Can one question liturgical decisions without being “disobedient?”

[EasterJoy]

Of coarse their culture is different, but that is why Christianity is supposed to be spread around the world.

Western culture is superior and it is this culture that Christianized the pagans of the world.
Catholics who hold the truth are supposed to instruct the ignorant. It is a matter of truth that the Church has norms for dress that have to be enforced worldwide.

It is objectively immodest for anyone to be dressed with revealing clothes.
The dignity of man and out reverence for God is why Christians dress up to worship God.

That is why women wore dresses and men wore suits to Mass in what was traditional Catholicism.

Catholics who hold the truth are supposed to go to the ends of the earth to instruct the ignorant…about the proper dress code among conservative Californian Catholics? Oy, vey.

You just make this stuff up and then say, “This is what the Church teaches. The Pope doesn’t know what the Church teaches or should enforce, nobody in India knows anything about dignity or reverence or civilization, but* I *know, because *I *have the fullness of the Catholic faith and all of Western Civilization behind me”.

That is the reason why the Church moved some of her feasts, in order to KILL the pagan holidays. The Church wanted to replace those pagan festivities and to Christianize culture. The Mass is the holy liturgy of the Church. It is a direct insult to God and a sin against the first commandment that the elements of false religions or paganism should eneter the sacred worship that has already been laid down in the rubrics.

The blessing in disguise is that it exposes the utter disaster that is the New Mass. The rubrics are so loose that these abomniations are allowed to happen.

The day will come when the Church will finally get rid of the New Mass and go back to the Mass of all time, the TLM as the rightful sole liturgy in the Church which will bring back the faith.

This is what kills me: members of the rubrics police that try to blow the whistle on the Pope. Where exactly do you think the rubrics come from? Sinai?

Yes, John Paul II was such a purveyor of abominations that the 5-year waiting period for examination of his cause for canonization was put aside. That’s why all those millions of Catholics showed up everywhere he went. Especially the youth. Catholic youth like yourself were *appalled *by John Paul II and his liturgies. Yep, the tide is going to turn against everything that happened during his watch, bet on that.

The Church is going to get rid of the New Mass, is she? Benedict XVI says its going to remain the OF. Wanna guess how many of the cardinals that will elect the next Pope were appointed either by John Paul II or Benedict XVI? I don’t think many of Pius X’s guys are left over there. Now, you could invoke the Holy Spirit, but as you seem to think that Providence has been asleep at the wheel with regards to those kind of decisions for about 40 years, that is probably not much comfort to you, is it?

If you say the old customs are all dead, think what you want. It seems to me that people are still dragging conifers into their houses every December, and just around the solstice, too. A lot of churches have them, too. You’d better keep that whistle handy.

There is someone out there who can question liturgical decisions without being disobedient or disrespectful, but it is looking less and less like it is going to be you, my friend.

 

[GemmaRose]

… Western culture is superior…
Didn’t Hitler use a similar argument?

That is why women wore dresses and men wore suits to Mass in what was traditional Catholicism.
I got news for you sonny-boy - except for the beach, certain sports, etc., men wore suits everywhere, and women wore dresses everywhere, because that was how it was back then. It had to do with culture and society, not Catholicism.

But you wouldn’t remember any of this because IT WAS BEFORE YOU WERE BORN!

 

[PrayforMallory]

This thread has gotten ridiculous. I have several points to make.

1. Whether or not St. Rafael was alive during Vat II is irrelevant to the arguments he makes.
2. Those photos of John Paul II look ridiculous. Whether or not they are morally right or wrong I’m not going to say.
3. Why are you guys assaulting his opinions about traditional gender roles and sexual ethics? They seem pretty constant with the teachings of the Church.
4. There are things about the pontificate of John Paul II that need to be explained (Assisi, etc.). I’m not opposed to them. I’d just like to hear a defense for once instead of ad hominem attacks on people questioning these things.

 

[ethelzguy]

You explain to me how someone who understood liturgy can have paganism in the Mass as he traveled around the world? A Pope who should have revoked Communion in the hand, who should have made a serious attempt to end lay members of Holy Conmunion, and who should never have allowed altar girls but did in 1994.

Here’s some pictures of his incompetence in liturgy:

traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A027rcOffertoryGift.htm

traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A125rcJPIIDancingNewDelhi.htm

traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A018rcBarebstdReads%20Epistle.htm

traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A015rcIndianChief.htm

traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A022rcExitsTeepee.htm

Many traditional Catholics had problems with his pontificate. I am not the only one. I am not sure if you have met any traditional Catholics or are familiar with the traditional movement, but Pope John Paul II had many critics and most traditionalists consider his pontificate a disaster.

Tribal peoples where women go topless is common in many places. It has nothing to do with sexuality. Obviously JPII can see that where others can’t.

“Synchronized Dancing in Leotards” is also known as “Ballet”.

The book you are quoting is just another post-V2 rant, many of which are losing credibility as Catholics see them for what they are…baseless, manipulated half-truths.

 

[NicPais83]

The day will come when the Church will finally get rid of the New Mass and go back to the Mass of all time, the TLM as the rightful sole liturgy in the Church which will bring back the faith.

Except, even before the Second Vatican Council, the Tridentine Mass (EF) was not the only Liturgy in the Church. That’s disregarding the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil, the newer Anglican Use of the Roman Rite, the Ambrosian Mass, the Mozarabic Mass, the Dominican Mass, the Cartusian Mass, the Syriac Maronite Holy Qurbono, the Liturgy of St. Cyril, the Greek Liturgy of St. Basil, the Divine Liturgy of St. Mark, the Liturgy of Addai and Mari, the Divine Liturgy of St. James, etc. And there are so many more that I haven’t even mentioned.

Now, before the Council of Trent, the Roman Rite was not one uniformed rite, and that was why Trent called for a reform of the Mass (to return the Mass to the Liturgy of the Church Fathers), which was placed on the back burner till the Second Vatican Council. These other variants are called “Uses” and were the Sarum Use (ancestor of the Anglican Use and Anglican services), Yorkshire Use, and a whole bunch more that I don’t know off the top of my head.

By the way, be careful of talking about the Church being in apostacy (spelling?). That is an concept that grew out of Protestantism, particularly people like Luther and Calvin.

 

[PrayforMallory]

Except, even before the Second Vatican Council, the Tridentine Mass (EF) was not the only Liturgy in the Church. That’s disregarding the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil, the newer Anglican Use of the Roman Rite, the Ambrosian Mass, the Mozarabic Mass, the Dominican Mass, the Cartusian Mass, the Syriac Maronite Holy Qurbono, the Liturgy of St. Cyril, the Greek Liturgy of St. Basil, the Divine Liturgy of St. Mark, the Liturgy of Addai and Mari, the Divine Liturgy of St. James, etc. And there are so many more that I haven’t even mentioned.

Now, before the Council of Trent, the Roman Rite was not one uniformed rite, and that was why Trent called for a reform of the Mass (to return the Mass to the Liturgy of the Church Fathers), which was placed on the back burner till the Second Vatican Council. These other variants are called “Uses” and were the Sarum Use (ancestor of the Anglican Use and Anglican services), Yorkshire Use, and a whole bunch more that I don’t know off the top of my head.

By the way, be careful of talking about the Church being in apostacy (spelling?). That is an concept that grew out of Protestantism, particularly people like Luther and Calvin.

There is a big difference between the other liturgical forms and a lot of the protestantized events we see today.

 

[PrayforMallory]

Now, before the Council of Trent, the Roman Rite was not one uniformed rite, and that was why Trent called for a reform of the Mass (to return the Mass to the Liturgy of the Church Fathers), which was placed on the back burner till the Second Vatican Council.

So the fathers at the Council of Trent wanted to implement the Novus Ordo, but put it on the backburner? If that’s true, why did they implement the Tridentine Mass and make it the official Roman Rite Mass?

I’m interested in this. You know of any evidence?

 

[NicPais83]

So the fathers at the Council of Trent wanted to implement the Novus Ordo, but put it on the backburner? If that’s true, why did they implement the Tridentine Mass and make it the official Roman Rite Mass?

I’m interested in this. You know of any evidence?

First, to clarify, I was NOT trying to draw a connection between the other Liturgies and Protestantism. The other Liturgies are beautiful and re-present the Sacrifice of the Cross in an un-bloody manner, whereas Protestantism cannot do this because of a lack of Apostolic Succession and valid Holy Orders. I was trying to make a comment about two postings at once, so if it came off that way, I appologize.

Secondly, and this is something you can read for yourself through the New Advent website, or Wikipedia which cites New Advent, or from Trent itself. Trent was concerned with stopping the spread of Protestantism and Protestant ideas, such as not believing in the Real Presence. Before the Council, many cities and areas had variations of the Roman Mass, each with a local flavor. For example but not limited to, England had the Sarum Use (see New Advent). The Council declared that all Western Liturgical rites were to be suppressed (sp?) unless they were at least 200 years old. Second, the Council declared that the Roman Rite, as practiced in Rome, was to be used in the whole of the Latin Church, except where there was a Rite that could be proven to be older than 200 years. Other Rites permitted included, but not limited to the Ambrosian Rite, the Mozarabic Rite, the Dominican Rite, the Cartusian Rite, the Norbertine Rite, the Benedictine Rite, etc. This was enforced ONLY on the Latin Church; so for example Maronites, Byzantines, and other Eastern Churches were not affected.

After this, the Council of Trent declared that the Mass was to be revised and returned to the Mass of the Church Fathers. However, due to a lack of scholarship and existing literature on how the Mass was celebrated at that time, the goal was not accomplished, so they simply took the current Roman Missal found in Rome and declared that no one could add or subtract to it. The Pope, however, can revise the Missal, and later additions in the 20th Century included St. Joseph’s name to the Canon, for example. See ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/MASS.TXT for a good rundown of the development of the Mass before Trent. Since Trent, I believe starting in the 19th Century, was a period where there was a great deal of Liturgical scholarship, and historical texts were discovered showing older Roman practices in the Mass, such as the Prayer of the Faithful (general intercessions).

 

[NicPais83]

To add to what I mentioned previously, there are aspects of the reform that are hard to understand without a historical perspective. The Prayers at the Foot of the Altar were eliminated and in the Novus Ordo became the Penitential Rite. This is because the Mass does not officially begin till the Introit and therefore they were technically before the Mass. The technical end of the Mass is the “Ite, Missa est” so the same goes for the Last Gospel. The Offertory was changed because they seemed to imply that the Consacration had already taken place. These prayers were not part of the Mass before the 14th Century (I believe, perhaps 13th) and are explained here: newadvent.org/cathen/11217a.htm. A third reading (Prophesy) was added, as it is believed the Roman Rite had three originally, as the Ambrosian Rite did. The Prayer of the Faithful was restored to after the Credo, where in the Tridentine Mass the Priest says “Oremus.” Very little was done to the Canon, and three new Eucharistic Prayers, or Anaphorae were written. Eucharistic Prayer II is based on the Anaphora of St. Hippolytus in the Apostolic Constitutions; Eucharistic Prayer III is brand new; Eucharistic Prayer IV is based off of the Anaphora from an Eastern Liturgy.

 

[japhy]

The Prayers at the Foot of the Altar were eliminated and in the Novus Ordo became the Penitential Rite.

That’s not entirely accurate. SOME of the Prayers at the foot of the Altar were eliminated altogether; the Confiteor was retained. The location of this prayer was changed as well.

The Offertory was changed because they seemed to imply that the Consacration had already taken place.

While it is true that the language of the Offertory is very sacrificial in nature (and could lead to confusion) the language now is considerably less sacrificial (it speaks of “offering”… for what purpose?) and uses vaguer language (the bread will become “the bread of life”, and the wine will become “our spiritual drink”… is this the Real Presence?).

 

[ethelzguy]

(the bread will become “the bread of life”, and the wine will become “our spiritual drink”… is this the Real Presence?).

I don’t know about “our spiritual drink”, but “the Bread of Life” is pretty self-explanitory, no?

 

[PrayforMallory]

First, to clarify, I was NOT trying to draw a connection between the other Liturgies and Protestantism. The other Liturgies are beautiful and re-present the Sacrifice of the Cross in an un-bloody manner, whereas Protestantism cannot do this because of a lack of Apostolic Succession and valid Holy Orders. I was trying to make a comment about two postings at once, so if it came off that way, I appologize.

Secondly, and this is something you can read for yourself through the New Advent website, or Wikipedia which cites New Advent, or from Trent itself. Trent was concerned with stopping the spread of Protestantism and Protestant ideas, such as not believing in the Real Presence. Before the Council, many cities and areas had variations of the Roman Mass, each with a local flavor. For example but not limited to, England had the Sarum Use (see New Advent). The Council declared that all Western Liturgical rites were to be suppressed (sp?) unless they were at least 200 years old. Second, the Council declared that the Roman Rite, as practiced in Rome, was to be used in the whole of the Latin Church, except where there was a Rite that could be proven to be older than 200 years. Other Rites permitted included, but not limited to the Ambrosian Rite, the Mozarabic Rite, the Dominican Rite, the Cartusian Rite, the Norbertine Rite, the Benedictine Rite, etc. This was enforced ONLY on the Latin Church; so for example Maronites, Byzantines, and other Eastern Churches were not affected.

After this, the Council of Trent declared that the Mass was to be revised and returned to the Mass of the Church Fathers. However, due to a lack of scholarship and existing literature on how the Mass was celebrated at that time, the goal was not accomplished, so they simply took the current Roman Missal found in Rome and declared that no one could add or subtract to it. The Pope, however, can revise the Missal, and later additions in the 20th Century included St. Joseph’s name to the Canon, for example. See ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/MASS.TXT for a good rundown of the development of the Mass before Trent. Since Trent, I believe starting in the 19th Century, was a period where there was a great deal of Liturgical scholarship, and historical texts were discovered showing older Roman practices in the Mass, such as the Prayer of the Faithful (general intercessions).

I knew about the basis in antiquity of some aspects of the Novus Ordo.

Does Trent address the following issues?

1. Vernacular
2. Ad Orientem

Those are really the things that stand out for me. Not the specific prayers.

 

[NicPais83]

That’s not entirely accurate. SOME of the Prayers at the foot of the Altar were eliminated altogether; the Confiteor was retained. The location of this prayer was changed as well.

While it is true that the language of the Offertory is very sacrificial in nature (and could lead to confusion) the language now is considerably less sacrificial (it speaks of “offering”… for what purpose?) and uses vaguer language (the bread will become “the bread of life”, and the wine will become “our spiritual drink”… is this the Real Presence?).

Again, let me clarify. I didn’t mean that the individual prayers themselves were not recycled; I point out that it became the Penitential Rite. I meant that there are no “Prayers at the Foot of the Altar” in the Novus Ordo. The Confiteor is still present; it was just moved from “before” the Mass to a location within the Mass at the Penitential Rite, along with the Misereatur. The same thing happened to the Asperges.

The reason the Offertory speaks of offering is because that’s what we’re doing. The Priest is offering gifts of bread and wine to God. This is pointed out in the title of the prayer, which is called “Oratio Super Oblata” or 'Prayer Over the Gifts" or “the Secret.” In terms of the bread becoming the Bread of Life, this is a description taken directly from Jesus’s words in John 6, where Jesus says “I am the Bread of Life.” While I can’t say that the term “spiritual drink” can be found prior to the revision, the Orate Fratres, and Suscipiat are both unchanged and do refer to Sacrifice, along with words found in the Oratio Super Oblata and Preface. Regardless of the words chosen for the Offertory prayers, the Real Presence is still Catholic dogma and Trent defines that the Transubstantiation occurs at the words of Institution, not before (although Eastern Catholics/Orthodox will say that it happens at the Epiclesis).

 

[PrayforMallory]

Again, let me clarify. I didn’t mean that the individual prayers themselves were not recycled; I point out that it became the Penitential Rite. I meant that there are no “Prayers at the Foot of the Altar” in the Novus Ordo. The Confiteor is still present; it was just moved from “before” the Mass to a location within the Mass at the Penitential Rite, along with the Misereatur. The same thing happened to the Asperges.

The reason the Offertory speaks of offering is because that’s what we’re doing. The Priest is offering gifts of bread and wine to God. This is pointed out in the title of the prayer, which is called “Oratio Super Oblata” or 'Prayer Over the Gifts" or “the Secret.” In terms of the bread becoming the Bread of Life, this is a description taken directly from Jesus’s words in John 6, where Jesus says “I am the Bread of Life.” While I can’t say that the term “spiritual drink” can be found prior to the revision, the Orate Fratres, and Suscipiat are both unchanged and do refer to Sacrifice, along with words found in the Oratio Super Oblata and Preface. Regardless of the words chosen for the Offertory prayers, the Real Presence is still Catholic dogma and Trent defines that the Transubstantiation occurs at the words of Institution, not before (although Eastern Catholics/Orthodox will say that it happens at the Epiclesis).

The prayers at the foot of the altar. What was the real benefit to getting rid of them? They set the scene really well, aesthetically. Did they want to replace them with something else?

 

[NicPais83]

I knew about the basis in antiquity of some aspects of the Novus Ordo.

Does Trent address the following issues?

1. Vernacular
2. Ad Orientem

Those are really the things that stand out for me. Not the specific prayers.

Trent addresses the vernacular, but decides to keep things in Latin. Latin itself was chosen originally because it was the vernacular at the time, as the Mass was originally said in Greek. I believe it was Pope Pius XII, or earlier, who first considers the question of the vernacular. The decision was that, while the Mass would remain in Latin, certain rites could be performed in the vernacular, and that the vernacular could be used by the people to an extent. But it was up to Rome to decide if and when the vernacular was to be used. The Tridentine Mass was already approved for the vernacular in certain limited areas of the world, I want to say somewhere in Eastern Europe, in a Slavic country. However, vernacular is purely disciplinary. Many of the Eastern Liturgies have been in the vernacular for ages and are just as valid as our Mass. In terms of pushers for the vernacular, I believe that at the Second Vatican Council some of these were Eastern Cardinals/bishops. To this day, the Novus Ordo is published in Latin as the standard format.

As to ad orientem, this was not brought up in Trent. A link I gave earlier to an analysis of the Mass before Trent discusses ad orientem. Versus Populum was not an innovation in the Novus Ordo of the Roman Rite, as it dates back to the Church in the catacombs, as the link mentions. Actually, as can be seen at St. Peter’s Basillica, ad orientem can be performed versus populum, as the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The rubrics for the Tridentine Mass do contain directions for versus populum, and likewise the rubrics for the Novus Ordo assumes ad orientem. Interestingly, the Tridentine Mass calls for the priest to face the congregation more times than the Novus Ordo. Personally, I prefer ad orientem, but that doesn’t mean that versus populum is invalid.

 

[saint_rafael]

As far as Ad Orientem, it had always been the tradition of the Church. Ad Orientem has always been part of the Mass all the way back to the second century.

Facing the people is a Protestant invention because they believe only in a meal and symbolism.

Every priest needs to reject facing the people and should say the Novus Ordo Ad Orientem.

 

[NicPais83]

The prayers at the foot of the altar. What was the real benefit to getting rid of them? They set the scene really well, aesthetically. Did they want to replace them with something else?

They were not technically part of the Mass. From experience as an Altar Boy for the Tridentine Mass, you kinda have to rush your way through them, but that’s not a reason to get rid of them. I believe that they wanted to include their Pentential “scene setting” officially into the Ordo, and yes, replaced them with the Penitential Rite. While accretions such as the Offertory prayers, Credo, Gloria, Agnus Dei, etc. remained, an aim was to simplify the Mass back to its original form, which did not have the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar (they were prep. prayers for the priest in the Sacristy). Now, I believe the big argument is whether the Novus Ordo attained this goal. I personally am a proponent of the Novus Ordo and the Tridentine Mass, as I think they’re mutually enriching.

 

[NicPais83]

As far as AD Orientem, it had always been the tradition of the Church. AD Orientem has always been part of the Mass all the way back to the second century.

Facing the people is a Protestant invention because they believe only is a meal and symbolism.
QUOTE]

Again, I provided evidence that says that facing the people is not a Protestant invention. Please read the links I gave.

 

[saint_rafael]

If there were Masses verses Populum they were in the apostolic age or in the catacombs, but there are no records.

The earliest records from the second century show Ad Orientem as the norm.

In any way, there was organic development. The idea that Catholics need to go back to the early Church is the heresy of antiquarianism already stated by Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei.

 

[PrayforMallory]

Trent addresses the vernacular, but decides to keep things in Latin. Latin itself was chosen originally because it was the vernacular at the time, as the Mass was originally said in Greek. I believe it was Pope Pius XII, or earlier, who first considers the question of the vernacular. The decision was that, while the Mass would remain in Latin, certain rites could be performed in the vernacular, and that the vernacular could be used by the people to an extent. But it was up to Rome to decide if and when the vernacular was to be used. The Tridentine Mass was already approved for the vernacular in certain limited areas of the world, I want to say somewhere in Eastern Europe, in a Slavic country. However, vernacular is purely disciplinary. Many of the Eastern Liturgies have been in the vernacular for ages and are just as valid as our Mass. In terms of pushers for the vernacular, I believe that at the Second Vatican Council some of these were Eastern Cardinals/bishops. To this day, the Novus Ordo is published in Latin as the standard format.

As to ad orientem, this was not brought up in Trent. A link I gave earlier to an analysis of the Mass before Trent discusses ad orientem. Versus Populum was not an innovation in the Novus Ordo of the Roman Rite, as it dates back to the Church in the catacombs, as the link mentions. Actually, as can be seen at St. Peter’s Basillica, ad orientem can be performed versus populum, as the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The rubrics for the Tridentine Mass do contain directions for versus populum, and likewise the rubrics for the Novus Ordo assumes ad orientem. Interestingly, the Tridentine Mass calls for the priest to face the congregation more times than the Novus Ordo. Personally, I prefer ad orientem, but that doesn’t mean that versus populum is invalid.

I know there are pre-Vatican II instances of the vernacular, but I question whether or not it was prudent to completely abandon Latin the way the American Church generally did.

Latin was the vernacular, like you said, but there’s something to be said about a dead language. The words can’t change meaning, they can’t really be tampered with, etc. I don’t think it’s coincidence that Muslims generally remain faithful to their doctrines. They have a dead form of Arabic that’s used in their ceremonies. I wouldn’t think some use of the vernacular would be a problem though, if the translation was accurate and the sacred nature of the prayers were well-represented.

You mentioned versus populum as being practiced in the ancient Church. That’s obviously true.

My question there would be, why return so radically to the Early Church? It would seem like the developments of Catholicism in the middle ages were “meet and just,” so why was there a desire to abandon them? I really don’t understand wanting to refute the medieval past, or the baroque, or any other period. I guess this goes back to the “Organic Development” idea we talked about in another thread. I really don’t understand the desire to go back to the Early Church. We don’t have their version of penance, and we have so many centuries in-between their era and ours.

Seems to me like the desire to return to the early church was a big motivator for the protestants, even though they got it wrong.