Liturgically What happened at VatII

[chrisb]

From a scholarly Orthodox perspective What happened Liturgically at Vatican II?

What was the evolution of Liturgies before Vatican II?

Thanks guys and gals!

[pensateomnia]

What was the evolution of Liturgies before Vatican II?

You're best (Orthodox) source would be: A Short History of the Mass (http://www.westernorthodox.com/historymass).

[AMM]

The Pauline mass is really actually a post Vatican II phenomenon, though you could say the council set the table for it.  Traditionalists usually look at the figure of the Fr. Bugnini as public enemy number one in terms of these changes.  This summary might help you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_of_Paul_VI

My opinion is that what was unleashed was an iconoclastic revolution.  The effects of which show now sign of abating and which have also spread to the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome.  In truth, to me, this is the real danger of rapprochement with that See.

[chrisb]

You're best (Orthodox) source would be: A Short History of the Mass (http://www.westernorthodox.com/historymass).

Does this deal with the Catholic Liturgy or does this deal with the History of the Liturgy in general?

Thanks.

[pensateomnia]

Does this deal with the Catholic Liturgy or does this deal with the History of the Liturgy in general?

It deals almost exclusively with the various Western rites, with the aim of explaining the history of what was (more or less) the standard Catholic Mass from the 7th century until Vat II. Of course, it begins with a few remarks that apply to all Liturgical families.

[chrisb]

Who is Paul IV?

[AMM]

He succeeded John XXIII (a Pope not popular among Catholic traditionalists).

[lubeltri]

Who is Paul IV?

You mean Paul VI. Paul IV served in the 16th century.

[The young fogey]

Basically from the early centuries such as the 6th until V2 the Roman Rite evolved gradually with lots of additions, just like the Eastern rites.

The liberal revisers hijacked it by writing the V2 document on the liturgy this way: praise a traditional practice in one passage (pious rhetoric) then undermine it a few passages down by making it optional, in effect suppressing it. For most of the world, voilà, no more facing 'east' and no more chant.

One Recognised Internet Authorityâ„¢, Stuart Koehl, a Byzantine Catholic but not at all Rome-centric in his views, has claimed that the Roman Canon (anaphora) hasn't got an explicit epiklesis because it's older than the two Byzantine Rite ones.

Obviously with all that destruction going on, tacking on an epiklesis doesn't 'make it more Eastern'.

Writers including Michael Davies (RC), Thomas Day (RC) and Archimandrite Serge (Keleher, a Russian Catholic) have been clear it was a move away from the Christian East.

Koehl also says that the Roman Mass (pre-V2) and the Eastern liturgies resemble each other in spirit because the original Roman Rite pre-1000 was very simple but when it was in decline around 1000 and needed a boost it was crossed with the now-gone Gallican Rite in France, which was ornate from taking a lot from the East. So lots of vestments, lots of bows, kisses and making the sign of the cross.

Sure, in ancient times the service was simpler but you also had astonishing strictness. Public confession of sins! The sexes standing apart (just like many Orthodox still do). One chance to confess, then years of canonical penance including being denied Communion. I don't see the liturgists claiming to be 'early church' clamouring for any of those things. Do you?

As for Eastern Catholics including those using the Byzantine Rite, V2 has been just as contradictory as for the Roman Riters. The actual document on the Eastern Catholic Churches repeated Rome's longstanding order not to self-latinise and to return to their own ancient traditions, which for Byzantine Catholics means doing what the Orthodox do. Some do (what I call the high-church minority among them, often converts or former Roman Riters especially if priests); most don't. Most do a shortened, somewhat mixed service with some Easternisms, because Rome is making them, but really imitating the post-V2 Romans at least in spirit so you get Saturday-night Liturgies and 'the Mystery of Reconciliation' (what traditional people in all the rites call Confession). If you want a serviceable refuge from the post-V2 RCC it'll do.

[chrisb]

Oh, Wow! Thanks for all the info!

And yes I ment to ask 'Who is Paul VI' and 'why a new mass'?

Thanks everyone!

[Edmund]

I am Orthodox and love the St john Chrysostom liturgy but the Latin mass pre Vatican II will always hold a soft spot for me. I have only had the opportunity to attend it a few times but it is very beautiful why any sane person would discard that for the novus ordo crud is beyond me. This I do know though, when Paul VI and Hannibal Bugnini wrote up the new mass they had several protestant advisors,and one cardinal commented that the roman rite is no more. One of the aims brought about by the Vaticans false ecuminisim was to make the mass as "non objectionable to our seperated protestant brothers and sisters as possible" . Pope Benedict as Card Ratzinger in one of his books I read wrote that any church that seemingly bans what was once it's central act (the tridentine mass) to replace it with a new liturgy calls its entire being into question. AMEN!! to that. Maybe as Benedict he will do something to rectify this liturgical travesty.

[AMM]

Basically from the early centuries such as the 6th until V2 the Roman Rite evolved gradually with lots of additions, just like the Eastern rites.

The liberal revisers hijacked it by writing the V2 document on the liturgy this way: praise a traditional practice in one passage (pious rhetoric) then undermine it a few passages down by making it optional, in effect suppressing it. For most of the world, voilà, no more facing 'east' and no more chant.

One Recognised Internet Authorityâ„¢, Stuart Koehl, a Byzantine Catholic but not at all Rome-centric in his views, has claimed that the Roman Canon (anaphora) hasn't got an explicit epiklesis because it's older than the two Byzantine Rite ones.

Obviously with all that destruction going on, tacking on an epiklesis doesn't 'make it more Eastern'.

Writers including Michael Davies (RC), Thomas Day (RC) and Archimandrite Serge (Keleher, a Russian Catholic) have been clear it was a move away from the Christian East.

Koehl also says that the Roman Mass (pre-V2) and the Eastern liturgies resemble each other in spirit because the original Roman Rite pre-1000 was very simple but when it was in decline around 1000 and needed a boost it was crossed with the now-gone Gallican Rite in France, which was ornate from taking a lot from the East. So lots of vestments, lots of bows, kisses and making the sign of the cross.

Sure, in ancient times the service was simpler but you also had astonishing strictness. Public confession of sins! The sexes standing apart (just like many Orthodox still do). One chance to confess, then years of canonical penance including being denied Communion. I don't see the liturgists claiming to be 'early church' clamouring for any of those things. Do you?

As for Eastern Catholics including those using the Byzantine Rite, V2 has been just as contradictory as for the Roman Riters. The actual document on the Eastern Catholic Churches repeated Rome's longstanding order not to self-latinise and to return to their own ancient traditions, which for Byzantine Catholics means doing what the Orthodox do. Some do (what I call the high-church minority among them, often converts or former Roman Riters especially if priests); most don't. Most do a shortened, somewhat mixed service with some Easternisms, because Rome is making them, but really imitating the post-V2 Romans at least in spirit so you get Saturday-night Liturgies and 'the Mystery of Reconciliation' (what traditional people in all the rites call Confession). If you want a serviceable refuge from the post-V2 RCC it'll do.

Good summary.  In my opinion what happened was another Reformation, this one just stayed internal.

[chrisb]

Good summary.  In my opinion what happened was another Reformation, this one just stayed internal.

Interesting comment! 

[Jakub]

the liturgical references contained in the documents of V II do not resemble the new mess that exists today...there are many ideas/theories/talks/discussions out there but little is done to correct the problems...

in simple terms...the Catholic Church turned protestant

james

[AMM]

http://www.unavoce.org/cambria_destruction.htm

[Deacon Lance]

Please don't insult the Protestants.  I have been to Lutheran, Methodist and Presbyterian services and never have I witnessed (or heard of ) some of the nonsense that occurs within the current Roman Rite, although I have heard of such occuring in Episcopal churches.

[AMM]

 

[FrChris]

Fr Deacon Lance---ditto Welkodox's sentiments!

[Jakub]

Thanks Deacon Lance...I really had Episcopalian in mind when posting...though it came out protestant...damn those blended whiskies

james

[AMM]

Thanks Deacon Lance...I really had Episcopalian in mind when posting...though it came out protestant...damn those blended whiskies

Hey, what time is it where you are?  More importantly - blended whisky??  What are you thinking!

[MichaelArchangelos]

The New Mass is a Protestantised Mass. The same prayers that the Protestant Reformers removed have been removed in the New Mass. Basically no mention of sacrifice is made, and the things that set the priest apart from the people (his own Confiteor, receiving Communion separately with his own 'Domine, non sum dignus') have been removed. Communion is given in the hand, mirroring the Protestant custom, and this is despite the declaration of Paul VI in Memorale Domini which stated that Communion in the hand was only permitted in the places where it had already been established. It was never established in the US or New Zealand, so why does it happen in these two places? Those people that receive or give Communion in the hand are therefore committing a direct act of rebellion agaist the Vatican, who has forbidden it.

[scamandrius]

If I recall correctly there were six Protestants from Turingen in Germany who were brought in by Pope Paul VI to "help" with the Novus Ordo.  One of those Protestants (can't remember which) said that with the Novus Ordo, there would be nothing stopping Protestants and Roman Catholics from celebrating the Eucharist together with the same prayers and such.  So yes, the Latin Rite became "Protestantized".

Just to be fair, there was a "Protestantization" of the EAstern Rite as well.  A group of Eastern Rite Ukranians became Lutheran after they were pressured by one of the Popes in the early 20th century to adopt the Latin Rite which they refused.  They became Lutheran and still continued to use the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, with same glaring omissions.  Here's a link to it if anyone wants to see it for themselves:

http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/saintsophiaseminary/liturgy.html

Scamandrius

[Jakub]

The true liturgical fruit of VII was the 1965 Missal...not the Missal of Paul VI.

james

[Edmund]

Hey does anyone have a possible link to a page that has the 1965 latin missal. I have heard about this before but have never been able to find it. I often wonder why the heck Paul VI thought it would be a neat idea to flush 2000 years or so of liturgy and make a new one. I know that it was mostly to suck up to protestants (most of which have better liturgies today then the RC) but one would have to be very slow to think you can just change a liturgy that had been in use for so long and not think you would cause chaos. At least he had the smarts to recognize that there was a problem when in the mid 1970's he said "the smoke of satan had enterd the church".

[Panagiotis]

http://www.latinmass-ctm.org/mass/online.htm
These are huge media files, so bear that in mind if you want to hear them.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/lmass/ord.htm
This is a translation of the ordinary mass in the 1962 edition of the Tridentine Ordo.

Hope this helps.

Blessings,
Panagiotis

[Papist]

Its kinda funny because the most reverant and beautiful enlish mass now is the Aglican usage created for those who converted from the Anglican/Episcopalian Church to the Catholic Church. It is almost an English translation of the Tridentine Liturgy. Funny, in this case Protestanization is a good thing. LOL

[lubeltri]

The New Mass is a Protestantised Mass. The same prayers that the Protestant Reformers removed have been removed in the New Mass. Basically no mention of sacrifice is made

Actually, that is not true.

"Pray, brethren, that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father."
 
Response: "May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of his name, for our good, and the good of all his Church."

Several of the Eucharistic Prayers also mention it.

But you are right that it is not mentioned as often as in the rite of Pius V.
 

[lubeltri]

Its kinda funny because the most reverant and beautiful enlish mass now is the Aglican usage created for those who converted from the Anglican/Episcopalian Church to the Catholic Church. It is almost an English translation of the Tridentine Liturgy. Funny, in this case Protestanization is a good thing. LOL

You are right there. I have had to privilege to attend one of these Anglican Use parishes. Now THAT'S a way to do a mass in the vernacular. Let's face it, 16th-century English Protestants were more Catholic in some ways than many Catholics today. Of course, the Anglican rite was established in a much different environment. Of all the times to do a radical reform of the mass, the late 1960s was probably the most inopportune!

I think the 1970 rite, as it is usually practiced, is to sacred liturgy what 1960s-1970s abstract paintings and brutalist concrete tower blocks are to art and architecture.

You could make an argument that that era was the most disastrously iconoclastic time in the history of Western civilization. So many people in and out of the Church fell prey to the idolatry of the New.

[nonchal]

Whats hilarious is that the Novus Ordo is now called THE "Roman Rite."

[username!]

The 1970 Roman Missal obviously was released post-Vatican II.  This is the current missal of the Roman Catholic Church.
The 1965 missal allowed for vernacular usage and modern hymns.  Also prior to 1970 many churches spun their altars around and the priests started saying mass facing the people (Bishop Hogan of Altoona-Johnstown diocese did this with the 1965 missal).
The 1970 missal perhaps was an attempt to have participation between the clergy and the congregation during Mass, as liturgy, liturgica, means "work of the people."  People with the current missal read the daily readings at mass.  People even get to say the Our Father (which in the 1962 missal only the priest said).  People got to hear the Eucharistic prayer and the words of Consecration (the 1962 missal, the Canon, aka now Eucharistic Prayer no. 1, the Roman Canon) was said in a hushed voice.  It may not make everyone happy but after hundreds of years of having a people simply kneel in the pews and then in a matter of 5 years tell them everyone in the church can participate someway in the liturgy was and still is a huge shock.  Hundreds of years of kneeling and maybe singing in the choir with the ability to now participate with singing, reading, and now everyone can be an altar-person, the 37 years since 1970 really doesn't add up to alot of time when you look at the perhaps 1000 year plus history of liturgy only in Latin (during which that time mostly and usually only the clergy understood, no one read even their own language usually) with no congregational participation.
The !962 Roman Missal save for the "dialogue mass" doesn't allow for much or any congregational participation.  The altar boys said the responses for the congregation.  You "heard" mass, prayed rosary beads, went to confession (which if possible was held up to after the Sanctus was sung).  You meditated on the various parts of Christ's life and related them to parts of the liturgy.  This does not fit into the definition of Liturgy, liturgica.  Mass had become a private devotion for the people in the pew and the priest on the altar. 
Hence, the reforms that led to the 1970 Roman Missal.  Perhaps over time they will add/subtract and define what is allowable and what isn't.  Was it the best possible reformation?  You answer that, I have my opinions. 
Probably the greatest problem people have with the current mass is the fact that people/priests add/subtract "things" into the mass.  They invent words or subtract words, they use music that always doesn't fit the entire demographic of the parish, and furthermore the emergence of lay committees being able to make liturgical decisions has impacted people greatly.
Where as before 1970 there wasn't much variance in the liturgy.  It was pretty much the same from Sunday to Sunday.  You knew if it was a sung mass the Gloria was going to be # 3... the Credo #3,etc..
Now with rock and roll masses for the kids, etc.. it drives people away. 
No continuity.  When I was a kid you never cleaned the chalice and paten on the altar during what you may call the ablutions.  Now you see the women who give out communion doing just that. 
You may go to one mass that is pretty cut and dry to the t, good normal Marty Hagen and Eucharistic prayer #2. 
You may go to mass number 2 and have people dancing on the altar, praise music and father giving skits to explain the homily.
It isn't a much as the issue that the 1970 missal was "bad."  Said properly there is nothing "bad" about it from a Catholic standpoint.  Ever see the 1970 missal done in Latin/English with the priest facing east?  Or it done respectfully in English?  It is a matter of continuity and leveling the freedom to make the mass a spectator sport that needs to be hashed out, and I think that is what you are going to see as we get further away from its introduction in 1970.

[kaarina33]

If you have the time, there are several excellent audio series by by some of the best Roman Catholic theologians that lived "what happened at Vatican II".  You won't find many, if any of them on any CAF website, EWTN ministries.  These are the men that they hoped would eventually die off and take most of the Rich Western Liturgical Tradition with them.  Some are associated with SSPX, but much of  their work is built on the shoulders of those who tried in vain to avert this trainwreck, and whose voiced were silenced for many years, though they remained obedient to the Church.

If you are interested in almost a day by day, blow by blow description of Vatican II, including why, when who, documents....and the behind the scenes maneuvering, there is a four part series by Michael Davies.  He is painstaking accurate, and there is no trace of the neo-catholic, rad-trad color to his lectures.  They are University quality, and if quotes anything, he sites sources and supports everything with historical records that can be tracked down by anybody.
I had no idea......I don't understand if things could have gone anymore off track, even if their was a carefully planned coup.
He is not a conspiracy theorist, but a keen observer of human behavior and Vatican politics, and the Pope, when he realized how wrong things had gone, it had gone to far and he either was unable, unwilling, to stop it.

It's a fascinating historical audio documentary that had me on the edge of my seat.

The 4 sections are split into:

1. The Liberal Coup
2. The role of the Press
3. The Protestant Connection
4. The Liturgical Revolution

If you are short on time, there is single lecture: Comments On Vatican II Council

If you can't bear to hear the whole sad story, or are not interested in the details, Mr. Davies has a couple of series on the Liturgical development of the  Traditional Roman Rite, and all the offshoots (Of rather, as an off shoot of the Eastern Rites).  It's not only about the Latin Mass, but Liturgical Development in general.  He also has one on the Liturgical History of England.

The Site is run by the VonHildebrand Institute (http://www.keepthefaith.org/index.htm).  Each audio lecture can be downloaded directly from the site for only $1 each.  Or you can order them on tape, if you wish,

If you are a literature lover, and would rather skip the Liturgics, Dr David Allen White is one of the best lecturers of Literature and Poetry that I have ever heard. (http://www.keepthefaith.org/searchResult_literature.aspx?CategoryID=1161)
Some of the others are hit and miss, and I would not listen to more than 2 minutes to Fulton Sheen.

Being Western Rite, I find this fascinating.  There is nothing comparable in written by any Orthodox theologians, and until I discovered  this site, I had pretty much given up that the Liturgical Revisionists had a monopoly on anything that has been published in the last 30 years.
And as a lover of Shakespeare, Elliot, Dante, and Chaucer, it is refreshing not to have it deconstructed to death, so that there is nothing left but empty, lyrical language.

The URL for the Vatican II series is below.  You can navigate around, depending on your interest.  I have purchases from them 5 or 6 times and have had no trouble with the purchase, or downloading the MP3's.


http://www.keepthefaith.org/searchResult_speakers.aspx?manufacturer=19

Kaarina (lucy212 at CAF)

I am still trying to figure out the posting system, so I hope this doesn't come out like gibberish.

Thanks to all who offered kind words and support to me over there.  I think I had 6 posts, and I  think I ended up needing to go to Confession each time, and weep over my own sinfulness, but also the dark cloud of hopelessness that engulfed me each time.  (Sometimes just visiting was enough to cause me to fall into the pit of anger and resentment.)

[ozgeorge]

Welcome kaarina33!
That would have to be the most informative first post I've ever read!

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Liturgy > Western Rite Discussion (Moderator: arimethea) > Topic: Liturgically What happened at VatII