Help to make sense of Vatican II and New Mass Controversy

As my question might show, I still have a bunch to learn about the Catholic church so I appreciate any help and guidance :slight_smile:

As per the title, why do these controversies exist? Why do some consider Vatican II and the new mass as invalid? What arguments and justifications do they use to try and further their claims? Perhaps most importantly, what are the church’s counter arguments to these claims?

Any readings or links to good theologians on these matters would be most helpful.

Thanks!

Okay…
Holier Than Thou **How Rejection of Vatican II Led Lefebvre into Schism

**Was Vatican II a mistake?

Will the Real Vatican II Please Stand Up?

Don’t listen to those guys…as you can see they are wrong.

You want serious theology? Have at it.
Documents of the Second Vatican Council

What controversy? Vatican II is legitimate and valid, as are both the extraordinary and ordinary form of the mass. Whether they like it or not is one thing, but any Catholic who disputes the legitimacy of either Vatican II or the OF are being contemptuous of the rightful authority of Mother Church…end of story.

You might like this article:

Ten Objections to the New Mass: Answered
historyandapologetics.com/2015/02/9-objections-to-new-mass-answered.html

Please let me know if that helps.

It’s been over 50 years. :ouch:
Time to accept what the Church says.
That’s true obedience. Not pick and choose obedience.
Read Church Militant’s links. :thumbsup:

There is no controversy, just confusion caused by dissidents inside and outside the Church.

Pope Benedict:

ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-media-spread-misinterpretations-of-vatican-ii/

ncregister.com/daily-news/benedict-and-the-second-vatican-council-calming-the-storm/

And…

"In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.

"This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.

“As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.”

I was there before and after Vatican II. Obedience to Holy Mother Church was my obligation. Both the EF and OF are equally valid.

Ed

:popcorn: :popcorn:

tee

Some people like the Extraordinary Form Mass(Pre-Vatican II Latin Mass) better than the Ordinary Form(Post V II). Same with some practices. This is legitimate, as long as they acknowledge both Masses as equal.

Now, some take this a step further, staying in communion with the Church, but also are disobedient by feeling that the EF is superior to the OF, and maybe they will pray 15 decades of the Rosary over a week, rather than 20 out of thinking that St. Pope JPII did something “wrong” by adding the Luminous Mysteries. Those who pray 15 out of practice rather than pride are not included in this. A step before schism, if you will. The SSPX is the extreme end of this.

Then there are the Sedevacantists. They’d say something like, “The last valid pope was before V II. The OF is invalid(the SSPX USA hold this position too, though they still acknowledge Francis as the valid pope). The Luminous Mysteries are satanic. The Divine Mercy Chaplet is evil.” They are represented by the CMRI and Most Holy Family monastery. According to the Church they are heretics.

The SSPX does not hold the OF as invalid. What source do you have for this?

“The Mass of All Time” is a book about this subject.

Upgrade! Thank you for the awesome explanation that will help the OP understand those who still refuse to accept VII. As a retired high school teacher, I’m convinced that your English and History instructors must be thrilled to have a freshman with such advanced writing skills! I pray that you are having a good time with your peers and are also learning about life through volunteering and participating in organized sports. Once again, thank you for showing this old teacher that here is hope for your generation of students.God Bless…

PS: The Seds do not count beloved St. John the XXIII as a valid pope either.

And stay away from the parties and other temptations. When in college, consider the following:

kentnewmancenterparish.org/csa

cardinalnewmansociety.org/

Ed

I think he’s younger than college age.

But a lot of other people are reading my posts.

Ed

You’ve already been pointed in the right direction with the links, but I’ll just add that the internet can have a way of making fringe view points seem more pervasive than they actually are.

For me, the main argument is Matthew 16:18. Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church. If the pope, bishops, and vast majority of Catholics have fallen into heresy and blasphemy (worshipping as God bread that has not been validly consecrated), then the promise wouldn’t seem to be worth much.

There are groups that think Venerable Pius XII was the last valid pope, some may say St John XXIII was the last valid Pope.

Honestly, I don’t know how sedevacantists don’t say that Pope Alexander VI was a heretic, but say St John XXIII and St John Paul II were bad people.

But in reality, the First Vatican Council ruled in Session 4, Chapter 2, Paragraph 5:

  1. Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

They may also quote St Robert Bellarmine and St Alphonsus Maria on saying a heretic pope isn’t a valid pope. That’s those Saints’ opinion; not dogma. Vatican I has to be accepted, and sedevacantists do not.

Please respond about your comment on the SSPX holding the OF as invalid, which is not true. I don’t think it’s fair to spread false rumors about any Catholics, whatever their standing may be in the Church. If it was unintentional and just a poor source of information, that’s fine, but please clarify since many people read these discussions.

Part of it may be a counter-reaction to what they saw as an over-liberalization pursued by some in response to V-II, as if V-II overrode prior teaching instead of needing to be read in light of it.

Their website appears to talk out of both sides of their mouth. On the one hand, the following paragraph Almost says (but not quite) that the rite is valid: “can it be said that the Novus Ordo Missae is invalid? … This does not necessarily follow from the above defects, as serious as they might be, for only three things are required for validity (presupposing a validly ordained priest)…[proper] matter, form, and intention.” source

On the other hand, it objects that the New Mass has supposedly dropped the parts of the Old Mass that supposedly guarantee the faithful of the priest’s proper intention, and therefore “these Masses can be of doubtful validity, and more so with time.” (ibid.)

Note also the following paragraph, which attempts to combine both the affirmation of validity with the doubt of validity:

“The words of consecration, especially of the wine, have been tampered with. Has the ‘substance of the sacrament’…been respected? … While we should assume that despite this change the consecration is still valid, nevertheless this does add to the doubt.” (ibid.)

Finally, this SSPX USA video says:

“Catholics are not obliged to attend the New Mass to fulfill their Sunday precept.”

and

“The New Mass is to be completely avoided as they understand it is an offense against God.”

The video says we should try to go to an Old Mass, and if none is available, we should not go to Mass at all even if one is offered.

To me, that is about just as bad as saying the New Mass is invalid.

See the above. If it’s dangerous to souls, is it valid?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.