Author Topic: The Mass of Vatican II - Fr. Fessio, SJ  (Read 2949 times)

Offline Parresia

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2374
  • Thanked: 354 times
  • Religion: Catholic. Straight, no chaser.
The Mass of Vatican II - Fr. Fessio, SJ
« on: November 17, 2013, 08:37:04 AM »
http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/fessio_massv2_1_jan05.asp

Quote
...Notice, however, that the Council implies what many Church documents have said explicitly - that the most perfect form of music at Mass is not the hymns, the so-called "Gathering hymn" and its antithesis - I guess you would call it the "Scattering hymn" - at the end. The most appropriate use of music at Mass, as seen by Church tradition and reaffirmed by the Council, is singing the Mass itself: the Kyrie, the Agnus Dei, the Sanctus, the Acclamations, the Alleluias and so on. Again, this isn't Father Fessio's pet theory; this is what the Council actually says. Paragraph 112 adds, "Sacred music is to be considered the more holy in proportion as it is the more closely connected with the liturgical action itself." This reinforces my point.

Paragraph 114 adds: "The treasure of sacred music is to be preserved and fostered with great care." Then in paragraph 116 we find another shocker: "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." That's what the Council actually said. If you are in a parish which prides itself on living the spirit of Vatican II, then you should be singing Gregorian chant at your parish. And if you're not singing the Gregorian Chant, you're not following the specific mandate of the Second Vatican Council.

Now, just a little footnote on the Gregorian Chant. In reflecting on these things about Church music, I began to think about the Psalms a few years back. And a very obvious idea suddenly struck me. Why it didn't come earlier I don't know, but the fact is that the Psalms are songs. Every one of the 150 Psalms is meant to be sung; and was sung by the Jews. When this thought came to me, I immediately called a friend, a rabbi in San Francisco who runs the Hebrew School, and I asked, "Do you sing the Psalms at your synagogue?" "Well, no, we recite them," he said. "Do you know what they sounded like when they were sung in the Old Testament times and the time of Jesus and the Apostles?" I asked. He said, "No, but why don't you call this company in Upstate New York. They publish Hebrew music, and they may know."
So, I called the company and they said, "We don't know; call 1-800-JUDAISM." So I did. And I got an information center for Jewish traditions, and they didn't know either. But they said, "You call this music teacher in Manhattan. He will know." So, I called this wonderful rabbi in Manhattan and we had a long conversation. At the end, I said, "I want to bring some focus to this, can you give me any idea what it sounded like when Jesus and his Apostles sang the Psalms?" He said, "Of course, Father. It sounded like Gregorian Chant. You got it from us."

I was amazed. I called Professor William Mart, a Professor of Music at Stanford University and a friend. I said, "Bill, is this true?" He said, "Yes. The Psalm tones have their roots in ancient Jewish hymnody and psalmody." So, you know something? If you sing the Psalms at Mass with the Gregorian tones, you are as close as you can get to praying with Jesus and Mary. They sang the Psalms in tones that have come down to us today in Gregorian Chant.

So, the Council isn't calling us back to some medieval practice, those "horrible" medieval times, the "terrible" Middle Ages, when they knew so little about liturgy that all they could do was build a Chartres Cathedral. (When I see cathedrals and churches built that have a tenth of the beauty of Notre Dame de Paris, then I will say that the liturgists have the right to speak. Until then, they have no right to speak about beauty in the liturgy.) But my point is that at the time of Notre Dame de Paris in the 13th century, the Psalms tones were already over a thousand years old. They are called Gregorian after Pope Gregory I, who reigned from 590 to 604. But they were already a thousand years old when he reigned. He didn't invent Gregorian chant; he reorganized and codified it and helped to establish musical schools to sing it and teach it. It was a reform; it wasn't an invention. Thus, the Council really calls us back to an unbroken tradition of truly sacred music and gives such music pride of place...


Obviously, I know most if not all here on SD prefer the Gregorian Mass/TLM/EF to the NO.  However, I also know that many of you, like me, are not in a place where you have that Mass available, and that many of you like me, have made efforts in your parish to make the NO a bit more reverent in terms of how it is celebrated.  Several parishioners and I have been working on that in our parish for over a year now, to little avail.  In addition, I know that many of you find yourselves in discussions with other Catholics in regards to the liturgy, and opinions on that can run pretty strong.  Therefore, I thought that this article written by Fr. Fessio might come in useful for many on the forum.  He does a pretty good job of dismantling the changes that were made, supposedly with the direction of Vatican II in their minds, after the council.  I am not defending Vatican II, but it is certainly safe to say that many things done in its name, particularly in the liturgy, were never called for in the documents. 
« Last Edit: November 17, 2013, 08:46:43 AM by Parresia »
 

Offline INPEFESS

  • Please remember me in your rosary intentions.
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2733
  • Thanked: 436 times
  • >))))))º> † <º((((((<
  • Religion: (traditional) Catholic
Re: The Mass of Vatican II - Fr. Fessio, SJ
« Reply #1 on: November 17, 2013, 01:49:19 PM »
http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/fessio_massv2_1_jan05.asp

Quote
...Notice, however, that the Council implies what many Church documents have said explicitly - that the most perfect form of music at Mass is not the hymns, the so-called "Gathering hymn" and its antithesis - I guess you would call it the "Scattering hymn" - at the end. The most appropriate use of music at Mass, as seen by Church tradition and reaffirmed by the Council, is singing the Mass itself: the Kyrie, the Agnus Dei, the Sanctus, the Acclamations, the Alleluias and so on. Again, this isn't Father Fessio's pet theory; this is what the Council actually says. Paragraph 112 adds, "Sacred music is to be considered the more holy in proportion as it is the more closely connected with the liturgical action itself." This reinforces my point.

Paragraph 114 adds: "The treasure of sacred music is to be preserved and fostered with great care." Then in paragraph 116 we find another shocker: "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." That's what the Council actually said. If you are in a parish which prides itself on living the spirit of Vatican II, then you should be singing Gregorian chant at your parish. And if you're not singing the Gregorian Chant, you're not following the specific mandate of the Second Vatican Council.

Now, just a little footnote on the Gregorian Chant. In reflecting on these things about Church music, I began to think about the Psalms a few years back. And a very obvious idea suddenly struck me. Why it didn't come earlier I don't know, but the fact is that the Psalms are songs. Every one of the 150 Psalms is meant to be sung; and was sung by the Jews. When this thought came to me, I immediately called a friend, a rabbi in San Francisco who runs the Hebrew School, and I asked, "Do you sing the Psalms at your synagogue?" "Well, no, we recite them," he said. "Do you know what they sounded like when they were sung in the Old Testament times and the time of Jesus and the Apostles?" I asked. He said, "No, but why don't you call this company in Upstate New York. They publish Hebrew music, and they may know."
So, I called the company and they said, "We don't know; call 1-800-JUDAISM." So I did. And I got an information center for Jewish traditions, and they didn't know either. But they said, "You call this music teacher in Manhattan. He will know." So, I called this wonderful rabbi in Manhattan and we had a long conversation. At the end, I said, "I want to bring some focus to this, can you give me any idea what it sounded like when Jesus and his Apostles sang the Psalms?" He said, "Of course, Father. It sounded like Gregorian Chant. You got it from us."

I was amazed. I called Professor William Mart, a Professor of Music at Stanford University and a friend. I said, "Bill, is this true?" He said, "Yes. The Psalm tones have their roots in ancient Jewish hymnody and psalmody." So, you know something? If you sing the Psalms at Mass with the Gregorian tones, you are as close as you can get to praying with Jesus and Mary. They sang the Psalms in tones that have come down to us today in Gregorian Chant.

So, the Council isn't calling us back to some medieval practice, those "horrible" medieval times, the "terrible" Middle Ages, when they knew so little about liturgy that all they could do was build a Chartres Cathedral. (When I see cathedrals and churches built that have a tenth of the beauty of Notre Dame de Paris, then I will say that the liturgists have the right to speak. Until then, they have no right to speak about beauty in the liturgy.) But my point is that at the time of Notre Dame de Paris in the 13th century, the Psalms tones were already over a thousand years old. They are called Gregorian after Pope Gregory I, who reigned from 590 to 604. But they were already a thousand years old when he reigned. He didn't invent Gregorian chant; he reorganized and codified it and helped to establish musical schools to sing it and teach it. It was a reform; it wasn't an invention. Thus, the Council really calls us back to an unbroken tradition of truly sacred music and gives such music pride of place...


Obviously, I know most if not all here on SD prefer the Gregorian Mass/TLM/EF to the NO.  However, I also know that many of you, like me, are not in a place where you have that Mass available, and that many of you like me, have made efforts in your parish to make the NO a bit more reverent in terms of how it is celebrated.  Several parishioners and I have been working on that in our parish for over a year now, to little avail.  In addition, I know that many of you find yourselves in discussions with other Catholics in regards to the liturgy, and opinions on that can run pretty strong.  Therefore, I thought that this article written by Fr. Fessio might come in useful for many on the forum.  He does a pretty good job of dismantling the changes that were made, supposedly with the direction of Vatican II in their minds, after the council.  I am not defending Vatican II, but it is certainly safe to say that many things done in its name, particularly in the liturgy, were never called for in the documents.

It is true that while there have been innovations after the council that weren't explicitly proposed by the council, it is somewhat naive to conclude  that these innovations were not intended and foreseen by the council.

The council was founded on certain novel and unCatholic principles which, when carried to their logical conclusions, yield such novelties; these latter did not have to be specifically approved by the council in order for the message to be sent--that is, for them to be implicitly encouraged by the evil principles used.

This works out for the Modernists, who know all too well that specifically approving such novelties will only reveal their evil intentions. Thus, they employ insidious Modernistic principles while mitigating and restraining their full, true application in order to present a veneer of continuity with Catholicism.

Thus, these principles are gradually accepted in the name of decrying "abuses" and excessive liberties not explicitly called for by the council.

After all, it was the very same bishops who collaborated on the texts of the council who, returning home to their dioceses, implemented the ideals of the council in radical fashion. These bishops knew exactly what Vatican II was all about, and they brought that vision with them when they returned home and threw out the statues, moved the tabernacle, set up the table, began wearing brightly-colored vestments, brought in modern music, tampered with the new liturgy, etc.

The fact that many of these specific innovations and so-called abuses were absent from the council  does not reflect a gross misinterpretation of the council; rather, this was the Modernists' recipe of reform: dangerous, anti-Catholic principles sugar-coated in Catholic prudence, restraint, reserve, and conservatism plated up perfectly to make them look more palatable. And it worked.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2013, 07:24:32 PM by INPEFESS »
I  n
N omine
P atris,
E t
F ilii,
E t
S piritus
S ancti

>))))))º> "Wherefore, brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time" (II Peter 1:10). <º((((((<

 

Offline Jayne

  • Mary Garden
  • Major
  • ****
  • Posts: 12756
  • Thanked: 4794 times
  • Comic Sans Frontières
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: The Mass of Vatican II - Fr. Fessio, SJ
« Reply #2 on: November 17, 2013, 07:01:50 PM »
This article by Fr. Fessio reminds me of the interview with Cardinal Bartolucci that you posted recently.  There are priests and even Cardinals who understand that there is something wrong with the Novus Ordo.  It's like the parables in today's Gospel - the mustard seed and the leaven.  Something small and hidden can eventually become big and take over.  The few in the Church that "get it" are leaven that can one day restore good liturgy.
Jesus, meek and humble of heart, make my heart like unto Thine.
 

Offline Godfrey of Bouillon

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 806
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • I'm as mad as a hatter.
Re: The Mass of Vatican II - Fr. Fessio, SJ
« Reply #3 on: November 19, 2013, 10:30:24 PM »
So can the Church produce something that destroyed the faith of hundreds of millions of Catholics?
 

Offline Parresia

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2374
  • Thanked: 354 times
  • Religion: Catholic. Straight, no chaser.
 

Offline Jayne

  • Mary Garden
  • Major
  • ****
  • Posts: 12756
  • Thanked: 4794 times
  • Comic Sans Frontières
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: The Mass of Vatican II - Fr. Fessio, SJ
« Reply #5 on: November 20, 2013, 01:05:34 PM »
So can the Church produce something that destroyed the faith of hundreds of millions of Catholics?

There have been many things in recent decades that are harmful to the faith of Catholics: for example,  increasing secularization of society, weakness in catechesis, and the rise of influential, anti-Catholic mass media.  It is not possible to say to what degree, if any, the deficiencies of the Novus Ordo are responsible for the loss of faith that we see around us.
Jesus, meek and humble of heart, make my heart like unto Thine.
 

Offline Godfrey of Bouillon

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 806
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • I'm as mad as a hatter.
Re: The Mass of Vatican II - Fr. Fessio, SJ
« Reply #6 on: November 20, 2013, 07:04:16 PM »
So can the Church produce something that destroyed the faith of hundreds of millions of Catholics?

There have been many things in recent decades that are harmful to the faith of Catholics: for example,  increasing secularization of society, weakness in catechesis, and the rise of influential, anti-Catholic mass media.  It is not possible to say to what degree, if any, the deficiencies of the Novus Ordo are responsible for the loss of faith that we see around us.

 Did it contribute to the loss of faith? That would partly depend on the intent of the men who created it. All one has to do is read the writings of the consilium, as shown in Fr. Cekada's book, to see that they in fact held a heretical view of the Mass and what they envisioned it to be. It was purposely designed to get it as acceptable to the Protestant style of worship as possible, thus the NO is heretical in nature. Did they succeed? The Protestant's themselves announced that they would have no problems in using the new "mass" with certain Eucharistic prayers. And then there is the Propers of the Mass that were jettisoned. 1600 year old prayers tossed on the trash heap all in the name of false ecumenism because they were deemed to be "offensive to non-Catholics". And then there is the GIRM, which prescribed the WAY the mass should be celebrated. This was all embraced by the recognized Ordinary Universal Magisterium.

Read Fr. Cekada's book. It's undeniable. The NO mass is evil. And Paul VI signed off on it. Not ABC news, not the New York Times and not AP radio, but Montini. 43 years and the Vatican still hasn't "fixed it".

You assessment is a weak attempt to deny the undeniable. It's understandable, because the implications are dire. Nevertheless, it does not change the facts.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2013, 08:14:41 PM by Godfrey of Bouillon »
 

Offline Jayne

  • Mary Garden
  • Major
  • ****
  • Posts: 12756
  • Thanked: 4794 times
  • Comic Sans Frontières
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: The Mass of Vatican II - Fr. Fessio, SJ
« Reply #7 on: November 20, 2013, 10:13:27 PM »
So can the Church produce something that destroyed the faith of hundreds of millions of Catholics?

There have been many things in recent decades that are harmful to the faith of Catholics: for example,  increasing secularization of society, weakness in catechesis, and the rise of influential, anti-Catholic mass media.  It is not possible to say to what degree, if any, the deficiencies of the Novus Ordo are responsible for the loss of faith that we see around us.

 Did it contribute to the loss of faith? That would partly depend on the intent of the men who created it. All one has to do is read the writings of the consilium, as shown in Fr. Cekada's book, to see that they in fact held a heretical view of the Mass and what they envisioned it to be. It was purposely designed to get it as acceptable to the Protestant style of worship as possible, thus the NO is heretical in nature. Did they succeed? The Protestant's themselves announced that they would have no problems in using the new "mass" with certain Eucharistic prayers. And then there is the Propers of the Mass that were jettisoned. 1600 year old prayers tossed on the trash heap all in the name of false ecumenism because they were deemed to be "offensive to non-Catholics". And then there is the GIRM, which prescribed the WAY the mass should be celebrated. This was all embraced by the recognized Ordinary Universal Magisterium.

Read Fr. Cekada's book. It's undeniable. The NO mass is evil. And Paul VI signed off on it. Not ABC news, not the New York Times and not AP radio, but Montini. 43 years and the Vatican still hasn't "fixed it".

You assessment is a weak attempt to deny the undeniable. It's understandable, because the implications are dire. Nevertheless, it does not change the facts.

I saw the video series based on Fr. Cekeda's book and that was sufficient.  I know there are serious problems with the NO.  This does not lead me to believe the Church is not the Church. 

If I wanted to discuss sedevacantism, I would participate in the threads designed for doing so in the appropriate sub-forum.
Jesus, meek and humble of heart, make my heart like unto Thine.
 

Offline Godfrey of Bouillon

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 806
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • I'm as mad as a hatter.
Re: The Mass of Vatican II - Fr. Fessio, SJ
« Reply #8 on: November 21, 2013, 09:12:00 PM »
So can the Church produce something that destroyed the faith of hundreds of millions of Catholics?

There have been many things in recent decades that are harmful to the faith of Catholics: for example,  increasing secularization of society, weakness in catechesis, and the rise of influential, anti-Catholic mass media.  It is not possible to say to what degree, if any, the deficiencies of the Novus Ordo are responsible for the loss of faith that we see around us.

 Did it contribute to the loss of faith? That would partly depend on the intent of the men who created it. All one has to do is read the writings of the consilium, as shown in Fr. Cekada's book, to see that they in fact held a heretical view of the Mass and what they envisioned it to be. It was purposely designed to get it as acceptable to the Protestant style of worship as possible, thus the NO is heretical in nature. Did they succeed? The Protestant's themselves announced that they would have no problems in using the new "mass" with certain Eucharistic prayers. And then there is the Propers of the Mass that were jettisoned. 1600 year old prayers tossed on the trash heap all in the name of false ecumenism because they were deemed to be "offensive to non-Catholics". And then there is the GIRM, which prescribed the WAY the mass should be celebrated. This was all embraced by the recognized Ordinary Universal Magisterium.

Read Fr. Cekada's book. It's undeniable. The NO mass is evil. And Paul VI signed off on it. Not ABC news, not the New York Times and not AP radio, but Montini. 43 years and the Vatican still hasn't "fixed it".

You assessment is a weak attempt to deny the undeniable. It's understandable, because the implications are dire. Nevertheless, it does not change the facts.

I saw the video series based on Fr. Cekeda's book and that was sufficient.  I know there are serious problems with the NO.  This does not lead me to believe the Church is not the Church. 

If I wanted to discuss sedevacantism, I would participate in the threads designed for doing so in the appropriate sub-forum.

You have no basis to declare if it was sufficient if you don't have the book to compare it to. If it was sufficient, there would not have been a need for Fr. Cekada to publish the book. That's simple logic. There is much in the book that is not covered in the video series.

Agreed, the Church is the Church. I believe you're trying to say that what claims to be the Church since VII is the Catholic Church.

I did not direct the question on this thread specifically to you, you decided to take it up.
 

Online james03

  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 8202
  • Thanked: 2718 times
  • The Brutal Clarity of a Winter Morning
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: The Mass of Vatican II - Fr. Fessio, SJ
« Reply #9 on: November 22, 2013, 07:44:06 PM »
Quote
I am not defending Vatican II, but it is certainly safe to say that many things done in its name, particularly in the liturgy, were never called for in the documents. 

This is the Great Lie that has been spread by "Reform the Reform" types like Fessio.  Fessio, for example, was one of the obstacles to get the TLM at AMU.

What they do is only quote a few passages that are the sugar to make you take poison, making it sweet in the mouth, but sour in your stomach.

I'll give you an example from his own quote:  "other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services."  Kind of a curious phase, other things being equal.  Raises a question, doesn't it?  Well yes it does: are there situations that other things AREN'T equal?  Does Vat. II discuss these situations?

Why yes it does: ANYTHING IS ALLOWED IF THE TERRITORIAL AUTHORITY ALLOWS IT.   Thus the goofy music, felt banners, altar girls, communion in the paw, priest facing the people, the juggling acts, the puppets, the lay "ministers".  THAT is the Mass of Vat. II.
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."
 

Offline Jayne

  • Mary Garden
  • Major
  • ****
  • Posts: 12756
  • Thanked: 4794 times
  • Comic Sans Frontières
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: The Mass of Vatican II - Fr. Fessio, SJ
« Reply #10 on: November 23, 2013, 12:16:31 PM »
Quote
I am not defending Vatican II, but it is certainly safe to say that many things done in its name, particularly in the liturgy, were never called for in the documents. 

This is the Great Lie that has been spread by "Reform the Reform" types like Fessio.  Fessio, for example, was one of the obstacles to get the TLM at AMU.

What they do is only quote a few passages that are the sugar to make you take poison, making it sweet in the mouth, but sour in your stomach.

I'll give you an example from his own quote:  "other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services."  Kind of a curious phase, other things being equal.  Raises a question, doesn't it?  Well yes it does: are there situations that other things AREN'T equal?  Does Vat. II discuss these situations?

Why yes it does: ANYTHING IS ALLOWED IF THE TERRITORIAL AUTHORITY ALLOWS IT.   Thus the goofy music, felt banners, altar girls, communion in the paw, priest facing the people, the juggling acts, the puppets, the lay "ministers".  THAT is the Mass of Vat. II.

Isn't this the sort of thing that Michael Davies called "time bombs of Vatican II"?  There were all these loop holes that pretty much made the good parts meaningless.  It sounded like it was saying one thing but, in practice, it was used to justify the opposite.
Jesus, meek and humble of heart, make my heart like unto Thine.
 

Offline Guapo

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1188
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • Religion: Trad!
Re: The Mass of Vatican II - Fr. Fessio, SJ
« Reply #11 on: November 23, 2013, 07:54:06 PM »
http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/fessio_massv2_1_jan05.asp

Quote
... So, I called this wonderful rabbi in Manhattan and we had a long conversation. At the end, I said, "I want to bring some focus to this, can you give me any idea what it sounded like when Jesus and his Apostles sang the Psalms?" He said, "Of course, Father. It sounded like Gregorian Chant. You got it from us."

I was amazed. I called Professor William Mart, a Professor of Music at Stanford University and a friend. I said, "Bill, is this true?" He said, "Yes. The Psalm tones have their roots in ancient Jewish hymnody and psalmody." So, you know something? If you sing the Psalms at Mass with the Gregorian tones, you are as close as you can get to praying with Jesus and Mary. They sang the Psalms in tones that have come down to us today in Gregorian Chant.

 


 Simply wonderful