Ad Orientum

[Oneofthewomen]

snipped
No they didn’t. The Novus Ordo came out 5 years after the council ended and is thanks to a liturgical committee.

God Bless you,but you are incredibly misinformed.

A committee which was called for by Paul VI, ***because of ***Vatican II.

From Inter oecumenici

I. NATURE OF THIS INSTRUCTION

1. Among the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council’s primary achievements must be counted the Constitution on the Liturgy, since it regulates the most exalted sphere of the Church’s activity. The document will have ever richer effects as pastors and faithful alike deepen their understanding of its genuine spirit and with good will put it into practice.

1. The Consilium, which Pope Paul VI established by the Motu Proprio Sacram Liturgiam, has promptly taken up its two appointed tasks: to carry out the directives of the Constitution and of Sacram Liturgiam and to provide the means for interpreting these documents and putting them into practice.

1. That these documents should immediately be properly carried out everywhere and any possible doubts on interpretation removed are matters of the utmost importance. Therefore, by papal mandate, the Consilium has prepared the present Instruction. It sets out more sharply the functions of conferences of bishops in liturgical matters, explains more fully those principles stated in general terms in the aforementioned documents, and authorizes or mandates that those measures that are practicable before revision of the liturgical books go into effect immediately.

 

[Basilios]

A committee which was called for by Paul VI, ***because of ***Vatican II.

I didn’t say otherwise.

What I said was that the Second Vatican Council did not infallibly decree that we must use the Novus Ordo Missal. For one, as I said, the NO didn’t exist until almost a decade later, and secondly, one cannot make an infallible decree about which missal to use.

 

[OraLabora]

If you weren’t so aggressively anti-traddy.

Ad-hominem.

The substance of these recommendations can be summarized as follows:

1. In the offices of the Roman Rite, the honour due [debita honor] to the** Latin language **should be accorded it. Bishops should ensure that on Sundays and ferial days at least one Latin Mass should be celebrated in each important locality of their diocese. However the readings could also be said in the vernacular.

(my bold)

lms.org.uk/resources/documents/the-norms-of-1986

“Recommendation” is not “by orders of Rome”. And that particular recommendation refers to the Latin language, which I’m sure you know, is the proper language of the Ordinary Form as well.

 

[Sirach2]

Didn’t say it did. At all.

If you weren’t so aggressively anti-traddy you’d acquaint yourself with all the relevant documents associated with the traditional Mass that the Church has released. Here is a good start.

It doesn’t begin and end with Summorum Pontificum.

OraLabora posted a one-line comment, and he is called “aggressively anti-traddy?” :ehh:
Ok. Let’s look at the link you posted. Notice the wording is not “must” – but “may.”

Art. 5. § 1 In parishes, where there is a stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition, [the request is conditional, did you notice?]
§ 2 Celebration in accordance with the Missal of Bl. John XXIII may take place on working days; while on Sundays and feast days one such celebration may also be held.

You said S.P. was a good place to start. Do you have any other links that prove your point, since this one failed to do so?

 

[Sirach2]

Ad-hominem.

He’s a “fishie”, Ora … consider the source.

 

[Basilios]

Ad-hominem…

No. An ad-hominem is an informal fallacy which attempts to disprove an argument by attacking the person. I didn’t do that.

OraLabora posted a one-line comment, and he is called “aggressively anti-traddy?” :ehh:
Ok. Let’s look at the link you posted. Notice the wording is not “must” – but “may.”

Art. 5. § 1 In parishes, where there is a stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition, [the request is conditional, did you notice?]
§ 2 Celebration in accordance with the Missal of Bl. John XXIII may take place on working days; while on Sundays and feast days one such celebration may also be held.

You said S.P. was a good place to start. Do you have any other links that prove your point, since this one failed to do so?

Notice that I never once said that SP said that. I said that all the documents were a good place to start - I linked to a site with all the relevant documents on the sidebar. As I said, SP isn’t the be-all-end-all. I’m not doing homework for people. If they want to make abrupt remarks they should be sure they know what they are talking about instead of putting words into my mouth (figuratively speaking of course!) and going on about SP.

Instead of hastily and abruptly saying “SP doesn’t say that. At all” one could say, “Hey, which document says this, I’d be interested to know because I can’t find it in SP”. Then I would happily link them to the appropriate places and tell them how I (and others, including clerics) interpret the documents. But I’m put off now, and my Sunday has become a fighting match which I never intended.

God Bless you all, but I am now leaving this thread. I hope I didn’t offend anybody or cause anybody to lose their peace of soul.

He’s a “fishie”, Ora … consider the source.

Pot meet kettle!

 

[Sirach2]

If they want to make abrupt remarks they should be sure they know what they are talking about instead of putting words into my mouth (figuratively speaking of course!) and going on about SP.

Instead of hastily and abruptly saying “SP doesn’t say that. At all” one could say, “Hey, which document says this, **I’d be interested to know because I can’t find it in SP”. **Then I would happily link them to the appropriate places and tell them how I (and others, including clerics) interpret the documents.

As a new member, I suggest you read the statistics of the poster. OraLabora has been a member since 2007, and would be very familiar with all of Rome’s documents, so the bolded part would not apply. He was correcting your private misinterpretation, which truly belongs only to Rome and the Ordinaries.

 

[OraLabora]

No. An ad-hominem is an informal fallacy which attempts to disprove an argument by attacking the person. I didn’t do that.

Actually you did. You called me “aggressively anti-traddy”. Which I can assure you I am not, even though I “aggressively” promote the use of Gregorian chant for the Ordinary Form Mass as well as the current Liturgy of the Hours, but don’t pay much attention to the EF Mass, because I figure those who care enough to fight for it can manage on their own. At my age I’ve learned to pick my battles and the EF isn’t one that I choose to fight.

Of course by fish-eater’s standards that probably does make me “aggressively anti-traddy”.

 

[ProVobis]

A committee which was called for by Paul VI, ***because of ***Vatican II.

Okay, but somewhere in the argument it seems there was an implication that if Vatican II had been infallible, then all the committees it formed were infallible by extension as well.

I’ll leave the resolution of that to the experts but it seems like a very slippery slope to me. Quo Primum was an extension of a doctrinal council but they haven’t concluded it was infallible. Or have they?

 

[codefro]

^^This is probably the most Truth I’ve seen on this forum ever, Thank you for this post^^

To the OP and original question.

I am a person who gets “offended” per se about AO. This is why: VII was an infallible conference. They decided infallibly that we should use the OF. I do agree with B16 on his proposition of granting the EF if asked. Its not that the EF or AO upsets me, it is the liturgical abuse of using it when we are not allowed to.

I would like to see holier people (me included) and if EF does it for some, excellent. But for me and for many we need the OF because … just because…

I hope you see my opinion as I do. Liturgical Abuse is Liturgical abuse no doubt about that.

Just to explain…

Vatican II never infallibly declared that the OF will be said versus populum. In fact, the rubrics assume that the priest is facing ad orientem. It was ALLOWED to be said versus populum and subsequently became the norm. It is not an abuse for a priest to say the Mass Ad Orientem as that is how the Mass was originally intended. So now that you know it is not a liturgical abuse, would that change your mind about it?

 

[triumphguy]

I doubt the Holy Spirit is ok with liturgical abuse.

Good point - then it is not liturgical abuse QED!

BTW: Our Cathedral is built facing south.

For the bishop to say mass ad orientem would just be weird!

I bet a large number of churches are just built according to the road grid and city planning permission and not the points of the compass.

 

[YoungTradCath]

This is no longer being published. It was something Pope Benedict was writing, but didn’t have time to finish it. We’re all hoping he’ll finish it during his retirement, but we’re not hold our breath.

No, the CDWDS is writing it. BXVI was writing an encyclical, which will not be promulgated. Or if it is, it will be under Francis’s name.

 

[codefro]

No, the CDWDS is writing it. BXVI was writing an encyclical, which will not be promulgated. Or if it is, it will be under Francis’s name.

Proof?

 

[Aran_Houlihan]

“If the Mass is a meal, I understand the priest turning towards the congregation. One does not preside at a meal with one’s back to the guests. But a sacrifice is offered to God, not to the congregation…”
Archbishop Lefebvre

 

[triumphguy]

“If the Mass is a meal, I understand the priest turning towards the congregation. One does not preside at a meal with one’s back to the guests. But a sacrifice is offered to God, not to the congregation…”
Archbishop Lefebvre

Did Jesus sit at a table or an altar in the Upper Room?

 

[Razanir]

From a practical perspective, versus populam naturally tends to shift the focus onto the priest and the people rather than on God. If the priest is not facing the people, he’s not encouraged to showboat. If he’s not facing the people, they are less likely to think that the Mass is about THEM. Or if they still do, they’ll be the ones to complain about Ad Orientam.

I actually have an argument for why versus populam can still be just as reverent as cum populam.

My university’s Newman Center is being renovated. And unfortunately, the outreach chapel we have isn’t large enough for Sunday Mass. (Or would that be fortunately ) So the university is letting us use the Union Ballroom to celebrate Mass in every Sunday. Some observations I made, both good and bad:

–You only genuflect if it’s not during Mass, there is a Tabernacle, and the sanctuary lamp is lit. If any of those three conditions is not met (such as no Tabernacle in the ballroom) you bow to the altar instead. Most people didn’t seem to know that
–They had a portable altar and set it up on a platform butted up against the stage. The priest could easily have just walked out on stage, but he didn’t. He still entered from the back of the ballroom, because the focus is still on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass
–And even before Mass began, it was still just as silent and reverent in the ballroom as if we were still in an actual church

So yes, you can argue that versus populam shifts the focus away from Jesus and toward the people. But it’s still the Mass. Either way, it can still be just as reverent.

 

[Sirach2]

Here’s an interesting article I chanced upon today, concerning the direction toward which Pope Francis seems to be guiding the Church – in complete contrast to P.E. Benedict. So unless we are of the mind that his masses are of lesser sacredness than BXVI’s, it is good to rethink one’s rigidness with regard to these issues.

Most of the Catholic church, most of the PIPs (“people in the pews”), wouldn’t have been tracking all this. They don’t read Pray Tell or Worship magazine. They go to Mass on Sunday and Father does it in their language, and they would wonder what all the fuss is about around here. They would have little reason to know that Pope Benedict had packed the Congregation for Divine Worship with advisors sympathetic to the 1962 missal, or that there was talk of re-writing all the introductions to the reformed liturgical rites.

For these people, it is entirely unremarkable that Pope Francis celebrates Mass this Sunday in vernacular, facing the people, with simple but attractive vestments: he’s doing what most all the Catholic Church does.

But for those of us who track what’s going on behind the scenes and what it means for the future of Catholic liturgical renewal, Pope Francis’ Mass this Sunday at the Cathedral of John Lateran is one more indication of the direction of his papacy. It is part of Francis’ “hermeneutic of continuity” – with Vatican II, with Pope Paul’s reform of the rites, and with the rest of the Catholic Church.

 

[Aran_Houlihan]

There are catholic churches who are celebration the Traditional Latin and its starting to get popular

 

[jeanannemarie]

Kindly avoid that designation. This is not Fisheaaters, Whitey. You folks all portray that the OF is full of abuse, yet fail to recognize that the OF is a lawful liturgy that is equal in sublimity as the EF./QUOTE

I don’t have any problem with the Ordinary Form of the Mass, even thought I also love the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. The huge point you seem to be missing is that the Ordinary Form of the Mass is in need of a complete overhaul in order to make it more reverent and sacred. If you already have that, then consider yourself very blessed. It is not the case in all parishes to have a lovely, sacred, OF Mass. That is the problem. Why must it become a war between the two forms? Your statement is failing to recognize the true problem.

 

[triumphguy]

Sirach2;10618646:

Kindly avoid that designation. This is not Fisheaaters, Whitey. You folks all portray that the OF is full of abuse, yet fail to recognize that the OF is a lawful liturgy that is equal in sublimity as the EF.

The “Form” doesn’t need an overhaul (It’s the Ordinary Form after all) - it peoples’ habitual way of dumbing down everything that needs an overhaul.