Innovations following Vatican 2 - References Only

[Joysong]

Dear JNB,

Thank you so much supplying these links, the second of which seems to be more informative. That it overwhelms one to read it, is an understatement!
In the very beginning of your first link, I read:

A great deal has been said about the changes ("reforms’) made to the Catholic liturgy in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council. Both those who have accepted the changes, (and indeed those who have used them as a springboard towards a perception of liturgy as “ever-changing”), and those who reject the changes out-of-hand, have at times been passionate in their condemnation of each other. There has been “little” dispassionate debate. [emphasis mine]

This is what we can expect if the universal Church were to read these two articles. My first inclination was to ask myself the three important questions I have seen by phrased one of our saints (who?) … is it true?..is it necessary?..is it kind? That is, what responsibility do I have concerning this information before doing anything with it?

Obviously, it is one of those gray areas that is way beyond our ability to discern or obtain full knowledge of the facts. Scripture teaches us to lay aside those things which over our head or outside of our authority and keep our spirits in peace, trusting that which is beyond our jurisdiction to the Lord.

My decision at this time is to affirm that the immutable parts of the liturgy have not been tampered with or changed -** nor can they ever be**, or else the Mass would not be Jesus’ true sacrifice, nor the Eucharist His true presence. We have Christ’s promise that He would be with us always, even to the end of time. I trust implicitly that the Holy Spirit will not allow anyone to change the words of consecration, and with that assurance, I suppose it is best to rest with that, and offer prayer that those in charge of our souls will ultimately hear God’s voice if anything is to be “reformed.”

Again, thanks for your hard work, JNB. God bless you.

Carole

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Joysong:

Diane,

The problem is that you read things into my words with a view to twisting or misunderstanding them, and I have no explanation for it other than a conscious or unconscious difference of opinion based on personality — but not on my end, I assure you.

Read again, please: How would the annual Christmas and Easter people ever learn what is appropriate?

It is no secret that the people who read these threads have also seen your “complaint” of the Christmas Eve celebration where the Christmas people did not know what was appropriate and created a fiasco. How you concluded I was complaining about the rite itself is beyond me, other than as I said, a conscious or unconscious decision to see my words as arbitrary, and take continual offense . . . and then subsequently discredit me publicly.

Back to discussion about reminders before mass. I posted yesterday a gentle reminder that is in regular Sunday use at a parish in Florida, which is a good practice, and quite brief. And in your case as with EWTN’s gentle reminder about communion, also very appropriate.

But for a Christmas/Easter crowd who need instruction on a multitude of things that they do not understand, it would take up a rather lengthly session to teach it all and set an uncomfortable, and IMO, an unwelcoming tone on such a solemn occasion. We sometimes just have to bear with it and excuse their ignorance, hoping they will come back during a time when these instructions may become more a part of their piety, through observance of those who know them.

It would be best if you simply didn’t mention names unless you pull a direct quote and address it that way. You are misunderstanding me, and I am misunderstanding you. If you are responding to someone else’s question and want to address a quote I’ve made, copy it in and refer to it that way so that it is in context.

One thing I don’t do is go into another post or thread and mention what others are saying. If I need specifics I copy and quote rather than try to parahrase or summarize someone else’s position.

Actually, any point could be made without naming names. In this way, it does not make it personal.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Let me explain this in another way, since it did not come across as I intended. I probably should not have addressed it in the first place, because it was truly a form of thread drift anyway and I’m only contributing to it. I did so, because I felt my original position in another thread had been misrepresented here (which can affect my reputation on these forums), and I still feel this way (which is why, as I state above, it is good not to explain other people’s positions in your posts, as opposed to copying and addressing them within the threads they reside).

You said:

Joysong
How would the annual Christmas and Easter people ever learn what is appropriate? Or those who came only once in awhile? Solemn feasts such as these two are not the appropriate time for the priest to issue guidelines from the pulpit. This was one of Diane’s complaints for Christmas Eve regarding the rite of peace. Yet how would these people know any better? It seems to me that a sour tone would overshadow a holy celebration had the priest chastised them or voiced a teaching series of no-nos before mass. :nope:

First of all, I have said in that previous thread, that these things can be taught with kindness, charity. Teaching does not have to be “sour” and truly, that has as much to do with how people “receive” the lesson as it does with how it is communicated. If a pastor knows that a significant number of C & E Catholics are coming _easy to assume in today’s climate), we can also assume that large numbers have not been to confession (though some may have been).

With thatt in mind, if a pastor uses it as an opportunity to remind people, in a kind and charitable manner, that:

A) Silence should be observed in the Church, especially during Holy Mass out of repsect for the Blessed Sacrament, and out of respect for others who are praying.

B) Holy Communion should be received worthily and that sacramental confession should be used if one is in serious sin.

If any person sitting in the pew looks upon such a message, communicated with kindness and charity prior to Mass as “sour” then the priest is not the problem, but the recipient. If any person is expecting to come to Holy Mass, whether it is Christmas, Easter or ordinary time, and doesn’t want anyone telling them what to do, or doesn’t want challenges, then they must be coming to Mass in order to satisfy some self-serving “feel good” notion or phony sense of obligation.

In fact, they ought to consider reflecting on the sin of pride if they are annoyed with the fact that a Catholic priest would dare to remind Catholics in a Catholic Church about these basic things.

As I stated earlier, it was one such kind and charitable reminder, made gently, but firmly, that made me finally stop and think about what I was doing.

Giving counsel is an act of charity. It is misguided charity to avoid counsel because someone may think it is “sour” or they may get offended. When these people do not come to Church any other time, there is only one opportunity to explain behavior in Church - Before, during or after the Mass. And, by reminding them of one key precept of the Catholic Church - that is to assist at Mass each Sunday and Holy Day of obligation - it cold be the very thing that prompts them to come back. I was one step away from seriously skipping out on weekly Mass and it was the gentle, but firm reminders at Grotto that turned me around.

Once again, I’m glad they weren’t so overly-“charitable” as to not want to bruise my feelings over pointing out what the Catholic Church considers sinful behavior, and appropriate behavior during periods where silence should rule.

 

[Joysong]

Dear Diane,

Joysong:

How would the annual Christmas and Easter people ever learn what is appropriate?

Or those who came only once in awhile? Solemn feasts such as these two are not the appropriate time for the priest to issue guidelines from the pulpit. This was one of Diane’s complaints for Christmas Eve regarding the rite of peace. Yet how would these people know any better? It seems to me that a sour tone would overshadow a holy celebration had the priest chastised them or voiced a teaching series of no-nos before mass.
*

From the blue highlights, the sense of my message was to indicate a lack of knowledge on the part of these people. I’m glad you were able to understand me more clearly, and yes, I agree it will be better to just post the reference, for the most part, if it is relatively close with few other posters in the middle.

There have been times that I have seen an unnamed quote in a thread that went so fast with several pages and posters, that it becomes impossible to find the OP’s train of thought in order to respond intelligibly, so I think we have to use discretion about this. I wish people would have at least printed the post number. Anyway, I will try to be more careful in the future. Thanks for your help.

With regard to the word “sour”, I expressed it as “it seems to me,” because of a priest giving instruction on the rite of peace as was mentioned in my post above, and not at all referring to the other good practices you mentioned. If I heard words like, “When you wish your neighbor the peace of Christ, do not talk too long, too loudly, or to too many people, or include other topics such as Merry Christmas, etc., etc.” – then I would feel unwelcome, and it could influence me negatively for coming back. I tried to put my shoes on their feet and see how it might affect their Christmas joy.

Once again, I see possible misunderstanding. Duh! Maybe some day we’ll get it right all the time. Maybe we could read good motives in one another’s words? I’ll certain try my best.

Carole

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Joysong:

Dear Diane,

From the blue highlights, the sense of my message was to indicate a lack of knowledge on the part of these people. I’m glad you were able to understand me more clearly, and yes, I agree it will be better to just post the reference, for the most part, if it is relatively close with few other posters in the middle.

There have been times that I have seen an unnamed quote in a thread that went so fast with several pages and posters, that it becomes impossible to find the OP’s train of thought in order to respond intelligibly, so I think we have to use discretion about this. I wish people would have at least printed the post number. Anyway, I will try to be more careful in the future. Thanks for your help.

With regard to the word “sour”, I expressed it as “it seems to me,” because of a priest giving instruction on the rite of peace as was mentioned in my post above, and not at all referring to the other good practices you mentioned. If I heard words like, “When you wish your neighbor the peace of Christ, do not talk too long, too loudly, or to too many people, or include other topics such as Merry Christmas, etc., etc.” – then I would feel unwelcome, and it could influence me negatively for coming back. I tried to put my shoes on their feet and see how it might affect their Christmas joy.

Once again, I see possible misunderstanding. Duh! Maybe some day we’ll get it right all the time. Maybe we could read good motives in one another’s words? I’ll certain try my best.

Carole

Truce

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Deacon Ed:

continued from previous post:

As for standing – it’s in the GIRM!Note that the GIRM specifically addresses posture, and grants to bishops a certain amount of flexibility. The choice to stand for communion is granted to the episcopal conference (not to local dioceses) and the bishops of the United States have choosen to ask the faithful to stand, and this request has been approved by Rome as is evidenced by the GIRMSo, I’m not sure what it is you want to prove. Standing for communion, receiving communion in the hand are both approved by Rome for the United States. They were not actions dictated by the Church Fathers at the Second Vatican Council but were, rather, implemented by the appropriate authority in Rome (the pope or, at his direction, what is now called the CDW – Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

Deacon Ed

HI Deacon Ed,

Once again, you are somehow misunderstanding my intent. If you read carefully through my posts, at NO POINT have I ever argued that Communion in the hand or while standing is not licit or legitimate. This thread is not about what became legitimate years after Vatican 2.

People on this forum have eluded to changes that took place as a result of Vatican 2. You have proved my point that Vatican 2 DID NOT directly cause many of the changes we see today. Most of the changes were indirect, coming years later.

Furthermore, those things that the Holy See has identified as liturgical abuses in documents such as Redemptionis Sacramentum (by inferrence in its corrections), and in the writings of Cardinal Arinze were initially implemented by people who claimed they were done in the “Spirit of Vatican 2”

Here is what Cardinal Arinze had to say when addressing several of these things in this document::

“So there are problems. However, some of the problems were not caused by Vatican II, but they were caused by children of the Church after Vatican II. Some of them talking of Vatican II push their own agenda. We have to watch that. People pushing their own agenda, justifying it as the ‘spirit of Vatican II.’”

Now my original post did not question these things, rather it was to prove that Vatican 2 DID NOT directly give to us some of the things we see today, such as Communion in the hand. And one last time, I am not suggesting that Communion in the hand is not legitimate, as I know all too well that it is.

I am simply attempting to prove out the history and where it authentically came from. I don’t believe that Communion in the hand or the Versus Populum stance, for example, should have been driven as hard as they were, in some cases, bowling people over in a way that was shocking.

The Church has approved these things and that is fine. However, some of the same people who will staunchly defend these practices, will jump all over others who like the ad orientem posture and receiving on the tongue. These practices were never abolished and are legitimate preferences, just as much as those that are culturally popular.