'Active participation' from the interview of Cardinal Bartolucci

[TimothyH]

I’ve not advocated that ANYBODY break ANY rubrics at ANY POINT. What I’m advocating is that

(a) when there is an option in the rubrics, to pick the one that is more reverent, traditional, and logical (i.e. Holy Communion on the tongue, Eucharistic Prayer ad orientem, Ordinary in Latin, Gregorian chant instead of generic hymns, et al.); and

(b) that the Holy See start suppressing or sternly discouraging the other option.

Furthermore, I’m getting really tired of being accused of or associated with sedevancantism or whatever every time this topic comes up. I have not said, “break rules”. I have not said, “the OF is bad.” I have not said, “the Holy See has sinned against the Lord.” What I AM saying, is that things the Holy See has permitted are not necessarily the ideal, and that we should work towards the ideal, rather than becoming complacent with it.

I’m not sure that the Eucharistic prayer ad orientem is objectively more reverent and reference the many monastic communities who’s members have gathered around a freestanding altar for nearly 1600 years.

That particular expression of the liturgy is based on the monastic idea of enclosure. I’m not saying that the laity should be allowed to swarm the altar like I do see in some Churches, but personally, I hope that the Church returns to an earlier (more primitive if you will) monastic spirituality which it had in it’s youth.

-Tim-

 

[Chatter163]

Vatican II concluded in 1965. At that point all that was different in the Holy Mass was that some of it was in the vernacular (as the Council Fathers intended). The Novus Ordo wasn’t promulgated until 1969.

This is not true. The decree ***I*nter Oecumenci, promulgated in September, 1964, provided a number of significant reforms that were to take effect in the liturgical year 1965. The decree specifically states that its purpose is to facilitate the active participation of the faithful. Six months earlier, the dialogic form (℣. *Corpus Christi. *℟ Amen.) for the administration of holy communion had been unveiled. An additional instruction, Tres Abhinc Annos, was promulgated in 1967, which made major changes. The use of the vernacular and the loud voice used in the praying of the Roman Canon, two huge reforms, followed in October, 1967. Three additional eucharistic prayers were introduced in August, 1968. In other words, the Order of Mass was changed incrementally between late 1964 and late 1969. Pictures of Masses from late 1967 on appear essentially to be the Novus Ordo, but, in fact, are not.

 

[EphelDuath]

I’m not sure that the Eucharistic prayer ad orientem is objectively more reverent and reference the many monastic communities who’s members have gathered around a freestanding altar for nearly 1600 years.

Pardon me, I forgot my exceptory clause this particular thread.

The Eucharistic Prayer prayed ad orientem is more reverent, traditional and logical EXCEPT for extremely rare instances, where Holy Mass is celebrated at an altar which differs from the setup of 99.9% of Catholic altars in the history of the world prior to wreckovation.

This is not true. The decree ***I***nter Oecumenci, promulgated in September, 1964, provided a number of significant reforms that were to take effect in the liturgical year 1965. The decree specifically states that its purpose is to facilitate the active participation of the faithful. Six months earlier, the dialogic form (℣. *Corpus Christi. *℟ Amen.) for the administration of holy communion had been unveiled. An additional instruction, Tres Abhinc Annos, was promulgated in 1967, which made major changes. The use of the vernacular and the loud voice used in the praying of the Roman Canon, two huge reforms, followed in October, 1967. Three additional eucharistic prayers were introduced in August, 1968. In other words, the Order of Mass was changed incrementally between late 1964 and late 1969. Pictures of Masses from late 1967 on appear essentially to be the Novus Ordo, but, in fact, are not.

Tres Abhinc Annos was after the Council.

You caught me on an error regarding Inter Oecumenci, though. There were extremely minor changes to the rubrics of Holy Mass in 1964, which was during the Council. Nevertheless everything that’s commonly associated as being “part” of Vatican II didn’t start until after all of the bishops were home.

 

[ProVobis]

Three additional eucharistic prayers were introduced in August, 1968.

I read where up to 20 Eucharistic Prayers were used in some countries. Pope Paul VI cut them all down to four, mainly because there was enough evidence that they were used in the early Church.

 

[EphelDuath]

I read where up to 20 Eucharistic Prayers were used in some countries. Pope Paul VI cut them all down to four, mainly because there was enough evidence that they were used in the early Church.

Pope Benedict advocated cutting out Eucharistic Prayer II entirely, considering that the notion that it was used in the early Church has been entirely debunked since the '60s. Very few modern scholars think that the Canon of Hippolytus was an actual liturgy of the Church rather than a hypothetical meandering of a schismatic.

Unfortunately the Eucharistic Prayers for Masses with Children have never been abolished completely from the record.

 

[Chatter163]

Pardon me, I forgot my exceptory clause this particular thread.

The Eucharistic Prayer prayed ad orientem is more reverent, traditional and logical EXCEPT for extremely rare instances, where Holy Mass is celebrated at an altar which differs from the setup of 99.9% of Catholic altars in the history of the world prior to wreckovation.

Tres Abhinc Annos was after the Council.

You caught me on an error regarding Inter Oecumenci, though. There were extremely minor changes to the rubrics of Holy Mass in 1964, which was during the Council. Nevertheless everything that’s commonly associated as being “part” of Vatican II didn’t start until after all of the bishops were home.

Chapter II of Inter Oecumenci can hardly be called "extremely minor" changes in the Order of Mass, especially when taken in addition to the changing of the words of administration of holy communion, and the dropping of the last gospel and psalm 43 at the prayers at the foot of the altar, all of which occurred while the council was still in session. I mentioned *Tres Abhninc Annos *because of the assertion that the Novus Ordo was not promulgated until 1969, implying that few or no changes were made between the end of the council and the promulgation of the new missal in 1969. I was ponting out the very incremental changes that started before the end of the council, and continued steadily through 1969.

 

[TimothyH]

Pardon me, I forgot my exceptory clause this particular thread.

The Eucharistic Prayer prayed ad orientem is more reverent, traditional and logical EXCEPT for extremely rare instances, where Holy Mass is celebrated at an altar which differs from the setup of 99.9% of Catholic altars in the history of the world prior to wreckovation.

What you call wreckovation has been the norm in many monasitc communities for 1600 years. Many ordinary Christians drew their spiritual life from the monastic Abbey Church around which towns, cities and universities developed. It is not as rare as you believe.

-Tim-

 

[ProVobis]

You caught me on an error regarding Inter Oecumenci, though. There were extremely minor changes to the rubrics of Holy Mass in 1964, which was during the Council.

Perhaps they were more than minor:

The Day the Mass Changed

But no need to worry about the interim Mass of the 60’s. There were supposedly many problems with it, so much so they decided to use the 1962 Missal for those who were attached to the pre-1969 liturgy.

 

[otjm]

It might help if we all took a breath and maybe a step or two back.

Those who don’t like the OF in general keep rallying back to the documents of Vatican 2

It might be helpful to remember what actually went on in that council.

To start with, what might be called the conservative element among the bishops and Cardinals were at first dead set against any council whatsoever, and they drafted a first round.

That first round was roundly (pardon the pun) rejected, and the process started all over.

The second round most definitely was different than the first round.

Point: the Church was moving where the conservatives did not want to go, and the conservatives were overruled.

The second point is that the bishops, once the second round was approved, had to sit down and write the documents; and to get them passed, there had to be compromises - those compromises were with both the small end of the liberals, the small end of the conservatives, and the people in the middle - the moderates.

Coming to consensus has often been likened to making sausage - with the caveat that you don’t want to watch.

Constantly going back and saying “This was not in the documents”, misses the mark because it ignores the history of those documents being written and voted on. The documents were not something that were the intentions of each and every member of the Council; some intended more; some intended less. And, most likely, some intended simply something else entirely.

To say “This is not what the Council intended” also misses the history; it may miss what the council stated; but there were a variety of ideas the various bishops intended; the documents simply state what they agreed to vote on. That more may have been intended by a small minority; a large minority, or a small majority is not something that is going to appear in the documents themselves, as they were written to get the most approval, which included those who didn’t want to move much if at all.

We know what the Council said. To say that because we know what they said, we therefore understand all that they intended (or did not intend) is to ignore the fact that the written documents were compromises. The documents were not passed with a 51% margin; but it was the conservatives who started the first round and did not succeed; it was the moderates and progressives who succeeded, with documents written to engage the conservatives to sign.

Which is another way of saying that if there were or are ideas/changes/implementations which are further than what the documents said, that no one should be surprised.

 

[ProVobis]

We know what the Council said. To say that because we know what they said, we therefore understand all that they intended (or did not intend) is to ignore the fact that the written documents were compromises. The documents were not passed with a 51% margin; but it was the conservatives who started the first round and did not succeed; it was the moderates and progressives who succeeded, with documents written to engage the conservatives to sign.

Ah, yes, let me guess. The spirit of the Council.

 

[EphelDuath]

Chapter II of Inter Oecumenci can hardly be called "extremely minor" changes in the Order of Mass, especially when taken in addition to the changing of the words of administration of holy communion, and the dropping of the last gospel and psalm 43 at the prayers at the foot of the altar, all of which occurred while the council was still in session.

Those changes are extremely minor in a greater context. The prayers at the foot of the altar and Last Gospel were optional/regional before Trent, and saying “Amen” at Holy Communion isn’t that big a deal compared to, say, having several Eucharistic Prayers in the vernacular prayed optionally towards the altar or towards the people.

What you call wreckovation has been the norm in many monasitc communities for 1600 years. Many ordinary Christians drew their spiritual life from the monastic Abbey Church around which towns, cities and universities developed. It is not as rare as you believe.

I give up. I think I’ve been very clear as to what I’m talking about, and considering how many times I’ve made that clarification to you, I have trouble believing you’re not intentionally misinterpreting my words at this point.

For the last time. Yes, versus populem existed before Vatican II. BUT, only for a handful of churches, chapels, and basilicas. And that’s OK. For the vast majority of the billions of Catholics in history, the altar was against the wall, and the celebrant prayed facing it with the people behind him. Wreckovation was the widespread destruction of ancient altars and replacing them with free-standing tables so the celebrant could face the people while praying non-presidential prayers; something not intended by the Council, and was generally imposed by extremist liturgists that misinterpreted every word they could in the name of “pastoral concerns”.

God bless.

Point: the Church was moving where the conservatives did not want to go, and the conservatives were overruled.

I don’t agree with this interpretation at all. The majority of the Council were conservatives. The final draft of SC, the one that was ratified, is extremely conservative – the only real drastic change it made was abolishing Prime as a liturgical hour. I think if the Council Fathers knew exactly what Bugnini, Gelineau, et al. had in mind, they would have been a lot firmer in their language, and SC might never have happened. Sadly they were unaware of what was going on behind closed doors.

The wreckovation was accomplished at the local level by ignoring and intentionally twisting the words of the Council.

 

[Chatter163]

Those changes are extremely minor in a greater context. The prayers at the foot of the altar and Last Gospel were optional/regional before Trent, and saying “Amen” at Holy Communion isn’t that big a deal compared to, say, having several Eucharistic Prayers in the vernacular prayed optionally towards the altar or towards the people.
.

You appear to be looking backward from the present day and saying that in the “greater context” of the changes that followed, these were “extremely minor.” What you are not doing is looking at them from the context of centuries of no liturgical change until the 1950s, certainly from the perspective of the average Catholic in the pew. Another poster posted a link to an article that demonstrated how people walked into their churches in Advent Sunday, 1964, and most (not all. but most, especially in North America) suddenly heard vernacular scripture readings–often with lay commentators reading explanations prepared by the pastor or bishop–saw the priest at a makeshift altar facing the people, and were being encouraged to say or sing the Ordinary of the Mass (Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei) in the vernacular, along with vernacular hymns. There were suddenly lay lectors and laypeople involved with an offertory procession. There were concelebrated Masses. How can you possibly say that these were “extremely minor”? Differences in liturgical language, emphasis on scriptural readings, changes in the altar, offertory procession? Truncated Latin prayers? Answering the priest as he administered communion? These were HUGE changes for Catholics in the pew to take in, especially nearly all at once, and there were many, many more to come over the next several years.

Answering the priest when receiving communion was extremely significant. While intended as a witness to the Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament, in many places, this soon was perceived as the communicant’s “ratifying” the Real Presence–in other words, Christ was truly present under the species of bread because the priest said the words and the communicant ratified it with his affirmation. The communicant completed the process begun by the priest, so to speak. This is, of course, an heretical understanding, because Our Lord is truly present in the Eucharist once the priest has offered the Holy Sacrifice, regardless of whether communicants are present or not, believe in the Sacrament or not, and respond or not. But it was routinely taught or implied in sermons, CCD, RCIA and in other settings.

 

[sw85]

Requiescat in Pace Card. +Bartolucci. He was director of the Sistine Choir and was present during Vatican II. This is a translation of an interview with him, that recently was posted on New Liturgical Movement:

Source: newliturgicalmovement.org/2013/11/cardinal-bartolucci-interviewed-on.html#.UoY0MdIw3dB

What do you think of this? It seems to support what I’ve been saying all along, which is that the Council Fathers never really intended to tamper with the Tridentine Mass aside from allowing the Propers and Readings to be in the vernacular (remember, they literally guffawed at the notion that the Eucharistic Prayer might be prayed in the vernacular).

Pope Benedict, both during his Pontificate and while he was still Card. Ratzinger, stressed repeatedly that “active participation” was not meant to be understood as encouraging exterior activity, song-singing, clapping, making responses, etc., but as a contemplative interiority of participation. He called the conflation of “active participation” and external activity “confusion” on more than one occasion. On the other hand, everyone else everywhere else who read the documents seem to have walked away with an entirely different conclusion.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

This thread is closed because it contains misinformation. It’s missing information and presents interpretations without informing the readers that these are not authoritative statements. This is not helpful to those who are trying to learn about Catholic tradition and Catholic customs.

Please remember that even statements made by those in the hierarchy are authoritative only when said hierarch is either an ordinary of a diocese or has been authorize to speak for the Church. Otherwise, these are his opinions.

If you want to discuss such subjects on this forum, you must

1. distinguish between what is your opinion, what the Church says and allows
2. admit to the general public when your opinion dissents from that of the current authorities in the Church.

**
CLOSED**