The Latin Mass and Vatican 2?

[JKirkLVNV]

HagiaSophia:

From the GIRM

"12. The nature of the presidential prayers demands that they be
spoken in a loud and clear voice and that everyone present listen with attention.[21] While the priest is reciting them there should be no other prayer and the organ or other instruments should not be played.

1. But the priest does not only pray in the name of the whole
   community as its president; he also prays at times in his own name that he may exercise his ministry with attention and devotion. Such prayers are said inaudibly.

VOCAL EXPRESSION OF THE DIFFERENT TEXTS

1. In texts that are to be delivered in a clear, loud voice, whether by the priest or by the ministers or by all, the tone of voice should correspond to the genre of the text, that is, accordingly as it is a reading, a prayer, an instruction, an acclamation, or a song; the tone should also be suited to the form of celebration and to the solemnity of the gathering. Other criteria are the idiom of different languages and the genius of peoples.

In the rubrics and in the norms that follow, the words
() or () are to be understood of both singing and speaking, and in accordance with the principles just stated.

SILENCE

1. Silence should be observed at the designated times as part of the celebration.[30] Its function depends on the time it occurs in each part of the celebration. Thus at the penitential rite and again after the invitation to pray, all recollect themselves; at the conclusion of a reading or the homily, all meditate briefly on what has been heard; after communion, all praise God in silent prayer.

christusrex.org/www1/mcitl/girmch2.html

Please don’t mistake me, I’m not arguing against silence per se, Hagia. There’s that line from Saint Benedict that says silence can indeed give great homage to God. I wish they’d shut down the choir after communion. I still don’t see that as an argument for restoring the silent canon as normative. I would miss hearing the words of consecration, but I wouldn’t leave the Church over it. “Where else are we to go? You have the words of eternal life.”

 

[HagiaSophia]

JKirkLVNV:

Please don’t mistake me, I’m not arguing against silence per se, Hagia. There’s that line from Saint Benedict that says silence can indeed give great homage to God. I wish they’d shut down the choir after communion. I still don’t see that as an argument for restoring the silent canon as normative. I would miss hearing the words of consecration, but I wouldn’t leave the Church over it. “Where else are we to go? You have the words of eternal life.”

Personally I prefer to hear the words of consecration but as someone else mentioned I believe, it would be nice to have a moment or two after receiving Eucharist to be able to pray and offer thanksgiving. Some priests seem rather timid about allowing any silence at all as if every moment has to be filled up with “something”.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

HagiaSophia:

Personally I prefer to hear the words of consecration but as someone else mentioned I believe, it would be nice to have a moment or two after receiving Eucharist to be able to pray and offer thanksgiving. Some priests seem rather timid about allowing any silence at all as if every moment has to be filled up with “something”.

Absolutely agreed…as though we’re all toddlers and we’ll start crying if Sesame Street cuts to a commercial. In the monastary where I was rec. into the Church, the monks have a long silence before the Gospel and after the homily, and then again after Communion. It’s grand.

 

[oat_soda]

my problem with the post VII mass is that it was a fabrication. it was constructed by a committee with some arbitrary changes made by Paul VI. this says that the liturgy is something we can fashion to fit our needs and that it is merely the product of history which has no transendant qualities about it. this is not to say that all change is bad, but that it was way too drastic. it wasn’t organic and ultimately is a permanent workshop.

this idea that the pope is the ultimate master of the liturgy while may be technically true is missing the point and leads to this idea that the pope is the church. i think this explains why we have so many cafeteria catholics and may explain the reformation. nobody likes to believe something only out of obedience.

we should look at the liturgy as a gift which was handed down to us by the apostles and saints and that any renewal of the liturgy must be organic and not change based on what a pope thinks. he should be protecting the liturgy as he does the faith, not create it!!!

 

[TOME]

The changes made to the liturgy were not arbitrary, they were in the making well before Vat II and the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy (a document I would hope all participating here would read) reflected this. Again, the Novus Ordo, in its rite of worship, reflected the Church own understanding of the role of all the faithful in the world we live in, just as the Triditine Rite reflected the Church’s role at the time of the Council of Trent. While in essance this role never changes, the ways to best acheive the Church’s madate can and does.It is true that there was a time of expermentation before the Novus Ordo was finally accepted, for those of us who were old (young) enough to be alterboys during the transitional period from the Triditine Rite to the Novus Ordo should remember that during the initial phase the two Rites were similar except in English instead of Latin and with the Priest facing the people. Most of the responses were the same, I remember especially the prayers at the foot of the alter at the beginning of Mass - having finally learned the prayers and responses in Latin we had to be retrained to do it in English. So to say the changes were arbitrary is just not accurate. But a major change that came from Vat II as it was reflected in the Liturgy (an here may be the reasons others criticize the Novus Ordo for be too Protestant) was a shift in the emphasis on the role of the Ordained Ministry to give a fuller participation of the Laity whose right and duty it is to actively participate in the COMMUNAL WORSHIP of the Eucharistic Liturgy because we all share in the Priesthood of Christ through Baptism. Which is why silence, though necessary at the proper times, is not always appropriate. Finally, I see it said that the Mass is for God. However, the Liturgy by its very nature is Public Worship in which we are united with Christ in His Praise of the Father. Therefore, I would hold that the immediate reason for the Mass would be for us and our communal worship which in turn calls for a conscious active participation by all according to their ministry. One more thing, the time of experimentation is over but not the time when all of us, by right of our Baptism, have a responsibility to see that the Novus Ordo is celebrated as the Church intends, this responsibility is not just for the Ordained but all of us.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

J.W.B.,

I recommend a book by Patrick Madrid called More Catholic Than The Pope *, *which addresses many of the weird claims against Catholicism that your mother-and-law subscribes to.

 

[Iohannes]

A book I recommend is The Great Facade by Thomas Woods Jr. PhD and Chris Ferrara.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Iohannes:

A book I recommend is The Great Facade by Thomas Woods Jr. PhD and Chris Ferrara.

The orthodox Catholic who tries to be faithful to the Magisterium would do well to avoid this book, these authors, and their little dissenting rag *The Remnant. *

 

[oat_soda]

So to say the changes were arbitrary is just not accurate.

i feel that they went too far. from removing altar rails and tabernacles and high altars, to composing new eucharistic prayers and removing many from the missal of 62’ not to mention the banal secular music and horrible translation. i’ve read sacrosanctum concillium a few times and see that it was written in a very vague language that left much open to its interpretation. the biggest reason i feel the novus ordo mass went too far in its reforms is from the writings of B16. this is not to say the liturgical movement wasn’t a good thing, but that the post conciliar results were not good.

i don’t think it was a good idea for a pope or a committee to make up new eucharistic prayers. this makes it seem entirely arbitrary to me. the pope is not the source of the liturgy, but serves it. read spirit of the liturgy. my take on it is that we need to learn about the liturgy rather than change it to meet our needs and the reform should have organically grown from previous models.

while the novus ordo mass can be celebrated reverently, it generally isn’t. just look at the drastic difference between a tridentine mass and your average suburbian parish here in the u.s. there is also the total lack of appreciation of gregorian chant and former liturgical variations celebrated by the domicans, carmelites, and carthusians.

we lost too much and have a fabricated banal production instead that leaves much to be desired in the name of “full and active participation”. lets call a spade a spade and not say things are good when they are not even if there are rare exceptions.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

oat soda:

while the novus ordo mass can be celebrated reverently, it generally isn’t.

I’m sorry, this is gross generalization. I have lived in four states, visited many others, and attended quite a few masses in places other than my home parishes. By and large, the Mass of Paul VI is celebrated with loving reverence and is abuse-free. There are glaring exceptions of overt abuse, but I’ve witnessed maybe five-six questionable practices at Mass in the seventeen years I’ve been a Roman Catholic, ranging from minor to major (the most abuses I’ve ever seen actually occured at one single mass, in one setting). I don’t know where these abuses are occuring, Mass after Mass, under what bishop, but GENERALLY, to use your word, the Mass of PVI is celebrated as it should be and the abuses are the exception.

 

[Anna_Elizabeth]

JKirkLVNV:

The orthodox Catholic who tries to be faithful to the Magisterium would do well to avoid this book, these authors, and their little dissenting rag *The Remnant. *

As an orthodox Catholic, I would really appreciate a list of other books, periodicals, etc. that you think such folks should avoid.

For example: Do you believe The Rhine Flows into the Tiber should be on such a list?



Anna

 

[pnewton]

JKirkLVNV:

The orthodox Catholic who tries to be faithful to the Magisterium would do well to avoid this book, these authors, and their little dissenting rag *The Remnant. *

One could always just stick to the catechism and church documents…

and Catholic Answers publications, of course.

PS - Does this “Great Facade” book have an Imprimatuer, by any chance?

 

[TNT]

Originally Posted by Iohannes
A book I recommend is The Great Facade by Thomas Woods Jr. PhD and Chris Ferrara.

JKirkLVNV:

The orthodox Catholic who tries to be faithful to the Magisterium would do well to avoid this book, these authors, and their little dissenting rag *The Remnant. *

Too late for me. I’ve read this book.
Now, if there is a place in the book that gives false information or out of context critique, then how about reciting it to us.
Either that or tell us frankly, that you have not even read the book and your advice is without experience.
.

 

[TNT]

pnewton:

One could always just stick to the catechism and church documents…

and Catholic Answers publications, of course.

PS - Does this “Great Facade” book have an Imprimatuer, by any chance?

1. The imprimateur has become useless as several books received it and later it had to be rescinded. TGF is an investigation, not a discourse on teaching domatic theology. However, the quotes in it are Church sourced documents. The Popes Against Modern Errors has no Imprimateur, yet it is nothing but 16 Papal Encyclicals faithfully translated.
2. Does the catechism include the St Pius X Catechism, or the Baltimore Catechism?
3. Do the Church documents include Mortalium Animos, Pascendi, Syllabus of Errors, VAT I, Our Apostolic Mandate, Mediator Dei, Humanum Genus, Providentissimus Deus ? If so, how many on this thread have read them? I wonder.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

TNT:

Originally Posted by Iohannes
*A book I recommend is The Great Facade *by Thomas Woods Jr. PhD and Chris Ferrara.

Too late for me. I’ve read this book.
Now, if there is a place in the book that gives false information or out of context critique, then how about reciting it to us.
Either that or tell us frankly, that you have not even read the book and your advice is without experience.
.

I haven’t read it. I’m not ashamed to frankly admit it. These authors promote dissent from the Church. I wouldn’t read this any more than I would read Joan Chichester. False information isn’t the only point, factual information can be given without context or without telling the whole story (check out Novus Ordo watch or Traditio, if you don’t believe me…but then perhaps you’re already familiar with the site?). Further, buying the book supports their efforts to continue the dissent.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Anna Elizabeth:

As an orthodox Catholic, I would really appreciate a list of other books, periodicals, etc. that you think such folks should avoid.

For example: Do you believe The Rhine Flows into the Tiber should be on such a list?



Anna

Don’t know, I haven’t read it! I googled it, though, and it looks interesting. Is the priest-author still in communion with the Church or has he hived off to do his own thing, more Catholic than the Pope? Does he promote dissent or obedience to the Holy See and the Bishops in communion with her?

 

[HagiaSophia]

JKirkLVNV:

Don’t know, I haven’t read it! I googled it, though, and it looks interesting. Is the priest-author still in communion with the Church or has he hived off to do his own thing, more Catholic than the Pope? Does he promote dissent or obedience to the Holy See and the Bishops in communion with her?

I read it - found it most informative.

 

[TNT]

JKirkLVNV:

I haven’t read it. … False information isn’t the only point, factual information can be given without context or without telling the whole story …Further, buying the book supports their efforts to continue the dissent.

I think I covered the “context” issue in the prior post. Also, any flase statements.
So, The question remains:
What false statements or out-of-context portrayals does it maintain? I could not find any. Maybe there’s a critque of the book that gives a “for instance xxx says…”
It’s not like some protestant screed that creates strawmen arguments.

Ok, how about:
The Popes Against Modern Errors

Is that ok? Have yoy read it?

 

[HagiaSophia]

TNT:

I think I covered the “context” issue in the prior post. Also, any flase statements.
So, The question remains:
What false statements or out-of-context portrayals does it maintain? I could not find any. Maybe there’s a critque of the book that gives a “for instance xxx says…”
It’s not like some protestant screed that creates strawmen arguments.

Ok, how about:
The Popes Against Modern Errors

Is that ok? Have yoy read it?

Perhaps rather than get into a discussion in this thread (Latin Mass and Vatican 2) about individual books, you might want to think about starting a thread in the new Media section where individual books are discussed. We might get a number of people interested in it over there???

 

[TNT]

HagiaSophia:

Perhaps rather than get into a discussion in this thread (Latin Mass and Vatican 2) about individual books, you might want to think about starting a thread in the new Media section where individual books are discussed. We might get a number of people interested in it over there???

WOW. I hadn’t noticed it. I long ago gave up on getting a Book Review Forum. Thank you.