What do you think?
Rate this book
The Pope, the Council, and the Mass: Answers to the Questions the "Traditionalists" Are Asking
The Pope, the Council, and the Mass, the definitive response to Traditionalist Catholics when first published in 1981, has been updated to include the developments from the time of the first publication up to, and including, the beginning of the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI. In addressing the concerns raised by the followers of the late Archbishop Lefebvre and other Traditionalists , the authors give a truly Catholic understanding of Tradition, the Second Vatican Council and its implementation, and the nature of true liturgical reform. This book not only provides the reader with a sound perspective on the past, it also offers insight into the present state of the Church and the outlook for the future. History, canon law, ecclesiastical and papal documents, and Scripture are mined in this solid apologetic for a faith that is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.
281 pages, Hardcover
First published February 1, 1981
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
May 17, 2019
Didn't really care for this one. I leave it to others to form their own opinions but for me it wasn't that good.
May 22, 2024
THE REVISION OF A FAMOUS RESPONSE TO CATHOLIC ‘TRADITIONALISTS’
Authors James Likoudis and Kenneth D. Whitehead wrote in the Introduction to the revised 2006 edition of this book, “During the 1970s, when the Catholic faithful were feeling the full force of the liturgical reform in the Catholic Church, mandated by the Second Vatican Council we… received numerous calls and letters from distressed Catholics: ‘What is happening to my Church?’ ‘What have they done to the Mass?’ ‘Is this really what the Second Vatican Council ordered?’ Such were the questions we heard. Many of these ‘distress calls’ contained a built-in conclusion, ‘An enemy has done this.’ (Mt 13:28) No one who lived through the implementation of Vatican II’s reform of the liturgy can deny that it was accompanied by a good many false starts, often great confusion and misunderstanding, and no little stress and turmoil… Generally, throughout the post-conciliar era, adequate explanations were simply not given to the faithful about the nature of the changes being made in our worship and the reasons for them.”
They continue, “there were those who had a ready explanation for all that seemed to be going so wrong. These were the ‘Traditionalists,’ who had been suspicious of the Council from the start… The Council was wrong, they argued; or… it was … laying no binding obligation on Catholics to obey; and certainly some of its acts went contrary to Catholic tradition. Thus did the Traditionalists explain the situation… too many [Catholics] were easily persuaded by these arguments… We tried to give honest answers to those Catholics who turned to us, answers based on authentic Church documents and sources… We were not infrequently disturbed by some of the things going on in the Church before our very eyes. Also, we were often puzzled by the apparent inability of some Church authorities even to SEE that all was not well with the reforms, much less to do anything about the situation. We were, however, never seriously tempted to accept the traditionalist responses to the questions that bothered so many Catholics… As we struggled to find suitable answers to the questions asked by distressed, we soon discovered that these questions fell into fairly definite patterns… This was how [this book] originally came to be written.” (Pg. 1-3)
They continue, “one of the overriding themes of this book… [is] that the liturgical reform in question was far from being an entire success. But the remedy for that surely lies in the idea that more and more people, desiring a more suitable and reverent liturgy, are discussing… ‘the reform of the reform.’ This is the approach that tradition-minded Catholics should adapt, we believe, in order to restore the reverence, beauty and splendor of the ancient liturgy. The Church is surely … not going to go back; this seems to be ever more evident today than it was when we originally wrote.” (Pg. 4)
In the Introduction to the original 1981 edition, they observe, “What the average Catholic has experienced since Vatican II has been an extensive series of seemingly never-ending changes in the practice or worship of the Church, the reasons for which have often been inadequately explained. Actually one of the most significant changes… has been the establishment of a veritable cult of continuing change… change seemingly has become the new norm. The average Catholic is often unable to judge the legitimacy of all these changes… Thus, he may consider all changes to be on the same level: 1. Legitimate changes called for by the Council… 2. Changes which seem to have been introduced for no other reason than that some … committees thought it a good idea… Examples include the ‘guitar Mass,’ or standing for Communion… 3. Things which had actually been forbidden… such as the indiscriminate use of extraordinary lay ministers, ‘self-service’ from the chalice… liturgical dancing, and so on. Many changes since Vatican II… have proceeded as much from the ‘spirit of the times’---a radically secularized, this-worldly spirit, lacking a real sense of the sacred---as from the actual enactments of the Council.” (Pg. 8-9)
They add, “Many Catholics, confused or distressed by the apparent unraveling of what they regarded as the essential fabric of their Catholic faith, have congregated where the ‘Tridentine’ Mass is still celebrated… They are composed of Catholics who… were brought to believe, were changes in ‘essentials’ of the Catholic faith that … could never change, since Jesus had committed certain eternal truths into the keeping of His Church… Vast ‘underground’ literature now circulates, ‘proving’ that Pope Paul VI did not truly abrogate the Tridentine Mass, that the New Order of the Mass is invalid and sacrilegious… that certain officials of the Roman Curia have secretly been Masons all along… that Protestants were allowed to infiltrate the Church at Vatican II, and that Pope Paul VI… was an accomplice in dismantling the Church during the post-conciliar years.” (Pg. 12-13) They add, We, the authors, have frequently written … against those we may term the ‘modernists’ in the Church, especially regarding such subjects as abortion, contraception, sec education… and so on… But it must be emphasized that we are not writing about any of these subjects in this particular book.” (Pg. 15)
In the book, they observe, “With respect to the liturgical abuses that have scandalized many Catholics… These scandals have NOT flowed from the genuine reform of the Mass decreed by the Council, but by DISOBEDIENCE to the decrees of the Council… It is no remedy to these abuses and scandals to engage in disobedience oneself… There is nothing traditionally Catholic about that.” (Pg. 25)
They explain, “Pope John Paul II granted a much broader indult for the celebration of the Tridentine Mass in 1984… Even today, however, it must be realized that recourse to the Tridentine Mass under conditions other than those spelled out by the authority of the Church constitutes a grave violation of Church law.” (Pg. 68)
They note, “With respect to the charge that the Mass has been reduced to a mere ‘memorial’ as with the ‘Lord’s Supper’ of the Protestants… This Catholic doctrine is worlds apart from the Protestant concept of the ‘Lord’s Supper’ … And the idea that some Protestant observers at the working sessions … in 1963 … had influenced the revision of the Roman Missal in a Protestant direction is without foundation.” (Pg. 83) But they acknowledge, “If the Church, at or following Vatican II, did adopt some new practices which at one time seemed to be more characteristic of Protestant worship---hymn-singing, vernacular liturgy, greater emphasis on the Scriptures, etc.---we should remember that none of these things affects the substance of Catholic doctrine or of the Mass.” (Pg. 87)
They clarify, “The Latin Mass and the Tridentine Mass are not identical… the Tridentine Mass was actually celebrated in English in the United States for a period before the publication of the revised Roman Missal, while the New Order of the Mass can be and is sometimes celebrated in Larin… In the popular mind these distinctions are lost. What is recalled is that the mass used to be celebrated in Latin but, since the Council, it has been widely celebrated in the vernacular…” (Pg. 101)
They recount, “In 1969… Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani was joined by his colleague … in writing a letter to Pope Paul VI enunciating their opinion that: ‘The Novus Ordo Missae… represents… a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass… we most earnestly beseech your Holiness not to deprive us… of the possibility of continuing to have recourse to ... that Missale Romanum of Saitn Pius V…' However… [in] a letter dated February 17, 1970… the same Cardinal Ottaviani declared … ‘I have profoundly to read the Discourse by the Holy Father on the question of the new Ordo Missae… after which, I believe, no one can any longer be genuinely scandalized…’ This second letter … has not been publicized to the extent that the original ‘Ottaviani intervention’ was publicized… later on, Cardinal Ottaviani published another statement in which he said: ‘The beauty of the Church is equally resplendent in the variety of the liturgical rites… Precisely the legitimacy of their origin protects and guards them against the infiltration of errors…’ Here Cardina Ottaviani gives the most powerful … argument that the New Order of the Mass cannot really contain… heresy, because its doctrine is guaranteed by the divinely assisted Magisterium of the Catholic Church.” (Pg.
143-144)
They admit, “Vatican II… had its human side, of course. Yet, what happened at this twentieth century council was mild and restrained compared to the intrigue and strife and tumult that characterized some of the earlier general councils of the Church… The Council’s final documents are what counts, and they were in no way nullified by the intrigues or ‘politics’ that may have gone on at or after the Council… We must not be scandalized at the evidence that the Church has her ‘human side.’ … the Church is in the world primarily to sanctify and save souls, and this work goes on in the midst of and in spite of the tares which may sprout up.” (Pg. 157)
They observe, “the fact remains that, in practice, too many of the Council’s reforms have been implemented by people with secularized mentalities in a radically secularized atmosphere. What we have is not so much ‘Vatican II,’ as it is a reflection of the more or less desacralized mentality of today. It is unfortunate that neither the bishops not, sometimes, even the Roman Congregations themselves, have seemed to notice the effect this kind of liturgy has had, and is still having, on too many Catholics.” (Pg. 173)
Of Archbishop Lefebvre, they note, “In addition to functioning without regard to the authority of the Pope… or of canon law, the Archbishop made it quite clear … that he did not fully accept various documents and decrees of the Second Vatican Council, since he believed they embody what he considered to be doctrinal errors opposed to apostolic Tradition… to accuse a pope and an ecumenical council of promoting errors in faith is a position which is impossible to reconcile with professing the traditional Catholic faith. There can be no justification, on traditional grounds, for a Catholic bishop to defy the legitimate authority of the Roman pontiff…” (Pg. 191-192)
Of the disciplining of Hans Küng, they comment, “Throughout this entire period of more than a decade, Church authority gave Father Küng the benefit of every doubt and plenty of time to pray and reflect on the course he was following. The fact of the matter… is that he himself obviously did not WANT to go on being a Catholic theologian. Instead, he INSISTED on affirming non-Catholic opinions, and so the Holy See, in removing his teaching faculties, were merely taking official cognizance of an accomplished fact…” (Pg. 204)
They summarize, “the Traditionalists have not only been no better than the dissenters and radical modernizers ‘on the left’; they have actually done MORE harm to the Church than the latter… the Traditionalists have… adopted a very untraditional standpoint, namely, that an ecumenical council of the Church could be, and indeed WAS, simply wrong… It was as a result of these negative traditionalist judgments that the only formal schism to follow Vatican II has been that of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and … the Saint Pius X Society. That is why we say that the Traditionalists have done more harm to the Church of Christ than the dissenters and radical modernizers. Formal schism is a much more serious matter than mere aberrations and abuses.” (Pg. 295)
They note, “The Traditionalists… opposed… John Paul II’s emphasis … on ecumenism… Even though the Traditionalists through much of neither John Paul II nor of his approach to various contemporary issues, the Polish pope nevertheless sought reconciliation with them at least as vigorously as he cultivated better relations with any ‘separated brethren.’ No doubt the Pope thought of the Traditionalists as tragically ‘separated brethren’ themselves, but simply of more recent vintage than the Protestants or Orthodox.” (Pg. 301-302)
This book was (and will be) loved by most ‘conservatives,’ through most Traditionalists will reject it (preferring Christopher Ferrara’s ‘The Great Façade’). But it is an important book for anyone concerned with current controversies in the Catholic Church.
Authors James Likoudis and Kenneth D. Whitehead wrote in the Introduction to the revised 2006 edition of this book, “During the 1970s, when the Catholic faithful were feeling the full force of the liturgical reform in the Catholic Church, mandated by the Second Vatican Council we… received numerous calls and letters from distressed Catholics: ‘What is happening to my Church?’ ‘What have they done to the Mass?’ ‘Is this really what the Second Vatican Council ordered?’ Such were the questions we heard. Many of these ‘distress calls’ contained a built-in conclusion, ‘An enemy has done this.’ (Mt 13:28) No one who lived through the implementation of Vatican II’s reform of the liturgy can deny that it was accompanied by a good many false starts, often great confusion and misunderstanding, and no little stress and turmoil… Generally, throughout the post-conciliar era, adequate explanations were simply not given to the faithful about the nature of the changes being made in our worship and the reasons for them.”
They continue, “there were those who had a ready explanation for all that seemed to be going so wrong. These were the ‘Traditionalists,’ who had been suspicious of the Council from the start… The Council was wrong, they argued; or… it was … laying no binding obligation on Catholics to obey; and certainly some of its acts went contrary to Catholic tradition. Thus did the Traditionalists explain the situation… too many [Catholics] were easily persuaded by these arguments… We tried to give honest answers to those Catholics who turned to us, answers based on authentic Church documents and sources… We were not infrequently disturbed by some of the things going on in the Church before our very eyes. Also, we were often puzzled by the apparent inability of some Church authorities even to SEE that all was not well with the reforms, much less to do anything about the situation. We were, however, never seriously tempted to accept the traditionalist responses to the questions that bothered so many Catholics… As we struggled to find suitable answers to the questions asked by distressed, we soon discovered that these questions fell into fairly definite patterns… This was how [this book] originally came to be written.” (Pg. 1-3)
They continue, “one of the overriding themes of this book… [is] that the liturgical reform in question was far from being an entire success. But the remedy for that surely lies in the idea that more and more people, desiring a more suitable and reverent liturgy, are discussing… ‘the reform of the reform.’ This is the approach that tradition-minded Catholics should adapt, we believe, in order to restore the reverence, beauty and splendor of the ancient liturgy. The Church is surely … not going to go back; this seems to be ever more evident today than it was when we originally wrote.” (Pg. 4)
In the Introduction to the original 1981 edition, they observe, “What the average Catholic has experienced since Vatican II has been an extensive series of seemingly never-ending changes in the practice or worship of the Church, the reasons for which have often been inadequately explained. Actually one of the most significant changes… has been the establishment of a veritable cult of continuing change… change seemingly has become the new norm. The average Catholic is often unable to judge the legitimacy of all these changes… Thus, he may consider all changes to be on the same level: 1. Legitimate changes called for by the Council… 2. Changes which seem to have been introduced for no other reason than that some … committees thought it a good idea… Examples include the ‘guitar Mass,’ or standing for Communion… 3. Things which had actually been forbidden… such as the indiscriminate use of extraordinary lay ministers, ‘self-service’ from the chalice… liturgical dancing, and so on. Many changes since Vatican II… have proceeded as much from the ‘spirit of the times’---a radically secularized, this-worldly spirit, lacking a real sense of the sacred---as from the actual enactments of the Council.” (Pg. 8-9)
They add, “Many Catholics, confused or distressed by the apparent unraveling of what they regarded as the essential fabric of their Catholic faith, have congregated where the ‘Tridentine’ Mass is still celebrated… They are composed of Catholics who… were brought to believe, were changes in ‘essentials’ of the Catholic faith that … could never change, since Jesus had committed certain eternal truths into the keeping of His Church… Vast ‘underground’ literature now circulates, ‘proving’ that Pope Paul VI did not truly abrogate the Tridentine Mass, that the New Order of the Mass is invalid and sacrilegious… that certain officials of the Roman Curia have secretly been Masons all along… that Protestants were allowed to infiltrate the Church at Vatican II, and that Pope Paul VI… was an accomplice in dismantling the Church during the post-conciliar years.” (Pg. 12-13) They add, We, the authors, have frequently written … against those we may term the ‘modernists’ in the Church, especially regarding such subjects as abortion, contraception, sec education… and so on… But it must be emphasized that we are not writing about any of these subjects in this particular book.” (Pg. 15)
In the book, they observe, “With respect to the liturgical abuses that have scandalized many Catholics… These scandals have NOT flowed from the genuine reform of the Mass decreed by the Council, but by DISOBEDIENCE to the decrees of the Council… It is no remedy to these abuses and scandals to engage in disobedience oneself… There is nothing traditionally Catholic about that.” (Pg. 25)
They explain, “Pope John Paul II granted a much broader indult for the celebration of the Tridentine Mass in 1984… Even today, however, it must be realized that recourse to the Tridentine Mass under conditions other than those spelled out by the authority of the Church constitutes a grave violation of Church law.” (Pg. 68)
They note, “With respect to the charge that the Mass has been reduced to a mere ‘memorial’ as with the ‘Lord’s Supper’ of the Protestants… This Catholic doctrine is worlds apart from the Protestant concept of the ‘Lord’s Supper’ … And the idea that some Protestant observers at the working sessions … in 1963 … had influenced the revision of the Roman Missal in a Protestant direction is without foundation.” (Pg. 83) But they acknowledge, “If the Church, at or following Vatican II, did adopt some new practices which at one time seemed to be more characteristic of Protestant worship---hymn-singing, vernacular liturgy, greater emphasis on the Scriptures, etc.---we should remember that none of these things affects the substance of Catholic doctrine or of the Mass.” (Pg. 87)
They clarify, “The Latin Mass and the Tridentine Mass are not identical… the Tridentine Mass was actually celebrated in English in the United States for a period before the publication of the revised Roman Missal, while the New Order of the Mass can be and is sometimes celebrated in Larin… In the popular mind these distinctions are lost. What is recalled is that the mass used to be celebrated in Latin but, since the Council, it has been widely celebrated in the vernacular…” (Pg. 101)
They recount, “In 1969… Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani was joined by his colleague … in writing a letter to Pope Paul VI enunciating their opinion that: ‘The Novus Ordo Missae… represents… a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass… we most earnestly beseech your Holiness not to deprive us… of the possibility of continuing to have recourse to ... that Missale Romanum of Saitn Pius V…' However… [in] a letter dated February 17, 1970… the same Cardinal Ottaviani declared … ‘I have profoundly to read the Discourse by the Holy Father on the question of the new Ordo Missae… after which, I believe, no one can any longer be genuinely scandalized…’ This second letter … has not been publicized to the extent that the original ‘Ottaviani intervention’ was publicized… later on, Cardinal Ottaviani published another statement in which he said: ‘The beauty of the Church is equally resplendent in the variety of the liturgical rites… Precisely the legitimacy of their origin protects and guards them against the infiltration of errors…’ Here Cardina Ottaviani gives the most powerful … argument that the New Order of the Mass cannot really contain… heresy, because its doctrine is guaranteed by the divinely assisted Magisterium of the Catholic Church.” (Pg.
143-144)
They admit, “Vatican II… had its human side, of course. Yet, what happened at this twentieth century council was mild and restrained compared to the intrigue and strife and tumult that characterized some of the earlier general councils of the Church… The Council’s final documents are what counts, and they were in no way nullified by the intrigues or ‘politics’ that may have gone on at or after the Council… We must not be scandalized at the evidence that the Church has her ‘human side.’ … the Church is in the world primarily to sanctify and save souls, and this work goes on in the midst of and in spite of the tares which may sprout up.” (Pg. 157)
They observe, “the fact remains that, in practice, too many of the Council’s reforms have been implemented by people with secularized mentalities in a radically secularized atmosphere. What we have is not so much ‘Vatican II,’ as it is a reflection of the more or less desacralized mentality of today. It is unfortunate that neither the bishops not, sometimes, even the Roman Congregations themselves, have seemed to notice the effect this kind of liturgy has had, and is still having, on too many Catholics.” (Pg. 173)
Of Archbishop Lefebvre, they note, “In addition to functioning without regard to the authority of the Pope… or of canon law, the Archbishop made it quite clear … that he did not fully accept various documents and decrees of the Second Vatican Council, since he believed they embody what he considered to be doctrinal errors opposed to apostolic Tradition… to accuse a pope and an ecumenical council of promoting errors in faith is a position which is impossible to reconcile with professing the traditional Catholic faith. There can be no justification, on traditional grounds, for a Catholic bishop to defy the legitimate authority of the Roman pontiff…” (Pg. 191-192)
Of the disciplining of Hans Küng, they comment, “Throughout this entire period of more than a decade, Church authority gave Father Küng the benefit of every doubt and plenty of time to pray and reflect on the course he was following. The fact of the matter… is that he himself obviously did not WANT to go on being a Catholic theologian. Instead, he INSISTED on affirming non-Catholic opinions, and so the Holy See, in removing his teaching faculties, were merely taking official cognizance of an accomplished fact…” (Pg. 204)
They summarize, “the Traditionalists have not only been no better than the dissenters and radical modernizers ‘on the left’; they have actually done MORE harm to the Church than the latter… the Traditionalists have… adopted a very untraditional standpoint, namely, that an ecumenical council of the Church could be, and indeed WAS, simply wrong… It was as a result of these negative traditionalist judgments that the only formal schism to follow Vatican II has been that of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and … the Saint Pius X Society. That is why we say that the Traditionalists have done more harm to the Church of Christ than the dissenters and radical modernizers. Formal schism is a much more serious matter than mere aberrations and abuses.” (Pg. 295)
They note, “The Traditionalists… opposed… John Paul II’s emphasis … on ecumenism… Even though the Traditionalists through much of neither John Paul II nor of his approach to various contemporary issues, the Polish pope nevertheless sought reconciliation with them at least as vigorously as he cultivated better relations with any ‘separated brethren.’ No doubt the Pope thought of the Traditionalists as tragically ‘separated brethren’ themselves, but simply of more recent vintage than the Protestants or Orthodox.” (Pg. 301-302)
This book was (and will be) loved by most ‘conservatives,’ through most Traditionalists will reject it (preferring Christopher Ferrara’s ‘The Great Façade’). But it is an important book for anyone concerned with current controversies in the Catholic Church.
February 15, 2025
Despite being originally written in 1981, the questions posed in this book from traditionalist Catholics are still being asked today, and they're much more prominent with the onset of social media such as Twitter and YouTube. While some of the questions are a bit dated, as it is now possible to attend a Tridentine mass while still being in full communion with Rome (FSSP, ICKSP, even some Diocesan parishes), these are still relevant concerns for many people who attend theses masses.
This book was very balanced, as they did point out the abuses and disobedience to the liturgical changes that Vatican II initially imposed. The authors still champion for a mass that is reverent and upholds the teachings of the Catholic Church - which they go on to show that Vatican II does not break continuity with (so long as it is followed properly). The problem arises when traditionalists, no matter how reverent the novus ordo mass, still believe it to be scandalous and "harmful to their soul".
The authors provide many examples from previous Pope's and Saints that traditionalists cite themselves in their arguments for rejecting Vatican II. Ultimately the principal tradition that Catholics must obey is that of submitting to the magisterium. Often, the question will come up of whether to follow the magisterium and attend a (novus ordo) mass that they "feel" is violating their conscious and not giving due respect to God. To this question the authors respond:
"If the Church decides through her competent authorities to officially institute that which we might otherwise be tempted to question, we nevertheless can be entirely at peace in our consciences because we know that the Holy Spirit would not allow the duly constituted authorities of the Church, in officially promulgated acts guaranteed by the Holy See, to lead us astray on anything that might jeopardize our eternal salvation."
The rest of the book answers questions pertaining to if Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI actually had the authority to change the mass (they did, as other Pope's in the past did) and justifying the changes to the mass by demonstrating how they uphold the teachings of the Church while maintaining the hermeneutic of continuity. The also answer several questions relating to the "fruits" of Vatican II and the on-going crisis in the church - questions that are all the more relevant in our current time.
Finally, in the revised version from 2006, we are presented with the question of what to do going forward. There is still a crisis in the church. The novus ordo still has abuses present (so much so that I find myself having to use third party websites to locate a truly reverent catholic mass), and there is a shortage of priests due to a lack of vocations. The authors tell us we must continue to:
1. Keep the faith
2. Follow the Pope
3. Find out what the council really said
4. Do it
I believe with proper catechesis, Catholics will naturally crave reverent liturgy. This is made evident by the flourishing of parishes with devout liturgy, and the dwindling attendance of the 70's "boomer" parishes. I pray the priests and bishops take note of the parishes that are doing well, and do what they can to continue the "reform of the reform" to bring the faithful a more reverent and beautiful liturgy.
Overall a great book which I took many notes from, as I'm sure I'll have to refer back to as these are questions that will continue to be asked.
This book was very balanced, as they did point out the abuses and disobedience to the liturgical changes that Vatican II initially imposed. The authors still champion for a mass that is reverent and upholds the teachings of the Catholic Church - which they go on to show that Vatican II does not break continuity with (so long as it is followed properly). The problem arises when traditionalists, no matter how reverent the novus ordo mass, still believe it to be scandalous and "harmful to their soul".
The authors provide many examples from previous Pope's and Saints that traditionalists cite themselves in their arguments for rejecting Vatican II. Ultimately the principal tradition that Catholics must obey is that of submitting to the magisterium. Often, the question will come up of whether to follow the magisterium and attend a (novus ordo) mass that they "feel" is violating their conscious and not giving due respect to God. To this question the authors respond:
"If the Church decides through her competent authorities to officially institute that which we might otherwise be tempted to question, we nevertheless can be entirely at peace in our consciences because we know that the Holy Spirit would not allow the duly constituted authorities of the Church, in officially promulgated acts guaranteed by the Holy See, to lead us astray on anything that might jeopardize our eternal salvation."
The rest of the book answers questions pertaining to if Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI actually had the authority to change the mass (they did, as other Pope's in the past did) and justifying the changes to the mass by demonstrating how they uphold the teachings of the Church while maintaining the hermeneutic of continuity. The also answer several questions relating to the "fruits" of Vatican II and the on-going crisis in the church - questions that are all the more relevant in our current time.
Finally, in the revised version from 2006, we are presented with the question of what to do going forward. There is still a crisis in the church. The novus ordo still has abuses present (so much so that I find myself having to use third party websites to locate a truly reverent catholic mass), and there is a shortage of priests due to a lack of vocations. The authors tell us we must continue to:
1. Keep the faith
2. Follow the Pope
3. Find out what the council really said
4. Do it
I believe with proper catechesis, Catholics will naturally crave reverent liturgy. This is made evident by the flourishing of parishes with devout liturgy, and the dwindling attendance of the 70's "boomer" parishes. I pray the priests and bishops take note of the parishes that are doing well, and do what they can to continue the "reform of the reform" to bring the faithful a more reverent and beautiful liturgy.
Overall a great book which I took many notes from, as I'm sure I'll have to refer back to as these are questions that will continue to be asked.
December 10, 2022
Very helpful, very clear. Some questions outdated but you can skip those. The Afterword is worth the price of the book alone (on the history of the Lefebvre Schism and how Popes JPII and Benedict XVI have brought clarity to the meaning of the Council).
Highly recommend for any Catholic asking questions about the validity of Vatican II, the Novus Ordo, or wanting more clarity on these issues.
The authors are very balanced, admitting that there is yet a ways to go in the blessings of the Council coming to fruition, and that many grievous things have happened since the Council, but overall makes me hopeful and much more well-informed for the future.
Highly recommend for any Catholic asking questions about the validity of Vatican II, the Novus Ordo, or wanting more clarity on these issues.
The authors are very balanced, admitting that there is yet a ways to go in the blessings of the Council coming to fruition, and that many grievous things have happened since the Council, but overall makes me hopeful and much more well-informed for the future.
February 17, 2025
Good answer to many questions raised about the reforms of V2
October 19, 2013
First read from goodreads giveaway. It wasn't what I expected. The book seemed to cover the same topic over and over to me and I just was bored with it.
June 27, 2015
I won this book on goodreads first reads.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews