Why did Vatican II change the Mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kristine1957
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Kristine1957

Guest
Does anyone know why Vatican II changed the Mass in the first place? I am a convert and really don’t know the difference.🤷
 
Kristine1957 said:
Does anyone know why Vatican II changed the Mass in the first place? I am a convert and really don’t know the difference.🤷
Click to expand...
If I may and correct me if I am wrong here anyone. It wasn’t V2 that did it per say but the Liberals took the “spirit of V2” and ran with it.
 
historyb said:
If I may and correct me if I am wrong here anyone. It wasn’t V2 that did it per say but the Liberals took the “spirit of V2” and ran with it.
Click to expand...
It depends on what you mean by “spirit of VII” vs. VII. The Council did not call for the Mass to be completely in the vernacular, BUT the Pope, using his proper authority, allowed the expansion to a vernacular Mass. Neither the pope nor the council, however, called for nuns in leotards leaping about the sanctuary.
 
Kristine1957 said:
Does anyone know why Vatican II changed the Mass in the first place? I am a convert and really don’t know the difference.🤷
Click to expand...
Pax tecum!

Take a look at Sacrosanctum Concilium, the VII document on the liturgy. They explain why they are calling for a change.
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

Please take note that VII itself didn’t actually change the liturgy. What VII did was call for a reform of the liturgy, and that occurred several years after the close of the council.

In Christ,
Rand
 
Actually, if one were to look at the history, one would note that Liturgical renewal began before Pope Pius 12th.

The Mass as set at the Council of Trent had been modified in minor ways over a long period of time. Most people did not know Latin, and the missals with translations of the Latin were a much more recent introduction. Further, there had been a lot more research done in the last 100 years concerning the early Church, and there was generally a feeling that the Church needed to look at all the Sacraments, not just the Eucharistic Celebration.

In general, there was a feeling that we needed to make some revisions; part of that was the increase in the Lectionary cycle extending it to three years, and including readings from the Old Testament which are related to the New Testament. We now have a much richer Liturgy of the Word than previously.

Many, if not most people who criticize the Mass we have today are not familiar with the history of Liturgical renewal, and seem to feel that it all came out of nowhere. Arguments can be made concerning some of the changes both for and against, but having an historical perspective might reduce some of the angst that is seemingly felt.
 
otjm said:
Actually, if one were to look at the history, one would note that Liturgical renewal began before Pope Pius 12th.

The Mass as set at the Council of Trent had been modified in minor ways over a long period of time. Most people did not know Latin, and the missals with translations of the Latin were a much more recent introduction. Further, there had been a lot more research done in the last 100 years concerning the early Church, and there was generally a feeling that the Church needed to look at all the Sacraments, not just the Eucharistic Celebration.

In general, there was a feeling that we needed to make some revisions; part of that was the increase in the Lectionary cycle extending it to three years, and including readings from the Old Testament which are related to the New Testament. We now have a much richer Liturgy of the Word than previously.

Many, if not most people who criticize the Mass we have today are not familiar with the history of Liturgical renewal, and seem to feel that it all came out of nowhere. Arguments can be made concerning some of the changes both for and against, but having an historical perspective might reduce some of the angst that is seemingly felt.
Click to expand...
Actually some of us neanderthals are well aware of the history of the Mass and of the Church. And amazingly enough some of us actually feel that the reforms did not reflect the will of the council or even agree with what the council specified:)

Example from THE CONSTITUTION ON THE SACRED LITURGY
Code: 
                  Sacrosanctum Concilium, 4 December, 1963    
  
54.   A  suitable place may be allotted to the vernacular in  Masses which   are celebrated with the people,  especially in the  readings   and  "the  common  prayer,"   and  also,   as  local conditions  may     warrant,   in those parts which pertain to the people,  according to     the rules laid down in Article 36 of this Constitution. 
  **Nevertheless   care  must be taken to ensure that the  faithful  may   also   be  able to say or sing together in Latin those parts of  the  Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.
**
Wherever a more extended use of the vernacular in the Mass seems
desirable, the regulation laid down in Article 40 of this
Constitution is to be observed.
article 40 states:
40. In some places and circumstances, however, an even more radical adaptation of the liturgy is needed, and this entails greater difficulties. For this reason:
(1) The competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Article 22:2, must in this matter, carefully and prudently consider which elements from the traditions and cultures of individual peoples might appropriately be admitted into divine worship. Adaptations which are considered useful or necessary should then be submitted to the Holy See, by whose consent they may be introduced.
(2) To ensure that adaptations may be made with all the circumspection necessary, the Apostolic See will grant power to this same territorial ecclesiastical authority to permit and direct, as the case requires, the necessary preliminary experiments over a determined period of time among certain groups suitable for the purpose.
(3) Because liturgical laws usually involve special difficulties with respect to adaptation, **especially in mission lands, **men who are experts in the matters in question must be employed to formulate them.
or this for example
116. The Church recognizes Gregorian chant as being specially suited to the Roman liturgy. Therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services. Other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action as laid down in Article 30

Very hard to see how that squares up with what we actually got in practice:) .

As I said, the reforms and Liturgical renewal in some cases DO NOT appear to reflect the will of the council.
_______________________________________________________
 
I would hardly call the pope who issued Humanae Vitae in the face of fierce secular opposition a liberal!
Click to expand...
I’m not calling him one thing or another but a lot forgotten is the fact that the same Pope issued Populorum Progressio (see point 37) and also had brought in many theologians to discuss ABC, the pill specifically. News reports during the long proceedings were very encouraging to those who were pushing ABC. No wonder HV came as a huge surprise.
 
Here’s a good article on the opening of the Council and the first issue dealt with, the Liturgy–it explains the motivation of the Council from the perspective of then Fr. Ratzinger–I think it is a good balanced overview (the part on the Liturgy is over halfway down):

lumengentleman.com/content.asp?id=287
 
Even the founder of the SSPX, Archbishop Lefebrve, believed there needed to be reform. He wrote in his open letter:

“I wrote: “We may say without hesitation, that certain liturgical reforms have been needed, and it is to be hoped that the Council will continue in this direction.” I recognized that a renewal was indispensable to bring an end to a certain sclerosis due to a gap which had developed between prayer, confined to places of worship, and the world of action-schools, the professions and public life.”
 
BobP123 said:
I’m not calling him one thing or another but a lot forgotten is the fact that the same Pope issued Populorum Progressio (see point 37) and also had brought in many theologians to discuss ABC, the pill specifically.
Click to expand...
The Council of Trent also brought in Protestants to discuss their doctrines…🤷 (session 13, chapter 8)
 
palmas85 said:
Actually some of us neanderthals are well aware of the history of the Mass and of the Church. And amazingly enough some of us actually feel that the reforms did not reflect the will of the council or even agree with what the council specified:)
Click to expand...
My reply was more directed to those who are not aware of the history - like the OP. As to not reflecting the will of the Council, I am always left to wonder if the Council was meant to be a limiting or a motivating document. That it (Mass changes) went farther than envisioned by the “four corners of the document” I would assume all would agree. However, if we are speaking of reforms, as in approved liturgy, I would point out that the Mass changes were promulgated by Rome. If you mean other than approved changes, then you are preaching to the choir.
 
palmas85 said:
The motivation however was somewhat different as were the results that came out of it.
Click to expand...
No, not concerning the teaching on the pill. Trent wanted to let them argue their point, listen to both sides, and define Catholic teaching accordingly. That is exactly what Pope Paul VI did. Both affirmed Catholic teaching after asking for study on other views. How is that different?
 
“Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.” --Matthew 18:18

This is the empowerment and authority of Christ giving to His Apostles! Which those same Apostles have bound and loosed this same empowerment and authority to their successors throughout the ages. Even if it is as clear as day that the color is green, if the Church decides to so deem it as the color blue, then it shall be blue.

Many today as have many in the past live in a self righteous spirit that leads them to believe that they know better or carry the authority to condemn the Apostolic authority which was giving and made by the grace of Christ Himself. This is the great heresy of our time; Those who oppose Vatican II and slander it’s teaching and question its integrity. Fools who do not trust in God or believe in the grace of entitled power that (Christ) has placed upon the authority of the Church.

It does not matter how beautiful or proper the Mass be or been; If the Church so deems it be, then it shall be!

Trust that God has the power… O you of little faith!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top