Why was the Mass changed after Vatican II?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Paxvobis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
From what I have read, Pope Paul VI signed off on the liturgical changes brought about by Archbishop Bugnini without much of an issue at the time. In other words, he allowed the liturgical expert of Archbishop Bugnini to continue his work of forming an entirely new Roman Missal with confidence that nothing causing a severe liturgical rupture would occur. In the end, prominent Catholic intellectuals at the time could only respond with universal critique. For example,
Hmm, well, I don’t know about the reform of the Mass but for the Divine Office, Pope Paul VI was very much involved in the process and was kept very well briefed about the committee’s work; this was also under Annibale Bugnini, incidentally. The elimination of the imprecatory verses and psalms was largely at his insistence. Read “From Breviary to Liturgy of the Hours” by Stanislaus Campbell.

Much of what I read about Paul VI’s involvement or non-involvement in the process strikes me as hearsay. I’d like to hear scholarly sources based on minutes of meetings, not hearsay.
I know I have not, do you know where there is one in my area. I have been to all of them and have found one.

Yet, how would know if a NO Mass is reverent or not? how do you measure? I am not saying that there is none, just how would know? that is all i am asking.
I guess I have to say “you’ll know it if you see it”. If you haven’t been to an OF Mass in a monastery of the Solesmes congregation, you should try to find on on Youtube. You’ll then understand that reverent OF Masses exist.

For my part I would say that fidelity to the Missal is a good start. In my area, that’s not a given at local parish Masses. Also the comportment of the parishioners. This is a mixed bag locally. At most parishes, the church is dead quiet before Mass, only the faint shuffling of people coming in and taking place in their pews to pray before Mass. At another parish, just 10 km down the road, it’s chaos, noise, even older parishioners loudly catching up on gossip, prayer is impossible.
 
LOL…because what was with that thinking? Have protestants flocked to the new Mass? I’ve asked since the 1960s and still do not have an answer. Did anyone know? Today, I flip through the hymnal wondering where they came up with these songs because we NEVER sang them in the 60s. I’m appaled by “Lord of the Dance”, a Shaker hymn. Shakers were a cult.
Why would Protestants have to flock to the new Mass when we have made our Mass Protestant. From my point of view the only difference is the Real Presence. If Protestants believe in the RP they are not getting it. And if all faiths lead to God as we were told by V2 why would any one convert to Catholicism?
 
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?
Actually, I was referring to a series of videos that I have found on YouTube.
Some of them are short, but I was able to comprehend that some of the changes had nothing to do with Vatican II, but rather the interpretation of Vatican II.
Some things you see in the OR Mass are by special dispensation to the United States.
If you want PM me and I’ll link you the videos.
It is amazing to hear speak on these things. If you truly listen, you’ll hear the Pope’s heart in all of this.
Have a Blessed day 🙂
 
According to research done by Michael Voris, to make it more protestant friendly, to remove things that might offend protestants.

🤷
Here is a link to the resources page for the CIA - Catholic Investigative Agency show that you are referring to: Resources Page

I hope this is helpful.

~Liza
 
According to research done by Michael Voris, to make it more protestant friendly, to remove things that might offend protestants.

🤷
That is true, but I have also noticed something else: since becoming involved in the Church of the East, I have noticed things that are normal in Eastern tradition and custom, but are aberrant when artificially transposed onto the Western Church, such as calling a priest by his first name, the handshake/kiss of peace during Divine Liturgy, bowing instead of genuflecting/kneeling, having the Liturgy in the vernacular of the people of each nation, etc

In the Eastern Church, these things feel normal because they are normal…for the East. So, I suspect they made those changes and others to draw mainline Protestants into the RCC, as well as the Orthodox, but it didn’t work. It only served to drive many lifelong Rcs away from the Church, and turned others into renegades.
 
I am not sure what Pope Paul VI meant by this but it is very possible he saw the mess that was already starting to come to light in wake of Vatican II.
Another way of saying, “An enemy hath done this”.

I was not raised Roman Catholic, however half my family was Roman Catholic and they left the Church in 1970 as a result of the changes emanating from V2. Because of their grief and misery over that (including an aunt who was a cloistered nun, but who left because of these changes), I studied it in great detail. Coming from a family that was heavily anticommunist also helped, because one thing I knew was that communism has always sought to destroy their enemy’s organizations and churches FROM WITHIN, so as to neutralize their power against them. The RCC, prior to V2, was perhaps the strongest opponent of communism on earth.

This encyclical, by the late Pope St Pius X, in 1907, should give you some idea of what and how they were planning, because it was already in the planning stages THEN:

papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10pasce.htm
 
Another way of saying, “An enemy hath done this”.

I was not raised Roman Catholic, however half my family was Roman Catholic and they left the Church in 1970 as a result of the changes emanating from V2. Because of their grief and misery over that (including an aunt who was a cloistered nun, but who left because of these changes), I studied it in great detail. Coming from a family that was heavily anticommunist also helped, because one thing I knew was that communism has always sought to destroy their enemy’s organizations and churches FROM WITHIN, so as to neutralize their power against them. The RCC, prior to V2, was perhaps the strongest opponent of communism on earth.

This encyclical, by the late Pope St Pius X, in 1907, should give you some idea of what and how they were planning, because it was already in the planning stages THEN:

papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10pasce.htm
If only more Catholic come to this realization, the sooner things could get better. But many don’t want to hear anything before Pope Paul VI.
 
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?
I have attended in my lifetime, Orthodox Jewish religious services, Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgies, and Traditional Roman Catholic Masses (I have only been to one NO and that was in the 1970s…I don’t remember much about it except that the priest was facing the people, and it seemed very much like the Lutheran services I attended a few times while I worked for a Lutheran publishing company…they had services on site.)

I have to say that ONLY the modern (NO) RC Mass and the Lutheran service had the priest facing the people.

All of the others had the priest/rabbi/whomever with his back to the people, as if offering a sacrifice. Remember, it used to be called (maybe still is, not sure what NOs do) The Holy SACRIFICE of the Mass, right?

All of the most ancient Jewish and Christian liturgies have the priest (or rabbi) with his back to the people, because all face ONE direction: toward the altar…toward God.

The NO and the Protestant services are the one exception, it seems.
 
I have attended in my lifetime, Orthodox Jewish religious services, Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgies, and Traditional Roman Catholic Masses (I have only been to one NO and that was in the 1970s…I don’t remember much about it except that the priest was facing the people, and it seemed very much like the Lutheran services I attended a few times while I worked for a Lutheran publishing company…they had services on site.)

I have to say that ONLY the modern (NO) RC Mass and the Lutheran service had the priest facing the people.

All of the others had the priest/rabbi/whomever with his back to the people, as if offering a sacrifice. Remember, it used to be called (maybe still is, not sure what NOs do) The Holy SACRIFICE of the Mass, right?

All of the most ancient Jewish and Christian liturgies have the priest (or rabbi) with his back to the people, because all face ONE direction: toward the altar…toward God.

The NO and the Protestant services are the one exception, it seems.
The reason Protestant services are facing the people is that there is no altar and there is no sacrifice of the mass. Hmm. Interesting.
 
I do tend to believe that Paul VI did not foressee the changes that would take place in the Mass. I do believe that he was betrayed by many within the Church and could do nothing when he saw what had happened likewise many bishops did not see either. it was not expected to happen. I think they failed to hold the warnings of the popes before.

That’s why we see quotes from him like, he wepted, the smoke of satan entered the Church, the new Mass is more like a blasphemy… and so forth… he could not stop because it had already spreaded everywhere when he noticed. but those responsible, i have no doubt that our Lord took care of them.
 
I do tend to believe that Paul VI did not foressee the changes that would take place in the Mass. I do believe that he was betrayed by many within the Church and could do nothing when he saw what had happened likewise many bishops did not see either. it was not expected to happen. I think they failed to hold the warnings of the popes before.

That’s why we see quotes from him like, he wepted, the smoke of satan entered the Church, the new Mass is more like a blasphemy… and so forth… he could not stop because it had already spreaded everywhere when he noticed. but those responsible, i have no doubt that our Lord took care of them.
It also seems that there was some extremely poor communication during his reign. People took his “conscience” clause and applied to it all ABC situations. People heard his removal of the meat abstinence requirement and no longer performed any Friday penance. People read his “approval” for the entire Mass to be in vernacular; yet shortly afterwards he went overboard to push his Jubilate Deo and insist that Latin is not to be discontinued. And IMO, collegiality and ecumenism still haven’t been adaquately explained to Catholics.
 
It also seems that there was some extremely poor communication during his reign. People took his “conscience” clause and applied to it all ABC situations. People heard his removal of the meat abstinence requirement and no longer performed any Friday penance. People read his “approval” for the entire Mass to be in vernacular; yet shortly afterwards he went overboard to push his Jubilate Deo and insist that Latin is not to be discontinued. And IMO, collegiality and ecumenism still haven’t been adaquately explained to Catholics.
As far as I know he told them to send to the bishops to be looked at instead they made copies and sent out to the Church everywhere. that was the beginning of the disobedience. there was an agenda behind all this… the modernist did a good job in attending their means and they would do it. the bishops did not hold on to the warnings of the popes before. this was a great mistake.
 
Essentially, the last few posts have people saying that;
  • Satan prevailed against the gates of the Church by allowing such an “atrocity” to happen to something as fundamental as the Mass.
  • The Pope, who wrote a landmark encyclical affirming the Church’s stance on sex during the sexual revolution, allowed himself to be influenced by others.
  • That he was unaware of the “blasphemy”.
Some of you will may say “we never said those things!”, but it sure reads like it.
 
Essentially, the last few posts have people saying that;
  • Satan prevailed against the gates of the Church by allowing such an “atrocity” to happen to something as fundamental as the Mass.
  • The Pope, who wrote a landmark encyclical affirming the Church’s stance on sex during the sexual revolution, allowed himself to be influenced by others.
  • That he was unaware of the “blasphemy”.
Some of you will may say “we never said those things!”, but it sure reads like it.
You sound shocked by these things. But perhaps it is worth reflecting on them a bit more before calling in the moderators to clean up. I’m not saying you are going to do this but your comment definitely sounds like a threat. It is naive to think that the church is protected from harm or that a pope never listens to bad advice, or that he is always aware of what is going on. All very real things that have happened many times before. This is what the discussion is about. People are guessing. Also, nobody said that satan has prevailed. But he is definitely having a good time trying.

Let’s suggest for the sake of the argument that the reform was a mistake. Is it so scary to even contemplate that possibility? If so, why?

(disclaimer: I am not debating or questioning the validity of the OF).
 
Again, I wasn’t there for the Council of Trent. But the Council didn’t want the Latin Mass changed or put on the back burner. Can YOU name the Protestants who participated in the council of Trent? Can you produce a document that Protestants were there?
See, for instance, the Thirteenth and Fifteenth sessions of Trent. Here’s a selection from the decrees of the Fifteenth; the bold is mine, and in case it is too long (but who can’t make time in his day to read the decrees of the Sacred Council of Trent?) I will sum it up at the end:
DECREE FOR PROROGUING THE SESSION

Whereas, in pursuance of the decrees made in the last Sessions, this holy and universal Synod has, during these days, most accurately and diligently treated of the things which relate to the most holy sacrifice of the mass, and to the sacrament of order, with the view that, in the Session held on this day, It might publish, as the Holy Ghost should have suggested, decrees on these subjects, and on the four articles concerning the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist, which had been finally deferred to this Session ; and whereas it was thought that, in the interim, there would have presented themselves at this sacred and holy Council those who call themselves Protestants, for whose sake It had deferred the publication of the said articles, and to whom It had given the public faith, or a safe-conduct, that they might come freely and without any hesitation; nevertheless, seeing that they have not as yet come, and the holy Synod has been petitioned in their name, that the publication which was to have been made on this day, be deferred to the following Session, an assured hope being held out that they will certainly be present long before that Session, upon receiving in the meanwhile a safe-conduct in a more ample form : . . .

SAFE-CONDUCT GIVEN TO THE PROTESTANTS

The sacred and holy, ocecumenical and general Synod of Trent,-lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same Legate and Nuncios of the Apostolic See presiding therein,–adhering to the safe-conduct given in the last Session but one, and enlarging it in the manner following,–certifies to all men,- that by the ten our of these presents, It grants and wholly concedes the public faith, and the fullest and most true security, which they entitle a safe-conduct, to all and singular the priests, electors,-princes, dukes, marquises, counts, barons, nobles, soldiers, commonalty, and to all other persons whatsoever, of what state, condition, or quality soever they may be, of the province and nation of Germany,- and to the cities and other places thereof, and to all other ecclesiastical and Secular persons,- especially those of the Confession of Augsburg,- who shall come, or shall be sent with them, to this General Council of Trent, and to those that shall set forth, or have already repaired hither,- by whatsoever name they are entitled, or may be designated,–to come freely to this city of Trent, and there to remain, abide, sojourn, and to propose, speak and treat of, examine and discuss, any matters whatsoever together with the said Synod, and freely to present and set forth all whatsoever they may think fit, and any articles what-ever, either in writing, or by word of mouth, and to explain, establish, and prove them by the sacred Scriptures, and by the words, passages, and reasons of the blessed Fathers, and to answer even, if it be needful, to the objections of the General Council; and to dispute, or to confer in charity, without any hindrance, with those who may have been selected by the Council, all opprobrious, railing, and contumelious language being utterly discarded; and in particular, that the controverted matters shall be treated of in the aforesaid Council of Trent, according to sacred Scripture, and the traditions of the apostles, approved Councils, the consent of the Catholic Church, and the authorities of the holy Fathers; with this further addition, that they shall not be punished under pretence of religion,- or of offences already committed, or that may be committed, in regard thereof; as also, that the divine offices shall not, on account of their presence, be in any way interrupted, either upon the road, or in any place during their progress, their stay, or their return, or in the city of Trent itself; and that, upon these matters being concluded, or before they are concluded,- if they, or any of them, shall wish, and whensoever such is their or his pleasure, or the command and leave of their superiors, to return to their own homes, they shall forthwith be able at their good pleasure,- to return freely and securely . . . .
. . . It also reciprocally wills, that if, which God forbid, any one, or divers, of this Synod, should, either on the road, or whilst sojourning at, or returning therefrom, perpetrate or commit any heinous act, whereby the benefit of this public faith and assurance may be violated, or in any way set aside, the persons discovered in any such crime shall be forthwith punished by the Synod itself, and not by others,- with a proportionate chastisement and a sufficient reparation, which the Germans of the Confession of Augsburg, who may be present here at the time, may on their part justly approve of and commend,-the present form, conditions and terms of the safe-conduct remaining wholly untouched thereby. . . .
That’s right, they prorogued a whole session of Trent and delayed the publication of articles about the Mass and the Eucharist to give Protestant extra time to come and propose their ideas “and to explain, establish, and prove them by the sacred Scriptures.”
 
See, for instance, the Thirteenth and Fifteenth sessions of Trent. Here’s a selection from the decrees of the Fifteenth; the bold is mine, and in case it is too long (but who can’t make time in his day to read the decrees of the Sacred Council of Trent?) I will sum it up at the end:
DECREE FOR PROROGUING THE SESSION

Whereas, in pursuance of the decrees made in the last Sessions, this holy and universal Synod has, during these days, most accurately and diligently treated of the things which relate to the most holy sacrifice of the mass, and to the sacrament of order, with the view that, in the Session held on this day, It might publish, as the Holy Ghost should have suggested, decrees on these subjects, and on the four articles concerning the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist, which had been finally deferred to this Session ; and whereas it was thought that, in the interim, there would have presented themselves at this sacred and holy Council those who call themselves Protestants, for whose sake It had deferred the publication of the said articles, and to whom It had given the public faith, or a safe-conduct, that they might come freely and without any hesitation; nevertheless, seeing that they have not as yet come, and the holy Synod has been petitioned in their name, that the publication which was to have been made on this day, be deferred to the following Session, an assured hope being held out that they will certainly be present long before that Session, upon receiving in the meanwhile a safe-conduct in a more ample form : . . .

SAFE-CONDUCT GIVEN TO THE PROTESTANTS

The sacred and holy, ocecumenical and general Synod of Trent,-lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same Legate and Nuncios of the Apostolic See presiding therein,–adhering to the safe-conduct given in the last Session but one, and enlarging it in the manner following,–certifies to all men,- that by the ten our of these presents, It grants and wholly concedes the public faith, and the fullest and most true security, which they entitle a safe-conduct, to all and singular the priests, electors,-princes, dukes, marquises, counts, barons, nobles, soldiers, commonalty, and to all other persons whatsoever, of what state, condition, or quality soever they may be, of the province and nation of Germany,- and to the cities and other places thereof, and to all other ecclesiastical and Secular persons,- especially those of the Confession of Augsburg,- who shall come, or shall be sent with them, to this General Council of Trent, and to those that shall set forth, or have already repaired hither,- by whatsoever name they are entitled, or may be designated,–to come freely to this city of Trent, and there to remain, abide, sojourn, and to propose, speak and treat of, examine and discuss, any matters whatsoever together with the said Synod, and freely to present and set forth all whatsoever they may think fit, and any articles what-ever, either in writing, or by word of mouth, and to explain, establish, and prove them by the sacred Scriptures, and by the words, passages, and reasons of the blessed Fathers, and to answer even, if it be needful, to the objections of the General Council; and to dispute, or to confer in charity, without any hindrance, with those who may have been selected by the Council, all opprobrious, railing, and contumelious language being utterly discarded; and in particular, that the controverted matters shall be treated of in the aforesaid Council of Trent, according to sacred Scripture, and the traditions of the apostles, approved Councils, the consent of the Catholic Church, and the authorities of the holy Fathers; with this further addition, that they shall not be punished under pretence of religion,- or of offences already committed, or that may be committed, in regard thereof; as also, that the divine offices shall not, on account of their presence, be in any way interrupted, either upon the road, or in any place during their progress, their stay, or their return, or in the city of Trent itself; and that, upon these matters being concluded, or before they are concluded,- if they, or any of them, shall wish, and whensoever such is their or his pleasure, or the command and leave of their superiors, to return to their own homes, they shall forthwith be able at their good pleasure,- to return freely and securely . . . .
. . . It also reciprocally wills, that if, which God forbid, any one, or divers, of this Synod, should, either on the road, or whilst sojourning at, or returning therefrom, perpetrate or commit any heinous act, whereby the benefit of this public faith and assurance may be violated, or in any way set aside, the persons discovered in any such crime shall be forthwith punished by the Synod itself, and not by others,- with a proportionate chastisement and a sufficient reparation, which the Germans of the Confession of Augsburg, who may be present here at the time, may on their part justly approve of and commend,-the present form, conditions and terms of the safe-conduct remaining wholly untouched thereby. . . .
That’s right, they prorogued a whole session of Trent and delayed the publication of articles about the Mass and the Eucharist to give Protestant extra time to come and propose their ideas “and to explain, establish, and prove them by the sacred Scriptures.”
Could you elaborate on the point you are trying to make?
 
Could you elaborate on the point you are trying to make?
It was an answer to the post I quoted, and thus relates back to that thread of the discussion. It’s a response to the strain of argument that goes, “Protestants were invited to Vatican II?!?! :eek: This is ecumania!!! If they were invited, clearly they must have been responsible for the Novus Ordo. What more proof could you want? :mad:
 
It was an answer to the post I quoted, and thus relates back to that thread of the discussion. It’s a response to the strain of argument that goes, “Protestants were invited to Vatican II?!?! :eek: This is ecumania!!! If they were invited, clearly they must have been responsible for the Novus Ordo. What more proof could you want? :mad:
Well, the Protestant influence came from somewhere.
The laity didn’t have the power to change the Mass and probably had no clue that it went as far as to look like a Lutheran service.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top