Reform of the post-Vatican II liturgy?

[maryceleste]

JKirkLVNV:

Originally Posted by maryceleste
How can the 2002 Missal have been “promulgated,” if it never arrived in our parishes?
By papal decree.

Well, it seems like there was a lack of follow-up.

JKirkLVNV:

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.

Why? Any one of those could be a legitimate approach. “Get rid of it” is unlikely, but possible – especially since it’s only been around for 40 years, which equates to a few moments in the history of the Church.

JKirkLVNV:

I’m not talking about reform, I’m talking about dumping on the nature of the Mass itself, esp. in comparison to the TLM.

What do you mean by the “nature” of the Mass? I thought you were referring to the fact that it has a valid consecration. But now it sounds like you consider things like “communion in the hand,” and the use of the vernacular, as part of its “nature.”

JKirkLVNV:

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.

Nobody in this thread has “pan handled” or “slapped you around” one bit. Nor have they implied that you’re a “heretic,” as you said in another post. Perhaps they’ve done so somewhere else… but our topic is “Reform of the post-Vatican II liturgy,” not “Why are some traditionalists so mean to JKirkLVNV?” So, if you wish to air your grievances about things that have happened in past discussions, please do so elsewhere.

 

[NeelyAnn]

JKirkLVNV:

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.

I did not say you were a heretic,nor do I believe you are one.

This was just to show that there are many in much higher authority who have said much the same thing that I was saying.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

maryceleste:

Well, it seems like there was a lack of follow-up.

Why? Any one of those could be a legitimate approach. “Get rid of it” is unlikely, but possible – especially since it’s only been around for 40 years, which equates to a few moments in the history of the Church. I think that would seriously divide the Church, much worse than the SSPX schism.

What do you mean by the “nature” of the Mass? I thought you were referring to the fact that it has a valid consecration. But now it sounds like you consider things like “communion in the hand,” and the use of the vernacular, as part of its “nature.” **The Mass in and of itself, as a rite. Not communion in the hand and not the vernacular (though I think that has been a tremendous success, whether called for by the Council or not). **

Nobody in this thread has “pan handled” or “slapped you around” one bit. Nor have they implied that you’re a “heretic,” as you said in another post. Perhaps they’ve done so somewhere else… but our topic is “Reform of the post-Vatican II liturgy,” not “Why are some traditionalists so mean to JKirkLVNV?” So, if you wish to air your grievances about things that have happened in past discussions, please do so elsewhere.

Now you are accusing me of reducing this to a childish argument. My point was NOT “why are some “traditionalists” so mean.” If it wasn’t clear before, my question is “how long is this internecine fighting going to continue?” You were the one who created the “vegetarian” analogy, not me, I just followed through with it. I didn’t say anyone in this thread had done so. It was along the thread of conversation regarding communion in the hand, ie, many haved defended the rights of those who wish to rec. on the tongue though they themselves rec. in the hand only to be criticized for rec. in hand by those who rec. on the tongue. Does that make it clearer and less personal?

 

[maryceleste]

JKirkLVNV:

Then if you feel that way, you are bound in conscience to not receive that way.

No, I’m not “bound in conscience.” I simply choose not to receive that way. If I felt “bound in conscience” to refuse to participate in any liturgical practice I believed to be “less than ideal,” I’d be in a pretty tough situation, even at my conservative NO parish.

Anyway, this thread is for our opinions about reform of the liturgy – an objective topic – not about our individual consciences.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

maryceleste:

No, I’m not “bound in conscience.” I simply choose not to receive that way. If I felt “bound in conscience” to refuse to participate in any liturgical practice I believed to be “less than ideal,” I’d be in a pretty tough situation, even at my conservative NO parish.

Anyway, this thread is for our opinions about reform of the liturgy – an objective topic – not about our individual consciences.

Right, gotcha.

 

[maryceleste]

JKirkLVNV:

The original Trent quote was for that poster who said that the “Novus Ordo” was disgusting and offensive.

Will you please stop referring to this inflammatory post, that was made on some other thread? It is in no way on topic for the current discussion.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

maryceleste:

Will you please stop referring to this inflammatory post, that was made on some other thread? It is in no way on topic for the current discussion.

“In recent discussions, some forum members have said that it’s wrong for lay Catholics to hold the opinion that the post-Vatican II (Pauline) liturgy is in need of reform.”

Mary Celeste: I quote the above to you to remind you of how you started this thread. I am the one you speak of, at least I’m the only one who’s posts may have been construed that way (the Trent quote). Several posts ago, NeelyAnn quoted from Von Hildebrand’s *The Devastated Vineyard. *I responded with the reminder as to why I made the original quote as a result of that (if you’ll forgive me and indulge me one final time, I think that to say a rightly promulgated Mass is “disgusting and offensive to Christ” crosses the line of what IS permitted to the laity, in response to what Von Hildebrand stated as what is permitted to the laity, in fact, I think my assertion is one that Von Hilldebrand would concur with). I was reminding NeelyAnn of what I was NOT saying.

I’ve come to realize that I am loosing all objectivity in these conversations. I had resolved several days ago not to argue about the Mass any more. I should have stuck with that resolution, as I can feel the civilizing effects of my religion and my upbringing erroding ever more quickly. So I’m will withdraw from the conversation.

 

[maryceleste]

JKirkLVNV:

Now you are accusing me of reducing this to a childish argument. My point was NOT “why are some “traditionalists” so mean.” If it wasn’t clear before, my question is “how long is this internecine fighting going to continue?”

You were the one who created the “vegetarian” analogy, not me, I just followed through with it. I didn’t say anyone in this thread had done so. It was along the thread of conversation regarding communion in the hand, ie, many haved defended the rights of those who wish to rec. on the tongue though they themselves rec. in the hand only to be criticized for rec. in hand by those who rec. on the tongue. Does that make it clearer and less personal?

Giving our opinions about liturgical reform does not consititute “internecine fighting.” And, to answer your second question, I don’t think this discussion needs to be “personal” at all. Criticism of a particular liturgical practice, as a norm for the Church, doesn’t imply criticism of those who happen to prefer it.

You’ve stated that you have a great love for the current liturgy, as is. It seems that you don’t perceive a need for reform. Fair enough – and nobody has “slammed” you for believing this. They’ve just presented (objective, scholarly) arguments from a different perspective.

You’re welcome to contribute further (objective, scholarly) arguments to support your own position. Or not. It’s your choice. But, please, don’t accuse those who disagree with your ideas of attacking you personally. That’s sort of a reverse “ad hominem” argument.

 

[maryceleste]

“In recent discussions, some forum members have said that it’s wrong for lay Catholics to hold the opinion that the post-Vatican II (Pauline) liturgy is in need of reform.”

Mary Celeste: I quote the above to you to remind you of how you started this thread. I am the one you speak of, at least I’m the only one who’s posts may have been construed that way (the Trent quote).

I wasn’t referring to the quotation from Trent, but, rather, to comments that were made in response to my own post, which used the word “questionable” to describe certain liturgical practices. As I mentioned previously, you’re not the only one who made such comments.

JKirkLVNV:

I’ve come to realize that I am loosing all objectivity in these conversations. I had resolved several days ago not to argue about the Mass any more. I should have stuck with that resolution, as I can feel the civilizing effects of my religion and my upbringing erroding ever more quickly. So I’m will withdraw from the conversation.

Okay… sorry to have gone on so much, then. I wish you a blessed Holy Week.

 

[maryceleste]

Kristopher:

Dear Reader:

Why would there be a need to reform mass?

Have you read any of the articles that were mentioned earlier in the thread? This is a fairly complex subject, and it would help to have some background regarding what Benedict XVI and others have said.

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

I agree. Changes in the liturgy are a big deal, and need to be accompanied by clear catechesis, to make sure that the faithful understand the reasons for them. (This wasn’t done effectively after Vatican II, according to those I’ve spoken to who remember the era.)

 

[otm]

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.

And so on to the next point: deocrations in churches. I was at an evening Mass and suddenly realized my mind had wandered far from the altar, as I had slipped into counting the number of statutes/bas relief characters there were in and around the sanctuary. I caught myself at 37, and wa probably barely more than half way through. To say they were distracting is to be polite. It came from another time and age. am I an artist? No. I probably have a fairly wide taste, and most things I can either deal with or ignore. Some is beautiful, and some which is beautiful is distracting. Art, somewhat like choirs, can be too much, in my book; done poorly they are worse than nothing at all. And by that I do not mean to promote the sere approach of which we are probably all to familiar. But again, art and reverence is more in the beholder than some would propose, and what is beautirful to one is not to another.

and as to the translations, I have no use for politically correct translations, but I also thin that some people are spending a wee bit too much time in the esotirica of counting angels on the heads of pins. I neither want a dumbed down liturgy, nor a high brow liturgy. I just want to worship God. The prayers of the Mass for the greatest part do just that.

 

[palmas85]

maryceleste:

Have you read any of the articles that were mentioned earlier in the thread? This is a fairly complex subject, and it would help to have some background regarding what Benedict XVI and others have said.

I agree. Changes in the liturgy are a big deal, and need to be accompanied by clear catechesis, to make sure that the faithful understand the reasons for them. (This wasn’t done effectively after Vatican II, according to those I’ve spoken to who remember the era.)

Well, you are indeed right, it wasn’t done effectively. In fact:

IT REALLY WASN’T DONE AT ALL

We were basically told this is it, the new way and the new church. The breath of spring has arrived and you can now experience Jesus the way he wanted you to. Forget the old and embrace the new.

Yeah right.

 

[maryceleste]

otm:

Art, somewhat like choirs, can be too much, in my book; done poorly they are worse than nothing at all. And by that I do not mean to promote the sere approach of which we are probably all to familiar. But again, art and reverence is more in the beholder than some would propose, and what is beautirful to one is not to another.

True, but it should still be possible for the Church to come up with some basic guidelines. For instance, I think we can agree that it’s not a great idea to have thirteen St. Joseph statues around the altar – or, at the other extreme, walls that are bare except for a few felt banners with “peace” signs.

and as to the translations, I have no use for politically correct translations, but I also thin that some people are spending a wee bit too much time in the esotirica of counting angels on the heads of pins. I neither want a dumbed down liturgy, nor a high brow liturgy. I just want to worship God. The prayers of the Mass for the greatest part do just that.

It’s not “high brow” to expect an accurate, beautiful translation of the Mass. Of course, you’re not required to have a personal interest in this subject… but, in case you get curious, these articles have a lot of information about the various areas of concern.

 

[maryceleste]

palmas85:

Well, you are indeed right, it wasn’t done effectively. In fact:

IT REALLY WASN’T DONE AT ALL

We were basically told this is it, the new way and the new church. The breath of spring has arrived and you can now experience Jesus the way he wanted you to. Forget the old and embrace the new.

Yeah right.

My mother (who is in no way a traditionalist) told me that they were shown a filmstrip that bordered on propaganda. First, it showed a scene from the “old Mass,” where the priest was a tiny figure huddled over the altar, barely visible in the distance. Then came the scene of the “new Mass,” where he was front & center, larger than life. As if having him turn around, and move a few feet forward, would make such a difference.

 

[otm]

NeelyAnn:

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.

Sorry, but I am going to say this is a red herring. There have been a few, proponents of receiving on the tongue, who have made a hue and cry about dropping the Host, and about someone absconding off with one.

Anyone who thinks that Hosts weren’t dropped prior to Vatican 2 was either not an altar boy, or simply not there. I was, and I have yet to see a Host dropped with Communion in the hand (others have related an incident or two they have seen). However, as an altar boy pre V2, we all carried a small cloth over our right arm, and father would use that to wipe the spit off his fingers that he received from someone who slaivated heavily. Other times, it would be used to cover the Host that had fallen to the floor (in spite of the paten, and probably due imn part to the haste with which he distributed Communion, and in part to people not opening their mouth wide enough, or catching it on their front teeth as they drew their tongue back in. while it was not a common occurance, it certainly happened several times a year while I was a server - from 6th grade through high school.

And anyone who wants badly enough to abscond with a Host can simply receive on the tongue and later extract it from their mouth, easier now to do that we have thicker Hosts.

NeelyAnn:

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 certainly mean no disrespect, and I mean no lack of reverence (and someone is going to flame me for this for sure), but given the bread that Christ used, which is way more likely to cause crumbs, I wonder if we are getting into a hyper reverence mode at times? Christ managed to deal with it, and I do not suggest that it is a complete non-issue, but I am not convinced that a person being reverent is offending Christ if a crumb unknowingly goes astray.

It would seem that simple catechesis would do more for the issue than all the angst that seems to surround this.

NeelyAnn:

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

That answer is what in a courtroom would be called non responsive to the question.

NeelyAnn:

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.

this statement, in general form, keeps making the rounds, and in its essence it is a “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” arguement. I have yet to see any poll, even one poorly structured, which gives this result, that people have lost reverence or had their faith weakend by reception in the hand. The statemetn, like all good urban legends, keeps making the rounds, and no one ever stops to cite a source.

I have asked people over a number of years, how they feel about Communion in the hand; to a person they have responded positively, and many have said that it has strengthened their faith. And I come from a parish with 24 hour perpetual Adoration, so it is not like I am speaking to a bunch of flaming liberals.

Much if not most of the weakening of faith has been do to catechesis that has been somewhere between poor and abysmal; and couple that with the general downslide of society over the last 40 years and it is a wonder anyone has faith. But to ascribe it to Communion in the hand? No.

 

[otm]

maryceleste:

True, but it should still be possible for the Church to come up with some basic guidelines. For instance, I think we can agree that it’s not a great idea to have thirteen St. Joseph statues around the altar – or, at the other extreme, walls that are bare except for a few felt banners with “peace” signs.

Given the knee jerk reaction to the “non-guidelines” guidelines that gave us the goofiness of 20 or 30 years, I don’t know who I would propose to set forth on such an adventerous task. They would need more wisdom than humans are generally endowed with, to be able to come up with something that was orkable and had meaning; or we would get some library-paste flavored useless ruminations not worthy of the paper they were written on…

maryceleste:

It’s not “high brow” to expect an accurate, beautiful translation of the Mass. Of course, you’re not required to have a personal interest in this subject… but, in case you get curious, these articles have a lot of information about the various areas of concern.

It is not an area I find much interest in, as too often it seems to me the individuals seem to have lost sight of what the prayers, in their essence, are for. In other words, they pick nits.

 

[maryceleste]

otm:

However, as an altar boy pre V2, we all carried a small cloth over our right arm, and father would use that to wipe the spit off his fingers that he received from someone who slaivated heavily.

Would that be a “rabid traditionalist?”

(Sorry, couldn’t resist… )

I’m off to sleep. Thank you all for your efforts to keep this thread civil and on topic.

 

[otm]

maryceleste:

Would that be a “rabid traditionalist?”

(Sorry, couldn’t resist… )

I’m off to sleep. Thank you all for your efforts to keep this thread civil and on topic.

I don’t know; we called them “droolers”. :dancing:

 

[mosher]

To add to my earlier point concerning something of substantial matter that should be looked at for revision in the NO (earlier the Sign of Peace) I would like to point to some other portions of the mass that should be looked at line by line:

Introduction - Ok but I would like to go back to the multiple prayers refering to the various celebrations that may fall on the same day such as we still see in the Easter Liturgies and the Traditional Latin Liturgies. I would also suggest a return to the prayers at the foot of the altar. While this originally was formed out of private devotions I think that it is a good way for the priest and servers to enter into the liturgy so that they are presented with the awe and majesty of the actions that they are partaking in.

Prayers of the Faithful - These should either be removed again or a strict formula needs to be made for them and/or a definate limitation of the number allowed.

Sequences - I would like to see all the sequences back in the liturgy on the particular feasts and the Requiem Mass.

Offeratory - The offeratory needs to be returned and the presentation of the gifts (which is all we technically have now) needs to do a better job of expressing the idea that it is trying to express because it is lost on most people that I have spoken to.

Canons - Less canons

Our Father - We should remove the Doxology as we now know that it has no foundation in liturgical practices but only para-liturgical rites from the early Church.

Other - the other stuff that I am most concerned about are the things that we speak about on a regular basis such as sacred music viable translations, church archetecture and order of the sanctuary and male ministers but we all know about those topics.

 

[NeelyAnn]

otm:

Sorry, but I am going to say this is a red herring. There have been a few, proponents of receiving on the tongue, who have made a hue and cry about dropping the Host, and about someone absconding off with one… .

The quote was provided from an article. READ the article. It would be beter to read all of the information linked to before responding.

otm:

this statement, in general form, keeps making the rounds, and in its essence it is a “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” arguement. I have yet to see any poll, even one poorly structured, which gives this result, that people have lost reverence or had their faith weakend by reception in the hand. The statemetn, like all good urban legends, keeps making the rounds, and no one ever stops to cite a source.

Perhaps no one has taken a poll to show that Communion in the hand is the direct culprit. A poll could not show this, only research and investigation could. A poll is a compilation of subjective answers to a specific set of questions, and most who no longer believe in the True Presence probably have no real idea as to the specific cause.

There has, however, been a poll taken (since the inception of Communion in the hand - 1992) that shows that a large percent of Catholics no longer believe in the True Presence. I have linked to it once before on these forums.

otm:

I have asked people over a number of years, how they feel about Communion in the hand; to a person they have responded positively, and many have said that it has strengthened their faith. And I come from a parish with 24 hour perpetual Adoration, so it is not like I am speaking to a bunch of flaming liberals…

I could same just the opposite about the people I know. Some use to receive in the hand but have recently changed because they did believe it harmful.

Besides, if they feel that way great. I believe as I have stated, and as Fr. Hardon, Paul VI and Von Hildebrand, etc.

otm:

Much if not most of the weakening of faith has been do to catechesis that has been somewhere between poor and abysmal; and couple that with the general downslide of society over the last 40 years and it is a wonder anyone has faith.

This I completely agree with.