Why do the Vatican II changes matter so much as to lose confidence in the Roman Catholic Church. If Vatican II didn't change Dogma, then what is wrong with it and why is making Mass more accessible a bad thing?
1. Is the confidence in Our Lord's Church (The Roman Catholic Church) shaken by Vatican II?
No! Not in the least! Our Lord promised the gift of Indefectability to the Church Herself. In Her teachings and in Her Dogmas. In Her Sacred Tradition and in Her Magesterium (teaching arm). By the very words of those in charge of the Church (quotations of John XXIII, Paul VI, and Benedict XVI in my blog entry "Is George B. Shaw Correct") we see that Vatican II doesn't even claim to want to mess with these Pillars of the Church. What I would suggest rather, is the hierarchy is where the faithful are experiencing the loss in confidence. And the gift of Indefectability does not lie with the hierarchy, as Christ never promised Peter he would never be wrong! To be completely honest, there are only a few bishops left in the entire world that would not be called a Modernist by Pope St. Pius X. The hierarchy and the Church are thankfully not identical and stand separate when it comes to criticism. Lets quickly call to mind the current situation where we have Pope Francis vs. Cardinal Burke on Communion for the divorced/re-married. When the hierarchy is loosing it, one can doubt (dubia) the leaderships opinion when it differs from the Faith that has always been taught. We got so use to having GREAT leaders looking out for heresy that we just took for granted that everything out of the mouths of the popes were good and trustworthy. Look at the string of Popes: Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI, Pius XII! Wow, if you read what these popes wrote, you would understand whar it meas to be the Good Shepherd. These popes saw what was coming and warned the clergy and Church at large what was going to happen... and then it happened.
2. What is wrong with Vatican II?
All normal people must admit Vatican II is a recognized Council of the Church because it was called by the Pope... certainly part of Her history. Some people say the Holy Ghost was not invoked as in other Councils because there weas no need for His gift of Infallibility for the first time in a Council of the Catholic Church. Rather, I'd say the Holy Ghost was certainly with the Council, as under His wing, none of the novelties or conflicts with past teachings were declared to believed by all Catholics as a matter of faith (which would have compromised question one!) Here are some of the conflicting/new ideas in Vatican II:
Dec. 1963 Sacrisanctum Concilium - On the Restoration of the Liturgy. The following is an excerpt taken from my entry of 29-November, 2010. Please see on Sacrisanctum Concillium for more. ***"Introduces the "Paschal Mystery" which was never taught before and makes no distinction on what is actually going on at Mass. Tradition says the death of Our Lord is the sacrifice that saves us, not the Paschal Mysteries. The Mass is the application of the merits won for us while Christ was alive. Once you die, you cannot merit. And neither could Christ"*** [This is regarding whether the Resurrection and Ascension was meritorious and whether those mysteries won grace to be applied to us in the Mass]" This document flies in the face of Pope St. Pius V's Quo Primum July 1570 and many sessions of the Council of Trent on the Nature of the Mass.
Nov. 1964 Lumen Gentium - On the Church. The following is an excerpt taken from my entry of 02-December, 2010. Please see On Lumen Gentium for more. ***"Tradition says that the True Church must be seen, you must be able to put your finger on it, and outside of it, God does not use other religions to save souls. Now, the Church is actually a mystery, that we can't quite figure out (which is in some ways true, but we can still know the Church and that is not stated clearly.) Vatican II is pretty sure (as it uses the subjunctive case instead of the indicative case) that the fullness of Truth subsists in the Roman Church. This is problematic. If the true society only subsists in the Church, it is not efficacious. It uses a lot of vague flowery words to get around saying that there is, in fact, an apostolic line that only can claim Truth for its own."*** [This goes against everything the Encyclical "Quas Primas" stands for of Pope Pius XI regarding the Social Kingship of Christ
Oct. 1965 Nostrae Aetate - On Non-Christian Religions. The following is an excerpt taken from my entry of 07-December, 2010. Please see On Nostrae Aetate for more. ***"The Document is only on how other religions unite. Not how they are wrong. Starts with Hinduism. The Hindus haven't discovered any divine mystery. But this documents says they worship God, free from the illusions of this world. There is no condemnation of anything false. Buddhism can strive to obtain the enlightened one. Islam worships God the Father. St. Francis Xavier went to Sri Lanka. He converted the little Hindus and told them to go destroy (the statues in) the temple. [This document totally contradicts Mortalium Animos (on Fostering True Religious Unity) and Qui Pluribus (on Faith and Religion) of Pope Pius XI.
Dec 1965 Dignitatis Humanae - On Religious Liberty. The following is an excerpt taken from my entry of 12-December, 2010. Please see On Dignitatis Humanae for more. ***"This is the hardest document for Americans to understand. We take for granted the rights of Man (according to the French Revelation.)"We the people!" Life, Liberty, and (property) the pursuit of happiness. You do what you need to do, as long as you don't hurt anybody and you pay your taxes, and you're good to go. We have a very pluralistic mentality. Well, (it was actually called) "Americanism" was condemned by Pope Leo XIII."*** In fact, most ideas of this document are condemned by Maxima Quidem (Again, Pius IX in 1862 just 100 years earlier.) This document completely goes against Paul VI's predecessors and wasn't signed by several bishops.
So what is the big deal! We don't have to believe any of the new ideas of Vatican II, right?!?!?
Well, the big deal is that these ideas are condemned and we were told to stay away from people who preached these very condemned ideas. It is for the good of our souls, and our loved ones' souls. Not only do the novelties of Vatican II not save, they can lead us on the road to hell (or else why would they have been condemned?) Some of Vatican II was good. Some of Vatican II was unclear. Some of Vatican II went against what was previously taught.
3. Why is the New Way of Mass a bad thing (isn't it more accessible?)
The Novus Ordo, I admit, is more convenient to the general population. It is in the common language so no subtitles needed. I think that Mel's Passion of the Christ is better being in the Aramaic and Latin as it maintains a certain aura of mysteriousness, authenticity, and the supernatural.Well, that is nice, but that is just this author's opinion. Hey guess what? The Novus Ordo Mass was promulgated in Latin in 1969! So lets come to a few conclusions. The New Mass IS NOT he Old Mass translated into English. "Why" is a question that you have to ask yourself! They are objectively not the same Mass (while they share in the same Sacrifice as do all valid Masses) and if the New Mass was merely a translation of the Old, then we would be having a very different one-sided-blog conversation here. Okay, so what are we left with critiquing? Well, the Novus Ordo was critiqued by someone who, unlike this blogger, was a theologian. Cardinal Ottaviani along with seven other cardinals undertook a critique of the text of New Mass. The Ottaviani Intervention was simply a letter to Pope Paul VI on what was theologically incorrect with Novus Ordo Mass in its pure form. I wont go into whats wrong with it, as that matter is exhausted in the Intervention which is available below. Its only 14 or so pages and a must read! But I will tell you the conclusion... The Novus Ordo Mass is not only lacking, but harmful even if it is said in Latin, said facing East, and with no liturgical abuses.
Is it more accessible? Paul VI wanted the Mass more accessible to the Protestants. But we know that the Mass is the Propitiatory Sacrifice to God not an opportunity to congregate with non-believers (of course you can take the opportunity to invite your non-Catholic neighbor to come to Mass.) When the emphasis moves from "come to Mass with me and see how people have worshiped God for 2000 years" to "come to Mass with me, you'll fit right in" we know a shift is happening. The graces won at Mass can move non-believing hearts. A non-Catholic seeing a Mass celebrated for the first time can strike a conversion because of what the Mass intrinsically is! But the Mass is not meant as the primary time for people to learn about the Catholic Faith. It is for those who already profess the Faith to worship God in a fitting manner. And it is no to be available to all. That is why the Mass (even the New Order) is broken into two parts. The Mass of the Catechumens (N.O. "Liturgy of the Word") and The Mass of the Faithful (N.O. "Liturgy of the Eucharist) where the Catechumens are dismissed. The Consecration and distribution of Holy Communion is for those who are in Communion with the Church. Its exclusive - thats the way it is! I didn't make it up. Paul VI didn't make it up, St. Pius V didn't make it up. It is Apostolic in Nature that the Mass is not meant to be a teaching tool for others, but the four ends: worship, petition, thanksgiving, and to atone for sin.
When I stand back and look at the whole picture, I would dare say it is not about the Mass but the teaching behind the Mass that is what we are fighting for. The Mass will manifest the teachings.
- The New Theology of the Pastoral Council comes with the New Mass. The fruits of the New Theology is rockstar popes, 50% of "Catholics" voting for Hilary, and shortage of priests.
- The Old Theology of the Dogmatic Councils comes with the Traditional Rite. The fruits of the Old Theology were clear teachings and full seminaries. I know the SSPX has a huge wait list for seminarians, as does the FSSP from what I understand.
Is confidence rocked in the Church's leadership? Yes.
Is there a crisis in the Church? Yes, of course in the Middle East, Churches are being bombed and Catholics are being put to death. Is there a crisis in the Church in the US? Yes, although our bodies are not being persecuted (Thanks, Trump) like our brothers and sisters in the Middle East, our souls, however, are subjected to a crisis of the Faith. My bishop is off celebrating the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation with the Lutherans. Something is not right! All this post is meant to provide is just enough information for those who want dig deeper. Those who wish to no longer wear rose color glasses and pretend everything is honky dory.
The three exhaustive sources that everyone should at least be aware of. (Maybe start by just browsing the Table of Contents!):
Iota Unum - A study of the Changes in Catholic Church in the 20th Century
The Popes against the Modern Errors
The Ottaviani Intervention