P
ProVobis
Guest
Maybe I could have worded it better but I consider the Latin Mass as mostly contemplative, the New Mass as mostly vocal.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
R
reggieM
Guest
People who promote continual change in the liturgy today, will see their own “improvements” reversed tomorrow.Wasnt the Tridentine Mass ‘irreversible’ too? And liturgy isn’t infallible so why would Francis say this?
Beyond that, when there’s no respect (and even contempt) for the sacred tradition of the past, people will logically have little respect for whatever new practices are presented as being sacred today.
Finally, liberals and progressives openly violated liturgical directives for years and were ultimately rewarded by having their experiments enshrined in law. This teaches anyone that is paying attention that obedience to the liturgical norms is not considered an important or necessary virtue by the official liturgists and teachers of the Church. No one was ever punished for such innovations and violations of law that continued for decades - and are still present today.
Demanding and requiring obedience requires trust from those who are expected to obey. If traditions, once held sacred, necessary and binding, are arbitrarily dismissed and even ridiculed (as they are today), then trust in the decisions of Church leaders erodes.
“Why should we listen and follow you today when what you say probably will be changed tomorrow?”
“What evidence can you show us that you understand God’s will in this matter and are not merely making decisions on your own personal whims?”
“Is the Pope a Divine Oracle who receives daily revelations from God that we’re all expected to believe and follow? He supposedly has instructions that contradict what prior Popes have said? Is this Catholicism we’re talking about or Mormonism?”
B
BroIgnatius
Guest
I would disagree about Latin in the Mass. There is no reason not to have Latin Mass, especially since the Latin Mass is still the normative Mass. All one needs is a Latin/English Missal.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.
I do not know Latin and I get along fine in a Latin Mass.
R
reggieM
Guest
The bold part there has always been an important insight for me, it rings so clearly and truly.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.
It wasn’t just that liturgists experimented, broke liturgical laws and came up with absurd and sometimes grotesque displays on the altar of God - but that they explained all of this as that Vatican II “authorized and even required” them to use this kind of “creativity”. Pope Benedict bitterly objected to this and expressed how much hurt it caused the faithful. However, today he is seen as a “conservative” and out of touch. Perhaps the experimenters were correct? Perhaps the liturgical laws require experimentation, or just do whatever you want?
The fact is, virtually nobody was stopped from this kind of “creativity” and eventually Churches were remodeled and all sorts of things came along - the “deformations” he speaks of, actually became “official”. Nowhere in Vatican II does it state that altars must be turned around or tabernacles removed and replaced with a throne for the priest or statues destroyed or frescoes and art in churches be painted over in beige or white or altar rails taken out. But people quickly realized that they didn’t need a document to tell them what to do or what not to do. Only conservatives and traditionalists paid any attention to the documents and tried to comply with them (conservatives obeying the new and traditionalists saying that the new contradicted the old) – but conservatives and traditionalists were never in charge of much, so the liberals and progressives just did what they wanted. They ignored the laws, and in the rare cases when questioned, they merely “reinterpreted” Vatican II to support whatever it was they wanted - and this was successful for them all the way up to Pope Benedict XVI.
But because of this supposed new law of “creativity”, pastors and bishops simply did such things and much more than that, including clown Masses, Heavy Metal Masses Pop circus dancing, all manner of costumes and dance postures and basically chaos of every sort.
O
OraLabora
Guest
As I posted in the other deleted thread on the L&S forum, liturgy changes have been continuous from Pius X onwards. That is, for over 100 years, and 60 years pre-Vatican II.People who promote continual change in the liturgy today, will see their own “improvements” reversed tomorrow.
Beyond that, when there’s no respect (and even contempt) for the sacred tradition of the past, people will logically have little respect for whatever new practices are presented as being sacred today.
Finally, liberals and progressives openly violated liturgical directives for years and were ultimately rewarded by having their experiments enshrined in law. This teaches anyone that is paying attention that obedience to the liturgical norms is not considered an important or necessary virtue by the official liturgists and teachers of the Church. No one was ever punished for such innovations and violations of law that continued for decades - and are still present today.
Demanding and requiring obedience requires trust from those who are expected to obey. If traditions, once held sacred, necessary and binding, are arbitrarily dismissed and even ridiculed (as they are today), then trust in the decisions of Church leaders erodes.
“Why should we listen and follow you today when what you say probably will be changed tomorrow?”
“What evidence can you show us that you understand God’s will in this matter and are not merely making decisions on your own personal whims?”
“Is the Pope a Divine Oracle who receives daily revelations from God that we’re all expected to believe and follow? He supposedly has instructions that contradict what prior Popes have said? Is this Catholicism we’re talking about or Mormonism?”
R
reggieM
Guest
You’re applying the word “continuous” to specific, minor, discrete changes made in the papacy of St. Pius X (followed by decades of no changes at all), with the current climate where changes can and do occur on a daily basis worldwide. Even comparing St. Pius X’s changes which were respectful of tradition with modernist changes which are modeled on secular values is mistaken.As I posted in the other deleted thread on the L&S forum, liturgy changes have been continuous from Pius X onwards. That is, for over 100 years, and 60 years pre-Vatican II.
Perhaps I can use a different phrase to describe it.
“Those who argue that the liturgy is fluid and should be adapted to contemporary, transient and congregational desires have no real basis upon which to claim that their liturgical forms are ‘sacred’.”
T
twf
Guest
True. I saw a comment on another site the other day by a poster who lamented the “destruction” of the “traditional” divine office after Vatican II. Of course the traditional Western office is the monastic office still in use. What these “traditionalists” mean is the Breviary of St Pius X… which existed for mere decades prior to the Council. There’s definitely a sense of “reforms and overhauls prior to 1965 were good and traditional but reforms after 1965 were unprecedented ruptures.”As I posted in the other deleted thread on the L&S forum, liturgy changes have been continuous from Pius X onwards. That is, for over 100 years, and 60 years pre-Vatican II.
O
OraLabora
Guest
Indeed, that one always gives me a good chuckle when I see it, and I’ve seen it countless times on CAF!True. I saw a comment on another site the other day by a poster who lamented the “destruction” of the “traditional” divine office after Vatican II. Of course the traditional Western office is the monastic office still in use. What these “traditionalists” mean is the Breviary of St Pius X… which existed for mere decades prior to the Council.
O
OraLabora
Guest
I would hardly call a new Roman Gradual, a new Divine Office, a new order for Holy Week, a simplification of classes of feasts, “minor discrete changes”.You’re applying the word “continuous” to specific, minor, discrete changes made in the papacy of St. Pius X (followed by decades of no changes at all), with the current climate where changes can and do occur on a daily basis worldwide. Even comparing St. Pius X’s changes which were respectful of tradition with modernist changes which are modeled on secular values is mistaken.
Perhaps I can use a different phrase to describe it.
“Those who argue that the liturgy is fluid and should be adapted to contemporary, transient and congregational desires have no real basis upon which to claim that their liturgical forms are ‘sacred’.”
True, the liturgical reforms really started to take off in the 1940s when Pius XII appointed the Pian Commission to study the liturgy, which led to the new order for Holy Week.
But to suggest it was entirely related to the Council is to ignore history.
E
edwest2
Guest
That is an incorrect view.Maybe I could have worded it better but I consider the Latin Mass as mostly contemplative, the New Mass as mostly vocal.
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
That’s not entirely true. But I won’t name names at this point. This is not a “management problem.” The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit.People who promote continual change in the liturgy today, will see their own “improvements” reversed tomorrow.
Beyond that, when there’s no respect (and even contempt) for the sacred tradition of the past, people will logically have little respect for whatever new practices are presented as being sacred today.
Finally, liberals and progressives openly violated liturgical directives for years and were ultimately rewarded by having their experiments enshrined in law. This teaches anyone that is paying attention that obedience to the liturgical norms is not considered an important or necessary virtue by the official liturgists and teachers of the Church. No one was ever punished for such innovations and violations of law that continued for decades - and are still present today.
Demanding and requiring obedience requires trust from those who are expected to obey. If traditions, once held sacred, necessary and binding, are arbitrarily dismissed and even ridiculed (as they are today), then trust in the decisions of Church leaders erodes.
“Why should we listen and follow you today when what you say probably will be changed tomorrow?”
“What evidence can you show us that you understand God’s will in this matter and are not merely making decisions on your own personal whims?”
“Is the Pope a Divine Oracle who receives daily revelations from God that we’re all expected to believe and follow? He supposedly has instructions that contradict what prior Popes have said? Is this Catholicism we’re talking about or Mormonism?”
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
Latin is normative and missals exist that have the Latin and English on the same page. I was there. To say otherwise is false.I would disagree about Latin in the Mass. There is no reason not to have Latin Mass, especially since the Latin Mass is still the normative Mass. All one needs is a Latin/English Missal.
I do not know Latin and I get along fine in a Latin Mass.
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
You’re overreacting. That is why altar/communion rails are being returned to Churches. The “deformations” were not universal but widely promoted as the “new way.” The Church doesn’t force people. It guides them.The bold part there has always been an important insight for me, it rings so clearly and truly.
It wasn’t just that liturgists experimented, broke liturgical laws and came up with absurd and sometimes grotesque displays on the altar of God - but that they explained all of this as that Vatican II “authorized and even required” them to use this kind of “creativity”. Pope Benedict bitterly objected to this and expressed how much hurt it caused the faithful. However, today he is seen as a “conservative” and out of touch. Perhaps the experimenters were correct? Perhaps the liturgical laws require experimentation, or just do whatever you want?
The fact is, virtually nobody was stopped from this kind of “creativity” and eventually Churches were remodeled and all sorts of things came along - the “deformations” he speaks of, actually became “official”. Nowhere in Vatican II does it state that altars must be turned around or tabernacles removed and replaced with a throne for the priest or statues destroyed or frescoes and art in churches be painted over in beige or white or altar rails taken out. But people quickly realized that they didn’t need a document to tell them what to do or what not to do. Only conservatives and traditionalists paid any attention to the documents and tried to comply with them (conservatives obeying the new and traditionalists saying that the new contradicted the old) – but conservatives and traditionalists were never in charge of much, so the liberals and progressives just did what they wanted. They ignored the laws, and in the rare cases when questioned, they merely “reinterpreted” Vatican II to support whatever it was they wanted - and this was successful for them all the way up to Pope Benedict XVI.
But because of this supposed new law of “creativity”, pastors and bishops simply did such things and much more than that, including clown Masses, Heavy Metal Masses Pop circus dancing, all manner of costumes and dance postures and basically chaos of every sort.
Ed
T
twf
Guest
The poster is, perhaps, idealizing the Low Mass. The quiet Low Mass was never the liturgical ideal. It was a stripped down Mass for less solemn occasions.That is an incorrect view.
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
This was never true. Again, I was there.The poster is, perhaps, idealizing the Low Mass. The quiet Low Mass was never the liturgical ideal. It was a stripped down Mass for less solemn occasions.
Ed
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
You are absolutely correct, TWF, regarding the Low Mass as never the liturgical ideal but the practical reality – which needed to change.The poster is, perhaps, idealizing the Low Mass. The quiet Low Mass was never the liturgical ideal. It was a stripped down Mass for less solemn occasions.
That is why the Council Father stipulated in Sacrosanctum Concilium
“The Church, therefore, earnestly desires that Christ’s faithful, when present at this mystery of faith, should not be there as strangers or silent spectators”
and
“To promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes”
I celebrated many a Low Mass. I thank God every day for the liturgical renewal that He brought about through the Council
O
OraLabora
Guest
I would agree with this. Our Gregorian schola chants at various parishes in the archdiocese of Sherbrooke, Quebec. I’ve seen a good chunk of the parishes in the archdiocese, and many were never “renovated”. Many still have altar rails and the old high altar in place. Those that have the high altar, have usually installed a free-standing altar in front of it in the sanctuary, but more often than not the tabernacle is still in the old high altar. At the other extreme are churches that no longer have the altar rail, or are built without (newer churches). Some have had the altar moved out of the sanctuary. One that I used to sing at had that done. It still had the old high altar and communion rails, but the free-standing altar had been moved out into the nave. A few years ago the new pastor moved it back into the sanctuary. Since then that church has been taken over by a new, young traditionalist-minded community of friars that do the OF Mass, but are attempting to integrate chant. They are made up of young men, ex-Dominicans (long story…not for here). I’ve been asked if I’d consider teaching them how to psalmody the Liturgy of the Hours in Gregorian chant.You’re overreacting. That is why altar/communion rails are being returned to Churches. The “deformations” were not universal but widely promoted as the “new way.” The Church doesn’t force people. It guides them.
Another church was built in the mid-60s, with altar rails that are still there.
The cathedral in Chicoutimi, Quebec, dug the old high altar out of the basement where it had been relegated, dusted it off, restored it, and returned it to its proper place in the sanctuary, even though the free-standing altar is still there. At least it returned a piece of artistic beauty and history to its rightful place.
Basically each parish took its own approach. I’ve seen too many variations to enable me to make a generalized statement.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
I have the same reaction.Indeed, that one always gives me a good chuckle when I see it, and I’ve seen it countless times on CAF!
Reading this reminds me of what the world’s bishops said in critique of that Breviary, which stood in need of much work but which culminated in a much happier result, which we have today.
- In order that the divine office may be better and more perfectly prayed in existing circumstances, whether by priests or by other members of the Church, the sacred Council, carrying further the restoration already so happily begun by the Apostolic See, has seen fit to decree as follows concerning the office of the Roman rite.
- Because the purpose of the office is to sanctify the day, the traditional sequence of the hours is to be restored so that once again they may be genuinely related to the time of the day when they are prayed, as far as this may be possible. Moreover, it will be necessary to take into account the modern conditions in which daily life has to be lived, especially by those who are called to labor in apostolic works.
- So that it may really be possible in practice to observe the course of the hours proposed in Art. 89, the psalms are no longer to be distributed throughout one week, but through some longer period of time.
- As regards the readings, the following shall be observed: a) Readings from sacred scripture shall be arranged so that the riches of God’s word may be easily accessible in more abundant measure.
b) Readings excerpted from the works of the fathers, doctors, and ecclesiastical writers shall be better selected.
There were so many problems with that breviary, which I used to pray, that I can’t imagine why anyone would go back to it.c) The accounts of martyrdom or the lives of the saints are to accord with the facts of history.
M
M-Dent
Guest
I believe it’s Traditional to view the Church in a perpetual state of liturgical reform.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
You are quite correct.As I posted in the other deleted thread on the L&S forum, liturgy changes have been continuous from Pius X onwards. That is, for over 100 years, and 60 years pre-Vatican II.
All of this was, in fact, underscored by the Holy Father’s wonderful address this week:
Dear brothers and sisters, good morning.
I welcome you all and I thank the president, His Excellency Msgr. Claudio Maniago, for his words of introduction to this National Liturgical Week, seventy years on from the birth of the Centre for Liturgical Action.
This is a period of time in which, in the history of the Church and in particular in the history of liturgy, events have occurred which are substantial and not superficial. Just as we cannot forget Vatican Council II, so we shall remember the liturgical reform that flowed from it.
They are two directly linked events, the Council and the reform, which bloomed not unexpected but after long preparation. This is shown by what was called the liturgical movement, and the responses given by the Supreme Pontiffs to perceived shortcomings in ecclesial prayer; when a need is perceived, even if the solution is not immediate, it is necessary to take action.
I was particular touched by his tribute to the Liturgical Movement and the role it played leading up to the Council and with the urgent enactment of the mandated reforms.I think of St. Pius X who presided over the reorganization of religious music[1] and the restoration of the Sunday celebration[2], and who instituted a commission for the general reform of the liturgy, aware that this would have implied “a task both great and protracted”, and so, as he himself acknowledged, “it is necessary for many years to pass before this, so to speak, liturgical edifice … reappear again resplendent in its dignity and harmony, once cleansed of the squalor of aging”[3].
- Status
- Not open for further replies.