Mass--Too much change?

[theMutant]

Joysong:

Once again, we find that in the very first Council of Jerusalem, the apostles made an important proclamation, using these words: “For the Holy Spirit and we have decided to lay no further burden upon you but this indispensable one …” (Acts 15:28)

When the Vatican Council was called and decisions made regarding the new liturgy with the body of the Pope and Bishops, it could again be said that **the Holy Spirit and we **have decided, etc.

The problem with your example is that the Council of Jerusalem was dealing with a matter of faith; “Is circumcision required in order for Gentile coverts to join the Church?” The decision, which was indeed the Holy Spirit speaking through St. Peter was a declaration of doctrine. However, the changes to the liturgy are not a matter of faith or morals, they were made of the basis of perceived pastoral need. One is also led to wonder how, if the Holy Spirit guides the Church in establishing the liturgy after the pattern of the Heavenly liturgy, then why did the Church get it so wrong for so long.

The standardization of the Missal in 1570 was made after a great deal of research going back to the Apostolic origins of the Latin Rite. Any other liturgical rite that had not been in use for at least two centuries was eliminated and the “Tridentine” Missal became the standard for use throughout the entire Church. (Both Eastern and Western, by the way; although the Eastern Churches were welcome to maintain their liturgies that had existed for at least two centuries; many of which could also be traced back to the Apostolic origins of their own Rites.) Four hundered years later, we are presented with a new liturgy that is profoundly different. As had been posted earlier, the standardization of the Missal in 1570 was done in order to end confusion and abuse of the liturgy. The 1970 Missal has introduced so many options that there are nerely 40 million legitimate variations of the Mass and the average Catholic doesn’t know when illegitimate changes are being introduced. This has resulted in an increase of abuses (so much so that Rome has had to issue instructions on the matter). Combine this with the bad translations of the Missal into English and you have a recipe for disaster.

Yes, there are many of us who grumble about the changes, but I think it is unwise to automatically associate us with those who grumbled in the wilderness and couldn’t enter the Promised Land as a result. Is it not possible that we are like the remnant who grumbed in Jerusalem while the leaders of the Church followed their own inclinations? I am making no claims here; only pointing out that your choice of “grumblers” is biased by your own position. This is perfectly normal.

 

[Joysong]

Hi Palmas,

I was taught many years ago, that towards the end, the Catholic Church, being the body of Christ, would actually imitate Christ. It would live, be persecuted, convicted, crucified, in essence die and be resurrected in glory. It appears to me that we may be in those final stages or at least the beginning of them now., given the current state of the Church.

Very insightful, Palmas! I heard this explanation also, that just as Christ underwent crucifixion and death, so His mystical Body would also undergo a persecution and crucifixion. It is hard to know if we are in those days presently, but then, how do any of us know if we have tomorrow? (Especially at my age, ha!)

I don’t really think that the outward trappings of the Mass are really that important. What is important is the reverence that we bring to it, the faith that we have and the devotion that we express in it.

Absolutely beautiful! What more can I say?



Carole

 

[theMutant]

Joysong:

Dear Mutant,

I haven’t the faintest idea what you are getting at. My good friend Palmas misunderstood my meaning and the two of us are fine. He is a good person and has an open mind and heart.

But you, who should have noticed our coming together in the follow-up explanations, have apparently held some animosity.

I posted more than once in this section of the forum, that those who search out the documents on the Web because of not owning the actual book, will not find the complete supporting text to explain the documents. Those who are honestly searching are unknowingly deprived of the full truth, which often causes problems and misunderstanding. I actually gave another link for everyone to find the information themselves so they would have this information which is rightfully theirs. See post #78 in the Trad. Rite thread.

In no way was I being condescending, and if you read my words as carefully as you claim to have read the documents, you would know this.

Carole

Carole,

Please accept my apologies. I was not attempting to address the relationship between you and Palmas. I was pointing out that, in the very same post where he accused you of being condescending, he was being condescending. I have been involved in many discussions about the liturgy, both in this forum and elsewhere, and I have found that many of those who prefer the traditional liturgy do treat those who don’t with condescention. The result is that those to whom we are trying to make our points stop listening. If this was an unusual occurance for Palmas, I withdraw the comment. If he interpreted this as animosity toward him, I apologize and give my full reassurance that this is not the case.

You also seem to think that I was responding to and quoting you. It was not you, but Palmas who made those statements in post #20. However, your blue additions to my quote help to illustrate my point.

No wonder traditionalists like myself have such a hard time explaining the problems of the changes to those who don’t see them. (I can see why you would, especially when the truth is only half known – now that would make it hard to maintain one’s position and gain support, right?) How can you possibly justify a statement that “probably no one” (These were never my words!) has read all of the documents of Vatican II.

In what way is the truth only half known? I have a copy of the complete documents of Vatican II and it is from those that I base my opinion regarding the changes made to the Mass. When told by others that the changes were called for or in the “spirit of” Vatican II, I ask them to show me where. Not one has been able to do so to date. I gladly give you the opportunity to do so. If I am wrong, I will gladly recant my position.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

palmas85:

I admired and still do admire the Holy Father. He blazed new paths, new trails and tried things that no Pope had ever done before. He was truly a great and holy man. He reached out to Muslims, entering their mosques, and honoring their Koran, calling it holy and inspired by God. He reached out to Jews, reminding them that Christ himself was Jewish To Protestants telling them that Martin Luther was a seeker of divine truth and wisdom. He sat down with the Voodoo Priests of Haiti and told them the Catholic Church was interested in and accepted their religion. He participated in Hindu rituals and received the mark of Kali on his forehead. He apologized to all for the sins of the Catholic Church Almost singlehandedly he tore down many of the barriers that had been in place for eons. A true ecumenical icon indeed.

.

Do I see your tongue in your cheek, Palmas? One tiny little correction: He didn’t participate in Hindu rituals or receive the mark of Kali. It was, I think, called the NAMASTE, no more significant than a handshake and performed by a Catholic Indian woman (poor thing apparently wasn’t aware she was a rank pagan).

 

[Joysong]

Hello, David,

You also seem to think that I was responding to and quoting you. It was not you, but Palmas who made those statements in post #20

Oh how easy it is to get confused, and yes, I thought you were calling me uncharitable, re-using Palmas’s words. Apologies accepted, with much joy, as I do not any want ill-will between us.

However, your blue additions to my quote help to illustrate my point.
In what way is the truth only half known? I have a copy of the complete documents of Vatican II and it is from those that I base my opinion regarding the changes made to the Mass. When told by others that the changes were called for or in the “spirit of” Vatican II, I ask them to show me where. Not one has been able to do so to date. I gladly give you the opportunity to do so. If I am wrong, I will gladly recant my position.

I’m guessing you did not read my post #78, for it explained what I meant. You and I have the complete documents, because we own the book. This includes the *Instructions on the Liturgy *and the Commentary on each document, which are not available if anyone logs onto one of the many sites doing a google search to read the VII documents. The only thing they will find is the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, without obtaining the Instructions that further explain this document.

Look in your book at article #54, which seems to support completely that Latin is to be used, and traditionalists quote this and stand upon it, even to stating that the NO is sacriligeous (I just saw this here today, in fact - awful!). But the Instructions for that article elaborates further, that all of the proper parts of the mass are approved for the vernacular, and are to be implemented beginning in Lent 1965. This is what is missing on the website searches. And the faithful don’t even realize it, because how many of them have bought the book?

BTW, that example above is what I meant by grumblers. Very negative, unteachable, uncharitable, unyielding to the right of others to worship as they feel obliged, verbally denouncing and quenching the spirit of lawful worship. Shall we expect that God blinks his eye and is not concerned?

In citing the O.T. worship that God ordained, He only had one sacrificial liturgy, if you will. There was not a separate choice for those who thought their method was more authentic, more pure, more reverent, etc. This lack of unity is most disturbing, and I hope to do everything in my feeble power to heal the wounds.

That these folks were not admitted to the promised land, may be stretching it to apply the principle today, but it surely will have a detrimental effect on their spirituality until charity is resident within their hearts.
For those traditionists who honestly, quietly, reverently go about their own manner of worshipping God, I have deep respect. I pray their voice is heard by continuing efforts at dialog and understanding.

I hope to answer your other points shortly.

Kind regards,
Carole

 

[JNB]

The ordinary parts of the mass, such as the canon, the penitential rite, the gloria, the angus dei, the sanctus, the offertory are the unchanging parts of the mass. The Liturgical documents permitted propers, meaning the parts of the mass that change every week such as the readings to be said in the vernacular, but certainly did not mandate this. Reading the Vatican II liturgical documents and the 1965 missal, it can be said that the ordinary parts of the mass were not envisioned to be said in the vernacular, much less the large changes in the rubrics.

I have seen Novus Ordo masses celebrated with reverence, and these parishes produce many priestly and womens religous vocations, but they have many pre Vatican II elements such as use of the altar rails, no EMHCs, use of some Latin, no altar girls and in many cases, no female lectors either, and ironically, this style of worship comes closest to what the liturgical documents wanted. Conservely, many suburban parishes that are in wealthy areas and use every single innovation possible have not produced vocations in decades, prehaps there is a message here.

Joysong:

Hello, David,

Oh how easy it is to get confused, and yes, I thought you were calling me uncharitable, re-using Palmas’s words. Apologies accepted, with much joy, as I do not any want ill-will between us.

However, your blue additions to my quote help to illustrate my point.
In what way is the truth only half known? I have a copy of the complete documents of Vatican II and it is from those that I base my opinion regarding the changes made to the Mass. When told by others that the changes were called for or in the “spirit of” Vatican II, I ask them to show me where. Not one has been able to do so to date. I gladly give you the opportunity to do so. If I am wrong, I will gladly recant my position.

I’m guessing you did not read my post #78, for it explained what I meant. You and I have the complete documents, because we own the book. This includes the *Instructions on the Liturgy *and the Commentary on each document, which are not available if anyone logs onto one of the many sites doing a google search to read the VII documents. The only thing they will find is the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, without obtaining the Instructions that further explain this document.

Look in your book at article #54, which seems to support completely that Latin is to be used, and traditionalists quote this and stand upon it, even to stating that the NO is sacriligeous (I just saw this here today, in fact - awful!). But the Instructions for that article elaborates further, that all of the proper parts of the mass are approved for the vernacular, and are to be implemented beginning in Lent 1965. This is what is missing on the website searches. And the faithful don’t even realize it, because how many of them have bought the book?

BTW, that example above is what I meant by grumblers. Very negative, unteachable, uncharitable, unyielding to the right of others to worship as they feel obliged, verbally denouncing and quenching the spirit of lawful worship. Shall we expect that God blinks his eye and is not concerned?

In citing the O.T. worship that God ordained, He only had one sacrificial liturgy, if you will. There was not a separate choice for those who thought their method was more authentic, more pure, more reverent, etc. This lack of unity is most disturbing, and I hope to do everything in my feeble power to heal the wounds.

That these folks were not admitted to the promised land, may be stretching it to apply the principle today, but it surely will have a detrimental effect on their spirituality until charity is resident within their hearts.
For those traditionists who honestly, quietly, reverently go about their own manner of worshipping God, I have deep respect. I pray their voice is heard by continuing efforts at dialog and understanding.

I hope to answer your other points shortly.

Kind regards,
Carole

 

[Joysong]

Dear JNB,

The ordinary parts of the mass, such as the canon, the penitential rite, the gloria, the angus dei, the sanctus, the offertory are the unchanging parts of the mass. (Agreed)

Reading the Vatican II liturgical documents and the 1965 missal, it can be said that the ordinary parts of the mass were not envisioned to be said in the vernacular, much less the large changes in the rubrics.

.

These parts of the mass were permitted to be said in the vernacular, per the Instructions on the Liturgy. I don’t know why I am receiving controversy on this, except that folks have not read the couple of times I posted it. That is certainly understandable, for the threads have become so long, it would be easily missed. So here it is again:

catholicliturgy.com/inde…x/380/Start/378

V. PART ALLOWED THE VERNACULAR IN MASS (SC art. 54)

1. For Masses, whether sung or recited, celebrated with a congregation, the competent, territorial ecclesiastical authority on approval, that is, confirmation, of its decisions by the Holy See, may introduce the vernacular into:

the proclaiming of the lessons, epistle, and gospel; the universal prayer or prayer of the faithful;

as befits the circumstances of the place, the chants of the Ordinary of the Mass, namely, the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus-Benedictus, Agnus Dei, as well as the introit, offertory, and communion antiphons and the chants between the readings;

acclamations, greeting, and dialogue formularies, the Ecce Agnus Dei, Domine, non sum dignus, Corpus Christi at the communion of the faithful, and the Lord’s Prayer with its introduction and embolism.

Missals to be used in the liturgy, however, shall contain besides the vernacular version the Latin text as well.

The only explanation I can believe for it not being in the missal of 1965, as you stated above, was that it was not in print at that time, due to newly being implemented???
Instruction on the Liturgy:

This Instruction was prepared by the Consilium by mandate of Pope Paul VI, and presented to the Pope by Cardinal Giacomo Lercaro, President of the Consilium. After having carefully considered the Instruction, in consultation with the Consilium and the Congregation of Rites, Pope Paul in an audience granted to Cardinal Arcadio Maria Larraona, Prefect of the Congregation of Rites, gave it specific approval as a whole and in its parts, confirmed it by his authority, and ordered it to be published and faithfully observed by all concerned, beginning on the first Sunday of Lent, 7 March 1965.

If I am misunderstanding this instruction in any way, I would appreciate feedback, but to me, it seems conclusive.

Carole

 

[Joysong]

Dear David,

You:

The problem with your example is that the Council of Jerusalem was dealing with a matter of faith; “Is circumcision required in order for Gentile coverts to join the Church?” The decision, which was indeed the Holy Spirit speaking through St. Peter was a declaration of doctrine. However, the changes to the liturgy are not a matter of faith or morals, they were made of the basis of perceived pastoral need. One is also led to wonder how, if the Holy Spirit guides the Church in establishing the liturgy after the pattern of the Heavenly liturgy, then why did the Church get it so wrong for so long.

Maybe you can help me with this, David, for I need to ask what you consider to be a matter of faith or morals? Is not the sacred liturgy the highest matter of all, exceeding even that of a moral issue? It deals with the very essence of Christ’s paschal mystery celebrated at His command throughout the generations.

If it is a higher essence than even faith or morals, wouldn’t a change in the accidentals surrounding the immutable parts have the presence of the Holy Spirit guiding the Council in these deliberations? — especially when He is invoked to assist them? I have difficulty relegating the celebration of the Eucharist to being merely a pastoral matter. I’m afraid I need more proof.

And if the liturgy is of supreme importance, are not decisions concerning it to be adhered to with religious assent by all the faithful?
Lumen Gentium:

Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

Carole

 

[BayCityRickL]

I think the constant changes are purposeful, to appease those who say the Mass is boring. If you don’t know what’s going to happen next, then you can’t be totally bored.

What I find, is that I’m totally distracted when so many things change, and change pointlessly.

I’m absolutely positive that all the standing is intended to keep people awake.

I’m old enough to have grown up quite a ways with the Latin Mass. The most interesting things were the variations in music for high masses. When the Gloria (Glory to God) and the Credo (I believe) were sung in Latin, the priest, servers, and congregation would sit (routinely) for the duration of the singing. Sitting, even during these historic and important moments, was considered good form.

The St. Joseph prayer book “missals” had the Latin and English on opposing pages. Over the years, I would think that most people knew what was going on, and were following along. Apparently one of the most offensive things that happened, was that (mostly ladies) would be saying the Rosary during Mass. This was quite conspicuous by the rosary beads that they held in their hands. In those days, saying the Rosary during Mass would have been considered an abuse.

In Catholic grade school, we had Mass every day before school at 8:00 a.m. We had to fast from midnight before receiving Communion. And, there was a brief period to eat breakfast before classes began. There was a lot of commotion with children buying milk (a 1/2 pint carton of white milk was 2 cents, chocolate was 3 cents; there was orange juice, too, but I wasn’t into that, too much).

The sisters were dispersed in church, each sitting behind their classes. There was an occasional disciplinary scene acted out, for kids who simply could not sit still for the whole thing.

By the second or third grade, for sure, we knew what the Mass was about, even if it was in Latin. Certainly the evidence of this was the silence and attention at the moments of consecration. And, bells signaled moments of intense spirituality.

And, if you follow me, the certainty of the ritual counterbalanced any boredom that might have afflicted anyone.

The migration to English suddenly exploded and tamed any incomprehensible moments of the Mass. And, as human nature goes, those who were bored anyway, became bored with even that. The novelty of English in the Mass wore away, and nobody even talks about it anymore.

We really haven’t seen the Mass prayers developing into a more advanced form of worship. What is most astonishing to me, is that even the English wording has had to be translated into simpler English (viz, "Behold the Lamb of God etc. " has become “This is Jesus etc.”). Surely, the soaring Biblical elements of the Mass have been diluted thereby.

How sad it is, that the Mysteries of the Divine Liturgy have been replaced by the confusion over rubrics, e.g. when should we stand?

 

[Joysong]

Dear Rick,

It is so good to talk with someone from the good old days of early 8:00 a.m. mass in Catholic school. :tiphat:

Speaking about ladies praying the rosary during mass, I have a friend who still does that, sad to say, because he was raised in that environment, and perhaps slept through his religion class when they tried to instruct him about it.

The Holy Spirit can use just about anything, including a donkey, to speak to us, if we are open to Him. One of the objectives of the new liturgy was that we prepare our hearts to participate actively and fully open to Christ. Although the language of the new prayers is boring to some, there are hidden mysteries that the Lord can reveal to us, making the words come alive, though they be rather simple. This bestows a new beauty to our eyes, and the liturgy is joyfully celebrated with the living presence of Christ among us.

Keep the faith! The simple liturgy celebrated by candlelight in the catecombs with people hovering in the cold, standing, afraid of being discovered, had the same Jesus offering Himself for them as we do in our modern churches. He has not changed, nor has His paschal mystery that we celebrate. If things are not perfect yet, we can at least offer our hearts in reparation for those aspects that are still needing change, and give Him our best worship.

I enjoyed the nostalgia trip, my friend,
Carole

 

[Joysong]

Dear David,

Thinking a bit more about the first Jerusalem Council, I realized that there was more involved than just the one matter of circumcision. The objection from the Jews was that the new gentile converts must keep the whole Mosaic law, with its hundreds of dietary prescriptions and all.

So this would not be a matter of doctrine or anything concerning the sacrifice system, but a pastoral matter. (Acts 15:5) Therefore, if the Holy Spirit guided their decision-making for this pastoral matter, why not the VII Council, if as you say, the matter of liturgy is pastoral?

Whether you determine the VII Council used the pastoral approach, or a faith and morals approach, it seems we can conclude the Holy Spirit operates within the hearts of the Councils making these decisions, either way.

Kind regards,
Carole

 

[theMutant]

Joysong:

I’m guessing you did not read my post #78, for it explained what I meant. You and I have the complete documents, because we own the book. This includes the *Instructions on the Liturgy *and the Commentary on each document, which are not available if anyone logs onto one of the many sites doing a google search to read the VII documents. The only thing they will find is the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, without obtaining the Instructions that further explain this document.

My main problem with this is that the Intruction is not a document of the Second Vatican Council. It is a post-Conciliar document that seeks to implement that which was promulgated by the Council; the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. This is precisely the point that traditionalists are making. You are acting as if this Instruction proves the intention of the Council even though it, and the results of it, seem to directly contradict what the Council declared in its constitution. If your book of VII documents is like mine (Flannery’s Vatican II Conciliar and Post-Conciliar Documents, Study Edition) then you must keep in mind that not everything in it is from the Council. Post conciliar documents cannot be considered to be part of the Council’s teaching. The are authoritative acts of the Magisterium to be sure, but they are not conciliar acts.

Joysong:

Look in your book at article #54, which seems to support completely that Latin is to be used, and traditionalists quote this and stand upon it, even to stating that the NO is sacriligeous (I just saw this here today, in fact - awful!).

I am not among those who claim that the current Latin rite of Mass is sacreligious. There are certainly extremists on both sides and, hopefully, cooler heads will prevail and beneficial discussion and debate can take place.

Joysong:

For those traditionists who honestly, quietly, reverently go about their own manner of worshipping God, I have deep respect. I pray their voice is heard by continuing efforts at dialog and understanding.

My only response to this is that we are not seeking our own manner of worshipping God. The traditional Latin Mass is the Church’s way of worshiping God as is the current Latin Mass.

 

[theMutant]

Joysong:

Maybe you can help me with this, David, for I need to ask what you consider to be a matter of faith or morals? Is not the sacred liturgy the highest matter of all, exceeding even that of a moral issue? It deals with the very essence of Christ’s paschal mystery celebrated at His command throughout the generations.

If it is a higher essence than even faith or morals, wouldn’t a change in the accidentals surrounding the immutable parts have the presence of the Holy Spirit guiding the Council in these deliberations? — especially when He is invoked to assist them? I have difficulty relegating the celebration of the Eucharist to being merely a pastoral matter. I’m afraid I need more proof.

The proof I have is that there are two elements to the Mass, the Sacramental and the Pastoral. The Sacramental element is the Eucharist and, like all of the Sacraments, requires the correct form and matter. The form is the Offeratory, Consecration, and Communion. The matter is the bread, wine, and a validly ordained priest acting in the person of Christ while executing the form. These are matters of faith and are certainly protected by the Holy Spirit. Indeed, these are the only absolutely necessary parts to the Mass and their essential elements cannot be changed. In past times of war, priests with soldiers on the battlefield would sometimes have to cut out the rest and simply do the Offeratory, Consecration, and Commuion. These were perfectly valid Masses.

However, the specific rituals we use are pastoral and intended to help us elevate our thoughts to God. They pertain to the faith but are not the faith itself as is the Eucharist to which they lead us. The same is true of the church building, the artwork (or lack thereof) in the building, the types of music used. It is precisely because these are pastoral that they can be changed. Remember that the Catholic Faith is unchanging. While it can be more deeply understood over time, it cannot change even a little. This is why no one can change the words of Consecration or eliminate the need for making the offering or of receiving Communion. However, the rituals of the Mass can change and have been changed constantly throughout the history of the Church.

The Blessed Sacrament is of supreme importance. He is the center and source of our faith and spiritual life. The liturgy for the Mass is of extreme importance. While it is certainly true that decisons concerning the liturgy must be adhered to with religious assent by all the faithful, that doesn’t mean that we cannot disagree with the wisdom of those decisons or should be silent when we see problems result from them. I have never argued that it is acceptable for Catholics to completely reject the current rite; quite the opposite. I adhere to it and, because I cannot get to a traditional Latin Mass, I attend the current rite with prayers of thanks to God for allowing me, unworthy though I am, to parcipitate in the re-presentation of His Sacrifice to the Father.

 

[theMutant]

Joysong:

Dear David,

Thinking a bit more about the first Jerusalem Council, I realized that there was more involved than just the one matter of circumcision. The objection from the Jews was that the new gentile converts must keep the whole Mosaic law, with its hundreds of dietary prescriptions and all.

So this would not be a matter of doctrine or anything concerning the sacrifice system, but a pastoral matter. (Acts 15:5) Therefore, if the Holy Spirit guided their decision-making for this pastoral matter, why not the VII Council, if as you say, the matter of liturgy is pastoral?

The issues of the Jerusalem Council were both doctrinal and pastoral. The matter of circumcision was one of doctrine and is permanent and unchanging to this very day and will continue to be so until the end of this world. Therefore, we can say with certainty that the reference to the guidance of the Holy Spirit in Acts definitely applies to this teaching as it was a matter of infallible declaration and was therefore made with the Holy Spirit’s protection from error.

The same cannot be said (at least, not absolutely) of the other declarations of the Jerusalem Council. These were pastoral directives in order to ease dissention. Once they were no longer necessary for that purpose, they were no longer binding. Can we say that the Holy Spirit guided those Council Fathers in making those pastoral decisions? I think that it is safe to say yes. However, any guidance in pastoral matters is of a different degree and for a different purpose than that given for doctrinal matters. Additionally, there is no guarantee that the Council Fathers followed the Holy Spirit’s guidance on pastoral matters just as there is no guarantee that the Magisterium properly implemented the pastoral decisions of the Council. I have not found any Church teaching that states that the protection offered by the Holy Spirit goes to that extent. Is it possible? Yes. Can we be assured that it has happened? Not really.

I think that the problems that have been revealed in the Church as a result of the current Rite of Mass will be, in the long run, good for the Church. Those problems existed in a hidden form long before the Council and have come to light since. However, I maintain that part of how they have been revealed is in how the Council’s Constitutions have been implemented. This is not just the opinion of extremist dissatisfied traditionalists. This is the opinion of Bishops and Cardinals, and even of Pope Benedict XVI (before his election) whom I quote in the first thread to which I provided a link above.

We must give religious assent to the pastoral decisions made by the Magisterium. That does not mean that we have to agree with those decisions or even magisterial declarations that they changes are good. In regard to doctrinal declarations, however, not only must we give religious assent but we must also agree with the declaration and accept that they are good.

 

[palmas85]

JKirkLVNV:

Do I see your tongue in your cheek, Palmas? One tiny little correction: He didn’t participate in Hindu rituals or receive the mark of Kali. It was, I think, called the NAMASTE, no more significant than a handshake and performed by a Catholic Indian woman (poor thing apparently wasn’t aware she was a rank pagan).

Hi Kirk, he did participate and was so annoited. Not that it meant anything more than ecumenism in action. No tongue in cheek at all my friend Kirk, I fully supported the Holy Father, and merely pointed out some of his accomplishments of which he was very, very proud.

 

[palmas85]

Joysong:

Hi Palmas,

Yes, I think I would, Palmas — maybe I’ll put it on my wish list for Christmas. http://forum.catholic.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Carole

the name of the Book is “Look What They’ve Done to My Church” It was published in 1985, sorry off on the years, by Loyola Press. Very interesting reading, and very insightful

 

[palmas85]

theMutant:

As a strong critic of the post Vatican II changes to the Liturgy and one who prays fervently that we return to the Missal of 1962 until the Church can evaluate and make only those revisions that are in accordance with the teachings of that council, I feel the need to point out that it is you who are being condescending and who is showing a tremendous lack of charity. No wonder traditionalists like myself have such a hard time explaining the problems of the changes to those who don’t see them. How can you possibly justify a statement that “probably no one” has read all of the documents of Vatican II. I have done so several times; which is why I argue that the current Latin rite of mass does not follow the guidelines set out by that council.

If you have managed to read each and every document that came out of Vatican II my hat is off to you As far as showing charity, I merely said that because it is a common feature on these forums when someone doesn’t like what you say they throw in lacking in charity. My favorite reply to that is that Christ Jesus showed precious little Christian Charity when he drove the money changers from the temple. No he displayed white hot rage, which is perfectly acceptable, even in these politically correct times. As far as condescending only to the degree necessary.

 

[Joysong]

Dear David,

You:

My main problem with this is that the Intruction is not a document of the Second Vatican Council. It is a post-Conciliar document that seeks to implement that which was promulgated by the Council; the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. This is precisely the point that traditionalists are making. You are acting as if this Instruction proves the intention of the Council even though it, and the results of it, seem to directly contradict what the Council declared in its constitution.

I’m straining to learn your meaning, David, for it seems on the surface that you consider the Instructions to be an unimportant adjunct, not worthy of religious assent. Did you notice the concluding letter that I posted previously?

The Pope gave it his approval, in its whole and in its parts, meaning all of the matters addressed in the Instruction. That he “ordered it to be published and faithfully observed” seems very official to me. If traditionists are selective in the proclaimed directives of the Pope, is there not a hint of disobedience, which may include a lack of religious assent?

Instruction on the Liturgy

This Instruction was prepared by the Consilium by mandate of Pope Paul VI, and presented to the Pope by Cardinal Giacomo Lercaro, President of the Consilium. After having carefully considered the Instruction, in consultation with the Consilium and the Congregation of Rites, Pope Paul in an audience granted to Cardinal Arcadio Maria Larraona, Prefect of the Congregation of Rites, gave it specific approval as a whole and in its parts, confirmed it by his authority, and ordered it to be published and faithfully observed by all concerned, beginning on the first Sunday of Lent, 7 March 1965.

Incidentally, my copy is from Daughters of St. Paul, Library of Congress #67-20508.

It may not be relevant to mention this, but I remember so clearly an instruction from Christ that St. Teresa of Jesus received. Our Lord had given her supernatural direction on a matter concerning her foundations, and her superior gave a contrary order, setting aside the Lord’s command. She asked Him what she should do, and He replied, “You do well to obey, daughter, but I Myself will hold him responsible.”

Whether the VII Council implemented changes that were not adopted well by the church universal, I consider well the Lord’s words above. It is not the laity whom He will chastise — it is their part is to obey. That gives none of us the right to disparage those in authority if they introduce innovations that are not in accord with VII. The Bishops, too, have the authority of the Church to whom religious assent belongs.

The issues of the Jerusalem Council were both doctrinal and pastoral. The matter of circumcision was one of doctrine and is permanent and unchanging to this very day and will continue to be so until the end of this world. (???)

You lost me here, David. The old tradition and covenant was abrogated by the new covenant in Christ’s blood, and was no longer entered into by circumcision. I can’t remember the latin word someone used here lately, but it began with a Q — anyway, the old ritual practiced by the Jews was no longer valid when the new one replaced it. (Does that give a clue to the present example?)

I have been to the Holy Land, and it was a most awesome revelation to me to realize that the Upper Room of the Last Supper is directly over the tomb of David. I prayed that the Lord might help me understand the meaning of why He specifically asked the apostles to obtain that particular room for the Supper. It speaks silently and wondrously a message of fulfillment of God’s promise to David so long ago. Words are not needed.

It is time for me to leave, but I’ll review your other posts later, as I think there was one other thing I wanted to respond to.

Carole

 

[Joysong]

Hello, David,
Mutant:

We must give religious assent to the pastoral decisions made by the Magisterium. That does not mean that we have to agree with those decisions or even magisterial declarations that they changes are good. In regard to doctrinal declarations, however, not only must we give religious assent but we must also agree with the declaration and accept that they are good.

I’m with you on this. I happened to think about Jesus today, who became “subject” to his earthly parents. St. Joseph perhaps gave imperfect, finite guidance to Jesus at times, yet in spite of that imperfection, Jesus gave us the example of obedience. God obeying man. Whew! Maybe Christ did not always see eye to eye, or agree with Joseph’s decisions, but He submitted. I just cannot imagine Him being disrespectful and rebellious, and override him to set in order His greater wisdom in any given matter.

I fully believe that those who undertake the proper steps to contact the hierarchy in cases of perceived or real aberrations are not displeasing God, but are acting with prudence, motivated by charity for the good of the Church. I heartily support that approach, provided these persons remain submissive if the answer is not what they expect, or if they receive no answer whatsoever. In that case, consistent prayer, maybe with fasting, would be one’s only recourse. (I shudder when I think about the rebellion of Core in the O.T. and the fate of his group.)

Carole

 

[BayCityRickL]

theMutant:

. . .
I think that the problems that have been revealed in the Church as a result of the current Rite of Mass will be, in the long run, good for the Church. Those problems existed in a hidden form long before the Council and have come to light since. However, I maintain that part of how they have been revealed is in how the Council’s Constitutions have been implemented. This is not just the opinion of extremist dissatisfied traditionalists. This is the opinion of Bishops and Cardinals, and even of Pope Benedict XVI (before his election) whom I quote in the first thread to which I provided a link above.
. . .