by the various degrees of bishop, the clergy, the religious, and finally the laity. The priest offered the sacrifice of the mass to God for the laity, while the laity primarily observed the sacrifice with little actual participation. It wasn’t necessary for the laity to observe the actions of the priest or even understand what he was saying for the liturgy to be full and complete. ** The Second Vatican Council, without saying that this theology was wrong did feel that it was incomplete **encouraged more active participation of the laity in the sacrifice of the Mass. The altar was moved to the forefront and into the midst of the community to facilitate this participation. The language was changed to the venacular for the same reason and to express an ancient belief on the part of the Church, first declared by St. Paul and later by St. Peter, that Christ resides in all cultures. The Church, since the Second Vatican Council, has emphasized the communal aspect of worship and the notion that the people of God, together with the priest, offer the sacrifice of the Mass. I do not think the pre Vatican II Mass emphasized this theology to the same extent as the Novus Ordo. I’m sure there are other aspects of the theology of the TLM that also do not adequately reflect the Church’s vision of itself in this day and age, but I’m not a liturgist or a theologian and such a reflection would require a book rather than a posting on this website.

The Second Vatican Council did not break from the tradition of the Church, but rather has used that tradition to emphasize a different view of itself in this day and age. The Church has done this again and again in its history, beginning with the Council of Jerusalem when the Church opened its doors to the Gentiles. I don’t think I’m saying anything different from what those folks you call “progressives” are saying. The Church does and has evolved throughout its history to answer the “signs of the times” as the the Vatican Council documents suggest, but this doesn’t mean a rejection of previous theology or tradition. It means a different emphasis on various aspects of Church theology and a renewal of tradition. Tradition doesn’t necessarily or primarily refer to such things as the position of the altar or the language of the liturgy. It refers to the deposit of faith that the Church has faithfully kept throughout its history and which the presence of the Holy Spirit guarantees will remain unchanged until the coming of our Lord.

In answer to your first question question, both.

As far as to your assertion that the Vatican II Council felt that the theology behind the Traditional Mass was somehow incomplete, could you provide a source that supports that theory. or is that just an opinion that you have personally developed based upon what has happened since the council?

 

[wisdomseeker]

Quote:
**Originally Posted by Tsuwano
You’re right that the Latin Mass is growing in some areas, so if the Vatican has allowed the extraordinary form of the mass for the sake of keeping folks within the fold of the Church, then I guess it is working. As for the changes the Holy Father has initiated in his liturgies, I have no argument with that. As I’ve already stated, I certainly won’t let my personal preference for any aspect of the liturgy get in the way of any decision the Church decides to make regarding whatever changes it deems fit, and furthermore, unlike many who criticise Pope Paul VI and those bishops who convened the Second Vatican Council, I won’t second guess those whom the Lord himself made responsible for guiding the Church. I may not like those decisions, but my faith tells me that the Holy Spirit is at work in the Church and I trust in that presence.

Are you interested in why I feel the theology of the old Latin Mass does not adequately reflect the way the Church sees itself in the modern world or are you interested in how I think the theology of the old Latin Mass does not adequately reflect the way the Church sees itself in the modern world? The theology of the old Latin Mass suggested a triumphant Church where lines of authority also delineated degrees of holiness. The Pope was considered the most holy, followed by the various degrees of bishop, the clergy, the religious, and finally the laity. The priest offered the sacrifice of the mass to God for the laity, while the laity primarily observed the sacrifice with little actual participation. It wasn’t necessary for the laity to observe the actions of the priest or even understand what he was saying for the liturgy to be full and complete. The Second Vatican Council, without saying that this theology was wrong did feel that it was incomplete encouraged more active participation of the laity in the sacrifice of the Mass. The altar was moved to the forefront and into the midst of the community to facilitate this participation. The language was changed to the venacular for the same reason and to express an ancient belief on the part of the Church, first declared by St. Paul and later by St. Peter, that Christ resides in all cultures. The Church, since the Second Vatican Council, has emphasized the communal aspect of worship and the notion that the people of God, together with the priest, offer the sacrifice of the Mass. I do not think the pre Vatican II Mass emphasized this theology to the same extent as the Novus Ordo. I’m sure there are other aspects of the theology of the TLM that also do not adequately reflect the Church’s vision of itself in this day and age, but I’m not a liturgist or a theologian and such a reflection would require a book rather than a posting on this website.

The Second Vatican Council did not break from the tradition of the Church, but rather has used that tradition to emphasize a different view of itself in this day and age. The Church has done this again and again in its history, beginning with the Council of Jerusalem when the Church opened its doors to the Gentiles. I don’t think I’m saying anything different from what those folks you call “progressives” are saying. The Church does and has evolved throughout its history to answer the “signs of the times” as the the Vatican Council documents suggest, but this doesn’t mean a rejection of previous theology or tradition. It means a different emphasis on various aspects of Church theology and a renewal of tradition. Tradition doesn’t necessarily or primarily refer to such things as the position of the altar or the language of the liturgy. It refers to the deposit of faith that the Church has faithfully kept throughout its history and which the presence of the Holy Spirit guarantees will remain unchanged until the coming of our Lord. **

the change of the Altar, the participation of the laity…and so forth.

i remember when Michael Voris made a comment about that. he was saying that the priesthood was meant to offer the Sacrifyce for the people, just like the OT, but today the priesthood was waterdown to become just like the laity, the priest of today no longer seem to have any authority, they mingle with the people as just another person. just like the protestant pastors.

the moving of the Altar i find a major change in the Mass. today i even see priest preaching from behind the Altar with his hand on the table and opened book on center of the Table.

all the changes made in the Mass made people feel more less reverent in the Church. all the changes brought a bunch of other weird ideas into the House of the Lord. you know like strange instruments and music…

 

[Tsuwano]

Can you provided sources for these changes?

The documents which allow for these changes and which give the bishops authority to initiate them in their particular Church and to encourage more active participation of the laity in the sacrifice of the Mass are The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium), Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests (Presbyterorum Ordinis), Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity (Apostolicum Actuositatem), and The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium Et Spes).

 

[Tsuwano]

In answer to your first question question, both.

As far as to your assertion that the Vatican II Council felt that the theology behind the Traditional Mass was somehow incomplete, could you provide a source that supports that theory. or is that just an opinion that you have personally developed based upon what has happened since the council?

You’re right. My assertion in my post that "The Second Vatican Council, without saying this theology was wrong, did feel that it was incomplete. . . " is wrong. I retract the statement.

 

[diggerdomer]

I think what people are forgetting is that the dramatic Change in the Liturgy was unprecedented in Catholic history.

I agree, from everything I’ve experienced, the change was dramatic.

I question though how you or anyone can objectively know if it was unprecedented. Really? We (you) know enough about the entire history of the Church to objectively claim that what Roman Catholics (not all Catholics!) have experienced in the decades since Vatican II is completely unprecedented in the 2000+ years of Christian worship…always and everywhere? I’d tend to reserve judgment.

Also…I think it’s important to distinguish between the change (1) attested to by the written teachings of the Church and (2) experienced by individuals in their particular circumstances.

Obviously (1) and (2) may have more or less correlation depending on one’s circumstances.

 

[Ockham]

The documents which allow for these changes and which give the bishops authority to initiate them in their particular Church and to encourage more active participation of the laity in the sacrifice of the Mass are The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium), Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests (Presbyterorum Ordinis), Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity (Apostolicum Actuositatem), and The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium Et Spes).

Where in those documents does it say ad populus, venacular, folk choir, EMHC, Holy Communion in hand while standing, clamshell architecture, etc?

 

[Tsuwano]

Quote:
**Originally Posted by Tsuwano
the change of the Altar, the participation of the laity…and so forth.

i remember when Michael Voris made a comment about that. he was saying that the priesthood was meant to offer the Sacrifyce for the people, just like the OT, but today the priesthood was waterdown to become just like the laity, the priest of today no longer seem to have any authority, they mingle with the people as just another person. just like the protestant pastors.

the moving of the Altar i find a major change in the Mass. today i even see priest preaching from behind the Altar with his hand on the table and opened book on center of the Table.

all the changes made in the Mass made people feel more less reverent in the Church. all the changes brought a bunch of other weird ideas into the House of the Lord. you know like strange instruments and music…**

I’m not aware of the comment of Michael Voris, but I think I disagree with him if he says that “the priesthood was waterdowned to become just like the laity.” Who has waterdowned the priesthood? Certainly not the Second Vatican Council. Read the documents of the Vatican Council and it becomes clear that the priest continues to play the major role in the liturgy and is central to the life of the local parish community. His authority is guaranteed him by his ordination and by his bishop.

Actually, according to my research (prompted by the questions posed to my by previous posters in this thread) I’ve discovered that the rubrics of the liturgy continue to allow for the priest to assume an “ad orientem” posture. In other words, a priest may continue to offer mass with his back to the people as long as it is permissable to do so within his diocese. According to “Commentary on Mass Facing the Altar (Ad Orientem)” published by St. Joseph Foundation and present on the Catholic Culture: Library website, “The reforms initiated by the Second Vatican Council have allowed for a variance in the posture of the celebrant. Although the former tradition continues and is in no way abrogated, the celebrant is now permitted to turn towards the people for the entirety of the liturgy. Of this there can be no doubt and the optional practice has been widely and warmly received. Still the ad altare posture remains the forma typica and the versus populum posture exists as a lawful option. Indeed the altar ideally is envisioned to be free standing for two reason: so that the celebrant may walk around it especially during incensation and to allow Mass versus populum.” I should also add that the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments published an article in 1993 in which is stated “The arrangement of the altar “versus populum” is certainly something desirable in the current liturgical legislation. Nonetheless, it is not an absolute value over every other one . . . It is more faithful to the liturgical sense in these cases to celebrate at the existing altar with the backs turned to the people than to maintain two altars in the same sanctuary. The principle of the oneness of the altar is theologically more important than the practice to celebrate turned towards the people.” The commentary continues to explain, in opposition to an opinion I expressed in a previous post, “It is appropriate to explain clearly that the expression “celebrate turned to the people” does not have a theological sense, but only a topographic - positional sense. Every celebration of the Eucharist is “ad laudem et gloriam nominis dei, ad utilitatem quoque nostram, totiusque Ecclesiae suae sanctae.” Theologically, therefore, the Mass is always turned to God and turned to the people. In the form of celebration it is necessary to be attentive not to reverse theology and topography, especially when the priest is on the altar. Only in the dialogues from the altar does the priest speak to the people. All the rest is prayer to the Father mediated through Christ in the Holy Spirit. This theology must be able to be visible.”

The changes brought about by the Second Vatican Council do not make the liturgy feel less reverent to me. Indeed, after rereading the Documents of Vatican Council II and the commentaries mentioned above, I feel a greater appreciation for what the Second Vatican Council has brought about and, though I know mistakes have been made in implementation of some of the Council’s directives, I see the liturgy as a living prayer that calls for constant reflection, as well as renewal, on my part.

 

[Tsuwano]

Where in those documents does it say ad populus, venacular, folk choir, EMHC, Holy Communion in hand while standing, clamshell architecture, etc?

The documents do not use the same terms you use, but they do allow for various changes to be made in the liturgy under the authority of the bishop. Other documents published by the Holy See also allow for various changes to be made. You can do your own research on the matter. I would simply quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church to underscore the right of the Church to issue changes in the liturgy. It reads “Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical, or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s magisterium.”

 

[Ockham]

So how do the ambiguous documents of Vatican II supercede the specifics of Trent where the Mass was codified not to be changed?

 

[wisdomseeker]

I’m not aware of the comment of Michael Voris, but I think I disagree with him if he says that “the priesthood was waterdowned to become just like the laity.” Who has waterdowned the priesthood? Certainly not the Second Vatican Council. Read the documents of the Vatican Council and it becomes clear that the priest continues to play the major role in the liturgy and is central to the life of the local parish community. His authority is guaranteed him by his ordination and by his bishop.

Actually, according to my research (prompted by the questions posed to my by previous posters in this thread) I’ve discovered that the rubrics of the liturgy continue to allow for the priest to assume an “ad orientem” posture. In other words, a priest may continue to offer mass with his back to the people as long as it is permissable to do so within his diocese. According to “Commentary on Mass Facing the Altar (Ad Orientem)” published by St. Joseph Foundation and present on the Catholic Culture: Library website, “The reforms initiated by the Second Vatican Council have allowed for a variance in the posture of the celebrant. Although the former tradition continues and is in no way abrogated, the celebrant is now permitted to turn towards the people for the entirety of the liturgy. Of this there can be no doubt and the optional practice has been widely and warmly received. Still the ad altare posture remains the forma typica and the versus populum posture exists as a lawful option. Indeed the altar ideally is envisioned to be free standing for two reason: so that the celebrant may walk around it especially during incensation and to allow Mass versus populum.” I should also add that the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments published an article in 1993 in which is stated “The arrangement of the altar “versus populum” is certainly something desirable in the current liturgical legislation. Nonetheless, it is not an absolute value over every other one . . . It is more faithful to the liturgical sense in these cases to celebrate at the existing altar with the backs turned to the people than to maintain two altars in the same sanctuary. The principle of the oneness of the altar is theologically more important than the practice to celebrate turned towards the people.” The commentary continues to explain, in opposition to an opinion I expressed in a previous post, “It is appropriate to explain clearly that the expression “celebrate turned to the people” does not have a theological sense, but only a topographic - positional sense. Every celebration of the Eucharist is “ad laudem et gloriam nominis dei, ad utilitatem quoque nostram, totiusque Ecclesiae suae sanctae.” Theologically, therefore, the Mass is always turned to God and turned to the people. In the form of celebration it is necessary to be attentive not to reverse theology and topography, especially when the priest is on the altar. Only in the dialogues from the altar does the priest speak to the people. All the rest is prayer to the Father mediated through Christ in the Holy Spirit. This theology must be able to be visible.”

The changes brought about by the Second Vatican Council do not make the liturgy feel less reverent to me. Indeed, after rereading the Documents of Vatican Council II and the commentaries mentioned above, I feel a greater appreciation for what the Second Vatican Council has brought about and, though I know mistakes have been made in implementation of some of the Council’s directives, I see the liturgy as a living prayer that calls for constant reflection, as well as renewal, on my part.

all this seems to me that it is all up to you. there is no firm or clear imposition of one or the other. this is the problem. there is why we have so many problems no one knows what to do. one priest say one thing the other says another. one Bishop says one thing, the other says another thing. this becomes a big problem. that is the confusion in the Church. the world sees and so do we.

i am not attacking the Council in any way. who am i to do so. but we cannot deny the problem. wether is the document itself or just the enterpretation. something went wrong the holy father has criticized about the priest facing the people. it becomes a circular thing. the priest in my parish says that the reason the priest faces the people today is because today we have found out that God is everywhere and not in the east. see the problem? so all this time before VII, people did not know this. now we do.

 

[ncjohn]

So how do the ambiguous documents of Vatican II supercede the specifics of Trent where the Mass was codified not to be changed?

Because the form the Mass takes, as long as all the essential elements are present, is a matter of discipline over which each Pope has jurisdiction. No Pope can bind a future Pope on matters of discipline or forbid a future Pope from modifying a disicipline.