B
Big_Feet
Guest
Agreed. I find this especially apparent in this particular forum with regard to views on the OF of the mass.
- Status
M
moon1234
Guest
Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner. While following along in Mass is probably the best, maybe you lost a loved one recently or have some other spiritual need and praying the rosary is what you need. The mere fact that you are at Mass, are praying and focusing on God (Not off in la la la land assessing everyone elses means of prayer) already puts you far far ahead.
E
Exsilivm
Guest
If they did not know “what in the world” was being said, one wonders why they went at all.
D
DL82
Guest
One thing which Vatican II seems to have done is to recognize the importance of the subjective as well as the objective dimension of a soul’s disposition for salvation. It is possible to take the subjective dimension of human experience seriously without being a relativist, as the work of Bl John Paul II on the theology of the body clearly demonstrates. Of course, all the saints already said such things, St Thomas Aquinas for example, observes that for an act to be virtuous it must be both objectively so and perceived to be so by the person commiting the act.
The Council of Trent had focused on defining the objective dimension, as both Protestants and Catholics shared an implicit understanding that a soul needed to be well disposed in order to benefit from the grace of God, there was no need to state this. This had sometimes led some to focus on the objective dimension to the neglect of the subjective, believing that it was necessary to be Catholic before they could receive any grace at all, so to focus on making people Catholic first, before any attention could be paid to making them good. If we ignore the subjective disposition, it is better to be Mussolini than Albert Schweitzer - better to be an evil Catholic than a virtuous Protestant, as only the Catholic is in a position to receive the fullness of God’s grace - this is clearly an error.
One consequence of this is it made ecumenism impossible - approaching a problem such as opposing abortion or nuclear proliferation meant first of all converting people to Catholicism, and only then would they be able to bring about good ends. Instead, it is possible to unite with Protestants, Jews, and other people of good will to bring about such good ends, even while we work for their conversion.
I think in its consideration of the doctrine of the Church, Vatican II recognizes that the same subjective division passes through the visible Church and the world, the division between the disposition to follow God and the disposition to become our own gods, without in any way diminishing the Church’s understanding of itself as obejctively the fullness of the truth and the kingdom of God.
Of course, it is best to be a virtuously disposed Catholic, but there are people outside the visible Church who are making more progress by being virtuously disposed to the fragments of the truth they have, than people inside the Church who are ill disposed despite having the fullness of the Truth. There is a fine line between venerating the Church as instrument of God’s grace and worshipping the Church as if it were God, a fine line between doing God’s will and playing God, although only those who are both in the visible Church AND subjectively disposed to submit to her discernment, are able to know for sure whether they are in one group or the other.
I think the liturgical reforms also reflect this - a move away from an exclusive focus on the objective good of Christ’s becoming present to us in the Blessed Sacrament (Adoration) toward a focus on Christ’s intention of entering into a relationship with us through His presence (Communion) - ‘this is my body for you’.
So, both disposition (the universal vocation of the laity to sanctity) and proper ecumenism and communion, and this is my little take on how the three are related.
The Council of Trent had focused on defining the objective dimension, as both Protestants and Catholics shared an implicit understanding that a soul needed to be well disposed in order to benefit from the grace of God, there was no need to state this. This had sometimes led some to focus on the objective dimension to the neglect of the subjective, believing that it was necessary to be Catholic before they could receive any grace at all, so to focus on making people Catholic first, before any attention could be paid to making them good. If we ignore the subjective disposition, it is better to be Mussolini than Albert Schweitzer - better to be an evil Catholic than a virtuous Protestant, as only the Catholic is in a position to receive the fullness of God’s grace - this is clearly an error.
One consequence of this is it made ecumenism impossible - approaching a problem such as opposing abortion or nuclear proliferation meant first of all converting people to Catholicism, and only then would they be able to bring about good ends. Instead, it is possible to unite with Protestants, Jews, and other people of good will to bring about such good ends, even while we work for their conversion.
I think in its consideration of the doctrine of the Church, Vatican II recognizes that the same subjective division passes through the visible Church and the world, the division between the disposition to follow God and the disposition to become our own gods, without in any way diminishing the Church’s understanding of itself as obejctively the fullness of the truth and the kingdom of God.
Of course, it is best to be a virtuously disposed Catholic, but there are people outside the visible Church who are making more progress by being virtuously disposed to the fragments of the truth they have, than people inside the Church who are ill disposed despite having the fullness of the Truth. There is a fine line between venerating the Church as instrument of God’s grace and worshipping the Church as if it were God, a fine line between doing God’s will and playing God, although only those who are both in the visible Church AND subjectively disposed to submit to her discernment, are able to know for sure whether they are in one group or the other.
I think the liturgical reforms also reflect this - a move away from an exclusive focus on the objective good of Christ’s becoming present to us in the Blessed Sacrament (Adoration) toward a focus on Christ’s intention of entering into a relationship with us through His presence (Communion) - ‘this is my body for you’.
So, both disposition (the universal vocation of the laity to sanctity) and proper ecumenism and communion, and this is my little take on how the three are related.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Good point, especially since 70% of Catholics used to attend weekly Mass. Perhaps it was that sense of mystery surrounding the Holy Sacrifice, which everyday words of the vernacular seem to have eradicated. There are no doubt other reasons for the decline.
M
moon1234
Guest
One of the main reasons for the decline is this idea of the Eucharist no longer being a sacrifce, it is now understood that Jesus is coming to be with you, etc. The Mass is 100% about the representation of Jesus at Calvary. Bringing God to the level of friend, i.e. the Eucharist, makes the Mass a horizontally man focused exercise, when it is rightly a vertical exercise of man worshiping their one and only God.
It amazes me how twisted some of the ideas about the Eucharist have become. We receive Christ fully when we receive him in communion. We are the soldier who pierced Christ in the side and when the water and blood hit him he instantly knew what he had done and had received Chirst. THAT is how we are to receive communion. Not as some type of communing with God, etc.
Would anyone in England walk up to the queen and say “Let’s have lunch, you bring the food”?. No they would pay proper respect for her and her authority. The same should be true, much more actually, when we approach the only Lord that matters.
S
Schism_hater
Guest
If nothing else, Vatican II and its associated liturgical reforms did two great things:
- Restored the ancient epiclesis of the Holy Spirit to the Eucharistic prayers.
- Allowed for reception by the Laity of the Chalice on a regular basis. Unfortunately, the Council didn’t mandate that reception, and the lamentable practice of withholding the Chalice, even in the NO, is still going strong.
M
moon1234
Guest
Vatican II did not allow the reception of the precious blood. This was an indult given to some countries that expired over 15 years ago. Many diocese are now rightly restricting this practice as people think they are getting more graces be receving both when they are not. Receving the precious blood was ALWAYS allowed for a grave reason. (i.e. you have a sever medical reason)
T
TimothyH
Guest
L
Leon_Bloy
Guest
moon, I mean this with complete respect and with a shared concern with you about disrespect for and casual attitudes about the Eucharist.
But in fact many of my devotional books that are quite old - long before the Novus Ordo - emphasis that Jesus is somebody who comes intimately, as a friend, in fact, but that of course given who he is we need to prepare ourselves diligently and be as aware as possible of the immense and holy gift he offers us in himself in the Eucharist.
I fear that many people (I hate to use this word, but “traditionalists”) can have a tendency to react against abuses in such a way that is also one-sided. Making God remote and forbidding (without any sense of his fatherly love) was something that was a real problem for some people before Vatican II (though it wasn’t the Church’s fault).
Both of these attitudes have their proper places…
Also, neither Vatican II or the Novus Ordo ever denied that the mass is a sacrifice. It refers to sacrifice in the prayers and always did. Many things people object to in the Novus Ordo are not actually in its books, but are abuses of it that were never allowed and still are not, as common as they may be.
P
ProVobis
Guest
The reforms began in 1948 if not before. They first were manifested in 1955 with the Holy Week reforms and then in 1962 with the addition of St. Joseph in the Canon itself. (Each of these changes had already brought on some controversy.) Bugnini, first hired by Pius XII, was the apparent architect of these reforms, and as he was rehired by Paul VI after being fired by John XXIII, probably would have continued with the reforms even without Vatican II. Just saying.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Eventually it added the sacrifice to the definition. According to Gamber,
The Reform of the Liturgy, Monsignor Gamber, 1993, Una Voce Press
L
Leon_Bloy
Guest
My point is… the word sacrifice is actually used in the Novus Ordo itself. In fact, Eucharistic Prayer I (the Roman Canon) is almost word-for-word identical to that in the Tridentine.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I understand your point and it’s a valid one. But why there was an attempted redefinition of the Mass in the first place and stated in the Missal itself was a big concern at that time as well.
M
moon1234
Guest
I am not arguing that point. The way you present it is proper, but if you look back at previous posts we can see that people think the idea of the Eucharist being primarily a sacrifice has essentially been jetisoned by them. They, incorrectly, think that VII changed this focus. The modernists may have attempted to do this, but it is not in fact the case.moon, I mean this with complete respect and with a shared concern with you about disrespect for and casual attitudes about the Eucharist.
But in fact many of my devotional books that are quite old - long before the Novus Ordo - emphasis that Jesus is somebody who comes intimately, as a friend, in fact, but that of course given who he is we need to prepare ourselves diligently and be as aware as possible of the immense and holy gift he offers us in himself in the Eucharist.
I fear that many people (I hate to use this word, but “traditionalists”) can have a tendency to react against abuses in such a way that is also one-sided. Making God remote and forbidding (without any sense of his fatherly love) was something that was a real problem for some people before Vatican II (though it wasn’t the Church’s fault).
Both of these attitudes have their proper places…
Also, neither Vatican II or the Novus Ordo ever denied that the mass is a sacrifice. It refers to sacrifice in the prayers and always did. Many things people object to in the Novus Ordo are not actually in its books, but are abuses of it that were never allowed and still are not, as common as they may be.
I think many traditionalists are just tired of people who constantly esposuse all of the wonderful things from VII, when in reality most the “wonderful” things from VII were never actually asked for and are in truth abuses or pervisons of previous Catholic doctrine.
As for Bugnini you will find almost universally that most traditionalists will want a return to the 1955 missal with the addition the new feast and saints. Holy week was radically altered for no good reason. Much of what is done during Holy Week now according the 1962 missal can sometimes leave you scratching your head. When you look back to 1955 you see an Ahhhhh that is the context they are talking about.
Reform should be very slow, organic and only when it further clarifies truth. The Church should not and never be swayed by the whims of the current age.
M
moon1234
Guest
That is VERY easy to answer, to make the Mass more “Available” to protestants. Read up on the reforms of cranmer. That is essentially what the N.O. is. Once you read cranmers complaints of the Catholic Church (500 years ago) you will begin to see what the N.O. is and why many protestants behave the way they do.
There was an attempt with the N.O. to purge those elements that were too “Catholic” for those of other faiths to accept. Hence the dumbing down of the Mass as a sacrifice, the removal of mentions of sin, the omission of the Credo by many parish priests, the changing of the words of institution, etc. etc.
T
Thaelros
Guest
Didn’t Bugnini himself admit that he wanted to remove Catholic aspects of the Mass and put in Protestant aspects? In my opinion this almost borders heresy.
M
MarkThompson
Guest
Actually, no.
M
moon1234
Guest
Bugnini was a reformer, many suspect he was a freemasn, but like all reformers they never announce why they are doing what they are doing, they only say it will help (usually in some vague way).
The best way to look at a change is “How does this change further revealed truth? Does it enhance a previous understanding that was somehow lacking?”
That is organic development. Rupture happens when you change something that was done previously and that change has no real reason other than for the sake of change or some other trivial reason. We should always be working towards perfection in everything we do. That includes the liturgy. To just chuck a missal that dates back to the time of Christ and make up a new one to get in vogue with the times smacks of a very man centered philosphy.
That is why so many in the traditional movement have issues with the N.O. There is/was no organic development, it was rip and replace and then shutup about it or you will be punished.
T
Thaelros
Guest
Are you positively sure about this?
I found the quote:
“We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is for the Protestants."
- Status