Why do some people reject Vatican II?

[Brendan_64]

it would not bother me if they left more of the Mass in Latin.
When I converted I belonged to a church that said the “Holy, Holy, Holy” and “Lamb of God” in Latin. I loved it.

And there are Catholic parishes who do just that, and more.

As a new convert, once you have become fully ‘settled in’, perhaps you might want to attend an Extraordinary Form Mass, to appreciate the beauty and reverence of the Traditional Latin Mass.

 

[Usige]

I thought Vatican II changed the liturgy from Latin to the vernacular. Are you saying it didn’t?

No, technically the Council didn’t directly change the liturgy. There were suggestion from the Fathers of the Council on what they thought should changes, but the Council itself did not produce the new form of the Mass.

Here is what section 50 of Sacrosanctum Concilium (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy):

The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved. For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance; elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded; other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the vigor which they had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary.

There are also passages calling for additional scripture readings and allowing for the use of the vernacular, while also saying that pastors were to take ensure that the faithful knew many of the prayers in Latin.

Now while Sacrosanctum Concilium made recommendations, it was another body know as the Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia (Council for Implementing the Constitution on the Liturgy), that drafted the revised Mass over the next 5-6 years. When the first “draft” version of the Mass was celebrated in 1967 before 170 some bishops, 40% approved, 25% disapproves and the remaining 35% approved of the draft form with reservations. There were more revisions after that before the 1970 version of the Mass was promulgated.

So while the general impression is the Mass of Paul VI was the work of Vatican II, it was really a parallel effort not directly under the purview of the full council. A high level reading of Sacrosanctum Concilium seem to imply more modest liturgical changes than were eventually promulgated, but not knowing how the liturgical winds were blowing in the 50s and 60s I can’t say if those changes were inevitable or a more abrupt change. Think of the 1970 Missal as more one of the fruits of the council, while not being an actual part of the council documents.

 

[Brendan_64]

?

I just meant that if the ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ is not grounded in Church teaching then we ought to be very sceptical and cautious of it.

 

[LongingSoul]

Indeed but what kind of spirit is it?

A discernible force for the good and greater relationship with God.

 

[ProVobis]

So while the general impression is the Mass of Paul VI was the work of Vatican II, it was really a parallel effort not directly under the purview of the full council. A high level reading of Sacrosanctum Concilium seem to imply more modest liturgical changes than were eventually promulgated, but not knowing how the liturgical winds were blowing in the 50s and 60s I can’t say if those changes were inevitable or a more abrupt change. Think of the 1970 Missal as more one of the fruits of the council, while not being an actual part of the council documents.

Another way to look at it is that because the old Mass was actually said before each session of the council, it couldn’t have even hinted that it wanted to dismantle it because it was defective in any way. Effectively this dismantling is exactly what happened with the Missal of 1962 right after the council, which btw never ordered that a new Mass be created.

 

[Thomas_White]

Whatever it is, it has no basis in the teachings of our Church. Vatican II was an ecumenical council, like the 20 before it, Vatican II did not produce a ‘spirit’ any more than Vatican I, Trent, Lateran V… all the way back to Nicaea did.

The bishops met, discussed a range of issues, produced 16 documents and went home. There wasn’t a mysterious unwritten document called “Spirit of Vatican II” produced by the 2nd Vatican Council.

There was the dogmatic constitution on divine revelation, Dei Verbum, promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1965. It is one of the most important documents of Vatican II. Half a century later, it is arguable that its teaching is neither widely known nor understood.

 

[LongingSoul]

Another way to look at it is that because the old Mass was actually said before each session of the council, it couldn’t have even hinted that it wanted to dismantle it because it was defective in any way. Effectively this dismantling is exactly what happened with the Missal of 1962 right after the council, which btw never ordered that a new Mass be created.

Another thing that doesn’t make logical sense, is why the ‘old Mass’ is thought of as the pre-eminent Mass. The first Masses would have been in Aramaic as that was the local language. There was then a time it was widely celebrated in Greek and in fact the word Eucharist is a Greek word. Latin is actually an evolution and reflected a common language base around the Christian world. That aspect, ie the commonality of Latin in the general public, dissipated over time and was predominantly confined to academia.

The arguments for a return to the ‘old Latin Mass’ are sometimes presented as something original or a birthplace of Catholicism when really that doesn’t reflect its origins.

 

[commenter]

A discernible force for the good and greater relationship with God.

Every opinion or initiative looks like that in the eyes of somebody. Including some things you or I would agree with, and some we both would disagree with. That’s like saying every idea is true, as long as it is written in a book. Of course not!

Everybody from Catholics for Choice, to the Westboro Baptist Church, to Shirley MacClain, presents their agenda as a discernible force for good and greater relationship with God. Maybe the Kardashians, too.

Every plan or project should be submitted to the Magisterium to judge whether it really is “a discernible force for the good and greater relationship with God.” That is where the proponents of the Spirit of Vatican II failed in most cases.

 

[ProVobis]

Another thing that doesn’t make logical sense, is why the ‘old Mass’ is thought of as the pre-eminent Mass.

Can you point me to a Church document on Mass doctrine prior to Trent which makes your case?

Either the MIssal of 1962 was defective or it wasn’t. Or any other Missal or liturgy the Church has used since 1370 AD, for that matter. That it certainly seemed defective was the implication.

 

[7_Sorrows]

And there are Catholic parishes who do just that, and more.

As a new convert, once you have become fully ‘settled in’, perhaps you might want to attend an Extraordinary Form Mass, to appreciate the beauty and reverence of the Traditional Latin Mass.

I did attend a FSSP (I think that is right) Mass shortly after I converted. then I moved to a smaller town and they used to offer a TLM Mass once a month, but no longer do.

 

[LongingSoul]

Can you point me to a Church document on Mass doctrine prior to Trent which makes your case?

The first Sacrificial Remembrances were in house Churchs and Paul makes numerous references to these in Acts and Corinthians. The legitimacy of these ‘masses’ was not diminished by a Latin Missal. In 1 Corinthians 3 Paul relates…

By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as a wise builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should build with care. 11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. 14 If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. 15 If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.

So to me it is clear that there is no particular type of Remembrance that is infallible, but each should be tested by the times for efficacy.

Either the MIssal of 1962 was defective or it wasn’t. Or any other Missal or liturgy the Church has used since 1370 AD, for that matter. That it certainly seemed defective was the implication.

When people switched to electricity it didn’t mean that flame lamps were defective. It just meant there was a new and better way of throwing light on things.

 

[ProVobis]

So to me it is clear that there is no particular type of Remembrance that is infallible, but each should be tested by the times for efficacy.

So why isn’t this true for all of Church’s doctrine (other than what’s infallible) to the point of not being able to identify with the Church at all? Or is all of doctrine fair game for the times?

When people switched to electricity it didn’t mean that flame lamps were defective. It just meant there was a new and better way of throwing light on things.

Electricity was always there. Except in power outages.

Now the 8-track, another product of the 70’s? That was defective. (Not to say everything else was too, though.)

But we digress.

.

 

[LongingSoul]

So why isn’t this true for all of Church’s doctrine (other than what’s infallible) to the point of not being able to identify with the Church at all? Or is all of doctrine fair game for the times?

“For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.” Matt 18:20

That’s the Church and the Catholic Church is defined by guidance of the Seat of Peter.

The thing that has linked us today to these house Churches is the Remembrance of the Sacrifice of Christ in a dedicated supper of bread and wine transformed to His body and blood.

We are a pilgrim Church on earth and pilgrims while travelling and living together are the antithesis of a settled once and for all culture.

 

[ProVobis]

The thing that has linked us today to these house Churches is the Remembrance of the Sacrifice of Christ in a dedicated supper of bread and wine transformed to His body and blood.

Yet, according to the book written by Msgr. Gamber, the word Sacrifice didn’t make it into the definition given in the first edition of the 1970 Mass, signed by the Pope. That was only corrected later but without any changes to the text. It’s no wonder many of today’s Catholics simply think of the Mass as a meal only and everyone must receive regardless of his disposition.

 

[StGerardMajella]

As the subject needs to be studied from the view of the poisonous fruits of the dissidents inside and outside the Church.

For many traditionalist Catholics, Vatican II marks the delineation point between modernism and tradition. It’s a marking point in time.

The Latin Mass was not mechanized. I lived it.

By mechanized, I am referring to the inability of the priest saying the Latin Mass to improvise. In the Tridentine Mass, the priest’s actions are carefully orchestrated, with little ability for the priest to make improvisations with the liturgy.

The Church remained the Church. The radicals and dissidents preached their gospel through the media.

In the eyes of many traditionalists, the Church has changed dramatically since Vatican II. I have cited these changes in my prior post. Traditionalists may care less about the root causes of these changes than the end results.

As for the introduction of the vernacular, it is true that Vatican II did allow this to be introduced (especially for the readings and some prayers and chants)

This is key. It caused a great deal of change. At the local level, the floodgates were then opened for further “changes”.

Another thing that doesn’t make logical sense, is why the ‘old Mass’ is thought of as the pre-eminent Mass. The first Masses would have been in Aramaic as that was the local language.

The Church used what is basically the Tridentine Mass for almost 1500 years (dating back to the 6th century).

 

[utah_rose]

I think what some people are objecting to is what they think Vatiican 11 was. Unfortunately there were a lot of liturgical excesses, and things like removing statues etc. which Wasn’t part of what the Church wanted. But some over zealous bishops and priests misunderstood it and got a little carried away. For example, our parish removed the statues and stored them in the basement! So, people rebelled against this and instead of trying to get it corrected began some schismatic movements . Thankfully, some of us held on and for those who still love the TLM Nass saw it restored under Pope Benedict. But sadly the catechetical teachings suffered because it was revamped and neglected Church’s teachings so many young people left the Church. It’s slowly beginning to change but a lot of damage has been done, but to solely blame Vatican 11 for this rather than human error is wrong.

 

[edwest2]

For many traditionalist Catholics, Vatican II marks the delineation point between modernism and tradition. It’s a marking point in time.

By mechanized, I am referring to the inability of the priest saying the Latin Mass to improvise. In the Tridentine Mass, the priest’s actions are carefully orchestrated, with little ability for the priest to make improvisations with the liturgy.

In the eyes of many traditionalists, the Church has changed dramatically since Vatican II. I have cited these changes in my prior post. Traditionalists may care less about the root causes of these changes than the end results.

This is key. It caused a great deal of change. At the local level, the floodgates were then opened for further “changes”.

The Church used what is basically the Tridentine Mass for almost 1500 years (dating back to the 6th century).

The Church did not change dramatically. That will always be the point. What happened is there were those inside the Church and those outside that wanted to wreck it and wreck society, which they gradually did, in stages. Each one leading to a little worse, a little worse, and a little worse as the decades passed.

And all the things they wanted and preached and drummed into the heads of the people are the root cause of today. Sex, sex and more sex with anybody, lots of anybodies, no self control, and increased illegal drug use. Yes, all the the things they wanted in 1968 have led to today. It’s all documented for anyone who wants to look.

I watched as the US government betrayed this country based on false information and outright lies. Vatican II? Forget there was a connection. There isn’t one.

1968 Pope Paul VI spoke clearly at the height of the Sexual - without love - Revolution. Here was the reaction to Humanae Vitae at the time:

"Within 24 hours, in an event unprecedented in the history of the Church, more than 200 dissenting theologians signed a full-page ad in The New York Times in protest. Not only did they declare their disagreement with encyclical’s teaching; they went one step further, far beyond their authority as theologians, and actually encouraged dissent among the lay faithful.

"They asserted the following: “Therefore, as Roman Catholic theologians, conscious of our duty and our limitations, we conclude that spouses may responsibly decide according to their conscience that artificial contraception in some circumstances is permissible and indeed necessary to preserve and foster the values and sacredness of marriage.”

Source: Regnum Christi

Vatican II? No. The above - an event unprecedented in the history of the Church

1969 The National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws

catholicnewsagency.com/resources/abortion/articles-and-addresses/an-ex-abortionist-speaks/

1970 Adult Bookstores turn my stomach, along with topless bars and strip clubs. The Church created and opened these? The pornographers’ high priced attorneys told us ‘religious nuts’ that they had the “First Amendment right” to create the new opiate of the masses. They knew addicts would be created.

1971 More illegal drugs, especially marijuana, crystal T, LSD and others become more widely available in our neighborhoods. They knew addicts would be created.

1972 A nice lady appears on TV to tell us that we should have compassion for women dying from back-alley abortions. That was not the whole truth.

1973 The killing begins. Abortion is legalized. Jane Roe in Ros v Wade is actually Norma McCorvey. She never got an abortion. And she is speaking out against abortion.

Ed

 

[ProVobis]

. Thankfully, some of us held on and for those who still love the TLM Nass saw it restored under Pope Benedict.

For the record in 1984 Pope John Paul II restored the 1962 Missal with the stipulation that it be said in Latin. Pope Benedict made the TLM more widely available for priests.

 

[commenter]

We are a pilgrim Church on earth and pilgrims while travelling and living together are the antithesis of a settled once and for all culture.

I know you mean well, but this is the slogan used by people who opposed the Catholic Faith.
No, we are not a pilgrim Church. We are pilgrim individual Christians, each of whom, individually, need conversion. The problem is not a settled, once and for all culture. The problem is settled, once and for all individuals, who look for any loophole to help them avoid conversion. The biggest loophole is to identify the “culture” - or rather they really mean the Church - as a problem, because it is “settled”, with fixed dogmas.

Too many sermons, too many religious publications, taught the supposed “sin” of war, the “sin” in inequality, the “sin” of evil social structures. They urge people to “repent” the evils done by politicians, or vague corporations - in other words, people “confess” and “repent” the sins of other persons, who are not sitting in church this morning. This gives them the false feeling of religion, without going to any sacrament of Confession, which has drastically declined.
Too few clergy or religious writers urge people to confess their own sins, which are the only ones worth repenting.

The real Church is a gathering place for sinners, who use mutual support and unchanging dogma to bring about loving change in themselves. The “Pilgrim Church” analogy really is helping people move beyond the Magisterium, which was helpful at an earlier part of our “journey” but not so much in the new “culture”. The Spirit of V2 subtly invites people to build our new church more adapted to the new culture. And hey, we’ll invite the bishops to be part of it, too. There’s at least one revolting hymn that was written then that says just that.

Fortunately the new generation of bishops, priests and sisters are much less caught up in that pilgrim model. But its influence lingers on.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

For the record in 1984 Pope John Paul II restored the 1962 Missal with the stipulation that it be said in Latin. Pope Benedict made the TLM more widely available for priests.

If that is a matter of discipline, then it can change right? Maybe someday, the 1962 missal can be said in the vernacular.