So speaks the leader of American bishops re wider use of the pre-Vatican II Mass?

[AlexV]

“We’re a church of unity and of common worship. The thrust of Vatican II calls for more active participation on the part of the faithful in the liturgy itself, and from my standpoint trying to move further in that direction would be most helpful.”

Do they teach liturgical history in American seminaries? This (I would say outrageous) statement implies that we all must worship the same way in order to show unity (in other words, a charge I’ve often leveled against the liturgical Left). Once again, the Vatican II “participation” issue - as if people can’t participate actively EXCEPT in the context of the Novus Ordo Missae. Finally, a total dismissal (by omission) of all the legitimate variety that exists in the liturgy…what Vatican II actually called the “beauty of unity in diversity”.

Statements like this explain why there’s a traditionalist movement.

Then again, perhaps some will say the leader/spokesman of American bishops must be obeyed on his liturgical views.

 

[VociMike]

What would “further in that direction” look like? Seriously. I can only shudder…

 

[AlexV]

The context, incidentally, was a request for comment on any likelihood of a further Tridentine Indult.

 

[scylla]

Can you give us a link please? I am interested in reading the whole thing.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[decn2b]

I smell a schism coming on! Man oh man this is indeed serious times for our church. Perhaps CHrist wants a visisble example of how separate some bishops have become from ROME. As for me.??? You can just call me ROMAN Catholic. Please link the text for this statement.

 

[palmas85]

I smell a schism coming on! Man oh man this is indeed serious times for our church. Perhaps CHrist wants a visisble example of how separate some bishops have become from ROME. As for me.??? You can just call me ROMAN Catholic. Please link the text for this statement.

I kind of thought that this would be the reaction of a large group of US Bishops since any return to Traditional practices and devotions would likely be seen by them as a los of their own authority, which was something they actively sought after Vatican II and which Vatican II actually called for in a way…

What many people don’t grasp these days is that Vatican II was above all a re-designing of the Church’s heirarchy in a sense, a decentralization of power. Rome was to act as an equal among Bishops, with much authority that had previously been held at the Vatican allowed to the various Bishops. The first big confrontation after that was Humanae Vitae, which really lit a few fires and created a huge rift between Rome and the majority of the US and European Bishops.

It used to be said that when Rome spoke the world listened. After Vatican II the same line seem to be Rome has spoken, ignore her.

At least in the minds of a good number of the US and European clergy that is.

 

[AlexV]

nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/pfw102006.htm

My favorite laugh from the usual party line about restricting the Tridentine Mass is the wonderful self-contradiction most of these bishops make:

1. It’s so few people, really, who want it;
2. It must be totally limited, restricted, and subject to my strict control.
3. See #1. Nobody really wants it.

 

[decn2b]

I wonder how quickly USCCB “enforces” or announces decrees from ROme. I would be willing to bet that If rome were to do away with EMHCs it would be stuck in USCCB committee for years before an announcement were made. But if Rome decided to have women deaconesses I am sure that the USCCB would have a midnight press conference announcing the first classes for women deacons would be starting the following morning.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

I kind of thought that this would be the reaction of a large group of US Bishops since any return to Traditional practices and devotions would likely be seen by them as a los of their own authority, which was something they actively sought after Vatican II and which Vatican II actually called for in a way…

What many people don’t grasp these days is that Vatican II was above all a re-designing of the Church’s heirarchy in a sense, a decentralization of power. Rome was to act as an equal among Bishops, with much authority that had previously been held at the Vatican allowed to the various Bishops. The first big confrontation after that was Humanae Vitae, which really lit a few fires and created a huge rift between Rome and the majority of the US and European Bishops.

It used to be said that when Rome spoke the world listened. After Vatican II the same line seem to be Rome has spoken, ignore her.

At least in the minds of a good number of the US and European clergy that is.

Pax tecum!

I’m going to have to disagree with you very strongly on that bolded part. That couldn’t be less true. Vatican II never ever (nor any council in Church history) said that Rome was simply to be an “equal among bishops”.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[AlexV]

I’ll tell you how fast the USCCB operates.

In 2001, Rome published numerous new Breviary texts for new saint observances, several of which were feasts restored as options after having been cut in 1969.

FIVE YEARS later, American Catholics don’t have those texts.

So much for renewed liturgy.

 

[reggieM]

It’s frightening to see how far our bishops have drifted over the years. We will often hear talk about “unity” but all kinds of things have been taught and tolerated that have disturbed the unity we should have had. Our unity should be in the doctrine of the faith and the liturgical practices as authorized by the Holy See (even those are sometimes confusing, but Pope Benedict is bringing order out of chaos).

 

[palmas85]

Pax tecum!

I’m going to have to disagree with you very strongly on that bolded part. That couldn’t be less true. Vatican II never ever (nor any council in Church history) said that Rome was simply to be an “equal among bishops”.

In Christ,
Rand

First among equals is what they are actually looking for. That was the main reason for the consternation over Humanae Vitae. The Holy Fathers advisory council as well as a good number of the western Bishops had wanted birth control allowed and because they wanted it allowed they were positive the Holy Father would agree, collegiality and all that and de-centralization of power. When Humanae Vitae came out the Bishops were outraged!!! How dare the Holy Father overrule them when they wanted it and it had been reccomended to him by his advisors. It was obviously an attempt by the Holy Father to retain control over the Bishops, which they clearly had not thought possible. At least in their minds…

No, what the Bishops at Vatican II envisioned and feverently desired was a total re-tooling of the power structure, While the Bishops wanted democracy, total democracy, the Vatican kept the heirarchial structure. This outraged many Bishops and has in my opinion directly led to some of the worst abuses in the Church today.

As in many other cases, what was envisioned, written about and decided upon at Vatican II are a long, long way from what has actually happened.

 

[jpjd]

First among equals is what they are actually looking for. That was the main reason for the consternation over Humanae Vitae. The Holy Fathers advisory council as well as a good number of the western Bishops had wanted birth control allowed and because they wanted it allowed they were positive the Holy Father would agree, collegiality and all that and de-centralization of power. When Humanae Vitae came out the Bishops were outraged!!! How dare the Holy Father overrule them when they wanted it and it had been reccomended to him by his advisors. It was obviously an attempt by the Holy Father to retain control over the Bishops, which they clearly had not thought possible. At least in their minds.

You are saying that the teaching on birth control is a result of a power struggle and not of theology? Oh, please. These conspiracy theories get worse all the time.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

Even when things got hairy, thank God that He preserves His Church.

I hope that the Holy Father keeps these bishops in line. Who’s the only bishop protected with the charism of Infallibility on matters of Faith and Morals? The Pope. Thus, why let all these squabbling bishops have more power? It seems that when bishops think they can screw with the liturgy or various practices, they can just do whatever they want.

 

[netmilsmom]

You are saying that the teaching on birth control is a result of a power struggle and not of theology? Oh, please. These conspiracy theories get worse all the time.

I didn’t draw that from his post at all.
The teaching on BC was from Our Holy Father consistant with church teachings for all of history.
Some Bishops didn’t like the ruling.

With all the modern teaching brought into the Catholic Church in the 60’s and 70’s by the Bishops, why would you doubt that some Bishops didn’t like this?

Perhaps you are too young to remember that time but some of us lived it.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

What would “further in that direction” look like? Seriously. I can only shudder…

We could all take turns celebrating Mass, preaching homilies, conducting Baptisms. I can FULLY participate in Mass by engaging my full mind, body and soul, in the Mass being offered, without needing to be up front doing anything.

 

[steve_green_2]

I wonder how quickly USCCB “enforces” or announces decrees from ROme. I would be willing to bet that If rome were to do away with EMHCs it would be stuck in USCCB committee for years before an announcement were made. But if Rome decided to have women deaconesses I am sure that the USCCB would have a midnight press conference announcing the first classes for women deacons would be starting the following morning.

Indeed.

 

[decn2b]

I feel a new song coming on. Anyone seen “high Society” with grace kelley, blue eyes and Bing?

In that movie there is a song called 'who wants to be a millionare"

Sinatra: Who wants to be a millionare?

Kelly: I don’t etc.

Pope:
Who has an itch
To make that switch

Pope:
Who gives a smite
For the tridentine rite?

USCCB:
Such a rite really does bite!

Pope:
Who wants to go ad orientum?

USCCB:
WE don’t

Pope:
With six candles in the room?

USCCB
we don’t

pope:
Who thinks Latin is really great?

USCCB:
Latin…is something weeeeeee Haaaaaate!

Pope:
Who wants Gregorian chant?

USCCB:
WE don’t

Pope:
Would it cause McBrien to Rant?

USCCB
WE don’t’…er….yes sir!

pope:
Who wants to worship not complain?

USCCB:
we dont

pope:
Spend some time in the supernatural plane?

USCCB
we don’t.

pope:
Who wants to heed romes commands?

USCCB
we don’t!!!

pope:
Who thinks the Novus Ordo is bland?

USCCB
we don’t

feel free to add on.

 

[Brendan]

“We’re a church of unity and of common worship. The thrust of Vatican II calls for more active participation on the part of the faithful in the liturgy itself, and from my standpoint trying to move further in that direction would be most helpful.”.

I wonder if Bishop Skyland is using the same defintion of “active participation” that Pope Benedict uses in his book “Spirit of the Liturgy”

Pope Benedict had a whole chapter devoted to what “active participation” is and is not.

I think most parish liturgists would be rather surprized, as “active particpation” does involve words or “ministries” at all. rather the silent contemplation of the readings and the silent offering of ourselves along with the sacrifice being offerered by the priest.

 

[Cavaille-Coll]

I wonder whatever happened to Bishop Skylstad’s Columbia River Watershed project. Isn’t that active participation? Silly me, I always thought it smacked of environmentalist pantheism, but I guess one’s participation is pretty darned active when they’re trying to blow up a dam.

I would argue that the proverbial little old lady praying her Rosary during a Tridentine Mass was probably more fully engaged in bringing her offering (the Rosary) to the altar for the Holy Sacrifice, than the typical suburban Novus Ordo participant who is saying all the correct responses in English and making physical contact with their neighbors whenever possible, but is still wondering what that big, white, circular object is that Father is holding.