Can one question liturgical decisions without being “disobedient?”

[PrayforMallory]

saint rafael;3745341:

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.

I’m always confused by what is a “Protestant invention.” Because, while on the one hand, the early Church had some of these practices, yet on the other,hand, these practices were discarded, later taken up by protestants.

It would stand to reason to me, that the modern urge for versus populum, would be at least semi-protestant, in that the Catholic Church went in the other direction while the Protestants were largely responsible for versus populum after the middle ages. This coupled with statements by Bugnini and others makes it seem protestant. Of course, the fact that protestant hymns dominated the Novus Ordo Masses I’ve been to colors it for me.

Like, if Ad Orientem became the standard in the 2nd Century, why abandon it now? The specific circumstances of the 1st century aren’t the same, so you get the whole “showmanship” attitude Cardinal Arinze argued against.

 

[PrayforMallory]

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.

Can you give me a link to Mediator Dei? Sounds interesting.

 

[saint_rafael]

Mediator Dei

papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MEDIA.HTM

1. The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth.
2. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity.
3. **…But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer’s body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See. **
4. …Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation."

64.** This way of acting bids fair to revive the exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism to which the illegal Council of Pistoia gave rise.** It likewise attempts to reinstate a series of errors which were responsible for the calling of that meeting as well as for those resulting from it, with grievous harm to souls, and which the Church, the ever watchful guardian of the “deposit of faith” committed to her charge by her divine Founder, had every right and reason to condemn. For perverse designs and ventures of this sort tend to paralyze and weaken that process of sanctification by which the sacred liturgy directs the sons of adoption to their Heavenly Father of their souls’ salvation.

 

[NicPais83]

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.

Again, please read the links I provided. In terms of Mediator Dei, Popes always have the authority to revise disciplinary practices. Pope Pius XII wasn’t talking to future Popes when he wrote that; he was talking to who do not have the authority taking it upon themselves to change things, as there were unauthorized “experimentations” going on at the time based off of Liturgical findings. Pope Pius XII himself revised the Breviary and the Triduum ceremonies. He returned the Easter Vigil to an earlier form. The removal of the Second Confiteor in 1962 was returning to an earlier form. Unless I am wrong, Mediator Dei praises the recent Liturgical findings, but then mentions that it is up to the Holy See to determine if and when they will be implemented. If Mediator Dei is binding on the Popes and Magesterium, then it contradicts the Council of Trent. If it is binding on the individual Priests and Bishops, then it is not.

As for revising the Liturgy, it is not always for us to understand why Holy Mother Church chose some of the revisions that she did. We are to believe that an Ecumenical Council, in union with the Pope is guided by the Holy Spirit, and that the Spirit would not lead us to error.

 

[EasterJoy]

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.

You’re telling priests to ignore what their bishops say, and listen to you?

There is an even longer tradition: that of the laity allowing the successors of St. Peter to define what is and is not the teachings of the Church, including what is and is not proper liturgy.

If there is anything that is a “Protestant invention”, it is laity deciding that they are more qualified than their pastors to dictate what the Holy Spirit wants of the Church.

Name a single Protestant sect that did not get started with that attitude. Explain how your attitude differs.

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.

Again…organic development is all fine and dandy, but it doesn’t happen by decapitation!

Let us read from Mediator Dei, shall we? (boldface and underline: mine)

"… Our predecessor Sixtus V of immortal memory established the Sacred Congregation of Rites, charged with the defense of the legitimate rites of the Church and with the prohibition of any spurious innovation. This body fulfills even today the official function of supervision and legislation with regard to all matters touching the sacred liturgy.
…It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification…
….The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth. In spite of this, the use of the mother tongue in connection with several of the rites may be of much advantage to the people. But the Apostolic See alone is empowered to grant this permission. It is forbidden, therefore, to take any action whatever of this nature without having requested and obtained such consent, since the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See.
…The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity.** The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world. They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man.**
…Clearly** no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas by the Church, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for souls, because it pleases him to hark back to the old formulas. No more can any Catholic in his right senses repudiate existing legislation of the Church to revert to prescriptions based on the earliest sources of canon law. Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation.
…In every measure taken, then, let proper contact with the ecclesiastical hierarchy be maintained.**
…Only the Sovereign Pontiff…and with him, in obedience to the Apostolic See, the bishops "whom the Holy Ghost has placed… have the right and the duty to govern the Christian people. Consequently, **Venerable Brethren, whenever you assert your authority **. – even on occasion with wholesome severity – you are not merely acquitting yourselves of your duty; **you are defending the very will of the Founder of the Church **.