FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: More questions about Vatican II
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Everyone, thank you for your responses to my many questions. I am grateful for all of your input. I am shocked and angered that I have never heard most of what I am reading about V2. I was blindly baptized, confirmed, and received First Communion in the V2 climate and never bothered to think otherwise. I did have some friends growing up who called themselves Catholic but who told me that I was not Catholic and that I was going to hell because all of my sacraments were invalid (they were part of the Pius V sect). I thought they were cruel, insensitive, and downright nuts, but now I am beginning to see their position a bit more clearly.

So, the gist of what I am reading on this forum is that V2 was basically a huge farce and that no good whatsoever came out of it Sticking tongue out at you . For no discernible reason, it abolished the beautiful, ancient liturgy the Church had been using for thousands of years, declared that "all roads lead to heaven," changed the Mass from a sacrifice to a glorified protestant service, and tossed out dogma that the Church had upheld since its inception. All of this gives me good reason to believe that V2 was yet another a radical reform, much like how Luther started out, and many unfortunate faithful were swept up in it with no knowledge of how they got there or what had been taken from them. And, like many Protestants who saw the light and returned to the One True Faith, I feel as though I need to do the same and escape, as fast as I can, from what I thought was the truth.

I still have a few questions. Please bear with me.....

1. Since the words of consecration were so radically changed, it follows logic that a NO priest, ordained by other NO bishops/popes, would not have the power vested in him by Christ to perform the sacrifice of the Mass, no matter what his intent was. Isn't the whole notion of intent over actual words a V2 idea anyway? It seems to follow logic, then, that a priest saying a NO Mass is not a validly ordained priest and thus does not have the power to change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. Therefore, the sacraments at a NO Mass are no better than receiving bread and wine at a Protestant service, and attending a NO Mass would not fulfill your Sunday obligation. Is this correct?

2. For any priest to be an actual priest able to say a valid sacramental Mass, would he have to be ordained by a bishop that was not part of the V2 reform? For a priest to be able to say Tridentine Mass, does he have to be authorized by a special society, like the Society of St. Peter? 

3. If we follow the train of logic that all post V2 sacraments administered by post-V2 priests that only say the NO are invalid, does that mean I need to be re-baptized, re-confirmed, and re-receive my First Holy Communion since I received all of these sacraments from post-V2 priests at a NO Mass?

4. If you are unable to attend a Tridentine Mass because there isn't one offered in your area, would you be exempt from your Sunday obligation since attending a NO Mass wouldn't fulfill your obligation anyway?

Thanks, folks--I appreciate the discussion.
Your premises are far astray, and in fact, seem to align with what your friends in the SSPV might believe.

Most of the changes you describe in your other post were subsequent to Vatican II and not called for by the Council itself.  I would sincerely suggest you actually read the text of the documents before determining them to be a "huge face" out of which "no good whatsoever came".  For example, consider these quotes.

Sacrosanctum Concilium Wrote:36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

116. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.
But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action, as laid down in Art. 30.

124. [...] Let bishops carefully remove 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.

126. [...] Ordinaries must be very careful to see that sacred furnishings and works of value are not disposed of or dispersed; for they are the ornaments of the house of God.

Lumen Gentium Wrote:14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

Noted liturgist Dom. Alcuin Reid once said, "Let’s be clear that the Council does not define any liturgical dogma: one can respectfully prefer another style of liturgical theology and remain a Catholic in good standing. Nevertheless, it articulates its theology of the liturgy which has much to offer."  Take his word on both parts of that quote.

Finally, although I can't cite anything in particular against a vague assertion, I would ask you to define exactly which dogma was "tossed out" by Vatican II, since no such thing occurred.  Again, it's worth reading the actual texts before coming to conclusions.  As to what people did afterwards in the name of the Council, don't fall into the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy of ascribing it to the Council just because it transpired after the Council.

As to your questions.

1. Your logic is incorrect.  The words of the consecration were barely touched, and the essential form outlined by St. Thomas Aquinas and the Council of Trent, "this is my body, this is my blood," remain intact and unmolested.  So therefore it does not follow that no priest can validly consecrate using this rite.  Further, you define no premise for why you leap from this to the bold claim that no priests who use this rite are validly ordained, as if their use of a purportedly-invalid rite could retroactively invalidate the indelible mark of their ordination.  Be careful of straying into heresy by asserting false requirements for the validity of the sacraments beyond what the Church defines.  So no, you're entirely incorrect with #1, and as such, attending a Novus Ordo Mass does fulfil your Sunday Obligation.

2. Incorrect.   Why would adhering to the Vatican II reform invalidate a Bishop's Holy Orders?  If it's based off of some internet claim that the new rite of ordination of bishops is invalid, I suggest actually reading the prayer before repeating the myth, as it's a farcical claim rooted in malformed sacramental theology.  As to the latter part, no, any Latin rite priest in good standing is permitted to celebrate the traditional Latin Mass, according to the provisions of Pope Benedict XVI's motu proprio Summorum Pontificum of July 7, 2007 (which itself affirms that Vatican II never did away with the traditional liturgy, which therefore was licit to use at any point after the Council despite what many claimed).

3. Don't follow that train.  It's heretical.  Besides, even if one asserted that the other sacraments were invalid, baptism can be validly ministered by anyone, cleric or laic, Catholic or non-Catholic, who recites the proper words whilst pouring water over the head with the intention of "doing what the Church does".

4. No.  The Ordinary Form does fulfil your obligation, and the Code of Canon Law which obliges attendance at Mass on Sundays and Holy Days was written with the Ordinary Form explicitly in mind as an option.  The mind of the lawmaker is that one can fulfil the his obligation at the Ordinary Form Mass, and therefore having only access to it would not excuse your obligation.

In summary, you need to be very careful with what sources you're reading on the Internet, and to verify them against the actual teachings of Trent and Vatican II before making any bold, contrarian conclusions.  Most of what you have written here, surely in ignorance and with good intention, is heretical.  In order to maintain such a position, one would have to take the mind of a Protestant or Mormon and claim, by his own authority, that Christ and the Holy Ghost have completely abandoned the Catholic Church and betrayed the promise of the Bible in Matthew 16:18-19.  I, for one, do not wish to be the one who determines to know better than the Holy Ghost.

N.b. all written with charity, and not to be misconstrued otherwise. Smile
(11-12-2017, 09:16 PM)SacraCor714 Wrote: [ -> ]1. Since the words of consecration were so radically changed, it follows logic that a NO priest, ordained by other NO bishops/popes, would not have the power vested in him by Christ to perform the sacrifice of the Mass, no matter what his intent was. Isn't the whole notion of intent over actual words a V2 idea anyway? It seems to follow logic, then, that a priest saying a NO Mass is not a validly ordained priest and thus does not have the power to change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. Therefore, the sacraments at a NO Mass are no better than receiving bread and wine at a Protestant service, and attending a NO Mass would not fulfill your Sunday obligation. Is this correct?

You're mixing up many things here.

There's the Mass with it's "Words of Consecration". These were changed only regarding the Precious Blood. Removed was "mysterium fidei" and in certain translations "for many" became "for all". The reasons for these changes were bad. The removal of "mysterium fidei" was because "it's not in the Bible", but yet "for many" is scriptural.

Either way, the essential form is retained, so this is a bad argument. Any doubt in the Novus Ordo Mass concerns not the Matter or Form (as they are in the books), but the intention. Both a Protestant can use the Novus Ordo Mass and find no objections (like Max Thurian said), and a Catholic could bring his notion of a propitiatory sacrifice. Now intention plays a heavy role, and given many factors that's a problem.

But then there's the "Words" for a "Consecration" of a Bishop, or the ordination of a priest. Most SSPV folks hold that these are invalid, so Bishops and Priests are not really bishops or priests.

That's also a non starter. Firstly, the argument for the words of consecration of a bishop only is important if the Episcopacy is a Sacrament (part of Orders). The traditional notion is that it is not, but it is a "freeing" of certain powers already contained in the priesthood. If it is not a sacrament, the Church can easily change the formula without affecting the power of the bishop. If it is a Sacrament, however (as Vatican II suggests), then it has a matter and form and the Church cannot touch these substantially.

Ironically, here, if you reject Vatican II, you reject a major argument toward the invalidity of modern Episcopal Consecrations.

Proof that the Episcopal Consecration formula is valid in itself (so long as the intention is there) is while it abandoned the Roman formula, it uses a certainly valid Eastern formula which was used in the episcopal consecration of many Saints in the early Church. So as regards matter and form, there is really no serious doubt. As regards intention, again, there we could have a problem.

For the priesthood, the formula is exactly the same, except a single word is removed "ut" in the Latin (which is rarely used). That does not change the meaning of the words at all. So again, there is no doubt here, except again, intention.

The problem with intention is that we cannot know it directly. Thus we're stuck with doubts at best.

(11-12-2017, 09:16 PM)SacraCor714 Wrote: [ -> ]2. For any priest to be an actual priest able to say a valid sacramental Mass, would he have to be ordained by a bishop that was not part of the V2 reform? For a priest to be able to say Tridentine Mass, does he have to be authorized by a special society, like the Society of St. Peter? 

For a priest to be able to celebrate a valid Mass he must be validly ordained. Full stop. Even schismatic groups like the Orthodox have valid orders.

(11-12-2017, 09:16 PM)SacraCor714 Wrote: [ -> ]3. If we follow the train of logic that all post V2 sacraments administered by post-V2 priests that only say the NO are invalid, does that mean I need to be re-baptized, re-confirmed, and re-receive my First Holy Communion since I received all of these sacraments from post-V2 priests at a NO Mass?

Your premise is wrong, so your conclusion is false.

(11-12-2017, 09:16 PM)SacraCor714 Wrote: [ -> ]4. If you are unable to attend a Tridentine Mass because there isn't one offered in your area, would you be exempt from your Sunday obligation since attending a NO Mass wouldn't fulfill your obligation anyway?

Here I would say yes.

The Novus Ordo Missæ as Cardinal Ottaviani wrote, represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXIII of the Council of Trent." It intentionally removes elements of the Catholic Faith in order to please Protestants, and undermines one's Faith in the Blessed Sacrament, theology of the Mass, Priesthood among others.

As a result, being a danger to our Faith, to the extent we understand this we cannot go, because we cannot endanger our Faith.

It is morally impossible for such a person to go to Mass under such situations, and moral impossibility excuses from the obligation.
(11-13-2017, 03:09 AM)Steven Wrote: [ -> ]Your premises are far astray, and in fact, seem to align with what your friends in the SSPV might believe.

Most of the changes you describe in your other post were subsequent to Vatican II and not called for by the Council itself.  I would sincerely suggest you actually read the text of the documents before determining them to be a "huge face" out of which "no good whatsoever came".  For example, consider these quotes.

Sacrosanctum Concilium Wrote:36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

116. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.
But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action, as laid down in Art. 30.

124. [...] Let bishops carefully remove 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.

126. [...] Ordinaries must be very careful to see that sacred furnishings and works of value are not disposed of or dispersed; for they are the ornaments of the house of God.

Lumen Gentium Wrote:14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

And yet, Vatican II also states:

Quote:“The liturgical books are to be revised as soon as possible; from various parts of the world, experts are to be employed and bishops are to be consulted.”
Quote:62. With the passage of time, however, there have crept into the rites of the sacraments and sacramentals certain features which have rendered their nature and purpose far from clear to the people of today; hence some changes have become necessary 62. With the passage of time, however, there have crept into the rites of the sacraments and sacramentals certain features which have rendered their nature and purpose far from clear to the people of today; hence some changes have become necessary to adapt them to the needs of our own times. revision. 

Quote:Both the rites for the baptism of adults are to be revised...
Quote:The rite for the baptism of infants is to be revised...

Quote: The baptismal rite should contain variants, to be used at the discretion of the local ordinary...

Quote: In place of the rite called the "Order of supplying what was omitted in the baptism of an infant," a new rite is to be drawn up.

Quote:71. The rite of confirmation is to be revised..

Quote:72. The rite and formulas for the sacrament of penance are to be revised..

Quote:73. "Extreme unction," which may also and more fittingly be called "anointing of the sick,"...the prayers which belong to the rite of anointing are to be revised so as to correspond with the varying conditions of the sick who receive the sacrament.

Quote:76. Both the ceremonies and texts of the ordination rites are to be revised...

Vatican II didn't want changes? Really? And how should they all be revised?

Quote:“In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else”.

Quote:“restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify.  Christian people as far as possible should be able to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community.

And what is this ‘active participation' which should be considered "above all else"?

Quote:“By way of promoting active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons and songs as well as by actions, gestures and bodily attitudes.”

Quote:79. The sacramentals are to undergo a revision which takes into account the primary principle of enabling the faithful to participate intelligently, actively, and easily; the circumstances of our own days must also be considered.

So, we need to consider the needs of modern man, enable the faithful to participate intelligently, actively, and easily, and also revise sacramentals. Nope, doesn't sounde modernist at all.

Quote:To whatever extent may seem desirable, the hymns are to be restored to their original form, and whatever smacks of mythology or ill accords with Christian piety is to be removed or changed.

Hence the doubting of all miracles, and the revision of saint's biographies.

And what about Latin?

Quote:The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions; they should be within the people's powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation.

Quote:But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.

These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language

In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and "the common prayer," but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to the norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.

Within the limits set by the typical editions of the liturgical books, it shall be for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to specify adaptations, especially in the case of the administration of the sacraments, the sacramentals, processions, liturgical language, sacred music, and the arts, but according to the fundamental norms laid down in this Constitution. In some places and circumstances, however, an even more radical adaptation of the liturgy is needed, and this entails greater difficulties. Wherefore:

1) The competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, must, in this matter, carefully and prudently consider which elements from the traditions and culture of individual peoples might appropriately be admitted into divine worship. Adaptations which are judged to be useful or necessary should then be submitted to the Apostolic See, by whose consent they may be introduced.

2) To ensure that adaptations may be made with all the circumspection which they demand, the Apostolic See will grant power to this same territorial ecclesiastical authority to permit and to direct, as the case requires, the necessary preliminary experiments over a determined period of time among certain groups suited for the purpose.

3) Because liturgical laws often involve special difficulties with respect to adaptation, particularly in mission lands, men who are experts in these matters must be employed to formulate them.

22,2. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.

In other words, keep Latin, but if it is judged as being of "benefit to the people" by the local bishop's conference, feel free to introduce vernacular into the Mass, the sacraments, the processions, the hymns, the arts, and everywhere. Oh, and make sure you don't have anything which "requires too much explanation" or which "cannot be easily understood by all", or has "useless repetitions", and make sure that participation of the laity is to be considered before all else. 

In other words, don't remove Latin, but on the other hand, remove Latin.  

And speaking of changes:

Quote:This tradition of the Apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in understanding the realities and the words which have been handed down.  This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers who treasure these things in their hearts, through the intimate understanding of spiritual things they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth.  For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach there complete fulfilment in her.”

So there is a "growth in understanding" of doctrince based on the "spiritual things" which "believers" experience?

Quote:“According to the almost unanimous opinion of believers and non-believers alike, all things on earth should be related to man as their center and summit.”  

Hmmm....and here I thought all things should be related to God as their centre and summit?

I'm not saying that there are not some twisted ways which these statements could be made to seem Catholic. I'm not saying that there are not some good statements to counterbalance these ones. But this is precisely the problem. It is not sufficient for a textbook to say "1+2 is probably 2", or "some people say that 1+1 is 2", etc. Allowing an admixture of error, confusion, ambiguiety, etc. is ALREADY an issue. But don't take my word for it:

Quote:Fr. Schillebeeckx “We have used ambiguous terms during the Council and we know how we shall interpret them afterwards.”

To the OP - this does not mean the New Rites are invalid. If you really want to learn about this topic, I can do no better than reccomend Fr. Hesse on this exact topic:

As Magister pointed out, you had actually conflated two different issues: the Novus Ordo consecration formula and mass re-orientation itself and the 1969 changing of the ordination of priests and (consecration of) bishops.

As far as intention is concerned and confecting the Eucharist at the Novus Ordo with its butchered canon, Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci wrote in their Intervention:

9. As they appear in the context of the Novus Ordo, the words of Consecration could be valid in virtue of the priest's intention. But since their validity no longer comes from the force of the sacramental words themselves (ex vi verborum)--or more precisely, from the meaning (modus significandi) the old rite of the Mass gave to the formula--the words of Consecration in the New Order of Mass could also not be valid. Will priests in the near future, who receive no traditional formation and who rely on the Novus Ordo for the intention of "doing what the Church does," validly consecrate at Mass? One may be allowed to doubt it. 

The Vatican document on the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy actually called for the ordination rites to be changed.

76. Both the ceremonies and texts of the ordination rites are to be revised.


http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm.../Start/392

I posted this on another thread a while back.

The question is , what possible good reason could be proffered by Paul VI to revisit and change the form of of the sacrament of Holy Orders in the Latin Rite a mere twenty years after Pius XII definitively confirmed what constituted the matter and form of the sacrament in Sacramentum Ordinis in 1947, which no alleged pastoral initiative could possibly suffice. (Paul VI said he had a better one from an obscure ancient Copt and Syrian liturgy.....Right.)

Furthermore, suspiciously dropping the power to forgive sins and offer sacrifice neither signifies nor effects what was explicit in the Old rite; deliberately left out in the new.

Michael Davies: “As the previous section made clear, every prayer in the traditional rite [of Ordination] which stated specifically the essential role of a priest as a man ordained to offer propitiatory sacrifice for the living and dead has been removed [from the New Rite of Paul VI]. In most cases these were the precise prayers removed by the Protestant reformers, or if not precisely the same there are clear parallels.”

Michael Davies: “… there is not one mandatory prayer in the new rite of ordination itself which makes clear that the essence of the Catholic priesthood is the conferral of the powers to offer the sacrifice of the Mass and to absolve men of their sins, and that the sacrament imparts a character which differentiates a priest not simply in degree but in essence from a layman… There is not a word in it that is incompatible with Protestant belief.” - Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech

I mean, why.......

Michael Davies did not believe these omissions meant invalidity, but some have not reached that conclusion. Most members here at Fisheaters do not believe the new tinkering of the ordination rite is invalid.  My opinion though is grave suspicion and a lingering doubt, so I seek out older priests or Eastern Rite priests for confession.  Unnecessary change leads to unnecessary doubt.

If you wanted to read a piece that argues the new ordination rite is invalid here is one take:

http://www.traditio.com/tradlib/orders.txt
(11-13-2017, 07:03 AM)Dave01 Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-13-2017, 03:09 AM)Steven Wrote: [ -> ]Your premises are far astray, and in fact, seem to align with what your friends in the SSPV might believe.

Most of the changes you describe in your other post were subsequent to Vatican II and not called for by the Council itself.  I would sincerely suggest you actually read the text of the documents before determining them to be a "huge face" out of which "no good whatsoever came".  For example, consider these quotes.

Sacrosanctum Concilium Wrote:36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

116. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.
But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action, as laid down in Art. 30.

124. [...] Let bishops carefully remove 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.

126. [...] Ordinaries must be very careful to see that sacred furnishings and works of value are not disposed of or dispersed; for they are the ornaments of the house of God.

Lumen Gentium Wrote:14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

And yet, Vatican II also states:

Quote:“The liturgical books are to be revised as soon as possible; from various parts of the world, experts are to be employed and bishops are to be consulted.”
Quote:62. With the passage of time, however, there have crept into the rites of the sacraments and sacramentals certain features which have rendered their nature and purpose far from clear to the people of today; hence some changes have become necessary 62. With the passage of time, however, there have crept into the rites of the sacraments and sacramentals certain features which have rendered their nature and purpose far from clear to the people of today; hence some changes have become necessary to adapt them to the needs of our own times. revision. 

Quote:Both the rites for the baptism of adults are to be revised...
Quote:The rite for the baptism of infants is to be revised...

Quote: The baptismal rite should contain variants, to be used at the discretion of the local ordinary...

Quote: In place of the rite called the "Order of supplying what was omitted in the baptism of an infant," a new rite is to be drawn up.

Quote:71. The rite of confirmation is to be revised..

Quote:72. The rite and formulas for the sacrament of penance are to be revised..

Quote:73. "Extreme unction," which may also and more fittingly be called "anointing of the sick,"...the prayers which belong to the rite of anointing are to be revised so as to correspond with the varying conditions of the sick who receive the sacrament.

Quote:76. Both the ceremonies and texts of the ordination rites are to be revised...

Vatican II didn't want changes? Really? And how should they all be revised?

Quote:“In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else”.

Quote:“restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify.  Christian people as far as possible should be able to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community.

And what is this ‘active participation' which should be considered "above all else"?

Quote:“By way of promoting active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons and songs as well as by actions, gestures and bodily attitudes.”

Quote:79. The sacramentals are to undergo a revision which takes into account the primary principle of enabling the faithful to participate intelligently, actively, and easily; the circumstances of our own days must also be considered.

So, we need to consider the needs of modern man, enable the faithful to participate intelligently, actively, and easily, and also revise sacramentals. Nope, doesn't sounde modernist at all.

Quote:To whatever extent may seem desirable, the hymns are to be restored to their original form, and whatever smacks of mythology or ill accords with Christian piety is to be removed or changed.

Hence the doubting of all miracles, and the revision of saint's biographies.

And what about Latin?

Quote:The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions; they should be within the people's powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation.

Quote:But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.

These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language

In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and "the common prayer," but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to the norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.

Within the limits set by the typical editions of the liturgical books, it shall be for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to specify adaptations, especially in the case of the administration of the sacraments, the sacramentals, processions, liturgical language, sacred music, and the arts, but according to the fundamental norms laid down in this Constitution. In some places and circumstances, however, an even more radical adaptation of the liturgy is needed, and this entails greater difficulties. Wherefore:

1) The competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, must, in this matter, carefully and prudently consider which elements from the traditions and culture of individual peoples might appropriately be admitted into divine worship. Adaptations which are judged to be useful or necessary should then be submitted to the Apostolic See, by whose consent they may be introduced.

2) To ensure that adaptations may be made with all the circumspection which they demand, the Apostolic See will grant power to this same territorial ecclesiastical authority to permit and to direct, as the case requires, the necessary preliminary experiments over a determined period of time among certain groups suited for the purpose.

3) Because liturgical laws often involve special difficulties with respect to adaptation, particularly in mission lands, men who are experts in these matters must be employed to formulate them.

22,2. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.

In other words, keep Latin, but if it is judged as being of "benefit to the people" by the local bishop's conference, feel free to introduce vernacular into the Mass, the sacraments, the processions, the hymns, the arts, and everywhere. Oh, and make sure you don't have anything which "requires too much explanation" or which "cannot be easily understood by all", or has "useless repetitions", and make sure that participation of the laity is to be considered before all else. 

In other words, don't remove Latin, but on the other hand, remove Latin.  

And speaking of changes:

Quote:This tradition of the Apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in understanding the realities and the words which have been handed down.  This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers who treasure these things in their hearts, through the intimate understanding of spiritual things they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth.  For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach there complete fulfilment in her.”

So there is a "growth in understanding" of doctrince based on the "spiritual things" which "believers" experience?

Quote:“According to the almost unanimous opinion of believers and non-believers alike, all things on earth should be related to man as their center and summit.”  

Hmmm....and here I thought all things should be related to God as their centre and summit?

I'm not saying that there are not some twisted ways which these statements could be made to seem Catholic. I'm not saying that there are not some good statements to counterbalance these ones. But this is precisely the problem. It is not sufficient for a textbook to say "1+2 is probably 2", or "some people say that 1+1 is 2", etc. Allowing an admixture of error, confusion, ambiguiety, etc. is ALREADY an issue. But don't take my word for it:

Quote:Fr. Schillebeeckx “We have used ambiguous terms during the Council and we know how we shall interpret them afterwards.”

To the OP - this does not mean the New Rites are invalid. If you really want to learn about this topic, I can do no better than reccomend Fr. Hesse on this exact topic:


Ive seen parts of this video several times.

What does Father Hesse mean when he says the NO is invalid as pertaining to the Roman Rite, but VALID as a schismatic Rite?  

Does consecration take place or not?  I find it terribly confusing
(11-13-2017, 10:09 AM)FultonFan Wrote: [ -> ]Ive seen parts of this video several times.

What does Father Hesse mean when he says the NO is invalid as pertaining to the Roman Rite, but VALID as a schismatic Rite?  

Does consecration take place or not?  I find it terribly confusing

Watch the whole video. Pause, and understand the definitions, especially those of Licit/Illicit and Valid/Invalid, Subjective vs Objective, etc.

The reason Fr. makes the point about the NO being a schismatic rite, is because when considering the NO rite's validity, we can take the NO as we would the schismatic rites of the Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, etc. Then, by applying the same criteria to the NO Mass as the Church has already done to the liturgies of these other groups, we can determine whether or not the Mass is valid, and whether or not consecration takes place.

When applying this criteria, we find that the NO is a VALID Mass, i.e., absent special circumstances, the consecration takes place.

However, this does not mean that we can attend the NO Mass, just as the fact that EO sacraments are valid, does not mean that we can receive them. Whether or not we can receive sacraments has to do not only with the validity, but also whether or not the sacrament is "legal", or licit.

So, in summary, the NO is a valid Mass (i.e., the consecration really happens), but is also illicit (i.e., "illegal", and thus should not be attended).

All evidence for this can be found in the video. I would reccomend taking a few hours, watching slowly, and making sure you fully understand all the points that are being made. Everything is there.
(11-13-2017, 10:09 AM)FultonFan Wrote: [ -> ]Ive seen parts of this video several times.

What does Father Hesse mean when he says the NO is invalid as pertaining to the Roman Rite, but VALID as a schismatic Rite?  

Does consecration take place or not?  I find it terribly confusing

Hesse argues that the change from ''for many'' to ''for all'' makes the validity doubtful and that we shouldn't approach sacraments of doubtful validity. He says that NO in Latin and in Polish, which retained the ''for many'' are valid if said exactly according to the book.

To answer the original poster's questions: NO priests and sacraments are valid. If you can't go to a TLM, I think you have to go to the NO. Neither of us can proclaim NO illicit or whatever, and this is coming from someone who used to go to SSPX masses. When I go to NO, I pray, not out loud, the confiteor, the Creed and the Our Father and of course pay attention to the consecration. The rest of the mass I pretty much just try to pray other prayers, I don't ''respond'' to the priest, I don't care for that.
Thanks for the responses, everyone. I guess my main hangup with this whole thing is that I can't see a reason why V2 was needed in the first place, and the fruits I have seen from V2 have been anything but good. In fact, can anyone tell me anything good that came out of V2? (Besides the fact that many Catholics realized even more the beauty of a traditional Mass).

Also, someone mentioned that as long as a post-V2 priest has the INTENT to change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, then it is a valid consecration. Isn't this whole "intent" idea a post-V2 idea in itself? I mean, if it's all about intent over form, a priest could sing the lyrics to Born To Be Wild while having the intent to change the bread and wine into Christ's Body and Blood--the form is all wrong, but the intent is there! Is not the mystery of Transubstantiation dictated by a very specific set of rules and regulations precisely because it is such a wonderful, powerful, and glorious occurrence?
(11-13-2017, 12:07 PM)SacraCor714 Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks for the responses, everyone. I guess my main hangup with this whole thing is that I can't see a reason why V2 was needed in the first place, and the fruits I have seen from V2 have been anything but good. In fact, can anyone tell me anything good that came out of V2? (Besides the fact that many Catholics realized even more the beauty of a traditional Mass).
V2 was convened because of John XXIII's 'inspiration' or whatever. Truthfully, it was a result of steady modernization which started with Bendict XV who stopped the fight against modernists in the Church.

Intent alone is not enough, matter (bread and wine) and form (the words of consecration) are needed. However, if the priest has the intent to do what the Church does, even though he doesn't believe in the true presence, and says the roman canon and uses bread and wine during mass, the consecration is valid.
Pages: 1 2