What Many Have Forgotten And No Longer Appreciate

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='BG45' timestamp='1345499529' post='2470824']
Okay...caught up, I think. To paraphrase Fallout, my thoughts are, "The Liturgy Wars, the Liturgy Wars never change."



Totally not how it was intended, but this paragraph, after reading EF vs. OF debates on PM for years made me think of all the "returning to the glories of the EF" talk. About how the "EF was way better and more reverent back in the good old days".

I'm not necessarily saying that I agree with the following statement, but one could interpret this comment as saying that we disrespect the Holy Spirit by seeking to return to an earlier stage (the EF) due to our human wisdom being greater than the Holy Spirit's overseeing of the development of liturgy (and the OF); unless one was to say that the OF is a human invention and that the Holy Spirit failed to preserve the Church and her liturgies.

/Devil's Advocate
[/quote]

If that is not how it was intended then that interpretation would be taking what was said out of context.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1345497285' post='2470794']
Yeah I know right. Feels like I'm back in grade school... but o well. I'm gonna go watch Doctor Who which is far more entertaining than old school playground nonsense.
[/quote]
see fides' Jack? told you he lost his sense of humor in the war.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1345501203' post='2470845']

see fides' Jack? told you he lost his sense of humor in the war.
[/quote]

Your face

[Lil Red]

engaging in face is a sin.

or so i heard.

[MissScripture]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1345501578' post='2470853']
engaging in face is a sin.

or so i heard.
[/quote]

[Nihil Obstat]

Don't you dare speak illy of the dead.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1345501578' post='2470853']
engaging in face is a sin.

or so i heard.
[/quote]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKpnZ7cwWuY&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[missionseeker]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1345496570' post='2470777']
Peace,



I'm not ignoring the last 2000 years of history, and although I do believe the period we are living is one of the worst spiritual crises ever, that is not the point that I was making.



I'm realizing a lot of what I'm doing is correcting misinterpretations of what I said. I never said there are less Saints today than before. My comment, yet again having to go over this, was in response to a post that the changes to liturgy make it more understandable. My response was, that despite the changes there is more ignorance than ever, and even the traditional liturgy which supposedly did not permit active participation, produced among the greatest Saints the Church has seen. Clearly great spiritual benefit from the Traditional Latin Mass was to be gained despite there being an apparent seclusion of the laity.

And when I say "moderns" I'm not referring to people of a certain period but rather people of a certain mentality. The modern mentality is intrinsically against the spiritual order.



I suppose even one of those notorious clown masses can be holy too, right? But I think we would both agree that a clown mass doesn't give equal honor to God as a properly done OF Mass, and that therefore we should strive for that which gives more honor to God.



You probably don't realize it but the argument you just made is what Pope St Piux XII criticized as antiquiarianism. The problem with supposdely (!) returning to an earlier stage of the Liturgy is that it's disrespectful to the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the one who developed the Liturgy as it was known, and to say we ought to return to an earlier stage is to say human wisdom can do a better job. This is why Pope Pius referred to examples of antiquarianism as "straying from the right path." (Mediator Dei, paragraph 62) But like so many other things this reality has been obscured, forgotten, and sent down the memory hole. May God save us from this confusion!
[/quote]


Yes, VALID clown Masses are holy. The are completely illicit and disrespectful. They are irreverent and mostly mockery. But that does not change the fact that in a Mass, any Mass, where the proper form and matter are used, Christ does come to earth under the guise of the Eucharist, making them Holy. It's a part of His immense mercy. Do we deserve it? No. Does He give it? yes. Think of the men who beat Him and mocked Him at Calvary. It is very similar. He didn't run away screaming. He gave Himself up. That's what He does at these Masses.

Actually, I'm not falling anywhere near into the camp of antiquianarism. I am simply pointing out that what many people think is a complete break with history and tradition is, actually, not. I wouldn't want it to return to that Mass. Every priest present made a homily and the liturgy was regularly 4 or 5 hours long. (Not that that is a bad thing). Since the Church has been led by the Holy Spirit to the Pauline Missal, is not wanting that to be done away with the same exact thing as wishing to go back to something the Church used to do?

Saying that one form of the Mass is better than the other comes very close to saying that Holy Spirit or the Church messed up.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='missionseeker' timestamp='1345502302' post='2470868']
I am simply pointing out that what many people think is a complete break with history and tradition is, actually, not.
[/quote]

There's a pretty solid academic case to be made that the renovated propers of the Pauline Missal constitute a rupture in terms of that aspect of liturgical development. So while in a canonical legal sense there is no rupture, and while in the sense of valid sacraments and apostolic succession there is no rupture, in terms of the essentially Roman characteristic of the rite itself, it might be viewed justifiably as a departure from tradition.
I usually refer to Laszlo Dobszay on this subject, and I can break out my books if anyone is interested in hearing more. He presents it better than I'm able, because some of what he says still goes a bit over my head at times.

Edited August 20, 2012 by Nihil Obstat

[BG45]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1345500272' post='2470835']
If that is not how it was intended then that interpretation would be taking what was said out of context.
[/quote]

But therein lies the crux of this entire thread. Personal interpretations.

My own personal interpretation of the Mass is that I agree with Lumen Gentium that the Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith. We can all argue till we're blue in the face over which form of the Mass is "better", but as Mission pointed out earlier, Christ is present in both.

While I was in Philly this weekend, the group of people I was meeting up with went to Mass at one of the parishes in the city. The homily was excellent. However, some of the prayers were a word or two off. The cantor used songs that I'd never wish to see in any hymnal. There was applause. They had the guests stand, and they outnumbered normal parishoners by about three to one. It wasn't my favorite Mass by far from a viewpoint of my personal preference. However, it was still holy and I was still able to receive the Eucharist.

As for the part of my statement that I posed as a hypothetical that I did agree with 100%, this quote covers it:
[quote name='missionseeker' timestamp='1345502302' post='2470868']
Saying that one form of the Mass is better than the other comes very close to saying that Holy Spirit or the Church messed up.
[/quote]

[missionseeker]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1345502731' post='2470873']
There's a pretty solid academic case to be made that the renovated propers of the Pauline Missal constitute a rupture in terms of that aspect of liturgical development. So while in a canonical legal sense there is no rupture, and while in the sense of valid sacraments and apostolic succession there is no rupture, in terms of the essentially Roman characteristic of the rite itself, it might be viewed justifiably as a departure from tradition.
I usually refer to Laszlo Dobszay on this subject, and I can break out my books if anyone is interested in hearing more. He presents it better than I'm able, because some of what he says still goes a bit over my head at times.
[/quote]

So... basically what I said. It's not really a break with tradition. You can't have something be a rupture of tradition and not a rupture of tradition at the same time.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='missionseeker' timestamp='1345503643' post='2470881']
So... basically what I said. It's not really a break with tradition. You can't have something be a rupture of tradition and not a rupture of tradition at the same time.
[/quote]

Well... that really isn't at all what I said.

[Slappo]

There was no sacramental or doctrinal rupture as sacraments and doctrines are unchanging in their essence. There was a major liturgical rupture. The ritual of the mass completely changed.

Liturgically speaking the following happened: prayers were removed, readings were added, the language was changed, the worship space was renovated allowing for versus populum, the vestments changed, the entire congregation had responses.

In practice, the following happened: Music changed, propers were removed, various instruments were added, EMHC's were added, lay lectors were added, the art in churches changed, and much more.

If all of that changing in a decade isn't rupture, then I dunno what is.

[MissyP89]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1345500154' post='2470831']
It was clear from the start I didn't approve of "chicken man" ... That didn't seem very respectful. [b]No means no.[/b]
[/quote]

Wait hold on. What is going [i]on [/i]here, you guys?

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1345501578' post='2470853']
engaging in face is a sin.

or so i heard.
[/quote]

I guess it depends on whose face.

[mortify]

[quote name='missionseeker' timestamp='1345502302' post='2470868']
Since the Church has been led by the Holy Spirit to the Pauline Missal, is not wanting that to be done away with the same exact thing as wishing to go back to something the Church used to do?

Saying that one form of the Mass is better than the other comes very close to saying that Holy Spirit or the Church messed up.
[/quote]

These are sensitive questions revolving around the nature of Authority. What we know is that the Church is protected from error but this sphere of protection is limited. In other words, the gaurantee of infallibility does not extend to everything, even though good Catholics are still obliged to be obedient in these fallible matters (this too has limitations.) What this leaves is a human element to the authority that is still legitimate, but none the less fallible. It is possible therefore that our Authority can make an imprudent decision, and this possibility became a reality several times in our history. Alcuin Reid's The Organic Development of the Liturgy delves into several of these cases, and I would recommend reading his book. It is far from an extremist book, being that it is published by Ignatius Press and has a forward by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. I personally at this time don't want to speculate on what the correct answer to this question is, I simply don't know enough to answer.

Edited August 20, 2012 by mortify