Vatican II liturgical reform ‘irreversible,’ pope says

[OraLabora]

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.

I think you have to read his words with precision: “Irreversible” means there is no going back to what it was previously, or undoing of the reforms to go back to what it was prior to the reforms. It does not mean that the liturgy cannot evolve going forward.

 

[katy]

The removal of altar rails was not mandated by Vatican II. That was one of the effects of liberal bishops, not the Council.

Yes. And it does make the altar resemble a stage.

 

[PluniaZ]

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

Well said. Yet another example in which the Pope has been truly shown to be the rock on which Jesus Christ is building His church.

 

[ProVobis]

The removal of altar rails was not mandated by Vatican II. That was one of the effects of liberal bishops, not the Council.

According to the book “The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber” the Council was composed of both “conservative” bishops and “liberal” bishops. The “conservative” ones inserted the statement “Latin is to remain in the liturgy.” After very spirited debate the “liberals” added the allowance of vernacular to the extent the bishops allowed.

Guess which side won.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

From Sacrosanctum Concilium. Bold is my emphasis.

1. To ensure that adaptations may be made with all the circumspection which they demand, the Apostolic See will grant power to this same territorial ecclesiastical authority to permit and to direct, as the case requires, the necessary preliminary experiments over a determined period of time among certain groups suited for the purpose.

And

So that this pastoral-liturgical action may become even more vigorous in the Church, the sacred Council decrees:

1. It is desirable that the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, set up a liturgical commission, to be assisted by experts in liturgical science, sacred music, art and pastoral practice. So far as possible the commission should be aided by some kind of Institute for Pastoral Liturgy, consisting of persons who are eminent in these matters, and including laymen as circumstances suggest. Under the direction of the above-mentioned territorial ecclesiastical authority the commission is to regulate pastoral-liturgical action throughout the territory, and to promote studies and necessary experiments whenever there is question of adaptations to be proposed to the Apostolic See.

In other words, the Bishops were given the authority to experiment for a time.

It’s how the Mass evolved to what it is today which includes the removal of the altar rails.

It wasn’t just a few so-called liberal Bishops, but the Council of Bishops in the various areas of the world. In our case, the USCCB’s.

Jim

 

[BroIgnatius]

According to the book “The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber” the Council was composed of both “conservative” bishops and “liberal” bishops. The “conservative” ones inserted the statement “Latin is to remain in the liturgy.” After very spirited debate the “liberals” added the allowance of vernacular to the extent the bishops allowed.

Guess which side won.

As far as the document is concerned there is not winners or losers. There is nothing wrong with the Mass in the vernacular. The Council said that the Mass in Latin is the norm, which it still is today, but that the vernacular may be used in certain situations.

The liberals, however, have won in the sense that the vernacular has become the faux norm. The current Missal (of 2000) said in Latin is what is suppose to be the norm.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

As far as the document is concerned there is not winners or losers. There is nothing wrong with the Mass in the vernacular. The Council said that the Mass in Latin is the norm, which it still is today, but that the vernacular may be used in certain situations.

The liberals, however, have won in the sense that the vernacular has become the faux norm. The current Missal (of 2000) said in Latin is what is suppose to be the norm.

Actually the Bishops set the norm, not the missal.

Fact is, I haven’t see Latin in any missalette in any parish since the early 60’s and I’ve only come across it at the local Benedictine monastery where they try to sign Gregorian Chant, but they don’t do it very well, especially the monks.

Jim

 

[BroIgnatius]

Actually the Bishops set the norm, not the missal.

Fact is, I haven’t see Latin in any missalette in any parish since the early 60’s and I’ve only come across it at the local Benedictine monastery where they try to sign Gregorian Chant, but they don’t do it very well, especially the monks.

Jim

The norm is set by the Holy See and published in the General Instructions to the Roman Missal. The Roman Missal is the normative Mass. Latin is still the normative language, as I said, but vernacular is allowed (the bishop has a choice there). No one, not even a priest, can changed anything in the Roman Missal on his own authority (SC 22.3). The Bishop has little discretion in the rubrics of the Roman Missal, only as law allows (SC 22.1).

 

[twf]

Actually the Bishops set the norm, not the missal.

Fact is, I haven’t see Latin in any missalette in any parish since the early 60’s and I’ve only come across it at the local Benedictine monastery where they try to sign Gregorian Chant, but they don’t do it very well, especially the monks.

Jim

While the Mass is predominantly in English, Latin is heard every Sunday in my cathedral. The 11 am choir does an excellent job with polyphony. I’ve encountered Latin here and there on my travels too. It’s not the norm but nor is it rare.

 

[twf]

From Sacrosanctum Concilium. Bold is my emphasis.

And

In other words, the Bishops were given the authority to experiment for a time.

It’s how the Mass evolved to what it is today which includes the removal of the altar rails.

It wasn’t just a few so-called liberal Bishops, but the Council of Bishops in the various areas of the world. In our case, the USCCB’s.

Jim

I guess my cathedral never got the memo. Nor did the literally thousands of faithful who kneel at packed Sunday Masses week after week.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The norm is set by the Holy See and published in the General Instructions to the Roman Missal. The Roman Missal is the normative Mass. Latin is still the normative language, as I said, but vernacular is allowed (the bishop has a choice there). No one, not even a priest, can changed anything in the Roman Missal on his own authority (SC 22.3). The Bishop has little discretion in the rubrics of the Roman Missal, only as law allows (SC 22.1).

The "General Instruction of the Roman Mass, GIRM.

Take note of the first word “General.”

In the missal itself states :

1. The renewal of the Roman Missal carried out in our time in accordance with the decrees of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council has taken great care that all the faithful may display in the celebration of the Eucharist that full, conscious, and active participation that is required by the very nature of the Liturgy and to which the faithful, in virtue of their status as such, have a right and duty.[146]

However, in order that such a celebration may correspond all the more fully to the norms and the spirit of the Sacred Liturgy, certain further adaptations are set out in this Instruction and in the Order of Mass and entrusted to the judgment either of the Diocesan Bishop or of the Conferences of Bishops.

And

1. The Diocesan Bishop, who is to be regarded as the High Priest of his flock, from whom the life in Christ of his faithful in some sense derives and upon whom it depends,[147] must promote, regulate, and be vigilant over the liturgical life in his diocese. It is to him that in this Instruction is entrusted the regulating of the discipline of concelebration (cf. nos. 202, 374) and the establishing of norms regarding the function of serving the Priest at the altar (cf. no. 107), the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds

Jim

 

[edwest2]

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.

I was always taught, and shown, not to approach the Tabernacle. Walking at the edge of the Sanctuary meant kneeling and crossing myself. The same with entering and exiting a pew. The same as walking past the center aisle, where I paused to kneel and cross myself.

Ed

 

[ProVobis]

The norm is set by the Holy See and published in the %between%

Actually the Latin IGMR is what is official. The last edition is the one of 2002.

https://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/cdwlgrm.htm

http://www.ccwatershed.org/media/pdfs/13/09/27/12-00-47_0.pdf

The bishops of each country refine it for their own use. The GIRM in Australia, for example, may be slightly different than the GIRM in the US. The one in Spain may be different than the one in Mexico. And so forth.

 

[billy15]

From Sacrosanctum Concilium. Bold is my emphasis.

1. To ensure that adaptations may be made with all the circumspection which they demand, the Apostolic See will grant power to this same territorial ecclesiastical authority to permit and to direct, as the case requires, the necessary preliminary experiments over a determined period of time among certain groups suited for the purpose.

This is not a citation that supports the destruction and removal of altar rails. First, you are pre-supposing that removing the altar rails in parish churches throughout not only the United States, but the world, was a “necessary experiment”. How were these removals a “necessary experiment”?

Also, there was no evolution. Kneeling before the altar rail was a pious practice of the people. Altar rails were removed quite swiftly. In what way does an evolution of the Mass include a call to destroy and remove altar rails?

Again, there were many experiments in the wake of the Second Vatican Council, but which experiments were necessary? When you say the bishops were given the authority to experiment, it might as well have been a carte blanche experimentation, period. Was it a necessary experiment that leavened bread be introduced apart from intinction? Was it a necessary experiment that the laity come forward to a table to self-commune, or pass the Chalice to each other in succession? And finally, was it a necessary experiment that altar rails be removed?

Let’s grant, for argument’s sake, that such removal was a necessary experiment. At what point do we determine that this experiment failed or succeeded? Because if it succeeded, then we could suppose that the same amount of (or more) Catholics in America believe in the Real Presence of the Eucharist from the 1960’s to the 2010’s, right? That something holy and life altering happens in the sanctuary at the altar?

Unfortunately that’s not the case, as 45% of Catholics deny the doctrine of the Real Presence. Then you take into account the vast anecdotal evidence, as presented by Usige in post #20, and we can see that such an experiment hasn’t really contributed to the reverence due the Holy Sacrifice and the Eucharist.

The altar rail (and iconostasis) have a deep theological meaning that many have overlooked. To say that it was “necessary” to experiment with its removal is something that needs to be proved. In my experience, I would say that this particular experiment was not only a “practice that disfigured” the Council, as Pope Francis said, but that this experiment was wholly unnecessary and was a complete failure in pointing the laity’s mind towards heavenly things; especially as I have seen several parishes in my area restore their altar rails that were removed 40-50 years ago.

 

[edwest2]

Here is the story.

ncregister.com/daily-news/altar-rails-returning-to-use

It happened after Vatican II by the actions of certain unidentified someones. The same ones who wanted to remove the sacred from Churches.

amazon.com/Ugly-as-Sin-Michael-Rose/dp/1933184442

We need to be elevated to the sacred when entering a Church. When in the House of the Lord, He should be shown the reverence and respect that is due to Him.

Ed

 

[Usige]

I was always taught, and shown, not to approach the Tabernacle. Walking at the edge of the Sanctuary meant kneeling and crossing myself. The same with entering and exiting a pew. The same as walking past the center aisle, where I paused to kneel and cross myself.

Ed

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.

 

[OraLabora]

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.

Is the tabernacle on the altar or behind it? If so genuflection is appropriate, but if not, bowing to the altar is appropriate.

 

[Usige]

Is the tabernacle on the altar or behind it? If so genuflection is appropriate, but if not, bowing to the altar is appropriate.

Yes, it is immediately behind the altar. Their point was that the GIRM says that it is not required to genuflect when crossing in front of the tabernacle if you have already reverenced it at the beginning of Mass; that a bow suffices. To which I would agree … during the liturgy. Outside of the liturgy I would say that it is appropriate to reverence the tabernacle with a genuflection unless you are carrying something. It shouldn’t be excessive, but at the same time I disagree that genuflecting upon entering the nave suffices for the next hour or two if you cross in front of it every 5 to 10 minutes while setting up or cleaning up after Mass.

When I served at the Cathedral we were taught to always reverence the altar when passing with a bow, as the Eucharist is reserved in a side chapel. People had no problem with that but thought it weird to offer the appropriate reverence to Christ in the tabernacle. The impression I got was that you can bow with only a second or 2 delay, but to genuflect might be 3 or 4 seconds and who has that kind of time .It reminds me of some people that complain about one of our priests that elevates the Body and Blood for 20 - 30 seconds after the consecration and who then genuflects for another 5 - 10 seconds. They say it makes the Mass drag… we are talking about an extra minutes. The really love it when Father uses the Roman Canon/EP 1.

Personally, I don’t care as long as people show reverence and understanding that the sanctuary is a holy place. At the same time I don’t think that people should think it is odd for someone to take the time to offer reverence and prayer to God if they accept who is there.

 

[JimG]

My parish church was built well after Vatican II, and it was built to include altar rails. Some years later it was remodeled. Part of the remodeling included moving the tabernacle to a location directly behind the altar. The altar rails remain.

 

[BroIgnatius]

Actually the Latin IGMR is what is official. The last edition is the one of 2002.

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/cdwlgrm.htm

ccwatershed.org/media/pdfs/13/09/27/12-00-47_0.pdf

The bishops of each country refine it for their own use. The GIRM in Australia, for example, may be slightly different than the GIRM in the US. The one in Spain may be different than the one in Mexico. And so forth.

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?