Vatican II liturgical reform ‘irreversible,’ pope says

[BroIgnatius]

The "General Instruction of the Roman Mass, GIRM.

I have already quoted the official teaching on this that included some discretion by bishops limited to law, it says.

The Norms are set by the Holy see or else there would not be a General Instructions. From that the bishops are allowed some discretion, but nothing that would violate the General Norms or SC.

 

[edwest2]

I’m glad it sounds like you received a good catechesis, my brother.

I was a sponsor in RCIA a few years back and during the class the deacons that we teaching the class had everyone go up into the sanctuary and gather around the Tabernacle.They unlocked and opened it and then told people to take a look around. People were chatting and laughing while constantly walking back and forth in-front of the opened tabernacle with the reserved Eucharist present. At no time did those teaching talk about reverencing the altar, the blessed sacrament or the difference between the nave (what they called the “worship space”) and the sanctuary. I love our deacons, but I always felt like they failed in their duty to instill a sense of reverence about the sacred nature of the space and the Eucharist. I did talk about the sacred nature of the sanctuary later that evening, but I think that the word of a laymen could not really undo the silence of teaching when we were physically present.

Even though I serve every morning, I never enter the sanctuary except when I have specific need to. I also don’t linger there. Even when I serve as a reader, I walk all the way around the foot of the stairs until I am immediately in front of the ambo as opposed to many readers that bow in front of the altar and then walk up the stairs and angle past the altar towards the ambo, One person asked me why I genuflect every time I passed in front of the altar outside of Mass or walk around the sanctuary and they looked at me like I had two heads when I said it was out of love and respect for Christ.

I was listening to a priest on Catholic Radio and he told us how “Things went nuts” in the seminaries in the 1970s. So, the slide into poor catechesis was meant to continue. Bad catechesis? Of course. One priest who was in seminary during that period stated that they were taught Humanae Vitae but they were left with the impression that the Church would change its constant teaching against the (non-medical) use of artificial birth control someday. So, some, when they became priests, were approached by parishioners who asked if birth control was permissible. The answer should have been no, with an explanation. Instead, too many heard, “It’s a personal conscience matter.” So - given a choice most should not have been given, marriage was set astray.

And I hope anyone reading this who thinks he or she went too far to return. God and the Church are waiting for you. His mercy is waiting.

Ed

 

[Don_Ruggero]

more

Jim

It was an absolutely tremendous presentation made by the Holy Father touching upon the liturgical movement, the Council and its aftermath and the reform and renewal of the liturgy.

Simply magnificent in the orientation he has given.

The Lord’s gifts to the Church in and through the Council, He continues in and through Pope Francis.

 

[commenter]

The fact that *some *changes were made by the Church authority allowed a few people to mandate their own opinions as part of Vatican II. Then they denounced anyone who disagreed with their opinions as being opponents of Vatican II.

Often there would be an announcement that the parish would be getting a thorough cleaning, painting, modernizing the utilities, and…um…a few other updates. Then major changes are imposed impacting the worship environment, all towards horizontalism, deemphasizing God.

The 1970s document by a committee (not the whole USCCB) has long been superceded by the bishops as a whole, but bad renovations continue in place in in many churches, simply because no one has requested updating to the current, more reverent standards mandated by the US bishops.

In my former parish, they would practically create a mini magisterium of their own: “In **our **parish, we all hold hands at the Our Father; in our parish, all the Eucharistic ministers participate in the consecration, holding the host at the same time; in our parish, we…”

 

[ProVobis]

I have already quoted the official teaching on this that included some discretion by bishops limited to law, it says.

The Norms are set by the Holy see or else there would not be a General Instructions. From that the bishops are allowed some discretion, but nothing that would violate the General Norms or SC.

I believe you were wrong in posting the English and claim it is official because some parts differ from one English-speaking country to another. The dates might be different as well. Posters here reside in different countries.

 

[ProVobis]

All official documents from the Holy See are in Latin. Then translations are done. My link was to the Vatican English translation so I think it is reliable.

Since I doubt that many people reading this can read Latin, it would be silly to link the Latin version, dont’ you think?

Only if it’s not authentic.

 

[BroIgnatius]

I believe you were wrong in posting the English and claim it is official because some parts differ from one English-speaking country to another. The dates might be different as well. Posters here reside in different countries.

What I posted was from the Vatican website.** So, you are saying the Holy See is wrong for posting a English translation?**

 

[ProVobis]

The fact that *some *changes were made by the Church authority allowed a few people to mandate their own opinions as part of Vatican II. Then they denounced anyone who disagreed with their opinions as being opponents of Vatican II.

Often there would be an announcement that the parish would be getting a thorough cleaning, painting, modernizing the utilities, and…um…a few other updates. Then major changes are imposed impacting the worship environment, all towards horizontalism, deemphasizing God.

The 1970s document by a committee (not the whole USCCB) has long been superceded by the bishops as a whole, but bad renovations continue in place in in many churches, simply because no one has requested updating to the current, more reverent standards mandated by the US bishops.

In my former parish, they would practically create a mini magisterium of their own: “In **our **parish, we all hold hands at the Our Father; in our parish, all the Eucharistic ministers participate in the consecration, holding the host at the same time; in our parish, we…”

The Pope said at one point (or maybe a few times) that the old form or EF was too rigid.

It is if you compare it to the reformed liturgy.

The implications of this are enormous. The New Mass may be resemble the Old Mass or not. And it may be reverent or not or sacred or not. Why? Because the bishops conferences can basically do what they want. After all they’re working from “general” instructions, not “rigid” or following 1962 rubrics exactly.

So “irreversible” simply means we have progressed to the point where going forward we are dealing with a new form of spirituality. This is very tough to accept if you consider yourself a traditionalist. But since the number of such is very small on a percentage basis, today it’s not seen as a big problem for the Church.

Personally I wish it weren’t so.

 

[reggieM]

Some of what is considered reform needs to be sorted out, in my opinion:

Innovative liturgical styles

 

[edwest2]

The Pope said at one point (or maybe a few times) that the old form or EF was too rigid.

It is if you compare it to the reformed liturgy.

The implications of this are enormous. The New Mass may be resemble the Old Mass or not. And it may be reverent or not or sacred or not. Why? Because the bishops conferences can basically do what they want. After all they’re working from “general” instructions, not “rigid” or following 1962 rubrics exactly.

So “irreversible” simply means we have progressed to the point where going forward we are dealing with a new form of spirituality. This is very tough to accept if you consider yourself a traditionalist. But since the number of such is very small on a percentage basis, today it’s not seen as a big problem for the Church.

Personally I wish it weren’t so.

Who said the EF was too rigid? Can you cite a particular comment or source? There is no new form of spirituality.

Ed

 

[Trying2overcome]

Wasnt the Tridentine Mass ‘irreversible’ too? And liturgy isn’t infallible so why would Francis say this?

 

[ProVobis]

Who said the EF was too rigid? Can you cite a particular comment or source?

Ed

lifesitenews.com/news/pope-francis-blasts-rigid-young-catholics-who-like-the-latin-mass

wdtprs.com/blog/2016/11/does-pope-francis-think-that-young-people-who-want-traditional-latin-mass-are-rigid-defensive-insecure/

FWIW, I don’t see it as a bad thing.

 

[OraLabora]

Wasnt the Tridentine Mass ‘irreversible’ too? And liturgy isn’t infallible so why would Francis say this?

The Tridentine Mass wasn’t “reversed”.

 

[twf]

The Tridentine Mass wasn’t “reversed”.

Arguably, in a small way it was… prior to Trent, there was far more variation from region to region in how the liturgy was celebrated. With the reforms of the 1960s and 70s, there is, again, greater variation from region to region.
Yeah…I know I’m reaching here.

 

[pnewton]

Since I doubt that many people reading this can read Latin, it would be silly to link the Latin version, dont’ you think?

I agree. As it is not really possible to communicate to people in a language which they do not understand, it would as accomplish as little to link the Latin version, as it is to say the Mass in Latin in most parishes, at least as far as communication is concerned.

 

[pnewton]

So “irreversible” simply means we have progressed to the point where going forward we are dealing with a new form of spirituality. This is very tough to accept if you consider yourself a traditionalist.

I believe the way that Pope Benedict worded it was, “there can be no question of going back.”

 

[OraLabora]

Arguably, in a small way it was… prior to Trent, there was far more variation from region to region in how the liturgy was celebrated. With the reforms of the 1960s and 70s, there is, again, greater variation from region to region.
Yeah…I know I’m reaching here.

The regions though, pre-Trent, had their own rites: Sarum and Mozarabic for instance, as well as Ambrosian which still survives in a post-Conciliar form. Mozarabic is still used very locally around Toledo. Sarum is liturgically lost to the Roman Church since the reformation I believe. There may be some sporadic use on the Anglican side and I know at least one scholar that studies it.

The current Roman Rite though (in the Ordinary Form) is stable and the same. There are options of course, and I’ve seen all of them used in the same region. Other than that, some choices like hymns will obviously be coloured by local culture, but that existed in the EF as well as many Masses were preceded by local hymns in the vernacular. Technically anything said before the opening rites was outside the Mass and permissible.

Of course there is the language which differs from place to place, but even for language there were precedents in the EF for use of local language, for example the Indian Mass which allowed the Propers and Ordinary of the Mass to be sung in the vernacular whereas the priest’s parts remained in Latin.

You can see an example of propers and ordinary here.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

And liturgy isn’t infallible so why would Francis say this?

Well it was perfectly intelligible in the context he said it…particularly to the liturgists he was addressing and who were listening to him.

/…/ The same Paul VI, a year before his death, said to the Cardinals gathered in the Consistory: “The moment has come, now, to set aside definitively the disruptive ferments, equally harmful in one sense or another, and to fully apply according to their just inspiring criteria, the reform we approved in the application of the votes of the Council”.

There is still work to be done today in this direction, in particular in rediscovering the reasons for the decisions made regarding liturgical reform, overcoming unfounded and superficial readings, partial acceptance and practices that distort it. It is not a question of rethinking the reform by reviewing decisions, but rather of knowing better the underlying reasons, also through historical documentation, and of internalizing the inspiring principles and observing the discipline that regulates it. After this teaching, after this long path we can affirm with certainty and magisterial authority that the liturgical reform is irreversible.

The task of promoting and safeguarding the liturgy is entrusted by right to the Apostolic See and to the diocesan bishops, on whose responsibility and authority I count at the present moment; national and diocesan liturgical pastoral bodies, institutes of formation and seminaries are also involved /…/

 

[edwest2]

Pope Benedict:

"In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.

"This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.

“As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.”

Ed

 

[ProVobis]

As it is not really possible to communicate to people in a language which they do not understand, it would as accomplish as little to link the Latin version…

PN, it depends on what you’re trying to accomplish. Your namesake Sir Isaac wrote his most important work(s) in Latin which are preserved in that language to this day. Yes, he would have reached more English-speaking people had he written in English but Newton (along with Kepler, Galileo, et al) wanted (1) to reach ALL the scholars in the world and (2) to avoid mistranslations. Wasn’t the IGMR written for the bishops of the world and not the congregations? This is the source for the individual GIRMs which may or may not be applicable for one’s country. Why would you want to communicate the American GIRM for the Australians, for example? IMMSMC, there were differences in Sections 160-162 among others. (I had a list of these in a file somewhere.) And didn’t we have something like three or four translations of the Mass already FROM THE SAME LATIN? And who is to say this will be the last translation? That unfortunately is part of the reform process so we better get used to such changes in the -]Mass/-] vernacular.