VATICAN II

The following article is from: http://en.allexperts.com/q/Catholics-955/Vatican-II-5.htm

Expert: Bro. Ignatius Mary, OLSM, L.Th. - 5/4/2007

Question
QUESTION: What was the point of Vatican II, good or bad? Why would the Church have Protestants as advisors at this council?

Why do the changes to the Mass seem so Protestant now, even in Latin?

ANSWER: Dear Roberta:

Vatican II was the continuation of the Vatican 1 Council held in 1869-70. The first Vatican council had a large agenda which could not be completed due to the outbreak of war when the Italian Army entered the city of Rome at the end of Italian unification. As a result, consideration of the pastoral and dogmatic issues on the agenda, with the exception of the role of the Papacy, were left incomplete.

Vatican II continued where Vatican I left off.

The issues of Vatican II had been under discussion since before Vatican I (1860's). Contrary to popular opinion from the detractors of Vatican II, its issues were old by the time Vatican II was convened.

Part of the purpose of Vatican II was to remind the Faithful that they were to be pursuing holiness. There had developed an over-clericization over several centuries that left the laity to think solely in pedestrian ways and to basically be spectators in the liturgy and in the Faith.

Vatican II reminded the Faithful and the clergy that such spectatorship was never the intent of the Church. The Faithful, not just the priests and religious, were to actively pursue holiness. Some of the structures in the Church needed to change to help accomplish that goal.

One such structural change was the revision of the Divine Office. Many abuses had creeped into the practice of the Divine Office and its structure was too complicated for laity to really participate. Thus, the post-conciliar documents made revisions to bring the Divine Office back to its original intent to sanctify the various hours of the day (some priests before had gotten into the habit of saying the Hours all at one time instead of throughout the day), and the structure was simplified to make access to the Divine Office easier for the laity. The Council Fathers also instructed with words, "are to see to it" which seems like and "order" to me, that priests make sure Vespers, at least on Sunday, was made available to the Laity. Few, if any, parishes follow that directive.

There were also many abuses in the Liturgy of the Mass that go back decades before Vatican II. The lack of participation, (i.e., acolytes repeating the responses FOR the people), needed to be changed to bring the congregation back to their proper place of active participation in the Mass. There was also unnecessary redundancies in the Tridentine Mass. The Vatican II Father's recommendation was to remove unnecessary repetition and to restore to the Mass prayer even "more ancient and traditional" than what the Tridentine Mass contained.

In addition, the world's bishops faced tremendous challenges driven by political, social, economic, and technological change, especially as the 1960's emerged. The Church had to discuss ways to address those challenges.

The most succinct statement of purpose for Vatican II was given by Pope John XXIII, when he announced his intention on January 25, 1959 to convene the Council. When asked why the Council was needed, he reportedly opened a window and said, "I want to throw open the windows of the Church so that we can see out and the people can see in."

There is much more that could be said, but the bottomline is that Vatican II was a holy council as are ALL ecumenical councils. The teachings of Vatican II were/are needed and are binding upon Catholics.

The problems we saw and are seeing since Vatican II do NOT come from anything the Council Fathers taught. The problems come from liberal Bishops allowing liberal priests to abuse the liturgy to suit themselves. This is what happened before Vatican II, albeit more secretively, and it continued after Vatican II (in more obvious ways).

We must remember that the liberal mess after Vatican II was all caused by PRE-Vatican II bishops and priests.

Pope John Paul II understood the proper interpretation of the Council and lead the Church to fulfill the promise of the Council. Our current Pope continues with that Holy Spirit inspired task.

While there are kinks to still work out, we are moving in the direction inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Those who would disparage the Vatican II council are disparaging the Holy Spirit.

As for Protestant OBSERVERS, not advisors, Pope John XXIII invited other Christian Churches to send observers to the Council. Protestants and Orthodox Churches accepted the invitation. The Pope knew that in the coming years that technology and culture would become more and more intertwined with a diversity of peoples. The Church had to find ways to bring the message of Christ to that diverse world. To do that we must listen to, and not close a deaf ear to, what others have to say. That gives us the needed knowledge to know how to inculturate the world and imbue it with the Gospel message. Thus, non-Catholic observers were invited. These observers had no more power to influence the Council Fathers as you or I do if we go OBSERVE a baseball game and shout our opinions at the umpire. It is the umpire who will decide, not us. With the Council, it was the bishops who decided, not the observers and the decision was made according to the Holy Spirit in concert with Magisterial tradition. We need not fear because non-Catholics were in attendance.

Besides, the beloved Council of Trent invited Protestant advisors, too. The Church welcomes input from any source, but as I said, the Church will always DECIDE according to the Holy Spirit and the Magisterial tradition.

The Mass is not so Protestant now, at least in the way it is suppose to be said. I was born and raised Protestant and was a Baptist Preacher for 15 years. The Catholic Mass is NOT Protestant.

We that said, there are many priests who have taken upon themselves to mess with the Mass. If there is any depreciation of the Mass it is because of the priest celebrant, not because of the Mass itself.

Nevertheless, some people prefer the Tridentine form. Their preferences for form, does not depreciated other forms. And we are talking about form, not substance.

Unfortunately, ultra-traditionalist tend to confuse form for substance. I had one ultra-traditionalist tell me that the Mass after Vatican II was invalid because in the words of the consecration the word "cup" is used instead of "chalice." Such an assertion is ridiculous. First of all, no one but the Magisterium can define what is or is not valid or orthodox. The ultra-traditionalists leave the communion with the Church when they define their own brand of orthodoxy. The use of chalice or cup hardly invalidates the Mass. Second, a chalice IS A CUP.

The substance of the matter is that a vessel of our Lord's blood is offered. Whether or not we call that vessel a cup or a chalice is mere form. I prefer chalice myself, but a rose by any other name is STILL a rose.

God Bless.

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: I would have to agree with the Ultra Traditionalist that you mentioned. See when I hear the word cup, it could mean anything, for instance Burger King. When I hear the word Chalice I think of God. Therefore, without being technical, there seems to be no logical reason to call it a cup except to devalue the meaning.

Now in the Tridentine rite the liturgy refers to our Blessed Mother as Ever Virgin. In the new Mass rite she is now referred to as simply Virgin. Again why would such a thing be changed unless it were devalue what is Catholic or appeal to such folks as Protestants.

Your a Brother. You took a vow to be this. You wouldn't become a Muslim or something to to serve the Catholic Church. It just doesn't make sence. I could pick apart the Mass all day... but I know you get my point. Not only has the Mass been drastically changed but so has the blessing of Holy Water, Baptism rite, the removal of Relics from Alters, and I can't remember the last time I saw a Tabernacle on the Alter.   

I would be a fool to say all Priest prior to Vatican II were perfect angels but for the Church to allow this to happen in such an official form is beyond me.

[In this Apostolic Letter Pope Leo XIII reviews the history of the rite for Holy
Orders introduced under King Edward VI of England for the Church of England,
otherwise known as the Anglican Church (in England) or Episcopalian Church (in
the United States).  The pope declared ordinations according to the rite in the
Anglican Ordinal null and void and thus closes the question of validity,
according to Catholic doctrine that there are three essential conditions needed
for the valid conferral of a Sacrament:  proper matter, proper form, and proper
intention.

[The form (text) was so altered in the Anglican Ordinal as to change
substantially the intention of the rite.  In the Anglican form there is no
reference to the priestly power of offering sacrifice, which is essential in the
ordination of priests.  Furthermore, the Anglican ordinal rendered the form for
the consecration of bishops invalid by the omission of essential words.  Astute
readers will see that the arguments the pope makes against the validity of
Anglican Orders might apply equally to argue the invalidity of the New Order
Worship Service.  One can only wonder what Pope Leo would have said when the
Innovators began to impose an unCatholic "New Order of Mass" upon the Church,
starting in 1964.  

  
In Pope Leo XIII's Apostolicae Curae,  On the Nullity of Anglican Orders condemns this.

"We have dedicated to the welfare of the noble English nation no small portion of the Apostolic care and charity by which, helped by His grace, we endeavor to fulfill the office and follow in the footsteps of "the Great Pastor of the sheep, Our Lord Jesus Christ". The letter which last year we sent to the English seeking the Kingdom of Christ in the unity of the faith is a special witness of our good will towards England. In it we recalled the memory of the ancient union of the people with Mother Church, and we strove to hasten the day of a happy reconciliation by stirring up men's hearts to offer diligent prayer to God. And, again, more recently, when it seemed good to Us to treat more fully the unity of the Church in a General Letter, England had not the last place in our mind, in the hope that our teaching might both strengthen Catholics and bring the saving light to those divided from us. It is pleasing to acknowledge the generous way in which our zeal and plainness of speech, inspired by no mere human motives, have met the approval of the English people, and this testifies not less to their courtesy than to the solicitude of many for their eternal salvation.

2. With the same mind and intention, we have now determined to turn our consideration to a matter of no less importance, which is closely connected with the same subject and with our desires...

I love the Church and I thank you for your love of the Church as well but I must defend the Traditionalists on this. Because to say they are wrong would be to say the Church was once wrong, that our beloved Saints were wrong, etc...

Respectfully,
Roberta, I do not mean to attack you...

See also:  "From Trent to Vatican II: Historical and Theological Investigations"
Raymond Bulman