- Status
J
Joe_5859
Guest
I look forward to reading the English translation of the entire speech. It’s not on the Vatican website yet, but you can Google translate the Italian:
w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/it/speeches/2017/august/documents/papa-francesco_20170824_settimana-liturgica-nazionale.html
w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/it/speeches/2017/august/documents/papa-francesco_20170824_settimana-liturgica-nazionale.html
O
Oneofthewomen
Guest
It is going to be very interesting to see the reaction to this.
I think it is wonderful, but I imagine there is going to be a great outcry of more “traditional” leaning persons who think they are being persecuted by the Pope.
I think it is wonderful, but I imagine there is going to be a great outcry of more “traditional” leaning persons who think they are being persecuted by the Pope.
P
pianistclare
Guest
yup. I can hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth now.
Glad he spoke out.
It’s been 50+ years.
Glad he spoke out.
It’s been 50+ years.
J
JimG
Guest
I’m tempted to ask which reforms are irreversible–the first reforms, which have been changed, or the later ones, which have also been changed, or the currently existing liturgy. I seem to recall going through a whole series of liturgical reforms, which kept changing. But things seem to have settled down in a fairly good place at last, so I’ll be happy to have continued stability.
P
pianistclare
Guest
Right. There’s a difference between reforms and IMPLEMENTATION, which was sometimes pretty bad. But the reforms are good indeed.
B
billy15
Guest
I think this is really a non-story, and people on both sides are going to twist it in their own way. One side will think Pope Francis is attacking them (he’s not attacking anyone) and the other side will think that Pope Francis is supporting a false “spirit of Vatican II” that was extremely popular in the 1970’s and 80’s.
I think His Holiness is right on the mark when he says that we need to be “rediscovering the reasons for the decisions made with the liturgical reform, overcoming unfounded and superficial readings, partial revelations, and practices that disfigure it.” Unfounded readings, such as that ad orientem worship is no longer viable and is not the tradition of the Latin Rite any longer (as I’ve heard explicitly said before), assuredly disfigures the Council. And hopefully, with the Pope’s pronouncement, this will perhaps discourage some people from falsely claiming that the Ordinary Form is somehow deficient or not the same Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
I think Fr. Richard Heilman had a really good soundbite about all this:
I think His Holiness is right on the mark when he says that we need to be “rediscovering the reasons for the decisions made with the liturgical reform, overcoming unfounded and superficial readings, partial revelations, and practices that disfigure it.” Unfounded readings, such as that ad orientem worship is no longer viable and is not the tradition of the Latin Rite any longer (as I’ve heard explicitly said before), assuredly disfigures the Council. And hopefully, with the Pope’s pronouncement, this will perhaps discourage some people from falsely claiming that the Ordinary Form is somehow deficient or not the same Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
I think Fr. Richard Heilman had a really good soundbite about all this:
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Exactly. I’ve read through the documents of Vatican II myself, and I have no problems whatsoever with the reforms, from the OF liturgy (when done according to said documents), to the EF (never abrogated by said documents), to the proper usage of music in the liturgy, a deeper understanding of all humanity being a part of the Church, etc.
Right. There’s a difference between reforms and IMPLEMENTATION, which was sometimes pretty bad. But the reforms are good indeed.
As you correctly note, it is the implementation which can be pretty bad. But the reforms are good. We do need mercy, and it does not subvert justice, it complements it.
T
twf
Guest
I wouldn’t read too much into the word “irreversible”. Popes said the same thing of the Tridentine reforms following the Council of Trent, no? In 500 years will a future Pope be thus forbidden by Francis to oversee the complete overhaul of the current Liturgy? Of course not.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
Seems clear to me what Pope Francis is trying to get across.
The Mass is where it is today, because it’s an action for and of the people.
So the Mass will continue to change as cultures change.
Jim
U
Usige
Guest
That’s kinda what I was thinking. Whether the ordinary or extraordinary form of the Roman Rite, they are not directives from the mouth of God and changes are not against divine law. For all any of us know, we could have a 3rd Vatican council in 40 years that completely strips, adds, or amends to the rubrics. To be honest I don’t even know if it would take a council since the Pope is the supreme liturgist.
I am interested in the thoughts that underlie this snippet as I suspect that his talk is focused on why changes were made much more than saying the Mass of Paul VI is the perfection of worship and therefore the form as decreed by divine law.
E
edwest2
Guest
The Church is not a Democracy. I was there before and after Vatican II. My obligation was to know and understand and accept what Holy Mother Church was telling me to do. However, as Pope Benedict, and Pope Francis, have observed, there were arbitrary deformations of the Liturgy. And the sad fact that statues, communion/altar rails and even the Tabernacle were moved or discarded or sold.
The god Change does not run the Church, the Holy Spirit does. I lived through the socio-cultural upheaval that started right after the end of Vatican II. Dissidents inside and outside the Church did everything they could to lead the flock astray, and were soon joined by most media, in all its forms, gradually dripping poison into people’s minds.
“Vatican II did it!” Or the totally false “spirit of Vatican II” scapegoat. Blame all of it on Vatican II which did not authorize many of the changes that happened.
Ed
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
edwest2;
Altar rails were removed per Vatican II. They were a symbol of separating the people from the liturgy.
You’ll have to argue with the Bishops about the changes they approved.
Jim
I didn’t say it was.
Me too!
We still have statues in the churches in my area, including the one I grew up in.
Altar rails were removed per Vatican II. They were a symbol of separating the people from the liturgy.
The cultural changes were taking place regardless of the changes in the Mass. In fact, if not for Vatican II, the cultural changes while the Church stood still would’ve been devastating.
Actually Vatican II did allow the changes that took place.
You’ll have to argue with the Bishops about the changes they approved.
Jim
B
BroIgnatius
Guest
The Vatican II Council is not to blame for all the liberalisms that has occurred. Many of those liberalisms were happening before anyone even thought of convening another Council.
In that, I agree with the Pope when he says:
As far as irreversible, of course that is hyperbole similar to language at Trent. The liturgy is not infallible teaching. Only infallible teaching cannot be reversed. To qualify as infallible the Teaching must apply to the whole Church, and not to a part of it. The Roman Missal applies only to the Roman Rite, and not to the entire Church, thus it is impossible for it to be infallible. As such, it can be changed, reversed, changed again, as the Magisterium pleases, sometimes unfortunately.
In that, I agree with the Pope when he says:
There were good and solid reasons for the reform, but liberals hijacked what should have been good reforms and called their interpretations “in the spirit of Vatican II”, which is code for “I will bastardized and contort the Council for my liberal agenda.”
As far as irreversible, of course that is hyperbole similar to language at Trent. The liturgy is not infallible teaching. Only infallible teaching cannot be reversed. To qualify as infallible the Teaching must apply to the whole Church, and not to a part of it. The Roman Missal applies only to the Roman Rite, and not to the entire Church, thus it is impossible for it to be infallible. As such, it can be changed, reversed, changed again, as the Magisterium pleases, sometimes unfortunately.
T
twf
Guest
I don’t recall any reference to altar rails in the texts of Vatican II… can you cite a reference? My cathedral in Vancouver has an altar rail and yes we still kneel at it to receive Our Lord… at all 7 Sunday Masses… and all 4 daily Masses… thousands choose this posture week after week. (You always have the choice to receive standing or kneeling at the altar rail).edwest2;
I didn’t say it was.
Me too!
We still have statues in the churches in my area, including the one I grew up in.
Altar rails were removed per Vatican II. They were a symbol of separating the people from the liturgy.
The cultural changes were taking place regardless of the changes in the Mass. In fact, if not for Vatican II, the cultural changes while the Church stood still would’ve been devastating.
Actually Vatican II did allow the changes that took place.
You’ll have to argue with the Bishops about the changes they approved.
Jim
There are altar rails in Europe still too in a lot of churches. Not to mention the full blown iconostasis (icon screen) our Eastern brethren use.
B
BroIgnatius
Guest
The removal of altar rails was not mandated by Vatican II. That was one of the effects of liberal bishops, not the Council.
B
billy15
Guest
Yes, as you and BroIgnatius stated, I have seen no citation from the documents of the Second Vatican Council that the altar rails be removed from parish churches. Furthermore, the altar rail is not “a symbol of separating the people from the liturgy”; on the contrary, it is a symbol of the division between heaven and earth— that something holy is happening in the sanctuary. It’s the marker of the place where Heaven and earth intersect. This demarcation was (and still is, in the Latin rite) also symbolized by the altar in the sanctuary being on an elevated plane.
And as you mention TWF, if the altar rail symbolizes a separation of people from the liturgy, then what does the iconostasis in Byzantine Catholic Churches such as this symbolize? Keep in mind the picture below is from a parish in the U.S. and is the norm in the Byzantine Rite. Does anyone really think any Byzantine Catholic priest would agree with the charge that an altar rail or iconostasis separates people from the Divine Liturgy?
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
E
edwest2
Guest
The cultural changes were a carefully coordinated attack on the Church consisting of certain identified groups. Pope Paul VI knew in 1967 about what was coming: the so-called “Sexual Revolution.” Who needed it and why? To get to where we are today?? So, he wrote Humanae Vitae and after its release in 1968, something “unprecedented in the history of the Church” happened.
"Within 24 hours, in an event unprecedented in the history of the Church, more than 200 dissenting theologians signed a full-page ad in The New York Times in protest. Not only did they declare their disagreement with encyclical’s teaching; they went one step further, far beyond their authority as theologians, and actually encouraged dissent among the lay faithful.
"They asserted the following: “Therefore, as Roman Catholic theologians, conscious of our duty and our limitations, we conclude that spouses may responsibly decide according to their conscience that artificial contraception in some circumstances is permissible and indeed necessary to preserve and foster the values and sacredness of marriage.”
Source: Regnum Christi
The makers of The Pill had to move product and could not have anybody listen to the Catholic Church. Of course, in the 1970s, millions of dollars were spent to create graphic, gynecological porn and to create ways for men to contact women for no strings attached sex.
Pope Paul VI warned us what would happen if his words weren’t heeded. And in 1973, the end of that particular 5 Year Plan was getting abortion legalized, with millions of deaths to follow. We were lied to. Our trust was abused. The perverts came to our neighborhoods and began to preach their gospel of sex and drugs. Ignore your Church, your parents and authority in general. So, here we are. And embrace Eastern mysticism, with hundreds of books showing up, especially near colleges.
Ed
"Within 24 hours, in an event unprecedented in the history of the Church, more than 200 dissenting theologians signed a full-page ad in The New York Times in protest. Not only did they declare their disagreement with encyclical’s teaching; they went one step further, far beyond their authority as theologians, and actually encouraged dissent among the lay faithful.
"They asserted the following: “Therefore, as Roman Catholic theologians, conscious of our duty and our limitations, we conclude that spouses may responsibly decide according to their conscience that artificial contraception in some circumstances is permissible and indeed necessary to preserve and foster the values and sacredness of marriage.”
Source: Regnum Christi
The makers of The Pill had to move product and could not have anybody listen to the Catholic Church. Of course, in the 1970s, millions of dollars were spent to create graphic, gynecological porn and to create ways for men to contact women for no strings attached sex.
Pope Paul VI warned us what would happen if his words weren’t heeded. And in 1973, the end of that particular 5 Year Plan was getting abortion legalized, with millions of deaths to follow. We were lied to. Our trust was abused. The perverts came to our neighborhoods and began to preach their gospel of sex and drugs. Ignore your Church, your parents and authority in general. So, here we are. And embrace Eastern mysticism, with hundreds of books showing up, especially near colleges.
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
U
Usige
Guest
It is an unfortunate, but common, misconception that altar rails were about seperating the laity from the liturgy. Now maybe many people felt that was their purpose, but that is a matter of poor catechesis.
On the other hand, that poor catechesis has lead to many people treating the sanctuary as just another bit of floor. We have people that just walk up between the altar and tabernacle while talking on the phone, with no clue or recognition that they are in a sacred place. We have people that walk back and forth through the sanctuary (it projects out with pews on 3 sides) because they don’t want to take an extra 15 to 20 steps to go around it. Our current nave and sanctuary was build 6 years ago, but the Pastor is seriously considering putting in altar rails to remind people that it is a holy and sacred place. It is raised because it represents heaven and not because it’s a stage or fashion runway.
- Status