Can't the Holy Father Just Make Liturgical Reform Happen?

  • Thread starter Thread starter NeelyAnn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

NeelyAnn

Guest
Taken from: rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/

**Can’t the Holy Father Just Make Liturgical Reform Happen? **

Well, apparently not the way many would like…

The New Theological Movement says why:

“Why doesn’t the Pope legislate on matters of liturgy to push forward the liturgical renewal he so desired as Cardinal?” “If the Pope was so in favor of liturgical reform and renewal in his days as Cardinal-theologian, why doesn’t he just legislate what he wants and take care of the problems?” This is a question many on the “Reform of the Reform” train hear, and often. First, the prevailing abuses have been roundly condemned in John Paul II’s Dominicae Cenae and the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacrament’s Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum. Second, and this is very important, the Pope does not see the Sacred Liturgy as a thing to be arbitrarily manipulated, even by the Pope. I hope the following quotes which treat of ad orientem are helpful in this regard.

Read more here.
 
Think REAL hard.

What happened when Paul VI pushed through liturgical reform to make it “just happen”?
 
As we say down in New Orleans, Bishop - yeah, you right!

There are way too many people born in the last 45 years who have no idea about the Latin Church prior to say 1967. I would not inflict upon them what was done to us 45 years ago.
 
There are way too many people born in the last 45 years who have no idea about the Latin Church prior to say 1967. I would not inflict upon them what was done to us 45 years ago.
Click to expand...
I agree. I think they are going about it the right way. Encouraging more EF masses. The reform of the English translations. The church is like an aircraft carrier, takes it a long time to change direction.
 
jonpd said:
I agree. I think they are going about it the right way. Encouraging more EF masses. The reform of the English translations. The church is like an aircraft carrier, takes it a long time to change direction.
Click to expand...
Nice analogy. One brick at a time as Father Z is fond of saying.
 
brotherhrolf said:
There are way too many people born in the last 45 years who have no idea about the Latin Church prior to say 1967. I would not inflict upon them what was done to us 45 years ago.
Click to expand...
Totally agree on this. You don’t make something happen by force-feeding it on the mouths of the flock. 🙂
 
Indeed. Change needs to come slowly, sad as it may be. A sudden change might make the Church seem fickle and insubstantial and possibly sabotage the work of traditionalists.

The laity need to be reshaped to conform to the pre-VII Church. This cannot be done quickly anymore than building a healthy body can be done quickly. It takes time, exercise, discipline, and so on to build and maintain good health, and it will take the same for the Church.

Stubborn human nature will not allow for anything else.
 
I was wondering if these minor changes in the Liturgy it is just not an attempt to do away with the Traditional Mass.

just a thought.
 
The reform of the OF missal is not an attempt to get rid of the EF. It is an attempt to correct errors in translation from Latin into English. The erros did not occur in every language. The Latin languages do not have the errors: Portugese, Spanish, Italian, Romanian and French. The errors are in the English translation. The other goal is to clarify the rules in the GIRM. Some of the rules in the GIRM are not well translated and they sound abiguous.

As to legislating reform, a lot depends what perspective you come from. For some people reform means making the Extraordinary Form the ordinary. This is not what Pope Benedict wants to do. This was very clear in Summorum Pontificum. Had he wanted to eliminate the Pauline edition of the mass or make it rare, he would not have called it the Ordinary Form.

In canonical langauge words such as ordinary and extraordinary do not have the same meaning as we find in Webster’s Dictionary. Ordinary means what is usual and customary. When the Holy Father refers to the Pauline mass as the Ordinary Form, he is referring to is as that form of the mass which is to be considered usual and customary for the Latin Rite. The Trdientine mass is to be the extraordinary, meaning that it is not to be the dominant form of the Latin Rite. Nonetheless, it is to be the other form of the Latin Rite. It is not his intention to pit one form against the other or to have Catholics do so either.

Since it is not his intent to delete the OF, he does not decree such a statement. His intent is to correct the errors and abuses so that the celebration of the OF is consistent with the faith of the Church.

I’ve only seen the proposed translations, not the proposed changes for the GIRM. My suspicion is that the changes in the GIRM are still going to allow certain flexibility according to local customs and the discretion of the local bishops and the conferences of bishops.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
wisdomseeker said:
i mean just trying to make it more attractive so people give up the idea of having a latin Mass coming back.
Click to expand...
I think it depend on where you live. In our diocese, nothing much has changed. The EF is no more widely available, the same liturgical abuses are just as common. The more people know what the Vatican has said and what the priests and bishops are ignoring, the more the yearning for a more traditional Mass increases.
 
Lycorth said:
Indeed. Change needs to come slowly, sad as it may be. A sudden change might make the Church seem fickle and insubstantial and possibly sabotage the work of traditionalists.

The laity need to be reshaped to conform to the pre-VII Church. This cannot be done quickly anymore than building a healthy body can be done quickly. It takes time, exercise, discipline, and so on to build and maintain good health, and it will take the same for the Church.

Stubborn human nature will not allow for anything else.
Click to expand...
I agree also. The unfortunate situations of sedevacantism and the issues on SSPX and/or smaller groups being schismatic,modenist,progressivist have created difficulties among to the lack of cathechesis to the layity.

I am for more EF Masses along with OF Masses. This will take time. My home parish in Novus Ordo Masses on every other Sunday do recite Kyrie Hymn in Greek, Gloria Hymn in Latin, Sanctus hymn in Latin and Agnus Dei Hymn in Latin.

I am still in question when the general missal change will take place in our dioceses?
 
wisdomseeker said:
I was wondering if these minor changes in the Liturgy it is just not an attempt to do away with the Traditional Mass.
Click to expand...
Spirithound said:
Do you really think Pope Benedict is that sneaky?
Click to expand...
wisdomseeker said:
i never said he is sneaky. but he is probably surrounded by sneaky people.
Click to expand...
The scene in Spirithound's head:
Said the Secretary-Archbishop to the Cardinal-Prefect: “Eminenza, the people are rallying for a more reverent liturgy, the Missal of 1962. What shall we do?”

Replied the Cardinal-Prefect to the Secretary-Archbishop: “Give them a more reverent Ordinary Form.”
Click to expand...
How uncharitable is it to impute sneakiness to the Vatican liturgists rather than actual concern for the liturgy?
 
Corki said:
I think it depend on where you live. In our diocese, nothing much has changed. The EF is no more widely available, the same liturgical abuses are just as common. The more people know what the Vatican has said and what the priests and bishops are ignoring, the more the yearning for a more traditional Mass increases.
Click to expand...
Echo, echo, echo. My heart aches for this. At every opportunity I ask people from our Parish. Most are unaware of what we are talking about in these forums. I mean, have no idea the discussions going on in the halls of the minds of Traditionalists or the Vatican. I will be 49, and I remember as a very young child that change from (forgive me here please) VI over to VII was a very slow process, so would assume that getting back to what I would call the real OF would be as well. And I don’t believe VII was meant to take the Church in the direction it has gone. Liberal ideals and interpretation has done this. The EF that I see today is not practiced but by a few churches. In my case, and for those of you who have blessed me with some of your answers to my questions, the only way for me to worship at an EF of the Mass is to attend a SSPV service, which I do not because of all the controversy. And though we are the Diocese, our Bishop rarely speaks to the lay about Va. issues, except for using the word change from time to time.

I am saddened by all of this, as I am wanting for a more religeous life through educating whom I might on eticate. I have had people who are much younger suggest that “it is my opinion”. Even after having shown them what is being spoke of and the documents we have on such matters, do they insist. Even older folks do not wish to go back. I say go back? It wasn’t supposed to change into what it has changed into. I’ve been asked how it was so special back then. That’s when I really open up to them. I miss “Sacred Music” and the Mass I remember. It is difficult.

Please pray for us. God’s love and Peace to you.
 
JReducation said:
The reform of the OF missal is not an attempt to get rid of the EF. It is an attempt to correct errors in translation from Latin into English. The erros did not occur in every language. The Latin languages do not have the errors: Portugese, Spanish, Italian, Romanian and French. The errors are in the English translation. The other goal is to clarify the rules in the GIRM. Some of the rules in the GIRM are not well translated and they sound abiguous.

As to legislating reform, a lot depends what perspective you come from. For some people reform means making the Extraordinary Form the ordinary. This is not what Pope Benedict wants to do. This was very clear in Summorum Pontificum. Had he wanted to eliminate the Pauline edition of the mass or make it rare, he would not have called it the Ordinary Form.

In canonical langauge words such as ordinary and extraordinary do not have the same meaning as we find in Webster’s Dictionary. Ordinary means what is usual and customary. When the Holy Father refers to the Pauline mass as the Ordinary Form, he is referring to is as that form of the mass which is to be considered usual and customary for the Latin Rite. The Trdientine mass is to be the extraordinary, meaning that it is not to be the dominant form of the Latin Rite. Nonetheless, it is to be the other form of the Latin Rite. It is not his intention to pit one form against the other or to have Catholics do so either.

Since it is not his intent to delete the OF, he does not decree such a statement. His intent is to correct the errors and abuses so that the celebration of the OF is consistent with the faith of the Church.

I’ve only seen the proposed translations, not the proposed changes for the GIRM. My suspicion is that the changes in the GIRM are still going to allow certain flexibility according to local customs and the discretion of the local bishops and the conferences of bishops.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
Thank you. God bless you. I wonder if a new printing of the Missal will come out with the corrections, and if it will be in both Latin and English. I wonder if it will be more like the 1962 Missal the Pope has approved the use of, or had the English translation in that Missal been incorrect in some sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top