The Second Vatican Council.

Nomi Patris, Et Fili, Et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.

So, this year if the fiftieth anniversary of the end of Vatican II. Vatican II affected alot in the Church. She opened up more to the people, and helped create a new missal for the Tridentine mass. This 1965 missal influenced the creation of the 1969 missal, which is what we now call the Novus Ordo. Vatican II not only affected the Catholic Churches liturgy, but also affected various Protestant liturgical practices. Most notably, Anglicans and Lutherans. What are your views on the Second Vatican Council, and how do you feel about it's affects on the liturgy?

Personally, I think the 1965 missal should have been it! It was basically the 1962 missal with the option of vernacular, and facing the people. It also slightly simplified the prayers at the foot of the altar, and I also think some of the Eucharistic prayers. The Novus Ordo, which was created four years after Vatican II, but inspired by it, in my view is an over simplification of the liturgy. It was also totally un-nessacarry. Something similar to the Novus Ordo is used by many Anglicans and Lutherans... and high church Methodist I think... What are your opinions???

 

My personal opinion is that V2 represents the final nail in the coffin removing all credibility from the Roman Church. It was a flawed system but, at least, an internally consistent one, more or less. V2 saw that one redeeming quality take flight as well. V2 overthrew everything that the Roman Church said it preserved--holy tradition, the church fathers , the councils--now at least the Roman Church is openly embracing what protestants have known for 500 years. What constitutes "truth" in the Roman Church is nothing more or less than what whatever Pope in office at that particular time proclaims it to be. Such a fickle foundation doesn't sound much like a house built on a rock.

Take it with a grain of salt. I am an Anglican after all. Please don't take this as an attack. You asked for an opinion and this is mine.

 

I think you'll find it was the other way around...

But the Pope in conjunction with all the bishops around the world approved and thought it was necessary. Do you think it's possible to be more catholic than the Pope?

 

Alittle... but not really because it was more with individual Catholics. Individual Catholics complained how they couldn't understand the mass, and how the people didn't participate enough, and how it seemed like the Priest didn't care about the parish because he faced away. Many in the higher part of the hierarchy saw this, and wanted to give people a chance to experience things so they would like mass better. I don't really see them as too bad. But what the Novus Ordo has done is it is now way too faced on the people rather than Jesus in the holy Eucharist. Thankfully, the Latin mass has been growing faster than it ever has in the last 8 years. A Priest ordained within the last 10 years is way more likely to do the Latin mass than a Priest who was ordained about 20 years ago. This is because younger generations see much more beauty and focus on Christ in the holy Eucharist in this mass. The Latin mass is making a huge comeback.

As Catholics we can have our own opinion about the liturgy's. I don't think anyone can be "more Catholic than the Pope" if he and I are faithful Catholics... Same with Christianity as a whole...

 

Totally wrong. Vatican II barley changed the liturgy, for example. The modern liturgy we have is not a direct result of Vatican II. As I said, the 1965 missal is, and it was the Latin mass with the option of saying it in vernacular and facing the people...

The terms "Romish Catholic" and "Roman Catholic", along with "Popish Catholic", were brought into use in the English language chiefly by adherents of the Church of England, which saw itself as the Catholic Church in England, so that they were not willing to concede the term Catholic to their opponents without qualification. That term caught on mostly in English-speaking countries; it was promoted mostly by Anglicans, supporters of the "branch theory" of the Church, namely, that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the creed was supposed to consist of three major branches, the Anglican, the Eastern Orthodox and the so-called Roman Catholic. It was to avoid that kind of interpretation that the English-speaking bishops at Vatican I succeeded in warning the Church away from ever using the term officially herself: It too easily could be misunderstood.

 

Dear Friend,
The name of your Church ,or at least the one, the Pope's in, is according to their letterhead, the Holy Roman Church! When they posted notices in the Romanist press a few years ago in their endevour to gain Anglican converts for Rome that 's what the notice told us!My studies tell me that is the definition of Trent!!!
Secondly, whilst I admire your loyalty to Rome, i must comment on the fact that you have not yet brought forward from the early fathers or from scripture any real proof of Roman superiority.
God Bless.

 

The Roman Church is a Rite, and the other small western Rites. Rome itself is apart of this rite, and that makes sense. Rome is the patriarch over the entire west, and universal leader over the entire Church. But the entire Church is not Roman. Only the western rites are apart of the Roman Church. Byzantine Catholics are apart of Byzantine Church. Copts are apart of the Alexandrian Church. Maronites would be Antiochan. And I have brought forth the Fathers multiple times. Would you like me to whip them out again?

 

Dear Colleague, Again you are simply making statements that are misleading, the Bishop of Rome might well be the Patriarch, of Italy I simply don't know! There is already a Patriarch of Ravenna, (I think,) . He is not however Patriarch of Britain and never has been! he was made Patriarch by one of the Emperors, of Gaulle right up to Vienne. It doesn't carry a lot of weight, probably the same monarch who gave him the use of the polis and for the same reason ! You are a tryer , credit given where credit is due, but it isn't enough. The Bishop of Rome was given the title of Primate of the West, all the West! and sulked when the Bishop of Constantinople was made Primate of the East. The Titles carried no authority and were simply a genuflection to the authority of the Emperor's Capital, Old Rome in the West and New Rome in the East!
Interestingly the retired pope, Benedict, gave the title of Primate of the West up, ? No one paid any service to it! In other words it was meaningless!When Gregory the Great sent his illegal mission to Britain, he was refused recognition by the British Church? Also the Primus of the Church in Britain would seem to have been the Bishop of Caerleon in Wales!It then went to S.Davids and eventually ended up in Canterbury!

 

Can you elaborate further on this for me? What, in your view, is the apostolic lineage of the British church leading up to the establishing of the Canterbury primate (with timeline)?

 

1.

That they were Catholic is undoubted, they took place and part in the defining moments of the Catholic Religion in the First four centuries. Both Roman and Orthodox Scholars attest the attendance of the British Church at Nice 325 AD.. Attending various Church Councils all over Europe. The Church in Britain were referred to by both S.Constantine and S.Athanasius as signatories to the great Council Of Nicea.
Where and when Christianity came to Britain, we don't know! In the city where I was a Priest, Christian remains, or, artifacts, have been dated to 140AD.So we know Christianity was here early, Tertullian, one of the earliest of the the Fathers mentions the Church's presence in Britain. At least ten other early fathers mention Christianity in these Isles! What today we call the Celtic People who politically dominated the land, were split in to tribal areas each with its own prince or land . S. D orotheus of Tyre, Bishop & Martyr, wrote that S. (303 Ad) S.Simon Zelote ) Christ's Brother was martyred here and that S.Aristobulos, (mentioned in Ep, to Romans. ) was first Bishop of the British Church. (Both these facts were mentioned in Orthodox & Roman literature.)
At least 10 references were made by the First fathers.
The Britons always claimed that S.Joseph of Arimathea, landed in Somerset and was given land there about 37/40AD., In the reign of Tiberius the Roman Emperor. This was the claim of Rome in Eliza's time as well as the Anglican Church! During the medieval times at Western or Latin, General Councils, the Church in England was given precedence on account of their founder, S.Joseph of Arimathea. When the apostate Roman/Marian Bishops wrote their letter to Eliza (1559) claiming a Roman foundation or source, she laughed at them and said they woulkdn't have dared say that to her father! She told them S.Joseph of A. brought our orders from Jerusalem.

When Augustine of Canterbury landed (597 AD.) he was met by a Catholic Bishop & a Catholic Queen! He was given the use of one ,(at least, Christian Church, possibly two) .The trouble was that the political situation was erupting and the country was becoming dominated by a Saxon elite and some kind of
0 struggle was taking place and we are told that two , at least two Councils, or Synods were held at Augustine's suggestion, (607AD.) but bringing Christ to the Saxons which was the reason given for calling them was never discussed, they founded on the refusal of the British
Bishops to accept Roman Domination! That was the dominant discussion. Two British Metropolitans were driven in to Wales and exile.
Bede in (750. AD.) declared "Britons, are contrary to the whole Roman world and enemies to the Roman Customs, not only in their Mass, but in their tonsure.We cannot change our customs without the consent and leave of our people. After Augustine's death his successor was even more bitter than Augustine,"We have found the Scottish even worse than the British!"
Another to follow with the Firm's permission?

 

This is excellent! So is it the case that the successors to Augustine went on to dominate and rule the church in Britain all the way into the reformation? If so, what came of the succession rooted in the exiled bishops in Wales?

 

No it isn't like that! Though that is how it is told oftimes enough. In fact, Augustin's Mission was a failure.There was a Pagan outbreak and it wiped out both Celt and the small number of converts Augustine managed. The celtic Christians managed to survive, after all, they had some 600 years of history about them, the Saxons Christians, few tho' they were ,were wiped out, their Bishops ran off to France, or Gaul and only one of them stayed with what few parishioners he had. Later the british Bishops rallied and with the help of their brothers in Wales, Scotland and Ireland reformed and rebuilt the Church in what became England. There were some Saxon believers and the Bishops trained the Christion youth, to take part in the New Conversion.
In 644 AD, There was a council at Whitby in the North and bothe Saxon and Celts discussed the matter of following the Continental system and practice.
It was the Saxon King who decided that the Continental system should be followed and the Irish Bishops fell back to their Island sanctuaries whilst the natives followed which way they wanted. There were acually two Churches, it wasn't about Dogma, it was about ceremonies! We remained Catholics.
In about 680 AD, the Archbishop of Canterbury died and the pope sent a Greek Bishop, to take his place and that was the start of the Church in England. The old church lasted a few years , it changed its primate from Caerleon, to S. Davids The authority often rested with Canterbury because of the support from the mainland monarchy, Wales was all hills and far to the south west. Eventually they spoke a different language.
It was after 1066 Ad, that the Roman Bishop obtained some of his wishes,William of Normandy, a Butcher by nature, Killed the English King in battle and without Harald Godwin, the English nobility fell apart and there is talk of a mass migration of the nobilty and the Thegns to Constantinople, some talk of 60, 000 in a reletive short time. One of the first things William did was change all the Bishops and Deans within the Church in England, he beheaded it.The French and continental clergy he introduced knew where safety lay and cooperated fully with William.

But we must remember that the Roman Bishop was never accepted as more than was essential for Church unity, his relationship with England was limited, chiefly to taking the bulk of its wealth to finance the dynastic wars of the various papal families. In about 60 years of the accession of William, the clergy in England were discussing with henry II, the possibility of breaking communion with the pope!
The trouble within the Church was that through forgerie, the pope obtained most of Northern Italy as his own fief. This made the European Monarchs unwil;ling to pull down a brother monarch, especially when he claimed to be God's Viceregent on earth! They didn't have the knowledge necessary to work matters out

 

What texts do you recommend that cover this hidden history?

 

You have to be careful so far back, there's a lot of printed stuff, on the internet, the protestants make a lot of assumptions and even more claims. The Church Historical Association has at least one book , which I have, but can't find and the S.P.C.K. has another" English Christianity in its Beginnings."
Rev.E.R.Pearce. 1908. Come to think of it, I have two books ,but not to hand. With Internet searching ,I always dismiss until I can compare with something from my Church History collection.

Binghams , Ecclesiasticle Encyclpaedia. (Marvellous collection.) 10 Vols. Deals with Augustine and the Two Meetings. hard to get hold of.
Ecclesiastical History of the Church in Great Britain./ Jeremy Collier Vol1. I always trust him. I'll give you a more thoughtful account tomorrow.

 

I'm buying these books. highchurchman, I always appreciate your posts -- they are always so excellent! If you keep a blog I would read it (hint, hint?).

 

Greetings Christus Resurrexit,

I, for one, applaud the efforts of Vatican II and find the standard Protestant narrative of its being a self-evident departure from the traditional Catholic faith to be, at the very least, unconvincing. That being said, Vatican II has also been, in many ways, disastrous. Many within and without the Catholic church have seized upon certain nuanced statements and employed them to further their own theological agendas--quite contrary to the entire spirit of that council. I believe, however, that the true spirit of Vatican II has yet to manifest itself, and the signs of it are already being seen in the new generation of Catholic theologians who are undoubtedly some of the brightest lights in the church today: theologians like John R. Betz, Fr. Thomas Joseph White, Fr. Robert Barron, and Reinhard Huetter--just to name a few. In this sense, the future of the Catholic Church is hopeful indeed.

With regard to the impact of Vatican II decisions on the liturgy, I agree with you completely that the Novus Ordo is "totally unnecessary". While I do believe that the faithful ought to receive of both kinds in the sacrament--and not the bread only, yet I cringe whenever I hear the smarmy sound of "guitar-masses" (which I have had, on several occasions, the unfortunate experience of hearing) and the general disregard for (and seemingly outright opposition to) the great Latin liturgical tradition that has come before it. Don't even get me started on "liturgical dancing"...

Perhaps in all of this there might be a recovery of the old dictum: lex orandi, lex credendi: the law of prayer (and worship) is the law of belief. The relationship between prayer and belief, between worship and dogma, needs to be more closely examined. Both are necessary and presuppose one another. True "orthodoxy" (right praise) is nothing less than an expression of the true faith "once delivered to the saints" (fides quae creditur), and this true faith is nothing less than the pure reflection of true worship. Where the interrelatedness of worship and belief are recognized, there it becomes difficult to recognize the Novus Ordo as standing in continuity with the spirit of catholicism (which I, not being Roman Catholic, would define more broadly than you)--who is none other than the Holy Spirit himself.

Pax,
Thomas

 

The question of the Patriarch is interesting. Undoubtedly Rome was/is the Patriarch of the West, and there were various Patriarchs in the East, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, ?Ephesus, and then Constantinople (The New Rome). Initially it would seem that the primacy was with Jerusalem. Primacy passed to Rome, as the seat of Empire, as the seat of Peter, in light of troubles in Jerusalem. If I read things correctly this was largely a conciliar primacy (such as we suggest that the ArchBishop of Canterbury is First among equals). One of the marks of the Patriarchs was that they wore the Pallium. This was accompanied by a degree of autonomy, and the freedom to consecrate other Bishops around them. As the theory of Roman Primacy developed it appears to have inherited a more authoritarian nature like the Empire it emulated.

When Gregory sent Augustine to Canterbury had the Pallium as is still witnessed by it being of the Coat of Arms. One must conclude therefore that Augustine was intended by Gregory to be the Patriarch of the English.

Catholic comes from the greek kata holos - according to the whole - therefore you can not be more or less catholic. Bartholomew the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Justin ArchBishop of Canterbury, Francis Bishop of Rome, are all as catholic as anyone else here who supports and affirms the Nicene Creed (with or without the filioque clause).

One question I ponder is 'is it fair to call the 2nd Vatican Council (indeed any council since the schism of 1054) an Oecumenical Council if the Patriarchs of the East, and of the English are not full participants in the council?

On the subject of Post Vatican II liturgy, I fear that after only fifty years the Church gathered around the Pope is beginning to understand what they had, what they lost, and starting to learn how to say Mass in the vernacular without relying on a foreign tongue to affirm the mystery.

 

The Catholic Church admits to Seven Ecumenical Councils. the last one being Ephesus II.
The Trent Council, is, I consider the time of the modern Roman Church's foundation, if only because at that time the Catholic Bishops of Northern Europe abandoned their collegiate responsibilities on to the shoulders of the Bishop of Rome, becoming Rome's errand boys. This by Not affirming the decisions of the ,'Robber Council and surrendering or leaving their sacred responsibilities & duties to the Roman Bishop. Amongst other things they had accepted a large addition to the Creed of Nice which went against the Canons of the Great Council.
"Accursed be he that addeth,
Accursed be he that diminisheth;
Accursed be he that innovateth.
Bishop of Chalcedon on discussion at Council of Nice. ( AD. 325!)

As for Rome and the patriarchate? Rome was made patriarch, of Western Europe , by one of the Roman Emperors. According to Fr, Denny it fininished at Viennes some where in France. Rome didn't even become Patriarch of Northern Italy till the collapse of the Western Empire and the disappearance of the Emperor. It di not most certainly become Patriarch of Britain.

The Councils seem to have adopted the usage of custom and practice! The British Church has never had a patriarch. It was ruled by the
1. Bishop of Caerleon and then Bishop of David's , both of which are in Wales. Only about 700 AD,approx, was The Archbishop of Caterbury accepted by all the Church in Britain, and neither was he a Patriarch.

There was a ,'move or stirrings is a better term, for a Patriachate, about last third of the 19th Century!

 

Remember the words of Bishop Jewell, who dispelled the the so-called primacy of the Bishop of Rome in so uncertain terms

Even though he concedes that the Bishop of Rome was once a patriarch, it appears the good Bishop of Salisbury sees the pretensions of holders of the See of Rome to have invalidated any earlier claim to the office of patriarchate and even to bishop. They have forsaken the faith and are servants of the devil.

Harsh sentiments, but certainly not without foundation when one looks at the history of Western Civilization.

 

I suspect a deal of the issue of the Primacy in the Church rests somewhat in what that primacy means. Initially the sense of primacy seems to have fallen to Jerusalem (Acts) and seems to have shifted to Rome as the Church become less Jewish and more Gentile. On the basis of the Gospel accounts 'You are Peter and on this Rock ...' primacy seems to have shifted naturally to Rome (seat of Peter, seat of Empire). The notion of primacy seems (at least to my reading) to have been generally conciliar, more of a lifting up rather than a bearing down. Rome was of course also the seat of Empire and over time the notion of primacy seems to have become rather more hierarchical and somewhat closer to the imperial/military model of empire. I think it was a search for a proper understanding of primacy that led to the Anglican position where the ArchBishop of Canterbury is First among equals, and in full communion with York.

I think that the Church will be well served by a recovery of the conciliar notion of primacy which I think has some prospect whilst we have some exceptional holders of office in Rome, Constantinople and Antioch. I am not sure I understand enough of what happens in Alexandria to know. Jewells salve at the Roman Church may well have been apposite, and indeed was probably in its day politically correct - at least in England - however I am not sure he would have been levelling such comments in the post Vatican 2 era of the Roman Church.

The faith is concerned with eternity, yet in every generation we have to work out what that means in our time and space in fear and trembling.

The thrust of contemporary liturgy in all parts of the Church save the East (whose liturgy is timeless), has been to celebrate the mystery in a way that is true to our origins and in the vulgar tongue (understanded of the people). Wider access to ancient documents such as the Canon of Hippolytus and perhaps more importantly the Didache has had a profound influence on contemporary liturgy, and that is a good thing I think. The speed at which language and culture now change is very challenging in terms of liturgy. The 1978 An Australian Prayer Book is now tired, the 1995, A Prayer Book for Australia seems to have lasted longer, however on reflection I am aware that in many Parishes there are simple service booklets produced to make it easier for people and some of these reflect some variation on a theme with various leanings displayed. I see little value in the Church continuing to produce whole Prayer Books, and would be better concerned to produce excellent resources for the production of Parish liturgy. It does beg the question of authorisation - and I know that some of the English will smile at the rural australian response of 'a hundred miles from the Bishop is a thousand miles from care!'