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

[Nihil Obstat]

58 minutes ago, Not A Real Name said:

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.

Well said.

 

[Peace]

2 hours ago, Not A Real Name said:

Right because your stance is based on the authority of the successors of the apostles when mine must be based on my own opinion.  

I do not recall having taken any particular stance in this thread. You may very well be right, but the question is, who gets to decide what is right or wrong? Who gets to decide what Church teaching is? Jesus left us with a living authority to make those decisions. Obviously there are some bishops who share your view, such as the one you cited above. When the bishop of my diocese decides that you are correct and decides to mandate all of the changes to the liturgy that you desire, or when the pope or the majority of  bishops do that generally, I will respect their decision and attend the reformed Mass. I won't complain about how I believe that the Church "really teaches" something different.

Your general approach to the authority of the Church strikes me as somewhat Protestant. But I suppose that is ad hominem too. 

The main parish I attend nowadays is ad orientum, by the way. It celebrates the TLM twice a week and most of the parts of the OF are sung in Latin. There is often a St. Michael at the end of Mass for good measure. I think it is what most of the folks here would call "reverent". Fr. Scalia stops by to celebrate the Mass from time to time. I like this parish. I am a member of the mens group there. It offers confession 7 days a week and the line is usually long. lt has an altar rail and most people kneel down to take communion on the tongue.

I write all of that just to show you that I don't have any particular dislike of what you guys like to refer to as the "traditional" way of doing things.The main thing I take issue with is when you start soundiing like "my way or the highway" or are overly critical of the people whose responsibility it is to make the decisions. I think the cases where we decline to follow the lead of our bishops should be the exception. 

But if you feel that the leadership of the Church has fallen into heresy and it is your solemn duty to correct them, then I suppose I cannot blame you. Please continue if that is what your conscious tells you to do. My conscious tells me otherwise so I cannot join you in that battle.

 

* conscience 

So embarrassing.

Edited July 14, 2016 by Peace

[Guest]

17 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Key word "authentic" meaning what's been going on has not really been what the council WANTED

If one reads the entire text, there is no sweeping generalisation at all that "what's been going on has not been what the Council wanted".  Some of what "has been happening" but not all of it.  It is a beautiful text and an informative one.

It is well worthwhile to read the whole text below.  It takes a little bit of time and effort, but worth it to get what OBERT CARDINAL SARAH, appointed by Pope Francis as Prefect for the Vatican’s CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE Worship, is really saying.

I also keep in mind that Cardinal Sarah is a voice of some authority in The Church and someone whom I respect as wise, holy and informed especially on liturgical matters; however he is not THE final and definitive voice of authority over the whole Church.  That is not a criticism of what he has to say, rather a reminder to myself.

I do wonder with translations too if the translation is truly spot on.  One little word can be interpreted to mean so very much and possibly accurate or inaccurate.

15 hours ago, Peace said:

When the bishop of my diocese decides that you are correct and decides to mandate all of the changes to the liturgy that you desire, or when the pope or the majority of  bishops do that generally, I will respect their decision and attend the reformed Mass. I won't complain about how I believe that the Church "really teaches" something different.

Well said!

________________________________

Read full text of what Cardinal Sarah had to say on Nihil's link below

17 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

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

Edited July 15, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[Guest]

Re Holy Communion on the tongue or in the hand and other liturgical instructions relating to Holy Communion - and see [92.] . 

CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP
AND THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SACRAMENT

REDEMPTIONIS SACRAMENTUM

INSTRUCTION

Redemptionis Sacramentum

On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided
regarding the Most Holy Eucharist

This Instruction, prepared by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments by mandate of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II in collaboration with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was approved by the same Pontiff on the Solemnity of St. Joseph, 19 March 2004, and he ordered it to be published and to be observed immediately by all concerned.

From the offices of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Rome, on the Solemnity of the Annunciation of the Lord, 25 March 2004.

Francis Card. Arinze
Prefect

Domenico Sorrentino
Archbishop Secretary

 

[Amppax]

Peace, I think your intention here is good, in defending legitimate authority. However, there is a role in which criticisms can be made. The liturgy isn't something which should be subject to the whims of bishops and cardinals, or even the pope. They are guardians of it, and if they are not acting as such, it is fair to point that out, respectfully. 

Additionally, a lot of what you're calling opinion is grounded in what seems to be the consensus of many liturgists today. For example, when versus populum was first introduced, it was based on the mistaken notion that this practice was widespread in the early Church, which doesn't actually fit what we know historically. I'm not saying that we need to do away with celebration versus populum, but ad orientem is the tradition of the Church, East and West, so why can't we join Cardinal Sarah in advocating for it's return as the normative practice? 

Finally, here's a little commentary on Fr. Lombardi's statements, which I think is helpful: http://www.ccwatershed.org/blog/2016/jul/12/did-fr-lombardi-contradict-cardinal-sarah-any-way/. 

[Nihil Obstat]

9 hours ago, BarbaraTherese said:

If one reads the entire text, there is no sweeping generalisation at all that "what's been going on has not been what the Council wanted".  Some of what "has been happening" but not all of it.  It is a beautiful text and an informative one.

It is well worthwhile to read the whole text below.  It takes a little bit of time and effort, but worth it to get what OBERT CARDINAL SARAH, appointed by Pope Francis as Prefect for the Vatican’s CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE Worship, is really saying.

I also keep in mind that Cardinal Sarah is a voice of some authority in The Church and someone whom I respect as wise, holy and informed especially on liturgical matters; however he is not THE final and definitive voice of authority over the whole Church.  That is not a criticism of what he has to say, rather a reminder to myself.

I do wonder with translations too if the translation is truly spot on.  One little word can be interpreted to mean so very much and possibly accurate or inaccurate.

Well said!

________________________________

Read full text of what Cardinal Sarah had to say on Nihil's link below

I did not say any of that. 

[Peace]

4 hours ago, Amppax said:

Peace, I think your intention here is good, in defending legitimate authority. However, there is a role in which criticisms can be made. The liturgy isn't something which should be subject to the whims of bishops and cardinals, or even the pope. They are guardians of it, and if they are not acting as such, it is fair to point that out, respectfully. 

You make a good point. I went off on somewhat of a diatribe I guess.

Do you think that it is the job of the laity to watch over the clergy and make sure that they are correct? And where exactly do you draw the line?

If I saw something that I was certain was an abuse I might report it to my bishop. That is probably as far as I would take it. I can't see myself creating a website or organization devoted to pointing out the errors of my parish priest or something along those lines.

Honestly, I don't know what the mind of the Church is concerning the role of the laity in this respect - whether part of our role in the Church is to watch over and correct the clergy when it has gone astray (in our view). If there are any Church documents concerning that topic I would be interested in reading it.

4 hours ago, Amppax said:

Additionally, a lot of what you're calling opinion is grounded in what seems to be the consensus of many liturgists today. For example, when versus populum was first introduced, it was based on the mistaken notion that this practice was widespread in the early Church, which doesn't actually fit what we know historically. I'm not saying that we need to do away with celebration versus populum, but ad orientem is the tradition of the Church, East and West, so why can't we join Cardinal Sarah in advocating for it's return as the normative practice? 

Sure you can. I like ad orientem. I just don't particularly care for the insinuations that I am practicing an inferior form of Catholicism or am not authentic because I see no need to join in on the protests.

But I do think there is a danger to us when we decide to criticize the liturgy or the clergy. *Some* of the so-called traditionalists seem to have an air of arrogance or superiority about them, which manifests itself in calls for changes to the liturgy and criticism of the clergy. *Sometimes* it feels like it is more about how they are better/more devout Catholics, are more "authentically Catholic" than others or have a better knowledge of the faith than others. The complaints are not really being made to aid the church but to feed their own ego.  I do sense a lack of humility sometimes and I think that perhaps some folks should be careful of that when deciding to criticize the liturgy or the clergy.

Note again here that I said *some". I wouldn't say that the above applies to my pal Nihil, for example.

[Amppax]

6 hours ago, Peace said:

You make a good point. I went off on somewhat of a diatribe I guess.

Do you think that it is the job of the laity to watch over the clergy and make sure that they are correct? And where exactly do you draw the line?

If I saw something that I was certain was an abuse I might report it to my bishop. That is probably as far as I would take it. I can't see myself creating a website or organization devoted to pointing out the errors of my parish priest or something along those lines.

Honestly, I don't know what the mind of the Church is concerning the role of the laity in this respect - whether part of our role in the Church is to watch over and correct the clergy when it has gone astray (in our view). If there are any Church documents concerning that topic I would be interested in reading it.

I think that the laity, hopefully, should be well catechized. There's a range between the stereotype of laity who "pay, pray, and obey" and the other extreme of liturgical police. I think that your example of reporting abuse falls within this, but also efforts to educate people (and even clergy!) in our liturgical patrimony can be another. It all depends on how it's done. Nihil would probably know more about any specific documents, you'd have to ask him. 

Quote

Sure you can. I like ad orientem. I just don't particularly care for the insinuations that I am practicing an inferior form of Catholicism or am not authentic because I see no need to join in on the protests.

But I do think there is a danger to us when we decide to criticize the liturgy or the clergy. *Some* of the so-called traditionalists seem to have an air of arrogance or superiority about them, which manifests itself in calls for changes to the liturgy and criticism of the clergy. *Sometimes* it feels like it is more about how they are better/more devout Catholics, are more "authentically Catholic" than others or have a better knowledge of the faith than others. The complaints are not really being made to aid the church but to feed their own ego.  I do sense a lack of humility sometimes and I think that perhaps some folks should be careful of that when deciding to criticize the liturgy or the clergy.

Note again here that I said *some". I wouldn't say that the above applies to my pal Nihil, for example.

I have certainly seen that before, and humility is a virtue we all need. Personally, I tend to find assisting at Masses said ad orientem (whether OF or EF) to be a more humbling experience, when I am able to properly dispose myself. 

[Not A Real Name]

20 hours ago, BarbaraTherese said:

Re Holy Communion on the tongue or in the hand and other liturgical instructions relating to Holy Communion - and see [92.] . 

CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP
AND THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SACRAMENT

REDEMPTIONIS SACRAMENTUM

INSTRUCTION

Redemptionis Sacramentum

On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided
regarding the Most Holy Eucharist

This Instruction, prepared by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments by mandate of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II in collaboration with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was approved by the same Pontiff on the Solemnity of St. Joseph, 19 March 2004, and he ordered it to be published and to be observed immediately by all concerned.

From the offices of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Rome, on the Solemnity of the Annunciation of the Lord, 25 March 2004.

Francis Card. Arinze
Prefect

Domenico Sorrentino
Archbishop Secretary

 

You should read the last sentence of 92 and then the full point of 93.  Sadly, a majority of OF Masses I've been to both meet the last sentence of 92 and do not even bother to practice 93.  Communion in the hand started as a disobedience which spread like wildfire. Pope Paul VI tried to fight it, but unfortunately the Bishops were not helpful.  Paul VI says nothing good about it: "Holy Communion received on the tongue "signifies the reverence of the faithful for the Eucharist ... provides that Holy Communion will be distributed with due reverence ... is more conducive to faith, reverence and humility.... It [Communion in the hand] carries certain dangers with it which may arise from the new manner of administering holy Communion: the danger of a loss of reverence for the August sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine."  - Pope Paul VI in his instruction Memoriale Domini (May 29, 1969

"He should not forget, on the other hand, that the position of the Holy See in this matter is not a neutral one, but rather that it vehemently exhorts him to diligently submit to the law in force [Communion on the tongue], and once more confirmed (Memoriale Domini, #16).” 

Again there is a difference between what the church allows and what it WANTS. 

"There is an apostolic letter on the existence of a special valid permission for this [Communion in the hand]. But I tell you that I am not in favor of this practice, nor do I recommend it." - His Holiness Pope John Paul II, responding to a reporter from Stimme des glaubens magazine, during his visit to Fulda (Germany) in November 1980.

Bishop Blanchette told the National Catholic Register:

“What bothers me is that in the minds of many it will seem that disobedience is being rewarded. And that troubles me because if people persist in being disobedient—and that is used as a reason for changing the discipline—then we’re very close to chaos or what I would call selective obedience, which is no obedience at all.”  (National Catholic Register, “Bishop Blanchette: A Clear Call for Obedience,” June 12, 1977)

A profound statement by the Bishop.

Anyway that's the last I will talk about communion in the hand in this thread.  I pray that one day it is removed from every Catholic Church.  I think God will certainly bless us when that day comes. 

Edited July 16, 2016 by Not A Real Name

[Guest]

49 minutes ago, Not A Real Name said:

You should read the last sentence of 92 and then the full point of 93.  Sadly, a majority of OF Masses I've been to both meet the last sentence of 92 and do not even bother to practice 93.  Communion in the hand started as a disobedience which spread like wildfire. Pope Paul VI tried to fight it, but unfortunately the Bishops were not helpful.  Paul VI says nothing good about it: "Holy Communion .............rest of post edited - to limit space only...............

Thank you for your comments, NRL.