Vatican: No reform of the reform.......

[BarbTherese]

http://cathnews.com/cathnews/25936-no-reform-of-the-reform-vatican

 

Quote

 

 read entire article on the above link     Excerpt:  "The statement released by Fr Federico Lombardi came in the wake of recent comments by Congregation for Divine Worship Prefect, Cardinal Robert Sarah, recommending that priests celebrate Mass ad orientem.

Fr Lombardi also rejected the vocabulary of a "reform of the reform" in liturgical practice, saying that phrase is "at times the source of misunderstandings."

He said the decision to release a statement clarifying comments made by Cardinal Sarah, of Guinea, came after the prelate met with Pope Francis on Saturday.

"Cardinal Sarah has always been rightly concerned about the dignity of the celebration of the Mass, in order to adequately express an attitude of respect and adoration of the Eucharistic mystery," Fr Lombardi said.

The Papal spokesman added that some of Cardinal Sarah's expressions had been misinterpreted by the press, as a signal that changes in liturgical norms were imminent...................

...........................""He was speaking to an annual meeting of an erratic conservative group . . . Those directives don't happen in speeches and interviews" like those Cardinal Sarah has given, Fr Morrill said.'"

 

 

Edited July 12, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[Maggyie]

3 hours ago, BarbaraTherese said:

http://cathnews.com/cathnews/25936-no-reform-of-the-reform-vatican

 

 

In contrast:

 "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.

But is this not all romanticism and nostalgia for the past? Can the original form of Christian prayer still say something to us today, or should we try to find our own form, a form for our own times? Of course, we cannot simply replicate the past. Every age must discover and express the essence of the liturgy anew. The point is to discover this essence amid all the changing appearances. It would surely be a mistake to reject all the reforms of our century wholesale. When the altar was very remote from the faithful, it was right to move it back to the people. In cathedrals this made possible the recovery of the tradition of the altar at the crossing, the meeting-point of the nave and the presbyterium. It was also important clearly to distinguish the place for the Liturgy of the Word from the place for the strictly Eucharistic liturgy. For the Liturgy of the Word is about speaking and responding, and so a face-to-face exchange between proclaimer and hearer does make sense. In the Psalm the hearer internalizes what he has heard, takes it into himself, and transforms it into prayer, so that it becomes a response.

Turning to the East Essential

On the other hand, a common turning to the East during the Eucharistic Prayer remains essential. This is not a case of something accidental, but of what is essential. Looking at the priest has no importance. What matters is looking together at the Lord. It is not now a question of dialogue, but of common worship, of setting off towards the One who is to come. What corresponds with the reality of what is happening is not the closed circle, but the common movement forward expressed in a common direction for prayer.

- Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Benedict XVI, "The Spirit of the Liturgy"

"We have a liturgy which has degenerated so that it has become a show which, with momentary success for the group of liturgical fabricators, strives to render religion interesting in the wake of the frivolities of fashion and seductive moral maxims. Consequently, the trend is the increasingly marked retreat of those who do not look to the liturgy for a spiritual show-master but for the encounter with the living God in whose presence all the ‘doing’ becomes insignificant since only this encounter is able to guarantee us access to the true richness of being.” (Cardinal Ratzinger’s preface to the French translation of Reform of the Roman Liturgy by Monsignor Klaus Gamber, 1992).

By the way I'm not a traditionalist and I prefer the priest facing the people. Just pointing out that the Pope is every bit an ideologue with a political agenda, and the Church's perspective on things changes so fast you'll get whiplash. Not very "eternal and unchanging" and not entirely dissimilar from the Protestant experience....

[Guest]

Whatever Rome decides, I will follow and that becomes my preference.  Whether the celebrant faces away from the congregation or towards the congregation, I can find personally fulfilling meaning in both (guided by what The Church has to say) as my own personal experience of The Mass.  Pre V2 The Mass was meaningful and has remained so post V2 to now.  I don't think I am any sort of -ist at all nor care for the terms let alone understand them in their full definition and embrace - nor is that concerning to me.  I am simply Catholic loyal to Rome and hope to remain so until death.

[Maggyie]

2 minutes ago, BarbaraTherese said:

Whatever Rome decides, I will follow and that becomes my preference.  Whether the celebrant faces away from the congregation or towards the congregation, I can find personally fulfilling meaning in both (guided by what The Church has to say) as my own personal experience of The Mass.  Pre V2 The Mass was meaningful and has remained so post V2 to now.  I don't think I am any sort of -ist at all nor care for the terms let alone understand them in their full definition and embrace - nor is that concerning to me.  I am simply Catholic loyal to Rome and hope to remain so until death.

Hmm no offense but I think that is nonsense. It's normal for humans to have a preference. Any way my point is that I'm increasingly disturbed by Francis's open political machinations. Like he's not even trying to hide it now. At least pretend to be in agreement with your predecessor. That's kind of the deal. Benedict considered himself a continuation of John Paul II who considered himself a faithful son of the Council popes etc. 

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Maggyie said:

Hmm no offense but I think that is nonsense. It's normal for humans to have a preference. Any way my point is that I'm increasingly disturbed by Francis's open political machinations. Like he's not even trying to hide it now. At least pretend to be in agreement with your predecessor. That's kind of the deal. Benedict considered himself a continuation of John Paul II who considered himself a faithful son of the Council popes etc. 

You of course are always entitled to your personal assessments or judgements whatever of others and their opinions.  As I said, my preference is to be loyal and obedient to Rome and The Magisterium.  That is my quite human (and spiritual) preference on both the intellectual and feeling level.

Your bias, as well as mine, is on right out on show, I think,where The Vicar of Christ on earth currently is concerned.

 Catholicnews.com "Pope Benedict XVI..........""Pope Benedict also conveyed his hope that Pope Francis would continue to "lead us all on this path of divine mercy that shows the path of Jesus, to Jesus and to God."

........so I guess the bias of Pope Benedict is also on show......and I am indeed in agreement with the predecessor of Pope Francis.......who is in agreement with Pope Francis in all I have ever read anyway.......certrainly nothing contrary.  And "all I have ever read" I am well aware is not everything for sure.

To me, all these -ists within The Church do not unify, rather they tend to disunity - as (sort of) groups being lead by 'feudal type barons' within The Church.  Where bishops and cardinals etc. may speak outside of the formal function of The Magisterium they are entitled to their various personal opinions, but that is all they are.  Bishops and cardinals etc. etc. are all entitled to personal opinions but they are not infallible and that is quite well accepted.......... or I think it is still.

At every Mass in the Credo and yearly in our baptismal vows, we renew our vow of belief in The One Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church - the head of which and The Vicar of Christ on earth, is The Holy Father and The Magisterium insofar as it is in unity with him. 

"Open political machinations" :

Quote

"plotting, intrigue," from Old French machinacion "plot, conspiracy, scheming, intrigue," from Latin machinationem (nominative machinatio) "device, contrivance, machination," noun of action from past participle stem of machinari "contrive skillfully, to design; to scheme, to plot,"

  Goodness!
 

[Guest]

The Holy Father, Vicar of Christ on earth, has the duty before God to lead The Church along that path that he believes is that path along which The Church must travel (without contradiction to what has been stated infallibly on either Faith or Morals) and along that path which he feels he has been called to lead as Pope and Vicar of Christ on earth.  He has the sole power, the right and the duty to ordain bishops and those who are elected to the cardinal's hat.  He has the power, the right and the duty to promote into or take away (or shift around) those in the various leadership positions at hierarchical level including in his curia or advisory body in the various departments.  The curia are advisors only and The Holy Father can rule against what they might have advised, although I should imagine this would be done only with very great reluctance, much prayer and extreme caution indeed - and as his duty before God.

He has the power, the right and the duty to undertake all the above in order to assist him and The Church to travel along that path which The Holy Father feels he has been called by God  to lead.

 

The Holy Father is alone in his responsibility and accountability before God in his duties as Pope and oh my what an awe- some responsibility and accountability it is in need of heartfelt daily prayer for him and his leadership. 

 

Catholic Dictionary   VICAR OF CHRIST. The Pope, visible head of the Church on earth, acting for and in the place of Christ. He possesses supreme ecclesiastical authority in the Catholic Church. This title for the Pope dates from at least the eighth century and gradually replaced the former title, “Vicar of St. Peter.” Its biblical basis is Christ’s commission of Peter to “feed my lambs, feed my sheep” (John 21:15-17).

Edited July 12, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[Maggyie]

Well he's not going to say anything contrary, that's also the deal, when you're done being pope you're done, either with death or with keeping your mouth shut. I just think it's naive to imagine the popes doing everything in a state of apolitical zen. Maybe next time they can try a monk as pope and see what that produces. I think the "ist" that you would identify as, is ultramontanist. 

And again I'm not anti pope Francis but he needs to do a better job. 

[Nihil Obstat]

In my opinion versus populum should not have been an option in the first place.

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, Maggyie said:

I think the "ist" that you would identify as, is ultramontanist. 

Whatever, Maggie! . Sticks and stones and all of that if it is about sticks and stones...........dunno and not concerned at all.  As I said before no time for 'ists' at any time. They put or attempt to put rather, people into nice and tidy, controllable boxes and compartments.  I start to be concerned if someone is hunting me down with a stick.  Been there and done that after which  stones are water off the back of duck.....

41 minutes ago, Maggyie said:

Maybe next time they can try a monk as pope and see what that produces

Hey!.......... did you ever see that hilarious movie "The Pope Must Die".  It was a very funny movie indeed where a monk is accidentally elected to the papacy through a clerical error and when the Vatican has been controlled by the Mafia.  Sometimes with this movie one needs to not be easily offended, suspend disbelief - and with an understanding of Catholicism.  I found it very funny anyway.

I know monks have become bishops, I don't know about the Papacy.

Edited July 12, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[Guest]

 

 

UTube - Movie - "The Pope Must Die"

..........woops it was a priest elected to the Papacy, not a monk.  My bad!  I am going to watch it again at some point.  Good ol' UTube.

[Maggyie]

I have seen it, it's good, watch out for the cross shaped cell phones!

[Basilisa Marie]

Honestly turning "east" (it's rarely true east) only works adequately in the old style parishes. Many of the parishes in my area are built not entirely in the round, but with people facing three directions. How are we supposed to "face east" when half, or more than half, of the people are looking at the priest at an angle? 

If the parish has the right layout and a high altar then by all means, it's a great orientation. But Cardinal Sarah's argument for his suggestion is a bit lacking. One would think that the bishops in African would have more immediate issues, as do regular pastors in America who have "Vatican II" style parishes. 

I don't believe ad orientem will promote greater Eucharistic reverence. Not ad orientem alone, and it's a non causa pro causa. Why choose something that's difficult to implement well all over the world when there are other more effective options, like adoration? Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but the symbolism of ad orientem would be very watered down in many of my local parishes, and cause more confusion and struggle than it's worth. 

[Nihil Obstat]

All the more reason to recover our authentic Latin liturgical patrimony in all its particulars, so that such powerful symbols are again recognized and respected.

[Basilisa Marie]

43 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

All the more reason to recover our authentic Latin liturgical patrimony in all its particulars, so that such powerful symbols are again recognized and respected.

It's nice and idealistic, but not practical. Which staff member should we fire so we can afford to totally redo our sanctuary over the course of a few years? Maybe we don't actually need a youth ministry program. Better yet, why not just build a whole new church. I'm sure we can raise 15 million dollars. Because if the symbol of the priest facing "east-not-east-actually-'liturgical'-east" WITH THE PEOPLE is going to be recognizable with the kind of effectiveness we need we're going to have to redo our parish. And get a new altar. 

I don't mean to be so snarky (well, I do, I'm absolutely out of my mind at work and I'm using Phatmass to distract myself for a bit). But comments like that just acknowledge a nice wonderful platitude. They don't contribute to fixing the problem.

[Nihil Obstat]

4 minutes ago, Basilisa Marie said:

It's nice and idealistic, but not practical. Which staff member should we fire so we can afford to totally redo our sanctuary over the course of a few years? Maybe we don't actually need a youth ministry program. Better yet, why not just build a whole new church. I'm sure we can raise 15 million dollars. Because if the symbol of the priest facing "east-not-east-actually-'liturgical'-east" WITH THE PEOPLE is going to be recognizable with the kind of effectiveness we need we're going to have to redo our parish. And get a new altar. 

I don't mean to be so snarky (well, I do, I'm absolutely out of my mind at work and I'm using Phatmass to distract myself for a bit). But comments like that just acknowledge a nice wonderful platitude. They don't contribute to fixing the problem.

It is not a quick fix. I have no illusions on that point. But the fact remains that the Church is in a bad state, and all those things you are mentioning like the round sanctuaries have contributed. All this can be fixed, but it will be slow going, and the work of generations.

So yes, your entire parish should be re-done and oriented in a more traditional manner. Among many, many other things that should be done. And eventually, after perhaps a hundred years or more, we will have been able to recover some semblance of our liturgical heritage.

They took out something like a $20 million mortgage (plus the funds from the sale of their previous large church) in my diocese to build the most hideous and inappropriate church you have ever seen. Enormous effort and care went in to it (and objectively speaking the construction was very high quality), and the result is a modernist monstrosity. But that $20 million mortgage could have gone towards a pretty nice church constructed in a more appropriate manner.

 

You have to start somewhere. I am not really sure it matters where, in particular, just somewhere. The restoration will be accomplished in slow steps which build on each other. So perhaps after those very slow initial few steps are taken, quicker progress can be made. Who knows. But it is absolutely unacceptable to see the work ahead and conclude that, because the first steps are hard, we should start nowhere.

So start with ad orientem, or start with chanted Latin propers, or a chanted Latin ordinary. Or build the next church in the local diocese with a traditional orientation and in a traditional shape. Or restore male-only altar serving, encourage communion to be received kneeling and on the tongue. But start somewhere.