We should embrace the teaching of Vatican II on liturgy

[Jayne]

Supposedly my attendance at the TLM means that I have rejected the teaching of the Second Vatican Council on liturgy.  I deny this charge.  My thoughts about the Novus Ordo and about the recent motu proprio are quite consistent with the document on liturgy,  Sacrosanctum Concilium: https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

In this document, we see "in faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that holy Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way"  (4)  Since the Tridentine rite was never abrogated, it is reasonable to consider it as  "lawfully acknowledged" with "equal right and dignity" and worthy to be preserved and fostered.  I wish that Pope Francis would follow this declaration of the Council.

I admit that, while acknowledging the validity of the Novus Ordo, I do find certain aspects to be problematic.  The chief of these is that the creators of this liturgy have revealed that one of their goals was to remove obstacles to our "separated brethren," which they carried out by obscuring certain points of Eucharistic theology that tend to be difficult for Protestants.  This was not part of their mandate from the Council.  On the contrary, it said "In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community." (21)  The new Mass expresses holy things less clearly rather than more clearly, due to this goal of its authors.  Nor, in doing this, do the authors of the Mass seem to have followed the instruction of the Council that "there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing." (23)  I also question how well they carried out the instruction "the rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance"(50)

Another area in which it is difficult to see how the new Mass follows the Council is the statement that "the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites" even if it did say that use of the mother tongue may be extended to "readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants." (36)  The Council taught that "steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them,"(54) and yet we seem to have ended up with a virtually complete disappearance of Latin.  Similarly, the Council stated "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," and this seems to have been ignored.  (116)

In addition to these difficulties, is one acknowledged by all recent popes: the widespread existence of abuses and experimentation associated with the new Mass.  Surely the faithful have a right to attend a Mass that is free of liturgical abuses and are justified in attending the old rite for that reason.

[Maximilian]

Supposedly my attendance at the TLM means that I have rejected the teaching of the Second Vatican Council on liturgy.  I deny this charge. 

I plead guilty. I reject "the teaching of the Second Vatican Council on liturgy."

My thoughts about the Novus Ordo and about the recent motu proprio are quite consistent with the document on liturgy,  Sacrosanctum Concilium:

I find Sacrosanctum Concilium to be incompatible with the immutable teaching of the Catholic Church.

On the contrary, it said "In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community."

Just like the physical turning around of the priest which followed subsequently, this statement is a philosophical turning away from God and towards the people. This focus on "the community" is at the root of the disastrous collapse of the church since Vatican II.

"the rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance"

This statement encapsulates the philosophy of the moderate revolutionaries with whom I fundamentally disagree. I don't believe that you can amputate pieces of an organic whole while preserving the essence. The entire approach that consists of deleting and re-writing the "accidents" ultimately results in killing the thing itself, or at least making it into something essentially other than its original nature. After Dr. Frankenstein got done stitching together the bits and pieces taken from other bodies, he ended up with an entirely new creature.

In addition to these difficulties, is one acknowledged by all recent popes: the widespread existence of abuses and experimentation associated with the new Mass. 

"Abuses and experimentation" are mandated by Sacrosanctum Concilium which calls for "even more radical adaptation." The Mass is to be under the authority of a Liturgy Commission which tasked to promote "experiments and adaptations."

Some authors have written about the "time bombs in the documents of Vatican II." It is important to realize that the bombs are the real thing, the rest is all fluff.

When an army is attacking a fort and they plant a bomb under the walls, they will cover it up with dirt and rocks and sticks and leaves. But the only important thing is the bomb, both for the attackers and for the defenders. How foolish would be the defender who discovers a pit under the wall of his fort but who says, "That hole consists mostly of dirt and rocks and sticks and leaves. There is also a bomb in the hole, but it's less than half of the total matter."

[Michael Wilson]

A great book to read on this subject is; "The Work of Human Hands"; by Fr. Anthony Cekada.

[Tennessean]

In addition to these difficulties, is one acknowledged by all recent popes: the widespread existence of abuses and experimentation associated with the new Mass.  Surely the faithful have a right to attend a Mass that is free of liturgical abuses and are justified in attending the old rite for that reason.

Are there any clarifications of Vatican 2 from recent Popes which hammer out some abuses? Could someone link to them, if so?

[Jayne]

Are there any clarifications of Vatican 2 from recent Popes which hammer out some abuses? Could someone link to them, if so?

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html
https://www.vatican.va/holy_father/special_features/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_20030417_ecclesia_eucharistia_en.html

[Vetus Ordo]

I admit that, while acknowledging the validity of the Novus Ordo, I do find certain aspects to be problematic.  The chief of these is that the creators of this liturgy have revealed that one of their goals was to remove obstacles to our "separated brethren," which they carried out by obscuring certain points of Eucharistic theology that tend to be difficult for Protestants.  This was not part of their mandate from the Council. (...) The new Mass expresses holy things less clearly rather than more clearly, due to this goal of its authors. (...)

Another area in which it is difficult to see how the new Mass follows the Council is the statement that "the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites" even if it did say that use of the mother tongue may be extended to "readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants." (...)

All those questions became a moot point, even the famous "Ottaviani intervention," after Paul VI issued the Novus Ordo rite with his full apostolic authority. From that moment, the authority of the Church and the pope became invested in the rite and we must believe that all the rites of the Church are free from error and conducive to piety.

In addition to these difficulties, is one acknowledged by all recent popes: the widespread existence of abuses and experimentation associated with the new Mass.  Surely the faithful have a right to attend a Mass that is free of liturgical abuses and are justified in attending the old rite for that reason.

Those are legitimate concerns but the only reason the old rite is mostly free from them is because it is said exclusively by priests that are personally invested in it. When the old rite was the only rite of the Church, it too suffered many abuses from lukewarm and faithless priests and bishops.

[Jayne]

In addition to these difficulties, is one acknowledged by all recent popes: the widespread existence of abuses and experimentation associated with the new Mass.  Surely the faithful have a right to attend a Mass that is free of liturgical abuses and are justified in attending the old rite for that reason.

Those are legitimate concerns but the only reason the old rite is mostly free from them is because it is said exclusively by priests that are personally invested in it. When the old rite was the only rite of the Church, it too suffered many abuses from lukewarm and faithless priests and bishops.

That may be, but as a practical matter now, it is often easier to find a TLM than an abuse free Novus Ordo.

[Vetus Ordo]

In addition to these difficulties, is one acknowledged by all recent popes: the widespread existence of abuses and experimentation associated with the new Mass.  Surely the faithful have a right to attend a Mass that is free of liturgical abuses and are justified in attending the old rite for that reason.

Those are legitimate concerns but the only reason the old rite is mostly free from them is because it is said exclusively by priests that are personally invested in it. When the old rite was the only rite of the Church, it too suffered many abuses from lukewarm and faithless priests and bishops.

That may be, but as a practical matter now, it is often easier to find a TLM than an abuse free Novus Ordo.

I generally agree with that sentiment but it also varies a lot with the geographical area and different countries.

Regardless, if the TLM were to be formally abolished by the Pope in the future, and we know he has the right to do so, you'd have to find a NO somewhere to go to. The Opus Dei usually say reverent NO masses in the vernacular, that's my experience.

[Jayne]

Regardless, if the TLM were to be formally abolished by the Pope in the future, and we known he has the right to do so, you'd have to find a NO somewhere to go. The Opus Dei usually say reverent NO masses in the vernacular, that's my experience.

I'm hoping that I'll be dead first.

[Vetus Ordo]

Regardless, if the TLM were to be formally abolished by the Pope in the future, and we know he has the right to do so, you'd have to find a NO somewhere to go to. The Opus Dei usually say reverent NO masses in the vernacular, that's my experience.

I'm hoping that I'll be dead first.

The TLM shouldn't be a modern idol to some Catholics, like Sacred Scripture was to the Protestants in the past. The liturgy is a means of sanctification but any liturgy of the Church is worth the same. However, nothing can trump unity with Rome. That is the Catholic faith.

[Miriam_M]

Regardless, if the TLM were to be formally abolished by the Pope in the future, and we know he has the right to do so, you'd have to find a NO somewhere to go to. The Opus Dei usually say reverent NO masses in the vernacular, that's my experience.

I'm hoping that I'll be dead first.

The TLM shouldn't be a modern idol to some Catholics, like Sacred Scripture was to the Protestants in the past. The liturgy is a means of sanctification but any liturgy of the Church is worth the same. However, nothing can trump unity with Rome. That is the Catholic faith.

Vetus, respectfully, you are mistaken.   

Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi. 

This video explains it, and is excellent.

[Fleur-de-Lys]

Regardless, if the TLM were to be formally abolished by the Pope in the future, and we know he has the right to do so, you'd have to find a NO somewhere to go to. The Opus Dei usually say reverent NO masses in the vernacular, that's my experience.

I'm hoping that I'll be dead first.

The TLM shouldn't be a modern idol to some Catholics, like Sacred Scripture was to the Protestants in the past. The liturgy is a means of sanctification but any liturgy of the Church is worth the same. However, nothing can trump unity with Rome. That is the Catholic faith.

Vetus, respectfully, you are mistaken.   

Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi. 

This video explains it, and is excellent.

I think Vetus had some interference from Romance languages here. He can confirm, but I think he meant that all of the rites of the Church are equally valid, not that they are equal in every respect.

[Vetus Ordo]

Regardless, if the TLM were to be formally abolished by the Pope in the future, and we know he has the right to do so, you'd have to find a NO somewhere to go to. The Opus Dei usually say reverent NO masses in the vernacular, that's my experience.

I'm hoping that I'll be dead first.

The TLM shouldn't be a modern idol to some Catholics, like Sacred Scripture was to the Protestants in the past. The liturgy is a means of sanctification but any liturgy of the Church is worth the same. However, nothing can trump unity with Rome. That is the Catholic faith.

Vetus, respectfully, you are mistaken.   

Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi. 

This video explains it, and is excellent.

I think Vetus had some interference from Romance languages here. He can confirm, but I think he meant that all of the rites of the Church are equally valid, not that they are equal in every respect.

That's true, Fleur. They're all valid and they all glorify God, even if they vary in the externals.

As for Fr. William Jenkins that speaks in the video shared by Miriam, he is affiliated with the SSPV. So he's either a Sedevacantist or a Sedeprivationist. Obviously, I'm arguing from the point of view that we've had real popes since Pius XII.

[queen.saints]

As for Fr. William Jenkins... he is affiliated with the SSPV. So he's either a Sedevacantist or a Sedeprivationist.

That is incorrect.

[Vetus Ordo]

As for Fr. William Jenkins... he is affiliated with the SSPV. So he's either a Sedevacantist or a Sedeprivationist.

That is incorrect.

So Fr. Jenkins is a Sedeplenist?