Innovations following Vatican 2 - References Only

[Deacon_Ed]

continued from previous post:

As for standing – it’s in the GIRM!

Movements and Posture

1. The gestures and posture of the priest, the deacon, and the ministers, as well as those of the people, ought to contribute to making the entire celebration resplendent with beauty and noble simplicity, so that the true and full meaning of the different parts of the celebration is evident and that the participation of all is fostered.Therefore, attention should be paid to what is determined by this General Instruction and the traditional practice of the Roman Rite and to what serves the common spiritual good of the People of God, rather than private inclination or arbitrary choice.
   A common posture, to be observed by all participants, is a sign of the unity of the members of the Christian community gathered for the Sacred Liturgy: it both expresses and fosters the intention and spiritual attitude of the participants.
2. The faithful should stand from the beginning of the Entrance chant, or while the priest approaches the altar, until the end of the Collect; for the *Alleluia *chant before the Gospel; while the Gospel itself is proclaimed; during the Profession of Faith and the Prayer of the Faithful; from the invitation, *Orate, fraters *(Pray, brethren), before the prayer over the offerings until the end of Mass, except at the places indicated below.

They should, however, sit while the readings before the Gospel and the responsorial Psalm are proclaimed and for the homily and while the Preparation of the Gifts at the Offertory is taking place; and, as circumstances allow, they may sit or kneel while the period of sacred silence after Communion is observed.

In the dioceses of the United States of America, they should kneel beginning after the singing or recitation of the *Sanctus *until after the *Amen *of the Eucharistic Prayer, except when prevented on occasion by reasons of health, lack of space, the large number of people present, or some other good reason. Those who do not kneel ought to make a profound bow when the priest genuflects after the consecration. The faithful kneel after the *Agnus Dei *unless the Diocesan Bishop determines otherwise.

With a view to a uniformity in gestures and postures during one and the same celebration, the faithful should follow the directions which the deacon, lay minister, or priest gives according to whatever is indicated in the Missal.

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 GIRM

1. It is up to the Conferences of Bishops to decide on the adaptations indicated in this General Instruction and in the Order of Mass and, once their decisions have been accorded the *recognitio *of the Apostolic See, to introduce them into the Missal itself. These adaptations include

• The gestures and posture of the faithful (cf. no. 43 above);

• The gestures of veneration toward the altar and the Book of the Gospels (cf. no. 273 above);
• The texts of the chants at the entrance, at the presentation of the gifts, and at Communion (cf. nos. 48, 74, 87 above);
• The readings from Sacred Scripture to be used in special circumstances (cf. no. 362 above);
• The form of the gesture of peace (cf. no. 82 above);
• The manner of receiving Holy Communion (cf. nos. 160, 283 above);
• The materials for the altar and sacred furnishings, especially the sacred vessels, and also the materials, form, and color of the liturgical vestments (cf. nos. 301, 326, 329, 339, 342-346 above).
Directories or pastoral instructions that the Conferences of Bishops judge useful may, with the prior recognitio of the Apostolic See, be included in the Roman Missal at an appropriate place.

So, 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

 

[Joysong]

Thanks so much Deacon Ed — you have been so helpful to us! God bless you!

I thought it good to mention another V-2 directive in Art. 37:

Even in the liturgy, the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters which do not implicate the faith or the good of the whole community; rather does She respect and foster the genius and talents of the various races and peoples. Anything in these peoples’ way of life which is not indissolubly bound up with superstition and error, She studies with sympathy and if possible, preserves intact. Sometimes in fact, She admits such things into the liturgy itself, so long as they harmonize with its true and authentic spirit.

An example of this “sympathy” was to grant permission to the US to kneel during the Eucharistic Prayer. How truly understanding and considerate of our local piety.

There are persons who want every “**i” **dotted and "t" crossed with exactitude, which is not fully in harmony with the wishes of the Council. It almost seems like the insecurity of children, to me, who require boundaries and limits, unable to walk in the freedom of God’s adult children, to respect the differences in culture and worship, and enter into spiritual adoration with those in its company.

Carole

 

[Joysong]

Diane,

Notice the word"lawfully" in red. If a parish or diocese/region has been given some kind of permission - lawful permission - to do something, and they continued for 30 years with a particular, shall we say, temporarily lawful custom, then I agree with this paragraph.

See my post #39, where in Art. 40 of the V-2 documents, the Bishops were lawfully given permission to implement temporary changes of a trial nature. Since the Church is not a democracy with the populace entitled to a vote on whether or not they approved of these, we have to accept that the Bishops, after submitting their report of these “innovations” and found them basically acceptable, they were adopted permanently.

As will usually happen, even in our democratic society, two schools of thought will emerge - some pro and others con - and the minority will holler and protest to the high heaven;
however, the Bishops have a duty and responsibility to foster the common good of all.

Carole

 

[JNB]

Vatican II did not give a blank check to bishops and their conferences to change the liturgy at all, and in fact, all experiments in fact had to be allowed by Rome, though it did not work out this way. For whatever reason, Paul VI was forzen in place, unable to react to the whirlwind dissent that took place before the ink dried on the documents of the council.

Joysong:

Diane,

See my post #39, where in Art. 40 of the V-2 documents, the Bishops were lawfully given permission to implement temporary changes of a trial nature. Since the Church is not a democracy with the populace entitled to a vote on whether or not they approved of these, we have to accept that the Bishops, after submitting their report of these “innovations” and found them basically acceptable, they were adopted permanently.

As will usually happen, even in our democratic society, two schools of thought will emerge - some pro and others con - and the minority will holler and protest to the high heaven;
however, the Bishops have a duty and responsibility to foster the common good of all.

Carole

 

[JNB]

The only way we can be with the wishes of the council is to read the documents themselves, if not then there is confusion. The documents can only be read in light of existing church teachings in tradition, and in no other way.

Joysong:

Thanks so much Deacon Ed — you have been so helpful to us! God bless you!

I thought it good to mention another V-2 directive in Art. 37:

An example of this “sympathy” was to grant permission to the US to kneel during the Eucharistic Prayer. How truly understanding and considerate of our local piety.

There are persons who want every “**i” **dotted and "t" crossed with exactitude, which is not fully in harmony with the wishes of the Council. It almost seems like the insecurity of children, to me, who require boundaries and limits, unable to walk in the freedom of God’s adult children, to respect the differences in culture and worship, and enter into spiritual adoration with those in its company.

Carole

 

[JNB]

Bishops conferences has no real authority in the magesterium, and even a progressive Archbishop said it was the equivlent of an association of independet grocers. With this in mind, Bishops have the power to dispense parishes of so called liturgucal norms. Detroit again provides many examples in both direction. On one hand, many suburban parishes that have no kneelers in the Detroit suburbs are allowed to stand for the canon of the mass, on the other hand, there are about a half dozen parishes in the Detroit archdiocese that are allowed to kneel for communion at rails and in one case at kneelers.

Of course, in many cases Bishops yeild their God given authority to such conferences, but the reality is now as it was before Vatican II, bishops are subject directly to Rome, not their Metropolitants or conferences.
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

 

[Joysong]

Dear JNB,

Vatican II did not give a blank check to bishops and their conferences to change the liturgy at all, and in fact, all experiments in fact had to be allowed by Rome, though it did not work out this way.

You can prove this? While the document Sacram Liturgiam did grant authority to a commission to implement changes, those whom the Pope appointed were obligated to submit their conclusions to Rome for final approval. On that part of your statement, we agree, but that they did not have authority to begin the process is not what I understand as true. Unless, of course, you are referring to the present time after all the changes have already been concluded? Have you read this from Deacon Ed?

The actual revision of the liturgy was turned over to a committee of experts in liturgy, theology, history, and related areas. It was these experts who, in conjunction with Pope Paul VI, produced the Mass of Paul VI that we celebrate today.

The permission was given in* Sacram Liturgiam,* also mentioned earlier in the thread.

Carole

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Deacon Ed in Post 93:

Diane,

The problem that I see in your request is that you ask for documentation for things that were never ordered. For example, the removal of altar rails was never ordered by Vatican II (or any other offical Church document) nor has any official document addressed the removal of altar rails. Rather, they were removed by some well-meaning people who were attempting to do what they *thought *Vatican II was saying by emphasizing the priesthood of all believers. Unfortunately, they got it wrong! By removing the altar rails they helped to remove the sense of the sacred that has led to much of the loss of reverence we see in the Latin Rite Church today.

I couldn’t copy it all, so I’ll only bring this across from your post Deacon. What I have in red is precisely what I’m looking for proof on. Why? Because people on these forums have asserted that things like standing for Holy Communion was ordered by Vatican 2, or somehow directly written into V2 communications. Sure, it was approved many years after Vatican 2, but what prompted it in the first place was truly a violation of the written norm of the time - was it not?

I agree with you that no one meant any harm by it and it was not intended to be mean-spirited. However, I don’t know that younger people, including myself have any clue how devastating this was for significant numbers of Catholics, while at the same time seemingly liberating for others. Those who feel liberated by the practice seem not to have empathy for those who were, imho, wrongly denied the right (when it was forced) to continue receiving in a manner prescribed within the norms of the time (before approval was given years later).

Now, some of these Catholics come along and take issue with the fact that people want to receive kneeling and on the tongue.

So, what I am trying to do is to show anyone who is truly interested that what we have today, did not come about the way that we all now kneel from after the Sanctus to the great Amen. That is, we were instructed to do this just a few years ago by the Holy See, and it was in writing, and it is in the GIRM. The change did not take place as the result of large groups of people violating some written norm, to the best of my knowledge.

While some bishops desired not to prohibit hand holding - as one bishop put it - because it is common to the African-American culture and it would be insensitive to prohibit it (paraphrased from an earlier post where this was copied), people today seem to have no sensitivity towards Catholics with a traditional preferences, just as they did not have sensitivity 40 years ago. In fact, I believe the persecution is far worst today.

Genuflect exactly as the GIRM specifies and you will get stares because the unofficial US “norm” is what I call, “The Sunday Limp”. This is where people - men, women, children that are fully able bodied, simply do a modified courtsey as they enter the pew, if there is a genuflect at all. . Genuflect with one knee to the ground and make a sign of the cross before rising and you will get those stares. No offense to todays Catholics because I’m willing to bet they have not been taught - not in catechism, not in their families, and certainly not from the pulpit. Not saying something for the last 40 years is as effective as teaching people that they should courtsey their way into the pew each time. This whole scenario became visible to me when the priests at Grotto talked about reverence and the humility it requires over several sermons one Sunday. It seems that despite all of the by-the-book genuflecting, they felt there was room for improvement in the reverence department. No one complained, rather all of us looked inward to see if we were giving the Blessed Sacrament due respect.

We wonder why such vast numbers of Catholics no longer believe in the Real Presence, yet can’t see such connections.

But, while some go around arguing for enforcement of communion while standing, for those whom the Vatican says can rightly receive kneeling - all on the basis of “uniformity”, they don’t seem to miss that segment of the GIRM which speaks about genuflection, bows from the waist and bows of the head. Of course, that is already uniform since it is basically unseen. So, yet another non-norm, norm is being created that once it is here 30 years can be effecitvely written into law.

This is how things have been done in the west for the past 40-50 years, so why stop now?

 

[SnorterLuster]

I just noticed the last sentence in this:

In reply to the request of your conference of bishops regarding permission to give communion by placing the host on the hand of the faithful, I wish to communicate the following.

Pope Paul VI calls attention to the purpose of the instruction “Memoriale Domini” of 29 May, 1969, on retaining the traditional practice in use. At the same time he has taken into account the reasons given to support your request and the outcome of the vote taken on this matter. The Pope grants that throughout the territory of your conference, each bishop may, according to his prudent judgment and conscience, authorize the introduction in his diocese of the new rite for giving communion. The condition is the complete avoidance of any cause for the faithful to be shocked and of any danger of irreverence toward the Eucharist.

So can anyone say, in all honesty, that the bishops used prudent judgement in pushing communion in the hand? And can you honestly say that there was/is the COMPLETE avoidance of shocking the faithful and that the reverence is now not less than when communion was given on the tongue?

Maybe it is time to remove the grant that Pope Paul allowed since the conditions for that grant have not been met.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

SnorterLuster:

I just noticed the last sentence in this:

So can anyone say, in all honesty, that the bishops used prudent judgement in pushing communion in the hand? And can you honestly say that there was/is the COMPLETE avoidance of shocking the faithful and that the reverence is now not less than when communion was given on the tongue?

Maybe it is time to remove the grant that Pope Paul allowed since the conditions for that grant have not been met.

And, once again, I’ll accept as valid data, anyone living through that time period wanting to help us younger Catholics and converts understand what kind of emotions this did stir. I have had several people who were children talk about how traumatic it was for them and some of these people are now lapsed.

I’m working right now on getting a co-worker to come to Grotto because he once told me a few years ago that he really longed for the faith, but just couldn’t handle the folk music, and progressive agenda. Some would say that it is his problem. But, the same people have no problem accomodating converts whom they believe have a desire for protestant-like services (and I find a good number of them seeking more traditional liturgies, as well). I’ve met many who were so disoriented by the changes that they fell away. One segment of Catholics were alienated in order to accomodate the desires of others, rather than trying to find a middle ground.

 

[JNB]

Actually in 1967, a majority of the worlds Bishops did not approve of the radical changes that initially came from the comission, it was rejected, of course at the time many of the traditional bishops because of age were rapidly being replaced by “innovators”. The Novus Ordo came about in the end on the authority of Pope Paul VI in 1969. Paul VI was not based on what I read a top down leader, but more someone who cosulted, and therefore, did not use the full extent of his authority, hence, one reason why so many problems developed sadly(though in his later years he started to reassess some things), but again, if it didnt want it to happen, there would have been no Novus Ordo.

Joysong:

Dear JNB,

You can prove this? While the document Sacram Liturgiam did grant authority to a commission to implement changes, those whom the Pope appointed were obligated to submit their conclusions to Rome for final approval. On that part of your statement, we agree, but that they did not have authority to begin the process is not what I understand as true. Unless, of course, you are referring to the present time after all the changes have already been concluded? Have you read this from Deacon Ed?

The actual revision of the liturgy was turned over to a committee of experts in liturgy, theology, history, and related areas. It was these experts who, in conjunction with Pope Paul VI, produced the Mass of Paul VI that we celebrate today.

The permission was given in* Sacram Liturgiam,* also mentioned earlier in the thread.

Carole

 

[Joysong]

Dear JNB,

Again, how did you find this information to prove it factually? Where is it recorded that the majority of the world’s Bishops did not approve the changes? None of us can repeat it with authority saying, “it is true because JNB on C.A. Forum said so.” We would raise a few eyebrows, no?

Actually in 1967, a majority of the worlds Bishops did not approve of the radical changes that initially came from the comission, it was rejected, of course at the time many of the traditional bishops because of age were rapidly being replaced by “innovators”.

 

[Joysong]

Diane:

And, once again, I’ll accept as valid data, anyone living through that time period wanting to help us younger Catholics and converts understand what kind of emotions this did stir. I have had several people who were children talk about how traumatic it was for them and some of these people are now lapsed.

I most definitely lived through it all, and maybe you read my testimony in a thread somewhere on the forum, how my deep conversion coincided at the time of the changes. My love for Christ was so great, and my gratitude so overwhelming to be back in the Church, that none of it bothered me in the slightest. As St. Francis once said when he kissed the hands of priest who was living irregularly, “These hands give me Jesus!” As long as the hands of the priest in any church I attend give me Jesus, I am ok with the Mass.

My feelings can be summed up every time I hear these words in the Eucharistic Prayer, “We thank you for counting us worthy to stand in Your presence and serve You.” Yes, I am grateful to God for calling a priest to dedicate his life to bring me the mass and sacraments for my eternal benefit. Some areas of the U.S. do not have the privilege of daily mass, as I do, and some people are not even able to celebrate once weekly on a Sunday, but have communion services only. I count my blessings as one who is wondrously endowed!

Those who leave over minor infractions which do not affect the immutable parts of the mass are doing themselves a terrible injustice by depriving themselves of the strengths for which Christ died, in order that we might have salvation. It is heartbreaking that their reason has become blind, but our wills are free. We recall from scripture that Jesus did not run after the crowd when they left Him because they had a problem accepting His words re the Bread of Life.

My own mother was a lapsed Catholic, because of the “protestant” words following the Our Father being added. OTOH, I know my mother’s faith was extremely shallow, and she was not one to frequent the sacraments. Nor did she seek help in talking it over with a priest.

Carole

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Joysong:

I most definitely lived through it all, and maybe you read my testimony in a thread somewhere on the forum, how my deep conversion coincided at the time of the changes. My love for Christ was so great, and my gratitude so overwhelming to be back in the Church, that none of it bothered me in the slightest. As St. Francis once said when he kissed the hands of priest who was living irregularly, “These hands give me Jesus!” As long as the hands of the priest in any church I attend give me Jesus, I am ok with the Mass.

My feelings can be summed up every time I hear these words in the Eucharistic Prayer, “We thank you for counting us worthy to stand in Your presence and serve You.” Yes, I am grateful to God for calling a priest to dedicate his life to bring me the mass and sacraments for my eternal benefit. Some areas of the U.S. do not have the privilege of daily mass, as I do, and some people are not even able to celebrate once weekly on a Sunday, but have communion services only. I count my blessings as one who is wondrously endowed!

Those who leave over minor infractions which do not affect the immutable parts of the mass are doing themselves a terrible injustice by depriving themselves of the strengths for which Christ died, in order that we might have salvation. It is heartbreaking that their reason has become blind, but our wills are free. We recall from scripture that Jesus did not run after the crowd when they left Him because they had a problem accepting His words re the Bread of Life.

My own mother was a lapsed Catholic, because of the “protestant” words following the Our Father being added. OTOH, I know my mother’s faith was extremely shallow, and she was not one to frequent the sacraments. Nor did she seek help in talking it over with a priest.

Carole

I’m glad for you that you had a positive experience with it. However, I know from talking to others that the following statement from Paul VI was not honored everywhere (from your post further up):

**The condition is the complete avoidance of any cause for the faithful to be shocked and of any danger of irreverence toward the Eucharist.

**It would be plain silly of anyone to think that 100% of the people were traumatized the way my sister was as a little girl (and she is not lapsed, but every now and then, talks with great emotion about how awful the experience was). To say she was shocked would be an understatement. And, I would hope that you would not attribute all “shock” to the lack of virtue on the part of communicants as opposed to some of it belonging to those implementing the changes forcibly. Unless we had the gift of being in every parish implementing it back then, I simply can’t assume these people were all lacking virtue, who felt it was a shocking and painful experience. I can’t judge those who lapsed away due to “shock” as being less than virtuous, as opposed to simply “shocked” by the manner in which it was implemented It is never right to abandon the faith over liturgical issues and people bear true abuses all the time. So, I’m not talking only about those who lapsed away due to the shock of uncharitably forced changes.

Furthermore, I believe some parishes, and diocese, if not many, were giving people the impression that they HAD to do this. Yet, Paul VI made it clear that the traditional method should be available and people should not be hindered in receiving this way. My sister didn’t talk about being given a choice…at all. To receive on the tongue was an option, not a requirement. So, if in your parish you were made to feel comfortable either way, that was great. I don’t think it went down that way everywhere.

We still have people today being denied Holy Communion because of the manner in which they choose to receive, though valid per the Holy See (based on letters acknowledged by the Vatican) and posts in these forums where people have recently witnessed it. How many more were denied in those early days when priests and bishops were trying to make the changes?

So, just curious, was it implemented at your parish in 1969, or did it happen years earlier? Did they make you comfortable receiving either way, as Paul VI wanted?

 

[Joysong]

Dear Diane,

I was not under the impression you were asking solely about communion, but that you included the changes you listed in your first post. Therefore, I replied generally concerning most of these changes that began to occur in the Mass over a period of time.

For the innocents who truly experienced the abuse like your sister, I have the deepest sympathy for their sufferings. In giving the example of my mother, I did not mean to imply that all others were lacking virtue.

So, just curious, was it implemented at your parish in 1969, or did it happen years earlier? Did they make you comfortable receiving either way, as Paul VI wanted?

I honestly cannot remember dates that far back with any amount of certainty, but I recall having received a great deal of instruction about many of the changes from the pulpit. So I would say, yes - I was comfortable either way, for the priest did give all of us a choice.

Carole

 

[fix]

Joysong:

Dear Fix,
This will help clarify the former Art. 22 of the V-2 Document on Liturgy. Additionally, Art. 39 spells out some of their jurisdiction:…

Actually, It does not clarify that much. The pieces you pasted do not clearly answer many of the questions this thread poses. Recent history supports my assertion. Even among bishops we have conflicting views as to how much authority they have to manipulate the liturgy:

adoremus.org/0303BishopRules.html

Also from R.S.:

“Since he must safeguard the unity of the universal Church, the Bishop is bound to promote the discipline common to the entire Church and therefore to insist upon the observance of all ecclesiastical laws. He is to be watchful lest abuses encroach upon ecclesiastical discipline, especially as regards the ministry of the Word, the celebration of the Sacraments and sacramentals, the worship of God and the veneration of the Saints”.287

Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff.290 It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity.

If there were few problems why did the Pope allow this to be issued?

If bishops and others in positions would clearly inform the faithful why things were changing and give references I think much of the confusion and complaining would be lessened.

Even many of the Vatican documents say to avoid confusion among the laity explanation should be given.

 

[Joysong]

If bishops and others in positions would clearly inform the faithful why things were changing and give references I think much of the confusion and complaining would be lessened.
Even many of the Vatican documents say to avoid confusion among the laity explanation should be given.

I agree with you totally, Fix, but I cannot know whether or not this has been done sufficiently. In my case and that of many people I know, it was done well. What may have occurred in some instances is that these instructions were given to the faithful who come every Sunday and would not have missed them.

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:

Suppose along the way some of these people convert, yet missed the education altogether. Could it not be a true lack of knowledge that underlies their discontent? You and I are little grains of sand, and it humbles me to realize how inadequate we are to help them overcome their antipathy towards liturgy and/or priests. More and more I sense the importance of prayer with reparation.

I suppose I have implied a few times that it does little good to vent on a forum unless the person attempts to find the answers and learn the reasons why we celebrate in our current manner. The ones who do ask honest questions have my deep admiration and prayers, for I, too, once wore their shoes. I had much to learn all over again when I came back to the Church, and I beat a path to my pastor’s door to the find answers, and almost wore out my eyes reading. My husband used to tell me I was going to become blind!

Carole

 

[JNB]

Here is the source article
ad2000.com.au/articles/1994/feb1994p12_817.html

Here is the quote

** The detailed and often astounding workings of this machinery make fascinating reading: the novelty of having extra Eucharistic Prayers was the bright idea of one consultant (and certainly nothing to do with Vatican II); it was felt necessary to give the Council’s recommendation for a limited use of the vernacular a “broad interpretation”; the Consilium paid scant regard to the overwhelming rejection by the 1967 Synod of Bishops of the proposed new order of Mass,**

Anothers ource article is here
tanbooks.com/doct/vatican_liturgy.htm

Joysong:

Dear JNB,

Again, how did you find this information to prove it factually? Where is it recorded that the majority of the world’s Bishops did not approve the changes? None of us can repeat it with authority saying, “it is true because JNB on C.A. Forum said so.” We would raise a few eyebrows, no?

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

It’s late, I really don’t have time to read much of this, let alone respond after being gone all day. I have to get up in a few hours to start a new day, but I would like an explanation of this statement:

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:

My “complaint”, if that is what you want to call it, regarding the right of peace on Christmas Eve had nothing to do with the rite of peace itself, as I specified so many times it is getting nautious. It had to do with how people behaved during the time period that is suppose to have the sign of peace followed by silence until the Angus Dei begins. It is completely unnecessary for people to talk about the dinner roast in the midst of Holy Mass (and those doing it, were regulars I have seen in Church for decades prior to my leaving that parish a few months ago).

You continue to misrepresent my position, repeatedly, and I am trying to understand why you feel the need to do this? What purpose does it serve?

Furthermore, I have been in several parishes which DO instruct the faithful on the basics of things like worthy reception of Communion, right before Mass begins when there are large crowds of “outsiders”. This happened the first time I came to Assumption Grotto, after not having been to confession in nearly 2 years (but was receiving Communion), I headed that call to not receive because they dared to mention it before the Orchestral Mass, which does draw many outsiders, like myself. It is much like what EWTN has right before they go into the sacrifice of the Mass. That kind reminder, prior to Mass, made me think long and hard about what I had been doing. I wasn’t lapsed physically, but had been indifferent to my faith for the last 15 years or more. Grotto yanked me right out of that indifference very quickly and thrust me into the deepest inner conversion ever. Thank God they were not as “charitable” as you would prefer (by blind acceptance of what was obvious - people, en mass, going up for communion having come from parishes where confession is likely defunct), leaving me to continue on my sinful “everyone else is doing it” path. They were far more charitable in teaching me the truth and reinforcing that truth through their reminders.

Now, I would appreciate it if you would stop misrepresenting my position.

 

[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.