I live in a parish with a beautiful new church. It is architecturally significant and acclaimed.
For some reason the nave was placed on a north-south axis. And the new chapel altar is on a west wall.
The old church, which was razed to the ground and the land sold after its interior was reclaimed for other parishes to avoid desecration (good) had the nave on the east west axis and the altar on the east wall.
So the celebrant used to face Jerusalem at least some of the N. O. Mass, and now he doesn’t.
I attribute these changes and others like them to V2 which changed what things may be considered important.
That's egregious! They must have completely overlooked the traditional meaning of the compass-points. Perhaps more owing to ignorance than any desire to break from tradition.
Also, be it noted, facing East is not about facing Jerusalem, but about facing the cosmic symbol of Christ, the risen Sun/Son.
Perhaps I am too harsh, but the new jargon-ridden phraseology like, "Where Catholicism is alive today, and Vatican II well-received and implemented, it is because local churches have embraced holiness and beauty as evangelical and catechetical pathways toward a Christocentric future" make me never want to read again. I get what he's saying; the problem is that I don't think he's saying hardly anything at all.
I have become quite tired of the "new" way of writing "theology" and anything concerning the Christian life that contains more gobbledygook than any meaningful substance. It started leading up to the council, and only got worse afterwards. I now have the privilege of getting fed this stuff in (thankfully, only in very few of) my college Theology courses, and I leave the classroom (or the book) knowing I'm supposed to feel good about it, but find myself having very little to think about.
I have had a similar experience teaching modern church documents, from roughly 1960 onwards. There is something very "mushy" and "procedural" and "bloated" about them, that leaves one feeling deflated rather than inspired.
I’m confused why after reading this, why the Fraternity of St Peter and is silent on Vatican II. The last Mass I attended of the Fraternity in Sarasota Florida was interesting in the sermon the young priest at Christ the King said and I quote “ There is nothing wrong with the church today, we are the problem “
The Fraternity is quick to criticize the SSPX to whom they owe their existence.
The SSPX is honest and charitable to the magisterium on the errors of Vatican II.
Trouble is, you can find a lot of different views and approaches, both in the FSSP and in the SSPX. There are hard-liners, soft-liners, and everything in between. There are some who quickly "spiritualize" everything into an "us" problem, ignoring the "them" problems; while there are others who thunder about the evils of the times and the corruption of the hierarchy. Really, I don't see this as an FSSP vs. SSPX issue.
I think that the question of what errors are in Vatican II, and to what degree, is still highly controversial and by no means obvious. Even Bishop Schneider, who is unafraid of what anyone thinks, believes that the Vatican II documents have only a few "problem spots" which he discusses in "Christus Vincit." Yes, that's something that has to be dealt with, but it's not the same as writing off the Council as some kind of massive heresy-fest, as some rad trads do. I've read all the documents and, while they are verbose, tedious, and sometimes ambiguous, there's almost nothing that can't be given an orthodox interpretation.
Still try to find an orthodox interpretation to Fiducia supplicans.
I grew up in the Latin Church in Puerto Rico and we saw the last Latin Mass in 1969. When Vatican II came it caused confusion in our community. It proved to be a slippery slope and look what the church is blessing.
The same happened in medicine. As an obstetrician I saw that when birth control was tested first in the island of Puerto Rico in the 1960’s my father also an obstetrician said it would lead to abortion.
There is nothing Orthodox in the Novus Ordo. I attended that Mass with my wife for over 20 years. She was Protestant and when we attended a High Mass 2 years ago, she said, “Why have you been hiding this from me “ She said I need to become Catholic.
She thought the new mass was Protestant.
Thank you for your kind words and I have enjoyed reading your books.
I have personally tried to put together an account of how Vatican II tallies with the French Revolution. I do not see how it could be perceived otherwise, and I am not yet done with the series of articles. Here's the link to one of them.
I live in a parish with a beautiful new church. It is architecturally significant and acclaimed.
For some reason the nave was placed on a north-south axis. And the new chapel altar is on a west wall.
The old church, which was razed to the ground and the land sold after its interior was reclaimed for other parishes to avoid desecration (good) had the nave on the east west axis and the altar on the east wall.
So the celebrant used to face Jerusalem at least some of the N. O. Mass, and now he doesn’t.
I attribute these changes and others like them to V2 which changed what things may be considered important.
Maybe I’m wrong to feel that way, but I do.
That's egregious! They must have completely overlooked the traditional meaning of the compass-points. Perhaps more owing to ignorance than any desire to break from tradition.
Also, be it noted, facing East is not about facing Jerusalem, but about facing the cosmic symbol of Christ, the risen Sun/Son.
Yes of course thank you.
Perhaps I am too harsh, but the new jargon-ridden phraseology like, "Where Catholicism is alive today, and Vatican II well-received and implemented, it is because local churches have embraced holiness and beauty as evangelical and catechetical pathways toward a Christocentric future" make me never want to read again. I get what he's saying; the problem is that I don't think he's saying hardly anything at all.
I have become quite tired of the "new" way of writing "theology" and anything concerning the Christian life that contains more gobbledygook than any meaningful substance. It started leading up to the council, and only got worse afterwards. I now have the privilege of getting fed this stuff in (thankfully, only in very few of) my college Theology courses, and I leave the classroom (or the book) knowing I'm supposed to feel good about it, but find myself having very little to think about.
I have had a similar experience teaching modern church documents, from roughly 1960 onwards. There is something very "mushy" and "procedural" and "bloated" about them, that leaves one feeling deflated rather than inspired.
This is in fact about the best book I’ve read on the subject, down to the sequencing of the essays. Thank you.
I’m confused why after reading this, why the Fraternity of St Peter and is silent on Vatican II. The last Mass I attended of the Fraternity in Sarasota Florida was interesting in the sermon the young priest at Christ the King said and I quote “ There is nothing wrong with the church today, we are the problem “
The Fraternity is quick to criticize the SSPX to whom they owe their existence.
The SSPX is honest and charitable to the magisterium on the errors of Vatican II.
Any thoughts on this matter?
Respectfully Eric Sarkis Mudafort
Trouble is, you can find a lot of different views and approaches, both in the FSSP and in the SSPX. There are hard-liners, soft-liners, and everything in between. There are some who quickly "spiritualize" everything into an "us" problem, ignoring the "them" problems; while there are others who thunder about the evils of the times and the corruption of the hierarchy. Really, I don't see this as an FSSP vs. SSPX issue.
I understand what you are trying to say but the question remains why is the FSSP silent on Vatican II as a whole including their superior general.
Is it just about being able to celebrate the Mass in Latin but ignoring the errors and ambiguity of the liturgy?
They recognize Vatican II entirely. I’m I missing something?
I think that the question of what errors are in Vatican II, and to what degree, is still highly controversial and by no means obvious. Even Bishop Schneider, who is unafraid of what anyone thinks, believes that the Vatican II documents have only a few "problem spots" which he discusses in "Christus Vincit." Yes, that's something that has to be dealt with, but it's not the same as writing off the Council as some kind of massive heresy-fest, as some rad trads do. I've read all the documents and, while they are verbose, tedious, and sometimes ambiguous, there's almost nothing that can't be given an orthodox interpretation.
Still try to find an orthodox interpretation to Fiducia supplicans.
I grew up in the Latin Church in Puerto Rico and we saw the last Latin Mass in 1969. When Vatican II came it caused confusion in our community. It proved to be a slippery slope and look what the church is blessing.
The same happened in medicine. As an obstetrician I saw that when birth control was tested first in the island of Puerto Rico in the 1960’s my father also an obstetrician said it would lead to abortion.
There is nothing Orthodox in the Novus Ordo. I attended that Mass with my wife for over 20 years. She was Protestant and when we attended a High Mass 2 years ago, she said, “Why have you been hiding this from me “ She said I need to become Catholic.
She thought the new mass was Protestant.
Thank you for your kind words and I have enjoyed reading your books.
Dios te bendiga
Vatican II is the demonic "cancer" that is undruggable, just like the KRAS G12C mutation.
Agreed. A revolution it was.
https://gumagumisiriza.substack.com/p/vatican-ii-and-the-french-revolution-90c?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=43lt3j
I have personally tried to put together an account of how Vatican II tallies with the French Revolution. I do not see how it could be perceived otherwise, and I am not yet done with the series of articles. Here's the link to one of them.
https://gumagumisiriza.substack.com/p/vatican-ii-and-the-french-revolution-90c?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=43lt3j