Vatican II issues to disturb and some comments...

Want to again thank John Sanidopoulos for his hard work and postings.



http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/06/disturbing-innovations-of-post-vatican.html





Six Marks of the
Novus Ordo Mass (or Right-thinking Believers Scrutinize the New Mass)
by Father Stephen Somerville, S.T.L.
Father Somerville is a former member of ICEL now solidly committed to the Latin Tridentine Mass.
At the Good Friday trial of Jesus, Pontius Pilate the governor asked Jesus, "What is truth?" To this day, people are still wondering about truth, and where to find it. When St. John the Apostle wrote the introduction to this Gospel, he said to us, "In the beginning was the Word, the Word of God ... and (this) Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we (Apostles) saw His glory ... full of grace and truth." Jesus, the Word of God, is full of truth. We must constantly refer to Jesus to know the Truth.
In the very first prayer of the Roman Canon of the Mass, we pray God the Father to bless our sacrifice which is offered for the whole Church, including all right-thinking believers and teachers of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith.
Thus, in every Mass, we recall that Jesus is full of truth, and has given us a faith that makes us right- thinking believers. Let me add one article of this Catholic faith of ours. This article or truth is spelled out in the Secret Prayer of one of the Sunday Masses after Pentecost. This truth is that God has enacted one perfect sacrifice, that of Jesus His Son, in place of all the victims that were sacrificed under the Old Testament before Christ. We pray God to receive this one perfect sacrifice and to sanctify it in order to help us all to attain salvation.
Now I sum up briefly: Jesus, full of truth, has given us a right-thinking Faith that says the Mass is a perfect sacrifice of Jesus' very Body and Blood, that replaces all the Old Testament sacrifices of lambs and bullocks and so forth.
Now I want to remind you, in sadness, that those who are called Protestant do not accept this notion that the Mass or Eucharist is a true, unbloody sacrifice of the real Body and Blood of Christ. For Protestants, the Eucharist or communion service is merely a religious meal that is a symbol and memorial of the Last Supper of Jesus. It is not a true victim-sacrifice offered by an actual priest. This contradiction of our Catholic faith means that we cannot consider our Protestant neighbors to be "right-thinking believers," even though we may love them and pray for them. What is more, you know that there are other notions or articles of Catholic Faith that Protestants do not accept. Examples are the Seven Sacraments, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Holy Mary, and the Infallibility of the Pope.
But let us return to the Mass. In 1969, Max Thurian, an important Protestant theologian who helped found the ecumenical Taize monastery in France, made this statement: "It is now theologically possible for Protestants to use the same Mass as Catholics." Protestants offering the same Mass as Catholics? How is this possible? How can we all be "right-thinking believers"? How can Protestants in honest conscience accept to offer the Catholic Mass?
To answer these questions, remember that the year is 1969. The Second Vatican Council of the Catholic Church has ended only 4 years earlier, in 1965. The Liturgy Commission set up by the Pope in early 1964 was mandated to prepare a reform of the Mass and all the other liturgy services of the Catholic Church. This commission, called Con- silium for short, did in fact reform the Mass, quite promptly, and the Pope, who was Paul VI, did approve this new order or Novus Ordo of Mass on April 3, 1969. This is the New English Mass that is so well known and used in Catholic churches today around the world. It is quite different in many respects, large and small, from the traditional Catholic Latin Mass, even though it is recognizably similar to a Catholic Mass. We must ask ourselves: How should right- thinking Catholic believers evaluate this New Mass of Vatican II? What should we ourselves, as right-thinking Catholic believers, think of the Novus Ordo Catholic Mass, the Vatican II Mass, the neo-Catholic Mass?
To answer this serious question, let us briefly describe the New Mass in the language of expert theologians and liturgists. First, they describe it as ECUMENICAL. This means designed to foster unity and agreement with non-Catholic beliefs. Thus it becomes important to "accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative". One must emphasize what we believe in common, and tone down the beliefs we do not share. The New Mass has changed many prayers, especially the Collects, to speak less of Hell, less of eternal punishment, less of the world as the enemy of God, less of the need to fast, and so on.
The Novus Ordo Mass is next described as ANTIQUARIAN. This means emphasizing the ancient, early, original features of the Mass in the time of the Church Fathers, that is, the first four to six centuries. It means recovering supposed early simplicity of worship, and other primitive qualities. It means diminishing or removing the enrichments of the Catholic Mass that were developed in medieval times, in renaissance or baroque times, in post-reformation times. It means a more austere, bare- bones, elemental kind of worship. Some of these simplifications include less bows or genuflections by the priest, shorter prayers, less use of bells and incense, less feasts of saints, less statues and holy water, and so forth. This then is the antiquarian aspect of the new liturgy.
The third characteristic is to be COMMUNITY- BASED. Now the community is the horizontal dimension, that is, around us. The alternative is the vertical dimension, that is, above us. It means pointing to God, to Heaven, to the angels. The Novus Ordo tends to emphasize us more than God, here more than hereafter, goodness in human society rather than in the mystical body of Christians. Notice that new churches, that is, Mass buildings, are wider and lower, with little or no tower that points up. Notice the big entrance lobby for people to meet and chat, horizontally, rather than to pray to Heaven, vertically. Notice the new sign of peace, when the congregation has a surge of hand-shaking. The New Mass, then, is community-based.
The next element is that of a DEMOCRATIC church. This means literally government by the people, rather than by priests and bishops and Pope, which is hierarchic, not democratic. It means that the Mass should be led not just by the priest, but by many lectors or readers taking turns, by many communion ministers, including women and even teenagers, by many ushers or so-called ministers of hospitality, and above all by a parish liturgy committee that decides the style and structure of the various Masses. The cantor or leader of song is another player on the team of the democratic liturgy.
A fifth trait of Novus Ordo is to be DESACRALIZED. This means rendered less sacred. It means signs of reverence or mystery, of transcendence or Heaven, should be reduced to a minimum or removed. Some of these eliminations and purgings of the Mass were mentioned earlier, under the antiquarian quality of keeping the gestures etc. of only the early age of the Church. Other trimming of the sacred we see in no more communion railing, no more Latin language, simpler and less ornate vestments, and in priests who do not even wear some of the proper vestments, but remain more casual. Many priests no longer wear clerical attire even outside the Mass. They celebrate Mass facing the people, not God. They act more as a chairman or presider of a meeting, rather than as a sacred Minister before God. This is liturgy desacralized.
The sixth and last adjective to describe the Vatican II Mass is PROTES- TANTIZED, that is, harmonized more with Protestant views and practices. This is a theological area, that is, it touches on what we are taught and do believe about God, about the Sacraments, the Church and so forth. Because of the ecumenical urge, and also the urge of modernist heresy, the designers of the new liturgy have certainly made Catholic worship more Protestant in tone and content. We could call this element deviance, because liturgists are deviating from traditional Catholic belief. Here are some specific examples:
The doctrine of the Real Presence is toned down, that is, the reality of Jesus' Body and Blood under the appearance of bread and wine. Thus the tabernacle is off in a corner or even in a separate room, out-of-sight. One receives Communion not kneeling and on the tongue, but standing and in the hand. One must fast not three hours or from midnight, but only one hour. The word transubstantiation is omitted from documents on the Mass.
The practice and doctrine of Confession, almost unknown among Protestants, is less and less surviving among Catholics, and the risk of sacrilegious communions is now chronic, that is, Holy Communions received in the state of mortal sin or without prior absolution by the priest.
The ministerial role of the priest is much diminished. We spoke of this in the democratic emphasis in the new Mass. The priest is actually a man chosen apart and made sacred for a holy task of offering worship and sacrifice, even if only few or no faithful are present. But the new priest concept is more that of a functionary, an elected or appointed official, a presider or master of ceremonies, even sometimes an entertainer. No wonder there are few young men today answering the call to be such an uninspiring, humanist kind of priest.
We already noted that the sacrificial character of the Mass has been largely lost. The Mass is merely a "sacrifice of praise" now, in offering of holy words to God. One quality of true sacrifice is to be propitiatory, that is, appeasing God's anger over our sins. If we believe that Jesus did this more than adequately on Good Friday for all time, or if we believe that God is too kind and loving to demand atonement for sin, or if we believe that God is too magnificent to be offended by our puny sins, then we have lost the Catholic Faith, and, in this case, a propitiatory sacrifice would make no sense.
We have now seen the six marks of the New Order of Catholic Mass: ecumenical, antiquarian, community-based, democratic, desacralized, and deviant or Protestantized. By contrast with Catholic tradition up to 1960 and before Vatican II, it features numerous changes, reversals, and opposites, and it is hardly a Mass for right- thinking believers. It makes us understand why a strong and holy movement to preserve and restore the traditional Latin Catholic Mass sprang up very soon after Vatican Council II. It is sad to report that this traditional Catholic movement is ignored, or suppressed, or combated fiercely by the Novus Ordo establishment. I hope you will follow up this short meditation by constant prayer, and generous reading and study, so that we all become or remain "right-thinking believers," and disciples of traditional, Catholic Truth.
Note:
1. D. Bonneterre, The Liturgical Movement, p. 100.



My thoughts on this as a layman:

Not sure people outside the church or even inside of the Church of Christ understand the importance of the Divine Liturgy, not only a source of spiritual food, but also a source of real beauty that helps souls. To understand the Liturgy, we must understand that it is both technical and simplistic. I am not an expert on these things. I do believe that Jesus Christ gave His Church some very potent weapons against heresy as well as evil, but we must be always vigilant that we do not lose this because of slight- of- hand and battle of words,  semantic twists. The Catholics changed their mass, while we Orthodox have preserved it. Why? And does it matter? After all, is it not all the same?

I have to say that if words or ways do not matter and traditions do not matter, then why have them at all? Why not do whatever we want in Church or even when applying this same reasoning while playing the game of baseball. Let’s make a ball really a strike and let’s make an out really an in for the player to take the ball that he catches into the nearest Inn for a beer. We see that some things are better left alone and if the game of baseball started changing the wording, the game would soon have no meaning. I can’t get into all the technical details of the Liturgy, but let me say this, there is a determined and pure beauty to it as it is. Why did the Catholics change their mass, or at least the Vatican II folks  (some still participate in the old Roman mass)? The best reason I can think of (if this is true as well: that certain protestants were involve in Vatican II formation), is that the ecumenical movement is the goal. In order to attract the most possible people to the mass, to make it more inclusive, so that these others do not feel threatened like the Protestants, the Hindus, the Muslims, Judaists, Buddhists, Taoists, etc., then this seems the way to do it. But let’s look at how they did it. In the most stealthy way possible, with the stretching, modifying, and removing words so that, on first blush, it appears kosher or pure. If I were an enemy of the Church of Christ, I would attack the very same thing and of the biggest Church body. Let me fiddle with the words enough, so that clergy and laymen think we are being more inclusive and progressive, when in reality we have destroyed the mass and the Spirit of God in the process. The Liturgy is for the people, for their very core being… their return in purity towards God. If the mass has truly been destroyed would we not have problems in the Catholic Church today and maybe western society? I think it strange that a Catholic priest would wear a pagan outfit or invite Hindu priestesses in the Holy place, and others to dance half-nude,  place a statue of the Buddha (Gautama), on The Alter or near The Alter.  Why would a priest dress as if his position is trivial and not the representative of Christ Himself. Why wear a bozo the clown outfit? Why make a circus of the Mass? A circus is a circus and different from Mass. And Why did Pope John Paul II try to bind Christianity with Hinduism by his receiving Hindu ash on his head and other such strange things with other faiths? Other such accounts with other religions and philosophies are posted as well with John Paul II. What it is the purpose of these things? They seem a strange ploy of politics and of a move towards a united nation of religions or one religion to please all as if that could ever be possible. Have you tried to please everyone? It is not feasible or logical to try to please everyone because in the end you will fail; it is an impossibility.

I am not disparaging other faiths or philosophies. This is not the point of these thoughts. For it follows that what is truth in these faiths/philosophies outside of Christ’s Church should be respected and are perhaps good custodians to those who are humble and pure; however, truth is truth and all the faiths and philosophies of the world cannot be true at the same time: they can all be false, but they cannot all be true. The point remains that whatever is, is. Aristotle’s first law of identity states that Divine Liturgy is the Divine Liturgy. Christianity is Christianity and Hinduism is Hinduism. The Catholic Mass is the Catholic Mass. Aristotle’s  third law of the excluded middle states that something must either be or not be. Christianity is true or Hinduism is true, Christian or not Christian. So it follows that the Catholic mass is or it is not, there is no middle here. It is either Protestant or it is Catholic.

Folks will debate why should the Priest face East towards The Alter and why instead not face the people? Did Jesus pray to the Father? Is the Priest as the representative of Christ not praying to God the Father by facing The Alter. See the subtle difference? Why should the priest face the people? If the priest faces the people is he not making prayers and supplications to the people instead of God? It may seem trivial to some, but look at what happened to Saul when he listened to the people rather than God. Is the Christian faith now based on the amount of members we have? Or a progressive political agenda? Let us not confuse Christianity with politics nor should we leave the Church to flighty feelings. The real Christian Church has thrived under persecution and came out triumphant. Take a look at the Orthodox Church in Stalinist Russia or under 400 years of occupation under the Ottoman Turks. Perhaps as C.S. Lewis said that the Church begins to die in times of good-cheer and abundance and only thrives under persecution. St. Basil the great said on facing East… “For instance, we all pray facing East, but few realize that we do this because we are seeking Paradise, our old fatherland, which God planted in the East in Eden….” Facing the west is symbolic of the technological world of the west and that our hope lies here.  Hope in a world of inventions, of men and his measure of the rational and scholastic humanism, Darwinian socialism and a loss of the mystical and internal. Alas, hospitals become our cathedrals and churches and doctors our priests. We should meditate to reconcile our base self with our eternal divine self. The world of technology will cease one day, but God and His energies will never cease.

As a Greek Orthodox Christian… the only person allowed near The Alter during Liturgy is the Priest, the deacon, the alter-boys and other clergy. We are not allowed to go there and it is shut after the Liturgy to make the point that this alter is Holy. It is not a place to eat lunch or to sit on casually. This makes sense to me. As a Protestant, I know, it does not matter. But as to an Orthodox Christian it does matter. Do you think that Solomon’s temple was to be put together any old way or without reverence and honor--- please, such a thing is axiomatic, at least to me. Should The Alter just be a regular table that I brought from my house so we all sit around it and tell jokes? The Alter is distinct as it should be. As we are distinct from God, The Holy.

Why are Catholics looking to become more Protestant or to become ecumenical with other world religions and philosophies? In the process of trying to bring everyone to the table, as we should always do, as Christ did, we should never sell our own faith and creeds and Divine Liturgy (Mass) short for the satisfaction of everyone. Because to do so is to lose the faith and not be Christian and all. There already is a Universalist/Unitarian assembly of people but they are not Christian, are not traditionally Christian, Orthodox, Catholic, or Apostolic. Sorry. It just is not so. if you feel that Christianity is too exclusive, then you do not understand that anything with any creeds and beliefs has a standard for its beliefs and practices and those that fall away from these creeds are outside of it by definition. There is no formal place that does not have rules or things that set them apart. Siddhartha Gautama left Hinduism because he did not like the doctrine of the untouchables. For if we do not have definitions or words to differentiate this from that, then what is the point of having any standards at all. Where is meaning? Say football is really baseball and vice-versa and you have no football or baseball. What is the point of differentiation? Why not all be the same? This may be the way “blind” democracy is headed but the Church cannot change with it, not Christ’s Church--- no way. The Church of Christ is here to save souls and it is not interested in how rich you are, how intelligent you may seem, or how popular. The mass has always been for the people and their benefit. The fallacy of popular opinions does not equal truth. It is not up for a vote. Christianity, liturgy, mass, and sacrament are not up for popular vote to appeal to the masses. Do we really believe we can all meld into one faith of the world? How would our Christian faith and the blessed blood of Christ ever be the same when He is just the same as Muhammad, Gautama, Vishnu, Confucius or Lao-Tzu? If you make Christ equal to them, then He is no longer Lord and just another good teacher. Christ did not give us that option. He either is who He said He is or he was a liar and charlatan; that’s it, these are the options. When we lose the meaning of words, traditions, and moral absolutes, we lose more than we think. This may be proper for the moral relativists and the ecumenists who think no religion or one world religion will save them or bring man to the final place of peace, but this is a lie. There never will be or can ever be happiness apart from God. C.S. Lewis aptly and poignantly said it, “God cannot give us a happiness and peace apart from Himself, because it is not there. There is no such thing.” A wise Confucius said this, “He who sets work on a different strand destroys the whole fabric.” We lose the basis of meaning and things slowly become meaningless. Confucius says of the importance of the meaning and restoration of words or names, “What is necessary to rectify names… if names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things.”

I think there is something to the fears of those for the old Roman rite. There is that creepy feeling of the “old devourer” who seeks to unite men but not for their own good as sacred but for his own ends of slavery and decay. Keep your eyes peeled, be vigilant for that lion and ravager of ideas, of Truth and of people because everyone should understand that we sometimes look for a big explosion to signify the presence of evil, but I’d say the effectiveness of subtlety is even more powerful than brute, savage force: The subtlety of persistently, slow gradualism and the zeitgeist of blind oligarchical politics of the utopian thinkers apart from God and the only Son... and alas of the Eden that will not be forced this way. I shudder to think that just in a short 4 or 5 decades, people could wipe out what the saints have died for over the last 2,000 years.