FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
What really changed with Vatican II? - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Church (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Forum: Catholicism (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: What really changed with Vatican II? (/showthread.php?tid=69452)

Pages: 1 2


What really changed with Vatican II? - Heorot - 07-07-2014

Friends,

While looking back on 7 years since the issuing of Summorum Pontificum, I found a blog post by a novus ordo Diocesan Hermit sister on the very day of the motu proprio's release. What she says - from a quasi-liberal or moderate point of view - concerns me very much. I wonder if it was just propaganda to hate on traditionalism, or if it she was right: that something truly, deeply changed in theology about liturgy and sacraments.

Note her emphasis on the "assembly" and "the people", and how things have changed drastically. What really did change? Is her mindset reflective of a real theology of the Vatican since the 1970s, or is she just one of a dying breed?

http://notesfromstillsong.blogspot.ca/2007/07/motu-proprio-summorum-pontificum.html

Quote:What seems clear to me at the same times these folks bemoan the poor level of catechesis in the post Vatican II Church, they have not understood the significant theological reforms and underpinnings of the current Ordo Missae. Christ's presence in the Proclaimed and preached Word is underscored in today's normative (ordinary) Mass. So is his presence in the Assembly. These are both downplayed (if recognized at all) in the Tridentine rite. It is not hard to find parodies of the current Ordo Missae in the descriptions traditionalists provide, but it is almost impossible to find accurate descriptions of the Masses most of us Catholics attend day in and day out in most every parish and diocese in the world. These ARE liturgies of aesthetic quality, of reverence, power, and profundity. They are also liturgies where being a mere spectator to the priest's special and individual communication with God is not acceptable, where clericalism at the expense of the mission and dignity of the laity and their vocation in the world is unacceptable, where God's immanence is as important as his transcendence, and where the incarnation is not a cause for scandal as it seems to be for many traditionalists who want a Mass which is not sullied by the requirements of meeting and greeting one's neighbor or embodying Christ for one another right there in the assembly.

I sincerely hope Pope Benedict XVI is correct that this Motu Proprio will not be an occasion for division, much less of outright schism, but with a Church using different Offices (Breviary vs Liturgy of the Hours), different rites of baptism and confirmation, different Masses with different liturgical calendars and lectionaries as well as different underlying theologies of Eucharist, Church, lay vocation, views of ordained priesthood, and the presence of Christ in the Mass, I can't help but be concerned that Benedict has been naive in his analysis of the negative potential of this Motu Proprio which rejects (from what I have heard), both the wisdom, wishes, and concerns of the majority of Bishops of the Church in the world, and the not-so hidden agenda of many Tridentine enthusiasts to turn back the clock to pre-Vatican II liturgical theology.



Re: What really changed with Vatican II? - puppy99 - 07-07-2014

Yes, right. I now found we are just like 3 different churches, we "indulters" as SSPX calls us, SSPX, and those liberals and modernists.

That's very sad. I think God in these last times is seeking those orthodox people to worship Him, and we are the only right person within the church.


Re: What really changed with Vatican II? - aquinas138 - 07-07-2014

I think she's actually probably correct, alas, in her analysis. The theological orientation of the new rite is different than that of the old, even if it doesn't outright deny the traditional Catholic doctrine of the Mass. I don't know if I would agree with her definitions of "aesthetic quality, of reverence, power, and profundity" given the bulk of my NO experience, but to each their own. She commits an all-too-common error in implicitly assuming the Catholic Church consists only of the Roman rite; the existence of Byzantine, Syrian, Coptic and Armenian rites indicates that liturgical plurality does not mean doctrinal divergence is inevitable. If, however, there is a difference in theological orientation between old and new in the Roman liturgy, the question becomes whether the different orientations are compatible. Personally I think that they can coexist (sadly, they usually don't), but that the NO, by itself and without additional teaching, runs the risk of producing an attitude that IS incompatible with the traditional doctrine. This author's attitude reveals it - the laity are "mere spectators" at the TLM, and she places disproportionate emphasis on the lay assembly. Her attitude runs the risk of worshiping the assembly rather than God; her belief that maintaining a distinction between priests and lay people is per se "clericalism" is an error; the issue of the laity's "vocation in the world" has very little to do with Mass, and greeting one's neighbor has less to with it. I have no idea what "embodying Christ for one another right there in the assembly" is even supposed to mean.


Re: What really changed with Vatican II? - Heorot - 07-07-2014

(07-07-2014, 01:40 PM)aquinas138 Wrote: the issue of the laity's "vocation in the world" has very little to do with Mass, and greeting one's neighbor has less to with it. I have no idea what "embodying Christ for one another right there in the assembly" is even supposed to mean.

These two points particularly bothered me. Equating vocation in the world with the celebration of Mass can probably lead to undue influence falling on the worship of God.. I agree that there is a strange conception of Christ's presence in giving the "sign of peace". Somehow this embodiment she's talking about allows "Christ to greet Christ", since God is present in "the assembly" just as much as He is present in the consecrated Host. The same goes for the "Word" she's talking about. It's very strange, and indeed it is different from the conception of the TLM.

Her correctness is disturbing.


Re: What really changed with Vatican II? - PolishTrad - 07-07-2014

Is there any rite apart from NOM where there is 'an active participation of laity'? And I don't mean singing the hymns.


Re: What really changed with Vatican II? - SaintSebastian - 07-07-2014

(07-07-2014, 03:08 PM)PolishTrad Wrote: Is there any rite apart from NOM where there is 'an active participation of laity'? And I don't mean singing the hymns.

I can't speak much about eastern rites, but even in the Latin rite before Vatican II, there were dialogue Masses.  Plus, lay people were permitted to sing the Mass texts in choir and serve at the altar long before Vatican II (these roles were previously reserved to clergy, including those in minor orders for a long while).  I'm not sure what other kinds of "active participation" you're looking for.


Re: What really changed with Vatican II? - PolishTrad - 07-07-2014

(07-07-2014, 04:37 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote:
(07-07-2014, 03:08 PM)PolishTrad Wrote: Is there any rite apart from NOM where there is 'an active participation of laity'? And I don't mean singing the hymns.

I can't speak much about eastern rites, but even in the Latin rite before Vatican II, there were dialogue Masses.  Plus, lay people were permitted to sing the Mass texts in choir and serve at the altar long before Vatican II (these roles were previously reserved to clergy, including those in minor orders for a long while).  I'm not sure what other kinds of "active participation" you're looking for.
Particularly the readings. And the prayers of the faitfhul.


Re: What really changed with Vatican II? - winoblue1 - 07-07-2014

the fact remains that God raised up great saints, if not our greatest, under the TLM.

Also, this NEW theology is just her opinion, none of it has been formally defined and so it is her speculation....

The definitions of the council of trent are what is binding, not VII speak...


Re: What really changed with Vatican II? - AntoniusMaximus - 07-07-2014

(07-07-2014, 04:43 PM)PolishTrad Wrote:
(07-07-2014, 04:37 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote:
(07-07-2014, 03:08 PM)PolishTrad Wrote: Is there any rite apart from NOM where there is 'an active participation of laity'? And I don't mean singing the hymns.

I can't speak much about eastern rites, but even in the Latin rite before Vatican II, there were dialogue Masses.  Plus, lay people were permitted to sing the Mass texts in choir and serve at the altar long before Vatican II (these roles were previously reserved to clergy, including those in minor orders for a long while).  I'm not sure what other kinds of "active participation" you're looking for.
Particularly the readings. And the prayers of the faitfhul.

Since time immemorial, the reading, chanting of the Epistle and the Gospel belonged to the clergy only.  The use of men as acolytes was for obvious reasons, since there is a need for a server at Mass, and not enough clerics to go around, though I guess it really begun when Low Masses increased.  Also, Mass is a communal event, like I always thought you had at least someone else there to hear Mass, but apparently a priest can do it solo.  They say that the current prayer of the faithful in the NOM, was the norm of the early Church, though like many of the other archaeologisms of the past 50 years, it utterly failed to be as intended.      


Re: What really changed with Vatican II? - formerbuddhist - 07-08-2014

Walk into any average Novus Ordo parish and you tell me whether things have changed or not. It's obvious that there is a shift in understanding that is profound and undeniable despite whatever the Catechism, the documents of Vatican II or the CDF's footnotes might have to say. As far as Trent goes, I think what that liberal Catholic (can't remember if it was Charles Curran or Richard P. Mcbrien) said about it decades ago, that while it was still technically part of the Church's teaching it was quietly being set aside. No matter what recent Popes have said or written little has been done in the way of fostering a traditional understanding of Catholicism in terms of the Latin Rite as it was prior to the Council. The theology, the language, the architecture, the statuary, the vestments, the prayers, the sacred music, the devotions, the blessings etc have all been basically set aside, relegated to the status of a barely allowed but despised "indult". Not even the Pope offer the traditional latin Mass nor, for that matter, any other approved rite other than the committee and protestant created Novus Ordo. World Youth Day is the public face of post conciliar Catholicism, the face the modern Popes want the world to see.

I don't think Pope John XXIII intended for Vatican II to change so much but that everything did change seems undeniable to me. We can talk all we want about how Vatican II really doesn't contradict Trent or how the Novus Ordo is valid or whatever but seriously, just open your eyes, everything has changed. All the old stuff is still on official record but to the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church since at least Paul VI of unhappy memory it doesn't mean diddly squat. A traditional Latin Rite Catholic is a despised minority in a Church that barely allows his existence and is ashamed of both him and what he stands for.