S
SJP
Guest
By the way, the Sherlock Holmes comment was made in jest. It’s generally not wise to assume to know the state of another’s soul.
- Status
T
tcraig
Guest
No, I don’t know who Alcuid Reid is; I’ve only read his review at Amazon, after I went there to see if I could read any of Cardinal Ratzinger’s preface to the Gamber book online.
But what you did was dishonest and wrong. You “lifted” someone else’s words without giving them proper credit, and even left the quotes off part of the comments, which gives the impression that another person’s words are yours. No matter how legitimate your question may be, people will not take your seriously if they realize that you are passing off others’ writings and/or opinions as your own.
As to your original question, I don’t mind if someone questions litugical reform, as long as it is done with charity and intellectual honesty.
I
I_Believe
Guest
O
oblsbdc
Guest
Following the comments posted from the outset it is not at all clear that what is being proposed is not a wholesale disavowal of liturgical reforms since the Second Vatican Council. One need only look at the references made to such things as Paul VI weeping at night in order to call into question the entire project of the Second Vatican Council, which I believe is ‘disobedient.’ Such an attitude to me does not equal the quetion proposed in the tile of the thread.
That said, generally speaking one can question liturgical decisions proposing arguments for or against a certain course of action, historical perspective, etc. Yet, I am a firm believer that the worship of the Church is goverened by the Editio Typica of the liturgical books. One worships “by the books.” The reform of the Council as it stands, whether one disagrees with it or not, is enshrined and codified in the books. At the same time, some liturgical directives are established by national bodies of bishops or the local bishop. These directives are to be obeyed as well. In short, disobedience begins when one starts to act contrary to the established liturgical norms. One is not justified in acting contrary to liturgical norms becuase one judges that they came about erroneously, or by the ingenious plot of fringe looney-left liturgists. It might be argued however, borrowing from moral theology, that one seeking to be in union with the church should seek to understand it as it is and not in the manner one thinks it ought to be: to develop a moral habitus. That would suggests one seeks to understand liturgically normative nature of the books and the liturgy therein, rather than trying to pick them apart or second guess them - hence the disobedience of action strongly connected to one’s thinking.
It is true that the current Roman Rite, as many in this thread have been at pain to show via quotations from other sources, is substantially different in form than that codified by Pius V in his Missale Romanum. The current General Instruction of the Roman Missal however, confirmed by Paul VI, and John Paul II goes out of its way to indicate that difference in form notwithstanding the essential nature of the Sacrifice of the Mass is preserved, and in fact clarified. Indeed structural analysis shows, for instance, that the current structure of the Mass alligns clearly with the oldest ordines known to attest to the Eucharistic practice of Rome around the time of Pope Sergious I to Gregory II. In a sense it is more truly Roman than the Romano-Frankish-Germanicum hybrid liturgies which formed the missal of Pius V.
G
GemmaRose
Guest
I agree with ethelzguy. Whenever I read posts like some in this thread, all I can think is what do such supposedly faithful Catholics think of our Popes, especially our present Holy Father and our beloved John Paul II?
If all these dastardly changes were introduced by “renegade bishops” who hoodwinked Rome, have all Popes afterwards been so ignorant that they haven’t noticed? Are they all so spineless as to not have banned such changes? Are they all so faithless that they practice such changes themselves?
If that is how some posters feel about our Popes, why remain in the Church?
Oh, that’s right - the Eucharist… they want to receive the Body of the Lord, who founded the Church upon the rock of Peter, even though they sin by disrespecting his most current successors.
Am I missing something here?
I
I_Believe
Guest
This fellow sure saw what was coming…
"“In recent times, even in materialist North America, the growth of the Church was magnificent with the liturgy being kept in Latin. The attempts of the Protestants have failed, and Protestantism uses the vernacular. We ask again: Why the change, especially since changes in this matter involve many difficulties and great dangers? All of us here at the Council can recall the fundamental changes in the meaning of words in common use. Thus it follows that if the Sacred Liturgy were in the vernacular, the immutability of doctrine would be endangered.
The introduction of the vernacular should be separated from the action of the Mass. The Mass must remain as it is. Grave changes in the liturgy introduce grave changes in dogmata.”
-James Cardinal McIntyre addressing the Second Vatican Council
R
rwoehmke
Guest
Not at all true. The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy was the first constitution approved. The Bishops returned to Rome for the remaining Council sessions and it was their presence and the requests for changes by groups of national Bishops that helped drive the changes which were opposed by the Congregation of Rites and some in the rest of the Curia. The majority of the new liturgical books had been approved before the Council ended. Pope Paul VI approved of the new liturgical directions, rules etc. so no one was ever kept in the dark. A minority of Cardinals and Bishops were opposed from the get-go and it was a small minority. Some, the Dutch Bishops and Belgians wanted to go even further, but were rebuffed by the Pope and newly minted Congregation for Worship; a congregation that was replaced by another in I think 1969.
The TLM and other historic liturgical practices were suppressed, , probably by the national Bishops groups, but remained valid as almost any rite once approved and used could hardly be called invalid except by dissenters.
R
rwoehmke
Guest
It was not five theologians who worked on the New Mass, Breviary, etc. but almost 400 people, including liturgists, bishops, and cardinals who worked on various aspects of the liturgy, which by the way encompasses much more than the Mass. The French Bishops were the earliest to urge that the reform begin and who pushed for the vernacular. Interesting also that it was a French Bishop who refused to change. The early versions of the new liturgical books were circulated to the national bishops groups and one change in practice was that vernacular translations and some of the changes originated with the world’s bishops rather then the central authority in Rome. I believe that is still the practice today with Rome being used to deny or confirm the requests and suggesting what Rome sees as fixes for problems.
The conspiracy theory of liturgical reform is pure rot. Was the change revolutionary and discontinuous with some if not much of the past, yes, but certainly the idea of Mass being a communal meal and the new emphasis on the Liturgy of the word did not at all prevent it from still being a sacrifice.The sacrifice remained and the Mass was made even richer by the new enhancements.
The conspiracy theory of liturgical reform is pure rot. Was the change revolutionary and discontinuous with some if not much of the past, yes, but certainly the idea of Mass being a communal meal and the new emphasis on the Liturgy of the word did not at all prevent it from still being a sacrifice.The sacrifice remained and the Mass was made even richer by the new enhancements.
O
oblsbdc
Guest
I agree. My comment regarding “5” was a hyperbole in response to the “great deception” theorists.
As you accurately point out, there is plenty of documentation pointing out the awareness on the part off bishops regarding the changes the concillium was working on. Many bishops were present for the experimental liturgies being carried on the in sistine chapel. Moreover, for the minorities who protested the changes, they would have had to know that the changes were being made to protest them anyway.
Nor has it been said in this thread, that the liturgical movement which was alive and well since the late 1800’s had been well disseminated in journals, congresses, etc. Word bishops, their theologians, priests and many laypeope were well aware of the principles of liturgical renewal. In fact many bishops in Germany had celebrated liturgies “versus populum” since the early 1900’s.
B
BSHoop96
Guest
J
japhy
Guest
It is possible Pope John Paul II, beloved as he may be, was misled about certain things concerning the liturgy. In his 1980 Letter Dominicae Cenae, n. 9, he wrote: “All this should fill us with joy, but we should also remember that these changes demand new spiritual awareness and maturity, both on the part of the celebrant - especially now that he celebrates ‘facing the people’ - and by the faithful.” (It is possible that the Latin he wrote meant “especially when he celebrates ‘facing the people’”; however, the other translation I’ve seen favor translating cum as meaning “now [that]”.)
E
ethelzguy
Guest
I’m no longer amazed at what lengths folks will go to, to twist and manipulate things to fit their view.
sheesh
E
EasterJoy
Guest
I can see how one can question the wisdom of the reforms of 1970 without being disobedient or even disrespectful. Of course that is possible! If it weren’t, then the process by which the TLM was re-examined would itself have been disrespectful, would it not? To question whether the NO should have been instituted, or that the way it was instituted could have been improved could easily degenerate into a kind of pointless Monday-morning quarterbacking at this point, but not necessarily disrespectful or disobedient. There might be some very worthwhile lessons in the exercise.
Admit the converse, though, too: that there are disobedient, disrespectful, and outright anti-authoritarian ways to re-examine those reforms, too.
If you can stand up to the bishops because you think they’re in the wrong, then surely another lay person has the standing to stand up to you, right?
You “remember hearing stories”, and that makes it a fact by which you belittle a dead pontiff to make a point? And what would the point of this be, for that matter?
Misled? Misled by whom?
He was made a bishop in 1958…so yes, he would of course write “now that”. The Mass was not so when he was ordained a priest, nor even when he was made a bishop. He’d been around the sun a few times by the time that the NO had been instituted.
He was also at Vatican II. He was made a cardinal in what? 1967? He wasn’t exactly an academic slouch, either. He had probably read the documents of Vatican II. in their original Latin (not to mention several other languages, knowing him), not to mention scholarly commentaries criticizing them, more times than you’ve read the CCC.
John Paul II was a brilliant scholar, a master of many languages, and had a titan will. Nobody led that one around by the nose, or pulled the wool over his eyes. Say, if you like, that he refused to believe how things were on the ground here or there, because he could not be everywhere. Say that he made his decisions on grounds that you don’t agree with–that he was “pastoral” when he should have been “authoritarian” if you like. Don’t try to tell me that the man could be hoodwinked about the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. I don’t buy it. Disagree with him if you like, but with regards to the liturgy, don’t indulge in any silly patronizing. He knew what he was about. We should know what we are about so well as he did.
S
saint_rafael
Guest
My point was that Pope Paul VI was a weak Pope that allowed the the Novus Ordo mess into the Church. A strong Pope like Pius IX and Puis X would have told Bugnini to get lost and completely rejected the brand new revolution. Pope Paul VI also had chances to stop all the abuses but did not.
As far as Pope John Paul II, I would honestly state that he was a blockhead when it came to liturgy. Liturgy was his biggest weakness. This was because Pope John Paul II was really a philosopher and not a theologian.
I think I have had a better grasp of liturgy than he did. Men like Michael Davies have wrote volumes about the problems in liturgy and Pope JPII did nothing. He would make paper attempts by putting out instructions, but they were ignored because he attached no penalties and disciplined no one in decades.
As far as Pope John Paul II, I would honestly state that he was a blockhead when it came to liturgy. Liturgy was his biggest weakness. This was because Pope John Paul II was really a philosopher and not a theologian.
I think I have had a better grasp of liturgy than he did. Men like Michael Davies have wrote volumes about the problems in liturgy and Pope JPII did nothing. He would make paper attempts by putting out instructions, but they were ignored because he attached no penalties and disciplined no one in decades.
J
japhy
Guest
I’m no longer amazed at what lengths folks will go to, to twist and manipulate things to fit their view. sheesh
ethelzguy, I humbly request you show me how I have “twist[ed] and manipulat[ed] things to fit [my] view”.
EasterJoy, not necessarily misled by someone, but simply misled by the prevailing practice at the time.
Perhaps I had not made my point clear in my first post. Pope John Paul II, very early in his papacy, wrote the Letter Dominicae Cenae. In n. 9 of this letter, he writes about the Eucharist as, first and foremost, a sacrifice. At the end of that part, he mentions that the recent changes to the liturgy regarding the Eucharist – the audible Eucharistic Prayer, the acclamation of the faithful in the middle of it, and the participation of people in the offertory procession, to name a few – “demand new spiritual awareness and maturity” on the part of the priest and the faithful. He names the priest and then qualifies it with these words: “especially now that he celebrates ‘facing the people’”.
To me, that phrase is supposedly describing the practice of all priests, but as has been pointed out numerous times since the versus populum celebration became commonplace, the liturgical books presuppose an ad orientem celebration! But the Pope didn’t write “especially if he celebrates ‘facing the people’”, but instead used a phrase that (to me, again) implies this is the new standard practice.
That is what I meant by my comment. Simply that Pope John Paul II had taken the versus populum stance for granted, when neither Vatican II nor the liturgical texts suggest such a thing.
O
Our_Refuge
Guest
.
Who wrote the Constitution?
.
What changes were made to the Constitution at the Council. Be precise.
The Council ended in 1965. The Concilium writing the New Mass finished in 1969. How could the majority of liturgical books have been written when the Mass had not been finalized?
.
Experimental Masses took place between 1964-1967. Bishops were making up their own prayers and rubrics without approval.
;
The Dutch started communion in the hand and eucharistic lay ministers without approval from the Pope. They ignored Pope Paul.
E
estesbob
Guest
That is a GREAT question.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
John Paul II was one of the bishops who worked on Gaudium et spes.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Was it the will of God that Paul VI be Pope at that time, rather than someone else? Was the Holy Spirit thwarted by the selection of John XXIII, Paul VI, or any other Pope in our time?
J
japhy
Guest
We’re talking about Sacrosanctum Concilium, unless I’m mistaken. I’m not entirely sure why the issue of who wrote it was brought up, though.
Suffice to say, Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, does not envisage many of the changes made in the following years. Some of those changes were specifically warned against by Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei, and some were condemned in 1794 by Pope Pius VI, through a congregation established to investigate the heretical (Jansenist) Synod of Pistoia.
It appears that there is a disconnect, then, between the liturgical reform called for by Vatican II, and the liturgical reform the produced the (now) Ordinary Form of the Mass.
- Status