Vatican II

[diggerdomer]

Both of the links provides notes from the Vatican “Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship” handles the affairs on the Liturgy for the West. Antonio Cañizares Llovera is the current Cardinal Prefect. Click on the link to give a brief summery

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWDANCE.HTM A link to

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregation_for_Divine_Worship_and_the_Discipline_of_the_Sacraments

Here is a link to another article.

catholic.net/index.php?option=dedestaca&id=135

I think you should read the whole article to the link and and do some background on the Congregation for Worship and Divine Sacraments. and what was “Notitiae” used for? You might learn something.

Thanks. I learned that as I suspected the CDWDS does not prohibit liturgical dance.

Thanks again!

p.s. If you have further clarification on what “Notitiae” was used for please enlighten us. In other words, where in liturgical law is there any prohibition regarding liturgical dance? The GIRM? The Sacramentary? Canon Law? Oh…wait…I already asked that. Sorry. Never mind.

p.p.s. If you care to respond to my questions re: Pope John Paul II (which so far you seem to have conveniently ignored) here’s another interesting link from the Vatican: vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/documents/ns_lit_doc_05111999_new-delhi_en.html

 

[Hesychios]

…

 

[pnewton]

Thanks. I learned that as I suspected the CDWDS does not prohibit liturgical dance.

Nor does it prohibit big rubber noses being worn with giant clown shoes. Nor does it prohibit altar servers from standing on their heads. That is not the way the Mass is governed. If one can not show where the General Instruction allows it, it is not permitted.

This way lies madness. If one is allowed to insert anything not prohibited, we lose all universality in the liturgy and cease to be Catholic. We can only do what is said. We can not add a dance, a movie, a pick-up basketball game or any other absurdity in the Mass.

 

[shuzo1189]

Nor does it prohibit big rubber noses being worn with giant clown shoes. Nor does it prohibit altar servers from standing on their heads. That is not the way the Mass is governed. If one can not show where the General Instruction allows it, it is not permitted.

This way lies madness. If one is allowed to insert anything not prohibited, we lose all universality in the liturgy and cease to be Catholic. We can only do what is said. We can not add a dance, a movie, a pick-up basketball game or any other absurdity in the Mass.

But But, i was going to ask Fr if we could have a Latin Chanted version of KISS’s Detriot Rock City, Replete with Lasers and maybe sparklers I mean if Cardinal Schonborn can do it…

 

[Famule]

Thank you.

But, to be honest, I was looking for something from the Vatican or the U.S. Bishops’ Conference. They’re the ones with the authority for liturgical law. If you have any sources from them, that are clear and binding, it would really help. Thanks again.

Besides, what about Pope John Paul II and liturgical dance? e.g. cso.quixote.org/node/42

Was he wrong?

Show me any valid rubric that allows liturgical dance. There is nothing that calls for dancing, so it is not part of the mass and thus should not go on during the mass.

 

[Hesychios]

But But, i was going to ask Fr if we could have a Latin Chanted version of KISS’s Detriot Rock City, Replete with Lasers and maybe sparklers I mean if Cardinal Schonborn can do it…

I have seen recordings of “Jazz Mass” and, you bet your dupa…Polka Mass.

 

[shuzo1189]

I have seen recordings of “Jazz Mass” and, you bet your dupa…Polka Mass.

I have too and i can think of few things more sad or agravating. My old Parish used to be a Jazz Mass type parish, hell i think they had a Diger-e-doo. Thank God for the Dominicans

 

[pnewton]

But But, i was going to ask Fr if we could have a Latin Chanted version of KISS’s Detriot Rock City, Replete with Lasers and maybe sparklers I mean if Cardinal Schonborn can do it…

Since nothing specifically prohibits this, …

Were you wanting to do this with or without the face-painting? I hear that is not prohibited either.

 

[shuzo1189]

Since nothing specifically prohibits this, …

Were you wanting to do this with or without the face-painting? I hear that is not prohibited either.

It really depends if Fr. Can pull off the Gene Simmons tounge. If yes, then go for it

 

[CradleCath]

Since nothing specifically prohibits this, …

Were you wanting to do this with or without the face-painting? I hear that is not prohibited either.

 

[ncjohn]

Though I have to dig up the specific document, Liturgical dance is in fact banned except in cultures where dance is an integral part of the day-to-day spirituality of the people. There are many cultures around the world where that is true though it is extremely uncommon in western cultures. The one exception I could think of would be some Native American cultures. Another example might be parishes though with large Vietnamese populations where I have seen types of liturgical dance that are apparently within those guidelines when used within liturgies directed to those people even though they are, of course, open to all.

There are specific documents that deal with “inculturation” for those types of instances that allow for use of such culturally-relevant practices as long as they don’t represent superstitions or practices that would be contrary to the Catholic faith.

The “de-Latinization” of the Eastern Churches, which allowed the return to their own origins and rituals, followed along those same lines.

In general though, it would not be allowed in the overwhelming majority of American Masses.

Peace,

 

[CradleCath]

You need to find a new parish.

I did, a year ago. As soon as a TLM. became available in one of the cities’ parishes, I changed to that parish. That’s the one we attend now…at 12:30, not the best time slot…but that’s not important. We don’t have to watch the “dancers”, get interrupted by all of the EEM’s jockeying for the most visible place up front, Father actually gives a sermon & we don’t need greeters because there are only about 60 of us & we all know each other. Father has been great about encouraging us to have pot-luck suppers, coffee & donuts, etc., ETC. Now that we know each other, we’re inviting the whole parish to our functions. Perhaps they’ll see that we don’t have two heads??

I saw liturgical dancers at a Mass once. I was more than a little shocked.
Although the girls (at the time all under 18 I think) were rather attractive…it had a way of distracting me from the focus on God. **The young males dancing in tights **

 

[Malkin71]

Thanks. I learned that as I suspected the CDWDS does not prohibit liturgical dance.

Thanks again!

p.s. If you have further clarification on what “Notitiae” was used for please enlighten us. In other words, where in liturgical law is there any prohibition regarding liturgical dance? The GIRM? The Sacramentary? Canon Law? Oh…wait…I already asked that. Sorry. Never mind.

p.p.s. If you care to respond to my questions re: Pope John Paul II (which so far you seem to have conveniently ignored) here’s another interesting link from the Vatican: vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/documents/ns_lit_doc_05111999_new-delhi_en.html

“Notitiae” is the journal of the Congregation in which its official interpretations of the rubrics are published.

When the Prefect of the The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments gives a change to the Mass The Bishops and Priests have to follow it. The USCCB have to answer to them. Liturgical law does not stop at the Local Bishop, although many here in the U.S. Bishops, Priests and laity believe it.

Do you understand the citations and references that was posted in the links? Do you know what they refer too? If you do not. You should do some research into it. It would help you when you are discussing a topic. I do believe the very majority knows about the Congregation and “Notitae” Priests and Bishops do know.

Just because it is not in the GIRM does not mean we can add the latest fad craze to the MASS to make it more to the times.

 

[diggerdomer]

Just because it is not in the GIRM does not mean we can add the latest fad craze to the MASS to make it more to the times.

Of course not.

My point (sorry for those who misunderstood) is that if something is not in the rubrics/law, one cannot simply conclude, across the board, it’s either (a) prohibited or (b) permitted. That’s where a judgment has to be made based on existing liturgical law and theology, to determine if such-and-such a practice is consistent with liturgical laws, norms, and theology and beneficial for a specific liturgy

Egad. I am in no way promoting liturgical dance (not to mention the facetious examples of other additions that some brought up or whatever “fad crazes” you’re referring to). I’m just saying we can’t conclude it’s prohibited at all times/place/circumstances unless that’s stated.

 

[Ottaviani]

Nor does it prohibit big rubber noses being worn with giant clown shoes. Nor does it prohibit altar servers from standing on their heads. That is not the way the Mass is governed. If one can not show where the General Instruction allows it, it is not permitted.

This way lies madness. If one is allowed to insert anything not prohibited, we lose all universality in the liturgy and cease to be Catholic. We can only do what is said. We can not add a dance, a movie, a pick-up basketball game or any other absurdity in the Mass.

I couldn’t have said it better myself. We may not agree on every point, but we most definitely agree on this one.

 

[Ockham]

How do we find the way to work together to bring the Body together rather than further splintering it?

Peace,

That’s a very good question.

Sorry for the delay in responding - life got in the way of my on-line indulgence.

You asked if I believe the NO Mass and its participants are modernists or heretics. I believe the NO is a watered down liturgy designed for the post-modern world of limited attention spans, instant gratification, hyper-choice, and ego-centric consumer behaviour. It was a shift towards the Protestant heretics in a flawed ecumenical gesture. By making our Mass more like their services (or whatever it is they do Sunday mornings) it was believed more would return to the flock. Christ left us the Church to be our home until He returns and our Holy Father as its guide. It’s not reasonable to expect nothing to have changed since Matthew 16 (otherwise we wouldn’t have any Mass, the Bible, churches, etc). However, He is the way, truth and light: immovable and unchangeable. Changing our Mass is not consistent with the Church or Christ’s teachings.

The NO Mass is licit and contains the essential elements, but the differences with the TLM are clear and numerous. Bugnini himself admitted the NO Mass isn’t merely reformed, it was something completely different. I’ll have to check into his design, but I have read it was originally to be in Latin and ad orientum. Whereas it has taken years for the smallest change in the TLM, the NO was indeed a radical and unprecedented change.

The TLM was effectively banned so the average worshipper did not have a choice or opportunity for liturgical preference. I’m sure pre-V2 there were abuses such as the express Mass, but I have seen no evidence nor suggestion clowns, dancing, electric guitars, super-soakers, or any other such novelty occurred.

Linking Church teaching on contraception with the practice of CITH is a wild stretch. How many times have you heard a priest tell the congregation that is anyone is on the pill, using condoms, or had reproductive surgery not to present themselves for Holy Communion? Of course Paul VI wrote HV and John Paul II wrote on the subject as well, but what percentage of Catholics have read those books? We aren’t really given a convenient option of receiving Communion while kneeling in most churches are we?

There were good things to have come out of Vatican II. I haven’t yet studied it in depth, but from my preliminary observations it seems the flaw was the ambiguity of the documents. This allowed the Modernist element to activate its hidden agenda in an attempt to change the Church into something completely different or perhaps kill it entirely. I believe each Catholic has a duty to resist these changes and hold fast to the truth that is Christ our Lord and His Church.

Yes, there are other rites within the Church but that’s another issue entirely. As far as the Roman rite goes having two forms only creates division and suspicion - a Protestant dilema. There are thirty thousand Protestant off-shoots. Hopefully the NO won’t do the same to the Church. That is how we will bring the body back together, lapsed Catholics first, Protestants second, and then the rest.

May God bless you,

 

[ncjohn]

Thanks for responding and for doing so in a thoughtful way.

You asked if I believe the NO Mass and its participants are modernists or heretics. I believe the NO is a watered down liturgy designed for the post-modern world of limited attention spans, instant gratification, hyper-choice, and ego-centric consumer behaviour. It was a shift towards the Protestant heretics in a flawed ecumenical gesture. By making our Mass more like their services (or whatever it is they do Sunday mornings) it was believed more would return to the flock. Christ left us the Church to be our home until He returns and our Holy Father as its guide. It’s not reasonable to expect nothing to have changed since Matthew 16 (otherwise we wouldn’t have any Mass, the Bible, churches, etc). However, He is the way, truth and light: immovable and unchangeable. Changing our Mass is not consistent with the Church or Christ’s teachings.

On this I totally disagree. The Mass has been in an ongoing cycle of change since its very beginning so I don’t see how that could possibly be inconsistent with any teaching of Christ, who never mentioned any particular form of worship at all.

I also totally disagree with the Pauline Mass being watered-down or that it is inherently less reverent or awe-inspiring, or that it is like Protestant services, though there are certainly Lutheran and Anglican services which are patterned after our Mass, some of which readapted theirs after the Pauline Mass came out.

It really concerns me that so many of those who prefer the TLM cannot begin to believe that there are both highly intelligent and very devoted people who just prefer the Pauline Mass. I’m just not sure how to get past the mindset that thinks that because someone prefers one form that everybody else should also prefer that form. The fact that the Eastern liturgies exist, and that the Roman Church encouraged them to stay with their own non-Latin forrms, says a lot about one form being somehow inherently superior to another. The Pope has clearly stated, even as he made the TLM more available again, that the forms are equal in dignity. The idea that the Pauline Mass is just a dumbed-down liturgy created to cater to the great unwashed is just offensive on its face and reinforces the negative stereotype of elitism that turns off so many to even considering the TLM, which is truly unfortunate.

The TLM was effectively banned so the average worshipper did not have a choice or opportunity for liturgical preference. I’m sure pre-V2 there were abuses such as the express Mass, but I have seen no evidence nor suggestion clowns, dancing, electric guitars, super-soakers, or any other such novelty occurred.

Yes, the suppression, in retrospect, turned out to be a very negative development. I really think that the thought was that people would adapt quickly to the Pauline Mass and that the TLM would just die a natural death as those from pre-Vatican II days died off. I don’t think anyone really foresaw the intense rebellion that came or that there would be a resurgence among future generations. I’m personally glad to see that it has again been made relatively readily available to those who prefer it. I guess we’ll see over the next couple years whether there really is increased demand or whether it will be a novelty to some new people that then fades back to just the small core group that was there before the MP.

As to the abuses, yes they were many, and far worse than just the express Masses though that was probably the most common. Is a drunken priest who can barely get the words out and blows the consecration less severe than a clown Mass? It’s hard to quantify or compare levels of abuse since abuse is bad no matter what.

Linking Church teaching on contraception with the practice of CITH is a wild stretch.

It wasn’t a matter of linking the practices at all. It is a matter of looking at a Church that is and was willing to confront very hard and unpopular issues, such as contraception and ordination of women, and then saying they were too weak to stand up to a request for CITH or female altar servers. I just don’t buy it for a second. We haven’t had any weak Popes that were afraid to stand up for what they felt were the right things.
(continue)

 

[ncjohn]

(continued from previous)

There were good things to have come out of Vatican II. I haven’t yet studied it in depth, but from my preliminary observations it seems the flaw was the ambiguity of the documents. This allowed the Modernist element to activate its hidden agenda in an attempt to change the Church into something completely different or perhaps kill it entirely. I believe each Catholic has a duty to resist these changes and hold fast to the truth that is Christ our Lord and His Church.

When taken in context and with a view toward how all of the documents interrelate, the level of ambiguity is really very small, however much certain people with their own agendas want to keep repeating those mantras. There have always been people after Councils who wanted to either reject things from the Councils or use them as springboards for their own agendas. Vatican I ended up with the Old Catholics and those who just couldn’t accept the infallibility position, while simultaneously generating those who then have gone nuts with what’s referred to as “creeping infallibility” where all kinds of things are being proclaimed infallible that really aren’t by amateurs who don’t have authority to be making such proclamations. In the end it still comes down to the fact that the ultimate authority on the Church’s teachings is the Church and we have to accept what they tell us with “docility”. We can certainly question to come to deeper understanding or to help us ward off our doubts, but to stay in consistent and stubborn opposition to what the Magisterium tells us is to remove one’s self from communion with the Church.

As far as the Roman rite goes having two forms only creates division and suspicion - a Protestant dilema.

And yet there have never been less than two rites at any given time, including during the “glory years” of the TLM when there were at least two other approved Latin rites. I agree that there has been some division and suspicion. Some of that is because of the (in retrospect) ill-advised suppression of the TLM which generated so much anger. Some is because of the elitist attitude of so many of the TLM adherents, egged on by so many radical traditionalist websites. Some is because the Church has just not done a very good job of really working on dispelling the suspicion and division and has allowed the bickering to continue unabated. And certainly some of it has come from some of the horrendous liberties people have taken with the Pauline Mass on occasion.

I really don’t believe that having two rites is a problem at all, any more than having all the Eastern rites is a problem, as long as people within the Church can understand it and stop picking at each other over it. We really don’t need the left hand of the Body of Christ slapping at the right hand as if they aren’t equally important.

But first we’ve got to get past the “my Mass is better than yours” idea. I think the Pope is trying hard to do that but there is a lot of pent-up stuff, in some cases very justified, to get past. I just continue to pray for a softening of hearts on both “sides” so we can get back to our real work of building up the Body instead of tearing it apart.

Peace to you,

 

[Ockham]

But first we’ve got to get past the “my Mass is better than yours” idea. I think the Pope is trying hard to do that but there is a lot of pent-up stuff, in some cases very justified, to get past. I just continue to pray for a softening of hearts on both “sides” so we can get back to our real work of building up the Body instead of tearing it apart.

Peace to you,

Wise words. I know you have the Church’s best interest at heart, as do I.

There are indeed “elitists” at TLMs, websites, chatrooms, etc, but there are also average Catholics who have compared the two forms and made the conclusion one is definitely more reverent and closer to Church teachings than the other.

I don’t have the exact numbers in front of me but compare the number of prayers, genuflections, signs of the cross, amount of silence, ritual, atmosphere and you can’t deny the difference in the two forms. The NO resembles a Lutheran eucharist service more than it does the TLM. My analogy is the NO is like a light beer where the TLM is like a German Weisse beer.

Speaking of alcohol, a drunken priest saying Mass is a separate issue from a sober one deciding to introduce giant puppets in the sanctuary or paganesqe dancers during the Offeratory procession.

In my humble opinion, it is not a Catholic feature to have liturgical preferences. We are supposed to be one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic. Having two forms with the second vulnerable to wide varieties and innovations does not adhere to these four marks. It’s like we are not suppose to have a preference over which priest says Mass. Mass is suppose to be a Holy Sacrifice not a personality contest like the NO creates.

I’ve told this story here before so I apologize if you’ve seen it before. My father-in-law emigrated to Canada from post-WWII Germany. He was dirt poor, lonely, frightened, intimidated by our fast-paced society, and did not speak English. His first two days here were spent making connections, trying to settle in, and dealing with the overwhelming differences in his new life. On Sunday morning he went to Mass and had an incredibly moving spiritual experience. It was the same Mass he attended the previous week in Germany, the same church architectural design, same language, same form, same vestiments. He said it was like being back at home. Mass was his primary connection to his family back in Germany, his spiritual guide, inspiration, and hope. Had he made this journey twenty years later and entered into a clamshell church with a NO innovation Mass going on he probably would have walked out assuming he had entered something Protestant.

A few years ago I went to Mass at Montreal’s Notre Dame cathedral. It is a beautiful church so much so that they have daily tours. While I knew what was going on, the essential elements were there, because it was said in French (a language I’m not familiar with) I felt like an outsider in what is supposed to be my universal Church.

I wonder if there are any tours of clamshell style churches anywhere.

If you feel the NO is awe-inspiring then great; I wish I could feel the same. Back in the day when the NO was the only form I ever knew I participated fully, gave proper reverence, and it met my spiritual needs. Only after I experienced the TLM could I ever say Mass inspired awe from me. When I attend my local NO I don’t see much reverence and the empty pews suggest it isn’t meeting the spiritual needs of the many.

The leading indicators of the Church tell us our numbers are down in every catagory. I’m not saying the NO is the only reason, but I do suspect it has something to do with it. My hope is the re-emergence of the TLM reverses the trends we’ve seen since the sixties, the sexual revolution, Vatican II, and general societal decline. Father Z has a slogan: Save the Liturgy, Save the World.

 

[ncjohn]

Wise words. I know you have the Church’s best interest at heart, as do I.

Thank you for that. It’s amazing how hard it is at time to have someone consider that to even be a possibility.

There are indeed “elitists” at TLMs, websites, chatrooms, etc, but there are also average Catholics who have compared the two forms and made the conclusion one is definitely more reverent and closer to Church teachings than the other.

And there are many highly knowledgeable and very devout people who have come to the other conclusion. Add that to the Pope stating that they are equal in dignity and it would seem to be a reasonable request that we each be able to accept that reverence, awe, and devotion come to different people in different ways. Or as I have at times stated it, God has more than one lure in His tackle box and knows which fish like which lure.

I don’t have the exact numbers in front of me but compare the number of prayers, genuflections, signs of the cross, amount of silence, ritual, atmosphere and you can’t deny the difference in the two forms. The NO resembles a Lutheran eucharist service more than it does the TLM. My analogy is the NO is like a light beer where the TLM is like a German Weisse beer.

These are totally irrelevant in my humble opinion as they are only external manifestations of the way that people are drawn to God. If those signs and symbols are the more meaningful for you and help you to better focus on God, then I offer three cheers. But please try to consider that not everyone is drawn to that. People are different; we have introverts and extroverts, people who hug everyone they meet and have never met a stranger and people who are very reserved and have a hard time talking to anyone they don’t know well, people who love parties and people who abhor any kind of large gathering. We show our piety and devotion in different ways also and there’s nothing “better” or “worse” about that, just different. Different just doesn’t equate to bad within reasonable guidelines.

Speaking of alcohol, a drunken priest saying Mass is a separate issue from a sober one deciding to introduce giant puppets in the sanctuary or paganesqe dancers during the Offeratory procession.

I’m sorry, but serving week after week with a priest who could barely make it through Mass and slurred and skipped over things all over the place is every bit as bad as the pretty darn rare occasion of someone overstepping in trying to get the kid’s attention. Abuse is abuse.

In my humble opinion, it is not a Catholic feature to have liturgical preferences. We are supposed to be one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic. Having two forms with the second vulnerable to wide varieties and innovations does not adhere to these four marks. It’s like we are not suppose to have a preference over which priest says Mass. Mass is suppose to be a Holy Sacrifice not a personality contest like the NO creates.

And yet we have always had that. Being “one” doesn’t mean that you can’t have variety in people and worship styles. Even the example of your father-in-law is a prime one. Had he stumbled into any one of the ethnic parishes pre-Vatican II he could have had a very different experience than what he had in Germany. I saw the differences between Irish parishes and Italian parishes pre-Vatican and while the Mass was pretty much the same–and with the same glazed looks over most of the “spectators” (for that is what you mostly saw in those days), the culture was very different between those parishes. Irish people “preferred” to go to Irish parishes and Germans went to German parishes if they were available. I totally agree that the Mass is the Mass but because we respond to other externals, just as you seem to respond more to the “bells and smells”, we will be drawn by the total picture, not only the liturgy. The church environment alone with its differences in statuary, etc, can greatly influence people in one direction or another and draw them into greater or lesser ability to focus. I, for instance, have a very Franciscan nature and prefer very simple churches and furnishings rather than the very ornate cathedral settings, and find the ornate to be distracting. I feel much more at home with God in a little country church than in even a side chapel in one of the basillicas in Rome.

I wonder if there are any tours of clamshell style churches anywhere.

I’ve seen you mention “clamshell” churches several times now and it is clearly a pet peeve of yours though I’m not clear on what it even means. It kind of emphasizes my point though. We do respond to our preferences about such things and not everyone’s preferences are the same. Can we be allowed to respectfully hold different preferences without having to either demonize each other over them or get all “superior” feeling about ours?

If you feel the NO is awe-inspiring then great; I wish I could feel the same. Back in the day when the NO was the only form I ever knew I participated fully, gave proper reverence, and it met my spiritual needs. Only after I experienced the TLM could I ever say Mass inspired awe from me. When I attend my local NO I don’t see much reverence and the empty pews suggest it isn’t meeting the spiritual needs of the many.

And my experience is exactly the opposite. I had horrendous experiences growing up with the TLM and would have a hard time getting past those scars to even attend another, yet find incredible awe at the OF liturgy where I consciously participate and understand without having to translate. Our pews are full and our parishes here are very active from both the spiritual side and the “feeding His sheep” side.

I sometimes feel like we’re a bunch of little kids who need to feel like “God loves me better”. If we can grow up just a little and be able to civilly recognize that God loves all of us infinitely maybe we can get by the need to keep playing comparison games. I’ve met some wonderful traditionalists who have no problem at all ceding me my preferences as I do for them. If we all did that instead of bickering I think we would see the Church grow again instead of driving people away in disgust and confusion.

Peace,