Problems with Vatican II


#1

Hello,

I have been hearing different things about Vatican II. Please explain to me why there seems to be so much contention centered around it. Thanks.


#2

FIRST QUESTION

Did the Second Vatican Council change the Catholic doctrine on the Church?

RESPONSE

The Second Vatican Council neither changed nor intended to change this doctrine, rather it developed, deepened and more fully explained it.

This was exactly what John XXIII said at the beginning of the Council.[1] Paul VI affirmed it[2] and commented in the act of promulgating the Constitution Lumen gentium: “There is no better comment to make than to say that this promulgation really changes nothing of the traditional doctrine. What Christ willed, we also will. What was, still is. What the Church has taught down through the centuries, we also teach. In simple terms that which was assumed, is now explicit; that which was uncertain, is now clarified; that which was meditated upon, discussed and sometimes argued over, is now put together in one clear formulation”.[3] The Bishops repeatedly expressed and fulfilled this intention.[4]

Source: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html


#3

There’s a lot of misinformation floating around about the Council. Why not read the documents for yourself and see?

Betsy


#4

The first question asks if the Second Vatican Council changed the previously held doctrine on the Church.

The question concerns the significance of what Paul VI described in the above mentioned quotation as ‘the new face’ of the Church offered by Vatican II.

The response, based on the teaching of John XXIII and Paul VI, is very clear: the Second Vatican Council did not intend to change - and therefore has not changed - the previously held doctrine on the Church. It merely deepened this doctrine and articulated it in a more organic way. This is, in fact, what Paul VI said in his discourse promulgating the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium when he affirmed that the document had not changed traditional doctrine on the Church, but rather “that which was assumed, is now explicit; that which was uncertain, is now clarified; that which was meditated upon, discussed and sometimes argued over, is now put together in one clear formulation.”[2]

There is also a continuity between the doctrine taught by the Council and that of subsequent interventions of the Magisterium which have taken up and deepened this same doctrine, which itself constitutes a development. In this sense, for instance, the Declaration of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Dominus Iesus merely reaffirmed the conciliar and post-conciliar teachings without adding or taking away anything.

In the post-conciliar period, however, and notwithstanding these clear affirmations, the doctrine of Vatican II has been, and continues to be, the object of erroneous interpretations at variance with traditional Catholic doctrine on the nature of the Church: either seeing in it a ‘Copernican revolution’ or else emphasising some aspects almost to the exclusion of others. In reality the profound intention of the Second Vatican Council was clearly to insert the discourse on the Church within and subordinate to the discourse on God, therefore proposing an ecclesiology which is truly theo-logical. The reception of the teaching of the Council has, however, often obscured this point, relativising it in favour of individual ecclesiological affirmations, and often emphasising specific words or phrases which encourage a partial and unbalanced understanding of this same conciliar doctrine.

Regarding the ecclesiology of Lumen gentium, certain key ideas do seem to have entered into ecclesial consciousness: the idea of the People of God, the collegiality of the bishops as a re-evaluation of the ministry of bishops together with the primacy of the Pope, a renewed understanding of the individual Churches within the universal Church, the ecumenical application of the concept of the Church and its openness to other religions; and finally the question of the specific nature of the Catholic Church which is expressed in the formula according to which the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church - of which the creed speaks - subsistit in Ecclesia catholica.

Source: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_commento-responsa_en.html


#5

There’s some good books on the subject. Try Ralph McInerny’s provocatively titled What Went Wrong with Vatican II.

There’s a lot of misinformation going around. There are several camps in regards to Vatican II (*please note, I really don’t like using the terms below, and I also dislike making blanket generalizations, but I do both in order to give you a general idea):
[LIST]
*]There are some “liberals” who took advantage of the “spirit of change” that came with the Council and used it to justify all sorts of things contrary to the intention of the Council.
*]There are some “traditionalists” who used the “bad fruit” brought about by the above “liberals” as evidence that Vatican II was heretical and thus, the vast majority of Catholics today are heretics.
*]There are the confused, under-catechized lay people who have no idea what to think and hold many misconceptions (such as the misconception that Vatican II changed the Mass to the vernacular and got rid of Gregorian chant).
*]Then there are those who have actually read the documents (;)) and realize that the Council was a great blessing and its teachings are inspired by the Holy Spirit, but that many people have misinterpreted the documents of the Council to further their own agenda.
[/LIST]

Again, this is a vast oversimplification, but I wanted to convey to you that there are more than two sides to this story.


#6

The most common criticism of the Second Vatican Council is that the reforms to the Mass have made it less reverent: the tone of it being a sacrifice has been mostly removed, the removal of communion rails, less traditional music, less emphasis on proper dress, etc.


#7

And that’s part of the disconnect as well. These things have certainly happened after the Council, but the documents do not call for these things.


#8

If the fruits of a Council are such as any catholic can daily observe as being brazen defiance of Canon Law and the revision of the Faith according to the new prevailing ideology of 'political correctness' then how can Vatican II be seen as good? Congregations are led by priests and bishops to think that there is no need to kneel to receive the Body of Christ, that the unconsecrated, in the presence of Priests, can handle the Body of Christ and even open the tabernacle, remove the Hosts and distribute them as if they were Priests! There are many other abuses that occur daily in my country and in others that I know of. These abuses arose subsequent to V II, as I understand the only one of 21 councils convened not to address a problem but to bring the church into some sort of alignment with the modern world (!). What was wrong with the established Church and, above all, the established Latin mass? I have read V II and although the language is beautiful it also seems to express ideals of a 'new' freedom of how we can practice our Faith that can be readily interpreted as allowing for more human oriented directions. God does not change His mind nor should His Church! God is compassionate but is not soft, He does not respond to human weakness nor should our Church. I do not understand my Church! I do not not see goodness arising from this Council but only the very effective degradation of the holiness of the mass.


#9

[quote="cloonamnaman, post:8, topic:170240"]
If the fruits of a Council are such as any catholic can daily observe as being brazen defiance of Canon Law and the revision of the Faith according to the new prevailing ideology of 'political correctness' then how can Vatican II be seen as good? Congregations are led by priests and bishops to think that there is no need to kneel to receive the Body of Christ, that the unconsecrated, in the presence of Priests, can handle the Body of Christ and even open the tabernacle, remove the Hosts and distribute them as if they were Priests! There are many other abuses that occur daily in my country and in others that I know of. These abuses arose subsequent to V II, as I understand the only one of 21 councils convened not to address a problem but to bring the church into some sort of alignment with the modern world (!). What was wrong with the established Church and, above all, the established Latin mass? I have read V II and although the language is beautiful it also seems to express ideals of a 'new' freedom of how we can practice our Faith that can be readily interpreted as allowing for more human oriented directions. God does not change His mind nor should His Church! God is compassionate but is not soft, He does not respond to human weakness nor should our Church. I do not understand my Church! I do not not see goodness arising from this Council but only the very effective degradation of the holiness of the mass.

[/quote]

 Why did the  VC II invite  Protestant ministers to formulate the New Mass?

 Why did the  VC II members dress in secular dress as if to mask the fact they were Roman Catholic Clergy?

   But  I know this for certain  the English speaking media that covers the Roman Catholic Press often edits and excludes parts of articles as if there is some hidden agenda.

   But  I personally don't believe that the liberal theology being presented in the USA has anything to do with the Council's 16 documents.

    The trouble is smoke of  New Age modernism & humanism that has infiltrated the sanctuary.    Also,  I confess that  I should have been a better Catholic and helped build a better Church  Parish community.   

    We can't blame the Church without blaming ourselves because we are the Church.

    However,  there is one thing that I have no doubt about at all and that is the  Promises  Jesus Christ made.

#10

[quote="BluesPicker, post:9, topic:170240"]
Why did the VC II invite Protestant ministers to formulate the New Mass?

[/quote]

This is a myth spread mostly by sedevacantists.

The Protestants that were there were observers that had no vote in the Council. The only thing they contributed was sharing an English translation for the Latin speeches with the American bishops that weren't fluent in Latin.

The text for the Order of Mass in the 1970 Missale Romanum was composed by the Congregation for Divine Worship (then called the Holy Office), whose prefect at the time was the Italian Cardinal Antonio Samorè. No Protestants were ever a member of the Congregation.

Why did the VC II members dress in secular dress as if to mask the fact they were Roman Catholic Clergy?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/Second_Vatican_Council_by_Lothar_Wolleh_003.jpg/600px-Second_Vatican_Council_by_Lothar_Wolleh_003.jpg

:shrug:


#11

The only problem with Vatican II is that it is seen as a "problem."

God's spirit is movin' through the church. shaking things up, and waking us up. God is always in charge, our weaknesses and agenda's are no problem for Him, He is wiser and smarter and uses all those things to bring about His will.

I laugh at how arrogant we can be thinking that WE have the power to screw things up. I remember being in adoration crying to Jesus and apologizing for messing up His plan. He literally laughed at me (not scornfully but playfully, more like a giggle) and said, "You cannot screw up my plans." :D

Embarrassed, I realized, I'm just not that powerful! :blush:


#12
 I have seen pictures with clergy at VC II  in secular dress speaking to the Protestant "observers."

   Have you read any of the 16 documents of  VC II?

      And, the New Order Mass has a distinct  Protestant  look.

    The  USCCB was created in 1966.  

   I had written a rebuttal to your reply because, frankly,  that picture of  that clergyman with the angry & dull look on his faces  just looks so phony.  It certainly does depict anything but a happy person. 

  Now  Pope Benedict XVI is resigning. Talk about him resigning has been going on for years.  God Bless him,  he was a true vicar of Christ.

    The problem is not the Council.  The problem is  clergy that have succumbed to Modernism & Humanism.

    The  "New Book of Blessings"  doesn't have any constitutive blessings except one.  

That is about as Protestant as it gets.

  Oh,  VC II allows me to speak out about such things.  Many priests have spoken out on this very matter.   Fortunately priests can still use the Roman Ritual.

  Many Catholics voted for  Obama.  That alone shows the sickness in the Church.

#13

Which clergy? Which observers? What day and session of the Council? A plain photo is utterly meaningless without this sort of context.

Not that I particularly care if a handful of clerics don’t sleep in their dalmatics.

Have you read any of the 16 documents of VC II?

All of them, actually. Some in the original Latin.

And, the New Order Mass has a distinct Protestant look.

Unprovable assertion. There’s thousands of forms of Protestant services, which one(s) are you referring to and how do you objectify this?

The USCCB was created in 1966.

Er, so?

I had written a rebuttal to your reply because, frankly, that picture of that clergyman with the angry & dull look on his faces just looks so phony. It certainly does depict anything but a happy person.

:shrug:

Clearly Vatican II infested the Church with modernism because in this one particular photo a handful of clergy have stern looks on their faces.

The problem is not the Council. The problem is clergy that have succumbed to Modernism & Humanism.

SOME clergy, yes.

The “New Book of Blessings” doesn’t have any constitutive blessings except one.
That is about as Protestant as it gets.

Oh, VC II allows me to speak out about such things. Many priests have spoken out on this very matter. Fortunately priests can still use the Roman Ritual.

Show me where in Vatican II, or any pre-Vatican II apostolic constitutions or declarations, is it said that a text composed by an episcopal council of a certain province (in this case, several conferences, since the Book of Blessings was translated by ICEL) is freely open to criticism by laymen on theological grounds.

That sounds more Protestant to me than anything you’ve accused clergy of so far.


#14

[quote="EphelDuath, post:10, topic:170240"]
This is a myth spread mostly by sedevacantists.

The Protestants that were there were observers that had no vote in the Council. The only thing they contributed was sharing an English translation for the Latin speeches with the American bishops that weren't fluent in Latin.

The text for the Order of Mass in the 1970 Missale Romanum was composed by the Congregation for Divine Worship (then called the Holy Office), whose prefect at the time was the Italian Cardinal Antonio Samorè. No Protestants were ever a member of the Congregation.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/Second_Vatican_Council_by_Lothar_Wolleh_003.jpg/600px-Second_Vatican_Council_by_Lothar_Wolleh_003.jpg

:shrug:

[/quote]

You can shrug all you want.   Really  the Protestant ministers present translated or interpreted Latin documents  for  American Bishops who were deficit in the Holy Language of the Roman Catholic Church.   I believe it was the other way around.

 Don't you think that priests when attending an official Church function should where their Roman collars?

 This is a statement of ontological fact:  The New Book of  Blessings has done away with constitutive blessings.

  One can stand on their head, hold their breath until they turn blue but  this is a fact.

  Constitutive blessings can only be performed by ordained priests.

"I just reviewed 1085 ff in De Benedictionibus, the post-Conciliar collection of “blessings”. I use ” ” there because only a couple of the prayers in the book that explicitly bless something. All the rest refer to the blessings God could give to someone nearby, or around the place, or who might look in the direction of something, etc. The book attempts to change the Church’s theology about blessings, effectively trying to eliminate the concept of the constitutive blessing and reducing every prayer and action to an invocative blessing.

In my review of the Ordo ad faciendam aquam benedictam, used outside Mass to “bless” water, even though I found a rubric that says that the “celebrans… dicit orationem benedictionis… the celebrant … says the prayer of blessing” and there are three options that follow, I cannot find in any of the three prayers, in the Latin mind you, an explicit statement that the water is to be blessed water. These paragraphs use the word “blessing” throughout and the prayers ask for blessings on those on whom the water is sprinkled. Also, the “celebrans” can be a deacon, which is not possible in the older rite, with the traditional Rituale Romanum.

Here is the first of the new prayers as an example:

Benedictus es, Domine, Deus omnipotens,
qui nos in Christo, aqua viva salutis nostrae,
benedicere dignatus es et intus reformare:
concede ut qui huius aquae aspersione
vel usu munimur,
renovata animae iuventute
per virtutem Sancti Spiritus
in novitate vitae iugiter ambulemus.

Blessed are you, Lord, Almighty God,
who deigned to bless us in Christ, the living water of our salvation,
and to reform us interiorly,
grant that we who are fortified
by the sprinking of or use of this water,
the youth of the spirit being renewed
by the power of the Holy Spirit,
may walk always in newness of life.

The others are not more explicit.

The difference with the older rite is not just that there is no exorcism or blending of exorcised and blessed salt. There is not explicit act of blessing. The fact that a deacon can use this rite means that it is not connected to the power of the priestly office. There is no sign of the cross indicated in the text. The words don’t say the water is blessed. [NB: In a comment below we learn that the CDW indicates that a sign of the Cross is to be made.]

In the older rite, which priests can use (reason #4378 for why we needed Summorum Pontificum) first salt is exorcised and then blessed. Then water is exorcised and then blessed. In the exorcism of the salt and the water, the two elements are addressed directly, personally, in the second person. By this exorcism they are entirely and without question ripped from the domination of the “Prince of this World”, as our Lord calls the our Enemy. Then they are blessed with explicit words and gestures of blessings......Mind you, there is no exorcism of the water in the newer Missale Romanum during Mass. And keep in mind that in the older rite, the water was blessed outside of Mass. Easter water is another kettle of fish.

There is a world of difference, of sensibility, of theology, between what we find in the newer Missale Romanum and what we find De benedictionibus.

So, my answer is, I know without question that when I bless water with the older rite, it is blessed water, holy water. I have never used – and never will use – the newer book. But were I to imagine myself to do such a thing, I am not sure what there would be in the bucket when I was done."


#15

[quote="BluesPicker, post:14, topic:170240"]
You can shrug all you want. Really the Protestant ministers present translated or interpreted Latin documents for American Bishops who were deficit in the Holy Language of the Roman Catholic Church. I believe it was the other way around.

 Don't you think that priests when attending an official Church function should where their Roman collars?

 This is a statement of ontological fact:  The New Book of  Blessings has done away with constitutive blessings.

  One can stand on their head, hold their breath until they turn blue but  this is a fact.

  Constitutive blessings can only be performed by ordained priests.

"I just reviewed 1085 ff in De Benedictionibus, the post-Conciliar collection of “blessings”. I use ” ” there because only a couple of the prayers in the book that explicitly bless something. All the rest refer to the blessings God could give to someone nearby, or around the place, or who might look in the direction of something, etc. The book attempts to change the Church’s theology about blessings, effectively trying to eliminate the concept of the constitutive blessing and reducing every prayer and action to an invocative blessing.

In my review of the Ordo ad faciendam aquam benedictam, used outside Mass to “bless” water, even though I found a rubric that says that the “celebrans… dicit orationem benedictionis… the celebrant … says the prayer of blessing” and there are three options that follow, I cannot find in any of the three prayers, in the Latin mind you, an explicit statement that the water is to be blessed water. These paragraphs use the word “blessing” throughout and the prayers ask for blessings on those on whom the water is sprinkled. Also, the “celebrans” can be a deacon, which is not possible in the older rite, with the traditional Rituale Romanum.

Here is the first of the new prayers as an example:

Benedictus es, Domine, Deus omnipotens,
qui nos in Christo, aqua viva salutis nostrae,
benedicere dignatus es et intus reformare:
concede ut qui huius aquae aspersione
vel usu munimur,
renovata animae iuventute
per virtutem Sancti Spiritus
in novitate vitae iugiter ambulemus.

Blessed are you, Lord, Almighty God,
who deigned to bless us in Christ, the living water of our salvation,
and to reform us interiorly,
grant that we who are fortified
by the sprinking of or use of this water,
the youth of the spirit being renewed
by the power of the Holy Spirit,
may walk always in newness of life.

The others are not more explicit.

The difference with the older rite is not just that there is no exorcism or blending of exorcised and blessed salt. There is not explicit act of blessing. The fact that a deacon can use this rite means that it is not connected to the power of the priestly office. There is no sign of the cross indicated in the text. The words don’t say the water is blessed. [NB: In a comment below we learn that the CDW indicates that a sign of the Cross is to be made.]

In the older rite, which priests can use (reason #4378 for why we needed Summorum Pontificum) first salt is exorcised and then blessed. Then water is exorcised and then blessed. In the exorcism of the salt and the water, the two elements are addressed directly, personally, in the second person. By this exorcism they are entirely and without question ripped from the domination of the “Prince of this World”, as our Lord calls the our Enemy. Then they are blessed with explicit words and gestures of blessings......Mind you, there is no exorcism of the water in the newer Missale Romanum during Mass. And keep in mind that in the older rite, the water was blessed outside of Mass. Easter water is another kettle of fish.

There is a world of difference, of sensibility, of theology, between what we find in the newer Missale Romanum and what we find De benedictionibus.

So, my answer is, I know without question that when I bless water with the older rite, it is blessed water, holy water. I have never used – and never will use – the newer book. But were I to imagine myself to do such a thing, I am not sure what there would be in the bucket when I was done."

[/quote]

:highprayer::signofcross::gopray2:


#16

[quote="BluesPicker, post:14, topic:170240"]
So, my answer is, I know without question that when I bless water with the older rite, it is blessed water, holy water. I have never used – and never will use – the newer book. But were I to imagine myself to do such a thing, I am not sure what there would be in the bucket when I was done."

[/quote]

I can argue the statements you have made, but you did not make them in sincere inquisition. The Congregation for Divine Worship has approved the 1988 English translation of the Book of Blessings. Your statements thus demonstrate both arrogance (believing yourself to be more theologically pure than the Holy See) and infidelity (having no faith or trust that an approved rite of the Church is valid).

Roma locuta est. End of story.

You said that this is one of the reasons why Summorum Pontificum was needed. I am sorry but you have been mislead. The Holy Father has made it clear that he was not writing in order to validate schismatics that disbelieved in the validity of the Ordinary Form.


#17

Hi.
I am an ongoing possible convert and was I mighty dissapointed to find out that the catholic Mass, which I had been told was "the most beautiful thing on this side of Heaven" is now with very fewexceptions the exact same Mass as that celebrated in the Swedish State lutheran Church which ordinate women priests, reject teachings of St Paul, blesses homosexual marriage, divorce, use of contraception, does not condemn abortion & teaches belief in the Trinity and Divinity of Jesus and even belief in God is bot necessary to be Christian or accepted in Heaven.
The mass felt a bit more Holy but not extatic.
I figure out she meant the Latin Mass, which I have not yet had the possibility to experience.

How come there are now "altar wome/girls" behind the altar? i have nothing against women but what if they have their period? Do they abstain from service? Is this not the Holy of Holies?

I must say i am mighty dissapointed in the lithurgy and were it not for my belief in unity & St. Peter I would in an instance choose the Orthodox Church instead, which to this day celebrate a sung Mass called the Divine Lithurgy of St John Chrysostom.

I dont know much abor the vatican 2 other than that i sometimes bunpbikto conspiracy theories of it containing heresy.

What is obvious to me though is that the Catholic church as a whole
Is in a DEEP spiritual crisis with divisions inside the church and lithurgy no different to that of protestants, except the songs and kneeling in the pews. The Originator looks like an imitator to me. All spiritual crisis come from mans disconnect to God. Shouldn the Catholic Mass without question be the Most Holy Christian Worship ceremony in the world? If it does bot appear to be or does not invoke a sense of holiness and spirituality in people, then validity will probably be questioned.

I just hope all masses I visited simply Got it wrong or was badat instructed


#18

[quote="EphelDuath, post:16, topic:170240"]
I can argue the statements you have made, but you did not make them in sincere inquisition. The Congregation for Divine Worship has approved the 1988 English translation of the Book of Blessings. Your statements thus demonstrate both arrogance (believing yourself to be more theologically pure than the Holy See) and infidelity (having no faith or trust that an approved rite of the Church is valid).

Roma locuta est. End of story.

You said that this is one of the reasons why Summorum Pontificum was needed. I am sorry but you have been mislead. The Holy Father has made it clear that he was not writing in order to validate schismatics that disbelieved in the validity of the Ordinary Form.

[/quote]

Well,   I don't think you know what a constitutive blessing is.   All the important blessings have been done away with such as the Blessing for  Epiphany Water,  & the proper blessings for  St. Benedict medals.

 THERE IS ONLY ONE CONSTITUTIVE BLESSING LEFT FOR HOLY WATER in the new Book of  Blessings.

But I forgot something in my last post and will post the link.

wdtprs.com/blog/2012/06/quaeritur-is-water-blessed-with-the-newer-rites-really-holy-water/

Those words are Father Fr. John Zuhlsdorf's words and I can fill pages & pages of other priests who say the same. Also Fr. Z gives examples of constitutive and invocative blessings.

Blessings may be divided into two classes, viz: invocative and constitutive. The former are those in which the Divine benignity is invoked on persons or things, to bring down upon them some temporal or spiritual good without changing their former condition. Of this kind are the blessings given to children, and to articles of food, The latter class are so called because they permanently depute persons or things to Divine service by imparting to them some sacred character, by which they assume a new and distinct spiritual relationship. Such are the blessings given churches and chalices by their consecration. In this case a certain abiding quality of sacredness is conferred in virtue of which the persons or things blessed become inviolably sacred so that they cannot be divested of their religious character or be turned to profane uses. Again, theologians distinguish blessings of an intermediate sort, by which things are rendered special instruments of salvation without at the same time becoming irrevocably sacred, such as blessed salt, candles, etc. Blessings are not sacraments; they are not of Divine institution; they do not confer sanctifying grace; and they do not produce their effects in virtue of the rite itself, or ex opere operanto. They are scarcamentals......

  The above is  from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

#19

[quote="Shamati, post:17, topic:170240"]
Hi.
I am an ongoing possible convert and was I mighty dissapointed to find out that the catholic Mass, which I had been told was "the most beautiful thing on this side of Heaven" is now with very fewexceptions the exact same Mass as that celebrated in the Swedish State lutheran Church which ordinate women priests, reject teachings of St Paul, blesses homosexual marriage, divorce, use of contraception, does not condemn abortion & teaches belief in the Trinity and Divinity of Jesus and even belief in God is bot necessary to be Christian or accepted in Heaven.
The mass felt a bit more Holy but not extatic.
I figure out she meant the Latin Mass, which I have not yet had the possibility to experience.

How come there are now "altar wome/girls" behind the altar? i have nothing against women but what if they have their period? Do they abstain from service? Is this not the Holy of Holies?

I must say i am mighty dissapointed in the lithurgy and were it not for my belief in unity & St. Peter I would in an instance choose the Orthodox Church instead, which to this day celebrate a sung Mass called the Divine Lithurgy of St John Chrysostom.

I dont know much abor the vatican 2 other than that i sometimes bunpbikto conspiracy theories of it containing heresy.

What is obvious to me though is that the Catholic church as a whole
Is in a DEEP spiritual crisis with divisions inside the church and lithurgy no different to that of protestants, except the songs and kneeling in the pews. The Originator looks like an imitator to me. All spiritual crisis come from mans disconnect to God. Shouldn the Catholic Mass without question be the Most Holy Christian Worship ceremony in the world? If it does bot appear to be or does not invoke a sense of holiness and spirituality in people, then validity will probably be questioned.

I just hope all masses I visited simply Got it wrong or was badat instructed

[/quote]

   The New Mass may seem to be Lutheran  but it is a valid form of the Divine Liturgy performed by licitly ordained  priests that can trace the etiology or lineage back to Jesus Christ.   There are 26 rites or Churches  that are Catholic and loyal to the Holy See. 

We belong to the Western Rite of the Roman Catholic Church.

    The point about the constitutive blessings is valid; but  faith engenders efficacy of sacramentals to a great degree and this is true of  Holy Water.  

  Pope Benedict XVI  is a traditionalist.   After February  I will become a sedevacantist for the 6th time in my life.  

   The  Church  can change and  grow as any living organism but the Church is a Supernatural Organization.   Every  priest  presented with the blessings from the older rite i

s obliged by Church law to use the older blessing. However, in my area only 1 out of 5 Church parishes have copies of the older rite.

    Father  Z  is using  some literary device  by not  presenting the whole enchilada of  blessings, in a manner of  speaking,   to  drive home  what  is a dramatic change in the way  blessings  are made now.    The difference between holy water blessed in the older rite & new rite  is in efficacy of the blessing.

   All these changes, the present situation, and the New Mass is detailed in  approved private revelations of the stigmatist Marie-Julie Jahenny's prophecies. (1850-1941).

#20

[quote="Shamati, post:17, topic:170240"]
Hi.
I am an ongoing possible convert and was I mighty dissapointed to find out that the catholic Mass, which I had been told was "the most beautiful thing on this side of Heaven" is now with very few exceptions the exact same Mass as that celebrated in the Swedish State lutheran Church which ordinate women priests, reject teachings of St Paul, blesses homosexual marriage, divorce, use of contraception, does not condemn abortion & teaches belief in the Trinity and Divinity of Jesus and even belief in God is not necessary to be Christian or accepted in Heaven.
The mass felt a bit more Holy but not extatic.
I figure out she meant the Latin Mass, which I have not yet had the possibility to experience.

How come there are now "altar wome/girls" behind the altar? i have nothing against women but what if they have their period? Do they abstain from service? Is this not the Holy of Holies?

I must say i am mighty dissapointed in the lithurgy and were it not for my belief in unity & St. Peter I would in an instance choose the Orthodox Church instead, which to this day celebrate a sung Mass called the Divine Lithurgy of St John Chrysostom.

I dont know much abor the vatican 2 other than that i sometimes bunpbikto conspiracy theories of it containing heresy.

What is obvious to me though is that the Catholic church as a whole
Is in a DEEP spiritual crisis with divisions inside the church and lithurgy no different to that of protestants, except the songs and kneeling in the pews. The Originator looks like an imitator to me. All spiritual crisis come from mans disconnect to God. Shouldn the Catholic Mass without question be the Most Holy Christian Worship ceremony in the world? If it does bot appear to be or does not invoke a sense of holiness and spirituality in people, then validity will probably be questioned.

I just hope all masses I visited simply Got it wrong or was badat instructed

[/quote]

Shamati, do not lose faith. I have been a "possible convert" for a very long time, and just discovered that there is a local parish near me which celebrates the full latin mass, with gregorian chant, all male clergy and choir, etc. I had never attended a latin mass before but just did so last Sunday and it is, as you say, "the most beautiful thing on this side of Heaven". The new mass to latin mass is night to day. I realize now that I had never actually been to mass before - I only thought that I had, and I understand now why all of my previous visits to church had always felt "wrong" somehow.

This is a mystic, sacred, and holy rite - I am thankful that it is returning.

There are many websites that have compiled lists of the parishes which celebrate the Tridentine Mass. Finding one in your area is worth doing.


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.