Troubled by Vatican II liturgical reform!

Hello Brothers and Sisters in Christ!

I have been studying to the best of my ability why the changes that ensued after Vatican II’s Sacrosanctum concilium were justified. I am stumped. How is it we got what we did after Vatican II. I have read SC and the closing statements of the first Council session and it does not appear in the mind of the Council fathers that anything overtly dramatic was to be changed in regards to the liturgy. I have looked over the 1965 interim-Missal and the ordo seems to have been a rather simplified version of the 1962 (i.e. - prays at foot of altar omitted, readings in vernacular, among other things)…nothing earth shaking. Why the complete whitewashing and starting anew? I know this subject is broad but I am really troubled by what I am studying about the going-ons of the Consilium and those involved. Not a traditionalist, although I do sympathize with their arguments. Love the Mass (new and old) but have a hard time seeing the justification of the reforms of the Missal of Paul VI in light of fidelity to tradition.

In the beginning, the liturgy was in greek.
And it was a scandal when it was changed into latin.

You’re better off reading some books than asking this question on a forum. The question can’t be addressed adequately.

I recommend:

*]Iota Unum: A Study of Changes in the Catholic Church in the Twentieth Century by Romano Amerio
*]Cranmer’s Godly Order: The Destruction of Catholicism Through Liturgical Change by Michael Davies
*]Pope John’s Council by Michael Davies
*]Pope Paul’s New Mass by Michael Davies
*]The Ottaviani Intervention: Short Critical Study of the New Order of Mass by Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani
*]Liturgical Shipwreck - 25 Years of the New Mass by Michael Davies
*]The Great Facade: Vatican II and the Regime of Novelty in the Roman Catholic Church by Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods Jr.
*]Rhine Flows into the Tiber by Ralph M. Wiltgen
*]Heresy of Formlessness by Martin Mosebach
*]Partisans of Error (St. Pius X Against the Modernists) by Michael Davies

Start with the ones underlined.

God Bless and keep you,

Through the hearts of Jesus and Mary,


Hmm. From the title, that sounds like it’s a fair and balanced treatment… :rolleyes: :wink:

Modernism is a heresy condemned by Pope St. Pius X.

I would guess that is what the book is about: Pope St. Pius X, not the priestly fraternity that carries his name.

I have read the following:

Cranmer’s Godly Order: The Destruction of Catholicism Through Liturgical Change by Michael Davies
Pope Paul’s New Mass by Michael Davies
The History and Future of the Roman Liturgy by Denis Crouan
The Stripping of the Altars by Professor Eamond Duffy
The Liturgy After Vatican II: Collapsing or Resurgent? by Denis Crouan
The Liturgy Betrayed by Denis Crouan
Celebrating the Holy Eucharist by Francis Cardinal Arinze

I have found all of them elucidating, but Denis Crouan is the one that speaks to me the most, although I will give a great shout-out to Mr. Davis. I was informed by very reverent, orthodox, and knowledgable Catholics to avoid the Great Fascade being written by strident and unabashed schismatics. Although some of the points they make are convincing, it is blatantly onesided. So I have steared clear. Thank you for your recommendations though!

I don’t have any opinion on the book in question, but it seems quite unfair, if not perhaps outright calumnious to call Ferrara and Woods schismatics.

Do you have any evidence that they are schismatics? Have they refused to acknowledge the authority of the Holy See? Do they not accept the Pope as Pope? Do they acknowledge an alternate hierarchy?

I can neither condemn or endorse mr. Ferrara as schismatic or not. I am just relaying what I have been told by people I find to be holy, obedient, and orthodox in my opinion. One is a current seminarian - very traditional - love the 1962, is fluent in Latin, Greek, and Italian, working on Spanish. He has read the Summa multiple times cover to cover. Has serious problems with Ferrara and statements that he has made in the past - basically dancing the line between schismatic and not. I defer to him being more well versed in these matters. That’s just what I have heard.

JER7177: I am not sure I would strongly recommend any of the books cited by ImmaculataFides above. They represent a rather decided view with regard to the liturgical reforms (they are opposed), sometimes seeming to imply bad faith on the part of scholars, liturgists, bishops, priests, and learned lay people, as well as at least naivete on the part of two popes. I note that the “Ottaviani Intervention” is cited by the SSPX as one of their legions of reasons to condemn the Council and remain at odds with the Church. I don’t want to impugn the authors of the works mentioned, by the way, or ImmaculataFides. Una Voce, the organization over which Michael Davies presides, is recognized by the Church and, while holding particular views toward the liturgy, is certainly a good faith organization.

I don’t have off-hand any particular works to cite regarding the history of the liturgical reform (which is fascinating), but I would encourage you to look for them. One thing to mention is that it started long before most people think–long before the Council, in fact! Our current Missal, which is a wonderful effort on the part of scholars, liturgists, bishops, priests, and learned lay people, as well as two popes, represents the latest chapter in that long history of the Church trying to bring its most cherished treasure-the Eucharist–to the Faithful! And I would echo Pfaffenhoffen above: It was a terrible scandal when the ancient prayers were translated from the Greek! But thank goodness that the Church was willing to be faithful–ever faithful–to its mission of bringing the Eucharist to the Faithful! Where would any of us be if the Church had demurred?

[quote=jrdvdsj] But thank goodness that the Church was willing to be faithful–ever faithful–to its mission of bringing the Eucharist to the Faithful!

The Church was bringing the Eucharist to the Faithful before the reform of the mass, and the Church will continue to bring the Eucharist to the Faithful if the reformed mass is suppressed in the future (however unlikely that may be).

Two questions:
Do you have a source that Greek was the only liturgical language in the beginning?
Do you have a source that there was scandal when Latin began to be used?

Well said> I am leaning and inclined to what are referred as the “Reform of the Reform” types such as Fr. Denis Crouan and have found his books, while critical of the post-Vatican II reform movement, he feels that we can salvage the reform if a conserted effort to conform in greater proximity to the 1962. Thank you for your reply.

They are not schismatics at all! They are traditionalist Catholics. Thomas E. Woods is a very faithful traditional Catholic and has written many books, including “How the Catholic Church built Western Civilization” and “The Church Confronts Modernity: Catholic Intellectuals and the Progressive Era”. To dismiss his work as ‘blatantly one sided’ is just ridiculous. Every book, and opinion, is ‘one sided’.

You mean other then the fact that the word “liturgy” comes from Greek?

Liturgy (leitourgia) is a Greek composite word meaning originally a public duty, a service to the state undertaken by a citizen. Its elements are leitos (from leos = laos, people) meaning public, and ergo (obsolete in the present stem, used in future erxo, etc.), to do. From this we have leitourgos, “a man who performs a public duty”, “a public servant”, often used as equivalent to the Roman lictor; then leitourgeo, “to do such a duty”, leitourgema, its performance, and leitourgia, the public duty itself.

But does this prove the point?

I might be a little confused here. In the nascent Church was Latin used? Latin was the language of the Roman Empire. I thought Christ and the disciples spoke Aramaic at the last supper, and maybe Hebrew liturgically. And then the first few centuries Greek as the faith spread. And then Latin began to be used when Constantine converted. And then Latin was used liturgically because it was universally spoken as THE practical language at that time, kind of like how English is now the common language people of the world default to when communicating. So that Latin was more of a practical consideration than anything else.

I am not making statements here, I am asking

I would say it does. The term used for the subject matter itself comes from Greek not Latin. We can also still find Greek within the Latin Mass [Kyrie Eleison]. Add to this the history of usage of the Greek and Latin languages within the Roman Empire and the Church.

As for the “scandal” portion, I don’t know. I would assume there wasn’t one due to the gradual nature of the replacement of Greek with Latin in both society and the Church; as well as this replacement not being linked to/associated with other changes [which is not the case with the current “scandal”].

Greek was “the language” of the Roman Empire. Latin was the language of the Roman upper class and government.

I don’t think this proves the point. Etymology has nothing to do with it.

Yes, I mean other then the fact that the word “liturgy” comes from Greek?

The word “Mass” comes from the Latin.

Etymologies don’t even prove diddly squat.

I just asked for a source.

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