The Church may have had those things at various times, in her history, that now upset traditionalists. I doubt, however, she ever allowed them to be added or removed so abruptly in her rites. And in such a shifty way.
I stopped heeding the liberal point of view when I heard that the rites of exorcism and ordination had been changed. And that there were serious concerns from exorcists about the former.
The rite of ordination along with all of the rites for the sacraments were simplified. But the essence was kept. The validity and licaity is unquestionable.
The Exorcist was taken out when minor orders were changed to ministries. However, every bishop is supposed to have an exorcist. If he can’t find a priest who is willing to become one, then neighborhing dioceses can share one.
Roman Catholicism is now way too intellectualised. It’s become the plaything of theologians.
I won’t touch this one, because the man who edited the CCC and many of the documents of Vatican II is now sitting on the Chair of Peter and he is a great defender of Faith and Reason. He’s also a great defender of a more intellectual approach to the faith. He has said that the Christian needs an experience of Christ along with an intellectual understanding of Christ.
The clergy got bored with the old rite and made up another. That’s about it.
Not exactly, the clerg did not know what was coming. They were handed a new missal and told to get ready to celebrate it by such a date, just as they have been handed the revised version of the Roman Missal and told to get ready for Advent 2011.
In addition, much of what is now the Ordinary Form comes from monasteries and friaries. The Vatican slimply tweaked here and there to make it more appropriate for use in parishes. Most monasteries and friaries either had a rite of their own or had the Roman Rite in a much simpler form. Many had CITH, no kneelers, no Gregorian chant, unless you were a monastic order, and other things that we see in the Ordinary Form. Many of these older orders never adopted the Tridentine Mass. They kept doing what they had always done. Even the Franciscans who were the protectors of what would later become the Tridentine mass continued to celebrate it without the adaptations that Trent and Pius V made. They did not have do so.
I don’t think there is a case to be made for boredom among the clergy.
Please read my post again please.(#352) I have stated the language is NOT the issue!What is tabernacle taken out of main focus , communion becoming more of seeming like a memorial , fostering unbelief in the Real Presence ( belief down to 56%), The offertory has been changed to "Preparation of Gifts. Without a sacrifice there is no meal! Without belief in The real Presense and sacrifice there is no Mass.I thank the Brother for the good comments! However Brother I am speaking of BASIC Catholic belief here here.
This loss of faith was not triggered by the movement of the tabernacle or the change in the order of the mass. If that were true, how do we explain the millions of people who had this same conditions long before Vatican II and remained within the faith?
The lost of faith is due to the fact that society changed to a secular mindset and that those who were sitting in the pews, did not know that these things were part of the Church’s history, because the Church made a horrific mistake that she is now trying to correct. She asked priests who were religious to take over parishes and to run them as if they (the priests) were diocesan. As a result, the faithful were not exposed to these religious traditions as had been the case in the past. Prior to 1917 if you walked into a Dominican run parish you could tell that it was Dominican. The same for Franciscan, Carmelites and others that had very old customs. With clericalization of religious life, many religious lost their identity and were simply priests. Fastforward to 1967 and you have an entire generation of people who does not remember. When you bring back some of the practices from these religious tradtions, these poor folks analyze them using a very secular ruler. They come away with the wong conclusions. The Church was at fault for clericalizing religious orders and also for not teaching people where these apparently new rituals came from. I’ll grant you that. We did a horrible job at catechesis. We’re still not out of the woods. If the faithful were better educated in the rites and customs of the great religious movements in the Church, we would not be having these discussions. People would understand rather than be upset.
I have faith in the Catholic people. I believe that most do not want to obscure, blend, or unify the different charisms and how they come through in liturgy. This is part of the richness of the Church. To do this, we have a few rites: Dominican, Carthusian, Carmelite, Mozarabic, Ambrosian and Roman, two forms: EF and OF, and customs that are specific to each religious community where applicable.