That is true, but I can tell you that since researching the liturgy in Advent, I’ve never been this confused in my life.
Guess they knew a good thing when they saw it. “Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery”!.
In one sense, maybe. But the new Mass was not created to make converting easier for Protestants. The conversion of Protestants was one of the least important factors in revising the Mass. To my knowledge, Protestants don’t merit a word of mention in Sacrosanctum Concilium, Vatican II’s constitution on the liturgy. Sacrosanctum Concilium explains at length the reasons that the Council fathers thought substantial revisions to the Mass were necessary, and ecumenism with the Protestants had nothing to do with it.
Many of the reasons are explain in Sacrosanctum Concilium, which I linked to above. You may also want to take a look at Paul VI’s, apostolic constitution on the promulgation of the new Order of Mass.
The missal does not permit any form of creativity, as no priest has the authority to add or remove anything from the missal. Hence, it is not a problem with the form of the mass, but rather the personal inclinations of the celebrant.
Some of the problems you describe tell me that you went to a church which was not properly fitted out according to church rubrics. If you would care to glance at the following images, these show the sanctuary of the Shrine to Our Lady of Mercies of Jasna Gora at Penrose Park, Australia. Please note that the icon of our lady is normally up being held by the angel on the top left, but this is from a coronation ceremony some years ago:
There is no “accusation” but rather a warning. I live in Sydney, Australia, and so the “traditionalist” crowd here might be of a different calibre than what you encounter, but I hear much of the same from them as well. Many are quick to point the finger at various clergy and to call them “heretics”, or “schismatics” and many other things. Since a Priest lives a ministry “in persona Christe” I dare not to speak ill of any priest or bishop, as it would be speaking ill of Christ Himself. I might disagree with the way a priest or bishop does something, but I dare not speak ill of him.
Again, a warning - not an accusation. I participate in the extra-ordinary form of the mass here in Sydney quite often (not as often as I would like to). I find that there is a spectrum of people attending. Myself, I am one who wishes to experience a spiritual connection with the heritage of the Catholic Church. To this end I have also participated in some masses celebrated by the Eastern Catholic Churches, which don’t seem to have had the same post Vatican II problems that the Latin Church has, simply because the traditions of their liturgy were also culturally ingrained and they had no desire to mess about with them.
Of course I am preaching! - I tell anyone who wishes to hear (or read) what I have to say that they must be loyal and obedient to the church. We cannot pick and chose what we would like from the church, but must embrace the full spectrum of the treasures that she has given to us!
It is a simple prayer, asking God to bless you. Nothing more than an intercession. It is no different from saying “God Bless” or “May the good LORD bless and keep you”, etc. It is known in many places that people would greet and farewell each other by saying “God be with you” or “Peace be with you”, or another similar prayer. You read too much into it.
But that quote from the document doesn’t say a thing about the liturgy. To make such a connection is speculation. No where does it say that our liturgy should be changed to appease our seperated brethern.
I agree with you entirely. Although I’ve only just started studying this subject, no where in any of the Vatican II documents I’ve read is there a call for a new liturgy.
Thank you for your time in responding, Mark. You are very blessed to have accumulated a working knowledge of our liturgy. May I trouble you for another question?
This becomes a somewhat circular argument and it forces us to weigh which one statement is more important than the other. Is Latin to be maintained in the liturgy? Yes, of course. And can the bishops decide the limits of the vernacular to the point of eliminating Latin altogether? This appears also to be the case, although in 1963 no one remotely forsaw this possibility. But this is ambiguity and the demonstrates the principle of timebombs at its finest. So we have to look at the Council of Trent which anathematized the all-vernacular and Veterum Sapientia which effectively banned the use of vernacular in the Latin Rite liturgy. If we argue that bishops have the power to eliminate the use of all Latin in the liturgy, then that goes against the latter-mentioned documents, which I understand have never been abrogated. And if these documents have never been abrogated, then the “Latin is to be preserved in the liturgy” clause trumps whatever other interpretation one derives from SC.
I just wanted to add something that I’ve heard Pope Benedict say many times in different situations. The points made by Trent have to be separated between dogmas and disciplines. Post Trent popes can argue that these anathemas concerning language do not bind them, because the langauge issue is not part of Divine Revelation. Therefore, it is not a doctrinal or moral question. It is a disciplinary point. If the pope believes that to be the case, then he can modify the ruling, without having to abrogate the whole thing. This seems to be what happened in the documents on liturgy. The pope can also allow the diocesan bishop to decide how much Latin and when to use it in his diocese or he can delegate this to religious superiors. I don’t know about bishops, because I’m not a diocesan priest. But I do know that Major Superiors of men have the authority to govern this when the mass is celebrated on their property, even if it’s by a visiting priest. I would imagine that bishops can do the same. Don’t quote me on it, because I’ve never seen what was told to bishops.
May I trouble you for a question? How would you know what a Protestant service looks like? Are you a convert? How many of these services have you personally attended, being that there are hundreds of denominations? And why would you believe, other than having watched a “certain” unnamed You-tube video, that the new Mass was born from the Protestants?
Good point. And one has to attend Eastern Liturgies as well to really get a good feel of what is a Catholic (or Orthodox) Liturgy and what is a Protestant Liturgy.
I never stated that our new Mass was born from the Protestants.
Earlier you asked that we be respectful of each other and not derail threads, yet here bring up something contrary to the rules. This is from the rules section:
Do you even understand the context of my post? I am not dicussing Eastern theology. I am discussing the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. I am making a point on what makes a Catholic Liturgy and what doesn’t, and the best way to find out is experience and compare with other Liturgies in the Church. Not just because there’s an “Eastern” word there means its what I am discussing. There is such a thing called “context”.
That doesn’t seem to be a very charitable thing to say.
What I don’t understand is why non-traditional Catholics contribute to a forum entitled, a discussion of traditional Catholic spirituality. I asked you this directly and you didn’t provide an answer. I have many questions surrounding the Latin and new Mass and come here to discover the traditional point of view. If I wanted the Eastern rites perspective I’d ask there. Do you understand this?