I know, I know, there were sinful, aberrant and perverted Catholics prior to Vatican II. Most of these, though, if they were laity, came to Mass on Sunday but didn't go to Holy Communion if they knew they were in a state of mortal sin. They were humble enough not to go and did not see Holy Communion as a kind of prize for attending Mass or some kind of amulet that would cure them of their sins. They knew that our all Holy God could not be received into a soul tainted by mortal sin as this would be a sacrilege of the highest degree. Confession was the source of healing for the sin sick soul.
But in the 1960's and as a result of the wrong interpretation and implementation of Vatican II, Catholics began to lose their humble attitudes about themselves and their unworthiness. Priests started to berate Catholics who didn't come to Holy Communion as being too Jansenistic. They told us that we did not understand the meal aspect of Holy Communion and that when you were invited into someone's home you wouldn't refuse to eat what was offered to you. Thus we were committing a "sin" in the minds of these priests by not going to Holy Communion and participating in the communal aspect of the Eucharist.
This was supported too by those who said that Vatican II showed us that Jesus is like us, He's our brother and that He is our buddy accompanying us on the way. Thus we should not have fear or reverence that debased us for our Lord in Holy Communion but see Him as our buddy, our guide and our salvation even if we are in sin.
And then we didn't need to kneel for Holy Communion and the practice of genuflecting before the tabernacle disappeared for many Catholics and silence in the Lord's house was mocked as being indifferent to our neighbor sitting next to us.
These who created the newMass eliminated or minimized our sense of unworthiness. No longer were there the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar with the priest's confiteor and the laity's confiteor. No longer was there the nine fold Kyrie, the three-fold "Lord, I am not worthy" or the beating of the breast at the Confiteor and the Lord I am not worthy and the Lamb of God--that was too much self-loathing. And the Confiteor prior to the Holy Communion of the laity was suppressed.
Then the tabernacle was moved to the side or placed in some kind of separate room or chapel and the priest's chair placed dead center. Some places moved the altar to one side and the ambo to the other with the chair in the middle!
Hospitality was encourage in the church building prior to Mass and afterward, not prayer before the Blessed Sacrament, now absent.
And then there was the new morality based upon individualism and psychological self fulfillment and haughtiness as opposed to humility, the common good and a sense of guilty and unworthiness.
And then, the clergy sexual abuse of minors, of children peaked in the mid 1970's.
Is there any correlation? The law of prayer is the law of belief. If there isn't a correlation, then we've been misled by Holy Mother Church.
4 comments:
Father, you just nailed it.
Yes. Father you nailed it except there is no requirement that anyone ever be in the state of mortal sin. If a person is in mortal sin, chances are that only happens once or twice in a lifetime. Mortal sin is extremely painful, even deadly. The reason most probably refrained from communion was because they didn't keep the fast, or failed to confess venial sins.
The idea that mortal sin only happens once or twice in a lifetime is very dangerous.
"... as a result of the wrong interpretation and implementation of Vatican II..."
That a Council of the Universal Church needs any interpretation at all shows how faulty the Council is. For the past 50 years this statement I have just made would be considered anathema to the leaders in the Church even though the V2 Council did not pronounce any anathemas. But that is precisely the problem, that is to say, the Council was meant to deal with Modernism, but ended up being surreptitiously taken over by the crafty Modernists themselves who saw to it that only prosaic statements were the outcome of the Council; prosaic statements always lend themselves to interpretation, so the Modernists got their way when these statements were "interpreted" at a later more favourable date in their favour.
Compare this with the clear and unambiguous statements of the Council of Trent Session 22, CHAPTER IX:
Preliminary Remark on the following Canons.
And because that many errors are at this time disseminated and many things are taught and maintained by divers persons, in opposition to this ancient faith, which is based on the sacred Gospel, the traditions of the Apostles, and the doctrine of the holy Fathers; the sacred and holy Synod, after many and grave deliberations maturely had touching these matters, has resolved, with the unanimous consent of all the Fathers, to condemn, and to eliminate from holy Church, by means of the canons subjoined, whatsoever is opposed to this most pure faith and sacred doctrine.
CANON I.--If any one saith, that in the mass a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema.
...
CANON VI.--If any one saith, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated; let him be anathema.
...
CANON VIII.--If any one saith, that masses, wherein the priest alone communicates sacramentally, are unlawful, and are, therefore, to be abrogated; let him be anathema.
...
CANON IX.--If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.
I chose these 4 canons because they most patently conflict with the common "interpretations" of Sacrosanctum Concilium of V2. Bishop Schneider is right in wanting some kind of clear anathemas with regards to the false "interpretations" of that Council. In other words, V2 was a failure in what it set out to do, which is to deal once and for all with Modernism as St John XXIII had originally intended.
By the way, the important question about this is whether the above Tridentine canons on the Mass are disciplinary or de fide. If de fide, then they contradict the current understanding of SC including current liturgical legislation. But it is fairly clear that in invoking Scripture and tradition towards the canons in the preliminary remarks, these Tridentine canons were meant to be de fide. If so, then the golden question to be addressed is whether a future Council can overturn a de fide pronouncement of an earlier Council as the Modernists claim can be done, because the times have changed, inviting a temporal relativism of doctrine and dogma of the Church (i.e anything goes in due time). All told, there are some very messy aspects of V2, which no one in proper authority wants to admit by just keeping silent.
Post a Comment