Misunderstandings and Irregularities in Post-Vatican II Liturgy (from a liturgical leader in the Church)

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
liturgyluver said:
If I may say (lightheartedly) it seems that you have quite a strong aversion to the word liturgy. As far as I know, nobody has started calling mass “the liturgy” in general terms. The point is that the article that you originally commented on was not just talking about the mass, but about the all the different liturgies within the church that have been subject to reform.

I think sometimes in describing the way the mass and the other offices of the church may be conducted people may talk about the way the liturgy is executed at a particular church, but this is much broader than just the mass. I have yet to hear a Catholic say “I am going to the 10am liturgy”
Click to expand...
Thanks for trying, but I don’t think this answers my question, either. Still :confused:.
 
sedonaman said:
Thanks for trying, but I don’t think this answers my question, either. Still :confused:.
Click to expand...
Well, before I and everyone else gives up, let me simply say the liturgy is wider than just the mass. Or put another way Mass is simply one aspect of the liturgy.
 
liturgyluver said:
Well, before I and everyone else gives up, let me simply say the liturgy is wider than just the mass. Or put another way Mass is simply one aspect of the liturgy.
Click to expand...
I’ve seen this explanation before, and I don’t see the point in sacrificing the specific for the generic. If I confess that I missed liturgy, the priest will likely ask which one.
 
sedonaman said:
That’s what everybody says, but I never heard it used as a term for “Mass” until recently, and I go to church every Sunday. No one has yet answered my question, ***what does the word “liturgy” convey that “Mass” doesn’t? *** 🤷
Click to expand...
look, it’s simple: liturgy describes all sorts of Christian worship, the Mass defines a specific liturgy composed of two liturgies (the word and the Eucharist).

What you’re saying is like asking “what does the word dog convey that german shepherd does not?”

Would you call a poodle a german shepherd when because you don’t like how general the term “dog” is? I certainly hope not.

Liturgy is similar, it is a more general term to discuss all aspects of church “services”. We don’t call it the Mass of the Hours, it is the liturgy of the hours. we don’t call it the Mass of Adoration, and there are any other number of instances where something which is a liturgy is most certainly NOT a mass. We might celebrate the liturgy of the word without having the liturgy of the Eucharist (for some strange reason, maybe a priest is not present and the deacon can only give a liturgy of the word), and that is CERTAINLY not a mass either.

The fact that you haven’t heard of the term liturgy until recently does not mean that it’s not a long standing word with a long historical usage in the church, it just means that you hadn’t heard it before. Perhaps with the advent of the internet and the introduction of the information age, you’re simply being exposed for the first time to a new word for something. It’s not that the church has introduced a new idea or word, but that you have finally been exposed to that idea or word that you hadn’t previously encountered before.
 
sedonaman said:
Thanks for trying, but I don’t think this answers my question, either. Still :confused:.
Click to expand...
Or is your question simply begging the question? 🙂
sedonaman said:
I’ve seen this explanation before, and I don’t see the point in sacrificing the specific for the generic. If I confess that I missed liturgy, the priest will likely ask which one.
Click to expand...
Have you heard anyone confessing that he missed “liturgy”? Or are you planning to? If not, why the fuss?
 
Actaeon said:
look, it’s simple: liturgy describes all sorts of Christian worship, the Mass defines a specific liturgy composed of two liturgies (the word and the Eucharist).

What you’re saying is like asking “what does the word dog convey that german shepherd does not?”

Would you call a poodle a german shepherd when because you don’t like how general the term “dog” is? I certainly hope not.
Click to expand...
I would say “German shepherd” when I meant German shepherd, “poodle” when I meant “poodle,” and “dog” when I meant dog as a kind of animal. What is happening is that the esoteric are using “dog” for any kind of dog when what they mean is a particular kind.
Liturgy is similar, it is a more general term to discuss all aspects of church “services”. We don’t call it the Mass of the Hours, it is the liturgy of the hours. we don’t call it the Mass of Adoration, and there are any other number of instances where something which is a liturgy is most certainly NOT a mass. We might celebrate the liturgy of the word without having the liturgy of the Eucharist (for some strange reason, maybe a priest is not present and the deacon can only give a liturgy of the word), and that is CERTAINLY not a mass either.
Click to expand...
The fact that you haven’t heard of the term liturgy until recently does not mean that it’s not a long standing word with a long historical usage in the church, it just means that you hadn’t heard it before. Perhaps with the advent of the internet and the introduction of the information age, you’re simply being exposed for the first time to a new word for something. It’s not that the church has introduced a new idea or word, but that you have finally been exposed to that idea or word that you hadn’t previously encountered before.
Click to expand...
Take a look at the excerpt from my missal below. It says nothing about “liturgy” when explaining the Mass. So why is that now a heresy? Am I less of a Catholic because no one announced that Mass is now “liturgy”?

There is no reason at all why we can’t say “liturgy of the hours” when we mean liturgy of the hours, “liturgy of the Adoration” when we mean liturgy of the Adoration, and “Mass” when we mean Mass.
 
Filii_Dei said:
Or is your question simply begging the question? 🙂

Have you heard anyone confessing that he missed “liturgy”? Or are you planning to? If not, why the fuss?
Click to expand...
If I told you, “I’m going to liturgy,” what would it mean to you?
 
Filii_Dei said:
…why the fuss?
Click to expand...
The one who defines the language wins the debate. Anyone familiar with the considerable semantic gymnastics employed by the Left, including the Catholic Left, over the last 60 years to justify abortion, et al, will run for the hills whenever a new name for something begins to be used in lieu of an old one.
For liberals, there is no finish line.
 
sedonaman said:
If I told you, “I’m going to liturgy,” what would it mean to you?
Click to expand...
What is the matter with you? No-one says “I am going to the liturgy” and no-one here was has tried patiently to explain the differences between the two terms to you has advocated its usage in that context.
 
sedonaman said:
I would say “German shepherd” when I meant German shepherd, “poodle” when I meant “poodle,” and “dog” when I meant dog as a kind of animal. What is happening is that the esoteric are using “dog” for any kind of dog when what they mean is a particular kind.
Click to expand...
And yet everybody says “Good dog”, rather than “Good German Shepherd” or “Good West Highland White Terrier”. Do you exclusively refer to them by their specific breed name? Do we become less human because we choose to substitute it with a more general term like ‘dog’?
sedonaman said:
Take a look at the excerpt from my missal below. It says nothing about “liturgy” when explaining the Mass.
Click to expand...
And I can find you a missal that alternately describes it as ‘liturgy’ and ‘Mass’. The New Liturgical Movement has no issues with referring to themselves as such, nor with speaking of “reverent liturgy”. Different terms for different contexts.
sedonaman said:
So why is that now a heresy? Am I less of a Catholic because no one announced that Mass is now “liturgy”?
Click to expand...
Is it a heresy? Did somebody say that you are less of a Catholic? If somebody has accused you, speak his name now.
sedonaman said:
If I told you, “I’m going to liturgy,” what would it mean to you?
Click to expand...
It would be a strange turn of phrase, but it is not the same situation. Given that context, it is good to be specific. I would say that “I am attending the Memorial of Saint Camillus of Lellis this Saturday” (St. Camillus, pray for us!), but would you crucify me if I were to later generically say “the Mass was wonderful”?
sedonaman said:
The one who defines the language wins the debate. Anyone familiar with the considerable semantic gymnastics employed by the Left, including the Catholic Left, over the last 60 years to justify abortion, et al, will run for the hills whenever a new name for something begins to be used in lieu of an old one.
For liberals, there is no finish line.
Click to expand...
Is somebody justifying abortion by substituting ‘Mass’ with ‘liturgy’? Are people considered the “Catholic Left” because they choose to alternate between two? If not, why do you even bring it into the picture?

Oh, how I wished to discuss the renewal and reform of the liturgy, but how far we have fallen away from the topic!
 
sedonaman said:
I would say “German shepherd” when I meant German shepherd, “poodle” when I meant “poodle,” and “dog” when I meant dog as a kind of animal. What is happening is that the esoteric are using “dog” for any kind of dog when what they mean is a particular kind.
Click to expand...
Aaaaand there you have it. We say Mass when we mean the mass, we say adoration when we mean adoration, and we say liturgy when we generally speak of kinds of Catholic worship.

And this bothers you for some reason, but I still have no idea why you’re opposed to such a longstanding concept…
Take a look at the excerpt from my missal below. It says nothing about “liturgy” when explaining the Mass.
Click to expand...
Does it need to? In a conversation about my german shepherd do I really need to tell people that “this is my german shepherd, he’s a type of dog”???

No, a german shepherd is a KIND of dog, just like a mass is a KIND of liturgy. To discuss the mass is to discuss a specific KIND of liturgy and it doesn’t require us to constantly specify “the mass, a form of liturgy” because the fact that a mass is a liturgy is CONTAINED in the very word MASS.
So why is that now a heresy?
Click to expand...
I’m completely unsure where or when saying that you’re going to mass became a heresy… perhaps you can post a source that asserts this because at the moment it sounds like the only person saying this is… you.
Am I less of a Catholic because no one announced that Mass is now “liturgy”?
Click to expand...
Am I less of an english speaker because I tell people I own a german shepherd rather than just telling them I have a dog?
There is no reason at all why we can’t say “liturgy of the hours” when we mean liturgy of the hours, “liturgy of the Adoration” when we mean liturgy of the Adoration, and “Mass” when we mean Mass.
Click to expand...
That is correct, there is no reason we CAN’T use the specific terms for each liturgy
If I told you, “I’m going to liturgy,” what would it mean to you?
Click to expand...
That you’re going to SOME kind of worship which has a clear structure. To which I would probably respond “oh, what kind of liturgy?”

Exactly the same as if you told me you own a dog, to which I would probably respond “oh, what kind of dog?”

Admittedly, the context you present here is inconvenient, and no one is advocating that people should use generalities where specifics are normative… but that’s exactly why your statement seems to make little sense: because you seem to believe that the word liturgy implies that people should become poor practitioners of the english language.

A more appropriate use of the word liturgy would be in discussing the importance of liturgical (structured and traditional) worship rather than simply adhering to ad hoc worship (such as baptists or non-denominational churches use)… because in that instance you’re not discussing a particular INSTANCE of the liturgy, but rather a concept of liturgical worship as a whole. To debate the reason for Mass-like worship would be too specific, since MANY liturgies don’t remotely resemble mass, even if they derive from it.
 
Filii_Dei said:
And yet everybody says “Good dog”, rather than “Good German Shepherd” or “Good West Highland White Terrier”. Do you exclusively refer to them by their specific breed name? Do we become less human because we choose to substitute it with a more general term like ‘dog’?
Click to expand...
Well, let’s pull that thread. A closer analogy would be one in which the world said, “Good German Shepherd” or “Good West Highland White Terrier”, and you did too; and then all of a sudden for no obvious reason, everyone started to say, “Good dog”. Now as I have implied, there is a lot of evil going on in the Church, and I highly suspect this change in vocabulary has something to do with it.
And I can find you a missal that alternately describes it as ‘liturgy’ and ‘Mass’. The New Liturgical Movement has no issues with referring to themselves as such, nor with speaking of “reverent liturgy”. Different terms for different contexts.
Click to expand...
So can I, but the missal I took it from was dated 1960. Why is there a need for a “New” Liturgical Movement? Wasn’t the old one good enough? I don’t recall any “misunderstandings and irregularities” as the OP title of this thread states there is with the “New” one. Obviously the “New” one is inferior if it is causing “misunderstandings and irregularities”.
Is it a heresy?
Click to expand...
Well, I guess it is.
Is somebody justifying abortion by substituting ‘Mass’ with ‘liturgy’?
Click to expand...
As I stated earlier, we should run for the hills whenever a new name for something begins to be used in lieu of an old one, for it is the surface of mind control and some associated evil.
Oh, how I wished to discuss the renewal and reform of the liturgy, but how far we have fallen away from the topic!
Click to expand...
I disagree. We have just proved the OP title. 😃
“Results since the (Vatican II) Council, seem to be in cruel contrast to the expectations of all, beginning with those of John XXIII and Paul VI. … The Popes and the Council Fathers were expecting a new Catholic unity, and instead one has encountered a dissension that – to use the words of Paul VI – seems to have gone from self-criticism to self-destruction. A new enthusiasm was expected, but too often there has been boredom and discouragement instead. A new leap forward was expected, but instead we find ourselves facing a process of progressive decadence. … It must be clearly stated that a real reform of the Church presupposes an unequivocal turning away from the erroneous paths that led to indisputably negative consequences.” – Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
 
Actaeon said:
yep, derailed in the FIRST response and somehow no explanation has been enough to return the thread to the original topic… hmmmn… perhaps someone should ask for the thread to be closed?
Click to expand...
In case it does get closed can I just say that your explanation 2 posts up was just brilliant.
 
You ever find youself reading something and then thinking, “why did I just waste 5 minutes reading that”? You all suckered me in…
Where’s the camera?
I’ve gotta be on Candid Camera. :D:D:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top