Why was the Mass changed after Vatican II?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Paxvobis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
agnes_therese said:
Proof, please, that it was the Protestant observers who revamped the Mass? (Actual documentation, not someone’s opinion.)
Click to expand...
Not being present to the proceedings of the council I can only go by what I read from knowledge and reliable sources.

In an article entitled "The New Vatican Instruction: Gateway to a Hybrid Mass? by John Vennari written for the CFN June 2011 we read:

"One may legitimately question how a New Mass written with the help of six Protestant ministers, and ecumenically designed to please Protestants who reject the sacrificial nature of the Mass, could be the source of any positive fruits whatsoever, let alone “many” positive fruits.

I don’t know if there is documentation of this fact but the names of the ministers are available. I did read them some place but I read many things and am not able to put my finger on the names at this time.

There is also a video produced by John Vennari entitled “Vatican II: The best Council the Protestants Ever Had”, where you hear and see the Protestant minister mention that the council was the best one for the Protestants. I will have to watch the entire video to tell you the name and I am not ready to take the time. If you are interested in the video PM me and I will email you the info. It might still be available.

I found this video a real eye opener. Be advised that Mr. Vennari is a Traditionalist some might call him hard core. I find his writings refreshing and informative.

I would doubt that this is “Proof” for you but it is for me.
God Bless
 
Eric_Olsen said:
Wrong! The old mass only had the epistle, the tract, the alleliah and the gospel.
there was never a “second reading”.
Click to expand...
CHCatholic said:
More use of scripture how? The TLM has two gospel readings, and the epistle.

Sacrosanctum Concilium didn’t even promulgate the NO, the Pope did. Goes to show.
Click to expand...
Well, Eric my response was to CHCatholic. Perhaps you two can work out the details of your responses.
 
Concerning the issue of scripture.

While the preconciliar Mass had only one Epistle and one Gospel reading (plus the reading of John 1 as the Last Gospel) it also had a great deal of scripture present in the Introit, Gradual/Tract, offertory, and communion prayers. In addition, much of the mass itself contained parts of scripture that were severely trimmed and/or poorly translated in the OF liturgy (the prayers at the foot of the altar and the offertory prayers for example). This should improve somewhat with the new translations that we will be using starting in November.
 
ProVobis said:
The Latin Psalm 42 was dropped in 1965. Therefore all its translations, which had never been part of the Mass anyway, were dropped as well. So whether the English is preferred is a moot point.
Click to expand...
OK but it’s a not moot point for those fortunate enough to be blessed and have the opportunity to attend a weekly ancient Latin mass…and not understand Latin.

To read all those beautiful words in English during the periods of divine silence and to find yourself -+ 15 seconds of the priest reverently and in a hushed tone echoing the ‘orate fratres’ or ‘per omnia saecula saeculorum’ is a glorious personal religious experience that is lacking today.

And we also get to genuflect during the last gospel too.
 
I’m not quite sure I follow your point. Does one go to an Italian opera just to read some “beautiful” English or Polish translation in his/her guide? We as altar servers were totally immersed in the Latin during Mass and were quite good with it. Did we understand every word? No, but does anyone understand “hallowed” when he/she prays the Our Father?
 
I find this issue so complicated that it almost put my spiritual life in peril,
but I found Cardinal Arinze, who brought a lot of peace to my heart on this
I personally attend the Anglican Use parish,
this is after much research and even some disappointments. I am not of Anglican heritage, but the beauty of the liturgy is profound. Also the parish houses a shrine to Our Lady that is breathtakingly beautiful. I often feel she lead me there, because of my questions.
I warn about some of the websites that touch upon this subject,
they often miss one important point. The new mass is still the ordinary rite, declared so by our Pope. The Pope is Peter, and if he says this is so then the argument dies there in my eyes- I am a Roman Catholic.
Now our Pope has encouraged and allowed the use of the Traditional Mass as the extraordinary form of the liturgy(both valid, both catholic.)
Our brothers and sisters who attend the NO are not in sin, and should not be criticized.
I believe that we could all use a bit more reverence in approaching the Blessed Sacrament.
That is the heart of the issue, the Eucharist and our respect and reverence for Jesus.
With this being said, we pray for a deeper awareness at the true meaning of the Mass. When we become more aware, we will become a bit more uncomfortable with certain practices. Which is what happened to me. This naturally lead me to a more traditional Mass. It started with my love for the True Presence. Not with some romantic love for tradition. I also had to find a church where these things are already in place, as it was becoming an occasion of sin for me to become critical of others, that through no fault of
their own, did not understand. Lol I didn’t understand either, until I begin to go to Adoration twice a week.
If you search for Cardinal Francis Arinze, you will have a better understanding.
I am not expert on the Mass, so I do the best I can.
 
I personally attend the Anglican Use parish,
this is after much research and even some disappointments. I am not of Anglican heritage, but the beauty of the liturgy is profound. Also the parish houses a shrine to Our Lady that is breathtakingly beautiful. I often feel she lead me there, because of my questions.
Click to expand...
Sounds good. Any chance we could get it into Polish vernacular? 🙂
 
Phyllo said:
I would doubt that this is “Proof” for you but it is for me.
God Bless
Click to expand...
Since Fr. Cekada, who can in no way be considered an apologist for the NO, was unable to find any evidence even though he expected to, I’ll take his word for it.
 
agnes_therese said:
Since Fr. Cekada, who can in no way be considered an apologist for the NO, was unable to find any evidence even though he expected to, I’ll take his word for it.
Click to expand...
I don’t know anything about Fr. but I looked him up on the net.

“He has since devoted a considerable amount of time to research and writing. TAN Books published two of his works criticizing the post-Vatican II liturgical reform. One was a commentary and new translation for The Ottaviani Intervention, a key document in the history of the traditional movement. The other, The Problems with the Prayers of the Modern Mass, discusses the systematic omission of certain doctrines (hell, the soul, miracles, the true Church, etc.) from the Missal of Paul VI; it has sold nearly 15,000 copies at last count, and has been published in French, Italian, German and Dutch.”

This is from one of the articles. Not reading said book I get the impression that Fr. is not too happy with the NO.

My cousin who left the CC for the Lutheran one says there is no difference between the service and the Mass so that tells me our Mass was Protestantized. The difference being we have the Real Presence and they don’t.

I think that the revised prayers that are coming in November will be welcome.
 
Phyllo said:
I don’t know anything about Fr. but I looked him up on the net.

“He has since devoted a considerable amount of time to research and writing. TAN Books published two of his works criticizing the post-Vatican II liturgical reform. One was a commentary and new translation for The Ottaviani Intervention, a key document in the history of the traditional movement. The other, The Problems with the Prayers of the Modern Mass, discusses the systematic omission of certain doctrines (hell, the soul, miracles, the true Church, etc.) from the Missal of Paul VI; it has sold nearly 15,000 copies at last count, and has been published in French, Italian, German and Dutch.”

This is from one of the articles. Not reading said book I get the impression that Fr. is not too happy with the NO.

My cousin who left the CC for the Lutheran one says there is no difference between the service and the Mass so that tells me our Mass was Protestantized. The difference being we have the Real Presence and they don’t.

I think that the revised prayers that are coming in November will be welcome.
Click to expand...
Father Cekeda doesn’t believe the NO to be valid nor the Pope Catholic! However, even he recognizes that Protestant Observers played no role in the creation of NO because there is no evidence for it.
 
Phyllo said:
Not being present to the proceedings of the council I can only go by what I read from knowledge and reliable sources.
Click to expand...
I wonder, then , what you think of the Latin Mass when protestant observers participated at the the Council of Trent? Does this mean that the Latin Mass is “protestant?”
 
Danquayle76 said:
Father Cekeda, a notorious sedevacantist, just wrote a book, Work of Human Hands, on the creation of the Novus Ordo which garnered a relatively positive review from the director of ICEL (the commission responsible for the new English translation of the missal).

He said he expected to find lots of evidence for the involvement of the Protestant observers, but found nothing. In fact the only thing he really found was that Archbisop Bugnini was concerned that in scrapping the old calendar and its readings that this would have a negative affect on Protestants, many of whom at the time relied on the same calendar and readings. On this issue he sought out the Protestant observers to discuss what impact the change in the calendar might have on them.

So even Father Cekada has dismissed the claim that Protestant observers played a role in the creation of the Novus Ordo.
Click to expand...
Very interesting.

For those who claim that the Roman Mass has been Protestantized I would ask, is it at all possible that Protestant services have been “Romanized/Catholicized?” In other words, is it possible that the Protestant Churches in their turn were influenced by the revision of the Roman Mass issued by Paul VI and, in many cases, decided to adopt it with their own adaptations?

Also, in light of the fact that the revision was intended to get the Mass to better reflect its First Millennium form, then how successful was it. Did the First Millennium form of the Roman Mass look more like the O.F. or the E.F.? Most liturgical historians that don’t have an axe to grind (and the research that I’ve done) claim that it looked more like the N.O. (sans any abuses naturally). Thoughts?
 
Phillip_Rolfes said:
Very interesting.
For those who claim that the Roman Mass has been Protestantized I would ask, is it at all possible that Protestant services have been “Romanized/Catholicized?” In other words, is it possible that the Protestant Churches in their turn were influenced by the revision of the Roman Mass issued by Paul VI and, in many cases, decided to adopt it with their own adaptations?
Click to expand...
An astute point. Actually, several protestant denominations revised their “liturgies” in the late 70’s using the revised Roman Missal of Pope Paul VI as their source, hence the “similarities.”
 
Phillip_Rolfes said:
Also, in light of the fact that the revision was intended to get the Mass to better reflect its First Millennium form, then how successful was it. Did the First Millennium form of the Roman Mass look more like the O.F. or the E.F.? Most liturgical historians that don’t have an axe to grind (and the research that I’ve done) claim that it looked more like the N.O. (sans any abuses naturally). Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Good question. Looking forward to the answers.
 
Phillip_Rolfes said:
For those who claim that the Roman Mass has been Protestantized I would ask, is it at all possible that Protestant services have been “Romanized/Catholicized?” In other words, is it possible that the Protestant Churches in their turn were influenced by the revision of the Roman Mass issued by Paul VI and, in many cases, decided to adopt it with their own adaptations?
Click to expand...
Definitely. Here’s an example:

youtube.com/watch?v=m3a4dwkSvsI&feature=related

I hear some Lutheran services use much of the ICEL text as well.
 
thistle said:
That is not what the Church says. So are you being disobedient to the Church by rejecting the NO and claiming it is invalid??
Click to expand...
I think you need to calm down. the holy father himself has spoken about the new Mass and in not in good way. He even said that priests turned towards the people, the Mass became like a circle. The Mass was not to be changed in the way that it is now.

somethings were to change but not for the priest to face the people. altar rails and images were not to be taken down.

Something very wrong happened in this Council.

Don’t be stubborn and hard at heart, perhaps you can learn something here if you are willing to listen.
 
Elena_26 said:
I find this issue so complicated that it almost put my spiritual life in peril,
but I found Cardinal Arinze, who brought a lot of peace to my heart on this
I personally attend the Anglican Use parish,
this is after much research and even some disappointments. I am not of Anglican heritage, but the beauty of the liturgy is profound. Also the parish houses a shrine to Our Lady that is breathtakingly beautiful. I often feel she lead me there, because of my questions.
I warn about some of the websites that touch upon this subject,
they often miss one important point. The new mass is still the ordinary rite, declared so by our Pope. The Pope is Peter, and if he says this is so then the argument dies there in my eyes- I am a Roman Catholic.
Now our Pope has encouraged and allowed the use of the Traditional Mass as the extraordinary form of the liturgy(both valid, both catholic.)
Our brothers and sisters who attend the NO are not in sin, and should not be criticized.
I believe that we could all use a bit more reverence in approaching the Blessed Sacrament.
That is the heart of the issue, the Eucharist and our respect and reverence for Jesus.
With this being said, we pray for a deeper awareness at the true meaning of the Mass. When we become more aware, we will become a bit more uncomfortable with certain practices. Which is what happened to me. This naturally lead me to a more traditional Mass. It started with my love for the True Presence. Not with some romantic love for tradition. I also had to find a church where these things are already in place, as it was becoming an occasion of sin for me to become critical of others, that through no fault of
their own, did not understand. Lol I didn’t understand either, until I begin to go to Adoration twice a week.
If you search for Cardinal Francis Arinze, you will have a better understanding.
I am not expert on the Mass, so I do the best I can.
Click to expand...
Elena_26, I am interested in what Cardinal Arinze says about the mass and changes, do you remember more specifics. I did a quick search and didn’t find too much other than his book about celebration of the Eucharist. Is this what you are referring too?
 
PiousTemplar said:
According to research done by Michael Voris, to make it more protestant friendly, to remove things that might offend protestants.

🤷
Click to expand...
In effect, that was what happened. The new mass is very like a traditional Lutheran service. Now.liturgically, Luther was not as iconoclastic as the evangelicals or even Cranmer, the Anglican. So if most Protestants were Lutherans, that would mke some sense. But most evangeicals have an order of service that looks nothing like a mass. Rather more like Zwingli’s service.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top