Reform of the post-Vatican II liturgy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter maryceleste
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JKirk’s problem is he is using a quote from Trent, taken quite out of context (but let’s ignore that for the second), and using it to defend the notion that the Novus Ordo Missae shouldn’t be criticized.

I don’t use Quo Primum to defend the Missale Romanum of 1962. I prefer the more telling recent fact that Bugnini tried to get it abrogated in 1974 and was denied his request. But if JKirk wants to say you’re anathema if you question certain disciplinary norms of the liturgy, he’ll find that all the popes after John XXIII are also anathema, because they quite noticeably changed things in the Missale Romanum.

In short, JKirk is wrong to say you’re anathema if you criticize the Novus Ordo. Quite wrong. Now if we want to quibble about saying the Novus Ordo is an “incentive to impiety”:
  1. The Novus Ordo needs to be defined. Do you mean the 2002 Missale Romanum? If so, good luck finding it. Are you aware that at present the Lectionarium does not exist in Latin? For the first time in a long time, there is no Latin Lectionarium. The 1969 version was replaced in 1981, but the 1981 version was never updated, and, besides, the 1981 version has no readings. Just references to them. If you’re in the USA, you’re using a translation of the 1975 Missale. You’re not using the normative Missal. You’re using a translation of a defunct Missal.
  2. Various bishops have said we are living through the disintegration of the Roman Rite. That’s because there is no complete Roman Rite as we speak. The Breviary has NEVER received music so it can be sung. The complete Breviary, promised in 1970, still awaits the publication of its fifth volume. The Missal allows so many options on its own, compounded by the fact that so many vernacular indults exist…you get the point.
  3. Guess what? You attend a Pauline English Mass? You attend an Indult Mass. The NORMATIVE Mass would be in Latin, 2002 Missal.
  4. You want to throw anathemas around? Check out the ones for touching the Pian Missal.
  5. In short, while the average Indult Tridentine community does indeed celebrate a 1962 Mass, the VAST MAJORITY of American Catholic parishes celebrate a Mass that is not only also by Indult (for the vernacular), but isn’t even according to the normative Missal of 2002, which hasn’t yet been translated into English. Incidentally, the Breviary of 1985 also remains UNTRANSLATED. Ditto the Martyrology. The Tridentinists have a complete liturgy. The vernacularists lack various parts, and what they DO have is out of date.
Can the Latin Novus Ordo of 2002 lead to impiety? Nope. Can many liturgies ACTUALLY OFFERED? You bet.

It’s easier to find a 1962 Mass than a 2002.
 
40.png
AlexV:
JKirk’s problem is he is using a quote from Trent, taken quite out of context (but let’s ignore that for the second), and using it to defend the notion that the Novus Ordo Missae shouldn’t be criticized.

I don’t use Quo Primum to defend the Missale Romanum of 1962. I prefer the more telling recent fact that Bugnini tried to get it abrogated in 1974 and was denied his request. But if JKirk wants to say you’re anathema if you question certain disciplinary norms of the liturgy, he’ll find that all the popes after John XXIII are also anathema, because they quite noticeably changed things in the Missale Romanum.

In short, JKirk is wrong to say you’re anathema if you criticize the Novus Ordo. Quite wrong. Now if we want to quibble about saying the Novus Ordo is an “incentive to impiety”:
  1. The Novus Ordo needs to be defined. Do you mean the 2002 Missale Romanum? If so, good luck finding it. Are you aware that at present the Lectionarium does not exist in Latin? For the first time in a long time, there is no Latin Lectionarium. The 1969 version was replaced in 1981, but the 1981 version was never updated, and, besides, the 1981 version has no readings. Just references to them. If you’re in the USA, you’re using a translation of the 1975 Missale. You’re not using the normative Missal. You’re using a translation of a defunct Missal.
  2. Various bishops have said we are living through the disintegration of the Roman Rite. That’s because there is no complete Roman Rite as we speak. The Breviary has NEVER received music so it can be sung. The complete Breviary, promised in 1970, still awaits the publication of its fifth volume. The Missal allows so many options on its own, compounded by the fact that so many vernacular indults exist…you get the point.
  3. Guess what? You attend a Pauline English Mass? You attend an Indult Mass. The NORMATIVE Mass would be in Latin, 2002 Missal.
  4. You want to throw anathemas around? Check out the ones for touching the Pian Missal.
  5. In short, while the average Indult Tridentine community does indeed celebrate a 1962 Mass, the VAST MAJORITY of American Catholic parishes celebrate a Mass that is not only also by Indult (for the vernacular), but isn’t even according to the normative Missal of 2002, which hasn’t yet been translated into English. Incidentally, the Breviary of 1985 also remains UNTRANSLATED. Ditto the Martyrology. The Tridentinists have a complete liturgy. The vernacularists lack various parts, and what they DO have is out of date.
Can the Latin Novus Ordo of 2002 lead to impiety? Nope. Can many liturgies ACTUALLY OFFERED? You bet.

It’s easier to find a 1962 Mass than a 2002.
Click to expand...
Good post, I can’t wait to see the comments on it.
 
40.png
maryceleste:
Thanks for the link.

I also enjoyed Fr. Jay Scott Newman’s article, on the same page. For a lay Catholic like me, it can be sometimes hard to tell just why certain churches and liturgies feel more reverent than others. When I read his suggestions, such as “Right angles are preferable to oblique ones,” and “If the choir is visible to the congregation, move them to a place where they will not be,” a few things just sort of “clicked” in my mind. 🙂
Click to expand...
the problem with the issue of “moving the choir” is that it is a very personal perception. Last night we celebrated the Chrism Mass at the Cathedral. The Cathedral is in the traditional cross shape, and the choir sits, stands and kneels in the right “arm”. The Mass is one of the highlights of the liturgical year, and is one of the more solemn and reverent liturgies of the year with the blessing of the oils and the renewal of vows of the priests of the Archdiocese.

Putting the choir elsewhere would have no impact that I can see as to how reverential the Mass is; that flows from the reverence of the clebrant (here, our archbishop).
 
40.png
otm:
the problem with the issue of “moving the choir” is that it is a very personal perception. Last night we celebrated the Chrism Mass at the Cathedral. The Cathedral is in the traditional cross shape, and the choir sits, stands and kneels in the right “arm”.
Click to expand...
I can see how that might work. At our parish, the church is the usual 1960’s California “box shape,” and the choir sits up front, to the right of the altar. It’s quite distracting.
Putting the choir elsewhere would have no impact that I can see as to how reverential the Mass is; that flows from the reverence of the clebrant (here, our archbishop).
Click to expand...
The reverence of the celebrant is very important, but it’s not the only consideration. Many other factors, such as inappropriate music, a poorly decorated church, or an awkward vernacular translation, can affect the reverence of the Mass.
 
40.png
AlexV:
JKirk’s problem is he is using a quote from Trent, taken quite out of context (but let’s ignore that for the second), and using it to defend the notion that the Novus Ordo Missae shouldn’t be criticized.** Rather like those who dismiss EENS by saying that Boniface only meant it for the French monarch at whom he hurled it. I didn’t quote anything out of context.**

I don’t use Quo Primum to defend the Missale Romanum of 1962. I prefer the more telling recent fact that Bugnini tried to get it abrogated in 1974 and was denied his request. But if JKirk wants to say you’re anathema if you question certain disciplinary norms of the liturgy, he’ll find that all the popes after John XXIII are also anathema, because they quite noticeably changed things in the Missale Romanum. **If the popes changed it, it’s then an established discipline. If they permit something, it’s an established discipline for the people to whom the “indult” is granted. **

Can the Latin Novus Ordo of 2002 lead to impiety? Nope. Can many liturgies ACTUALLY OFFERED? You bet.

.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree with your last statement. I’m NOT talking about abuses of the Pauline Mass, I’m talking about the NATURE of the Pauline Mass. It WAS properly promulgated, whether various and sundry parts never arrived (breviary, etc.).

And as to translations, I’ve never understood why they simply didn’t translate the TLM into the verncular. I should think they would have avoided a lot of problems. Be that as it may, if you count a generation as 20 years, there’s two generations that have had the Pauline Rite. It isn’t abused everywhere (though I’ve witnessed some abuses, I think they are fewer and farther between than is let on in these threads) and it is loved by many of us. If we’re going to spend time picking at things in “each others” masses, that’s not going to benefit the Body of Christ. It pretty much looks like those attached to the TLM are about to be given their hearts desire. Stop carping on the desire of other’s hearts.
 
JKirk,

I am going to bring up the Communion in the hand thing, but it is not aimed at you. I know how you feel, and if you wish to receive on the hand you obviously can. I do believe that you probably receive it very reverently.

Communion in the hand (which is permitted by indult) is one of those things which, although it is licit, it does not serve for the greater good. To believe that this practice can lead to a lessening of Faith is perfectly permissable. There are many in higher authority in the Church who would agree.

I have previously posted several articles and quotes in a previous thread to support this. As it would probably be breaking the rules on this forum to repost the entire thing here, I will link to it:

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=107413 Post #42

I urge everyone to read through the articles linked to in the above post.

I will reference just one part of an article from that post which speaks of the Fragments of the Eucharist:

*"Christ, whole and entire, is contained not only under either species, but also in each particle of either species. Each, says St. Augustine, receives Christ the Lord, and He is entire in each portion. He is not diminished by being given to many, but gives Himself whole and entire to each . . . . the body of our Lord is contained whole and entire under the least particle of the bread.
Therefore, very great reverence, respect and care is to be taken of these fragments. Since this is the case, why would we multiply immensely the number of persons who are handling the Sacred Host, some of whom are clumsy, or cannot see well, or don’t care, or don’t know, etc.

To this must be added the increased danger of dropping the Host on the ground and the increased ease of stealing the Body of the Lord for superstitious or horrible purposes.

For those who believe with lively faith, this question ought to be enough to put an end to Communion in the hand: “What about the fragments?” * (Rethinking Communion in the Hand, by Jude A Huntz, HOMELITIC & PASTORAL REVIEW March 1997)

I agree that this reason alone, is enough to rethink Communion in the hand. But even if you wish not to, you should be able to understand why others are against this practice. There is certainly nothing wrong with someone being critical of this practice and wishing to avoid it.

I reference the following:

*“The Holy See, since 1969, while maintaining the traditional manner of distributing communion, has granted to those Episcopal Conferences that have requested it, the faculty of distributing communion by placing the host in the hands of the faithful.” * (Taken from NOTIFICATION OF THE SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DIVINE WORSHIP AND THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SACRAMENTS ON COMMUNION IN THE HAND)

In approving the indult for Communion in the hand, the Holy See made sure to start off by maintaining the traditional manner of receivingas can be seen above.

In Item # 7, of this approval they also made sure to comment that no one should be required to receive this way.

“The faithful are not to be obliged to adopt the practice of communion in the hand, each one is free to communicate in one way or the other.”

For the full text, which outlines guidelines for those wishing to receive this way, see: http://www.cardinalrating.com/cardinal_146__article_380.htm

Also this, which is taken from an Interview of Cardinal Medina on March 9, 2001:

“Q. Does communion in the hand remain controversial?
A. I would not want some to create a large crisis over this. Personally, I prefer to give communion in the mouth. But if one wants it from me in the hand, I do not refuse it. In all cases, I do not think poorly of people preferring communion in the mouth. And I believe that the Holy Father prefers to give it in this way.”

For the entire interview, see: omm.org/news/Interview-Cardinal-Medina-03-09-2001.html

In the previous post, which I linked to above, there is a quote from JPII verifying that Communion in the mouth is his preference.

It seems the issue here is not wether Communion in the hand is allowable, it certainly is, but wether it is the better thing to do. JKirk, may certainly be able to receive in this manner without it lessening his Faith, or diminishing his belief in the Eucharist. However, many others are not and it has lead to a weakening of their Faith and has diminished their belief in the Eucharist. That is why many, even those in the heiarchy, are not for this practice.

One more note, I have never received in the hand - always on the tongue - and I have never had anyone’s hands in my mouth. 🙂 Although I am sure this has happened to someone somewhere.
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
Yes, I agree with your last statement. I’m NOT talking about abuses of the Pauline Mass, I’m talking about the NATURE of the Pauline Mass. It WAS properly promulgated, whether various and sundry parts never arrived (breviary, etc.).
Click to expand...
How can the 2002 Missal have been “promulgated,” if it never arrived in our parishes? :confused:
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
It pretty much looks like those attached to the TLM are about to be given their hearts desire. Stop carping on the desire of other’s hearts.
Click to expand...
Many people DO desire a reformed Pauline mass. The Holy Father, for one. Rumor has it that this subject will also be addressed in his upcoming announcement. 🙂

What it comes down to is this: The reform of the Pauline liturgy is a legitimate movement in the Church. If it upsets you so much to hear about it, maybe you could just skip reading posts on the subject. Your current posting behavior is reminiscent of a vegetarian who chooses to go to a steakhouse, and then gets offended by the dead animals on people’s plates.

For those who are interested, I found a few more interesting links.

RomanRite.com
Looks like an extensive resource on the liturgy.

and the Sacrosanctum Concilium**Roman Missal
USCCB document on the 2002 revisions.

Latin Returning to the Mass
Washington Times article on the increasing popularity of the “Latin NO.”

Assault on the Roman Rite
Una Voce article on the liturgical reforms, written from a traditionalist perspective
 
40.png
NeelyAnn:
JKirk,

Communion in the hand (which is permitted by indult) is one of those things which, although it is licit, it does not serve for the greater good. To believe that this practice can lead to a lessening of Faith is perfectly permissable. There are many in higher authority in the Church who would agree.

:"Christ, whole and entire, is contained not only under either species, but also in each particle of either species. Each, says St. Augustine, receives Christ the Lord, and He is entire in each portion. He is not diminished by being given to many, but gives Himself whole and entire to each . . . . the body of our Lord is contained whole and entire under the least particle of the bread.
*Therefore, very great reverence, respect and care is to be taken of these fragments. Since this is the case, why would we multiply immensely the number of persons who are handling the Sacred Host, some of whom are clumsy, or cannot see well, or don’t care, or don’t know, etc. *

*To this must be added the increased danger of dropping the Host on the ground and the increased ease of stealing the Body of the Lord for superstitious or horrible purposes. *

*For those who believe with lively faith, this question ought to be enough to put an end to Communion in the hand: “What about the fragments?” *(Rethinking Communion in the Hand, by Jude A Huntz, HOMELITIC & PASTORAL REVIEW March 1997)

I reference the following:

"The Holy See, since 1969, while maintaining the traditional manner of distributing communion, has granted to those Episcopal Conferences that have requested it, the faculty of distributing communion by placing the host in the hands of the faithful." (Taken from NOTIFICATION OF THE SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DIVINE WORSHIP AND THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SACRAMENTS ON COMMUNION IN THE HAND)

In approving the indult for Communion in the hand, the Holy See made sure to start off by maintaining the traditional manner of receivingas can be seen above.

In Item # 7, of this approval they also made sure to comment that no one should be required to receive this way.

“The faithful are not to be obliged to adopt the practice of communion in the hand, each one is free to communicate in one way or the other.”

For the full text, which outlines guidelines for those wishing to receive this way, see: http://www.cardinalrating.com/cardinal_146__article_380.htm

In the previous post, which I linked to above, there is a quote from JPII verifying that Communion in the mouth is his preference.

It seems the issue here is not wether Communion in the hand is allowable, it certainly is, but wether it is the better thing to do. JKirk, may certainly be able to receive in this manner without it lessening his Faith, or diminishing his belief in the Eucharist. However, many others are not and it has lead to a weakening of their Faith and has diminished their belief in the Eucharist. That is why many, even those in the heiarchy, are not for this practice.

One more note, I have never received in the hand - always on the tongue - and I have never had anyone’s hands in my mouth. 🙂 Although I am sure this has happened to someone somewhere.
Click to expand...
The response I would make to this is that if it was such a big issue for so many and for him himself, the Pope could simply have refused the indult allowing it. He didn’t. Also, if you don’t wish to rec. in the hand, then don’t. No one forces you to do so. This is another thing that really gets to me. I know people who have come to this forum upset because their pastor has refused to administer communion on the tongue or because a priest has refused to give them communion when they insist on kneeling to rec. I and the other Pauline Mass devotees on these threads vigorously defend their right to rec. on the tongue and to rec. kneeling, because that’s the right thing to do, because it’s allowed and permitted by the Church. But that’s not good enough, no, some of you won’t be satisfied until we’re ALL rec. on the tongue (or kneeling, which I wouldn’t actually mind, as that’s how I rec. in the Episcopal church).

I know that Pope John Paul II wasn’t thrilled with it, but he did say that his reservations were** “in no way meant to refer to those who, receiving the Lord Jesus in the hand, do so with profound reverence and devotion, in those countries where this practice has been authorized.” (Dominicae Cenae)**["][12]]("The Red Herring of Communion in the Hand[12)

Since you posted links to support your position, I submit this (by a former SSPX member known to these forums, Sean O):

matt1618.freeyellow.com/communion.html

And I would categorically deny that communion in the hand leads to a lack of belief in the Real Presence. Very poor catechisis leads to a lack of belief in the Real Presence.
 
40.png
maryceleste:
The reverence of the celebrant is very important, but it’s not the only consideration. Many other factors, such as inappropriate music, a poorly decorated church, or an awkward vernacular translation, can affect the reverence of the Mass.
Click to expand...
This brings to mind a speech given by Cardinal Arinze.

Cardinal Arinze on Sacred Liturgy, October 2003
Keynote address to the national convention of the Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions, at the Omni San Antonio Hotel, October 7-11, 2003


He basically covers all of the issues you mention above.

*Lex orandi, lex credendi * - the law of prayer is the law of belief.
 
40.png
maryceleste:
How can the 2002 Missal have been “promulgated,” if it never arrived in our parishes? :confused: By papal decree.

Many people DO desire a reformed Pauline mass. The Holy Father, for one. Rumor has it that this subject will also be addressed in his upcoming announcement. 🙂 Yes, but reform to some can mean anything from “no more egotistical abuses” to “everything in Latin” to “get rid of it.” I’m sure you can see my concern.

What it comes down to is this: The reform of the Pauline liturgy is a legitimate movement in the Church. If it upsets you so much to hear about it, maybe you could just skip reading posts on the subject. Your current posting behavior is reminiscent of a vegetarian who chooses to go to a steakhouse, and then gets offended by the dead animals on people’s plates. I’m not talking about reform, I’m talking about dumping on the nature of the Mass itself, esp. in comparison to the TLM. I’ll always defend the Pauline Mass. So you can COUNT on my always showing up. The point I’ve endeavored to make is that many of us IN THESE FORUMS (apart from that, we don’t know each other) have supported the old Holy Father’s call for a more generous application of the Indult, out of obedience to him (and that devotion and obedience have lead some to accuse of papalotry or whatever the correct term is) and simply because it didn’t seem unreasonable (as I love the Mass according to the Pauline Rite, so I assume there are those who love the Pian Rite, which is called EMPATHY). That generosity of heart is certainly not reciprocated on the part of a great number of the Pian Rite’s devotees. To take YOUR anaology, it would be rather like me, as a vegetarian (which I’m not), being pan handled by a meat eater and after I buy him a burger, he starts slapping me around for being a vegetarian. Not the best analogy, but serviceable.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
And I would categorically deny that communion in the hand leads to a lack of belief in the Real Presence. Very poor catechisis leads to a lack of belief in the Real Presence.
Click to expand...
**"Holy Communion received on the tongue “signifies the reverence of the faithful for the Eucharist … provides that Holy Communion will be distributed with due reverence … is more conducive to faith, reverence and humility… It [Communion in the hand] carries certain dangers with it which may arise from the new manner of administering holy Communion: the danger of a loss of reverence for the August sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine.” ** - Pope Paul VI in his instruction Memoriale Domini (May 29, 1969)

"Behind Communion in the hand—I wish to repeat and make as plain as I can—is a weakening, a conscious, deliberate weakening of faith in the Real Presence… Whatever you can do to stop Communion in the hand will be blessed by God.”
  • Fr. Hardon, S.J., November 1st, 1997 Call to Holiness Conference in Detroit, Michigan, panel discussion.
**“There can be no doubt that Communion in the hand is an expression of the trend towards desacralization in the Church in general and irreverence in approaching the Eucharist in particular… Why—for God’s sake—should Communion in the hand be introduced into our churches when it is evidently detrimental from a pastoral viewpoint, when it certainly does not increase our reverence, and when it exposes the Eucharist to the most terrible diabolical abuses? There are really no serious arguments for Communion in the hand. But there are the most gravely serious kinds of arguments against it.” ** - Dietrich von Hildebrand (called a “20th century doctor of the Church” by Pope Pius XII), in an article entitled “Communion in the Hand should be Rejected,” November 8, 1973.

Do not get angry with me, I am just agreeing with what they said.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=107413

Have you read the links provided?

I already said, if you wish to receive that way, go right ahead. I am not telling you to stop. That has to be your decision. I do however believe that it is not the best way to receive, and with good reason.
 
Can everyone please try to use the “delete” key judiciously, when quoting other posts? (Not trying to pick on you, JKirk, as I realize it’s happened before.)

Sean O’s article, while very well-researched, is intended to refute those who think the Church must forbid the reception of Communion in the hand. It doesn’t address the question of whether or not the Church should forbid it. As Sean himself says,
Pope Paul VI made an allowance for the restoration of the ancient tradition of communion in the hand. Now whether that was a prudent choice can indeed be debatable. (…)
Click to expand...
Do we think that this practice is great in the way that it is practiced now? Not necessarily so, in light of some sense of the loss of the Sacred in our day.
Click to expand...
Which sounds pretty close to what NeelyAnn was saying.
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
And I would categorically deny that communion in the hand leads to a lack of belief in the Real Presence. Very poor catechisis leads to a lack of belief in the Real Presence.
Click to expand...
The liturgy, in itself, is a form of catechesis. While “communion in the hand” alone probably won’t lead to a lack of belief in the Real Presence, I’ve never seen a shred of evidence suggesting that it helps. And, in these times, lay Catholics need all the catechesis they can get.
 
NeelyAnn said:
**"Holy Communion received on the tongue “signifies the reverence of the faithful for the Eucharist … provides that Holy Communion will be distributed with due reverence … is more conducive to faith, reverence and humility… It [Communion in the hand]
carries certain dangers with it which may arise from the new manner of administering holy Communion: the danger of a loss of reverence for the August sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine.” **- Pope Paul VI in his instruction Memoriale Domini (May 29, 1969)

"Behind Communion in the hand—I wish to repeat and make as plain as I can—is a weakening, a conscious, deliberate weakening of faith in the Real Presence… Whatever you can do to stop Communion in the hand will be blessed by God.”
  • Fr. Hardon, S.J., November 1st, 1997 Call to Holiness Conference in Detroit, Michigan, panel discussion.
**“There can be no doubt that Communion in the hand is an expression of the trend towards desacralization in the Church in general and irreverence in approaching the Eucharist in particular… Why—for God’s sake—should Communion in the hand be introduced into our churches when it is evidently detrimental from a pastoral viewpoint, when it certainly does not increase our reverence, and when it exposes the Eucharist to the most terrible diabolical abuses? There are really no serious arguments for Communion in the hand. But there are the most gravely serious kinds of arguments against it.” **- Dietrich von Hildebrand (called a “20th century doctor of the Church” by Pope Pius XII), in an article entitled “Communion in the Hand should be Rejected,” November 8, 1973.

Do not get angry with me, I am just agreeing with what they said.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=107413

Have you read the links provided?

I already said, if you wish to receive that way, go right ahead. I am not telling you to stop. That has to be your decision. I do however believe that it is not the best way to receive, and with good reason.
Click to expand...

Being a matter of discipline, they are entitled to their prudential judgement, as I am to mine. It is allowed, it is permitted, and it has historical prededent. No one respects Paul VI more than me. Fr. Hardon and Von Hildebrand are certainly entitled to their opinions. I’m not a heretic for disagreeing.
 
40.png
maryceleste:
I can see how that might work. At our parish, the church is the usual 1960’s California “box shape,” and the choir sits up front, to the right of the altar. It’s quite distracting.

The reverence of the celebrant is very important, but it’s not the only consideration. Many other factors, such as inappropriate music, a poorly decorated church, or an awkward vernacular translation, can affect the reverence of the Mass.
Click to expand...
Ok, let’s take the next one, inappropriate music. Again, this is too often a listener perception.

I took the RCIA class, a couple of years ago, to St Patrick’s on a Saturday night, to see the Pauline rite Mass in latin, with Cantor Ecclesia (or was it Schola Cantora - whatever). the Mass was one of the Masses of Palestrina; the music was drop dead gorgeous, and it was a fantastic concert.

And that is how it came across to me; a fantastic concert; I went to Mass the next morning because I really felt that I had not participated in sunday worship, but had gone to hear a concert by a fantastic Choir. I find that more than distracting. For others, it makes their socks roll up and down. I prefer sining a hymn to listening to a choir sing four part harmony for the purposes of worship. others feel differently.

I get tired of the carping about OCP; I agree that some of the songs are tired and worn out, but then, so is the song “Mother, dear oh pray for me”; I couldn’t stand that either from a musical standpoint. What many carpers seem to take no notice of is how many songs in OCP are from the Psalms, and from both the OT and the NT. and when I pointed out that On Eagles Wings came from the OT, one writer snotted back that it was a paraphrase - as if that somehow disqualified it.

Some people have tin ears; others like only country western (at least I limit my country western to pre 60’s 😃 ); some thing that if it isn’t from one of the world’s great symphony writers, it isn’t music…

I have sung Gregorian chant in a group for a record; I have heard fantastic Gregorian chant, and I truly dread the day someone is going to try and drag that out and slaughter it in the name of “reverence”. And those who wouldn’t know good Gregorian chant from a tin whistle are going to go around salivating and talking aobut how “uplifiting” and “reverent” it was. Almost no congregations, and mostly no choirs, can properly sing Gregorian chant. They can abuse it, they can sort of get near the melody line. But sing it as it was meant to be sung? One of the worst excuses I have heard was on a funeral broadcast over EWTN. I don’t think if they had tried they could have done worse. Salughtering beautiful music in the name of reverence or tradition is still slaughtering beautiful music.

The Trappist Abbey at Lafayete, OR used to have the ability to sing chant reasonably well, but they have slid further and further into a level somewhere below mediocrity; in part because they are aging and no longer have the young voices they once had. It is sad to listen to them, knowing what they once could do.
 
40.png
maryceleste:
Can everyone please try to use the “delete” key judiciously, when quoting other posts? (Not trying to pick on you, JKirk, as I realize it’s happened before.)

Sean O’s article, while very well-researched, is intended to refute those who think the Church must forbid the reception of Communion in the hand. It doesn’t address the question of whether or not the Church should forbid it. As Sean himself says,

Which sounds pretty close to what NeelyAnn was saying.

The liturgy, in itself, is a form of catechesis. While “communion in the hand” alone probably won’t lead to a lack of belief in the Real Presence, I’ve never seen a shred of evidence suggesting that it helps. And, in these times, lay Catholics need all the catechesis they can get.
Click to expand...
Then if you feel that way, you are bound in conscience to not receive that way. As long as it’s permitted, I intend to continue to rec. in the hand.
 
Dear Reader:

Why would there be a need to reform mass? Though this discussion focuses not on SSPX and the work of Benedict XVI, but does focus on the return of what seemingly has been lost since Vat. II–reverence, etc., my experiences with SSPX for some four mos., and tLM within the Sacramento Diocese allow for an adequate contrast of sorts with Vat. II, and discussion about reverence, etc.

I very much enjoy changes to the Church since Vat. II. I find no lack of reverence at the church that I attend. Many of the elements in the mass of Vat. II may not have originated in tLM; but they are seen there. Priests in tLM face the congregation, when presenting the host to altar boys. Genuflecting and receiving the host on the tongue as a matter of reverance may or may not in fact be truly reverant. The Paten used to catch the host, should it happen to fall, has now been replaced with our own God-made hands. There is nothing certain about when the host actually is body and the blood of Christ–it can happen at any moment during the mass and therefore, how can we determine when we are reverant, or irreverant toward it?

Where one might think that reform should take place, might only be a need for what already exists to be practiced–such as during the Niecene Creed, when all are to bow as Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and stop the bow as He became man.

Forcing people toward reverance does little good; faith should be practiced to the extent that a person understands it.

Most sincerely,

Kristopher
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
…and that devotion and obedience have lead some to accuse of papalotry or whatever the correct term is…
Click to expand...
I recall this staement and I believe it was more a reference to someone talking about doing jumping jacks in Mass, if the Pope said to. The Pope would never do this, of course, but if he did, it would defy logic to do it.

I reference:

Catechism of the Catholic Church:** “even the supreme authority in the Church may not change the Liturgy arbitrarily, but only in the obedience of faith and with religious respect for the mystery of the Liturgy”. ** (CCC No. 1125, p. 258)

It seems to me most important that the Catechism, in mentioning the limitation of the powers of the supreme authority in the Church with regard to reform, recalls to mind what is the essence of the primacy as outlined by the First and Second Vatican Councils: The pope is not an absolute monarch whose will is law, but is the guardian of the authentic Tradition, and thereby the premier guarantor of obedience. He cannot do as he likes, and is thereby able to oppose those people who for their part want to do what has come into their head. His rule is not that of arbitrary power, but that of obedience in faith. That is why, with respect to the Liturgy, he has the task of a gardener, not that of a technician who builds new machines and throws the old ones on the junk-pile. The “rite”, that form of celebration and prayer which has ripened in the faith and the life of the Church, is a condensed form of living tradition in which the sphere which uses that rite expresses the whole of its faith and its prayer, and thus at the same time the fellowship of generations one with another becomes something we can experience, fellowship with the people who pray before us and after us. Thus the rite is something of benefit which is given to the Church, a living form of paradosis – the handing-on of tradition. ** (Pope Benedict XVI when Cardinal Ratzinger in review of The Organic Development of the Liturgy, July 26, 2004) Excellent Review, I highly recommend it.

**[The faithful] have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence, and position, to manifest to the sacred pastors [bishops] their views on matters that concern the good of the Church. They have the right also to make their views known to others of Christ’s faithful, but in doing so must always respect the integrity of faith and morals, show due reverence to the pastors, and take into account both the common good and the dignity of individuals. ** (Canon Law 212)

**“Just as it is licit to resist a Pontiff who aggresses the body, it is also licit to resist one who aggresses the souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, one who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed. It is not licit, however, to judge, punish, or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior.” ** (St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, doctor of the Church; De Romano Pontifice, 2,29)
 
I found one more quote of reference:

The Devastated Vineyard (1973), Dietrich von Hildebrand:

**"A third false response, and perhaps the most dangerous one, would be to imagine that there is no destruction of the vineyard of the Lord, that it only seems so to us — our task as laymen is simply to adhere with complete loyalty to whatever our bishop says…

At the basis of this attitude is a false idea of loyalty to the hierarchy. When the pope speaks ex cathedra on faith or morals, then unconditional acceptance and submission is required of every Catholic. But it is false to extend this loyalty to encyclicals in which new theses are proposed. This is not to deny that the magisterium of the Church extends much farther than the dogmas. If an encyclical deals with a question of faith or morals and is based on the tradition of the holy Church — that is, expresses something which the Church has always taught — then we should humbly accept its teaching. This is the case with the encyclical Humanae Vitae: although we do not have here the strict infallibility of a defined dogma, the content of the encyclical nevertheless belongs to that sphere of the Church’s magisterium which we must accept as true.

But there are many encyclicals which deal with very different (e.g., sociological) questions and which express a response of the Church to certain new conditions. Thus the encyclical of the great Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, with its idea of a corporate state, differs on sociological questions with encyclicals of Paul VI. But when it is a question of practical ordinances such as concordats, or the suppression of the Jesuit order by Pope Clement XIV, or the introduction of the new missal, or the rearrangement of the Church calendar, or the new rubrics for the liturgy, then our obedience (as Vatican I declares), but by no means our agreement, is required… In the history of the Church there have been many unfortunate ordinances and practical decisions by popes, which have then been retracted by other popes. In such matters we may, while obeying an ordinance, with all due respect express opposition to it, pray for its elimination, and address many appeals to the pope."**
 
40.png
maryceleste:
.

The liturgy, in itself, is a form of catechesis.
Click to expand...
Fantastic, then you understand my attachment to the Pauline Rite: it was that Mass that wooed me into the Church.
 
40.png
NeelyAnn:
I found one more quote of reference:

The Devastated Vineyard (1973), Dietrich von Hildebrand:

**"A third false response, and perhaps the most dangerous one, would be to imagine that there is no destruction of the vineyard of the Lord, that it only seems so to us — our task as laymen is simply to adhere with complete loyalty to whatever our bishop says… **

**At the basis of this attitude is a false idea of loyalty to the hierarchy. When the pope speaks ex cathedra on faith or morals, then unconditional acceptance and submission is required of every Catholic. But it is false to extend this loyalty to encyclicals in which new theses are proposed. This is not to deny that the magisterium of the Church extends much farther than the dogmas. If an encyclical deals with a question of faith or morals and is based on the tradition of the holy Church — that is, expresses something which the Church has always taught — then we should humbly accept its teaching. This is the case with the encyclical Humanae Vitae: although we do not have here the strict infallibility of a defined dogma, the content of the encyclical nevertheless belongs to that sphere of the Church’s magisterium which we must accept as true. **

But there are many encyclicals which deal with very different (e.g., sociological) questions and which express a response of the Church to certain new conditions. Thus the encyclical of the great Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, with its idea of a corporate state, differs on sociological questions with encyclicals of Paul VI. But when it is a question of practical ordinances such as concordats, or the suppression of the Jesuit order by Pope Clement XIV, or the introduction of the new missal, or the rearrangement of the Church calendar, or the new rubrics for the liturgy, then our obedience (as Vatican I declares), but by no means our agreement, is required… In the history of the Church there have been many unfortunate ordinances and practical decisions by popes, which have then been retracted by other popes. In such matters we may, while obeying an ordinance, with all due respect express opposition to it, pray for its elimination, and address many appeals to the pope."
Click to expand...
Not sure who this is aimed at, but let me reiterate: it’s one thing to question a discipline surrounding the Mass, it’s another to question the Mass itself. That’s all I’m saying: is it an abuse of the Mass one has a problem with? Or the Mass, in and of its very nature? The original Trent quote was for that poster who said that the “Novus Ordo” was disgusting and offensive. I get the difference between agreement and obedience. If the pope did away with reception in the hand tomorrow (for example), I would obey with alacrity (and get accused by the **LEFT **of papalotry instead of the RIGHT)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top