The interpretation of Vatican II and its connection with the current crisis of the Church
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,086
    Reprint

    The current situation of the unprecedented crisis of the Church is comparable with the general crisis in the 4th century, when the Arianism had contaminated the overwhelming majority of the episcopacy, taking a dominant position in the life of the Church. We must seek to addrwess this current situation on the one hand with realism and, on the other hand, with a supernatural spirit – with a profound love for the Church, our mother, who is suffering the Passion of Christ because of this tremendous and general doctrinal, liturgical and pastoral confusion.


    We must renew our faith in believing that the Church is in the safe hands of Christ, and that He will always intervene to renew the Church in the moments in which the boat of the Church seems to capsize, as is the obvious case in our days. 


    As to the attitude towards the Second Vatican Council, we must avoid two extremes: a complete rejection (as do the sedevacantists and a part of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) or a “infallibilization” of everything the council spoke.

    Vatican II was a legitimate assembly presided by the Popes and we must maintain towards this council a respectful attitude. Nevertheless, this does not mean that we are forbidden to express well-founded doubts or respectful improvement suggestions regarding some specific items, while doing so based on the entire tradition of the Church and on the constant Magisterium.

    Traditional and constant doctrinal statements of the Magisterium during a centuries-old period have precedence and constitute a criterion of verification regarding the exactness of posterior magisterial statements. New statements of the Magisterium must, in principle, be more exact and clearer, but should never be ambiguous and apparently contrast with previous magisterial statements.

    Those statements of Vatican II which are ambiguous must be read and interpreted according to the statements of the entire Tradition and of the constant Magisterium of the Church.

    In case of doubt the statements of the constant Magisterium (the previous councils and the documents of the Popes, whose content demonstrates being a sure and repeated tradition during centuries in the same sense) prevail over those objectively ambiguous or new statements of the Vatican II, which difficultly concord with specific statements of the constant and previous Magisterium (e.g. the duty of the state to venerate publicly Christ, the King of all human societies, the true sense of the episcopal collegiality in relation to the Petrine primacy and the universal government of the Church, the noxiousness of all non-Catholic religions and their dangerousness for the eternal salvation of the souls).

    Vatican II must be seen and received as it is and as it was really: a primarily pastoral council. This council had not the intention to propose new doctrines or to propose them in a definitive form. In its statements the council confirmed largely the traditional and constant doctrine of the Church.

    Some of the new statements of Vatican II (e.g. collegiality, religious liberty, ecumenical and inter-religious dialogue, the attitude towards the world) have not a definitive character, and being apparently or truly non-concordant with the traditional and constant statements of the Magisterium, they must be complemented by more exact explications and by more precise supplements of a doctrinal character. A blind application of the principle of the “hermeneutics of continuity” does not help either, since thereby are created forced interpretations, which are not convincing and which are not helpful to arrive at a clearer understanding of the immutable truths of the Catholic faith and of its concrete application.

    There have been cases in the history, where non-definitive statements of certain ecumenical councils were later – thanks to a serene theological debate – refined or tacitly corrected (e.g. the statements of the Council of Florence regarding the matter of the sacrament of Orders, i.e. that the matter were the handing-over of the instruments, whereas the more sure and constant tradition said that the imposition of the hands of the bishop were sufficient, a truth, which was ultimately confirmed by Pius XII in 1947). If after the Council of Florence the theologians would have blindly applied the principle of the “hermeneutics of the continuity” to this concrete statement of the Council of Florence (an objectively erroneous statement), defending the thesis that the handing-over of the instruments as the matter of the sacrament of Orders would concord with the constant Magisterium, probably there would not have been achieved the general consensus of the theologians regarding the truth which says that only the imposition of the hands of the bishop is the real matter of the sacrament of Orders.

    There must be created in the Church a serene climate of a doctrinal discussion regarding those statements of Vatican II which are ambiguous or which have caused erroneous interpretations. In such a doctrinal discussion there is nothing scandalous, but on the contrary, it will be a contribution in order to maintain and explain in a more sure and integral manner the deposit of the immutable faith of the Church.

    One must not highlight so much  a certain council, absolutizing it or equating it in fact with the oral (Sacred Tradition) or written (Sacred Scripture) Word of God. Vatican II itself said rightly (cf. Verbum Dei, 10), that the Magisterium (Pope, Councils, ordinary and universal Magisterium) is not above the Word of God, but beneath it, subject to it, and being only the servant of it (of the oral Word of God = Sacred Tradition and of the written Word of God = Sacred Scripture).

    From an objective point of view, the statements of the Magisterium (Popes and councils) of definitive character, have more value and more weight compared with the statements of pastoral character, which have naturally a changeable and temporary quality depending on historical circumstances or responding to pastoral situations of a certain period of time, as it is the case with the major part of the statements of Vatican II.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,086
    The original and valuable contribution of the Vatican II consists in the universal call to holiness of all members of the Church (chap. 5 of Lumen gentium), in the doctrine about the central role of Our Lady in the life of the Church (chap. 8 of Lumen gentium), in the importance of the lay faithful in maintaining, defending and promoting the Catholic faith and in their duty to evangelize and sanctify the temporal realities according to the perennial sense of the Church (chap. 4 of Lumen gentium), in the primacy of the adoration of God in the life of the Church and in the celebration of the liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium, nn. 2; 5-10). The rest one can consider to a certain extent secondary, temporary and, in the future, probably forgettable, as it was the case with some non-definitive, pastoral and disciplinary statements of various ecumenical councils in the past.

    The following issues – Our Lady, sanctification of the personal life of the faithful with the sanctification of the world according to the perennial sense of the Church and the primacy of the adoration of God – are the most urgent aspects which have to be lived in our days. Therein Vatican II has a prophetical role which, unfortunately, is not yet realized in a satisfactory manner.

    Instead of living these four aspects, a considerable part of the theological and administrative “nomenclature” in the life of the Church promoted for the past 50 years and still promotes ambiguous doctrinal, pastoral and liturgical issues, distorting thereby the original intention of the Council or abusing its less clear or ambiguous doctrinal statements in order to create another church – a church of a relativistic or Protestant type.

    In our days, we are experiencing the culmination of this development.

    The problem of the current crisis of the Church consists partly in the fact that some statements of Vatican II – which are objectively ambiguous or those few statements, which are difficultly concordant with the constant magisterial tradition of the Church – have been infallibilisized. In this way, a healthy debate with a necessarily implicit or tacit correction was blocked.

    At the same time there was given the incentive in creating theological affirmations in contrast with the perennial tradition (e.g. regarding the new theory of an ordinary double supreme subject of the government of the Church, i.e. the Pope alone and the entire episcopal college together with the Pope, the doctrine of the neutrality of the state towards the public worship, which it must pay to the true God, who is Jesus Christ, the King also of each human and political society, the relativizing of the truth that the Catholic Church is the unique way of salvation, wanted and commanded by God).

    We must free ourselves from the chains of the absolutization and of the total infallibilization of Vatican II. We must ask for a climate of a serene and respectful debate out of a sincere love for the Church and for the immutable faith of the Church.

    We can see a positive indication in the fact that on August 2, 2012, Pope Benedict XVI wrote a preface to the volume regarding Vatican II in the edition of his Opera omnia. In this preface, Benedict XVI expresses his reservations regarding specific content in the documents Gaudium et spes and Nostra aetate. From the tenor of these words of Benedict XVI one can see that concrete defects in certain sections of the documents are not improvable by the “hermeneutics of the continuity.”

    An SSPX, canonically and fully integrated in the life of the Church, could also give a valuable contribution in this debate – as Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre desired. The fully canonical presence of the SSPX in the life of the Church of our days could also help to create a general climate of  constructive debate, in order that that, which was believed always, everywhere and by all Catholics for 2,000 years, would be believed in a more clear and in a more sure manner in our days as well, realizing thereby the true pastoral intention of the Fathers  of the Second Vatican Council.

    The authentic pastoral intention aims towards the eternal salvation of the souls -- a salvation which will be achieved only through the proclamation of the entire will of God (cf. Act 20: 7). The ambiguity in the doctrine of the faith and in its concrete application (in the liturgy and in the pastoral life) would menace the eternal salvation of the souls and would be consequently anti-pastoral, since the proclamation of the clarity and of the integrity of the Catholic faith and of its faithful concrete application is the explicit will of God.

    Only the perfect obedience to the will of God -- Who revealed us through Christ the Incarnate Word and through the Apostles the true faith, the faith interpreted and practiced constantly in the same sense by the Magisterium of the Church – will bring the salvation of souls.

    + Athanasius Schneider,
    Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Maria Santissima in Astana, Kazakhstan
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,890
    Don't forget to include discussion of Unitatis Redintegratio, which is considered by some theologians, such as +Fr. Gregory Hesse, to be the most scandalous document of the Second Vatican Council.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,086
    "And there arose a great storm of wind, and the waves beat into the ship, so that the ship was filled.

    And he was in the hinder part of the ship, sleeping upon a pillow; and they awake him, and say to him: Master, doth, it not concern thee that we perish?"
  • Francis,

    Thank you for this, even if it's not strictly about sacred music.

    Based on what the good bishop writes, what is it, exactly, which the SSPX must accept, doctrinally, from the Council, which she does not (yet) accept?

    [Stimson: feel free to chime in here!]
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,086
    CGZ

    As of late I am much more interested to post under the category of "General Discussion Catholicism". Because the unfortunate general state of the Church and the distortion of her theology is foundational to the liturgy, these topics severely and directly influence and determine the outcome of sacred music in our time as we all are painfully aware. In good conscience I cannot ignore the greater for the lesser. By promoting, upholding, protecting, and defending the magisterium, I feel I am also safeguarding our tradition of sacred music. So although not directly about sacred music, these topics and their discussion and reflection are critical and advantageous to the survival of the most supreme art form. If the general manner of thinking and practice continues on the present course, the art of sacred music as we know it will become extinct. (in particular, the employment of the chant, polyphony, and the organ) The modernists desire to spare nothing. So, I fight and stand for all.

    We can continue to discuss the minutiae of transposing Palestrina or the necessity of a conductor. But if we do not address these more important foundational issues there will no longer be any Palestrinas or conductors in our liturgies or our Church.

    It is a shortsighted musician who argues about the choice of repertoire for performance on the deck of the Titanic. Drop your instruments and man the lifeboats. The iceberg we just struck is the "Balloon Mass".

    As per your question about the SSPX, I too am curious about the same thing. Anyone?
    Thanked by 1ClergetKubisz
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,890
    My understanding is that the SSPX must accept the entirety of the Second Vatican Council, and also accept the Novus Ordo as valid.
  • Francis,

    Like you, I think that music is important because it is directly related to our participation in the Sacred Liturgy, and that the foundational issues include but are not exhausted by music.

    Clerget,

    If the Council repeats what the Church has always taught, these clearly are statements with which any Catholic must agree. Can one be required to accept the pastoral advisability of imprudence, should it ever rear its ugly head? I guess what I'm driving at is this: what doctrinal content does the SSPX not accept?
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,588
    CK writes:
    My understanding is that the SSPX must accept the entirety of the Second Vatican Council,

    Please be careful not to put much credence in rumors. Such a phrase could mean anything. Please note that Catholics in general are not required to believe every statement written in every document of Vatican II: some of the documents are hortatory in nature, with no intention to make definitive statements.

    Moreover, rumors are not always generated by people with actual knowledge of a situation: they may come from people trying to influence behavior, not report it.
    Thanked by 3CHGiffen Liam eft94530
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,086
    Please note that Catholics in general are not required to believe every statement written in every document of Vatican II: some of the documents are hortatory in nature, with no intention to make definitive statements.
    Is there an official reference to this reasoning?
  • I cannot speak on what content of Vatican II legislation and documents are problematic to Catholic doctrine and life. Outside of what pertains to music and liturgy, I have not studied the council's acts in the detail that they merit.

    Among the crises of the Church, that of liturgy must assuredly rank amongst the foremost.

    I, like most on this forum, am astounded that in the years since the council thousands of bishops and cardinals and hundreds of thousands of priests and their lay cohorts, men and women, have been able to pull off the lie, the bald lie, that 'Vatican II did away with' things that it, on the contrary, bad should be preserved and cultivated; and, further, having foisted this lie off on the people of God, used their power (I did say 'power', and did not say 'authority' because there is no authority for their calumnies) to all but destroy the very fabric of Catholic worship and put in its place the violation of the mass by the artless and impious emanations borrowed shamelessly from the base and secular realms of American, European, and the Oriental entertainment genres. Anything, it seems, will do, except what resonates with the history of Catholic worship - anything but anything that is by any stretch of the imagination burdensomely 'churchy'. Even the greater number of monks and nuns have participated in this sham. Catholics are not alone in suffering from this leprous lie. Anglicans and Lutherans have their own tales to tell of the same monstrosities in their liturgies. It is a sickness of the age which infects all, and has nothing, really, to do with what Vatican II did or did not say or mean.

    Whilst the title of this thread refers to 'interpretation', one is inclined to proffer that this really is not an 'interpretation' of Vatican II at all. An interpretation of Vatican II would have our masses sung, whether in English or Latin, to chant, we would have cultivated choirs who can sing the historic choral repertory and that of modern music which has evolved from it, we would have singing congregations who are intelligent about their participation and discerning in what they are asked to sing. Our churches would have organs, and our priests would be singing. The propers would have remained integral to the mass. Any hymnody would pass muster as admirable literature and respectable music. There would be no sacro-pop, sacro-rock, jazz combos, grand pianos, or sacro-anything else. Yes: this, more or less, would be an interpretation of what Vatican II actually, really did say. What we have had thrust upon us is not an interpretation, but a substitute, a falsehood, an artifice which is the work of men and women who ignored the council's wishes about liturgy and music, lied, and substituted for them their own vulgar vision. And the people? Like good Catholics, they just sat there, batted their eyes, swallowed it, and became inured to it. The astounding thing in all this is that no genuine authority anywhere at any time stood powerfully and effectively in their way and said 'this is not what Vatican II said. You may not do this.'

    So, it may rightly be said that Vatican II was not 'interpreted' at all. It was ignored. And those tellers of lies who ignored it got away with it. Scot free away with it. And they continue to infect our seminaries and youth with their falsehoods. This is one of the greatest heists in all of history. The council was hijacked. And we are left with....
    __________________________________

    What has been done to liturgy, though, is not the whole tale. The generations that made the council and have followed in its wake came from the 'God is dead' era, the era preoccupied with 'relevancy', and attendant -isms. It is no idle hyperbole to liken their behaviour in and towards the Church to the goals and behaviours of the Paris mob in the 1790's. Liturgy is but one aspect of the faith to which they took the axe. Some are inclined to point fingers at the Anglicans who have accepted the farce of women who think that they are priests, plus placing their notion of the 'social gospel' above tradition, Tradition, and all other considerations. And doctrine? Suffer it never to stand in the way of modern sensititivities. There is, however, no shortage of Catholic laity, priests, and prelates who favour introducing the joke, the utter fraud of priestesses into the Catholic Church, who would rather not be embarrassed by doctrine. It is said that more than 50% of Catholics do not believe in the objective presence of our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. Others could give account of false doctrines in our seminaries and the sugar-coated religious education of our youth - to the accompaniment of musical trash. The list is quite long.

    All these ills, though, like post Vatican II liturgy, do not find their origin in the council itself. No, not at all. These ills are the ills of generations of iconoclasts, feverish ills that have festered like poison in the hearts of men and women who have sought for faith and salvation everywhere except where they may be found, and wish to legitimise their fundamentally pelagian waywardness by making the Church over in their own image. They are not men and women of Vatican II. They are men and women of their age and of the world.

    I think, though, that one will search in vain in the proceedings, the actual proceedings of Vatican II, for any basis for the willfully delusional heresies and theological horrors of these men and women, lay and clerk alike.


    Thanked by 2a_f_hawkins CHGiffen
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,086
    This is one of the greatest heists in all of history.

    "We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive."

    CS Lewis

    Mr. Jackson, I have turned back. There is no going forward on the present course. I invite you to join me.
    Thanked by 1eft94530
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,827
    One of my friends asked how I could stand working in a NO parish. I replied that being Byzantine, I always have an out if needed. I don't have any problems with the NO where I work. It is EP 1, chant, good hymns, and reverence. I know there are places that are truly off-the-wall, but some do tend to over-react to situations where nothing is really wrong, they are just not EF. Kind of silly, I think. There are real issues in the church and world to concern yourself with.
  • Charles,

    Francis, Jackson, Peter and I (among probably others) would argue that among the most important issues in the Church today is the intentional damaging of the public worship by the Church. If "the people" are led to glorify themselves instead of worshipping God, then the Church is not fulfilling one reason for which She exists: to bring fitting worship of men to God.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,827
    Yes, but one does not have to return to the pre-Vatican II liturgy to worship God. Follow the rubrics in the NO, take no shortcuts, refuse to put up with silliness, and as I often say, follow the book.
  • Settefrati93
    Posts: 172
    "Do the red, say the black"

    We can lament about things from the EF that were left out or recreated in the OF; or we can simply "do the red, say the black," and worship reverently with chant, hymns, polyphony etc. and make the best of what is the Ordinary form of the Roman Rite
  • Charles,

    Following the principle that the Second Vatican Council enunciated: any new forms should grow organically from those already existing. The Ordo of Paul VI is many things, but an organic growth from anything within the earlier Ordo isn't the first description I would give it.

    To do other than begin again at the Ordo of St. John XXIII is to begin on a weak branch, rather than at the trunk. (Organic growth from something grafted on to a trunk may be organic growth from something already grafted onto the trunk, but it isn't a growth of the original tree.)

    When I address groups of Catholics on the subject of chant, I don't begin from "old" or "new", but from Catholic principles.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 1,199
    Unfortunately it is not that simple to "do the red", the OF rubrics are confused (and confusing) two examples:
    Pr. Mysterium fidei.
    The people continue, acclaiming one of the following:
    This is impossible, either each person chooses for themselves and cacaphony ensues, or an extra item is introduced to direct the people to a particular choice.
    ... invitation to the faithful by the Priest
    Fratres, agnoscamus ...
    A brief pause for silence follows.

    And GIRM explains: Silence 45 ... For in the Penitential Act ... individuals recollect themselves.
    If the pause is brief how can I have time for recollection?
    Obviously there are simple fixes, but then we are no longer just following the instructions.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,827
    The people continue, acclaiming one of the following:


    Not a problem. We only use "A," so there is no question in anyone's mind what we will sing.

    To do other than begin again at the Ordo of St. John XXIII is to begin on a weak branch, rather than at the trunk.


    You don't have that authority and neither do I - nor anyone else here, for that matter.

    We can lament about things from the EF that were left out or recreated in the OF; or we can simply "do the red, say the black," and worship reverently with chant, hymns, polyphony etc. and make the best of what is the Ordinary form of the Roman Rite


    Exactly. I don't recall the bishops asking what any of us thought about it. LOL.

  • Charles,

    No one needs new and borrowed authority anymore to use the so-called EF. It would be very simple.

    As to your response that "we only use 'A'".... that's going beyond the rubrics, which was the point. It's not going against the rubrics, but beyond them.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,827
    As to your response that "we only use 'A'".... that's going beyond the rubrics, which was the point. It's not going against the rubrics, but beyond the


    I could see confusion on the part of the congregation if any one of the three could be used at anytime. Since we only use one, no one is confused.


    No one needs new and borrowed authority anymore to use the so-called EF. It would be very simple.


    All they need is a priest willing to celebrate the EF. But isn't it interesting, that EF people do most of the bitching and complaining about the NO, which they supposedly don't attend anymore. How does it concern them?

  • Charles,

    You're describing liberals of all stripes, and taking a progressive position, not describing traditional Catholics. To the extent that traditional Catholics get enmeshed in "complaining about the NO", they do so when others suggest or claim that there is no real difference between the two.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,827
    No, I think traditional Catholics thrive on complaining, especially when they think they gain some kind of moral high ground by doing so. My thinking is that if you never attend a NO mass, you don't have much grounds for criticizing it. On the other hand, if you are forced to attend a particular mass and it upsets you, some critical comments are allowable, even justified. But when you have the freedom to go elsewhere, the complaining seems more like whining.
    Thanked by 1Elmar
  • >> isn't it interesting, that EF people do most of the bitching and complaining about the NO, which they supposedly don't attend anymore. How does it concern them?

    just a thought - maybe each of them has one or more family members who are impacted by the watered down NO, or have even left the Church entirely. I don't think I know of a single family which is not 'concerned' because of this.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,827
    just a thought - maybe each of them has one or more family members who are impacted by the watered down NO


    That is always a possibility, but if it were that widespread, there would hardly be anyone left in the Church. It seems to me too many people latch on to the most flagrant and obnoxious abuses in the OF, and don't try to look for much that is good. I see many good people, making an honest attempt to worship God, and be good Catholics every Sunday.
  • CharlesSA
    Posts: 67
    It seems to me too many people latch on to the most flagrant and obnoxious abuses in the OF, and don't try to look for much that is good. I see many good people, making an honest attempt to worship God, and be good Catholics every Sunday.
    Granted, many criticisms of the OF tend to be criticisms of abuses - but even those aside, I think many supporters of the EF - myself included - are truly sad to see a Liturgy in the OF which is so unlike that of the whole history of the Roman Rite. That is to say, truly sad that there is so much lack of knowledge, or indifference - not to mention in many cases, so much hatred for - the traditions of our beloved Roman Rite Mass.

    I just spent about 11 months at Clear Creek, a Benedictine abbey in Oklahoma, as a postulant. They celebrate the traditional Liturgy and Office exclusively, though with some (very minor) modifications to the Mass, and with following the reformed calendar with regard to the sanctoral cycle. Let me tell you - it was rather a "liturgical shock" (though one I was expecting, knowing the situation at my parents' home parish) to go to Mass (Ordinary Form) at home after 11 months of beautiful liturgies at Clear Creek. The priest at my home parish is not heretical or anything - in fact, I know that at least he is a good man and has the Catholic faith. It's just that he was ordained in 1976 and thus went to seminary at a time when seminaries were going crazy, and celebrates Mass...well, let's just say that he does not (externally, at least, in my perception) exhibit any sense of the sacred in reciting the texts of the Mass - is rather casual; he is "very engaged" with the people; he is nearly always looking up and trying to make eye contact; he likes to insert his comments here and there in the Mass - sometimes relevant to what he is about to do, sometimes not. But he doesn't actually do anything that is (flagrantly, at least) in opposition to/against the GIRM or whatever.

    Now, I'm very well aware that Clear Creek is a monastery of monks dedicated to the reverent and traditional celebration of Liturgy, and thus my experience is one which, even in the best of scenarios, is not really practically possible at the parish level. But tell me - why should there be any reason that coming home from a monastery would be such a shock, in terms of liturgy (the Mass) for someone? Why should there be such a wide gap between a monastery's Mass and someone's diocesan parish? Why should there be such variance within the same rite?

    Anyway, the point I'm (probably terribly) trying to make is that I come home from the monastery after 11 months and - all criticisms aside, even - am absolutely saddened that no one knows what they're missing. Saddened that today's "Roman Rite" - even those Masses which are celebrated reverently and without abuses - is so unlike to what I was so, so blessed to participate in. And again, I would be the first to admit that one of my flaws is that I am quick to criticize, but I am honestly saying this without being critical. I'm not saying "oh, I'm so sorry for these poor 'Novus Ordo' Catholics because I'm so spiritually superior to them for being able to really participate in the 'real' Mass, the traditional Mass. I'm just better than them all, and I pity them for that, they don't know what they're missing." No, I don't have that sort of attitude in saying this - I only mean to say - "Oh - how ardently do I desire that everyone would have even just the option to participate in such heavenly liturgies at their parish every weekend (and daily for those who are able)! How ardently do I desire that the wealth of the traditions of the Roman Rite be given to and faithfully, lovingly expounded for the flock (which I think the Vatican Council said something about), that they be ever more and more in love with Jesus and Holy Mother Church, His spouse, who desires exactly this for them!" Yet because of the changes to the Liturgy which followed the Council, some beautiful, long standing traditions cannot be expounded upon to the fullest extent, because the new Liturgy (or just Catholicism in general) does not even retain them!
    Thanked by 3francis dad29 eft94530
  • Charles W - the number of people who know about flagrant and obnoxious abuses is growing, and these things need to be known about, not discounted. It cannot be that these have no impact on the Mystical Body. The huge defections from the priesthood, from the religious life, etc., cannot be denied.

    I, like you, see many good people every Sunday who are making an honest attempt to worship God and be good Catholics, but it never fails to amaze me how often the ones I see are not given credit for being good people, or for making that honest attempt. I don't mean by you - it happens all the time.

    at any rate, Lex orandi, lex credendi still goes.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,827
    Those "traditions of the Roman Rite" often don't go back in time much before Trent. The mass in the first 1,000 years was not the high Renaissance liturgy mandated by Trent, although some earlier practices certainly did carry over.

    Here is, I think, the bigger issue. I haven't seen mobs thronging to the TLM and in reality, they don't to the NO, either. At least not like mass attendance in 1960. I'm not convinced that the problem is the mass in either form.

    The secular culture has become stronger and stronger and has, in essence, infiltrated everything including the church. Oh, I would agree we have had some good successes in pro-life with many young folks opposed to abortion. But the church has lost the culture wars along with battles over gender. We have been so focused on everything but the culture, it has taken over and largely won while our attention was diverted elsewhere.

    Missionary activity - anyone remember that - has for all practical purposes died out and is even frowned on as disrespectful to other cultures. In reality, we could use some intense missionary activity to our own culture. Political correctness reigns and even the Catholic schools are as infected with it as the public schools - retired Catholic school teacher here so I know what I am talking about. The church has become too inwardly focused on itself and fiddles over the insignificant while the world if not burns, at least smolders. No, the form of the mass is not going to solve this.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,086
    If all you're ever served is a rubber chicken you'll only ever expect rubber chicken. I would go to Mass daily if it was beautiful and worthy of God. But these days I wind up enduring an hour a week out of obligation. How sad is that.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,827
    If all you're ever served is a rubber chicken you'll only ever expect rubber chicken. I would go to Mass daily if it was beautiful and worthy of God. But these days I wind up enduring an hour a week out of obligation. How sad is that.


    That is sad. The fact is that vast numbers of people have abandoned religion, at least the organized kind, altogether and don't see it as relevant. You are an exception - a good exception.
  • it's not about 'smells and bells' - don't buy that. Was it Scott Hahn? Who went to his local diocesan church and said he'd like to convert, and they told him the best thing he could do for the Catholic Church was to be a good Presbyterian? a friend of mine, a Baptist preacher, got the same response in LA; thank God he kept trying, and is now in the Church.
    There are too many problem areas to name. But the law of prayer does indeed impact belief. After so many years of N.O.M. and V II catechesis, look at the numbers of Catholics who today will admit to belief in the Real Presence, even in the Resurrection.
    Thanked by 1ClergetKubisz
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,827
    I know, all too well. The saving grace for us Byzantines is that we are too stubborn to ever change. ;-)
  • CharlesSA
    Posts: 67
    Those "traditions of the Roman Rite" often don't go back in time much before Trent. The mass in the first 1,000 years was not the high Renaissance liturgy mandated by Trent, although some earlier practices certainly did carry over.
    What do you mean that they don't go back in time much before Trent? Especially with regards to Gregorian Chant, its flourishing is in the middle ages, well before Trent. The "elaboration" of the Roman Rite in general goes way back into, what, the 7th and 8th centuries, and especially in the time of Charlemagne, does it not? I'm not one to argue that everything we see in the 1962 Missal/Rubrics is ancient, from the time of the first centuries of the Church, but even if it is true what you say (which I am not sure it is), I see no reason to disgregard what was organically and beautifully/meaningfully developed up to and in the time of Trent.

    Missionary activity - anyone remember that - has for all practical purposes died out and is even frowned on as disrespectful to other cultures. ... The church has become too inwardly focused on itself and fiddles over the insignificant while the world if not burns, at least smolders. No, the form of the mass is not going to solve this.
    Well, absolutely "missionary activity" is essential, and by "arguing" about the Mass, I don't mean to give the impression that I don't care about it - in fact, I have had many discussions with friends about this, that evangelization/being a missionary/witness and Liturgy are both extremely important and must go hand in hand. So sure, you're right that "the form of the Mass is not going to solve this" - insofar as yes, it alone will not solve it. But if you stop there, then I would disagree with you - because it absolutely has to be a part of the solution; whatever the solution may be, it will involve the Liturgy, and it will involve a Liturgy which is in conformity to tradition. Will it be the 1962 Missal? I don't know, but if I had to hazard a guess, I would say it will be much more like the 1962 Missal than the 1970 one, and that it would not be what most Catholics experience/are offered today. I could definitely be wrong about that, and if I am, well, then I will submit to whatever Liturgy really and truly accompanies a renewal of the Catholic faith. I'm not a strictly anti-OF person; but as of yet, the OF has not done so, as far as I can see. Certainly good things have happened in the past 50 years while the OF has been the "mainstream" Liturgy - I am sure, however, that there are many solid arguments to be made that (maybe not all, but certainly many) such things happened in spite of the mainstream liturgy, not because of it.

    Any renewal of the Catholic faith, along with culture in general, will necessarily be accompanied by a renewal of the culture of Western civilization - which was formed by Christianity, by both its doctrine and its Liturgy.
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,667
    I'm not convinced that the problem is the mass in either form.

    The secular culture has become stronger and stronger and has, in essence, infiltrated everything including the church.


    Here you and I agree fully. I tell my friends that this country's wealth has significantly reduced the number of faithful and my friends think I am on another planet. But I respond 'why shoot for some promised land when you are IN the promised land'? Creature comforts, sex without kids, health, housing, transport, (etc etc etc)...and chocolate ice cream for dessert, too!

    Discomforts and the awareness of sin will fill up the churches. And they will fill the churches far more reliably than good music or good liturgy. Hate to burst the bubble, but....

    We are not alone in this, either. Mainliners are living off the endowments, and the "substitute-for-Catholic" non-denom churches have stopped growing--hard stop. They're worried about debt payments now.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,086
    "Suppose, dear friend, that Communism is the most visible among the organs of subversion against the Church and the Tradition of Divine Revelation. Thus, we will witness the invasion of everything that is spiritual: philosophy, science, law, teaching, the arts, the media, literature, theater, and religion.

    I am concerned about the confidences of the Virgin to the little Lucia of Fatima. This persistence of the Good Lady in face of the danger that threatens the Church is a divine warning against the suicide that the alteration of the Faith, in its liturgy, its theology, and its soul, would represent.

    I hear around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject her ornaments, and make her remorseful for her historical past. Well, my dear friend, I am convinced that the Church of Peter must affirm her past, or else she will dig her own grave.

    I will fight this battle with the greatest energy on the inside of the Church, just as outside of it, even if the forces of evil may one day take advantage of my person, my actions, or my writings, as they try today to deform the history of the Church. All human heresies which alter the word of God are so that a greater light might appear.”
    […]

    These underdeveloped peoples will save the Church, Eminence. A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God, that His Son is only a symbol, a philosophy like so many others. And in churches, Christians will search for the red lamp where Jesus awaits them, like the sinful woman crying out before the empty tomb: ‘Where have they taken Him?’

    Then, priests will rise up from Africa, from Asia, from America, formed here in this seminary of the Missions, who will say and who will proclaim that the ‘bread of life’ is not ordinary bread, that the mother of the God-man is not a mother like others. And they will be cut to pieces to testify that Christianity is not a religion like others, since her head is the Son of God, and the Church is His Church.

    Cardinal Pacelli

    The rest of the article is here

    https://onepeterfive.com/pius-xiis-prophetic-warnings-fatima-suicide-altering-faith-liturgy
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,588
    Scripsi ego et responsit Franciscus:
    Please note that Catholics in general are not required to believe every statement written in every document of Vatican II: some of the documents are hortatory in nature, with no intention to make definitive statements.

    Is there an official reference to this reasoning?


    Let me refer you to a 2016 interview given by Abp. Pozzo of the Ecclesia Dei commission.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 1,199
    Is there an official reference to this reasoning?
    Many of the documents are called Decrees, and lay down rules and guidelines, not beliefs (and could presumably be changed). Two are called Dogmatic Constitutions, one a Pastoral Constitution, one just a Constitution (that's SC). Three are Declarations, including those on religious liberty, and on relations with other faiths, both of which upset SPSSX. There must be a siginificance to these appellations.
    Thanked by 2chonak eft94530
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,890
    Those "traditions of the Roman Rite" often don't go back in time much before Trent. The mass in the first 1,000 years was not the high Renaissance liturgy mandated by Trent, although some earlier practices certainly did carry over.


    Please cite your source for this. This is one of the most common arguments against the Council of Trent: that it codified a Mass that was not like the liturgy of the earliest Christians. However, I contend that we do not have any primary sources for what the liturgy was like in the first centuries.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,086
    Chonak

    That is an interesting piece, however it truly underlines the chaos of our situation and the ambiguous state of the mind and soul of the common Catholic who is hinged on erroneous declarations made by the what seems to be the Church.
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 1,378
    Those "traditions of the Roman Rite" often don't go back in time


    A common misconception, Just look at the chant manuscripts they have chant that is recognisable. Look at the Sarum Rite, it is not too different, look at the melodies in the early Dominican books... all very familiar.

    Trent was not a big change... it standardised a Missale and Graduale that were already in use. The bigger change happened over the next few decades as older usages such as Sarum and various European missals and Graduale with special sequences etc. fell out of use with the growth of the Tridentine usage. The Dominicans etc. carried on as before...
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,827
    All the liturgies were more alike than different in the days of the western Empire. They were similar from place to place, from patriarchate to patriarchate. The masses of Augustine, St. Patrick, and such were more like the eastern liturgies than like the Tridentine Roman Rite. So also the church architecture and sanctuary layouts. Even Charlemagne represented the influence of yet another culture. By the 10th century, you had what remained of liturgy from a collapsed society and culture heavily influenced by other invaders. As for chant, yes some of it goes back a ways, but IIRC, we have none before 8th century or so. Some who look backward seeking an unbroken liturgical tradition culminating in Trent are pretty much inventing history. That tradition does exist in the east, but not in the west. Too many societal upheavals and liturgical fingers in the pie for that. To Trent's credit, they took widespread liturgical chaos and brought order to it. Much, much needed by that time.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,224
    The OP liturgy was unfortunately forced to add the lectionary of Rome in place of its own.

    It’s...complicated but so much was preserved by the Franks all the way to down to Pius XII, then lost between 1955 and John XXIII.

    The 1604 Missal’s worst feature (heh) is allowing a single genuflection at Mass celebrated on an altar where the tabernacle is located. The rubrics previously required to kneel and bow when entering and exiting, rubrics kept only for Exposition and the Mass in the presence of the exposed Sacrament (including Holy Thursday after Communion & Good Friday during the Mass of the Pre–Sanctified). Tabernacles in the center are convenient, but even Trent didn’t ask for that. I do think that only the celebrant bowing at the center but the others kneeling works, even if it is confusing.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,086
    CharlesW

    "I know, all too well. The saving grace for us Byzantines is that we are too stubborn to ever change. ;-)"

    HOWEVER... It seems you can change on a dime, straddling the East and the West, and whenever it is to your disadvantage to be a Roman you chameleon to a Byzantine. What's with this evasive dual identity? Which flavor of the faith are you?

    It appears that whenever you meet a challenge you cannot rebutt, you cave to being a non-Roman. In this manner one always manages to avoid taking a hit. JAO.
    Thanked by 1eft94530
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,827
    Francis, I have never been a Roman. I work for them and appreciate that many are fine people. Sadly, their rite is in many places in disarray. Fortunately the parish where I work is pretty authentic and orthodox Roman. The building has not been wreckovated. This parish is considered by those in the "enlightened" parishes to be out-of-date, pre-Vatican II, and stuck in the past. All this is why I have so little difficulty working with them.

    Interesting story. The daughter of a friend was in a once Catholic hospital where a new and reformed sister of a nearly defunct order asked if she wanted communion brought to her. The daughter replied that she needed to confess before receiving communion. Sister Thoroughly Modern asked the daughter what parish she belonged to. The daughter named the parish where I work. Sister said, "I might have known. They are the only ones who believe in that anymore." That speaks volumes, I think.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,086
    CharlesW

    Thanks for the clarification. Since you work for an "old church" parish of the Roman rite, why are you not working for your own Church, and why do you so wholeheartedly seem to be for the VII slant?

    Charles,

    Following the principle that the Second Vatican Council enunciated: any new forms should grow organically from those already existing. The Ordo of Paul VI is many things, but an organic growth from anything within the earlier Ordo isn't the first description I would give it.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,827
    I think what this parish is doing is much closer to what Vatican II actually envisioned than what is generally found in many Roman parishes. Those others have really gone off the reservation. Before there were any Eastern churches in my area, the long-time pastor of this Roman parish (he was there 38 years) welcomed us easterners with open arms and made provisions for us. Now we have a couple of parishes of our own.

    I am an organist and eastern churches don't have organs. I took to that instrument when much younger and worked in Protestant churches for years. They paid better, I can vouch for that. Anyway, the recently deceased "new" pastor (there for 17 years) asked me in 2001 to take on music for them. He was a good man, an organist himself, and someone I genuinely liked and enjoyed working with. I took the job - still there and doing great with the newest pastor who came a couple of years ago. These are good people and I like them. If I really needed the money, I wouldn't be there.

    The Ordo of Paul VI is many things, but an organic growth from anything within the earlier Ordo isn't the first description I would give it.


    Francis, whatever it is, it is approved by competent Roman authority as the normative rite for use in the parishes. You have no authority to change it or promulgate your own rite and neither do I.

    I think what a lot of this comes down to, is that we are always free to work to get rules changed that we don't agree with. That's fair, and I support that. We are not free, however, to disregard and disobey rules because they don't please us.
  • Liam
    Posts: 3,646
    And organic growth, which got but one mention in SC compared to many other values discussed therein, was a rather illusory thing once the Roman rite was amberized (in relative terms), centralized and controlled in early modernity aka the late 16th and 17th centuries. You know, Trent and all that.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 1,199
    I notice that SC says (in translation) 'in some way grow organically from forms already existing'. This strikes me as pretty vague, no suggestion that they should be Western forms, or in recent use.
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,827
    The Ordo of Paul VI is many things, but an organic growth from anything within the earlier Ordo isn't the first description I would give it.


    Yeah, there hasn't been much in the way of organic development or growth since Trent. There has been papal tampering and tinkering off and on over the years.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,086
    Francis, whatever it is, it is approved by competent Roman authority as the normative rite for use in the parishes. You have no authority to change it or promulgate your own rite and neither do I.

    I think what a lot of this comes down to, is that we are always free to work to get rules changed that we don't agree with. That's fair, and I support that. We are not free...
    Am I just unclear, or are you saying I am attempting to start a new rite? As far as I am concerned I am promoting the ORIGINALLY condoned and presently enforced Roman rite and am calling everyone to reexamine the newly innovated NO. Presently I ONLY attend the NO out of necessity and obligation. There is no EF within hours of my location.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,827
    Sad, that you don't have an EF in your area. My parish has one every Sunday at noon. Thanks to Pope Benedict, they are not rare as they once were and many have the option to choose which they attend, unless they are in a situation similar to yours.

    What I am saying is that too many will not accept the lawfulness of the NO, and view the Tridentine mass as the only "real" liturgy. It isn't. Both are "real" and lawful, as they should be. The Church does have the right to reform its liturgy. Whether or not they did it well is open to question, but they certainly had the right.

    There is no EF within hours of my location.


    Is there a priest in your region who would start one?