J
jam070406
Guest
At what point does the Liturgy become damaged and what construes experimentation?
- Status
P
pnewton
Guest
That would be a matter of opinion. We have one diocese where a priest was removed. I think dialoguing with the congregation and explaining everything in your own words by ad-libbing the Eucharistic Prayers is an extreme most agree is damagin.
J
jam070406
Guest
I am in a situation of two Parishes being clustered and a new Mass schedule that alternates between both. One Parish kneels during consecration and one stands throughout. So when the two mingled for one Mass, some knelt and some stood. Matter of opinion.
R
RogerDeCourcy
Guest
Hmm. I wonder how many parishes would choose to have a rigid, hierarchial, pharisical, solemn, accretion-filled sung Tridentine mass on a Sunday morning in place of their current one, if all the Catholics in the parish were made to go to both, in alternating 3 monthly stretches and then voted?
A lot of the things defended in this forum aren’t actually touted as best-practice by the hierarchy. They’re just allowed. The combination of loosely-worded Vatican II documents plus the New Mass plus the Hippy 60’s set off a bomb in the Church and we’re still clearing up the debris.
Slowly but surely, the wayward sheep are being herded back to Fidelity. If you want want to see where liberalism can go, look at what’s happening to the Anglican church. It all seems very reasonable to insiders. To people on the outside, who know Tradition, it’s lunacy. But some in our Church still dearly want it.
A lot of the things defended in this forum aren’t actually touted as best-practice by the hierarchy. They’re just allowed. The combination of loosely-worded Vatican II documents plus the New Mass plus the Hippy 60’s set off a bomb in the Church and we’re still clearing up the debris.
Slowly but surely, the wayward sheep are being herded back to Fidelity. If you want want to see where liberalism can go, look at what’s happening to the Anglican church. It all seems very reasonable to insiders. To people on the outside, who know Tradition, it’s lunacy. But some in our Church still dearly want it.
E
edwest2
Guest
We are going back. We are going back to Orthodoxy. There is no need for a “clearer understanding of Vatican II.” Pope John XXIII was very clear as to why the Council was called. What people still fail to see was the group of dissidents inside the Church who were either allied to or unknowingly aiding those who would start what was to come: The Rejection Of All Authority Revolution of 1968. What needs to be known by all Catholics, and I lived through this, was we were too trusting and too naive in 1968. And we welcomed the stranger as we were taught.
Read this and learn from it, please.
online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704586504574654282563939764.html
There is no “forward” to move toward. There is only solid Orthodox teaching, living out our lives daily as Catholics, not just on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation, and the New Evangelization as spoken of here:
ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-benedict-personal-holiness-is-key-to-new-evangelization/
Yes, as in the past, we’re all sinners, but if we don’t begin a process of removing the beam or plank from our own eyes, how will we become more Christ-like? The world today, desperately needs good role models, including our fellow Catholics who have forgotten or abandoned what they were taught or who were brought up believing in a distorted view of what being a Catholic meant. That means, for many of us, turning away from those things, especially in the media, that are thoroughly immoral and anti-Catholic. We should understand what is going on but there are a lot of things we should not participate in, like watching the latest movie about a happy couple who are not married, move in together, have sex and the relationship continues or ends.
Like I said, good role models. We need to look beyond what the world is giving us and to those things that strengthen, inspire, and elevate us, spiritually, intellectually and culturally.
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
For me, going back means: no more priest facing the people at Mass, encouraging the Latin Mass and a greater reverence for the Mass. I was there in 1962 and I was surrounded by good role models, Catholic and secular. The culture around me was in line with Christian beliefs and respected them. Today, the media and culture is so depraved and anti-Christian and filled with so many anti-role models that a 10 year old Catholic growing up today had better not be allowed to read, watch, or listen to a lot of what our so-called culture has to offer.
No. There was no change because of Vatican II but the idea that there was is brought up here on a regular basis. The fact today is that the Catholic who wants to live out his faith cannot - cannot - participate in the culture as it exists now. Absolutely not. What we have is abnormal and the average character on TV is profoundly dysfunctional, immoral and blatantly anti-Christian.
To any Moms and Dads reading this, explain why the culture is bad for them as they grow up, and in a way that is appropriate to their age and mental and emotional development. No, I don’t want to be a boy again, but there is a lot of media from the 1950s and early 1960s that is appropriate, and parents need to spend more times with their kids and encourage them to be involved in physical activity, or simple board games or give them old cartoons and old Disney movies (pre-1965) to watch.
What was called a “guest in our home” during that time period has become dirty, filthy and immoral, for the most part.
Peace,
Ed
C
clem456
Guest
You wish for the impossible.
The clearer understanding of Church teaching is the only way for responsible Catholics to move, -in any era-, from the garden to the present day. Why would you not want clearer understanding of V2? I really don’t get that. This is one of the thrusts of V2, for the laity to get off the spiritual couch and immerse themselves in Church teaching.
All Catholics should read the documents and attempt to understand them fully.
E
edwest2
Guest
No, the world does not change, only people make changes and in subtle or obvious ways, impose them on people. There were dissidents inside the Church. Please read the following:Huge
There is no going back, by definition. This does not negate traditions and definitely does not negate Tradition. But the search for a certain time and culture and a set of feelings associated with it will be frustrating, as it cannot be done. The world changes period. The Church responds to changes. I accept that the the Holy Spirit guides the Church in a positive and holy way,
-always-, not just in the years prior to 1962.
We must remember that the kingdom of God is an eternal kiingdom. It is not 40 years long. It takes centuries for the Church to chew on scripture and revelation and give it full interpretation and implementation. 40 years is the blink of an eye! Although in these days of instant communication we act as though 40 years is an eternity. While you may be upset at the errors that people make, or the coarseness of culture that surfaces in the Church pews, as Catholics we are called to believe that God is guiding us through the Catholic Church and all of it’s teaching. The changes that have come about, even those you consider erromeous, WILL work for God’s greater glory, in a way that none of us can clearly see.
online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704586504574654282563939764.html
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
Banal, in this case, means less reverent. I heard a priest on Catholic Radio say that the Church will be returning to more reverent music because we are at Mass to worship and participate in the Divine Mystery and to elevate our minds toward it by using music that can do so.
Fresh, original and innovative? No, I don’t think so. I definitely mean that the Church is not looking for the next trend in music, even if it is labeled as “useful” by some.
Peace,
Ed
C
clem456
Guest
You’re confusing culture with Church teaching. While they relate to one another,they are not the same thing. You cannot blame the cultural irreverence you see in the Church pews on Church teaching…you can hold bishops, priests, and laity accountable, but not Church teaching. You are blaming the Holy Spirit for your problems!! This issue does not belong on V2’s doorstep.
And insisting on certain forms at Mass, is definitely NOT going to solve our problems in the culture. In fact rigid insistence on form will simply drive people away. People instinctively know, as they rightly should, that form alone is not the substance of faith.
J
jam070406
Guest
In regard to the Liturgy, I agree with you 100%. But I would rather view it, not as going back, but proceeding forward without the novelties. That were never intended in the first place.
E
edwest2
Guest
“more relatable”?
"In his outstanding book, “Spirit of the Liturgy,” Cardinal Ratzinger wrote of the ancient and venerable practice of offering the Holy Sacrifice ad orientem, in which both priest and people face east:
“It has been the practice in the entire Church, East and West from time immemorial. Contrary to a prevailing misconception, there is no evidence for celebration of Mass versus populum in the first nineteen centuries of the Church’s history, with rare exceptions.”
“Despite all the variations in practice that have taken place far into the second millennium, one thing has remained clear for the whole of Christendom: praying toward the east is a tradition that goes back to the beginning. Moreover, it is a fundamental expression of the Christian synthesis of cosmos and history, of being rooted in the once-for-all events of salvation history while going out to meet the Lord who is to come again.”
And please read the following:
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi_en.html
Peace,
Ed
C
clem456
Guest
The world does not change? You have lost me there. If by the world you mean core Church teaching I’m with you. If you are saying that cultures and philosophies don’t change, that is not true.
Not debating there are dissidents. Always there are dissidents. Who are the dissidents of today and what are their viewpoints?
J
jam070406
Guest
The Orthodox and Eastern Catholics would disagree. They have not changed their form of worship to appease modern trends.
P
pnewton
Guest
That is why I am always confused by the word “banal”. Its meaning does not pertain to reverence.
merriam-webster.com/medical/banal
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/banal
**
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/banal
**
**
devoid of freshness or originality; hackneyed; trite: a banal and sophomoric treatment of courage on the frontier.
#mid1{border-top:solid 1px #E4E4E4;border-bottom:solid 1px #E4E4E4;padding-bottom:8px;padding-top:8px;}****
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/banal
**
**
so lacking in originality as to be obvious and boring:
For synonyms:
thesaurus.com/browse/banal
Note how many of the antonyms are exactle the type of music that is most criticized in Mass as being banal. I mean when a word is used in such a nuanced fashion as to be taken as the opposite of what it really means, I think people are quoting more than thinking.
P
pnewton
Guest
I did read it when it first came out. I have read “Spirit of the Liturgy” twice and keep it as a constant reference. I am kind of surprised that there hasn’t been a greater push for ad orientem Mass, but otherwise, everything in there fits what the Holy Father has done.
E
edwest2
Guest
Then you’ve missed the comments posted regularly here that say “the documents are too confusing,” which implies “so let’s throw up our hands and not even try to understand,”
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi_en.html
All Catholics have to do is pick up their Bibles and their Catechisms and some of the many fine Catholic Books today, learn it and actually live out their faith daily.
Pope John XXIII was very clear about the purpose of the Second Vatican Vatican Council, and there are resources for those who want to be educated as to the documents:
harvestingthefruit.com/
My complaint is this: There are way too many posts here that encourage people that everything that happened during the 1960s, inside and outside the Church, can and should be blamed on Vatican II. Read the documents? Why bother? It’s obvious that Vatican II did it. Whatever “it” might be. Isn’t it obvious that it ruined everything?
I hope that clarifies my position.
Peace,
Ed
J
jam070406
Guest
I believe the Holy Father meant banal as in no sense of the sacred.
“An authentic updating of sacred music can take place only in the lineage of the great tradition of the past, of Gregorian chant and sacred polyphony.” [Speaking in the Sistine Chapel following a tribute concert to Dominico Bartolucci, June 24, 2006.]
E
edwest2
Guest
N
Not_Sure_1
Guest
The Church is eternal and never needs to be brought “up to date”
The World should conform to the Church, not the other way around.
- Status