>>752049
He's wrong. Where is the Infaillible definition for an Ecumenical Council to be one?
pro tip :
There's none. Hence, one can made up 'conditions'' for a council to be defined ecumenical, which is what Father Hesse did, and yes, in his own logic, Vatican II does not fulfill theses conditions and thus isn't ecumenical or not binding. Once again, in his own logic, he's right.
But we're Roman Catholics, not Prots, things dont' go by our logic but by the authority of the Teaching Church.
Novus Ordo Missae is valid, catholic and licit. I've yet to hear solid arguments about how it is not.
>written by protestants
Wrong. Protestant pastor were indeed invited to the Council ( Just like in Council of Trent btw), and they were part of an observing comission, and had no say, no decision in any part of the Council whatsoever. Of course, you'll find articles saying otherwise but heh
>facing the people to feel more protestant and welcoming
Not really. The core of the facing people thing isn't found in Vatican II, but before it, in a group of clerics, liturgists and theologians that wanted a 'purer' liturgy, closer to the Antiquity era one. It was a time where documentation and all that about First Christians ways of worshipping was going strong and encouraged by Pope Pius XII.
To get the mindset of theses peoples, imagine the Renaissance. A view of Antiquity that is pure, classic and better. That's what they wanted in the liturgical reform. It has been shown that some of the masses were indeed celebrated facing the people during First Christians era, but it wasn't as big as these people thought it was, thus creating a bit of a …. out of place practise.
This return to Antiquity is really the core of the liturgical reform, even outside of Vatican II.
Change of Roman canon? Same, all inspired by Antiquity and other christian traditions.
>But kneeling and other liturgical gestures that disapperead? that's just pandering to prots denying the real presence
Nah, if you read The Rhine Flows into the Tiber: A History of Vatican II, written by a priest that was there ( it's recommended as well by FSSPX than catholics agreeing with the Pope etc btw), you easily see that all this removal was there to suit, not protestants, but non Europeans like Philipino and Asians. Kneeling, bowing head, kissing stuff has not the same meaning there than it does here, and it feels foreign for them to do so, thus the liturgy should be 'suited' for every type of Catholics, and not only Europeans who grew up with the Catholic liturgy for centuries. It's a mindset that I personally don't agree with, but I can see how a 60s Bishop could think it was a good idea.