Voices of Moderate Catholicism and the Liturgical Reforms

  • Thread starter Thread starter jesusalright4me
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ontheway1 said:
Clerics want to venerate statues? Really? This is your argument?
Click to expand...
No, that is not the basis for my argument. That is one thing among other outcropping… My argument is that the clerics who prefer that more ornate style are driving the change.
 
Bad things happened in the Church and Western society in general after Vatican II. I can post a list. The goal was to attack the Church and Western people in every way possible. It was a planned attack on Christianity.
 
Perhaps, but certain disciplines lend towards orthodox belief more than others. Paragraph 1124 of the Catechism states:
pnewton said:
The Church’s faith precedes the faith of the believer who is invited to adhere to it. When the Church celebrates the sacraments, she confesses the faith received from the apostles – whence the ancient saying: lex orandi, lex credendi , or legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi (the law of praying establishes the law of believing) according to Prosper of Aquitaine. The law of prayer is the law of faith: the Church believes as she prays. Liturgy is a constitutive element of the holy and living Tradition.
Click to expand...
Discipline, and the way the mass is celebrated, informs our belief. And our beliefs form how mass is celebrated. I think a fruitful debate can be had about whether or not the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, for example, are a good way to express and inform our belief in the mass as a Sacrifice. Or whether or not having a whole Octave to celebrate Pentecost is a good way to express and inform our belief in Pentecost as a feastday of the highest importance, and the importance of the Holy Spirit in our own lives. Or whether proclaiming 1 Corinthians 11:27–29 (which was removed from the Ordinary Form) in the mass is a good way to express and inform our belief in the Real Presense and the seriousness of receiving unworthily.
 
Last edited:
jesusalright4me said:
Well, I actually would disagree. Certain disciplines can be described as orthodox.
Click to expand...
Might you have an example? I would think if something could be heterodox, it would be a doctrine. The stuff here, like which way the priest faces, the language used, etc. is not doctrine.
 
Last edited:
snarflemike said:
I believe a great many people think the liturgical changes after Vatican II went far beyond what the documents had called for, and that has been the problem ever since.

The Mass of Vatican II | Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J. | IgnatiusInsight.com
Click to expand...
Esp in North America.

For example: Vatican II didn’t call for parishes to paint over all their murals, take down art, rip out altar rails, etc.

However, some bishops, priests & laity wanted to remove altar rails and started doing it in the 1940s because they didn’t want people kneeling. When they received permission to receive standing, these anti-altar rail clerics & laity had the altar rails ripped out in order to prevent a future priest from returning to its use. 😦
 
jesusalright4me said:
“threw the baby out with the bath water”
Click to expand...
that’s what happened back in 69 and was what I experienced. From one Sunday to the next - literally - High Altar gone, new table Altar front and centre, Father facing us, Mass in English.

So what’s new? My own personal opinion is the pendulum swung too far one way, and it is swinging back the other way now. I very much like Cardinal Arinze view on mutual enrichment of both forms of the Mass and his point of view regarding the liturgy in general, based on what was reported he’d said in articles I read.
snarflemike said:
I believe a great many people think the liturgical changes after Vatican II went far beyond what the documents had called for, and that has been the problem ever since.
Click to expand...
I agree with this based on my experience and after reading the documents.
 
You are correct, it is not doctrine. The argument I am making is that certain practices both inform and reinforce orthodox doctrine. I will revise my post to make that distinction more clearly.

The basic argument I am making is that how we pray, and how the mass is celebrated in terms of its rubrics, is bound up with belief. You can’t separate the two.
 
edwest211 said:
No one person, even a Cardinal, can offer a view.
Click to expand...
We each offer our views and just like us here in this thread, he is entitled to express his.
edwest211 said:
the teaching authority of the Church has a say.
Click to expand...
of which he is a member. But yes, all the Bishops and the Pope together.

I was terribly disheartened on the occasion I went into the cathedral to find that all the murals on all the walls had been stuccoed over a pale dusky pink. Yuck. Those murals were teaching points to the faithful and opportunities for parents to instruct their children. I’m not going down the rabbit hole of architectural changes either or any of the many other changes that occurred.
 
There are many old churches, and some have been renovated to their pre-wrecked condition.
 
edwest211 said:
There are many old churches, and some have been renovated to their pre-wrecked condition.
Click to expand...
My impression also is that the new churches being built more recently are head and shoulders above those built in the aftermath of Vatican II.
 
jesusalright4me said:
It is where I personally stand on the whole question of liturgy.
Click to expand...
Me too. I find myself pushing for more traditional practices, which are perfectly compatible with the OF (and make it more rich, in my opinion). I’m not calling for a complete return to the EF but I’m not pushing for guitars and tambourines either. I just want good and reverent Masses. I’m not even a huge Latin guy either. Some of the most reverent Masses I’ve been to have been celebrated in the vernacular.

Sometimes this leaves me caught between the two extremes of rad trads and “Spirit of V2” people, but I’m finding more and more people who share my sentiments.
 
mrsdizzyd said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think one major difference between the TLM and the OF is the nature of the people’s participation. In the TLM, the congregation’s responses and the music especially were more like window dressings to the actions of the priest. For example, the priest says the Gloria, Sanctus, etc. in a low voice while the people are singing it. The new Mass tries to unite the prayers of the priest with the prayers of the people. This makes the OF Mass very different in some regards to the EF, and simply translating the EF into the vernacular would not have changed that. Those are just my observations. Additionally, the OF has a much expanded lectionary of readings, which means the people get much more scripture throughout the year than they would during the EF.

I think the goal was commendable. But I am disappointed that so many beautiful prayers and customs from the EF were taken out.
 
I thought we prayed the Mass. I unite my praying with those of the priest, and especially with the server who makes the response on the behalf of the people (EF Mass).
CTBcin said:
I am disappointed that so many beautiful prayers and customs from the EF were taken out.
Click to expand...
Agree with you here.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top