Going Back

[Brownginger]

I have been thinking about the trend of returning to Pre-Vatican II. Our wonderful Holy Father wants every parish to have a Tridentine Mass, but there are few parishes that have altar rails anymore. Our Cathedral was gutted in the late '60’s, removing the traditional altar and installing dark wood wherever there was a place to make it appear modern. Now the new pastor has spent a fortune trying to undo all the harm, but the remodeling does not include an altar rail.

Given the efforts to return the parish to the traditional, it is extremely puzzling that we still sing Protestant hymns throughout the weekend Masses, even during Communion. I guess it is easier to bring in marble than a new Music Director and a Catholic hymnal! Or maybe there is still the mistaken belief that young people will respond to the music. That has to be it, because the “older” folks have just given up singing along (except for the zealots, who go along with everything they are asked to do, believing it must be right)

 

[Dauphin]

I have to take issue with the idea that we’re going back to pre-Vatican II times.

Catholic truth and authentic liturgy aren’t matters of chronology. The Holy Father is simply bringing us back into continuity with the past, and restoring the “Catholic” standard. We’re moving forward in a way which is not in rupture from what the Church has always done.

 

[Brownginger]

There would be nothing to “restore” and no break in the continuity except for Vatican II.

 

[GerardP]

The whole concept of “moving forward” and “going back” is not a Catholic attitude.

It is a progressivist model based on evolutionary thinking.

The Catholic position is a “stance” not a “movement” it clothes itself in different ways at different times but it is in the same place and must be or truth ceases to be the truth.

Development of doctrine is an enriched understanding of a set truth. Progressivists think truth changes and evolves.

The Eucharist will always be the Flesh and Blood of Our Lord.

The progressivists think that that concept will change to mean our unity together.

Fornication will always be mortally sinful.

Progressivists think the Church will “move forward” on these issues and find a way to let people screw around without doing something 'wrong".

We are a pilgrim Church but that is not the kind of “forward” or “backward” movement that is being discussed. We are on our way to Heaven and that is not forward nor backward, It is Eternal.

 

[markadm]

Exactly. We’re not “going back”.

Just as in the Mass we don’t believe strictly that the sacrifice happens again, but rather employ the Jewish concept (yet Greek-named) of anamnesis, so with these things we are simply returning or normalising to things which are truly Catholic. The Holy Fathers and others are simply exposing the jewels of our faith.

 

[ethelzguy]

Exactly. We’re not “going back”.

Consistient with my analogy of the TLM to a '57 Chevy, to some extent I would agree with you.

The MP did not “send us back” to the old Latin Mass. It encouraged the romanticized/restored model.

 

[ProVobis]

The MP did not “send us back” to the old Latin Mass. It encouraged the romanticized/restored model.

Let’s hope the honeymoon doesn’t wear off.

 

[markadm]

Let’s hope the honeymoon doesn’t wear off.

Exactly. I fear having a romanticised notion of it may be the wrong one (with all due respect!).

Whilst I may be fond of '57 Chevys, I should want to drive something similar maybe not for when it was built, but the quality of the engineering of the time. To extend the analogy, it is like people saying “they don’t make 'em like they used to!”.

 

[ethelzguy]

Let’s hope the honeymoon doesn’t wear off.

For the sake of those who prefer the TLM, I agree.

 

[Brownginger]

There is no question that doctrine is eternal; it is the accidents that were altered by Vatican II. For whatever reason the Holy Spirit guided the Fathers to make radical changes in the liturgical celebration. Some of those changes have been applauded almost universally; others are now being eliminated or brought into line with the intent of Vatican II.

Many have recently admitted the impropriety of things that were taking place at Mass; but the clergy were anxious to be seen as accommodating to the laity, and many members of the clergy themselves found an opportunity to excel individually even though there was never that license. Remnants of the improprieties will linger for decades. Once people are given an easy way to salvation, returning to the nuts and bolts necessary to worship God and to save one’s soul and to make possible the salvation of the world seems very difficult.

.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Given the efforts to return the parish to the traditional, it is extremely puzzling that we still sing Protestant hymns throughout the weekend Masses, even during Communion.

**What Protestant hymns are they singing?

(On a similar blog, I saw someone refer to “Faith of Our Fathers” as a Protestant hymn, which surprised me.)**

 

[Brownginger]

You may be fortunate enough to have a Catholic hymnal and/or a music director who chooses the Catholic hymns from another hymnal. We use “Worship,” published by GIA. There is no 'denomination" information for each hymn, but it is a dead giveaway when it says that a hymn is from the Lutheran Hymnal or was written by one of the Wesleys or Isaac Watts.

I researched all of the hymns – many were written by deacons or ministers of small sects. There are also many Catholic hymns in the volume, but they are selected perhaps once in four or five that are sung. We also have the usual missalette that provides a good number of Catholic hymns, but our music director only uses that when it would be really embarrassing not to sing Catholic hymns (except for some reason on Easter Sunday, when the Wesleys get top billing!).

Some Protestant hymns are beautiful – they should be, as in most denominations, they are the primary focus of the gathering. We “poor” Catholics attend Mass for the liturgy, the music intended to be part of the celebration. When we are compelled to sing songs that were not written for the liturgy, we are asked to do something wrong. We are diminishing the Eucharist. When we sing the words of Martin Luther, or worse, others who hated the Catholic Faith and wished its demise, we add their words to the Mass itself. It is as if Martin Luther were reading his prayers at Mass.

I always check the information as to the composer and lyricist; if I am not certain they were/are Catholic, I refrain from joining my voice with the few who are singing. If this is true of the recessional, I leave early. If everyone were to complain about this use of Protestant hymns at Mass, it might change things. The worst part is that at the young Catholics’ Mass, it is very difficult to get the information. When I attended that Mass, I was ignorant of the practice of using the evangelical/concert music. It angers me that anyone could even think of making that part of the Mass.

Liturgical music should not be just a few songs sung during otherwise quiet times. It is an intrinsic part of the liturgy. Even Catholic “hymns” should not be sung except before and after the opening and closing prayers, set to music, have been intoned. There are many reasons not to sing Protestant hymns other than those I have mentioned here; but you can find many Protestant hymns at most Masses in this Archdiocese, and the same is probably true where you are.

 

[scylla]

I would not blame the removal of Altar Rails on Vatican II but on people who took the encouragement of Vatican II to promote the faith as license to destroy parts of Catholicism.

I would not blame Vatican II, it is just sins of the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s which attacked the our beautiful Catholic faith.

So instead of promoting the faith they decided to find things they did not like and attacked them such as altar rails, respect for Christ, piety and faithful Catholicism.

It will take years to recover what we have lost but as people realize the destruction that has taken place we will rediscover the beauty of our faith.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[laudamus_te]

I would not blame the removal of Altar Rails on Vatican II but on people who took the encouragement of Vatican II to promote the faith as license to destroy parts of Catholicism.

I would not blame Vatican II, it is just sins of the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s which attacked the our beautiful Catholic faith.

So instead of promoting the faith they decided to find things they did not like and attacked them such as altar rails, respect for Christ, piety and faithful Catholicism.

It will take years to recover what we have lost but as people realize the destruction that has taken place we will rediscover the beauty of our faith.

In Christ
Scylla

I disagree, Vatican II IS to blame. The Church should have resisted the world and its errors, rather than “opening the windows” of the Church to the world. How else could the smoke of Satan so easily have entered the sanctuary?

 

[Brownginger]

There is no “blame” directed at Vatican II. It is the reference point – the event without which most of the abuses would not have come about. It is probable that there were always priests who had ambitions beyond their vows or female religious who wanted to be ordained and laity who wanted to be more “mainstream.” Without the teachings of Vatican II, there was no mechanism whereby they could viably attempt such theretofore taboo “reforms,” The mechanism that was referenced as means by which the Church wanted and was implementing extreme change to many parts of Catholic life was twisted by those with ulterior motives; the lack of intellectual ability and the desire to appear compliant in many, if not most, members of the hierarchy and especially in pastors, brought us to where we were before Papal wisdom began to tick the clock back.

 

[scylla]

I disagree, Vatican II IS to blame. The Church should have resisted the world and its errors, rather than “opening the windows” of the Church to the world. How else could the smoke of Satan so easily have entered the sanctuary?

Hmm , I will have to think about that…

If Vatican II was worded more straightforward we would not have the problems we have today… As it has been said the devil’s favorite color is grey…

But I am not so sure it was Vatican II, but a poor implementation and actual straight out abuse against the Christ afterward.

I will think about this and come back, thanks
God Bless
Scylla

 

[markadm]

Hmm , I will have to think about that…

If Vatican II was worded more straightforward we would not have the problems we have today… As it has been said the devil’s favorite color is grey…

Some of the documents are badly worded, but many of the things which we complain about were actually clear enough. I think there was wilful disobedience on the part of many following the Council.

 

[scylla]

Some of the documents are badly worded, but many of the things which we complain about were actually clear enough. I think there was wilful disobedience on the part of many following the Council.

Yes, I agree, there are some things that are kinda wishy washy, but it seems that most of the problems we have do not stem from Vatican II documents as they are pretty clear on many of the parts where there have been abuses.

So I will have to go back and digest this…

Thanks
Scylla