Did we confuse Pope Paul's liturgical reform?

[Sirach2]

But that is exactly what happened. They let go of Latin. They axed it! I hear more beautiful chants in movies and on you tube than I do in church. What is going on? Maybe I shouldn’t look into this sad part of church history?

No, you SHOULD look into church history and be corrected and informed. Who is “they,” Latingirl? THEY is the Holy-Spirit-guided-Magisterium that promulgated this change. You left out a critical part of your quotes from the document.
As We said on another occasion, we shall do well to take into account the motives for this grave change. The first is obedience to the Council. That obedience now implies obedience to the Bishops, who interpret the Council’s prescription and put them into practice.

6. This first reason is not simply canonical—relating to an external precept. It is connected with the charism of the liturgical act. In other words, it is linked with the power and efficacy of the Church’s prayer, the most authoritative utterance of which comes from the Bishop. This is also true of priests, who help the Bishop in his ministry, and like him act in persona Christi. It is Christ’s will, it is the breath of the Holy Spirit which calls the Church to make this change. A prophetic moment is occurring in the mystical body of Christ, which is the Church. This moment is shaking the Church, arousing it, obliging it to renew the mysterious art of its prayer.

1. In every case, and at all times, let us remember that “the Mass is a Mystery to be lived in a death of Love. Its divine reality surpasses all words. . . It is the Action par excellence, the very act of our Redemption, in the Memorial which makes it present”.
   Either we believe the Holy Spirit guided this change,

… or we do not believe.

If we believe, then let us obey with a generous heart.

… if anyone does not believe, then join Luther and start a new denomination which will be more akin to one’s preferences.

 

[Sirach2]

This is just to share a most beautiful testimony regarding Pope Paul VI that may be found in many of his biographies on the internet.
This inner joy seems to have been a characteristic of Paul VI. His confessor, the Jesuit Paolo Dezza, arrived at the Vatican every Friday evening at 19:00 to hear confession of Paul VI. The only words he ever spoke about his long service to Paul VI during his pontificate were, "that this pope is a man of great joy."
After the death of Pope Paul VI, Dezza was more outspoken, saying that “if Paul VI was not a saint, when he was elected Pope, he became one during his pontificate. I was able to witness not only with what energy and dedication he toiled for Christ and the Church but also and above all, how much he suffered for Christ and the Church. I always admired not only his deep inner resignation but also his constant abandonment to divine providence.”

It is this character trait, which led to the opening of the process of beatification and canonization for Paul VI.
Joy is the most dominant characteristic of the indwelling Holy Spirit. St. Paul urges us, “Rejoice in the Lord always, again I say REJOICE!” There is no cause for faces that “look like Pickled Peppers” as Pope Francis recently told us. If we believe in our hearts that God truly works ALL THINGS together for our good, then we have no need for pessimism, griping, doubting, whining … whenever circumstances are not as we would like them to be. A true saint living a holy life will always find cause to rejoice in what appears to be contradiction.

 

[latingirl]

Because the Eastern Churches use tonnes of Latin

No because their liturgy is mystical and beautiful. I can get a feel of heaven touching the earth there, a real feeling of transcendence. Don’t make assumptions about me.

 

[latingirl]

You know what, I come here asking honest questions because I am very troubled in my heart about something and I get sarcasm and mockery in exchange. I am tired of this. My feelings about the liturgy are legitimate feelings, shared by many other people. They are also feelings in line with the intentions of the Second Vatican Council. People here need to stop assuming everyone who wants a return to more traditional worship is rejecting the Second Vatican Council!! That gets really old and it reflects a lack of charity. I thought this would be one place where I’d be understood after all this forum sub-heading being “Traditional Catholicism” but apparently I was wrong.

I wish for reverence, mystery and beauty. I wish to feel connected to the ancient church. All I get from people here is hassle. Well I’m sorry for having these views. I’m sorry that I am STARVING for something otherworldly and transcendental that I want worship to be an embrace of God in his heavenly realm and realization of heaven touching earth, a standing in awe at the hill of Calvary instead of social time where Mass is just like the rest of the world. I suppose I must not be a real Catholic. Maybe people like me who are “behind the times” aren’t welcome in the Roman Catholic Church.

Thanks for getting me to realize that.

 

[LilyM]

No because their liturgy is mystical and beautiful. I can get a feel of heaven touching the earth there, a real feeling of transcendence. Don’t make assumptions about me.

No need to make assumptions. You said you were going East because Pope Paul, at least a according to some of the quotes, abandoned Latin. Not, at that stage, because the liturgy was no longer mystical, beautiful or transcendent.

By the way - I’ve been to enough liturgy in enough different languages, Latin included, to know that the beauty, mystery and transcendence of the liturgy come from ME realising, in the depths of my inmost soul, that I am coming face to face with CHRIST. Not from language, music, fine preaching or any other external.

Some of the most moving Masses I have attended have also, to outward appearances, been some of the most banal. What was different about those times was me, not the smells and bells.

Yes, these things can be helpful - I do not doubt that, and I do not criticise you in the slightest for wanting to experience them. But they are only part of what is needed at best.

 

[latingirl]

No need to make assumptions. You said you were going East because Pope Paul, at least a according to some of the quotes, abandoned Latin. Not, at that stage, because the liturgy was no longer mystical, beautiful or transcendent.

By the way - I’ve been to enough liturgy in enough different languages, Latin included, to know that the beauty, mystery and transcendence of the liturgy come from ME realising, in the depths of my inmost soul, that I am coming face to face with CHRIST. Not from language, music, fine preaching or any other external.

Some of the most moving Masses I have attended have also, to outward appearances, been some of the most banal. What was different about those times was me, not the smells and bells.

Yes, these things can be helpful - I do not doubt that, and I do not criticise you in the slightest for wanting to experience them. But they are only part of what is needed at best.

It doesn’t matter. I don’t even care anymore. No one understands that externals do matter. i don’t even want to talk about it. No one will ever understand me.

 

[LilyM]

It doesn’t matter. I don’t even care anymore. No one understands that externals do matter. i don’t even want to talk about it. No one will ever understand me.

Now who is the one going around making half-baked assumptions?

I never said externals don’t matter. Neither have most of the people on this thread said they don’t matter. They certainly do matter, that’s why the Church has had a lot to say about the way liturgy ought to be celebrated.

But they are certainly not the ONLY thing that matters. And if we focus too much on the externals we will always be disappointed, because there will always be something that is less-than.

The music will never be perfect enough, the vestments will never be splendid enough and the Latin never fluent enough for you unless your heart is already in communion with Christ. Which is something that happens before you even set foot in the Church door. And if your heart IS ready, it can happen with the worst music and the most banal preaching.

Let me draw an analogy - remember Prince Charles? Had everything any man could want - a beautiful, lively, seemingly devoted (at least initially) and very popular wife, who gave him two adorable sons. Yet he was supremely unhappy with her from
the start. Because all her outward attractiveness for whatever reason was not enough to inspire real lasting love in him. He was not willing to love her because the whole time he really loved another.

And where DID he find this love? With a, to appearances, not very attractive woman. God alone really knows what he sees in Camilla that he didn’t in Diana, but she undeniably makes him far happier and was clearly his only real love.

Again, I’m not saying externals aren’t important, I’m just saying beware of focusing too much energy on them.

 

[Megan7]

It doesn’t matter. I don’t even care anymore. No one understands that externals do matter. i don’t even want to talk about it. No one will ever understand me.

Dear LG,

I understand what you are feeling. I understand you. I am actually trying to move…
I “get it” Please do not give up. :hug3:
Please keep praying. Hang in there. We have a Beautiful Faith, Beautiful traditions.
Do not give up on your Faith. Please do not leave the forum, I love reading your posts
And in my humble opinion, maybe you should try to ignore posts that affect you in a negative way, just skip them. Pray for these people, do not dwell on it.

I will keep you in my prayers
Take care, God bless you.

Pax,

 

[Linusthe2nd]

You know what, I come here asking honest questions because I am very troubled in my heart about something and I get sarcasm and mockery in exchange. I am tired of this. My feelings about the liturgy are legitimate feelings, shared by many other people. They are also feelings in line with the intentions of the Second Vatican Council. People here need to stop assuming everyone who wants a return to more traditional worship is rejecting the Second Vatican Council!! That gets really old and it reflects a lack of charity. I thought this would be one place where I’d be understood after all this forum sub-heading being “Traditional Catholicism” but apparently I was wrong.

I wish for reverence, mystery and beauty. I wish to feel connected to the ancient church. All I get from people here is hassle. Well I’m sorry for having these views. I’m sorry that I am STARVING for something otherworldly and transcendental that I want worship to be an embrace of God in his heavenly realm and realization of heaven touching earth, a standing in awe at the hill of Calvary instead of social time where Mass is just like the rest of the world. I suppose I must not be a real Catholic. Maybe people like me who are “behind the times” aren’t welcome in the Roman Catholic Church.

Thanks for getting me to realize that.

You do realize that the early Christian liturgies were celebrated in the local vernacular languages ? St. Paul, for example, probably celebrated in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. Perhaps you should study a good history of the liturgy and you might have a more clear insight. I like the Latin litrugy and the chant and polyphony as well. But I also like the vernacular. Each has its good and bad ascetical points. That shouldn’t alarm you.

And don’t be alarmed at the give and take in these forums. We live in a combative age where everyone argues about everything, sometimes heatedly. That shouldn’t alarm you. And it shouldn’t shake your faith. People are human, sometimes too human. Be an example and ignore the barbs. Where would the Saints be if they ran away at ever jibe and barb ? Linus2nd

 

[OraLabora]

And don’t be alarmed at the give and take in these forums. We live in a combative age where everyone argues about everything, sometimes heatedly.

This is true. I always try to remember a couple of things. One, faith is something to be lived, not argued. Two, the liturgy “isn’t all about me”. I pray the Liturgy of the Hours daily and I was in a (mostly solo though) battle concerning which schema was most reverent, was most traditional, etc.

I gave up the fight. I use the current approved Liturgy of the Hours, the “modernist” 4-week schema (and when at the abbey I’m an oblate of, I follow their schema). How reverent or irreverent I make it is entirely up to me when I pray it solo. I discovered a couple of things in the process: one, there’s a lot of material out there to make it quite traditional (namely some antiphonaries and psalters to sing it in chant, either Gregorian or vernacular plainchant), and two, the Church, in her wisdom, appointed people to the committee designing the LOTH who knew a heck of a lot more about liturgy, history of the Church and tradition than I. When I started to really dig below the surface, I found out how in fact the LOTH respected many ancient tradition, at least in some of the licit options it allows, in spite of its new “packaging”. It really wasn’t all about me… and it was humbling to discover just how little I knew about the liturgy’s roots.

 

[Monica4316]

I think that externals matter in the way that they draw us into the ‘internal’ and spiritual. For example, when we kneel, we feel more reverent. It inspires something. If we act less reverently, it’s harder to be inspired to reverence. I think that’s why we’re drawn to beautiful music, etc, too, because it lifts the mind to God. I agree that ultimately, we need to focus on Christ. It’s also true that externals can help us to do this. If externals are missing, my approach is to try to still focus on Christ, and love Him, - He sees it’s not like we don’t want to be irreverent.

Anyways, I understand what you are trying to say Latin Girl I know it’s upsetting.

 

[ProVobis]

No because their liturgy is mystical and beautiful. I can get a feel of heaven touching the earth there, a real feeling of transcendence. Don’t make assumptions about me.

I know what you mean. I attended the Maronite liturgy and there are very beautiful rubrics there which can be quite moving, such as the exchange of peace. The consecration is in Syriac, very mystical, and much of the liturgy is in Arabic. I certainly didn’t go there to hear English.

 

[rucatholic]

You know what, I come here asking honest questions because I am very troubled in my heart about something and I get sarcasm and mockery in exchange. I am tired of this. My feelings about the liturgy are legitimate feelings, shared by many other people. They are also feelings in line with the intentions of the Second Vatican Council. People here need to stop assuming everyone who wants a return to more traditional worship is rejecting the Second Vatican Council!! That gets really old and it reflects a lack of charity. I thought this would be one place where I’d be understood after all this forum sub-heading being “Traditional Catholicism” but apparently I was wrong.

I wish for reverence, mystery and beauty. I wish to feel connected to the ancient church. All I get from people here is hassle. Well I’m sorry for having these views.

I’m sorry that I am STARVING for something otherworldly and transcendental that I want worship to be an embrace of God in his heavenly realm and realization of heaven touching earth, a standing in awe at the hill of Calvary instead of social time where Mass is just like the rest of the world.

I suppose I must not be a real Catholic.

Maybe people like me who are “behind the times” aren’t welcome in the Roman Catholic Church.

Thanks for getting me to realize that.

thanks for bring up this thought thread–

last week a priest ws trying to explain in his homily what mass was boring, and un eventful-- and un satisfying-- and alluding to the fact that gee – but it is the real presence-- so it can’t be un satisfying

so it must be you the people – who is a miss fit–

gee if the homily or the ceremony dosen’t bring in the presence of God-- and its the people 's fault–

then what are we to do?

 

[SBeard1238]

Just a note of caution…one of the fundamental chasms between a catholic understanding of how God relates to us and a Protestant understanding is the Catholic Church’s Sacramental Theology. If sacraments are “efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us.” And “The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament” then claiming that the externals aren’t important is heretical. We know that the Lord makes up for what is deficient but that does not excuse us from making our utmost effort to celebrate the sacraments as perfectly as possible. Also, letters and comments by a Pope are by definition not Ex Cathedra so we must look to the officially promulgated teachings of the Magesterium for guidance. I believe that the documents put forth by VC II make explicit that Latin and Gregorian chant were to remain firmly in place and I am unaware of any document put forth by a council of bishops changing that. On the other hand, Rome apparently made no comment that the English language GIRMs prepared by ISEL made no attempt to maintain any Latin.

 

[manualman]

It’s important to remember what charisms the popes really have and what they don’t.

While the decision to retain sacred language for liturgy versus change to vernacular was certainly an important one, it hardly qualifies for the protection of infallibility!

The passage sounds to me like Paul VI decided that there was a profoundly building crisis of faith already coming and he believed that perhaps allowing people to use prayer language they actually understood might be helpful in prodding people towards an active living of the faith, rather than a passive submission to it. In hindsight, one can easily argue that it was a mistake. But one CAN’T reasonably say there was no crisis in the church at the time. All the rebellion, all the dissent, the majority of the abuser priests were already in place. It was the old catechesis and liturgy that existed when all those heretics were formed and educated. Clearly, then, it was no guarantor of ecclesial purity.

I do think we were substantially lied to by certain “Spirit of VaticanII” types. I don’t think Paul VI was one of them. The council documents themselves certainly don’t call for a purge of Latin or even the loss of ad orientum posture. Most of what traditional catholics despise were not products of the council at all.

Paul VI may not go down as the perfect pope, but I’m pretty sure he did a far better job than I could have. And who am I to complain if that’s the case?

 

[Cider]

If the Pope’s over the years didn’t want the changes that occurred they could have done something to stop them. What’s the saying “by their fruits” or something like that.

 

[ProVobis]

The passage sounds to me like Paul VI decided that there was a profoundly building crisis of faith already coming and he believed that perhaps allowing people to use prayer language they actually understood might be helpful in prodding people towards an active living of the faith, rather than a passive submission to it. In hindsight, one can easily argue that it was a mistake. But one CAN’T reasonably say there was no crisis in the church at the time. All the rebellion, all the dissent, the majority of the abuser priests were already in place. It was the old catechesis and liturgy that existed when all those heretics were formed and educated. Clearly, then, it was no guarantor of ecclesial purity.

Then it also can be argued that relearning (in many cases) the prayers in the vernacular when 70%+ already had been weekly exposed to the Gloria, Kyrie, Sanctus, Credo in the Latin was an unnecessary burden as well. Sure, had you taken a poll of churchgoers in 1966-67 as to which they preferred, they would have chosen the English but do realize that many voted with their feet as it seemed inevitable that the Mass that they did understand would disappear. I mean, it’s possible to understand the Latin Mass even if one doesn’t know Latin, given enough exposure to it.

Didn’t Paul VI make it a point to address those who favored Latin in his 1970 promulgation of his Missal? Certainly then there was a significant number who fell into that category. Did he feel it was out of his control to retain the Latin perhaps?

 

[sw85]

No, you SHOULD look into church history and be corrected and informed. Who is “they,” Latingirl? THEY is the Holy-Spirit-guided-Magisterium that promulgated this change. You left out a critical part of your quotes from the document.
As We said on another occasion, we shall do well to take into account the motives for this grave change. The first is obedience to the Council. That obedience now implies obedience to the Bishops, who interpret the Council’s prescription and put them into practice.

6. This first reason is not simply canonical—relating to an external precept. It is connected with the charism of the liturgical act. In other words, it is linked with the power and efficacy of the Church’s prayer, the most authoritative utterance of which comes from the Bishop. This is also true of priests, who help the Bishop in his ministry, and like him act in persona Christi. It is Christ’s will, it is the breath of the Holy Spirit which calls the Church to make this change. A prophetic moment is occurring in the mystical body of Christ, which is the Church. This moment is shaking the Church, arousing it, obliging it to renew the mysterious art of its prayer.

1. In every case, and at all times, let us remember that “the Mass is a Mystery to be lived in a death of Love. Its divine reality surpasses all words. . . It is the Action par excellence, the very act of our Redemption, in the Memorial which makes it present”.
   Either we believe the Holy Spirit guided this change,

… or we do not believe.

If we believe, then let us obey with a generous heart.

… if anyone does not believe, then join Luther and start a new denomination which will be more akin to one’s preferences.

Those are very strange words on Paul VI’s part.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

MODERATOR NOTE

Pope Paul VI is not on trial here. Either accept what he said or walk away from it. End of story. It is very bad example to non-Catholics when Catholics challenge the Holy See at every turn and question its every utterance. We’re not going to do that on this forum.

Use the forum wisely. Try to understand rather than to find fault at every turn.

 

[hoop0826]

It seems that in the NO, The Holy Spirit is urging us to re-examine our prayer, the prayer and Sacrifice of the Mass. Admittedly, it at times seems to have more of a secular touch to it than does the EF. Perhaps its gestation period for this change is a very long time? Can it be agreed that the liturgical music of the OF has not quite advanced in beauty as the EF has? Either way, it cannot be doubted that the faithful for the most part that I have met, are not indifferent to what goes on at Mass. I pray the Holy Spirit guide the OF of the Mass of the Church.