Vatican II

[mchale]

Nope, didn’t say any such thing. What I said was exactly what you read: that the Eucharistic meal they celebrated did not look anything at all like what would later become “the Mass”. I’m not denigrating the sacredness of the celebration at all, simply explaining why the statements that we should be using the TLM because it has existed since the beginning are not true.

I think we should be very careful here in our pronouncements. To begin with, the practices of the Early Christian Communities were not exactly documented in the same sense that the modern liturgy is. On the other hand though, we do have one model of an early mass which was documented fairly well; that mass was the Last Supper. While it certainly does not match a modern liturgy since it contained a physical as well as the spiritual meal (as well as the sacrifice that makes the spiritual meal possible), it does contain the key elements of a modern Mass.

And thanks very much for this, which lends more support to my other two arguments. The first being that it wasn’t until the second century that we started to see anything that looked like the Mass. Also notice that there is no mention whatsoever of a “priest” or a formal “consecration” and that it is the deacon who distributes the “eucharisted” (prayed over in thanksgiving) bread. The “presider” may be one of the “presbyters” that a previous poster referred to but it is not a “priest”.

Just curious, how do you know that the presbyters of the 1st and 2nd century were not “priests”? There are three levels of Holy Orders, the Diaconate, the Espicopate and the Presbyterate. In other words, the proper word for priest is presbyter. So even in the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles, we find references to all three orders.

–
Bill

 

[ncjohn]

I think we should be very careful here in our pronouncements. To begin with, the practices of the Early Christian Communities were not exactly documented in the same sense that the modern liturgy is. On the other hand though, we do have one model of an early mass which was documented fairly well; that mass was the Last Supper. While it certainly does not match a modern liturgy since it contained a physical as well as the spiritual meal (as well as the sacrifice that makes the spiritual meal possible), it does contain the key elements of a modern Mass.

On the contrary, there are numerous sources about the early Church liturgies, including those found in scripture, the Didache, and the early historians and fathers, like that noted by Justin Martyr. I have not seen anyone produce any source that shows anything beyond a communal eucharistic meal-with some scripture, prayer and hymns–as the celebration. If you have something that does, I’d love to see it. If you see the elements of a TLM in the last supper, beyond the “consecration” formula, I’m totally missing them.

Just curious, how do you know that the presbyters of the 1st and 2nd century were not “priests”? There are three levels of Holy Orders, the Diaconate, the Espicopate and the Presbyterate. In other words, the proper word for priest is presbyter. So even in the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles, we find references to all three orders.

Again, I have seen nothing that indicates that presbyters were more than “elders” in the community and certainly nothing that indicates any kind of “ordination”. Nor have I ever heard of any of the early historians or fathers claim that they were priests so I would again be interested if you have such sources that make such claims.

Again though, while all of this has historical interest, it isn’t the point being made. The point is that the liturgy has been developing since the very beginning and is a matter of “discipline” which each Pope has had the authority to modify as long as the essential elements are maintained. Arguments that one specific form or another has “always existed” or was “handed down by Jesus”, or that *Quo Primum *set things in stone, are just fallacious.

I understand that people were legitimately upset that a 500 year old form was suppressed. And I fully understand the anger spilling over into a very human urge to then slam what “replaced” it. The problem is though that this anger has now created an attitude of animosity within the Church that is simply incompatible with the message of the gospel. I am thankful that the Pope seems to be taking steps to rectify things but I am discouraged that so much of this venom is still so present and that we now have almost an inability for those with different worship preferences to even carry on a civil discussion. I don’t know what the answer is to get past that but I’ll continue to try to do my part to confront the issue and hopefully bring some calm between “factions” that shouldn’t exist now any more than they should have at the time when Paul confronted them with the Corinthians.

Peace,

 

[palmas85]

One of the comments I read said that formum is not a good place to get a possitive comments on the reforms of Vatican II.
I have been is studies for 6 years now concerning many aspects of the the church and it’s teachings and there are still much about the reforms of council I am still learning, but unlike others who believe it has been the detrament to the church, many more, like myself see it as the salvation of the church.
It just didn’t happen over night. The first threads of the reforms started a hundred years earlier when Itally was unified and the church lost the Papal states. It had to look at itself and it’s role in the world. Without property , except for the Vatican, it had to turn it’s efforts from political roles it had held in Europe for 100’s of years to a Church focused a a light for the spiritual needs of the world. Vatican II was a culmination of many thoughts and a true need get back to the it’s roots of the early church.
The most obvious change was in the mass, but the changes have effected ever aspect of the Church. Most for the possitive. There have been problems and some issues, but that is to be expected any time change is made.
The most possitive aspect is the pastoral changes. It went from an organization that went from top down, to one of which the layity plays and is expected to share in a much larger role in the life of the church. It changed the idea that all peoples of all lands had to conform to the European idea of the Church, to allow it to adapt and incorporate others ideas and cultural difference into the practices of the Chruch.
The council opened up the scriptures to the people. Before the council, many families may had a family bible to record deaths and births, now we have the year of the bible encouraging the reading and stuy of the scripture.
There were many other changes, none of which I can see were harmful.
Many, such as many who call themselves traditionalist on this site will find many objections, but seriously, outside of the site, I don’t find any.
If you want the know the Church, join a good parish, get involved and you will see the true love and works of Jesus in action.

Peace,
FAB

ALWAYS had inculturation and allowed local variations and practices in the Mass in different areas. One need look no further than Mexico and Central America to see that, not even speaking of the historic differences in, say, the Church in Italy and the Church in Germany.

No longer an organization that goes from the top down but one where the laity plays a part.

Am I to assume that the Church no longer has a Pope who leads it? The last I heard, we still have one, and he does indeed still lead the Church. From the top downThat would seem to negate your statement about the Church no longer going from the top down. In fact, in almost every organization where it goes from the top down , it also goes from the bottom up. That is called a chain of command and believe it or not it still exists within the Church. While true there is lay involvement in many areas these days not all of it is positive or even beneficial, and is thought by many much more learned than I to have directly led to many of the problems which plague the Ordained Priesthood these days.

As so often seems to be the case with many who jump to the defense of Vatican II facts are overlooked and rhetoric sneaks in.

 

[Ockham]

This thread has deteriorated into a pile-on by a few liberal/modernists with a strong attachment to the NO Mass and quiet resentment of the Tridentine. Often these people are EMHCs or other “lay” ministers defending their turf sometimes harbouring ulterior motives such as gay marriage. It would be nice if CAF opened a “Modernist” forum where they could wax poetically about liturgical dance, female ordination, and “hey, if it feels good do it” morality.

 

[ncjohn]

This thread has deteriorated into a pile-on by a few liberal/modernists with a strong attachment to the NO Mass and quiet resentment of the Tridentine. Often these people are EMHCs or other “lay” ministers defending their turf sometimes harbouring ulterior motives such as gay marriage. It would be nice if CAF opened a “Modernist” forum where they could wax poetically about liturgical dance, female ordination, and “hey, if it feels good do it” morality.

I guess I’ve missed the pile-on and the liberals and modernists with their heterodox “ulterior motives.” Can you point those posts out to me so I can see what you’re looking at? I’d like to see if I agree with any of what they say, though by your description it would appear that I wouldn’t.

Peace,

 

[Catholic_Martyr]

This thread has deteriorated into a pile-on by a few liberal/modernists with a strong attachment to the NO Mass and quiet resentment of the Tridentine. Often these people are EMHCs or other “lay” ministers defending their turf sometimes harbouring ulterior motives such as gay marriage. It would be nice if CAF opened a “Modernist” forum where they could wax poetically about liturgical dance, female ordination, and “hey, if it feels good do it” morality.

Is it just me, or could you be the first non-heretic I’ve ever come across on Catholic answers forums? Do you believe Ratzinger is a pope or an antipope?

 

[pnewton]

I’m just beginning to learn about Catholicism. I’ve been reading all the books I can, and I’ve recently been learning about the changes that took place after the Second Vatican Council.

I’m wondering what the average Catholic thinks about these changes. A good thing? Bad? Both?

Thank you!
Heather

I think there was a lot of good things in Vatican II and its documents, as there have been in all Church Councils. I would advise you to read the documents for themselves. They are available online at the Vatican website.

This forum is not the best place for this question, though, and the question was too broad. I recommend taking up the specific issues, liturgy, moral theology, etc. in the other forums designed for such topics. Vatican II did not address Traditional Catholic spirtuality.

 

[Ockham]

Is it just me, or could you be the first non-heretic I’ve ever come across on Catholic answers forums? Do you believe Ratzinger is a pope or an antipope?

This is a most puzzling request. What is a non-heretic? Where does this baited question of anti-pope come from?

 

[Ockham]

I think there was a lot of good things in Vatican II and its documents, as there have been in all Church Councils. I would advise you to read the documents for themselves. They are available online at the Vatican website.

This forum is not the best place for this question, though, and the question was too broad. I recommend taking up the specific issues, liturgy, moral theology, etc. in the other forums designed for such topics. Vatican II did not address Traditional Catholic spirtuality.

Sage advice.

 

[FAB]

Scripture had been open to the people as you say for a long long time prior to the Council. If you have indeed done the amount of research that you claim to have done you should be well aware of that fact. I would suggest that you re check your research and your sources before you make ridiculous claims such as that.

Catholics as a whole pre Vatican II were not encouaged to read the bible for themselves. The laity was feed certain parts then told what it meant by the clergy. There may have been a crack before VII but certainly not open.

I am not sure exactly what you are talking about when you say that now the Church doesn’t require that the rest of the world conform to a European idea of the Church. One of the most often stated things on this these forums is that you can go into a Catholic Church anywhere in the world and see basically the same Mass with minor variatioons. If that truly is the case then I fail to see the basis of your argument. The Catholic Church has ALWAYS had inculturation and allowed local variations and practices in the Mass in different areas. One need look no further than Mexico and Central America to see that, not even speaking of the historic differences in, say, the Church in Italy and the Church in Germany.

The church required for most of it’s history that missionary church’s conform strickly to the European ideals of the church, refusing to take into account any local customs.
The best example are the Jesuits in Japan in the middle ages. The Japanize had and still do hornor thier dead. The Jesuits realizing the depth of this custom aske Rome for permission to incorporated this practice of honoring forfathers into catholic faith. Rome refused and as a result the church was expelled for 200 years.

No longer an organization that goes from the top down but one where the laity plays a part.

Am I to assume that the Church no longer has a Pope who leads it? The last I heard, we still have one, and he does indeed still lead the Church. From the top downThat would seem to negate your statement about the Church no longer going from the top down. In fact, in almost every organization where it goes from the top down , it also goes from the bottom up. That is called a chain of command and believe it or not it still exists within the Church. While true there is lay involvement in many areas these days not all of it is positive or even beneficial, and is thought by many much more learned than I to have directly led to many of the problems which plague the Ordained Priesthood these days.

Pre VII, whatever the clergy was done without question. Now there are pastoral councils, made up of the laity, not only on parish levels but on diocesan levels, for the cleargy to consult before making decisions. This is a major change. Problems occur when the laity refuses to step up and take on their role in the church.

As so often seems to be the case with many who jump to the defense of Vatican II facts are overlooked and rhetoric sneaks in.

For those who have problems witth VII, you need to stop looking at the past with rose colored glasses.

Peace,
FAB

 

[Ockham]

Problems occur when the laity refuses to step up and take on their role in the church.

I really like this advice but want to discuss the implications that come with it.

Anytime laity participation on committee or debate is brought forth, cries to our Catholic obedience is not too far behind. For example, if one Sunday liturgical dance breaks out, someone will say that it is not for you to complain, it’s the priest’s role to conduct the Mass. If the priest changes any part of the consecration someone will point out the laity are supposed to be obedient to the clergy and not make waves.

My thoughts are if the laity had objected strongly to the sale of indulgences then maybe Luther wouldn’t have caused a schism. If the laity had objected to the distribution of Holy Communion in hand in Holland in the sixties then we wouldn’t have it forced upon us today. The same can be said for many of the norms we now accept that were liturgical abuses when first practiced.

As Catholics we are expected to support and follow our clergy. However, as Catholics we also have two thousand years of tradition and rubics to hold our Church together. Once creativity and innovation take over the fragmented denomination of Protestantism isn’t too far behind. There is a difference between adhering to Church teaching and blindly following a mortal’s discretion and indifference. Cults are based on personality; Christ’s Church is supposed to be based on Him.

My experience within a parish is that most of the people who ‘step up’ are the ones promoting ‘reform’. These change agents are pushing modernist agendas usually in hopes of creating a Catholic Church more similar to a particular Protestant off-shoot. What I’d like to see is more traditional Catholics step up to positions of leadership in the parishes and resist these un-Catholic pressures. If we did so forty years ago, the clamshell church design would be exclusive to Protestants and the tabernacle would be our focal point with the priest facing it during Mass.

 

[mchale]

On the contrary, there are numerous sources about the early Church liturgies, including those found in scripture, the Didache, and the early historians and fathers, like that noted by Justin Martyr. I have not seen anyone produce any source that shows anything beyond a communal eucharistic meal-with some scripture, prayer and hymns–as the celebration. If you have something that does, I’d love to see it. If you see the elements of a TLM in the last supper, beyond the “consecration” formula, I’m totally missing them.

I am not suggesting the Last Supper has a full blown Latin Mass in it, but clearly it did have the sacrificial element included within it.

My point here is that the the Mass, regardless of the rite observed, has bones that can be traced back to the earliest days of the Church.

Again, I have seen nothing that indicates that presbyters were more than “elders” in the community and certainly nothing that indicates any kind of “ordination”. Nor have I ever heard of any of the early historians or fathers claim that they were priests so I would again be interested if you have such sources that make such claims.

If you look at Paul’s first letter to Timothy, particularly Chapters 4 and 5, you will see several passages referring to Presbyters/Elders/Priests that links them with the Laying on of hands. The laying on of hands certainly links them with the concept of ordination. It also talks of them preaching.

Naturally the early writers about the Church are not going to use the words of their time and place for priest. Presbyters (and modern priests and bishops) are not priests in the same sense of the word as early Christians would have recognized it. Indeed, the confusions results from the fact that the modern English Word priest is in fact derived from Presbyter. However, ancient Greek, a different word would have been used for priests under the Mosaic law or for the pagan priests.

 

[Hesychios]

I think that there should be a forum dedicated to Vatican Council II.

All the documents could be discussed, and all the opinions could be hashed out right there.

 

[ncjohn]

I am not suggesting the Last Supper has a full blown Latin Mass in it, but clearly it did have the sacrificial element included within it.

Agreed, totally.

My point here is that the the Mass, regardless of the rite observed, has bones that can be traced back to the earliest days of the Church.

This has been my consistent point and the reason why I so completely reject the idea that the Pauline Mass is some kind of 3-eyed mutant from another planet and totally unrelated to the TLM and the Eastern liturgies. They all contain the same essential elements.

If you look at Paul’s first letter to Timothy, particularly Chapters 4 and 5, you will see several passages referring to Presbyters/Elders/Priests that links them with the Laying on of hands. The laying on of hands certainly links them with the concept of ordination. It also talks of them preaching.

I really hate to spend much more time on this topic because it really so off-topic, but the footnote I find to the verses in Ch 5 is:
3 The function of presbyters is not exactly the same as that of the episkopos, “bishop” (1 Tim 3:1); in fact, the relation of the two at the time of this letter is obscure (but cf the note on Titus 1:5-9). The Pastorals seem to reflect a transitional stage that developed in many regions of the church into the monarchical episcopate of the second and third centuries. The presbyters possess the responsibility of preaching and teaching, for which functions they are supported by the community.

This pretty much agrees with everything else I have ever encountered. There is no talk of acting as a “priest” as we understand the term, confecting a “consecration” at a “Mass”, in any early document I have studied. As I said though, all of this is really off-topic and I only brought it up originally as a counter to the claim that the TLM and Eastern liturgies had existed “from the beginning” when the early home-based liturgies were clearly substantially different.

I think that you and I are really not far off in our thinking at all, and that maybe even some of the other earlier claims might be reconsidered as having perhaps been made in haste without totally thinking things through. As I said previously, my only motive in the discussion is to try to slow the cycle of division that is occurring over the different legitimate liturgical preferences within the Church and bring some civility that might allow us to get back to our true purpose of working together for the salvation of God’s people.

Peace,

 

[NFrancis]

Well, I think the restoration of the permanent diaconate was very good. But, I don’t like many of the liturgical changes. I like when the priest and everyone else face the same direction and that every where you can understand the mass because it is in latin. Also, I think the Latin mass is a lot more reverent.

 

[diggerdomer]

and that every where you can understand the mass because it is in latin.

Wait…are you claiming that our Mass would be more understandable if it was celebrated in Latin?

How many Catholics do you know? Of that number, now many know Latin? Do you really think celebrating Mass in Latin would result in a net increase in understanding?

 

[Ockham]

I think that there should be a forum dedicated to Vatican Council II.

All the documents could be discussed, and all the opinions could be hashed out right there.

That’s a very good idea. There should also be a “Modernist” forum where love for the NO Mass, liturgical dance, clamshell church architecture, folk choirs, and other innovations can be expressed and hopefully contained.

 

[Ockham]

I’vd read that people attending the first Masses wore sandals. I suppose we all should be doing that too.

 

[Tsuwano]

Vatican Council II was a gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church and was very, very good. Have there been misunderstandings and growing pains as we’ve attempted to implement the the results of the Council into the daily life of the Church? Of course there have, but this is no different from any other Council the Church has ever called. I believe I am a better Catholic because of the Council. I am more aware and more active in the Church than I would be had the Vatican Coucil not been called, and contrary to what some folks feel, I believe the Church is presently much closer to the vision Jesus had of his Church than what it was before the Council was called.

 

[Hesychios]

Hesychios;5121961:

I think that there should be a forum dedicated to Vatican Council II.

All the documents could be discussed, and all the opinions could be hashed out right there.

That’s a very good idea. There should also be a “Modernist” forum where love for the NO Mass, liturgical dance, clamshell church architecture, folk choirs, and other innovations can be expressed and hopefully contained.

I don’t have a horse in this race, I was being serious!

A great deal of material came out of that Council well worth discussing, or if you prefer, arguing over.

After all the threads I’ve seen here with “Vat II” in the subject line, it is obvious that there is a healthy need to discuss it in detail.

Michael