Mass--Too much change?

[grotto]

It is NOT an abuse to have a rosary in hand at Mass. I am from the old days as well, probably the older days, and will tell you that people who wish to be devout in prayer have much time afforded them these days at Mass. In the old days many people were not comfortable with reading a Missal (through no fault of their own they did not read well or had another language). Many good examples of why they used a rosary. In Ireland, when Holy Mass was forbidden, the people referred to praying the Rosary as the “Dry Mass”. As long as a person is doing their best to accompany the priest’s prayer of the Mass and offering their verbal response accordingly, one can easily pray a Hail Mary at other moments.

If you want to discuss abuses of our Faith and the Holy Mass, please do not EVEN THINK ABOUT including the rosary.

 

[Joysong]

Dear Grotto,

Maybe this was indirectly aimed at me, for I spoke about another elderly gentleman who did not participate in any fashion whatsoever during mass, solely due to previous upbringing and lack of understanding of the mass. Never did I label it an abuse, and if you took it that way, you misunderstood me.

There are silent moments during mass, you are correct, but they are meant to reflect on the readings that had just been proclaimed, or after communion which is a time of personal devotion and thanksgiving to Christ for His sacred presence. To advocate the use of a rosary during these times may be a personal preference for some, such as you stated, but it is not really the full aim of liturgy.

If you find that the mass has many silent moments, I see no abuse to pray a bit of the rosary. But if one wanders off in personal prayer rather than unite with the priest and the congregation in listening to the solemn prayers, for instance, of the canon and consecration, then the loser is the person who prefers instead to use his own private devotion. Are there not enough hours in the day to do this at other times, so that one may participate fully in the holy mass?

Carole

 

[theMutant]

Joysong:

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?

Carole,

All I did was point out that you present the Instruction as though it was part of Vatican II when, in fact, it was not. This is misleading to those who hear you repeatedly state this. The Instruction was not reviewed and approved by the Council but afterward. Therefore, although it is authoritative (because it is an act of the Magisterium) and we must submit to the Instruction, it is not a “missing half” of Council’s dealing with the liturgy as you have repeatedly stated. It is a post-Conciliar act. While we must accept and submit to the Church’s authority to make such changes, we do not have to agree that they are consistent with the stated intent of the Council or that any particular change is a wise decision or is good for the Church and the faithful. This type of dissent is perfectly acceptable and has been defended as such by popes and the Magisterium in the past. In fact, the Magesterial defenses of this type of dissent is often cited by the sedevacantist groups to defend their own position. The problem is that they go beyond the leven of dissent defined by the Magisterium as acceptable while remaining in good standing with the Church. I tied, to no avail, to point this out to them in other threads.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1240

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=4355

 

[theMutant]

Joysong:

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.

This is exactly my own position. I do not disparage Bishops, I criticize the changes as I am allowed to. I also obey. I do not run out to the Sedevacantist Traditional Latin Mass that is available to me. I go to the current Latin Rite of Mass at my local parish. I do not kneel after the Agnus Dei, even though I want to with all my heart, because my Bishop has “determined otherwise” and I am a faithful Catholic. It is also not wrong to point out when changes are inconsistent with Vatican II because we are constantly being told that they are. I try to engage in open and meaningful discussion and debate to illustrate why I feel that the changes that have been introduced contradict the Council, have paved the way for abuses of the liturgy, and have resulted in reducing Catholics to mere spectators. The opening post of this thread perfectly illustrates this last point.

 

[theMutant]

Joysong:

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 am sorry if my response was not clear. You cited the Council of Jerusalem and the crediting of its decisions as being delivered by the Holy Spirit and asked if we could not also consider the decisions of Vatican II as being delivered by Him. I agreed with you but pointed out a distincition regarding the level of protection offered by the Holy Spirit over Magisterial decisions. Hopefully, this will clear up that section of my post.

 

[Joysong]

Dear David,

All I did was point out that you present the Instruction as though it was part of Vatican II when, in fact, it was not. This is misleading to those who hear you repeatedly state this. The Instruction was not reviewed and approved by the Council but afterward. Therefore, although it is authoritative (because it is an act of the Magisterium) and we must submit to the Instruction …

Oh, I see your point. My VII book of Documents includes this Instruction immediately following the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, and it is easy to conclude that they are part and parcel of the original document.

To avoid the mandates of the Instructions, I have seen statements made by traditionalists that completely disregard them in order to promote their misbelief that latin is to be upheld and therefore, the N.O. mass is not living up to the Council’s wishes. They could not be more wrong, if this important document is seen as obliging in religious assent and submission.

Carole

 

[theMutant]

Joysong:

To avoid the mandates of the Instructions, I have seen statements made by traditionalists that completely disregard them in order to promote their misbelief that latin is to be upheld and therefore, the N.O. mass is not living up to the Council’s wishes. They could not be more wrong, if this important document is seen as obliging in religious assent and submission.

No one who considers himself to be a “traditional” Catholic can defend completely disregarding an act of the Magisterium because doing so is a rejection of the Magisterium’s authority; an authority given to them by Christ according to Catholic Tradition. However, we can conclude that the current Latin rite of Mass is not living up to the Council’s wishes because the Council clearly stated that Latin is to be maintained and that Bishops are responsible for ensuring that the laity know those parts of the Ordinary that pertain to them in Latin. Just because, after the Council, the Magisterium decided to allow the Mass to be offered completely in the vernacular does not mean that the decision is consistent with the stated intention of the Council when it discussed the possibility of expanding the use of the vernacular in the Mass. The same is true of Chant. Endless assurances from Rome that it is always “permissible” to offer the current Rite in Latin and that Chant is to be given “pride of place” mean nothing when the average Catholic still cannot locate a parish where the Mass is offered this way, or can only find it once in a while.

 

[SnorterLuster]

Joysong:

To avoid the mandates of the Instructions, I have seen statements made by traditionalists that completely disregard them in order to promote their misbelief that latin is to be upheld and therefore, the N.O. mass is not living up to the Council’s wishes. They could not be more wrong, if this important document is seen as obliging in religious assent and submission.

Let me see if I have this straight. Vatican II, in their documents, say that latin is to be upheld. Then these documents wind their way through the bureaucracy for the final regulations or instructions. The final instructions say that latin is to be eliminated and the vernacular substituted for most if not all the mass. And you maintain that the instructions supersede anything said in the Vatican II documents. Then why have a council? Just skip the cost and time and have the bureaucracy just write the regulations without all that messy debate.

 

[Joysong]

Dear David and SnorterLuster,

With reference to our previous discussion, I felt uncomfortable with what you pointed out to me, so I did some further research, because I could not understand why these “Instructions” are printed in the same section of the VII documents immediately following the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy.

Joysong:

Mutant:

All I did was point out that you present the Instruction as though it was part of Vatican II when, in fact, it was not. This is misleading to those who hear you repeatedly state this. The Instruction was not reviewed and approved by the Council

but afterward. Therefore, although it is authoritative (because it is an act of the Magisterium) and we must submit to the Instruction …

Oh, I see your point. My VII book of Documents includes this Instruction immediately following the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, and it is easy to conclude that they are part and parcel of the original document.

I think I will have to disagree in light of the following quote, David, and continue to believe these Instructions are part and parcel of the Council, since they were approved on Sept. 26, 1964. The Council did not officially close until December 1965.

mb-soft.com/believe/txs/secondvc.htm

Second Vatican Council

General Information

The Second Vatican Council, the 21st ecumenical council of the Roman Catholic church, was announced by Pope John XXIII on Jan. 25, 1959. On Oct. 11, 1962, after four years of preparation, the council formally opened. Four sessions convened; the last three (1963-65) were presided over by Pope Paul VI, who succeeded John as pontiff in June 1963. The council ended on Dec. 8, 1965.

Carole

 

[theMutant]

Joysong:

I think I will have to disagree in light of the following quote, David, and continue to believe these Instructions are part and parcel of the Council, since they were approved on Sept. 26, 1964. The Council did not officially close until December 1965.

Carole,

I concede the coinciding time lines, however the Instruction was given after the Council had already promulgated Sacrosanctum concillium; at which point the Council proceeded to other topics. Iner Oecumenici was not promulgated by the Council but by the Sacred Congregation of Rites. I have never heard any claim that it was presented to the Council, that the entire body of Bishops present at the Council read it, or that they ever voted on it. In order for a document to be considered as part of the Council, it must have been approved by the Council itself, the Council must sent it to the Pope for approval and then he must approve it. This is clearly not the case for the Instruction since it was sent to the Pope by the Sacred Congregation of Rites.

Even though the Council was still in progress (on other matters), it remains “post-Concilliar” in the sense that it is an act on a topic of the Council after the Council had concluded its work on that topic (the liturgy). In my book, it is placed right after Paul VI’s Sacram liturgiam (25 Jan., 1964) which is right after Sacrosanctum concilium but it identifies them as post-Conciliar. However, as Flannery points out, this is because he has arranged the documents according to topic. The Conciliar documents followed by the post-Conciliar documents that address the same subject.

The bishops of the Second Vatican Council promulgated 16 documents and only those documents can be considered to be acts of the Council. Inter oecumenici is not one of them.

 

[Joysong]

Dear David,

This is clearly not the case for the Instruction since it was sent to the Pope by the Sacred Congregation of Rites

I am one with you in understanding that this document is not one of the 16 original ones; but nevertheless, it was approved by the Pope, who mandated that it be implemented in all of its parts, to the entire Church beginning in Lent 1965. This says to me that we are bound to obey its directives. I see that you are one with me regarding our assent. Amen. Good dialog, David.

Carole

 

[SnorterLuster]

Joysong:

I am one with you in understanding that this document is not one of the 16 original ones; but nevertheless, it was approved by the Pope, who mandated that it be implemented in all of its parts, to the entire Church beginning in Lent 1965. This says to me that we are bound to obey its directives. I see that you are one with me regarding our assent.

So you are telling me that Vatican II doesn’t mean anything. Forget all their words because the Pope and his Congregation of Rites had their own agenda which they implemented. And the laity should just shut-up and obey. Vatican II was only window dressing.

Not to put words in your mouth, but it seems to me that you have justified Archbishop Lefebre’s contention that Vatican II was not implemented according to what the Cardinals thought they were voting on. Carole, you just about have me convinced that the sedevectionists were right, the Pope hijacked the Church.

 

[Joysong]

Dear S.L.

Before we continue this, have you read both documents we have been discussing all along, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, and the Instruction on the Liturgy? This discussion has taken place at length with a lot of background information. It is so easy to enter late in the thread, and get one’s feathers ruffled and storm off in a huff when the person has not done their homework. If you have read the documents, but still have questions, I’ll be more than happy to discuss it with you.

Please consider that there were 178 meetings with over 2500 voting members at the Council. It took four years of preparation and three more years to conclude. If you think this tremendous task was undertaken arbitrarily as a ruse to hijack the Church, then I see little hope for our discussion to be of any advantage.

If your faith is so scant as to believe Lefebre, then I won’t stop you.

Joysong:

The Second Vatican Council was the 21st ecumenical council recognized by the Roman Catholic church, which became the symbol of the church’s openness to the modern world. The council was announced by Pope John XXIII on January 25, 1959, and held 178 meetings in the autumn of each of four successive years. The first gathering was on October 11, 1962, and the last on December 8, 1965.

Of 2908 bishops and others eligible to attend, 2540 from all parts of the world participated in the opening meeting. The U.S. delegation of 241 members was second in size only to that of Italy. Asian and African bishops played a prominent role in the council’s deliberations.

Carole

 

[Dr.Bombay]

JKirkLVNV:

Given that that phrase is so closely associated with Pope John Paul the Great, of happy memory, I very much doubt that he had Fr. McBrien or any of the things you mention in mind as being a part of that springtime. Of course, the OBVIOUS answer is to bring back the TLM, isn’t it? We’d have perfect priests, sterling bishops, world peace, a reduction in tooth decay, etc.

Kirk, if I thought you were being sarcastic, I’d really be hurt. But everyone knows Latin reduces plaque. 4 out of 5 dentists concur.

The Magnificent One was a participant in the Council. Could this have clouded his outlook, as well as that of his contemporary episcopal bretheren?

I’m tired of the pollyanna, rose-colored view of the Council and the resulting liturgical upheaval, errr, I mean “renewal.” As if the Faith of the average pew-sitter has been strengthened significantly over the past 40 years. As if we’ve seen sky rocketing priestly vocations. As if Catholics have become even more firm and outspoken in standing against the culture of death, rampant materialism and virulent anti-religionists. As if every Mass on the planet is celebrated slavishly according to the rubrics. As if one more change in the Mass, one more slight tweaking, one more revision, one more re-translation is going to really make the Mass come alive for millions. :nope:

I can understand bishops, cardinals and even popes who attended the Council, or had close friends who attended the Council, taking a Panglossian view of it and its aftermath. They have a rooting interest. What I can’t understand is a layman, especially in a Western country, choosing the ostrich option and refusing to see a Church in crisis. And maybe, just maybe, conceding that all the changes in the wake of the Council, sometimes just for the sake of change, weren’t such a nifty idea after all.

By all means. Let’s once again differentiate between Vatican II and the “Spirit” of same. Whatever. I’m weary of playing semantic games. Something’s gone horribly wrong in our Church (yes, our world too) over the past 4 decades and to pretend otherwise does everyone a disservice. I’m tired of our shepherds twiddling their fiddles while Rome burns, all the while insisting it’s not really a diabolical inferno, but a warm glow from a bright spring sun. Ugh. :nope:

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Dr. Bombay:

Kirk, if I thought you were being sarcastic, I’d really be hurt. But everyone knows Latin reduces plaque. 4 out of 5 dentists concur.

The Magnificent One was a participant in the Council. Could this have clouded his outlook, as well as that of his contemporary episcopal bretheren?

I’m tired of the pollyanna, rose-colored view of the Council and the resulting liturgical upheaval, errr, I mean “renewal.” As if the Faith of the average pew-sitter has been strengthened significantly over the past 40 years. As if we’ve seen sky rocketing priestly vocations. As if Catholics have become even more firm and outspoken in standing against the culture of death, rampant materialism and virulent anti-religionists. As if every Mass on the planet is celebrated slavishly according to the rubrics. As if one more change in the Mass, one more slight tweaking, one more revision, one more re-translation is going to really make the Mass come alive for millions. :nope:

I can understand bishops, cardinals and even popes who attended the Council, or had close friends who attended the Council, taking a Panglossian view of it and its aftermath. They have a rooting interest. What I can’t understand is a layman, especially in a Western country, choosing the ostrich option and refusing to see a Church in crisis. And maybe, just maybe, conceding that all the changes in the wake of the Council, sometimes just for the sake of change, weren’t such a nifty idea after all.

By all means. Let’s once again differentiate between Vatican II and the “Spirit” of same. Whatever. I’m weary of playing semantic games. Something’s gone horribly wrong in our Church (yes, our world too) over the past 4 decades and to pretend otherwise does everyone a disservice. I’m tired of our shepherds twiddling their fiddles while Rome burns, all the while insisting it’s not really a diabolical inferno, but a warm glow from a bright spring sun. Ugh. :nope:

Doc: I’m swamped at school right now, so I can’t make a thoughtful response (grades, report cards). I’ll get back to you. Pray for me! John

 

[Dr.Bombay]

JKirkLVNV:

Doc: I’m swamped at school right now, so I can’t make a thoughtful response (grades, report cards). I’ll get back to you. Pray for me! John

Sure thing, Kirk. I’ll offer up my rosary tomorrow for ya. :tiphat:

 

[theMutant]

SnorterLuster:

Not to put words in your mouth, but it seems to me that you have justified Archbishop Lefebre’s contention that Vatican II was not implemented according to what the Cardinals thought they were voting on. Carole, you just about have me convinced that the sedevectionists were right, the Pope hijacked the Church.

First of all, Lefebre was not a sedevacantist and the SSPX leadership is not sedevacantist. Some of its members might be but they are not following the lead of the group to which they claim to belong. SSPX is still in communion with Rome and seeks reconciliation within the Church. This was the topic of their recent meeting with Benedict XVI. SSPX acknowledges him as a valid pope, the sedevacantists do not (which is why they are called sedevacantists).

If you want convincing that the sedevacantists are wrong - and they are most certainly wrong - then please read through the threads to which I provided links in post #62 above. In it you will see that the very documents sedevacantists use to prove their positions prove they are wrong. You will see how they consistently refuse to address questions raised about the problems of their positions. You will see how, after the “evidence” they provide as “proof” of their claims is refuted, they just ignore the refutation and continue to make the same claims using the same “evidence.” Even if one disagrees with Lefebre’s action in ordaining those bishops, you cannot legitimately equate him or the SSPX as anything equivalent to the sedevacantists.

 

[SnorterLuster]

theMutant:

First of all, Lefebre was not a sedevacantist and the SSPX leadership is not sedevacantist. Some of its members might be but they are not following the lead of the group to which they claim to belong. SSPX is still in communion with Rome and seeks reconciliation within the Church. This was the topic of their recent meeting with Benedict XVI. SSPX acknowledges him as a valid pope, the sedevacantists do not (which is why they are called sedevacantists).

If you want convincing that the sedevacantists are wrong - and they are most certainly wrong - then please read through the threads to which I provided links in post #62 above. In it you will see that the very documents sedevacantists use to prove their positions prove they are wrong. You will see how they consistently refuse to address questions raised about the problems of their positions. You will see how, after the “evidence” they provide as “proof” of their claims is refuted, they just ignore the refutation and continue to make the same claims using the same “evidence.” Even if one disagrees with Lefebre’s action in ordaining those bishops, you cannot legitimately equate him or the SSPX as anything equivalent to the sedevacantists.

I know the Lefebre was not sedevacantist and I know that the sedevacantists are are wrong. My tongue was firmly in my cheek when I posted the above. I do hope and pray that the SSPX and Rome get things worked out. I just wanted to let joysong know that I find her position illogical. If I accept her position, then Archbisop Lefebre’s vote to accept Vatican II was hijacked after the vote.

 

[SnorterLuster]

Joysong:

Dear S.L.

Before we continue this, have you read both documents we have been discussing all along, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, and the Instruction on the Liturgy? This discussion has taken place at length with a lot of background information.

I guess I have to read the Federal Register before I comment on the laws that Congress passes too. My feathers aren’t ruffled, but yours sure seem to be.

It is so easy to enter late in the thread, and get one’s feathers ruffled and storm off in a huff when the person has not done their homework.

I don’t know what homework I have to do, I was just reacting to what you say, not what the documents say.

Please consider that there were 178 meetings with over 2500 voting members at the Council. It took four years of preparation and three more years to conclude.

And the instructions still ignored what the Council said? Wow, gutsy guys.

If you think this tremendous task was undertaken arbitrarily as a ruse to hijack the Church, then I see little hope for our discussion to be of any advantage.

So I guess you have dismissed me huh? No need for me to post any further, just move on, don’t question anything you say. Or is it you that is “…storm(ing) off in a huff…”?

If your faith is so scant as to believe Lefebre, then I won’t stop you.

My faith in the Church is not in danger, my faith in your conclusions is non existent. I know you won’t stop me, I’ll continue to believe that there is nothing wrong with believing the Mass is and should be directed toward God. I will continue to believe that the NO is and has been abused to the point that it is unrecognizable as part of Vatican II.