Reform of the Reform and forgetting the TLM?

[otjm]

As I said, “ecumenical” is an excuse for protestantization of the Mass, which has occurred. And again, if you want to use the whole “resourcement” argument, how about we go back to the 1700-yr old, several-hour long, and extremely ornate Liturgy of St.James?

Your urban legend has a life of its own as to protestanization.

And frankly, I prefer the Maronite rite.

 

[thunderballs75]

So you’re saying that the OF is more protestant than the protestant service? What I meant by protestantization is that they removed many of the main prayers presenting the Mass as a sacrifice, the priest as, well, a priest, and the many genuflections which clearly present the Eucharist as the Precious Body and Blood of our Lord.



But hey, we’re getting a little side-tracked, aren’t we? My main point was from the beginning that maybe this reform of the reform would make us lose the Mass of St.Pius V(or effectively, it would fade away), which the pope has called a precious treasure of the Church.

 

[otjm]

So you’re saying that the OF is more protestant than the protestant service?

Both High Lutheran and High Episcopal/Anglican have mimiced the Catholic Church, Roman rite. And while technically those terms for those two churches are incorrect, they convey the end of the spectrum of those bodies which have a complex liturgy. Neither the EF nor the OF are “protestantized”. That comes not from me but from one who has been working on the “reform of the reform” to bring the OF closer in line to where it probably should have been to begin with.

Protestanization is simply a snotty term for the OF which comes from those who either outright reject it as a Mass, or border close to that. It is code wording, not factual, and has achieved urban myth status along with the term “Mass of the Ages” , the latter of which comes from France specifically and has been adopted by some of those who would like to see the OF done away with. Mass of the Ages not only shows an extremely myopic view of liturgical history but also one of liturgical differences with some of the Eastern rites, which have a longer history than the EF.

I sincerely tire of code wording; it makes any conversation polemical from the start.

I am not anti -EF. I am simply observing that the issue gets so emotional that logic and facts fly out the window. When people start making comments (not you) about the EF becoming the standard again, I want to ask them what they have been smoking. World wide, for parishes tracked (and there are those which are not), there are about 117,000 parishes. Out of those world wide, about 1 in 250 says the EF regularly. That is about .4% (four tenths of one percent). Which makes Chicago Archdiocese, with about 3.5% having the EF regularly, a regualr hotbed of activity in the EF.

People seem to get really upset when I mention these things. I am not trying to do so to put anyone down. I have no problem whatsoever with anyone being able to attend the EF. And I most certainly do not propose that the OF is the quintessence of liturgy. But when emotion overcomes logic and facts, it is time to say “whoa, lets take another look”.

Me naive ( and you didn’t say that either)? I don’t think so. I sit and watch. And I have 63 years of watching; That doesn’t make me right. It is just my opinion. I don’t think B 16 will rock the boat; I think he is too kind, too loving, and too wise to impose changes when he has been observing and involved far longer and far, far greater in depth than I would ever contemplate. He is no fool at all, and is not out to make matters worse; he wants to heal. But I do think the Counccil’s document will be the source of further work.

Of those of us who experienced the EF when that was all there was, our expericences vary. However, 2000+ bishops felt there was need for greater participation in the liturgy by all, and that certainly coincides with my experiences. What people experience now in the EF is colored by 40+ years and a great hunger; and they presume that everyone in the pew in 1950 had that same great hunger. The bishops then had a different take on that issue.

 

[otjm]

So you’re saying that the OF is more protestant than the protestant service? What I meant by protestantization is that they removed many of the main prayers presenting the Mass as a sacrifice, the priest as, well, a priest, and the many genuflections which clearly present the Eucharist as the Precious Body and Blood of our Lord.



But hey, we’re getting a little side-tracked, aren’t we? My main point was from the beginning that maybe this reform of the reform would make us lose the Mass of St.Pius V(or effectively, it would fade away), which the pope has called a precious treasure of the Church.

Well, to begin with, we have the documents of Vatican 2. All the wishing in the world will not make them go away; 2000+ bishops signed them, and while we have a few doubting Thomas’ around (who cannot distinguish between cause and effect on one hand, and post hoc on the other) the consensus including the last 4 popes seems to be that the Holy Spirit was guiding the Church in these matters.

It is also conceded by both the last Pope and this one that the work of implementing the documents is not finished, and one of the documents is Sacrosanctum Concilium which calls for restoration of the liturgy; given that the Mass of Pius V in its modified form was what they had when they wrote the document, reason indicates (as opposed to emotion) that there is more work to be done on the Mass of Pius V.

Will it be gone? That depends on how you define “gone”. If you mean that what we had in 1962 cannot be changed or revised, you are confronted with popes and documents. Having been to both, I can identify the Mass clearly and easily in either form, and those who say they cannot are so far into emotion and so lacking in logic and reason that they are not in the conversation. It is far more difficult to sort out either a Maronite or Byzantine rite Mass in comparing it to the EF or the OF than it is to compare the two to each other.

I would suspect that if one were to be dropped into the year 45 AD by the proverbial time machine, one could identify the main two elements of the Mass - the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist - but would have difficulty if for no other reason than the possible time separation of the two.

So it gets back to what we define as “gone”.

 

[pnewton]

And for that reason I will never attend one of the modern “sacraments.” There is both one Church - there is One Mass with all of its various rites (Ambrosian, Roman, Mozarabic, etc.) and the Novus Ordo liturgy and theology can not be part of that Church. Because, if it is, how can Traditional Theology (the priest alone may touch the Eucharist, etc, etc, etc) possibly be in union with it!

Originally Posted by bpbasilphx forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
The SSPX is not in communion with the Church.

No, you are incorrect.

How sad to see this type of contradiction and rebellion.
:nope:

 

[Layman]

Personally, I think it would be nice if the 1924 missal were also liberated. It would be nice to ‘compare and contrast’.

 

[moon1234]

I have just completed reading “What happened at Vatican II” written by John W. O’Malley, a Catholic priest who was present at the four sessions in the fall of 1962 - 1965 and was studying in close proximity to St. Peter’s at that very moment in time.

I will first mention that I’m greatly disturbed by the visible irreverence and the banal liturgical music ( a charitable phrase not necessarily deserving of charity ) but I prefer the Mass being said in English at my parish and other American parishes. If I were to be visiting some place out of town and it turned out that the Mass was EF then I would enjoy the nostalgic element ( I’m 59 ) but that would not be my preference at daily Mass.

Getting back to the book; it changed some of my perspective on the direction the Church has taken post VII. Prior to reading this book I was mostly cynical and thought of VII as an aberration and possibly the work of Satan within the body of the clergy. I’ve changed my view points.

There were approximately 2,200 Bishops who attended the four ten week sessions and there were 16 documents that were promulgated. In every instance, it was a small minority who voted no on any given document and in nearly every instance 2,000 + voted yes on each document.

My personal reasoning tells me that the Holy Spirit was considerably more likely to have been moving the majority, which in and of itself is not and indictment of the minority.
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger was in the Majority on most issues and can be said to have played a substantial role in the " new direction " the Church chose to embark upon, particularly Theologically.

There were three vocabulary words that describe the essence of the new direction in ecumenism the Church was about to embark upon;
aggiornamento ( Italian for bringing up to date ) collegiality and ressourcement.

It was the “ressourcement” line of thinking that helped change my overall perspective of today’s Church in America. It’s basic premise is that the changes being proposed were MORE traditional than the traditions made manifest at Trent and Vatican I because they went back to the traditions established by the Church Fathers. Right or wrong, this was the premise for a major shift in greater horizontal authority for all Bishops and Priests and
a more collegial approach to uniting the universal Christian Church and non Christian religions.

This thread deals mostly if not entirely with Sacred Liturgy which was one of four constitutions ( these four documents were the most debated and given the greatest degree of importance ) but as the author suggests, it can not nor should it be interpreted
independent of the corpus of ideas on how the Church should act in and towards modern societies and within it’s own body.

As a predominantly conservative believer and proponent of tradition but not at the complete exclusion of dynamic thought, I found this book to be thought provoking at the very least and quite illuminating and my personal observation is that it’s not a " liberal " slant on the Council of the early 1960’s.

I’ve really not done this book the justice it deserves; in my opinion it should be part of any personal library wanting a complete view of Church history.

May the Peace of Christ be with us all, always

JT

So at VII the “Inspriation” was to throw out all of the Inspired development of the Church for the previous 1500 years. All those Martyrs and Saints must have had it wrong ehh. They should have dumped of of the revealed truth from the previous 1500 years. This is the problem with the “Going back to the roots” thought.

This type of thinking is what lead to the wreckovation and destruction of so many western churchs. Some edifaces that took decades to build and ordain with works of art were quickly tossed aside as old fashioned. This was NOT organic development of Liturgy and was not Thomastic theology (rather it was modern neoconsertive theology that Pius X and other Popes warned us against.)

Greater collegilaity has also lead to defiant Bishops who no longer see the Pope as the Vicar of Christ, but simply as the Bishop of Rome. Christ did not say though are Peter, John, Matthew, James, Mark, etc… He said though art PETER and upon THIS ROCK I will build my church. I think the whole idea of greater collegilaity is a grave error. It has led to too many Bishops going off and doing their own things and even outright, public defiance of the Magesterium.

All of these are points that will be discussed by the SSPX. They want clear answers to how these understanding can be reconciled with revealed truth thru the centuries. Just because 2000 Bishops vote on something does not make it revealed truth or inspired.

The Lord only promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church. He did not promise that every ecumenical council would be 100% good of free from errors. Most Catholics today think anything that is written or spoken by the Pope is automatically infallible.