C
catharina
Guest
No problem that you went to eat!
Glad though, that you (and your brain?) have returned!
Pleased that you got my point. Thanks for saying so.
- Status
Glad though, that you (and your brain?) have returned!
Pleased that you got my point. Thanks for saying so.
D
dyspepsic
Guest
I don’t get it. I grew up when the Mass was in Latin. And I have to be honest, it was above all of us as laity. The appeal we received from Preachers was that this was a proof of the unity of the Church, and we went out and purchased missals to follow along.
Faith comes by hearing - so if I can hear, a fortiori, I can believe better than someone kneeling there hearing only sound.
If I sit on a bus and my neighbors are speaking Spanish, I am not partaking of what is being said.
The TLM serves noone’s purpose as far as I am concerned. The ‘participation’ is absolutely minimal. No Amen from my side.
And the reason: the TLM is not really that big a deal. It is change that is important. Father Feeney and Bishop Lefebreve live on fighting change, resisting the teaching Magisterium of the Church. The TLM is just an excuse for Traditionalism. They are its heros, excommunicated as they were.
R
rinnie
Guest
I guess why i would think that way is because God created us in his own image. So again thats why i would think yes the Human image. I guess its all i can relate to at this time. As far as Spiritual I guess still it would take a brain (again thinking human again) to still relate. But you did make me think on a different level, i guess i never thought about. Its good to think on different levels at times.
E
elt1956
Guest
Latin ESP…get it right
Peace.
D
DustinsDad
Guest
Pope Paul VI:
“It is here that the greatest newness is going to be noticed, the newness of language… We are parting with the speech of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like profane intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance… We have reason indeed for regret, reason almost for bewilderment. What can we put in the place of that language of the angels? We are giving up something of priceless worth… What is more precious than these loftiest of our Church’s values?” (General Audience of Nov. 26, 1969, 8-9)
But of course (at every Holy Sacrifice of the Mass I assist at, EF or OF). But let us also take to heart the words of Vatican II below…
Vatican II, Sacrosanctum Concilium
- Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
- In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and “the common prayer,” but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to tho norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.
Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them. - In accordance with the centuries-old tradition of the Latin rite, the Latin language is to be retained by clerics in the divine office. But in individual cases the ordinary has the power of granting the use of a vernacular translation to those clerics for whom the use of Latin constitutes a grave obstacle to their praying the office properly. The vernacular version, however, must be one that is drawn up according to the provision of Art. 36.
- The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.
DD
D
dyspepsic
Guest
Probably written by Ottaviani or Bocci.
D
dyspepsic
Guest
The Most Rev. Donald W. Trautman, bishop of Erie, Pa., is chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy, wrote the following commentary on Archbishop Mariani’s book, “A Challenging Reform”
"A Challenging Reform
By Archbishop Piero Marini
Liturgical Press.
Archbishop Piero Marini served as the leading liturgist of the Holy See for 25 years. As master of papal liturgical ceremonies and as secretary/confidant to Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, the chief architect of the liturgical reform that followed the Second Vatican Council, Marini now presents the inside story of the fierce struggle fought within the Vatican to implement the liturgical restoration overwhelmingly approved by the council fathers. Written with firsthand knowledge, A Challenging Reform details the Curia’s opposition and its tactics to reverse the direction set by the “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.”
Carefully documented, critically analyzed and candidly presented, Marini’s book reflects a historical memory of the clashes and conflicts between the anti-reformists and reformists over the interpretation and implementation of the liturgy constitution. Edited by three well-known liturgical and linguistic scholars—Mark Francis, C.S.V., John Page and Keith Pecklers, S.J.—A Challenging Reform is the best single-volume overview of the beginning of the liturgical reform. The first six chapters are devoted to the formative period of the liturgical restoration. The seventh chapter examines the developments after this initial reform (1965-80). The appendix contains the text of seven pivotal documents that are valuable resources for understanding the context of the reform.
To assist in implementing the “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy,” Pope Paul VI established a group known as the Consilium. It was international, competent, collegial and productive: it generated reformed liturgical texts. But the Consilium met immediate opposition from the Congregation for Rites. As Marini notes:
The Consilium and the Congregation for Rites championed two different perspectives. The Con-silium remained true to its mission in support of a liturgy open to renewal. The Congregation for Rites was still firmly anchored to a limited tradition since the Council of Trent and not in favor of the broad innovations desired by the Council.
The suspicion and stress encountered by the Consilium in interacting with the congregation point out a basic failure in ecclesiology that persists to this day: a collegial mindset versus a Curial mindset. This was clearly evident at the very beginning of the liturgical reform, when there was strong, strident curial opposition to the conciliar endorsement of the vernacular. The Congre-gation for Rites sought to limit its use and to deny bishops’ conferences the right to approve vernacular texts. The congregation opposed the use of the vernacular for prefaces and eucharistic prayers. Only with the en-dorsement of Pope Paul VI did the views of the Consilium finally prevail.
The Consilium also experienced a frontal attack from the Curia, with the unprecedented public opposition of Cardinals Alfredo Ottaviani and Antonio Bacci. Their statements reveal the re-trenchments so embedded in the Curia of that time. Marini’s book fosters in the reader a new esteem for the liturgical re-formers and their efforts to make the liturgy more res-ponsive to pastoral concerns and biblical sources. They paid a personal price for their efforts, but they gave new liturgical life to the universal church.
Archbishop Marini has rendered a great service to the contemporary church and succeeding generations by documenting so clearly the birth pains of the liturgical reform of Vatican II. He takes us behind the scenes, showing the role played by Cardinal Giacomo Lercaro and the Rev. (later Archbishop) Bugnini in fighting against efforts of the Congregation for Rites to derail the reform. For example, even though the council had restored concelebration in the Western church for wider use, the congregation was still restricting the number of concelebrants and insisting on the use of a metal straw, excluding drinking directly from the chalice.
Thanks to Marini’s book, we now appreciate all the more something we often take for granted: the restoration of the vernacular, “noble simplicity” in the rites, concelebration and reformed liturgical books (Roman Missal, Roman Pontifical, Ceremonial of Bishops, Liturgy of the Hours). He gives us a deeper appreciation of the enormous work that led to “full, conscious and active participation”—the prayer of the faithful, the rediscovery of the priesthood of all the faithful, the Novus Ordo and the recognition of various liturgical ministries entrusted to the laity.
"A Challenging Reform
By Archbishop Piero Marini
Liturgical Press.
Archbishop Piero Marini served as the leading liturgist of the Holy See for 25 years. As master of papal liturgical ceremonies and as secretary/confidant to Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, the chief architect of the liturgical reform that followed the Second Vatican Council, Marini now presents the inside story of the fierce struggle fought within the Vatican to implement the liturgical restoration overwhelmingly approved by the council fathers. Written with firsthand knowledge, A Challenging Reform details the Curia’s opposition and its tactics to reverse the direction set by the “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.”
Carefully documented, critically analyzed and candidly presented, Marini’s book reflects a historical memory of the clashes and conflicts between the anti-reformists and reformists over the interpretation and implementation of the liturgy constitution. Edited by three well-known liturgical and linguistic scholars—Mark Francis, C.S.V., John Page and Keith Pecklers, S.J.—A Challenging Reform is the best single-volume overview of the beginning of the liturgical reform. The first six chapters are devoted to the formative period of the liturgical restoration. The seventh chapter examines the developments after this initial reform (1965-80). The appendix contains the text of seven pivotal documents that are valuable resources for understanding the context of the reform.
To assist in implementing the “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy,” Pope Paul VI established a group known as the Consilium. It was international, competent, collegial and productive: it generated reformed liturgical texts. But the Consilium met immediate opposition from the Congregation for Rites. As Marini notes:
The Consilium and the Congregation for Rites championed two different perspectives. The Con-silium remained true to its mission in support of a liturgy open to renewal. The Congregation for Rites was still firmly anchored to a limited tradition since the Council of Trent and not in favor of the broad innovations desired by the Council.
The suspicion and stress encountered by the Consilium in interacting with the congregation point out a basic failure in ecclesiology that persists to this day: a collegial mindset versus a Curial mindset. This was clearly evident at the very beginning of the liturgical reform, when there was strong, strident curial opposition to the conciliar endorsement of the vernacular. The Congre-gation for Rites sought to limit its use and to deny bishops’ conferences the right to approve vernacular texts. The congregation opposed the use of the vernacular for prefaces and eucharistic prayers. Only with the en-dorsement of Pope Paul VI did the views of the Consilium finally prevail.
The Consilium also experienced a frontal attack from the Curia, with the unprecedented public opposition of Cardinals Alfredo Ottaviani and Antonio Bacci. Their statements reveal the re-trenchments so embedded in the Curia of that time. Marini’s book fosters in the reader a new esteem for the liturgical re-formers and their efforts to make the liturgy more res-ponsive to pastoral concerns and biblical sources. They paid a personal price for their efforts, but they gave new liturgical life to the universal church.
Archbishop Marini has rendered a great service to the contemporary church and succeeding generations by documenting so clearly the birth pains of the liturgical reform of Vatican II. He takes us behind the scenes, showing the role played by Cardinal Giacomo Lercaro and the Rev. (later Archbishop) Bugnini in fighting against efforts of the Congregation for Rites to derail the reform. For example, even though the council had restored concelebration in the Western church for wider use, the congregation was still restricting the number of concelebrants and insisting on the use of a metal straw, excluding drinking directly from the chalice.
Thanks to Marini’s book, we now appreciate all the more something we often take for granted: the restoration of the vernacular, “noble simplicity” in the rites, concelebration and reformed liturgical books (Roman Missal, Roman Pontifical, Ceremonial of Bishops, Liturgy of the Hours). He gives us a deeper appreciation of the enormous work that led to “full, conscious and active participation”—the prayer of the faithful, the rediscovery of the priesthood of all the faithful, the Novus Ordo and the recognition of various liturgical ministries entrusted to the laity.
D
dyspepsic
Guest
continued: Bishop Mariani’ s Book
Commentary byThe Most Rev. Donald W. Trautman, bishop of Erie, Pa., is chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy,
"All this did not happen without painstaking research and scholarly study, much dialogue and debate, and always countless meetings. This rich liturgical legacy of Vatican II has nourished the church’s worship for almost 40 years.
But are we seeing signs today of retrenchment, a return to a liturgical practice and piety from before Vatican II? Do we see signs of a preconciliar mentality, a Curial ecclesiology, influencing the liturgy? Are there parallels between the first days of the renewal and the present time? Marini’s book is a wake-up call to contemporary Catholics to sustain the liturgical achievements of the Second Vatican Council so that the past does not repeat itself. Will we learn that lesson of history and imitate those who fought so tirelessly to preserve and hand on the principles of the “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy”?
When the Curia attempted to limit the liturgical reform, there was decisive and strong reaction from episcopal conferences and national liturgical commissions, especially from the French. Analyzing this, Marini writes: “Even during this initial phase of reform, the liturgy was no longer an exclusive preserve of the Roman Curia but belonged to the Church.” That remains the goal for the liturgy today. We are indebted to Archbishop Marini for his chronicle of the events that brought about what is perhaps the most fundamental liturgical reform in the history of the Western church."
PS The book is available from Amazon for less than $12 (new)
Commentary byThe Most Rev. Donald W. Trautman, bishop of Erie, Pa., is chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy,
"All this did not happen without painstaking research and scholarly study, much dialogue and debate, and always countless meetings. This rich liturgical legacy of Vatican II has nourished the church’s worship for almost 40 years.
But are we seeing signs today of retrenchment, a return to a liturgical practice and piety from before Vatican II? Do we see signs of a preconciliar mentality, a Curial ecclesiology, influencing the liturgy? Are there parallels between the first days of the renewal and the present time? Marini’s book is a wake-up call to contemporary Catholics to sustain the liturgical achievements of the Second Vatican Council so that the past does not repeat itself. Will we learn that lesson of history and imitate those who fought so tirelessly to preserve and hand on the principles of the “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy”?
When the Curia attempted to limit the liturgical reform, there was decisive and strong reaction from episcopal conferences and national liturgical commissions, especially from the French. Analyzing this, Marini writes: “Even during this initial phase of reform, the liturgy was no longer an exclusive preserve of the Roman Curia but belonged to the Church.” That remains the goal for the liturgy today. We are indebted to Archbishop Marini for his chronicle of the events that brought about what is perhaps the most fundamental liturgical reform in the history of the Western church."
PS The book is available from Amazon for less than $12 (new)
D
DustinsDad
Guest
Archbishop Piero Marini?
Maybe we’ll have a chance for another tome from him. I hear he has more time for writing these days.
DD
Maybe we’ll have a chance for another tome from him. I hear he has more time for writing these days.
DD
J
JReducation
Guest
A brain is an organ found only in the animal kingdom. You do not need a brain to be alive. Plants, bacteria and protists are alive and do not have brains.
A brain is part of a central nervous system (CNS). Angels do not have a CNS, because they have no bodies.
Angels are projections of God. God does not have a brain or a central nervous system.
Intelligence and free will are not dependent on a nervous system, except in humans.
JR
K
kristie_m
Guest
Actually, I don’t think the percentage is even that high. I was pleasantly suprised to find that many of my Catholic friends practice NFP.The even bigger question is…of those Catholics who remained…what percentage ignore HV and use ABC?
80%, 90%, 95% ???
J
JReducation
Guest
The departure of so many people from the faith is not a Catholic phenomenon. It is a phenomenon of the developed nations and of all religiouis faiths in the developed nations.
The more dependent society became on technology, the wealthier nations became, the more civil liberties that people achieved, the more plurality in thought and politics the less dependent people became on faith.
These technological advances and economic progress made after World War II contributed to a false sense of security in man. The more political equity that people achieved through the evolution of civil rights, the more people came to believe that they were entitled to many things that are contrary to any faith.
To blame the decline among Catholics on one or two changes in the Church is a simplistic and unrealistic way of thinking.
For example, the spirit of the liturgy did not faulter because there was something missing in the liturgy. It faultered because there was faith missing in those who formerlly attended liturgy. This is what Pope Benedict is referring to when he speaks of the deficits in liturgy. He’s not speaking about a deficit in validity or deficit in the form. He’s going deeper than that. He’s speaking about deficits in the spirit of liturgy.
Man can no longer contemplate and appreciate the Paschal mystery, because man has adopted a culture that repudiates all forms of suffering, all forms of charity, all forms of love that do not satisfy the body and the senses. Christ’s paschal mysery does none of this. His invitation to participate with him on the cross offers no satisfaction to the body, the sense or even intellectual curiosity. His inviation to join him is an invitation that is contrary to what our contemporary culture values. Therefore, liturgy is difficult to accept if you truly understand what is happening. Like those who walked away when Jesus said, "Unless you eat my body and drink my blood . . . ", many people have walked from the Catholic Church. They understood the message and it was too difficult to follow in light of what contemporary culture offers.
If we notice, the same has happened to the Jews and Protestants in the nations that have economic and technological prosperity.
Look at the poor nations of the world and you will see thriving faith communities. There is a direct link between poverty and love. This is why our Holy Father Francis and most saints taught the importance of detachment. Once man becomes too attached to his own advances, any faith becomes a challenge that borders on the ridiculous, in their mind.
JR
The more dependent society became on technology, the wealthier nations became, the more civil liberties that people achieved, the more plurality in thought and politics the less dependent people became on faith.
These technological advances and economic progress made after World War II contributed to a false sense of security in man. The more political equity that people achieved through the evolution of civil rights, the more people came to believe that they were entitled to many things that are contrary to any faith.
To blame the decline among Catholics on one or two changes in the Church is a simplistic and unrealistic way of thinking.
For example, the spirit of the liturgy did not faulter because there was something missing in the liturgy. It faultered because there was faith missing in those who formerlly attended liturgy. This is what Pope Benedict is referring to when he speaks of the deficits in liturgy. He’s not speaking about a deficit in validity or deficit in the form. He’s going deeper than that. He’s speaking about deficits in the spirit of liturgy.
Man can no longer contemplate and appreciate the Paschal mystery, because man has adopted a culture that repudiates all forms of suffering, all forms of charity, all forms of love that do not satisfy the body and the senses. Christ’s paschal mysery does none of this. His invitation to participate with him on the cross offers no satisfaction to the body, the sense or even intellectual curiosity. His inviation to join him is an invitation that is contrary to what our contemporary culture values. Therefore, liturgy is difficult to accept if you truly understand what is happening. Like those who walked away when Jesus said, "Unless you eat my body and drink my blood . . . ", many people have walked from the Catholic Church. They understood the message and it was too difficult to follow in light of what contemporary culture offers.
If we notice, the same has happened to the Jews and Protestants in the nations that have economic and technological prosperity.
Look at the poor nations of the world and you will see thriving faith communities. There is a direct link between poverty and love. This is why our Holy Father Francis and most saints taught the importance of detachment. Once man becomes too attached to his own advances, any faith becomes a challenge that borders on the ridiculous, in their mind.
JR
D
dyspepsic
Guest
That’s the best you got. You are just showing your ignorance.
You have more to fear from Bishop Trautman.
D
DustinsDad
Guest
Wow! We may have just found common ground!!!
Bishop criticizes Vatican, praises ICEL
http://bestsmileys.com/fainting/1.gif
DD
S
SemperFidelis
Guest
So what? It still made it’s way in the documents. It doesn’t matter who wrote it. Anyway it’s Cardinal Bacci. So you agree with Vatican II when it suits your liberal, modernist agenda, but ignore it when it talks about preserving Latin or Gregorian Chant? Blatant hypocrisy. I thought you said something about Vatican II being infallible…
I
I_Believe
Guest
Fair enough, but the Liturgy in the venacular is not what Pope Paul VI or John XXIII had in mind.I’m not saying that at all. I’m saying that the citation “Latin is the language of the angels” is being taken literally as a justification for the liturgy in Latin. It was not meant to be taken literally. It’s a metaphor.
As to the Latin Rite, it came to be called that not because of the language, but because it was the rite of the Church of Rome. Latin is anything that is rooted in the Roman culture and tradition. Latin Americans do not speak Latin, but their anscestors were part of the Roman Empire.
As to the use of the Latin language in the liturgy, I’m glad that there is the opportunity to have it for those who find God via that means. Not everyone needs it, but it’s good to have the option.
JR
My beef with those who argue the venacular enables the laity to understand and pray the Mass, is that they are arguing in favor of what is easier for them.
The effort required to embrace the Liturgy in Latin seems like an easy sacrifice, considering what Christ sacrificed for our Salvation.
D
dyspepsic
Guest
Welcome back, SemperFi. We missed your biting, cynical Sedevacantist tongue.
There you go again, calling people Modernists when you don’t even know what that means. “Blantant hypocrisy” you say. Who let you inside my head to determine my motivations.
I support Vatican 2, and yes its Conciliar documents are infallible. But what would you know about that since you sail your boat without a Pope, as this was the will of Jesus Christ.
You can preseve Latin all you want, but it is slipping away. It was a dead language centuries ago. Less and less speak or understand it. As for Gregorian Chant, that too is in an unintelligible language - but chant on if you will.
You Baci me, I Baci you. A good baci would have served the Cardinal well.
A
agr4028
Guest
Just inserting a little Wizard of Oz humor…it’s been a long week of debate, and a little humor might be in order.
L
latinmasslover
Guest
Your Christianity shines forth here.
He knows exactly what “modernist” means, you’re just throwing a tantrum because you don’t like the word being thrown at you. Before you accuse another of ignorance, look to yourself. Before you post again, come back with the actual meaning of “sedevacantist.” About your motivations, they’re obvious to anyone with half a brain, you bash on tradition and embrace the “Spirit of Vatican II” which is what the Pope today is trying to undo.
No, you don’t. You can’t support what you don’t know. What you know of Vatican II is the same as your knowledge of the rest of Catholic teaching: hearsay. You throw out words you don’t know, accuse falsely, and when anyone points it out: BANG! Another accusation backed up with something you heard someone else say.
You better address this great knowledge with the Pope, because he’s telling us to learn it, he embraces the Rite that uses the language.
S
SemperFidelis
Guest
Too bad I’m not a sedevacantist. The fact that I’ve told you this numerous times and you’ve completely ignored it shows the extent of the thickness of your skull. Why don’t you actually address my argument instead of completely ignoring it, or is it you know you can’t because you make absolutely no sense? Try again, my friend.
I know quite well what it means. I suggest you read this book:
tanbooks.com/index.php/page/shop:flypage/product_id/15/keywords/catechism/
After you read it, think about which parts apply to yourself.
Yep. It’s obvious to all.
Except for the parts that talk about preserving Latin and Gregorian Chant…
Considering I actually support the pope when it comes to Summorum Pontificum, it seems that this would better apply to you.
- Status