Well Kirk, I kind of thought that the spirit aspect was obvious but yes, I guess thats true. We all should support Vatican II. However in all honesty there have been several councils that were later condemned by the church, who is to say that at some point down the road the same could not happen again?
Why? Most of us accepted through obedience what they threw at us back then. Why do you think people today would not as well? Are the people today somehow different in their interpretation of the faith then we were then? Is there some intrinsic difference with the Catholic of today and the catholic of 1965? Or is it as I somehow suspect, many today just plain would not accept any reforms that they did not personally care for? That would place them in roughly the same position as the very people they condemn so heartily these days. SSPX for example as well as others.
Walking_Home said:
Yes, and the Pope will more than likely want to avoid that, because if nothing else, the Church will surely have learned from the turmoil over the liturgy. We’re talking pragmatics, not the ideal.
Again Kirk, Why? What would make those today so much more prone to disobedience then we were in 65?
Throwing in my two cents when not asked, I think because so many have been rewarded and/or not penalized for disobedience for the last 40 years.
Walking_Home said:
Walking_Home said:
Not exactly worthy of a news bulletin to anyone who follows your posts.
Spot on! Every time John Kerry or Ted Kennedy rec. communion, from the hands of a bishop, no less…well, you know the drill.
I just don’t see wholesale abandonment of the vernacular. What I see is greater use of Latin - actually learning the Gloria, Pater, Agnus, Sanctus and some responses by their judicious use. Occasional all Latin Masses, but most Masses in the vernacular.
Yes, he was definitely talking about doctrinal dissent. At the same time, if a reformed liturgy makes you leave the Church, you didn’t quite believe what the Church really is. I agree with you that it would be unwise to revert wholly to Latin, especially because a 40-year culture of dissent has made Catholics (at least in America) far less likely to stick around and “take it.” Still, a Church without the metaphorical dead weight of those who would leave because of liturgical reform would indeed consist of a smaller, ‘purer’ element. I’ve suffered through liturgies so ridiculous I’ve cried, but that’s still no excuse for me to flee into schism.
I doubt anyone could seriously fault a return to moderately employed Latin- it is, after all, explicitly called for in Sacrosanctum Concilium that the laity be able to sing the ordinary of the Mass.
Andrea: Please see post #24. I’ve no intention of bolting into schism (though if the SSPX is admitted back without having to accept the Council and the Pauline Mass, what lesson would someone who was thinking about schism learn from THAT?). By your argument (“those who would leave because of liturgical reform”), aren’t we better off without the SSPX? Aren’t they the metaphorical dead weight in this instance? Believe it or not, there are lots of orthodox Catholics (which the SSPX claim to be) who are not going to be happy over lots more Latin (as the SSPX weren’t happy over the Pauline Rite).
Routinely my church celebrates the Missa Normativa with reverence, style, great music and usually very good homilies. Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, I frequently (say about 1 time per month on average) have to attend elsewhere. Sometimes it approaches unbearable.