The Second Vatican Council.

I think it would be a sad day indeed that saw the end of prayerbooks. I don't really care to imagine it. What sort of unity would be left among us as Anglicans? With the removal of any sort of theological boundaries and guideposts in many provinces of our communion, one must wonder...isn't it bad enough that we no longer share a common faith; now we can't even share a common prayer?!

Lord make haste to help us!

 

That has literally zero chance of happening. I know that the REC has in the past, and will ever do so, fight tooth and nail for the Prayerbook. They have their own edition unbeholden to others and nothing will cause them to give it up/ The Acna has recently issued a prayerbook of their own, so their commitment is renewed, as is the doctrinal commitment of Gafcon to the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. There's zero movement afoot in a direction away from Prayerbooks, because everyone understands that it is impossible to be an Anglican without them.

 

I hope a renewal is in the works for TEC...for many things...and among them a renewed comittment to the prayerbook tradition

 

So I came from a traditional latin rite parish. So everything wrong with the Roman Catholic church today started with Vatican ii. They started tinkering around with the liturgy in the 50s and than whole sale butchered it in the New Order of mass. My biggest problem with Vii was that it was wide open to interpretations and that lead to huge destruction in the church. Main issues to me are
The destruction of high Alters, alter rails and removing the tabernacles.
Communion in the hand and distribution of communion by laity.
Changing of the words of sacraments
Alter girls
Rampant univerlisism.
and well that list can keep on going but it is a good start.

 

I find this document insightful on this matter:
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/Privatican.htm

 

I am aware that there are numbers of members and groups of the latin rite church who have struggled with much of Vatican II. I don't believe it is our place as Anglicans to run a commentary on the organisation of another communion, especially given the number of problems we have in our communion. Vatican II indeed may have some foibles about it, however from an Anglican perspective it showed a deep appreciation for many things that were a cause of English Disquiet in the 16th Century.

• Mass in the vernacular
• The importance of Scripture and the Ministry of the Word
• The role of the Pope more spiritual and less temporal
• A positive stance in relation to other Christians especially the East
• A Vision of God beyond the Church

For us as Anglicans Vatican II cause us to look to Rome with greater compassion and greater mutuality than we did in the 16th Century. I don't think that is altogether a bad thing.

 

Agreed. I never said it was a bad thing. The document I linked to above only shows how it contradicted papal infallibility even by Roman Catholic standards. I believe the authors of "The Principal Heresies" are Sedevecantists. Sedes border on conspiracy and other loony things to claim why the recent popes are false, and that the church is still ongoing in some sense, even without a pope. Changing the ordination rites, among other things, is one of their claims why most post-V2 popes are invalid. However, from what I understand, all the bishops elected via the traditional rite required by Sedes for the pope to be valid died out long ago, so who else can be alive with valid rites ro be able to elect a true pope, since his office comes through the bishops? That is, if one is open to the possibility that there will be another legitimate pope in the future, anyway.

 

Agreed as well. Much of what occurred during the Second Vatican Council was good, from an Anglican perspective.

 

The RCC claims to be able to gradually reveal new things about the spiritual world over time, though supposedly it does not overturn or conflict with previous ones declared as new ones are added. This is because of their belief that the Old Testament unraveled a picture of God in the same way, and as the new priesthood, they must theoretically have the same authority or gift. However, since we believe the claim of an absolute Petrine Roman office to be false historically and scripturally, could we say then, that, perhaps the appearance of infallibility in past papal decrees, as defined by Vatican I, was intended by the Holy Spirit to show us via Vatican II that we cannot trust any claims of seemingly miraculous phenomenon used to establish some sort of authority over the Christian life, that are without solid foundation biblically or historically? Seems Vatican II coming so shortly after was meant to burst the bubble.

 

Right, there are two things that make it a catastrophe from a Roman Catholic traditional perspective.

1. It changed the Roman Church to basically be Anglican.

• three-fold order of ministry
• patristic studies
• vernacular
• hymns
• even the liturgy was explicitly rewritten to resemble the BCP

2. It was pushed through by modernists/liberals in the RC church.

• Unfortunately, from that perspective, to an RCC traditionalist the "Anglican" changes of the V2 are inextricably linked to liberalism and weakening of the faith.
• Yes, V2 pushed through an "Anglican" vernacular liturgy, it was written by liberals, and thus is jam-packed with liberal theology, unlike the traditional Anglican Prayer Books which aren't.
• Yes V2 theologians celebrated patristic studies, but only as a cudgel to dismantle the traditional RCC scholastic method, which contained all of RCC theology. By introducing the Church Fathers, the liberals essentially dismantled and erased all of traditional RCC theology.
• Etc.

 

Stalwart is correct, in that the post-Vatican II Roman Catholic Church resembles Anglicanism now in many ways.

I have attended numerous "Novus Ordo" masses, and I can't see anything objectionable about them. Read the full text of the mass; is there anything heretical contained there? I don't see it.

It can be argued that the priest should face east, and that the altar should be railed off, but those are not dogmatic issues related to the faith. I see no evidence that the early Church did those things (33 AD-150 AD) and, as Stalwart points out, female alter servers are not objectionable. I am from an Orthodox background, where the altar is closed off behind doors and no woman is allowed near it, but you can't find that practice in the early Church.

As a High-Church Laudian, I prefer altar rails, kneeling for communion, etc., but I don't believe these features are commanded by God, or that it is "wrong" not to have them.

As we know from studying Anglican history, the Church has the right to devise services and ceremonies, as well as to change them when it sees fit. As long as they do not contradict the essentials of the faith, they are adiaphora.

 

Thing is though, it is hard to find an Anglican congregation without them. And nearly impossible to find a Roman congregation (today at least) that does have them. Riddle me this, right?

 

Purely for practical reasons most Anglican churches have altar rails. often incorporating hassocks or some other kneeling arrangement. Though traditionally, (in the dark & middle ages), rood screens and altar rails were probably elaborate 'fences', by which animals often found roaming free in the nave, (which had no seating except perhaps round the side walls), could be prevented from getting into the chancel and even the sanctuary. Most people just listened to what was going on from below the rood screen, but could not see. (hence the bells sometimes rung at key points in the prayer of consecration).

Nowadays altar rails perform the very practical function of supporting the elderly and frail in the kneeling position and assisting rising again to a standing posture. They also helpfully delineate the chancel from the sanctuary. Most Anglicans recognize the sanctuary as being particularly 'Holy' because that is where the Eucharist is celebrated and therefore the place we particularly associate with the presence of God. Though of course we know God is of course omnipresent and not confined to any particular place.

In most modern RC churches communion seems to be received standing rather than kneeling. Standing to receive is not unknown in the Anglican church either and there is obviously no rule against it, some people are unable to kneel, just as some people are even unable to walk or climb steps, so provision must therefore be made.

 

Can anyone tell me what Vatican II really says about the relationship of the council with the pope himself? It seems to say that he can act anytime he wants without necessarily being given the approval of the council, while the council itself cannot affirm anything without the pope as head, even if they unanimously reject whatever he's saying. What is the point of the council then, just glorified advisors? Some said Vatican I stated it was only the pope himself making ex cathedra statements on faith and morals that was necessary for dogma to be established, then some say Vatican II required both him and the council, but it doesn't seem like that. Again, what is the point of the council if this is the case?

 

I used to be a Roman Catholic and I sure don't know.

 

The point of a church council in Romanist theology is, just as you say, glorified advisors — it serves no essential function comparable to the pope’s

Vatican I definitively established this in 1870

 

There was an attempt in the past to govern the RCC by councils, but ultimately it failed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conciliarism

 

If the Conciliar movement had succeeded, and if reforms proposed in the Western church from the 13th to the 16th centuries had been enacted, there wouldn't be a need for Anglicanism. As things stand now, Anglicanism is the last best hope for the Western church. There is no hope in Rome, and there is no hope in evangelicalism. We are it, and need to start acting like it.