If such a practice was contrary to the will of Council it would have never been introduced. It’s rather odd that if Benedict is repudiating something, he does regularly what he repudiates, both as Secretary of the CDF and now as the Bishop of Rome.
.
Not true. The Council was kept in the dark about how radical the changes would be. Read the dialogue from the Council floor that is presented in the book
The Rhine Flows into the Tiber. and you will see that there were statements made by individuals about major changes but none of that was put into the
Constitution on the Liturgy
Monsignor Klaus Gambler was there and as he says in his book
Reform of the Roman Liturgy
“ One statement we can make with certainty is that the new Ordo of the Mass that has now emerged
would not have been endorsed by the majority of the Council Fathers.”-
Cardinal Heenan in his book,
A Crown of Thorns wrote:
“The subject most fully debated was liturgical reform. It might be more accurate to say that
the bishops were under the impression that the liturgy had been fully discussed. In retrospect it is clear that they were given the opportunity of discussing only general principles. Subsequent changes were
more radical than those intended by Pope John and the bishops who passed the decree on the liturgy. His sermon at the end of the first session shows that Pope John did not suspect what was being planned by the liturgical experts. “
The Council was never told of the changes that were going to be introduce by a group of theologians after the Council was over.
The priest facing the people was never discussed.
*Spirit of the Liturgy *Cardinal Ratzinger
adoremus.org/0500-Ratzinger.html
"**The liturgical renewal in our own century
took up this alleged model and developed from it a new idea **for the form of the Liturgy. The Eucharist, so it was said, had to be celebrated versus populum (towards the people). The altar – as can be seen in the normative model of Saint Peter’s – had to be positioned in such a way that priest and people looked at each other and formed together the circle of the celebrating community
…These arguments seemed in the end so persuasive that
after the Council (
which says nothing about "turning to the people") new altars were set up everywhere, and today celebration versus populum really does look like the characteristic fruit of Vatican II’s liturgical renewal. In fact it is the most **conspicuous consequence of a re-ordering
that not only signifies a new external arrangement of the places dedicated to the Liturgy, but also brings with it a new idea of the essence of the Liturgy – the Liturgy as a communal meal…This is, of course, a misunderstanding **of the significance of the Roman basilica and of the positioning of its altar, and the representation of the Last Supper is also, to say the least,
inaccurate…
For right now Pope Benedict is putting up with the priest facing the people until he can makes changes. If you saw the Papal Mass at St Patricks in New York he was facing a crucifix and at the same time facing the people. The crucifix represents liturgical “East”. Only a matter of time before he introduces the rubric of the priest and people facing the same direction, toward the Tabernacle, most likely during part of the offeratory and the consecration and elevation of the host.
Originally Posted by oblsbdc
If such a practice was contrary to the will of Council it would have never been introduced. It’s rather odd that if Benedict is repudiating something, he does regularly what he repudiates, both as Secretary of the CDF and now as the Bishop of Rome
How do you explain communion in the hand which was never spoken of at the Council and was in fact contrary to the will of Pope Paul VI.
Memoriale Domini 1969****
“in view of the gravity of the matter and the force of the arguments put forward, the Holy Father has decided** not to change **the existing way of administering holy communion to the faithful.”
