Confused about Sacrosanctum Concilium

  • Thread starter Thread starter lucybeebee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

lucybeebee

Guest
I just finished reading Sacrosanctum Concilium, and I feel very confused. Nowhere in this document does it call for the priest to be versus populum, for the erection of round churches, for the almost near elimination of Latin during Mass, or for the use of pop music rather than Gregorian Chant or sacred polyphony. So where did all of these novelties come from? :confused:
 
That is confusing, isn’t it?

And don’t forget the whole altar rails / standing-kneeling / tounge-hand change.
 
lucybeebee said:
I just finished reading Sacrosanctum Concilium, and I feel very confused. Nowhere in this document does it call for the priest to be versus populum, for the erection of round churches, for the almost near elimination of Latin during Mass, or for the use of pop music rather than Gregorian Chant or sacred polyphony. So where did all of these novelties come from? :confused:
Click to expand...
youtube.com/watch?v=lxx1ZRMpfk8
Go here.
Some of it is in dispute but it is an interesting watch.
 
lucybeebee said:
I just finished reading Sacrosanctum Concilium, and I feel very confused. Nowhere in this document does it call for the priest to be versus populum, for the erection of round churches, for the almost near elimination of Latin during Mass, or for the use of pop music rather than Gregorian Chant or sacred polyphony. So where did all of these novelties come from? :confused:
Click to expand...
Pope Paul VI gave bishops’ conferences the right to decide the extent to which the vernacular would be used. Each decision was subject to ratification by the Holy See. Popes can act independently of councils.

I personally thank God for the vernacular Mass.
 
netmil(name removed by moderator) said:
youtube.com/watch?v=lxx1ZRMpfk8
Go here.
Some of it is in dispute but it is an interesting watch.
Click to expand...
Whoa, the Latin sure seems fast. I’ve never heard a Pauline run through that quickly.

I don’t think OBJECTIVELY there is a difference in terms of reverence. SUBJECTIVELY, any can have an opinon. I don’t care for the altar table and I don’t care for ad populum, but I’ll take the Pauline Mass offered on the video over the Tridentine the way the other priest offered any day of the week.

If they wanted to wow people, they should have used a High Mass, maybe.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
Whoa, the Latin sure seems fast. I’ve never heard a Pauline run through that quickly.

I don’t think OBJECTIVELY there is a difference in terms of reverence. SUBJECTIVELY, any can have an opinon. I don’t care for the altar table and I don’t care for ad populum, but I’ll take the Pauline Mass offered on the video over the Tridentine the way the other priest offered any day of the week.

If they wanted to wow people, they should have used a High Mass, maybe.
Click to expand...
Actually, there is some real tin-foil hat stuff in there Kirk, but it’s fun to watch.
Merry Christmas, my dear friend!
 
To answer the OP question - the Novus Ordo Mass was not what the Council Fathers invisaged. People will always argue otherwise, but they are in denial of fact.

Indeed, Paul VI had the authority to promulgate the Novus Ordo Missal. I am not criticising him, or saying I would have done better or any of the things people are often accused of on this forum. I am merely saying that the NO Missal was not faithful to the council, and with hein sight was a mistake.
 
Resurrexit said:
To answer the OP question - the Novus Ordo Mass was not what the Council Fathers invisaged. People will always argue otherwise, but they are in denial of fact.

Indeed, Paul VI had the authority to promulgate the Novus Ordo Missal. I am not criticising him, or saying I would have done better or any of the things people are often accused of on this forum. I am merely saying that the NO Missal was not faithful to the council, and with hein sight was a mistake.
Click to expand...
“I am not criticising him”

And

“I am merely saying that the NO Missal was not faithful to the council, and with hein sight was a mistake”

certainly sound like criticism. If it walks like a duck and all that…

Also, Popes CAN act independently of councils. What they promulgate doesn’t have to reference a Council at all. That’s one of the things we have yet to iron out with the Orthodox.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
Also, Popes CAN act independently of councils. What they promulgate doesn’t have to reference a Council at all. That’s one of the things we have yet to iron out with the Orthodox.
Click to expand...
I am not criticising Pope Paul VI as a person, but I don’t think it is unfair, or uncharitable, or disrepectful to say that he made some mistakes. The Novus Ordo Mass, on the whole was a mistake.

What should have happened, and would surely have been beneficial, are the changes the council visualised and set out in the document. That document was the synthesis and summation of the liturgical movement.

What I object to, is people saying that the Novus Ordo Mass was a direct result of the council, or is faithful to the council. To answer the OP question: in my opinion, the NO was a direct betrayal of the vision of the liturgical movement and council fathers. I know perfectly well it did not HAVE to relate at all to SC, but it surely should have done.

Paul VI signed on the dotted line - that means the document has his authority, and he certainly had the right to promulgate it. It does not mean that it is perfect, or immunises it from criticism, or the fact that it was an unwise decision.
 
Resurrexit said:
I am not criticising Pope Paul VI as a person, but I don’t think it is unfair, or uncharitable, or disrepectful to say that he made some mistakes. The Novus Ordo Mass, on the whole was a mistake.

What should have happened, and would surely have been beneficial, are the changes the council visualised and set out in the document. That document was the synthesis and summation of the liturgical movement.

What I object to, is people saying that the Novus Ordo Mass was a direct result of the council, or is faithful to the council. To answer the OP question: in my opinion, the NO was a direct betrayal of the vision of the liturgical movement and council fathers. I know perfectly well it did not HAVE to relate at all to SC, but it surely should have done.

Paul VI signed on the dotted line - that means the document has his authority, and he certainly had the right to promulgate it. It does not mean that it is perfect, or immunises it from criticism, or the fact that it was an unwise decision.
Click to expand...
It’s a subjective opinion that the Novus Ordo was a mistake. I happen to think that, properly celebrated, it’s great. I’m not alone in that. A limited experience of the TLM confirms that for me.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
It’s a subjective opinion that the Novus Ordo was a mistake. I happen to think that, properly celebrated, it’s great. I’m not alone in that. A limited experience of the TLM confirms that for me.
Click to expand...
Your subjective opinion.

I agree with Resurrexit - and a lot of experience of the Novus Ordo, celebrated both very well, and very poorly, confirms that for me.
 
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2005/december/documents/hf_ben_xvi_spe_20051222_roman-curia_en.html

*The last event of this year on which I wish to reflect here is the celebration of the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council 40 years ago. This memory prompts the question: What has been the result of the Council? Was it well received? What, in the acceptance of the Council, was good and what was inadequate or mistaken? What still remains to be done? No one can deny that in vast areas of the Church the implementation of the Council has been somewhat difficult, even without wishing to apply to what occurred in these years the description that St Basil, the great Doctor of the Church, made of the Church’s situation after the Council of Nicea: he compares her situation to a naval battle in the darkness of the storm, saying among other things: “The raucous shouting of those who through disagreement rise up against one another, the incomprehensible chatter, the confused din of uninterrupted clamouring, has now filled almost the whole of the Church, falsifying through excess or failure the right doctrine of the faith…” (De Spiritu Sancto, XXX, 77; PG 32, 213 A; SCh 17 ff., p. 524).

We do not want to apply precisely this dramatic description to the situation of the post-conciliar period, yet something from all that occurred is nevertheless reflected in it. The question arises: Why has the implementation of the Council, in large parts of the Church, thus far been so difficult? (more…)*
 
Ace86 said:
asserts that the texts of the Council as such do not yet express the true spirit of the Council. It claims that they are the result of compromises in which, to reach unanimity, it was found necessary to keep and reconfirm many old things that are now pointless. However, the true spirit of the Council is not to be found in these compromises but instead in the impulses toward the new that are contained in the texts.

These innovations alone were supposed to represent the true spirit of the Council, and starting from and in conformity with them, it would be possible to move ahead. Precisely because the texts would only imperfectly reflect the true spirit of the Council and its newness, it would be necessary to go courageously beyond the texts and make room for the newness in which the Council’s deepest intention would be expressed, even if it were still vague.

In a word: it would be necessary not to follow the texts of the Council but its spirit. In this way, obviously, a vast margin was left open for the question on how this spirit should subsequently be defined and room was consequently made for every whim.
Click to expand...
Amen! Couldn’t have put it better myself. The Novus Ordo Mass represented the ‘spirit of Vatican 2’, not its reality.
 
the true spirit of any counsel is found in the documents. sadly most don’t read them and so V2 has been mis-interepreted into a false spirit of leisurely apathy among many of the faithful. I’m o.k. you’re o.k. peace love and sunshine…blaaaah.

peace
 
fullofzeal said:
the true spirit of any counsel is found in the documents. sadly most don’t read them and so V2 has been mis-interepreted into a false spirit of leisurely apathy among many of the faithful. I’m o.k. you’re o.k. peace love and sunshine…blaaaah.
Click to expand...
Indeed.
 
lucybeebee said:
But where did the “Spirit of Vatican II” come from?
Click to expand...
After the Council ended in the 60s, many theologians said things that the Council never said in the documents. The “Spirit” of Vatican II is the idea that the Catholic Church should essentially throw away tradition and become more Protestant and/or what the early Christians were supposedly like. “The Spirit of Vatican II” is a very ambiguous phrase that dissident theologians use to justify anything they think the Church should do. Like, in the Spirit of Vat. II, let’s have contraception, etc.!
 
lucybeebee said:
I just finished reading Sacrosanctum Concilium, and I feel very confused. Nowhere in this document does it call for the priest to be versus populum, for the erection of round churches, for the almost near elimination of Latin during Mass, or for the use of pop music rather than Gregorian Chant or sacred polyphony. So where did all of these novelties come from? :confused:
Click to expand...
The progressives in the Church have hijacked the true implementation of the Council by putting forth many more changes than the Council fathers had called for. Remember, the 1962 Missal is via Pope John XXIII, the Pope who convened the Second Vatican Council. We Traditionalists always cry, “Blessed John XXIII - pray that your Missal is restored to the altars of the Church!”

It is obvious if you study history some of these “progressive churches” were already being built and even completed BEFORE the Novus Ordo Mass was created.

Ken
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top