What Vatican II did not call for

[dumspirospero]

catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0540.html

The above link is to an article written by a Jesuit priest…I thought it was great. I was wondering, as he points out, why some things…never stated in the Council have made their way into The Mass and our Churches…it is clear that some of these inventions follow neither the Spirit or the Letter of the Law of Vatican II. The primary things I am talking about are:

A) Flipping the altar around
B) Discontinuation of the Priest facing east along with the Church while saying Mass (This is a 1969 invention…based on no tradition)
C) Moving the Tabernacles from their Central location to another spot
D) Stripping down the Church by removing beautiful statues and icons,etc.
E) Removal of Altar Rails
F) Elimination of Latin all together from the Mass…“Nor did the Council, as I mentioned, abolish Latin. It specifically mandated the retention of Latin and only permitted the use of the vernacular in certain circumstances. And, finally, the Council did not prohibit Gregorian Chant, as you might be led to think from its absence in your parishes. The Council actually prescribed Gregorian Chant to have pride of place.”
G) I did not abolish Gregorian Chant
H) It did not prescribe multiple canons

With those things in mind…who decided and why did they decide to invent these changes and inject them into the Mass…also, why did so many Churches fall victim to things not mandated by VII? I also believe in light of this, that a lot of people falsely blame Vatican II for a lot of these changes, but that is not correct…these changes WERE NOT called for by Vatican II, but somehow they found their way into our Churches and our liturgy…How did this happen and is there a way to make this known to all lay people and clergy and start a movement to return to the elements of The Mass and restore the beauty of our Churches that we love so very, very much but was lost when the “progressives” took it upon themselves to change it all.

 

[dumspirospero]

Oh yeah…and I forgot something…Consecration Bells…it is very rarely I hear them at Parishes I visit…thankfully they use them at my home parish…but I never find them in use anywhere else.

 

[TheGarg]

dumspirospero:

Oh yeah…and I forgot something…Consecration Bells…it is very rarely I hear them at Parishes I visit…thankfully they use them at my home parish…but I never find them in use anywhere else.

Are these just questions for your own personal curiosity, or are you planning on becomeing a heretic, and start your own church?
just kidding

I let the bigdogs do the leading myself. I just follow and serve. But having the knowledge is good to teach other correctly.

I suppose with the “authority given by Chirst”, if they want to change a few things,[save for doctrine on Faith and Morals], they can do what they want. They don’t need our permission.

I wasn’t even born pre-vatican 2, so I don’t have to wrestle with these changes. I would think that even is I was, I still wouldn’t wrestle with them, except if my pride made me…

I am interested in your reply dumspirospero

 

[usqueadmortem]

“I suppose with the “authority given by Chirst”, if they want to change a few things,[save for doctrine on Faith and Morals], they can do what they want.”

That is a good way to put it. Save this one thing; more than a few things were changed. We have to get that straight. The whole Missal was practically rewritten. Compare and see. But they had the authority to do so.

I think the answer to your question is this: Even during the Vatican Council, thought progressed rapidly. The Thomistic schema that were carefully drawn up were tossed, and a more modern approach invented on the spot. With the end of the Council, thought kept progressing quickly, and Paul VI rode the tide.

He trusted Archbishop Bugnini with the reform of the liturgy. Bugnini had been pushing for drastic changes since the 40’s. I don’t want to say anything uncharitable about Bugnini. How can I put this nicely? He had his own ideas about the liturgy. He wasn’t concerned about Catholic continuity, or organic development, he was concerned with reaching out to Protestants, and at whatever cost. Thus, he already viewed Sacrosanctum Concilium as outdated only a few years afterward.

Now that goes hand in hand with this controversial fact. The periti, men with less than stellar track records theologically/philosophically, were the one’s who grabbed the power after the Council. They interpreted it in a liberal way, and the Bishops sort of took a back seat.

I hope this can contribute to your understanding a bit.

Pax Domini!
Usque.

 

[slinky1882]

“I suppose with the “authority given by Chirst”, if they want to change a few things,[save for doctrine on Faith and Morals]
, they can do what they want.”

That is a good way to put it. Save this one thing; more than a few things were changed. We have to get that straight. The whole Missal was practically rewritten. Compare and see. But they had the authority to do so.

I think the answer to your question is this: Even during the Vatican Council, thought progressed rapidly. The Thomistic schema that were carefully drawn up were tossed, and a more modern approach invented on the spot. With the end of the Council, thought kept progressing quickly, and Paul VI rode the tide.

He trusted Archbishop Bugnini with the reform of the liturgy. Bugnini had been pushing for drastic changes since the 40’s. I don’t want to say anything uncharitable about Bugnini. How can I put this nicely? He had his own ideas about the liturgy. He wasn’t concerned about Catholic continuity, or organic development, he was concerned with reaching out to Protestants, and at whatever cost. Thus, he already viewed Sacrosanctum Concilium as outdated only a few years afterward.

Now that goes hand in hand with this controversial fact. The periti, men with less than stellar track records theologically/philosophically, were the one’s who grabbed the power after the Council. They interpreted it in a liberal way, and the Bishops sort of took a back seat.

I hope this can contribute to your understanding a bit.

Pax Domini!
Usque.

Could you tell me a little more about the role of Archbishop Bugnini in the revision of the Liturgy or point me in the right direction??? As to the beginning of the thread, there are so many to look at. Ultimately, I belive some liturgists selfishly twisted Vatican II into the “Spirit of Vatican II”. I attend the local Cathedral where I am, and fortunately only two of what you listed above are true. (Altar rails and facing east. And on the facing east part, the way the Church was designed, I don’t believe it was possible to face east even prior to Vatican II). Thanks and God Bless.

 

[netmilsmom]

slinky1882:

Could you tell me a little more about the role of Archbishop Bugnini in the revision of the Liturgy or point me in the right direction??? As to the beginning of the thread, there are so many to look at. Ultimately, I belive some liturgists selfishly twisted Vatican II into the “Spirit of Vatican II”. I attend the local Cathedral where I am, and fortunately only two of what you listed above are true. (Altar rails and facing east. And on the facing east part, the way the Church was designed, I don’t believe it was possible to face east even prior to Vatican II). Thanks and God Bless.

And this is why I think the movement is to EWTN type Holy Masses.

 

[netmilsmom]

dumspirospero:

Oh yeah…and I forgot something…Consecration Bells…it is very rarely I hear them at Parishes I visit…thankfully they use them at my home parish…but I never find them in use anywhere else.

All of that is at my parish and we who want this kind of Holy Mass should be fighting for it.

Support young priests who want to do an EWTN type Holy Mass.
Move to a church that has it.
Do some research and support this kind of Holy Mass and let the Modernists have theirs
God knows, that the modernists type of mass is everywhere!

 

[dumspirospero]

I hear you…thank the Lord, I do attend a Parish that was not effected by these changes…the NO they offer is like the one on EWTN which I am very happy and excited about every time I go. We still have altar rails, Communion on the tongue, consecration bells, beautiful Icons, Mosaics, and Statues, etc…we even have a TLM every Sunday…however, it is in my travels that I realize that this is far from the norm…if my parish is able to hold on to these sacred things and still be in full communion with Rome…why can’t other Parishes do the same?
netmil(name removed by moderator):

All of that is at my parish and we who want this kind of Holy Mass should be fighting for it.

Support young priests who want to do an EWTN type Holy Mass.
Move to a church that has it.
Do some research and support this kind of Holy Mass and let the Modernists have theirs
God knows, that the modernists type of mass is everywhere!

 

[Zosimus]

Thank you for this post!!

Although I dont have any answers for you I have to agree.

Vatican II didnt make theses changes nor allowed for them.

Its like the churches took it and ran with it. They had the idea if it doesnt say we cant do it it must be allright.

I see it every Sunday people doing the orans posture as if it adds some sort of “prayer power” people rushing out of church right after communion as if they have fulfilled their Sunday commitment and now have a free get into Heaven card.

Visiting a Coptic Church in Houston to see the respect they have for the Eucharist I was in awe…Taking off their shoes to go take communion.

Then attending one of our teen masses watching the kids run up to the alter with their torn jeans shrt skirts jamming out on the electric guitar waiving hands dancing like we were at a rock concert.

I think we have lost a lot of respect and sight of Jesus actual presence in the Eucharist.

Its our stuborness to have things “our way” but as John the Baptist said Gods ways are not our ways.

 

[tom.wineman]

It seems clear that modernist in some places hijacked V2

 

[netmilsmom]

dumspirospero:

I hear you…thank the Lord, I do attend a Parish that was not effected by these changes…the NO they offer is like the one on EWTN which I am very happy and excited about every time I go. We still have altar rails, Communion on the tongue, consecration bells, beautiful Icons, Mosaics, and Statues, etc…we even have a TLM every Sunday…however, it is in my travels that I realize that this is far from the norm…if my parish is able to hold on to these sacred things and still be in full communion with Rome…why can’t other Parishes do the same?

Aren’t we so blessed!!!
My heart goes out to the people who are in the modernist wastelands of our church. And then people wonder why some folks travel to the TLM. When all one is being offered is a “Happy Mass”, it is disheartening.

Why other parishes can’t do the same is the million dollar question.
I feel that one non-Modern Holy Mass should be offered at a parish. If no one shows up, then go back, but a trial period should be set up.
I know that in my area, the modernist churches are bleeding parishioners and ours has doubled it’s congregation in three years. Something is going on.

 

[Exporter]

First I want to thank and compliment youon starting this thread, dumspiro. I think you asked why the inventions were made in aprox. 1969.

It would seem that the Bishops made these obtuse decisions.

What have the results been of changing so much of the mass? All negative, all the chaanges have had the effect of ripping the faith right out of most adults and teen agers.

Now here comes the part I have believed for years. Ask yourself what could the church do to tear the church apart, yet have a servicce each Sunday. Do just what they have done. Go back and read all the changes dumspiro gave in the first post. IT IS THE WORK OF AN ANTI-CHRIST.

 

[netmilsmom]

Zosimus:

Its like the churches took it and ran with it. They had the idea if it doesnt say we cant do it it must be allright.

I see it every Sunday people doing the orans posture as if it adds some sort of “prayer power” people rushing out of church right after communion as if they have fulfilled their Sunday commitment and now have a free get into Heaven card.

Its our stuborness to have things “our way” but as John the Baptist said Gods ways are not our ways.

You, my friend are very wise.

 

[buffalo]

From Redemptionis Sacramentum

[4.] “Certainly the liturgical reform inaugurated by the Council has greatly contributed to a more conscious, active and fruitful participation in the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar on the part of the faithful.”[10] Even so, “shadows are not lacking”.[11] In this regard it is not possible to be silent about the abuses, even quite grave ones, against the nature of the Liturgy and the Sacraments as well as the tradition and the authority of the Church, which in our day not infrequently plague liturgical celebrations in one ecclesial environment or another. In some places the perpetration of liturgical abuses has become almost habitual, a fact which obviously cannot be allowed and must cease.

[5.] The observance of the norms published by the authority of the Church requires conformity of thought and of word, of external action and of the application of the heart. A merely external observation of norms would obviously be contrary to the nature of the Sacred Liturgy, in which Christ himself wishes to gather his Church, so that together with himself she will be “one body and one spirit”.[12] For this reason, external action must be illuminated by faith and charity, which unite us with Christ and with one another and engender love for the poor and the abandoned. The liturgical words and rites, moreover, are a faithful expression, matured over the centuries, of the understanding of Christ, and they teach us to think as he himself does;[13] by conforming our minds to these words, we raise our hearts to the Lord. All that is said in this Instruction is directed toward such a conformity of our own understanding with that of Christ, as expressed in the words and the rites of the Liturgy.

[6.]** For abuses “contribute to the obscuring of the Catholic faith and doctrine concerning this wonderful sacrament”**.[14] Thus, they also hinder the faithful from “re-living in a certain way the experience of the two disciples of Emmaus: ‘and their eyes were opened, and they recognized him’”.[15] For in the presence of God’s power and divinity[16] and the splendour of his goodness, made manifest especially in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, it is fitting that all the faithful should have and put into practice that power of acknowledging God’s majesty that they have received through the saving Passion of the Only-Begotten Son.[17]

[7.] Not infrequently, abuses are rooted in a false understanding of liberty. Yet God has not granted us in Christ an illusory liberty by which we may do what we wish, but a liberty by which we may do that which is fitting and right.[18] This is true not only of precepts coming directly from God, but also of laws promulgated by the Church, with appropriate regard for the nature of each norm. For this reason, all should conform to the ordinances set forth by legitimate ecclesiastical authority.

[8.] It is therefore to be noted with great sadness that “ecumenical initiatives which are well-intentioned, nevertheless indulge at times in Eucharistic practices contrary to the discipline by which the Church expresses her faith”. Yet the Eucharist “is too great a gift to tolerate ambiguity or depreciation”. It is therefore necessary that some things be corrected or more clearly delineated so that in this respect as well “the Eucharist will continue to shine forth in all its radiant mystery”.[19]

59.] The reprobated practice by which Priests, Deacons or the faithful here and there alter or vary at will the texts of the Sacred Liturgy that they are charged to pronounce, must cease. For in doing thus, they render the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy unstable, and not infrequently distort the authentic meaning of the Liturgy.

[186.] Let all Christ’s faithful participate in the Most Holy Eucharist as fully, consciously and actively as they can,[293] honouring it lovingly by their devotion and the manner of their life.** Let Bishops, Priests and Deacons, in the exercise of the sacred ministry, examine their consciences as regards the authenticity and fidelity of the actions they have performed in the name of Christ and the Church in the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy. Let each one of the sacred ministers ask himself, even with severity, whether he has respected the rights of the lay members of Christ’s faithful, who confidently entrust themselves and their children to him, relying on him to fulfill for the faithful those sacred functions that the Church intends to carry out in celebrating the sacred Liturgy at Christ’s command.[294] For each one should always remember that he is a servant of the Sacred Liturgy.[295]**

 

[usqueadmortem]

Slinky;

slinky1882:

Could you tell me a little more about the role of Archbishop Bugnini in the revision of the Liturgy or point me in the right direction??? As to the beginning of the thread, there are so many to look at. Ultimately, I belive some liturgists selfishly twisted Vatican II into the “Spirit of Vatican II”. I attend the local Cathedral where I am, and fortunately only two of what you listed above are true. (Altar rails and facing east. And on the facing east part, the way the Church was designed, I don’t believe it was possible to face east even prior to Vatican II). Thanks and God Bless.

Dear Friend,
I want you to draw your own conclusions about Bugnini. But in sum, he was the driving force of the Consilium which was in charge of the reform after Vatican II.
First and foremost read Bugnini’s “The Reform of the Liturgy 1948-1975”. He lays everything out there, including his role and his ideas. He even addresses the Freemasonry accusation, for which reason Paul VI “ecclesiastically exiled” him to Iran after the reform.
Then compare his ideas to these seminal (and extraordinarily gifted) liturgists; Prosper Guaranger, Pope Saint Pius X, and Pope Pius XII.
You will notice a marked difference in thought pattern. I want to say outrightly though, that Pius X, and especially Pius XII warned the Church about thinkers like Bugnini.
I can give you specific references to Pius XII, and Pius X if you need them. (Guaranger was a liturgist by trade, you won’t have a hard time finding sources for him).
God Bless you and your studies!
Your impoverished servant in the Lord Christ,
usque.