Do you think Vatican II will ever be reversed?
#21
(11-03-2014, 06:11 PM)Prie dieu Wrote: 7.  Reform the mess of the antiphons not having anything to do with their respective Psalms.

Would you mind expanding on this one? If I understand you correctly, then this is arguably a problem that goes back a long way.
Reply
#22
(11-03-2014, 05:37 PM)PolishTrad Wrote:
"formerbuddhist" Wrote:I wouldn't be surprised if the bishops didn't send memos to priests telling then they MUST use EP II.
Yeah, the 2nd eucharistic prayer is everywhere. Last week I couldn't go to a Tridentine Mass. I was so surprised to hear about Abel, Abraham, Melchisedec and all those that hold and teach the catholic and apostolic faith that I couldn't help smiling. It was actually the first time in my life that I heard this prayer (obviously I don't hear it during the TLM).

The bishops didn't have to push anyone to use EPII, it is the shortest so of course it will be used. EP IV is the longest, how often do you hear that one?

C.
Reply
#23
(11-03-2014, 08:08 PM)aquinas138 Wrote:
(11-03-2014, 06:11 PM)Prie dieu Wrote: 7.  Reform the mess of the antiphons not having anything to do with their respective Psalms.

Would you mind expanding on this one? If I understand you correctly, then this is arguably a problem that goes back a long way.

Is it?  I remember reading an article on it, and it was mentioned that the antiphons in the Ordinary Form are a mess and that they don't match their Psalms very well.  Is it a hangover from the Extraordinary Form?
Reply
#24
(11-04-2014, 09:41 AM)Prie dieu Wrote:
(11-03-2014, 08:08 PM)aquinas138 Wrote:
(11-03-2014, 06:11 PM)Prie dieu Wrote: 7.  Reform the mess of the antiphons not having anything to do with their respective Psalms.

Would you mind expanding on this one? If I understand you correctly, then this is arguably a problem that goes back a long way.

Is it?  I remember reading an article on it, and it was mentioned that the antiphons in the Ordinary Form are a mess and that they don't match their Psalms very well.  Is it a hangover from the Extraordinary Form?

Well, I suppose it depends on what we mean by "match." In the case of feasts, I've never really been clear on why certain antiphons go with certain psalms - they just seem placed there mostly and don't have any obvious connection with the psalm they are assigned to. I suppose that a decent number of the LOTH ferial antiphons are not strictly biblical, which brings this phenomenon to the ferial cycle as well. I don't know if I consider that a problem or not. I would be interested in reading that article.

One overlooked issue is the ferial antiphons in the EF. Most people are not aware, but a huge number of these were simply created in 1911 when the psalter was restructured. It is not clear where they came from or who created them; most of them are a verse or paraphrase of a verse taken from the assigned psalm. They are obviously not problematic theologically, but they are hardly "traditional." Maybe not "banal," but they do seem to be "on-the-spot product[s]"!

I never really noticed a glaring problem with the antiphons in the OF at the major hours; the little hours are a bit clunky, but almost everything about the LOTH's implementation of the little hours is clunky. I get bothered by antiphons that are clearly taken from the EF and reworked just enough to bother me - especially when the change adds no value.
Reply
#25
I don't know but there is just too many fly-by-night Catholic theologians promoting sedevacatism on the internet.
Reply
#26
Granted there were sections (errors) in the VII documents that need to be "clarified", however the real issue is the NO Mass. It's a dumbed down version of the Latin Mass and in most cases, the people aren't receiving true Catholic instruction in the sermons. People aren't receiving the same level of graces they could at the TLM either. Instead, they get the 'church of nice' which is tailored to appeal and not to challenge or offend anyone. So that's the real issue, imo, this is what needs to be reversed.

That and the fact that the clergy and the bishops are no longer held accountable for there actions. They can do just about anything they want and get away with it. Some examples would be priests telling the congregation 'not to kneel after Holy Communion because the early Church never kneeled; they stood'. Another would be Cardinal Dolan agreeing to serve as grand marshal of New York City's St. Patrick's Day Parade in 2015, as the parade opens itself to an openly gay group of marchers. Same goes for the lay people; we can do whatever we want. We can contracept, have homosexual relationships, etc, etc, and who--in the NO churches--is going to challenge us to live in accordance with the truths of the faith? Nobody. The message there is that God loves you, and God is nice. He just wants us to get along and be nice.

As others here have already said, we're headed for major chastisement. So if it's not the end, it'll certainly shake things up. The third secret of Fatima, (or what we've seen of it, if you take the stance we've only been given part of the secret), suggests a major meltdown from the top--from the Vatican. I've come to believe that he whole thing about JPII's taking the bullet being a fulfillment of the prophesy doesn't match up with what's been shown to us of the third secret. When that prophesy actually happens, it's anyone's guess what God will do or permit. Get ready, pray, stay in a state of grace, get out of debt and store a little food and water away for bad times.
"Not only are we all in the same boat, but we are all seasick.” --G.K. Chesterton
Reply
#27
I've been reading the Catechism of the Council of Trent recently and I haven't found anything in there that would lead one to conclude that the acts of consecration in the novus ordo rite are invalid - even in the old translation that posited the word "all" in the consecration of the wine. The problem with the novus ordo rite is it isn't as effective as the old Roman rite for fostering a sense of internal piety, reverence and belief in the dogma of transubstantiation, which means that it has, in a way, fuelled the catechetical crisis of recent decades. I enjoyed reading Fr Cekada's book on the Novus Ordo rite but I thought the conclusion that the novus ordo rite is an invalid mass was very rash indeed.
Reply
#28
What's nice for us is Vatican II was "pastoral"; about discipline and tactics, not doctrine, so we don't have to repudiate it, just ignore it. So in that sense it CAN be reversed. Will it? In my opinion, a definite maybe. It was a flop; my archdiocese, Philadelphia, is now broke, closing churches and schools and selling off properties. Catholic liberals have no following anymore. (Probably 99% of NCR's readers belong to the AARP.) The only reason they stuck around and complained is they were raised to stay in the true church, even if they hated it; young liberals just quit! So over the past 20 years, more and more the only remaining young Massgoers are conservative. (Typical member of my parish, a conservative magnet: 30s, married, and with several children.) Under Benedict XVI, you started to see official criticism of the council: admitting there were problems with the English Novus Ordo, he ordered them fixed. Before, even among conservatives outside traditionalism, you weren't even allowed to think there were such problems. (Remember that, in the '70s and '80s? I do. Criticize the mistranslation of pro multis and be accused of leaving the church.) So now churchmen can criticize the council, and I think over the next 50 years you'll hear more of that, to the point that the American church in 2060 will resemble the church of 1960, only much, much smaller, even smaller than now. As Benedict the Great said: a leaner, sounder church.
Reply
#29
But as I've said before, the documents of Vatican II as well as its official papal interpretations have be so tightly woven into everything from Canon Law, Blessings, Sacramental Rites, a Missal and the Catechism. It will not be easy to just ignore this stuff. Vatican II is already the new foundation for the life of the Church, it's decrees having been officially interpreted and used as a means to renovate practically every conceivable nook and cranny of the Church. It will never be 1960 again,ever

I agree that the Church will be smaller and more traditional, but unless we are sedevacantists Vatican II is not optional, it's part and parcel of every square centimeter of the Church and her life today. It's not going away, ever. I think in the future Vatican II will be interpreted in a more traditional way but I don't think it will ever be overturned. To do that would require the Church basically saying it was a false Ecumenical Council and then proceeding to toss out its official normative liturgy, it's catechism, it's sacramental rites, it's book of blessings and its new code of canon law.

Thanks to Summorum Pontificum we are allowed a side chapel and a traditional option and as far as I'm concerned that's enough, we should take advantage of it. We can be like the yeast, the leaven, that makes the rest of the dough of the Church rise. We can put some lifeblood back in the Church where it has been devastated and bled dry by pastoral ineptitude and we can possibly lead people to interpret the Council in a traditional way. I'm convinced that, barring sedevacantism this is all we have. Vatican II, like it or not, is the very magna carta of modern Catholicusm and is so deeply entwined and enshrined within every aspect of the Church it will be impossible to completely erase unless the sede position is correct.
Reply
#30
Never say never. Even though Tridentine Anglo-Catholicism ultimately failed, given Anglicanism's true nature, it existed and even thrived for a while, in spite of the Thirty-Nine Articles condemning most of what they said and did. Vatican II will remain on the books but will become a dead letter; traditional custom will take over again.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)