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

[veritasluxmea]

Fortunately, I don't think switching to Ad orientem will cost that much. In the majority of modern parishes all you need to do is move the candles to the other side of the alter and walk around to the front until your back is to the people.  I don't see how it'd be too difficult in round parishes or with the pews being at an angel, they're already seeing part of the priest's back anyways. Just have your back to the main doors of the church. The biggest issue, I think, is whether there's enough room in front of the altar for the priest to stand. You might have to move the altar back a few feet. Shouldn't be to pricey, compared to a total revision of the place. 

[Peace]

10 hours 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.

Why not go with one of the older rites instead?  What, in your view, makes 1962 Europe the pinnacle of civilization?

[Nihil Obstat]

54 minutes ago, Peace said:

Why not go with one of the older rites instead?  What, in your view, makes 1962 Europe the pinnacle of civilization?

Where did I say anything resembling that?

[Peace]

7 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Where did I say anything resembling that?

I thought that was what you were implying, but I guess I read more into your statement than what you intended.

I think the question remains though - if we are going to "recover" or "return" to something, why the Latin rite in particular? And why particular features of the Latin rite from any given era, as opposed to the features from another era?

[Amppax]

Eh. I'm blaming this on Lombardi, not Francis. Not too bothered, because Lombardi's on the way out. 

[Nihil Obstat]

3 hours ago, Peace said:

I thought that was what you were implying, but I guess I read more into your statement than what you intended.

I think the question remains though - if we are going to "recover" or "return" to something, why the Latin rite in particular? And why particular features of the Latin rite from any given era, as opposed to the features from another era?

We should recover our Latin patrimony because we are Latin Rite Catholics for the most part, and it is ours to reclaim.

[Not A Real Name]

3 hours ago, Peace said:

I thought that was what you were implying, but I guess I read more into your statement than what you intended.

I think the question remains though - if we are going to "recover" or "return" to something, why the Latin rite in particular? And why particular features of the Latin rite from any given era, as opposed to the features from another era?

Most OF parishes still need to "recover" and "return" to the VCII documents. What happened after the council was a clear case of Bishops getting an inch and taking a mile. 

The problems we face today is many have grown up with the OF the way it is, so it's the only thing they know.  Returning it back to what it should have been or what the VCII wanted it to be will be just as much of a shock to people as it was back when it was changed after VCII. 

Edited July 13, 2016 by Not A Real Name

[Peace]

2 hours ago, Not A Real Name said:

Most OF parishes still need to "recover" and "return" to the VCII documents. What happened after the council was a clear case of Bishops getting an inch and taking a mile. 

Well obviously the majority of Bishops do not think so.  Why should I take your word over theirs?

2 hours ago, Not A Real Name said:

The problems we face today is many have grown up with the OF the way it is, so it's the only thing they know.  Returning it back to what it should have been or what the VCII wanted it to be will be just as much of a shock to people as it was back when it was changed after VCII. 

You have not determined or established the scope of what Vatican II allows, and whether the OF is within that scope. Nor do you have any authority to do so. But if complaining about the decisions of the successors of the apostles floats your boat by all means please continue to do so.

2 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

We should recover our Latin patrimony because we are Latin Rite Catholics for the most part, and it is ours to reclaim.

Fair enough. I think that we should "return to" or "reclaim" things that are objectively better. And I am comfortable with leaving the decisions about what is objectively better up to the people to whom Jesus has entrusted the authority over the Church. I don't see any particular benefit in returning to something "just because we can and because we did it before". But perhaps that is not a fair characterization of your position.

[Nihil Obstat]

Well it is a precarious situation. There is an element of past practices being good, and there is an element of the changes being less than ideal. Depends on who you talk to of course... There are certain discussions that we have been instructed not to have on this site.

[Not A Real Name]

5 hours ago, Peace said:

Well obviously the majority of Bishops do not think so.  Why should I take your word over theirs?

You have not determined or established the scope of what Vatican II allows, and whether the OF is within that scope. Nor do you have any authority to do so. But if complaining about the decisions of the successors of the apostles floats your boat by all means please continue to do so.

 

That is the problem right there. What VCII allows/permits and what it WANTS are two different things. You incorrectly believe "allows =/= wants" which has never been the case with the Church.  The Church allows you to only have to fast during specific times of the year.  The Church WANTS to see you fasting more as acts of penance and to gain a better spiritual life.  The Church allows you to only go to Mass on Sunday's or Holy Days of Obligation.  The Church WANTS to see you go to Mass daily. 

Likewise VCII allowed for the vernacular to be used in parts of the Mass.  VCII WANTS Latin to have pride of place in the Liturgy.  We can tell that's been shot to h3ll since most Catholics incorrectly refer to the OF as the Vernacular Mass. It was never meant to be the vernacular Mass. So, clearly you may be going to a Mass that is "allowed" by the Church, but not necessarily a Mass celebrated in the way the Church WANTS it done.  The same can be said for communion in the hand, versus populum (which lately we've seen the Church stressing that it WANTS ad orientem) , and even the type of music being played during the liturgy.  The Church WANTS Gregorian chant, have you heard any at your OF?!  Don't we want the Mass to be done according to how the Church wants it?  The sad reality of things is many Bishops do not. 

 

[Peace]

2 hours ago, Not A Real Name said:

That is the problem right there. What VCII allows/permits and what it WANTS are two different things. You incorrectly believe "allows =/= wants" which has never been the case with the Church.  The Church allows you to only have to fast during specific times of the year.  The Church WANTS to see you fasting more as acts of penance and to gain a better spiritual life.  The Church allows you to only go to Mass on Sunday's or Holy Days of Obligation.  The Church WANTS to see you go to Mass daily. 

Likewise VCII allowed for the vernacular to be used in parts of the Mass.  VCII WANTS Latin to have pride of place in the Liturgy.  We can tell that's been shot to h3ll since most Catholics incorrectly refer to the OF as the Vernacular Mass. It was never meant to be the vernacular Mass. So, clearly you may be going to a Mass that is "allowed" by the Church, but not necessarily a Mass celebrated in the way the Church WANTS it done.  The same can be said for communion in the hand, versus populum (which lately we've seen the Church stressing that it WANTS ad orientem) , and even the type of music being played during the liturgy.  The Church WANTS Gregorian chant, have you heard any at your OF?!  Don't we want the Mass to be done according to how the Church wants it?  The sad reality of things is many Bishops do not. 

 

You have not determined or established what Vatican II wants, and whether the OF is consistent with that Vatican II wants. Nor do you have any authority to do so. But if complaining about the decisions of the successors of the apostles floats your boat by all means please continue to do so.

[Not A Real Name]

53 minutes ago, Peace said:

You have not determined or established what Vatican II wants, and whether the OF is consistent with that Vatican II wants. Nor do you have any authority to do so. But if complaining about the decisions of the successors of the apostles floats your boat by all means please continue to do so.

Your fear mongering "you go against the successor of the Apostles" ad hominem isn't going to do you any good here, Peace.  It's the same ad hominem many used to excuse the dismantling of many legitimate liturgical practices within the Latin Rite.  The "you're against the Holy Spirit" whenever you would question their "Spirit of Vatican II" beliefs and practices of things they wanted to be norms within the Rite.   You may not know this but Catholics are free to complain when Bishops do not follow what the Church wants.  The fact that they are the successors of the apostles does not make them impeccable men.  Judas was a Bishop. Was he impeccable? Peter? Any of them? 

In any case I will let more competent individuals   enlighten you further on the sad state of affairs that exist with our Liturgy. 

http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2013/12/is-your-liturgy-like-what-vatican-ii.html?m=1

[Peace]

13 minutes ago, Not A Real Name said:

Your fear mongering "you go against the successor of the Apostles" ad hominem isn't going to do you any good here, Peace.  It's the same ad hominem many used to excuse the dismantling of many legitimate liturgical practices within the Latin Rite.  The "you're against the Holy Spirit" whenever you would question their "Spirit of Vatican II" beliefs and practices of things they wanted to be norms within the Rite.   You may not know this but Catholics are free to complain when Bishops do not follow what the Church wants.  The fact that they are the successors of the apostles does not make them impeccable men.  Judas was a Bishop. Was he impeccable? Peter? Any of them? 

In any case I will let more competent individuals   enlighten you further on the sad state of affairs that exist with our Liturgy. 

http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2013/12/is-your-liturgy-like-what-vatican-ii.html?m=1

As I wrote, if that is what floats your boat please feel free to continue complaining. You certainly can.

But I am also free to disregard your personal opinions because you have no authority. I am free to defer to the judgment of people who have authority.

As for the merits, you have not presented any substantive argument or reasons that support your conclusions in this thread. You have only stated your personal opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it. 

Please carry on if that pleases you.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Peace said:

As I wrote, if that is what floats your boat please feel free to continue complaining. You certainly can.

But I am also free to disregard your personal opinions because you have no authority. I am free to defer to the judgment of people who have authority.

As for the merits, you have not presented any substantive argument or reasons that support your conclusions in this thread. You have only stated your personal opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it. 

Please carry on if that pleases you.

Well said

[Not A Real Name]

10 hours ago, Peace said:

As I wrote, if that is what floats your boat please feel free to continue complaining. You certainly can.

But I am also free to disregard your personal opinions because you have no authority. I am free to defer to the judgment of people who have authority.

As for the merits, you have not presented any substantive argument or reasons that support your conclusions in this thread. You have only stated your personal opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it. 

Please carry on if that pleases you.

Right because your stance is based on the authority of the successors of the apostles when mine must be based on my own opinion.  Heaven forbid my opinion is taken from the successors of the apostles as well. 

"WHILE THE OFFICIAL WORK of reform was taking place some very serious misinterpretations of the liturgy emerged and took root in different places throughout the world. These abuses of the Sacred Liturgy grew up because of an erroneous understanding of the Council, resulting in liturgical celebrations that were subjective and which were more focused on the individual community’s desires than on the sacrificial worship of Almighty God. My predecessor as Prefect of the Congregation, Francis Cardinal Arinze, once called this sort of thing “the do-it-yourself Mass.”--Cardinal Robert Sarah

You may have heard of him, he's the the Prefect of the Vaticans Gongregation of Divine Worhsip, and was chosen by the Pope Himself.. The above quotes is taken from his recent address titled: 

https://www.ccwatershed.org/blog/2016/jul/7/robert-cardinal-sarah-address-2015-july/

Key word "authentic" meaning what's been going on has not really been what the council WANTED.  But if you want to play the authority game Peace, then I've just presented the Pope's spokesman who acknowledges the sad state pf the OF liturgy in many parishes.  This same man has also written in the book "Dominus Est" with Vatican approval which refutes the practice of communion in the hand. 

So yeah I will stick with "my" opinion that what's going on in the majority of OF Masses is complete croutons when compared to what the VCII wanted.

Edited July 14, 2016 by Not A Real Name