Unfortunately for all my traditional friends, all the apostasy was already inside the church. Yes, all the homosexuals and pedo's were there. After v2 they just increased their ranks. So, unfortunate for all their arguments, v2 or the novus ordo is not the reason for all that has happened, it just "opened the doors a little wider" to let it blossom.
Thanks, Fatima. This is what I would have said, if only I had your patience! Oddly, I have no patience with those who want to live in the past, while I have endless patience with my own tendency to live in the future! The sacrament of the present moment - that's where it's at. (May the Lord engrave this on my heart!)
Sure Picadilo, they were certainly already inside the Church , and the Vatican. Thus all the prepared schemata were thrown out the window and the Council twisted.
Hey sunburst, if I thought someone was mocking the Latin Mass, eventhough I was never at one, I to would question him\her in a big way. I also love it that you are attending a Latin Mass, I really look forward to the day I will do so also. I to am a believer in Garabandal, its truly amazing, heart warming and inspiring. God Bless.
Here is a post from Father Ray Blake's blog about the contrast between the pre-Council and post-Council Church that I think is very relevant to this matter: The years after the Council marked a change in many aspects of priestly life, indeed many of the main concerns of groups like ACTA seem almost wholly concerned about the dynamic between priest and people. The problem is that such groups start off from the premise that it is essentially a 'power relationship', in much the same way as the other categories mentioned above of teacher, social worker etc. The true spirit of the Vatican Council presupposes that priest and people are co-owners of the Catholic Faith, and yet the 20th century seems to be marked by division between those who have the 'traditional faith' or the faith of the catechism, and those who seem to question every aspect of it. There should be no distinction between the faith of the heirarchy and that of the man in the pew. On the contrary today often the heirarchs are portrayed as wishing to change or impose something on the received faith of the man in the pew, rather than increasing devotion or fervour they seem to mitigate it. It is perhaps significant that the leadership of many dissident groups are made up of laicised priests or professional lay Catholics. It strikes me that the orientation of the priest marks a change in how priests were seen or see themselves. It marks a change of emphasis from something cultic to some governmental. It can be summed up in the use of the terms of 'priest' and 'president'. These terms are often are matters of contention when speaking of the liturgy, but more importantly they mark two very different ecclesiologies. Celebrating Mass facing the people speaks 'presidency' whilst celebrating facing the same direction as people speaks of 'priesthood', though when speaking of priesthood and using more traditional terminology 'offering the Mass' might be better. The idea of a priest in Old Testament or pagan terms works on three levels, first it is about dealing with blood and entrails and the messier side of human life, he deals with sinners, his hands are filthy with touching that offered for sacrifice and with contact with those who want to offer sacrifice, he is comparable to a tradesman, a slaughterman. Secondly he stands with the people before God, he represents them in the Divine Presence, if he or his people cause God's anger, it falls first on him. His duty is to prepare the sacrifice but also his people but most importantly himself for the act of sacrifice. On the third level he enters the Holy of Holies to bring something of the Divine to his people but it is always something of God and never his own. The idea of a President, is a modern form Kingship, there is gulf between him and the people. The etymology is he 'sits before', or above the people, his role is to rule and govern. Whilst a priest is essentially a servant of God and man, a President is the opposite. A priest is one who stands between God and man, he has nothing of his own to offer. The notion of presidency seems to be one who only has what is his own to offer, his teaching, his instruction, his rule. Pope Francis speaks of the clergy 'smelling of the flock' he condemns 'clericalism'. One of the great failures of the post-Vatican II era is essentially a failure of leadership or even of government. Rather than celebrating a common faith with our people, praying with them, the role of clergy today has become one of teacher or administrator. It is precisely these areas of teaching the faith and administering government in the Church in terms of morality where we have failed drastically. The problem I would suggest is one of authority; as a priest of a cult, authority comes from within the cult, as something God given. In the pre-Concilliar Mass the priest took off his chasuble and maniple to preach, in many places where Sunday Mass was on the hour and half hour he didn't preach at all, the sermon was reserved for the High Mass and or the evening service, which was not of obligation, of Rosary, Sermon and Benediction. Indeed the priest was ordained 'to offer Mass for the living and the dead'. The post-Concilliar priest is ordained 'to proclaim the Gospel', again a drastic change. The pre-Concilliar model sees the priest as giver of sacraments, a bringer of Salvation through the sacraments, the post-Concilliar model is that of herald of the Gospel or of the Kingdom of God. The pre-Concilliar model sees the priests authority coming from what he does, the post-Concilliar model suggests it comes from what he says. 'Doing' is something that can be learnt, it comes from the office, basically any fool can learn to perform rituals; 'saying' comes from personal skills, it is however intensely personal but it is on this personal level that we fail. The post-Concilliar period saw a movement away from ex opere operato where the concern was simply about the 'doing' of a rite, to ex 'opere operantis' where the concern is much about the 'doer', his style, his learning, his personal authority. The Church today faces similar problems Augustine found amongst the Donatist contagion, we are obsessed with, not so much the holiness but the personal qualities of individual ministers, a very heavy psychological burden is placed upon them to live up to it. In assessing priests and bishops, even popes our concern is not an objective concern about the office but subjective about personal traits. This is a decidedly Protestant quality and ultimately destructive to all that is Catholic. What I have been trying to explore briefly and sketchily is does the re-orientation of the altar re-orientate our theology, our understanding of the relationship between God and Man, and ultimately the Church.
Look at all the beautiful altars that were destroyed. I was told that they chain-sawed some of the altar rails. Also, that relics were placed in the altars when the church gets christened and these were just thrown in the garbage. At our parish in the arch of Chicago we had a v2 specialist who came in and told our teachers v2 threw out the rosary, we don't have to pray it anymore. She left the meeting crying.
I read this very good analysis of the effects of the Council from 'A Catholic in the Ozarks' blog written by a former Evangelical pastor, now Catholic (emphasis mine): Many traditionalists point to the Second Vatican Council as the problem. I disagree. I go with Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI's explanation on that. Vatican II was not the problem. The erroneous interpretation of Vatican II, that followed the council, was the problem. Part of that erroneous interpretation was the way liturgy was reinterpreted, renovated and recreated. All across the Western world, the proverbial "baby was thrown out with the bath water." High altars were torn down. Communion rails were town down too. The faithful were encouraged to stand while receiving communion in the hand as opposed to in the mouth. Chanting was eliminated and replaced with contemporary pop music. The bells were eliminated, incense was eliminated, and in some places, even the kneelers in the pews were eliminated. The priest turned around and faced the people, turning "the community into a self-enclosed circle. In its outward form, it no longer opens out on what lies ahead and above, but is closed in on itself." -- (Pope Benedict XVI, Spirit of the Liturgy, p. 80) The former pontiff continues with even stronger language advocating the ad orientem (facing liturgical east) posture by saying: "a common turning to the east during the Eucharistic Prayer remains essential. This is not a case of something accidental, but of what is essential. Looking at the priest has no importance. What matters is looking together at the Lord." (ibid. p. 81) His Holiness pointed out many problems with the bad interpretations of Vatican II in his book Spirit of the Liturgy, and I highly recommend it. If anyone wants to dismiss my words here as having been influenced by "radical traditionalists," only our former pope is to blame for moulding my "impressionable mind." The list of bad interpretations of Vatican II goes on an on, but I'll stop here. These changes began about 40 years ago. The mass exodus of youth from the Catholic Church began about 40 years ago. The crisis in priestly vocations began about 40 years ago. I don't know, maybe it's just a coincidence. Then again, maybe it's not. Maybe the two (liturgy and crisis) really are connected. Our former pope thinks so, and so do I. Does that put me in good company?
MV quotes Pope Paul VI on the effects of the Council - "Auto-destruction" http://www.churchmilitant.tv/daily/?today=2013-09-11
It's obvious that something "connected" to V2 was incredibly destructive. There will be NO springtime because of V2, that is a fact!
I have been sent this link that I think is a very helpful analysis of the situation following the Council and the dangers arising from the views of the more extreme 'modernists' in its regard. http://www.audiosancto.org/sermon/20130908-The-French-Revolution-and-Vatican-II.html
Some interesting stuff about the Third Secret of Fatima, Vatican II and Masonry from a former senior Mason.
Pope Benedict on the Council "What the Popes and Council Fathers were expecting was a new Catholic unity, and instead one has encountered a dissension which – to use the words of Paul VI – seems to have passed over from self-criticism to self-destruction. There had been the expectation of a new enthusiasm, and instead too often it has ended in boredom and discouragement. There had been the expectation of a step forward and instead one found oneself facing a progressive process of decadence, that to a large measure has been unfolding under the sign of a summons to the presumed ‘spirit of the Council’ … Real reform of the Church presupposes an unequivocal turning away from the erroneous paths whose catastrophic consequences are already incontestable."
I picked this up on the net. It is an analysis by a priest of the Vatican II document Sacrosanctum Concilium which was the Council's definitive output on the Mass and other liturgies. I knew that many novelties had not ever been approved by the Vatican but 'crept in' anyway such as Communion in the hand, Communion under both kinds being commonly permitted as well as the unnecessary use of 'Extraordinary' Ministers of the Eucharist but even I was surprised at how far the instructions and the practice have deviated. Today is the fiftieth anniversary of the promulgated of the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium(December 4, 1963). If I may borrow a rhetorical strategy from Fr. Fessio, here is what your local liturgical scene would look like if we were all following, to the letter, the teaching of Vatican II: 1. The Eucharist would be perceived by all as a “divine sacrifice,” in which, as in the Church herself, action is subordinated to contemplation (cf. SC 2). The Mass would be understood to be, and would be called, a “holy sacrifice” (SC 7, 47, et passim) and the liturgy in general “a sacred action surpassing all others,” whose purpose is “the sanctification of man and the glorification of God” (SC 10; cf. 112). Indeed, the liturgy would seem like a foretaste on earth of the heavenly liturgy of the new Jerusalem (SC 8). 2. The faithful would be well catechized and well disposed to receive the sacraments fruitfully (SC 11), and would understand the nature of the liturgy and how to participate well in it (SC 14), led by the example and instruction of the clergy (SC 16-19): “through a good understanding of the rites and prayers they should take part in the sacred action conscious of what they are doing, with devotion and full collaboration” (SC 48). In this way, they would be unlike the majority of Catholics today, who, according to many surveys, are unaware that the Mass is the re-presentation of the Holy Sacrifice of Calvary or that the Eucharist is the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ—and who also don’t sing very much, in spite of decades of cajoling. 3. The liturgy would look much as Catholic liturgy has looked for centuries, since “there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing” (SC 23). 4. The ordained ministers would be the only ones performing the actions they are supposed to do, while the laity would be involved in those ways that pertain to them: “in liturgical celebrations each person, minister or layman, who has an office to perform, should do all of, but only, those parts which pertain to his office by the nature of the rite and the principles of liturgy” (SC 28; cf. 118). 5. No one, “even if he be a priest,” would ever “add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority” (SC 22.3). 6. The use of the venerable Latin language would be a frequent and appreciated occurrence, since “the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites” (SC 36.1). The vernacular, of course, will be utilized, but only for certain parts of the liturgy (SC 36.2), and the clergy would remember the Council’s request that “steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them” (SC 54). 7. Liturgies would frequently be celebrated in their most noble form, namely, “solemnly in song” (SC 113). Most of the singing would be closely connected with the actual texts of the Mass (cf. SC 112, 113) and the music would be such as “adds delight to prayer, fosters unity of minds, or confers greater solemnity upon the sacred rites” (SC 112). There would be an important role for trained choirs or scholas, which preserve and foster the treasure of sacred music—a treasure of inestimable value (SC 112, 114-115). The people, for their part, would sing acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs—and everyone would observe reverent silence at the proper times (SC 30). None of the texts of the songs would be in any way objectionable from a doctrinal point of view, since they would be drawn directly from Scripture or the liturgy itself (SC 121). 8. Notably, Gregorian chant, being “specially suited to the Roman liturgy,” would be given “pride of place in liturgical services” (SC 116). Other forms of sacred music would not thereby be excluded—such as, preeminently, polyphony (ibid.). And of course, the pipe organ would be “held in high esteem” as “the traditional musical instrument which adds a wonderful splendor to the Church’s ceremonies and powerfully lifts up man’s mind to God and to higher things” (120). Other instruments would only be used if they “are suitable or can be made suitable for sacred use, accord with the dignity of the temple, and truly contribute to the edification of the faithful” (ibid.). Hence, such instruments as piano, guitar, and drums, which, in the Western world, originated in profane settings and are still associated with genres like jazz, folk, and rock, would never be used for sacred music. None of this is surprising, since the Council Fathers announced their purpose of “keeping to the norms and precepts of ecclesiastical tradition and discipline, and having regard to the purpose of sacred music, which is the glory of God and the sanctification of the faithful” (SC 112). 9. Communion under both kinds would be rare—e.g., to newly professed religious in the Mass of their religious dedication or to the newly baptized in the Mass that follows their baptism (SC 55). Similarly, concelebration would be relatively rare (SC 57). 10. Sunday Vespers would be a much-loved weekly occurrence, to which large numbers of faithful flock: “Pastors of souls should see to it that the chief hours, especially Vespers, are celebrated in common in church on Sundays and the more solemn feasts. And the laity, too, are encouraged to recite the divine office, either with the priests, or among themselves, or even individually” (SC 100). 11. The liturgical year would be of enormous importance in the life of the community, marked by the observance and promotion of each season’s traditions and customs (cf. SC 102-110). Images and relics of the saints would be publicly honored (SC 111). Sacramentals and popular devotions would abound, such as Eucharistic Processions, Adoration and Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, the Stations of the Cross, the Rosary, the Brown Scapular, and customs connected with saints’ days, because all of these things deepen the spiritual life of the faithful and help dispose them to participate more fully in the sacred liturgy (cf. SC 12-13). 12. The church architecture and furnishings would be “truly worthy, becoming, and beautiful, signs and symbols of the supernatural world” (SC 122), “turning men’s minds devoutly toward God” (ibid.). There would be nothing that could disturb or distract the faithful, since the bishop would have “carefully remove[d] from the house of God and from other sacred places those works of artists which are repugnant to faith, morals, and Christian piety, and which offend true religious sense either by depraved forms or by lack of artistic worth, mediocrity, and pretense” (124), since what are rightly sought are “works destined to be used in Catholic worship, to edify the faithful, and to foster their piety and their religious formation” (SC 127). Is this what you experience, week in, week out? Is not the monumental failure to implement much of Sacrosanctum Concilium a scandal?
Despite the reform the Mass is still the Mass in valid form. The reason why many have fallen away is not due to liturgical reform but due to the lack of a prayer life. It is through personal prayer that we keep in communion with God and thus we desire Him in the Eucharist. If we want conversions then we must encourage people to encounter Christ in prayer especially through the Rosary.
I think that you're missing the point here. Vatican II permitted certain things but others have been adopted without the Church's official approval. I didn't say that these changes resulted in the falling away of tens of millions of Catholics but it is interesting that you should have identified this 'coincidence'. The most important form of prayer is the Mass not the Rosary and it is important that it is celebrated in approved form or the question of validity does indeed arise. View attachment 1573
There is no question about validity. The Novus Ordo is a valid rite. I have never been at a Mass that was not valid and I was born 1963.
So, who said that you had been? You keep wandering off topic. I am not saying and do NOT believe that the Novus Ordo Mass is invalid when properly celebrated. I am saying that the specific instructions for its celebration made clear in Vatican II are often (usually) not followed (see above). Priests have been allowed to extemporise and so the certainty of validity cannot be certain. One Australian priest used to make up his own words, he is surely not alone in that. See the picture - these are NO Masses. View attachment 1575
Steve, It is hard to disagree with what you are saying. However, I have come to believe that we, as George Weigel puts it, are called by the correct interpretation of V2 to "evangelical catholicism" as Pope Francis exemplifies. For me, there has been a change but it is the right path for Christ's church and we are to follow it by obedience.
The 'OBEDIENCE' word only seems to come out against the more conservative.Yesterday no one used it concerning Vassula notification, or in replying to Thanos when he came out with 'We are one'
