I think part of it was marketing, i.e. how do we get more souls into the church. It was an obvious failure, that is why I think no one can or wants to explain who , why or how it went south. They are still trying to sell this debacle in the " in was not implemented correctly " , look up sunk cost fallacy that will help explain why this failure is still being sold.
My understanding was to make the Mass more attractive to protestants. But you don't need to have a theology degree to know that is an improper way to view the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Imo, what happened at V2 the catalyst for many loosing the true faith. Those evil men God will hold accountable. This is all in the name of working out our salvation with fear and trembling. Do a word search. The leaders who led the sheep astray will pay a heavy price.
The protestant needs to learn the true faith and it's not what Luther, Calvin or zwingly proposed. The truth is all in the Holy Scriptures. Pray the Holy Spirit lifts the veil
Hindsight is always 20/20. Little did the Council Fathers know that “the 60s” came. We entered a time when man fell in love with the magnificence of its own wisdom. “We know better” they said. “We are just trying to be modern; times are changing”. It was an attempt to codify self-indulgence, irresponsibility, and they made it up as they went.
Yeah but BUGNINI the masonic infiltrator whose mission was to destroy the Church from the inside LIED to BOTH the Pope & the synodal councils so they were BOTH acting as if everyone was in agreement with Bugnini & the Vat2 DIALECTIC that he was ushering into existence >>> when that is a falsehood... it is only after the 70 years of rot that NOW all of a sudden everyone wants to actually listen to the synodal councils bcuz the Church has been entirely infiltrated so instead of the voices of the Faithful that were LIED about by Bugnini you now have an echo chamber >>> that is the reason there is now the push for the democratization of the Church however these really are not synods are they- they are in fact SOVIETS... so the masonic plan continues under the impostor pope & I would go into greater depth but comments are being censored on YT surrounding the perversion of the Church under the "modernists"!
It was the age of THE GURU too!I At 17 l was front row in an audience with the Pope in early 70s. It helped drive this teen of the Church, that and The gossip amongst the wives of Vatican Employees, and the fact that corruption was normative. The Audience - as the Pope was carried out (at maximum height) was hysterical, screaming and grabbing (like an sea anenome clip speeded up) it was like an utterly terrifying all devouring greed.The By the time those kiddy car Pope mobiles, were invented ( pickled Pope Vitrines?) and the Pope became just another perpetually touring celeb and 1 of a kind novelty l was completely lost. Watching clown masses in lockdown brought me back. (But that's a whole nother story.) Reverence.
And with the "New Mass" came the hootenany guitars and the sappy new church lyrics. Every would-be musician who could play three cords took his/her place on the altar.
This is the best explanation I have ever heard about what happened. Why were the Protestants consulted in changing the Catholic mass? Do let us change the way they celebrate their gatherings?
All the Vatican 2 catholics say it's too confusing, I don't understand, it's confusing ! Or the mass is enough, no, it's not enough. You must have the true Catholic faith. There is nothing confusing about it !!! Pope Gregory the 16th 1831 let nothing of the truths that have been defined, it be lessened, nothing altered nothing added, but let them be preserved intact in the word and then meaning. Vatican Council of 1870 session 3 chapter 4 part 13 and 14 EX cathedra -- for the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical Discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence but as a Divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be Faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated hence to that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding. Pope Pius the 10th syllabus condemning the errors of the modernists 1907 article 62 : the proposition the chief articles of the Apostles Creed did not have the same sense for the Christians of the first stages as they have for the Christians of our time is hereby condemned as erroneous. St John of the Cross 1591 wherefore if there be revealed to us anything new or different we must in no way give consent to it not even though it were spoken by an Angel. St. Thomas Aquinas doctor of the church 1274 all those who deny one Article of Faith regardless of their reason are by that very fact excommunicated. Pope Eugene the fourth Council of Florence Session 8 1439 ex cathedra whoever Wills to be saved before all things it is necessary that he holds the Catholic faith unless a person keeps this Faith whole and undefiled without doubt He Shall Perish eternally. Popplio 13th 1896 the practice of the church has always been the same as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the fathers who were want to hold as outside Catholic communion and alien to the church whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of Doctrine proposed by her authoritative magisterium. Council Florence session 11 February 4th 1442 ex cathedra the Holy Roman Church condemns reproves anathematize has and declares to be outside the body of church which is the Catholic Church whoever holds opposing or contrary views. Popplio the 10th 5th lateran Council session 8th 1513 EX cathedra and since truth cannot conjure the truth we Define that every statement contrary to the enlightened truth of the faith is totally false and we strictly forbid teaching otherwise to be permitted we decree that all those who cling to erroneous statements of this time this sewing heresies which are wholly condemned should be avoided in every way and punished as detestable and odious Heretics and infidels who are undermining the Catholic faith. Saint Athanasius God's word is one and the same in the doors forever unchanged always the same Pope Pius the 9th, qui Pluribus I'm faith and religion November 9th 1846 paragraph 20 never cease to instruct all men in it never tolerating and letting pass anyting which could in the slightest degree defiled the purity of this faith. What the same great strength of Mind Foster and all men their Unity with the Catholic church outside of which there is no salvation Pope Saints sixtus 3 nothing new is to be allowed for nothing can be added to the old look for the faith of the elders and do not let our faith be disturbed by a mixture of new doctrines St Vincent of Lerins 445, all novelty in faith is ashore Mark of heresy Saint Paul Cried Out aloud again and again to all men to all times and to all places that if anyone announces a new doctrine let him be anathematized. If there is a change YOU ARE NOT TO SUPPORT IT OR embrace it IN ANY WAY !!! There is no confusion unless you're a heretic and belong to the vatican 2 fake church, there is no confusion for true Catholics, I'll say that again there is no confusion for the true Catholics the teachings of the church are simple and clear. Nothing is to be changed !!!!! Nothing !! If you disagree with this your excommunicated from the church you no longer are Catholic you no longer have a father in Heaven !!!
The issue is options, as in to many options 4 Eucharistic prayers, you can say the Kyrie or the confiteor celebration of a Mass or feast day is A,B,C. The use of Latin when wanted or not. when people have to many we get over loaded and then lose the identity because in this parish we do X while in this parish we do Y. In the Old Mass it’s the same thing on repeat, just like practicing your faith or golf swing or throwing a baseball if your constantly changing things it takes longer to learn the skill
No; the Council fathers did not vote for a radical revision of the Mass and sacraments by a committee of academic liturgists relying on shoddy scholarship
Someday Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre will be recognized and then canonized for saving the Tridentine Mass. Then the defective Novus Ordo Missae will be regulated to the trash bin of history where it belongs.
Oh yes. Thanks to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the Traditional Latin Mass and the authentic teachings, Dogmas and Doctrines of the Catholic church have been safeguarded and will spread even more now...Deo gratias for Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
I am paying attention, and I see tares being sown in the wheat. I trust in the words of our Lord that the gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church.
vatican 2 is a council that produced mixed results at best. the church should look at what didn't work out and fix it. one of these areas should be Novus Ordo that continues to be a problem. Perhaps the Mass should be restored to the original ideas at the council - perhaps readings in vernacular. restoration of Gregorian chants, Latin, focus on God at the mass, central place for tabernacle.
It is always a delight to hear from Mr Flanders - apart from being a perfect gentleman (and thus unlike so many wilfully abrasive YT Talking-Heads), he is also an ordinary intelligent chap (as with Michael Davies) seeking to work his way through the 'planned' chaos amid the fall-out after the Second Vatican Council, not an expert with an opinion to push. So a few - very common - caveats: A pope has the religious authority and regnal power to .. abrogate his own decisions without magisterial confusion; admittedly there'd be quite a lot of managerial canoe-paddling and a fair amount of administrative mire-stirring. Papa Montini was a victim of his own temperament which was - it would seem - accommodating and even vacillating. Not a good combination in a palace then seething with a revolutionary maelstrom and fuming via fissures from hell. The Council of Trent ended in AD 1563 and the missal issued by Pope St Pius V was not finally promulgated until AD 1570 .. experts do tend to like to get their opinionated teeth into their pet subjects. Here the real oddity is .. Pius V did, somehow or other, manage to combine the (not always clear) will of the Tridentine Fathers with the (more or less) older forms of the Roman Rite and to create a (mostly coherent) standard edition; not, of course, to everyone's taste, but a mighty miracle in and of itself notwithstanding. The Missal promulgated, with corrections, additions, and repeated editions by Pope St Paul VI - in keeping with his management style and temperament - proved to be a licit and valid expression of the Roman Rite, more or less (mostly less) in keeping with the stated requests of the Vatican Two Fathers, woven .. in large part by his own hands .. into a crown of thorns, which others quite merrily drove down upon his head; victimology is a key element to Paul VI's reign. Mr Davies' work - flawed but sincere - was chiefly in regard to the managerial mechanics of these editions - pre-promulgation and afterwards .. and he tries to present a coherent verbal account of the old Music Hall stage act of a man spinning plates on stilts; this was Pope Paul VI and his scene is a bustling wartime canteen kitchen. Those of us in the UK old enough to recall Mr Pastry (Richard Hearne) and his contortion act (sort of a one-man Three Stooges) understood what Michael Davies was trying to say; indeed we might well have laughed, had things not already proven to be more serious than first imagined c. AD 1965, or '67, in the Latin Mass Society et al. So may a subsequent miracle - of some might and main - be wrought for all the blood, sweat, and metaphorical tears put into the Missal of Pope Paul VI? It might, yes, of course .. that is for the Lord God to work out .. but what a contortion act it would take humanly speaking - though quite clearly it is simple enough of an action if the will and know-how are applied (which, at this time, is most unlikely). Pope Benedict XVI did try .. and Pope Francis seems to imagine all he needs to do is brow-beat his recalcitrant flock .. what needs to be settled is this: Is the Missal of Pope St Paul VI's understanding of the Second Vatican Council's work called to meet the needs and opportunities of those long-ago times in the mid-Twentieth Century worth the effort of making it work, all in the quaintly timeless Roman manner ...... Keep the Faith; tell the truth, shame the devil, and let the demons shriek. God bless. ;o)
"what needs to be settled is this: Is the Missal of Pope St Paul VI's understanding of the Second Vatican Council's work called to meet the needs and opportunities of those long-ago times in the mid-Twentieth Century worth the effort of making it work, all in the quaintly timeless Roman manner ......" In short, no, but I suspect you may know that; the evidence is already in. The Novus Ordo will continue to atrophy and whither away, despite all the "new springtimes" that have proven to be desolate winters. The Mass of the Ages will continue its ascension because demographics are not on the side of the modernists. You may be in a better position than me to judge Mr. Davies, but he remains a giant to those of us who want to better understand the ungodly revolution that shook the Church in the 1960-70s.
The New Mass was NOT promulgated by Paul VI. What was promulgated by Paul VI was Missale Romanum on the 3rd April 1969. Only two decrees were established: 1. Addition of 3 na Eucharist prayers 2. All of these prayers inc Canon (Euch prayer 1) had the same formula of consecration. That is all. I recommend to everyone to read the Suicide of Altering the Faith in its Liturgy by Father Paul Kramer who goes into this in much more detail.
Yes and no. The liturgical reformers did implement many of Vatican II’s directives, but those same directives could easily have been interpreted and applied far differently by a more conservative (or more progressive) group of liturgists.
Upcoming!? I was so excited to see what the video had to say.....now I have to wait. Question: if the New Mass was created by either the Council or a a committee of academic liturgists, wouldn't that interfere with the idea that it was passed on from the Apostles and Fathers and countless others? ANd then would that interfere with the idea that it was the actual ritual of the Last Supper or the actual Sacrifice of Calvary?
According to Archbishop Lefebvre, Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict) was on the liberal side of Vatican II, but changed his mind by the time he was a Cardinal working under JPII.
This endless discussion is fascinating. But really, what difference does any of this make? The New Mass is what it is and will remain so. We will gather next Sunday in our parish churches, sing a few choruses of Sing To The Mountains, the priest will greet us with Good morning!!, and introduce the boys' soccer team to friendly applause. The Kyrie will be said with great haste and nonchalance, the various Mass parts will sound like TV commercial jingles, and we will hear the "Dewfall" Eucharistic prayer. Hordes of Completely Ordinary EMs will help keep Communion moving swiftly. We will all sing a Dan Schutte standard before we leave.
The mass is Crists none bloody sacrfice at the cross and pleses God. It is obuis in TLM. You described a N. O. mass and yes it is hard to finde the true meaning in it. Thise is exacly why it is inferior to TLM. (among other things)
THE CHAPTER DIRECTED TO THE BISHOPS SPECIFICALLY IN VATICAN II (DON'T REMEMBER NOW) SAYS THINGS CAN BE CHANGED IN ACCORDANCE TO THE CULTURE. I WROTE ABOUT IT IN A REPORT LIKE 10 YEARS AGO MORE OR LESS, HENCE, VATICAN II CREATES THE NEW MASS.
I hope you're not using this to defend it. You need only read the interviews of the non-catholics that helped draft v2 to know the whole thing is a problem.
@@crushtheserpentyes we will be trashing: “Men have the right to religious liberty” “Jews are not to be presented as rejected or condemned” “The church of Christ ‘subsists’ in the Catholic Church” “It’s beneficial to pray with non Catholics”
TLDW? "It's way more complicated than that!" Yes it is! Too many trads look at the Vatican II and it's aftermath through a very simplistic, conspiratorial lens. *"It's way more complicated than that!"*
Not really. If you want to address root causes, then that conspiracy is the root cause. Obviously a myriad of other people's intentions, decades of history, ambiguity, and confusion, and a collection of other agendas followed, but without the root conspiracy none of those other things could have occurred 😢
@@stevedoetsch So nothing to do with the fact the late 60's were a time of radical change across the board? (I mean radical!) Nothing to do with the media presenting the Council to the public as something it wasn't? Nothing to do with liberal theologians with big egos wanting to push their own agenda? I know conspiracies happen. But they need facts to support them. The only meetings we know of that held significant sway on the Council were the German contingent, of which the young Joseph Ratzinger was a big part. They were a mix of liberal and conservative voices that all agreed they wanted change. They would be accused of conspiring but that is stretching the word. They would later part ways as it became clear they weren't all on the same page after all. If you have proof of any other conspiratorial meetings I would be eager to hear about it. Otherwise it's just conjecture at best or calumny at worst.
@@Lcoch2482 Anyone who adheres to the conspiracy theory version of what went wrong, post- VII needs to answer these questions. Why did the 2250 (approx.) bishops vote overwhelmingly in favour of the VII documents? These are the vote counts of the four main ‘Constitutions’ Dei Verbum - 99.7 % Lumen Gentium - 99.7% Sacrosanctum Concilium (on the liturgy) - 99.8% and the highest vote count of all 16 VII documents Gaudium et Spes - 96.9% How did the modernist conspiracy manage to convince all those bishops to approve the Council so unanimously? And in relation to the New Mass, this was approved by Pope Paul VI. To claim he was part of a conspiracy doesn’t fit the facts. As pointed out in the above video he made Ratzinger a cardinal after he was very critical of the New Mass. He published Humanae Vitae which was about as anti-modernist a move one could make! He was very devoted to Our Lady and even gave her a title during VII (Mother of the Church) after the almost unanimous agreement he shouldn’t. In 1969, he made a very impassioned speech about the beauty of the Latin language and what a sacrifice it would be to lose it. He explains clearly that he believed the “understanding of prayer is worth more than the silken garments in which it is totally dressed”. He truly believed the vernacular was a necessary step to take for participation in the Mass. He may have been wrong about that, but he has made clear his motives. As for Lercano and Bugnini, one doesn’t need to ascribe a conspiracy to explain what happened. Even if it’s true Bugnini was a mason, there is no evidence he was part of a greater plot to destroy the Church via the New Mass. There are plenty of other reasons why things went south for the Church after VII. We don’t need to look for hidden motives and meetings in smoky rooms.
The last true pope was Pope Pius XII after him came antipopes. the Roncalli gang created a new religion which we can refer to as the Vatican II cult. It is easy to see what the difference between the two religions A look at the Catholic religion from before Roncalli and the Vatican II religion of Roncalli and his gang. We can see the evil fruits of this cult in what has happened in the world since Roncalli. Some involved in the cult have become alarmed by Bergoglio's words and actions but in truth, every Vatican II antipope mirrored Bergoglio's words and actions. The Devil has done his work well. We have the new rite of ordination approved by Montini on June 18, 1968, which removed the surrounding ceremonies which may make it invalid. As for the New Mass, it is a violation of St Pius V Bull Quo Primum 1570.
@nathaniellathy6559 The early Liturgies were all completely sung by the priest and congregation. They are much more beautiful than any Latin Rite Mass, bar none. I don't know where you come up with such an authoritative statement t as that. Many NO have Cimmu ion on the tongue for those who desire it. I agree about facing the people, but that does not change the validity of the Mass. What you are describing are prejudices regarding your personal tastes. Ok, fine. But to say all other Liturgies amount to a different religion is rather infantile, begging your pardon.
@sissybrooks8588 insulting someone doesn't make you right. Council of Trent said Novus Ordo should never have happened. So did Ottaviani Intervention. Even a committee recommended against the change. Decline in Church attendance, Catholic Schools, families and belief in real presence speaks for itself. All done for One World 🌎 Religion
Return to the one Holy catholic Apostolic Church of the Holy Fathers and the Ecumenical council's decision Since 1054 the Pope and the west have fallen into Hersey
Available online: Chiesa Viva (Year XL, N° 430, Sept 2010) in-depth research on the real JPII, by Fr. Luigi Villa, PhD. This Special Issue is titled "Karol Wojtyla Beatified? ...Never!
@@kevinrhatigan5656Why are nearly all the post Vatican ll popes canonized ? Considering that heroic Giants of holiness and tradition have been ignored , Popes Leo XIII , Plus XI and Pius Xll, Benedict XV , something is rotten on the inside , personally I don't accept any post Vatican ll canonizations of these popes.
Might be a very powerful way to promote like-minded ideologists of the New Theology and Modernism. JPII abolished the rigorous "devil's advocate" phase of the Church's canonization process, making it much easier and faster to churn out saints. Why was Mother Teresa canonized so fast, when she was openly proud of the fact that she never mentioned Jesus to the people she "served." If she had preached the Gospel Truth like our courageous cancelled bishops and priests, would she have received the Nobel Prize?! @@kevinrhatigan5656
No. Vatican II _never_ created a new mass. PAUL VI did, without authority. Why? Because he (nor ANY Pope) has absolutely NO authority to change that which Jesus himself established. You can embelish if you wish; which would by definition mean making it bigger, more explicit for clarity's sake. But "change?" NO.
Unfortunately, many Catholic Christians claim the Latin Mass is the only valid Mass, which of course would then exclude the Last Supper, also not said in Latin! Obedience to Peter, is Obedience to Jesus Christ! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
I am a Byzantine Rite catholic, so pur Divine Liturgy is said in the vernacular, or in Greek or church Slavonic. So I have no horse in this game, BUT.... the use of Latin isn't what bothers traditionalists(of which I would classify myself, vs a modernist) it's the changing of form of an Apostolic tradition. The Latin Mass in its current form goes back to the Patristic Era around 450ish ad. That Liturgy grew put of the Greek and Syriac liturgies and anaphoras, but still being unique in its own Rite. The Liturgy is where the faith is taught, where we learn how to live, what and how to believe, and who we serve. The NO is the ONLY Liturgy in the entire catholic church, of which there is over 24, that does have apostolic origins. It was written from scratch in the 60s, and only retains about 6% of the prayers and Rites from the ancient Liturgy. Now aside from that, look at the fruits of this NEW mass- the buildings are hideous, the "music" is secular and ugly, there is no consistency as there are HUNDREDS of different versions with all of the options, it glorifies the priest instead of Christ, it gives the Tabernacle and orders the mass towards the people instead of God. Looking in from the outside, it just doesn't seem like this church grew from the old, it's like it's a new church. If my grandparents were to come back today, I don't think they would recognize this mass as catholic as it looks much more like a Lutheran service with the Cranmer "table" instead of an alter.
@@paulthomas955 Again, obedience to Peter, is Obedience to Jesus Christ! Even the most simple Mass of the imprisoned Cardinal Nguyen Van Thuan, for his faith in Jesus Christ, is just as valid and beautiful, and pleasing to God, as the Traditional Latin Mass. Every Mass approved by Rome, is valid and sacrificial! Again, unfortunately, many Catholic Christians claim the Latin Mass is the only valid Mass, which of course would then exclude the Last Supper, also not said in Latin!! No, the NO does not glorify the Priest! That is simply a made up complaint by the TLM only lovers! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
You’re taking that out of context. So I literally don’t know if any Catholics who claim “only” there have been Catholics who say that for the Roman rite. Because they compare a Latin mass to a noves ordo and that’s the only mass from the Roman rite that was celebrated now. Latin or noves ordo. Now as for when you bring up earlier masses. I would argue they Still fall in line with tradition unlike the noves ordo.
@@chrisarmon1002 most inaccurate, for many of my friends, as well as many other Catholic Christians, ( there are many websites and groups), who claim the Latin Mass is the only valid Mass, which of course would then exclude the Last Supper, also not said in Latin! Again, any Mass approved by Rome is valid! Obedience to Peter, is Obedience to Jesus Christ! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287 I’ll try and make it more clear. 1. The context is when someone says that does not reject other masses such as chaldean. Byzantine, ect ect because they’re valid and no one rejects they. 2. Now when they say that they will refer ti Latin mass vs noves ordo. ( please do ask anyone who says that. If they reject any other rite. 3. Wrong it does not exclude last supper because you’re again ignoring the context. So before we go on to the “obey petter” first let’s solve the original claim. 4. Yes obey Peter as the pope need to and they would also have to obey tradition.
Why, why, why were they so concerned about what Protestants thought about our Mass? For the love of pete, I will never get that.
I think part of it was marketing, i.e. how do we get more souls into the church. It was an obvious failure, that is why I think no one can or wants to explain who , why or how it went south. They are still trying to sell this debacle in the " in was not implemented correctly " , look up sunk cost fallacy that will help explain why this failure is still being sold.
My understanding was to make the Mass more attractive to protestants. But you don't need to have a theology degree to know that is an improper way to view the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Imo, what happened at V2 the catalyst for many loosing the true faith. Those evil men God will hold accountable.
This is all in the name of working out our salvation with fear and trembling. Do a word search. The leaders who led the sheep astray will pay a heavy price.
The protestant needs to learn the true faith and it's not what Luther, Calvin or zwingly proposed. The truth is all in the Holy Scriptures. Pray the Holy Spirit lifts the veil
@@joan8862They were being lead by "the enemies of God and all mankind." Check your Holy Bible for their identity.
Hindsight is always 20/20. Little did the Council Fathers know that “the 60s” came. We entered a time when man fell in love with the magnificence of its own wisdom. “We know better” they said. “We are just trying to be modern; times are changing”. It was an attempt to codify self-indulgence, irresponsibility, and they made it up as they went.
My hunch is that the irreverent Mass came first, and the sloppy sixties were a direct fallout of the Church's light growing dimmer.
Yeah but BUGNINI the masonic infiltrator whose mission was to destroy the Church from the inside LIED to BOTH the Pope & the synodal councils so they were BOTH acting as if everyone was in agreement with Bugnini & the Vat2 DIALECTIC that he was ushering into existence >>> when that is a falsehood... it is only after the 70 years of rot that NOW all of a sudden everyone wants to actually listen to the synodal councils bcuz the Church has been entirely infiltrated so instead of the voices of the Faithful that were LIED about by Bugnini you now have an echo chamber >>> that is the reason there is now the push for the democratization of the Church however these really are not synods are they- they are in fact SOVIETS... so the masonic plan continues under the impostor pope & I would go into greater depth but comments are being censored on YT surrounding the perversion of the Church under the "modernists"!
@dr.parakletos7765 yes and secular I think
It was the age of THE GURU too!I
At 17 l was front row in an audience with the Pope in early 70s. It helped drive this teen of the Church, that and The gossip amongst the wives of Vatican Employees, and the fact that corruption was normative.
The Audience - as the Pope was carried out (at maximum height) was hysterical, screaming and grabbing (like an sea anenome clip speeded up) it was like an utterly terrifying all devouring greed.The
By the time those kiddy car Pope mobiles, were invented ( pickled Pope Vitrines?) and the Pope became just another perpetually touring celeb and 1 of a kind novelty l was completely lost.
Watching clown masses in lockdown brought me back. (But that's a whole nother story.)
Reverence.
And with the "New Mass" came the hootenany guitars and the sappy new church lyrics. Every would-be musician who could play three cords took his/her place on the altar.
Found some sappy music for you! ruclips.net/video/bbnTZREMEJI/видео.htmlsi=UXyV1A4ICrBnPK_6
This is the best explanation I have ever heard about what happened. Why were the Protestants consulted in changing the Catholic mass? Do let us change the way they celebrate their gatherings?
All the Vatican 2 catholics say it's too confusing, I don't understand, it's confusing ! Or the mass is enough, no, it's not enough. You must have the true Catholic faith.
There is nothing confusing about it !!!
Pope Gregory the 16th 1831 let nothing of the truths that have been defined, it be lessened, nothing altered nothing added, but let them be preserved intact in the word and then meaning.
Vatican Council of 1870 session 3 chapter 4 part 13 and 14 EX cathedra -- for the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical Discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence but as a Divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be Faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated hence to that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
Pope Pius the 10th syllabus condemning the errors of the modernists 1907 article 62 : the proposition the chief articles of the Apostles Creed did not have the same sense for the Christians of the first stages as they have for the Christians of our time is hereby condemned as erroneous.
St John of the Cross 1591 wherefore if there be revealed to us anything new or different we must in no way give consent to it not even though it were spoken by an Angel.
St. Thomas Aquinas doctor of the church 1274 all those who deny one Article of Faith regardless of their reason are by that very fact excommunicated.
Pope Eugene the fourth Council of Florence Session 8 1439 ex cathedra whoever Wills to be saved before all things it is necessary that he holds the Catholic faith unless a person keeps this Faith whole and undefiled without doubt He Shall Perish eternally.
Popplio 13th 1896 the practice of the church has always been the same as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the fathers who were want to hold as outside Catholic communion and alien to the church whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of Doctrine proposed by her authoritative magisterium.
Council Florence session 11 February 4th 1442 ex cathedra the Holy Roman Church condemns reproves anathematize has and declares to be outside the body of church which is the Catholic Church whoever holds opposing or contrary views.
Popplio the 10th 5th lateran Council session 8th 1513 EX cathedra and since truth cannot conjure the truth we Define that every statement contrary to the enlightened truth of the faith is totally false and we strictly forbid teaching otherwise to be permitted we decree that all those who cling to erroneous statements of this time this sewing heresies which are wholly condemned should be avoided in every way and punished as detestable and odious Heretics and infidels who are undermining the Catholic faith.
Saint Athanasius God's word is one and the same in the doors forever unchanged always the same
Pope Pius the 9th, qui Pluribus I'm faith and religion November 9th 1846 paragraph 20 never cease to instruct all men in it never tolerating and letting pass anyting which could in the slightest degree defiled the purity of this faith. What the same great strength of Mind Foster and all men their Unity with the Catholic church outside of which there is no salvation
Pope Saints sixtus 3 nothing new is to be allowed for nothing can be added to the old look for the faith of the elders and do not let our faith be disturbed by a mixture of new doctrines
St Vincent of Lerins 445, all novelty in faith is ashore Mark of heresy Saint Paul Cried Out aloud again and again to all men to all times and to all places that if anyone announces a new doctrine let him be anathematized.
If there is a change YOU ARE NOT TO SUPPORT IT OR embrace it IN ANY WAY !!!
There is no confusion unless you're a heretic and belong to the vatican 2 fake church, there is no confusion for true Catholics, I'll say that again there is no confusion for the true Catholics the teachings of the church are simple and clear. Nothing is to be changed !!!!! Nothing !! If you disagree with this your excommunicated from the church you no longer are Catholic you no longer have a father in Heaven !!!
The issue is options, as in to many options 4 Eucharistic prayers, you can say the Kyrie or the confiteor celebration of a Mass or feast day is A,B,C. The use of Latin when wanted or not. when people have to many we get over loaded and then lose the identity because in this parish we do X while in this parish we do Y. In the Old Mass it’s the same thing on repeat, just like practicing your faith or golf swing or throwing a baseball if your constantly changing things it takes longer to learn the skill
I don't understand catholics who are against the Gregorian Mass.
No; the Council fathers did not vote for a radical revision of the Mass and sacraments by a committee of academic liturgists relying on shoddy scholarship
Except they did
It seems they had no idea what they were actually voting for. Fr. Hesse said that most of them never read the bulky documents.
@@kevinrhatigan5656+JMJ. When did the Council reconvene for that vote?
Someday Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre will be recognized and then canonized for saving the Tridentine Mass. Then the defective Novus Ordo Missae will be regulated to the trash bin of history where it belongs.
No question, in fact he may be elevated as a Doctor of the church.
I hope and believe so , for now we are in the difficult times that others will write about.
Oh yes. Thanks to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the Traditional Latin Mass and the authentic teachings, Dogmas and Doctrines of the Catholic church have been safeguarded and will spread even more now...Deo gratias for Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
Thank you for your great analysis and explanation about Vatican II and the New Mass. Greetings from Mexico City.
I am paying attention, and I see tares being sown in the wheat. I trust in the words of our Lord that the gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church.
vatican 2 is a council that produced mixed results at best. the church should look at what didn't work out and fix it. one of these areas should be Novus Ordo that continues to be a problem. Perhaps the Mass should be restored to the original ideas at the council - perhaps readings in vernacular. restoration of Gregorian chants, Latin, focus on God at the mass, central place for tabernacle.
That's why V2 is the si si, no no council. Everything is ambiguous.
It is always a delight to hear from Mr Flanders - apart from being a perfect gentleman (and thus unlike so many wilfully abrasive YT Talking-Heads), he is also an ordinary intelligent chap (as with Michael Davies) seeking to work his way through the 'planned' chaos amid the fall-out after the Second Vatican Council, not an expert with an opinion to push.
So a few - very common - caveats:
A pope has the religious authority and regnal power to .. abrogate his own decisions without magisterial confusion; admittedly there'd be quite a lot of managerial canoe-paddling and a fair amount of administrative mire-stirring. Papa Montini was a victim of his own temperament which was - it would seem - accommodating and even vacillating. Not a good combination in a palace then seething with a revolutionary maelstrom and fuming via fissures from hell.
The Council of Trent ended in AD 1563 and the missal issued by Pope St Pius V was not finally promulgated until AD 1570 .. experts do tend to like to get their opinionated teeth into their pet subjects. Here the real oddity is .. Pius V did, somehow or other, manage to combine the (not always clear) will of the Tridentine Fathers with the (more or less) older forms of the Roman Rite and to create a (mostly coherent) standard edition; not, of course, to everyone's taste, but a mighty miracle in and of itself notwithstanding.
The Missal promulgated, with corrections, additions, and repeated editions by Pope St Paul VI - in keeping with his management style and temperament - proved to be a licit and valid expression of the Roman Rite, more or less (mostly less) in keeping with the stated requests of the Vatican Two Fathers, woven .. in large part by his own hands .. into a crown of thorns, which others quite merrily drove down upon his head; victimology is a key element to Paul VI's reign.
Mr Davies' work - flawed but sincere - was chiefly in regard to the managerial mechanics of these editions - pre-promulgation and afterwards .. and he tries to present a coherent verbal account of the old Music Hall stage act of a man spinning plates on stilts; this was Pope Paul VI and his scene is a bustling wartime canteen kitchen. Those of us in the UK old enough to recall Mr Pastry (Richard Hearne) and his contortion act (sort of a one-man Three Stooges) understood what Michael Davies was trying to say; indeed we might well have laughed, had things not already proven to be more serious than first imagined c. AD 1965, or '67, in the Latin Mass Society et al.
So may a subsequent miracle - of some might and main - be wrought for all the blood, sweat, and metaphorical tears put into the Missal of Pope Paul VI? It might, yes, of course .. that is for the Lord God to work out .. but what a contortion act it would take humanly speaking - though quite clearly it is simple enough of an action if the will and know-how are applied (which, at this time, is most unlikely). Pope Benedict XVI did try .. and Pope Francis seems to imagine all he needs to do is brow-beat his recalcitrant flock .. what needs to be settled is this: Is the Missal of Pope St Paul VI's understanding of the Second Vatican Council's work called to meet the needs and opportunities of those long-ago times in the mid-Twentieth Century worth the effort of making it work, all in the quaintly timeless Roman manner ......
Keep the Faith; tell the truth, shame the devil, and let the demons shriek.
God bless. ;o)
"what needs to be settled is this: Is the Missal of Pope St Paul VI's understanding of the Second Vatican Council's work called to meet the needs and opportunities of those long-ago times in the mid-Twentieth Century worth the effort of making it work, all in the quaintly timeless Roman manner ......" In short, no, but I suspect you may know that; the evidence is already in. The Novus Ordo will continue to atrophy and whither away, despite all the "new springtimes" that have proven to be desolate winters. The Mass of the Ages will continue its ascension because demographics are not on the side of the modernists. You may be in a better position than me to judge Mr. Davies, but he remains a giant to those of us who want to better understand the ungodly revolution that shook the Church in the 1960-70s.
Excited to see this video
The New Mass was NOT promulgated by Paul VI.
What was promulgated by Paul VI was Missale Romanum on the 3rd April 1969. Only two decrees were established: 1. Addition of 3 na Eucharist prayers 2. All of these prayers inc Canon (Euch prayer 1) had the same formula of consecration. That is all.
I recommend to everyone to read the Suicide of Altering the Faith in its Liturgy by Father Paul Kramer who goes into this in much more detail.
Huh
The traditional Mass was NEVER abrogated!! Pope Benedict told us this in his,
So Vatican II is a macguffin for each Pope to do whatever he wants...
Yes and no. The liturgical reformers did implement many of Vatican II’s directives, but those same directives could easily have been interpreted and applied far differently by a more conservative (or more progressive) group of liturgists.
One of the techniques of gnosticism is to write in an ambiguous way so that poorly defined words can be utilized later as the writer wishes
Weaponized ambiguity
Upcoming!? I was so excited to see what the video had to say.....now I have to wait.
Question: if the New Mass was created by either the Council or a a committee of academic liturgists, wouldn't that interfere with the idea that it was passed on from the Apostles and Fathers and countless others? ANd then would that interfere with the idea that it was the actual ritual of the Last Supper or the actual Sacrifice of Calvary?
No. It’s a new liturgy, not a new sacrifice. There is only one sacrifice. It’s re-presented at every mass.
Hey MOTA! Love your content! What font do you use for your quoations/slides/B-roll for videos?
Good question! I LOVE that font!
According to Archbishop Lefebvre, Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict) was on the liberal side of Vatican II, but changed his mind by the time he was a Cardinal working under JPII.
Why does every video you all show as upcoming get taken down
This endless discussion is fascinating. But really, what difference does any of this make? The New Mass is what it is and will remain so. We will gather next Sunday in our parish churches, sing a few choruses of Sing To The Mountains, the priest will greet us with Good morning!!, and introduce the boys' soccer team to friendly applause. The Kyrie will be said with great haste and nonchalance, the various Mass parts will sound like TV commercial jingles, and we will hear the "Dewfall" Eucharistic prayer. Hordes of Completely Ordinary EMs will help keep Communion moving swiftly. We will all sing a Dan Schutte standard before we leave.
Return to ortodoxy
The mass is Crists none bloody sacrfice at the cross and pleses God. It is obuis in TLM. You described a N. O. mass and yes it is hard to finde the true meaning in it. Thise is exacly why it is inferior to TLM. (among other things)
Don't forget the collection plates , there's still many victims to be compensated
Gotta have Dan Schutte. I think it’s a requirement like top 40 radio stations, gotta play so many Dan Schutte songs per hour.
Not in a TLM parish we don't leave the Ape of the Church behind ... Return To Tradition
The "spirit "of a thing is more powerful than historical fact. The spirit of Vatican 2 is a perfect example.
THE CHAPTER DIRECTED TO THE BISHOPS SPECIFICALLY IN VATICAN II (DON'T REMEMBER NOW) SAYS THINGS CAN BE CHANGED IN ACCORDANCE TO THE CULTURE. I WROTE ABOUT IT IN A REPORT LIKE 10 YEARS AGO MORE OR LESS, HENCE, VATICAN II CREATES THE NEW MASS.
I hope you're not using this to defend it.
You need only read the interviews of the non-catholics that helped draft v2 to know the whole thing is a problem.
If Cardinal Siri was elected in 1958 ( he took the name Gregory ) and lived until 1989 then all of this is a tempest in a tea-pot.
Let's just be on the safe side, let's say. It's WAY PAST time to TRASHCAN V II.
Have you read the VII documents so you know what it is you're trashing?
@@crushtheserpentyes we will be trashing:
“Men have the right to religious liberty”
“Jews are not to be presented as rejected or condemned”
“The church of Christ ‘subsists’ in the Catholic Church”
“It’s beneficial to pray with non Catholics”
It doesn’t matter what the council fathers intended. The revision of the liturgy was up to the supreme authority of the church.
TLDW?
"It's way more complicated than that!"
Yes it is! Too many trads look at the Vatican II and it's aftermath through a very simplistic, conspiratorial lens. *"It's way more complicated than that!"*
Not really. If you want to address root causes, then that conspiracy is the root cause. Obviously a myriad of other people's intentions, decades of history, ambiguity, and confusion, and a collection of other agendas followed, but without the root conspiracy none of those other things could have occurred 😢
@@stevedoetsch So nothing to do with the fact the late 60's were a time of radical change across the board? (I mean radical!) Nothing to do with the media presenting the Council to the public as something it wasn't? Nothing to do with liberal theologians with big egos wanting to push their own agenda?
I know conspiracies happen. But they need facts to support them. The only meetings we know of that held significant sway on the Council were the German contingent, of which the young Joseph Ratzinger was a big part. They were a mix of liberal and conservative voices that all agreed they wanted change. They would be accused of conspiring but that is stretching the word. They would later part ways as it became clear they weren't all on the same page after all.
If you have proof of any other conspiratorial meetings I would be eager to hear about it. Otherwise it's just conjecture at best or calumny at worst.
Except it's not.
@@Lcoch2482 Anyone who adheres to the conspiracy theory version of what went wrong, post- VII needs to answer these questions.
Why did the 2250 (approx.) bishops vote overwhelmingly in favour of the VII documents? These are the vote counts of the four main ‘Constitutions’
Dei Verbum - 99.7 %
Lumen Gentium - 99.7%
Sacrosanctum Concilium (on the liturgy) - 99.8% and the highest vote count of all 16 VII documents
Gaudium et Spes - 96.9%
How did the modernist conspiracy manage to convince all those bishops to approve the Council so unanimously?
And in relation to the New Mass, this was approved by Pope Paul VI. To claim he was part of a conspiracy doesn’t fit the facts. As pointed out in the above video he made Ratzinger a cardinal after he was very critical of the New Mass. He published Humanae Vitae which was about as anti-modernist a move one could make! He was very devoted to Our Lady and even gave her a title during VII (Mother of the Church) after the almost unanimous agreement he shouldn’t. In 1969, he made a very impassioned speech about the beauty of the Latin language and what a sacrifice it would be to lose it. He explains clearly that he believed the “understanding of prayer is worth more than the silken garments in which it is totally dressed”. He truly believed the vernacular was a necessary step to take for participation in the Mass. He may have been wrong about that, but he has made clear his motives.
As for Lercano and Bugnini, one doesn’t need to ascribe a conspiracy to explain what happened. Even if it’s true Bugnini was a mason, there is no evidence he was part of a greater plot to destroy the Church via the New Mass. There are plenty of other reasons why things went south for the Church after VII. We don’t need to look for hidden motives and meetings in smoky rooms.
Of the True Roman Rite
Wich document of VII sad to create a new mass? None. He did it by himself.
The Great Apostacy
Freemason Bugnini created Vatican 2 at the bequest of his freemason lodge Alta Vendita- see America needs Fatima or VaticanCatholic channels😊
Vaticancatholic is sedevacantist, terrible source
There is NO Mass since May 23. 2014. People do not committee a sin, however they should spent time of prayer.
The last true pope was Pope Pius XII after him came antipopes. the Roncalli gang created a new religion which we can refer to as the Vatican II cult. It is easy to see what the difference between the two religions A look at the Catholic religion from before Roncalli and the Vatican II religion of Roncalli and his gang. We can see the evil fruits of this cult in what has happened in the world since Roncalli. Some involved in the cult have become alarmed by Bergoglio's words and actions but in truth, every Vatican II antipope mirrored Bergoglio's words and actions. The Devil has done his work well. We have the new rite of ordination approved by Montini on June 18, 1968, which removed the surrounding ceremonies which may make it invalid. As for the New Mass, it is a violation of St Pius V Bull Quo Primum 1570.
It is very simple. Documents with official teachings and therefore infallible:
*Vatican II document, the constitution: Sacrosanctum Concilium
Vatican 2 ended the Roman Catholic Church-- an the general laity just let it happen.
I have followed them both and they are very similar.
Far from it.TLM is a sacrifice. Novus Ordo is a Communal Meal.
@@nathaniellathy6559 Why would you say that? The priest mentions "this sacrifice" prior to the Co secretion.
@sissybrooks8588 facing the people food and 🍸.Eucharistic ministers. Communion in hand. Adds up to Communal Meal. Canon is best said silent.
@nathaniellathy6559 The early Liturgies were all completely sung by the priest and congregation. They are much more beautiful than any Latin Rite Mass, bar none. I don't know where you come up with such an authoritative statement t as that.
Many NO have Cimmu ion on the tongue for those who desire it. I agree about facing the people, but that does not change the validity of the Mass.
What you are describing are prejudices regarding your personal tastes. Ok, fine. But to say all other Liturgies amount to a different religion is rather infantile, begging your pardon.
@sissybrooks8588 insulting someone doesn't make you right. Council of Trent said Novus Ordo should never have happened. So did Ottaviani Intervention. Even a committee recommended against the change. Decline in Church attendance, Catholic Schools, families and belief in real presence speaks for itself. All done for One World 🌎 Religion
Return to the one Holy catholic Apostolic Church of the Holy Fathers and the Ecumenical council's decision
Since 1054 the Pope and the west have fallen into Hersey
JP2 the great apostate!!
Available online: Chiesa Viva (Year XL, N° 430, Sept 2010) in-depth research on the real JPII, by Fr. Luigi Villa, PhD. This Special Issue is titled "Karol Wojtyla Beatified? ...Never!
So why is he a canonized Saint?
@@kevinrhatigan5656Why are nearly all the post Vatican ll popes canonized ? Considering that heroic Giants of holiness and tradition have been ignored , Popes Leo XIII , Plus XI and Pius Xll, Benedict XV , something is rotten on the inside , personally I don't accept any post Vatican ll canonizations of these popes.
Might be a very powerful way to promote like-minded ideologists of the New Theology and Modernism. JPII abolished the rigorous "devil's advocate" phase of the Church's canonization process, making it much easier and faster to churn out saints. Why was Mother Teresa canonized so fast, when she was openly proud of the fact that she never mentioned Jesus to the people she "served." If she had preached the Gospel Truth like our courageous cancelled bishops and priests, would she have received the Nobel Prize?! @@kevinrhatigan5656
@@bernardcassidy6497 canonizations are infallible, if you don't accept them you're in dissent.
No, the change to unleavened bread and a different trinity ( filioque) is the new mass.
No such thing as a new mass LOL. You guys actually are anti traditional
Mass of the ages? What????
This video is so poorly done....smh
No. Vatican II _never_ created a new mass. PAUL VI did, without authority. Why? Because he (nor ANY Pope) has absolutely NO authority to change that which Jesus himself established. You can embelish if you wish; which would by definition mean making it bigger, more explicit for clarity's sake. But "change?" NO.
Unfortunately, many Catholic Christians claim the Latin Mass is the only valid Mass, which of course would then exclude the Last Supper, also not said in Latin! Obedience to Peter, is Obedience to Jesus Christ! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
I am a Byzantine Rite catholic, so pur Divine Liturgy is said in the vernacular, or in Greek or church Slavonic. So I have no horse in this game, BUT....
the use of Latin isn't what bothers traditionalists(of which I would classify myself, vs a modernist) it's the changing of form of an Apostolic tradition. The Latin Mass in its current form goes back to the Patristic Era around 450ish ad. That Liturgy grew put of the Greek and Syriac liturgies and anaphoras, but still being unique in its own Rite.
The Liturgy is where the faith is taught, where we learn how to live, what and how to believe, and who we serve. The NO is the ONLY Liturgy in the entire catholic church, of which there is over 24, that does have apostolic origins. It was written from scratch in the 60s, and only retains about 6% of the prayers and Rites from the ancient Liturgy.
Now aside from that, look at the fruits of this NEW mass- the buildings are hideous, the "music" is secular and ugly, there is no consistency as there are HUNDREDS of different versions with all of the options, it glorifies the priest instead of Christ, it gives the Tabernacle and orders the mass towards the people instead of God.
Looking in from the outside, it just doesn't seem like this church grew from the old, it's like it's a new church. If my grandparents were to come back today, I don't think they would recognize this mass as catholic as it looks much more like a Lutheran service with the Cranmer "table" instead of an alter.
@@paulthomas955 Again, obedience to Peter, is Obedience to Jesus Christ! Even the most simple Mass of the imprisoned Cardinal Nguyen Van Thuan, for his faith in Jesus Christ, is just as valid and beautiful, and pleasing to God, as the Traditional Latin Mass. Every Mass approved by Rome, is valid and sacrificial! Again, unfortunately, many Catholic Christians claim the Latin Mass is the only valid Mass, which of course would then exclude the Last Supper, also not said in Latin!! No, the NO does not glorify the Priest! That is simply a made up complaint by the TLM only lovers! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
You’re taking that out of context. So I literally don’t know if any Catholics who claim “only” there have been Catholics who say that for the Roman rite. Because they compare a Latin mass to a noves ordo and that’s the only mass from the Roman rite that was celebrated now. Latin or noves ordo.
Now as for when you bring up earlier masses. I would argue they Still fall in line with tradition unlike the noves ordo.
@@chrisarmon1002 most inaccurate, for many of my friends, as well as many other Catholic Christians, ( there are many websites and groups), who claim the Latin Mass is the only valid Mass, which of course would then exclude the Last Supper, also not said in Latin! Again, any Mass approved by Rome is valid! Obedience to Peter, is Obedience to Jesus Christ! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287 I’ll try and make it more clear.
1. The context is when someone says that does not reject other masses such as chaldean. Byzantine, ect ect because they’re valid and no one rejects they.
2. Now when they say that they will refer ti Latin mass vs noves ordo. ( please do ask anyone who says that. If they reject any other rite.
3. Wrong it does not exclude last supper because you’re again ignoring the context.
So before we go on to the “obey petter” first let’s solve the original claim.
4. Yes obey Peter as the pope need to and they would also have to obey tradition.