Voices of Moderate Catholicism and the Liturgical Reforms

  • Thread starter Thread starter jesusalright4me
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jesusalright4me

Guest
I know this may be controversial. Please keep things charitable

It seems that, at least within the world of orthodox (meaning faithful to the teaching of the Church) Catholicism, there is a skepticism growing towards the some of the reforms that took place after Vatican II. I have heard this apparent sentiment expressed on Catholic Answers Live, speakers like Matt Fradd, podcasts like “The Liturgy Guys”, opinion articles on NCR, and Facebook pages like Catholic Memes, to name a few. Another prime example is Ascension Presents. Many of the images the pick for their articles about the mass show ad orientem worship, and often an image of a Latin mass (or potentially an ordinariate mass). Father Mike Schmidtz recently endorsed ad orientem worship in front of many young adult Catholics at a SEEK conference, where he was met with a great applause. Now, this isn’t to say that everyone wants a complete return to the Tridentine mass, but rather that I am observing this growing sentiment that we “threw the baby out with the bath water” with many of the changes to the mass. It is where I personally stand on the whole question of liturgy.

Just thought I would ask, has anyone else noticed this trend? Or does anyone have any counterexamples? I am more than open to being wrong.
 
Last edited:
I appreciate your comments and agree that there seems to be some in the Church that are caught up with this.

I personally believe it is largely being driven by clerics who simply prefer more the more ornate things in the religion - vestments, liturgical style, quantity of devotions, venerating statues, etc. I have not witnessed an outcry from the laity for more liturgical change.

Benedict XVI allowed the Extraordinary form to come back in to practice more widely to accommodate a small but vocal minority of folks. It was intended that in those places where the Extraordinary Form were desired by the faithful, it should be provided. It seems like that is not what is happening… instead priests and bishops appear to be pushing the EO out of their own preferences. Which, to me, betrays a preoccupation with the superficial… It’s just my opinion, but I do not believe the Church benefits from tinkering more with the Mass.

I would be interested in more context on your ‘threw the baby out with the bath water’ comment though… what reforms do you believe should be reversed and why?
 
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.”
 
godisgood77 said:
I personally believe it is largely being driven by clerics who simply prefer more the more ornate things in the religion - vestments, liturgical style, quantity of devotions, venerating statues, etc.
Click to expand...
I have never, ever heard this theory before. I think it is far more in line with experience that the clergy, mostly the clergy from Vatican II and a few decades after, are strongly opposed to the EF. While it is the younger clergy and laypeople, those who never experienced any form of Latin Mass while growing up, who are supporting it (where they are allowed to).

And I really reject the notion that Benedice XVI simply allowed the EF to accommodate a few loudmouths. Have you read the Motu Proprio?
 
Last edited:
jesusalright4me said:
Just thought I would ask, has anyone else noticed this trend?
Click to expand...
How could we miss it? It’s like every week on here somebody starts a thread on how TLM or ad orientem is going to bring all the young people back to the Church. (Which is debatable; some young people I know really like it, some would rather be at OF, some don’t much care either way and will attend some of each)

This isn’t exactly news…
 
Last edited:
Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

I haven’t heard an outcry from the general layman either. The individuals I am referring to are voices of orthodox Catholicism. They also happen to be knowledgeable in things your average layman is not knowledgeable in. The reforms being one of those very things. Your average layman has never known anything but the current environment of Western Catholicism in the US. But with access to the internet, those who want to learn about the changes that were made can learn anything they want, so awareness of the changes made is growing.

Examples that I think were throwing the baby out with the bath water would be: the suppression of Septuagesima and the Octave of Pentecost, the removal of many prayers from the offertory of the mass, the loss of many penitential days, the complete removal of some portions of Scripture from the lectionary, ad orientem worship, and the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, to name a few. Art is related, but isn’t really inherit to the rite itself; it’s possible to wear elaborate vestments in the Ordinary Form or to wear ugly ones in the Extraordinary Form.

I think Benedict’s Mortu Propio was about more than just appealing to Catholics like myself who like the Extraordinary Form. He mentions mutual enrichment in it, meaning that the forms influence each other. This is just a theory, but I think Benedict envisioned a natural “reform of the reform” developing years down the road. Either way, ever since it was released, I have definitely seen this mutual enrichment happening.
 
Last edited:
Clerics want to venerate statues? Really? This is your argument?
 
The problem that is common in these discussions is a lack of references. In the book, The Spirit of the Liturgy, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger makes some very plain points.

“The turning of the priest towards the people has turned the community into a self-enclosed circle. In its outward form, it no longer opens out on what lies ahead and above, but is closed in on itself. The common turning towards the East was not a “celebration towards the wall”; it did not mean that the priest “had his back to the people”: the priest himself was not regarded as so important. For just as the congregation in the synagogue looked together toward Jerusalem, so in the Christian liturgy the congregation looked together “towards the Lord.” As one of the Fathers of Vatican II’s Constitution on the Liturgy, J. A. Jungmann, put it, it was much more a question of priest and people facing in the same direction, knowing that together they were in a procession towards the Lord. They did not close themselves into a circle, they did not gaze at one another, but as the pilgrim People of God they set off for the Oriens , for the Christ who comes to meet us.”

On another note, persons unknown removed altar and communion rails, statues and sacred art. None of that was even suggested by Vatican II. Now, due to “what happened in the 1960s,” these things are being put back. They are both outward signs and for helping to give reverence to God. To inspire worship.
 
godisgood77 said:
I would be interested in more context on your ‘threw the baby out with the bath water’ comment though… what reforms do you believe should be reversed and why?
Click to expand...
You weren’t talking to me, but one question I’ve had is why the TLM could not have just been translated into the vernacular without having to do a total rewrite of the mass. Our Eastern brothers have done this over time while still preserving their liturgical traditions.

I’ve been to some Catholic masses that feel more Lutheran or Methodist than Catholic.
 
Vatican II never called for a completely vernacular Mass. From Sacrosanctum Concilium:
    1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
  2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended…
 
snarflemike said:
Vatican II never called for a completely vernacular Mass. From Sacrosanctum Concilium:
    1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
  2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended…
Click to expand...
I think it was a chance for some who had long wanted to do this kind of thing to jump in with changes that it had been argued were permissible before Vatican II, choosing the timing on the assumption that such changes would be widely accepted as proscribed if everything new were all introduced at the same time:



I’m guessing at this, because I was too young to have any idea who was doing what, but making changes in that way is par for the course in human nature…
 
Last edited:
I was in Catholic school at the time. The changes were explained to us in Religion class. They were limited. One day, I walked into Church and there was a table covered with a cloth below the high altar. The priest faced the people and spoke English.

Change can be bad. People forget this at their peril. In this particular case, Holy Mother Church was to be obeyed.
 
I have seen many (or heard or read) many of those, and I have heard their preference for Ad Orientem, but I don’t recall any of them saying that it had to be that way. I think you may be interpreting some of these wrong.
 
Not to be picky, but the initial post referenced orthodox Catholicism. Disciplines like the sort being discussed can’t really be described as orthodox, or not.
 
I an unaware of any other kind of Catholicism. Those who think of the Church as a political entity attempt to label Catholics, but this is wrong.
 
I think what is becoming evident to many is that SOME of the changes did not come from the Second Vatican Council or the Liturgical Commission. And some other changes were not mandatory but were rather recommendations or experimental.

Then, there were other things, like Pope Paul saying that everyone should know a set of Latin Prayers, Gregorian Chant should have primacy, etc which were totally ignored.

Additionally, thanks to the internet, the testimony of Bella Dodd is becoming more mainstream among Catholic orthodoxy, so many are realizing that “the baby MAY have been actually thrown out with the bathwater.”

For example, in many African countries, they still use the Altar Rails for communion & do not receive standing. Also, in some African countries they actually use Gregorian Chant more than many Western nations.

So I think many are starting to see that a Reform of the Reform is needed to fix implementation issues (not to fix the Second Vatican Council or the new mass itself).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top