Vatican II

[p0lar_bear]

Madonna,

Though I think this thread does not necessarily reflect badly on the Holy Father or the Church, I see where Morph is coming from. Keep in mind that current Missal of the Mass is from the Vatican so any "New Mass" vs "Old Mass" discussion is fobidden on this phorum as Catholic vs. Catholic debate. Also, the translations (which are in the process of being re-done) have been approved by the Vatican. Finally, we need to be careful of how we speak about our bishops. We do not have to agree with everything they do, but we do need to treat them with respect, particularly in a public forum.

That said, while there are obviously abuses, the liturgy, as issued, is fully in keeping with the words and intention of the Council Fathers.

[Madonna]

[quote]Keep in mind that current Missal of the Mass is from the Vatican so any "New Mass" vs "Old Mass" discussion is fobidden on this phorum as Catholic vs. Catholic debate.[/quote]

I feel as if I am being lectured. I think the light in which I posted this topic is being grossly misunderstood by some. I am not schismatic in the slightest. I have nothing against Norvus Ordo Mass. That is the Mass I attend. I am speaking of small things in the Roman Missal that adjustements are being made to currently.

[quote]Finally, we need to be careful of how we speak about our bishops. We do not have to agree with everything they do, but we do need to treat them with respect, particularly in a public forum.[/quote]

No disrespect was intended in the slightest. I have a great fondness for my own archbishop. He is a phenomenal man.

I cannot ignore the fact that I have been in Churches where there is self-service communion, made up prayers, lay people and nuns giving the homily, and other blatant abuses against the liturgy. When I spoke of abuses against the liturgy earlier, I was not saying that the Norvus Ordo was itself an abuse of the liturgy. The simple point I was trying to make was that [some] priests and bishops take extreme liberties with the leeway given in the missal. My comment about bishops was my sadness that previous bishops of ours and those in other dioceses who have turned a blind eye to these abuses, despite pleas from the congregation.

Pope John Paul II says :

[quote] The two-thousandth anniversary of the birth of the Savior is a call to all Christ’s followers to seek a genuine conversion to God and a great advance to holiness. Since the Liturgy is such a central part of the Christian life, I wish today to consider some aspects of the liturgical renewal so vigorously promoted by the Second Vatican Council, as the prime agent of the wider renewal of Catholic life. To look back over what has been done in the field of liturgical renewal since the Council is first to see many reasons for giving heartfelt thanks and praise to the Most Holy Trinity for the marvelous awareness which had developed among the faithful of their role and responsibility in the priestly work of Christ and his Church. It is also to realize that not all changes have always and everywhere been accompanied by the necessary explanation and catechesis. As a result, in some cases there has been a misunderstanding of the very nature of the Liturgy, leading to abuses, polarization, sometimes even grave scandal. After the experience of more than thirty years of liturgical renewal we are well placed to assess both the strengths and weaknesses of what has been done in order more confidently to plot our course into the future, which God has in mind for His cherished people. The challenge now is to move beyond whatever misunderstandings there have been and to reach the proper point of balance, especially by entering more deeply into the contemplative dimension of worship, which includes a sense of awe, reverence and adoration which are fundamental attitudes in our relationship with God. The Eucharist gathers and builds the human community, but it is also ‘the worship of the Divine Majesty’.  It is subjective in that it depends radically upon what the worshippers bring to it, but it is objective in that it transcends them as the priestly act of Christ himself to which he associates us, but which ultimately does not depend upon us. The priest, who is the servant of the liturgy and not its inventor or producer, has a particular responsibility in this regard, lest he empty the liturgy of its true meaning or obscure its sacred character.  The core of the mystery of Christian worship is the Sacrifice of Christ offered to the Father and the work of the Risen Christ who sanctifies his people through the liturgical sign. It is, therefore, essential that in seeking to enter more deeply into the contemplative depths of worship, the inexhaustible mystery of the priesthood of Jesus Christ be fully acknowledged and respected. The priest, therefore, is not just one who presides, but one who acts in the person of Christ.

The sharing of all the baptized in the one priesthood of Jesus Christ is the key to understanding the Church’s call for full, conscious and active participation. Full participation certainly means that every member of the community has a part to play in the liturgy. And in this respect, a great deal has been achieved in parishes and communities across your land. But, full participation does not mean that everyone does everything. Since this would lead to a clericalizing of the laity and a laicizing of the priesthood, and this was not what the Council had in mind. The liturgy, like the Church, is intended to be hierarchical and polyphonic. Respecting the different roles assigned by Christ and allowing all the different voices to blend in one great hymn of praise. Active participation certainly means that in gesture, word, song, and service all the members of the community take part in an active worship, which is anything but inert or passive. Yet active participation does not preclude the active passivity of silence, stillness, and listening: indeed, it demands it. Worshippers are not passive, for instance, when listening to the readings or the homily or following the prayers of the celebrant and the chants in music of the Liturgy. These are experiences of silence and stillness, but they are in their own way, profoundly active. In a culture that neither favors nor fosters meditative quiet, the art of interior listening is learned only with difficulty. Here we see the liturgy, though it must always be properly inculturated, must also be counter-cultural. Conscious participation calls for the entire community to be properly instructed in the mysteries of the liturgy lest the experience of worship degenerate into a form of ritualism. But it does not mean a constant attempt within the liturgy itself to make the implicit explicit, since this often leads to verbosity and informality which are alien to the Roman Rite and end by trivializing the act of worship. Nor does conscious participation mean the suppression of all subconscious experience, which is vital in a liturgy which thrives on symbols that speak to the subconscious, just as they speak to the conscious. The use of the vernacular has certainly opened up the treasures of the liturgy to all who take part.  But, this does not mean that the Latin language, and especially, the Chants which are so superbly adapted to the genius of the Roman rite, should be wholly abandoned.
[/quote] -taken from [url="http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0540.html"]this[/url] article, without the commentary in between Pope John Paul II's address.

This is what the Holy Father says. This is what I follow. I hope I have made myself more clear.

Edited August 13, 2004 by Madonna

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Madonna' date='Aug 13 2004, 11:13 AM'] I disagree as well. That was not my intention in starting this thread. I think the Church in America (individual priests and some bishops) have butchered the liturgy, using Vatican II as an "excuse". In actuality, Vatican II barely even touched on the liturgy. This is about the extent that Vatican II documents addressed the liturgy:



[i]paragraph 14 of Sacrosanctum Concilium [/i] [/quote]
Please get your timelines correct.

The Mass was changed by Pope Paul VI after Vatican II was over.

Are you denying the ability of His Holiness to alter a discipline of the Church?

[cmotherofpirl]

THE MASS IS THE SAME
Pope Paul VI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Address to a General Audience, November 19, 1969
Our Dear Sons and Daughters:

1. We wish to draw your attention to an event about to occur in the Latin Catholic Church: the introduction of the liturgy of the new rite of the Mass. It will become obligatory in Italian dioceses from the First Sunday of Advent, which this year falls on November 30. The Mass will be celebrated in a rather different manner from that in which we have been accustomed to celebrate it in the last four centuries, from the reign of St. Pius V, after the Council of Trent, down to the present.

2. This change has something astonishing about it, something extraordinary. This is because the Mass is regarded as the traditional and untouchable expression of our religious worship and the authenticity of our faith. We ask ourselves, how could such a change be made? What effect will it have on those who attend Holy Mass? Answers will be given to these questions, and to others like them, arising from this innovation. You will hear the answers in all the Churches. They will be amply repeated there and in all religious publications, in all schools where Christian doctrine is taught. We exhort you to pay attention to them. In that way you will be able to get a clearer and deeper idea of the stupendous and mysterious notion of the Mass.

3. But in this brief and simple discourse We will try only to relieve your minds of the first, spontaneous difficulties which this change arouses. We will do so in relation to the first three questions which immediately occur to mind because of it.

4. How could such a change be made? Answer: It is due to the will expressed by the Ecumenical Council held not long ago. The Council decreed: "The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, can be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful can be more easily accomplished.

5. "For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, while due care is taken to preserve their substance. Elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded. Where opportunity allows or necessity demands, other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the earlier norm of the Holy Fathers" (Sacrosanctum Concilium #50).

6. The reform which is about to be brought into being is therefore a response to an authoritative mandate from the Church. It is an act of obedience. It is an act of coherence of the Church with herself. It is a step forward for her authentic tradition. It is a demonstration of fidelity and vitality, to which we all must give prompt assent.

7. It is not an arbitrary act. It is not a transitory or optional experiment. It is not some dilettante's improvisation. It is a law. It has been thought out by authoritative experts of sacred Liturgy; it has been discussed and meditated upon for a long time. We shall do well to accept it with joyful interest and put it into practice punctually, unanimously and carefully.

8. This reform puts an end to uncertainties, to discussions, to arbitrary abuses. It calls us back to that uniformity of rites and feeling proper to the Catholic Church, the heir and continuation of that first Christian community, which was all "one single heart and a single soul" (Acts 4:32). The choral character of the Church's prayer is one of the strengths of her unity and her catholicity. The change about to be made must not break up that choral character or disturb it. It ought to confirm it and make it resound with a new spirit, the spirit of her youth.

9. The second question is: What exactly are the changes?

10. You will see for yourselves that they consist of many new directions for celebrating the rites. Especially at the beginning, these will call for a certain amount of attention and care. Personal devotion and community sense will make it easy and pleasant to observe these new rules. But keep this clearly in mind: Nothing has been changed of the substance of our traditional Mass. Perhaps some may allow themselves to be carried away by the impression made by some particular ceremony or additional rubric, and thus think that they conceal some alteration or diminution of truths which were acquired by the Catholic faith for ever, and are sanctioned by it. They might come to believe that the equation between the law of prayer, lex orandi and the law of faith, lex credendi, is compromised as a result.

11. It is not so. Absolutely not. Above all, because the rite and the relative rubric are not in themselves a dogmatic definition. Their theological qualification may vary in different degrees according to the liturgical context to which they refer. They are gestures and terms relating to a religious action—experienced and living—of an indescribable mystery of divine presence, not always expressed in a universal way. Only theological criticism can analyze this action and express it in logically satisfying doctrinal formulas. The Mass of the new rite is and remains the same Mass we have always had. If anything, its sameness has been brought out more clearly in some respects.

12. The unity of the Lord's Supper, of the Sacrifice on the cross of the re-presentation and the renewal of both in the Mass, is inviolably affirmed and celebrated in the new rite just as they were in the old. The Mass is and remains the memorial of Christ's Last Supper. At that Supper the Lord changed the bread and wine into His Body and His Blood, and instituted the Sacrifice of the New Testament. He willed that the Sacrifice should be identically renewed by the power of His Priesthood, conferred on the Apostles. Only the manner of offering is different, namely, an unbloody and sacramental manner; and it is offered in perennial memory of Himself, until His final return (cf. De la Taille, Mysterium Fidei, Elucd. IX).

13. In the new rite you will find the relationship between the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist, strictly so called, brought out more clearly, as if the latter were the practical response to the former (cf. Bonyer). You will find how much the assembly of the faithful is called upon to participate in the celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice, and how in the Mass they are and fully feel themselves "the Church." You will also see other marvelous features of our Mass. But do not think that these things are aimed at altering its genuine and traditional essence.

14. Rather try to see how the Church desires to give greater efficacy to her liturgical message through this new and more expansive liturgical language; how she wishes to bring home the message to each of her faithful, and to the whole body of the People of God, in a more direct and pastoral way.

15. In like manner We reply to the third question: What will be the results of this innovation? The results expected, or rather desired, are that the faithful will participate in the liturgical mystery with more understanding, in a more practical, a more enjoyable and a more sanctifying way. That is, they will hear the Word of God, which lives and echoes down the centuries and in our individual souls; and they will likewise share in the mystical reality of Christ's sacramental and propitiatory sacrifice.

16. So do not let us talk about "the new Mass." Let us rather speak of the "new epoch" in the Church's life.

With Our Apostolic Benediction.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Taken from:
L'Osservatore Romano
Weekly Edition in English
27 November 1969
L'Osservatore Romano is the newspaper of the Holy See.
The Weekly Edition in English is published for the US by:

[Madonna]

[quote] Please get your timelines correct.

The Mass was changed by Pope Paul VI after Vatican II was over. [/quote]

Which is why I said I do not understand why people use Vatican II as an excuse or a reason for taking liberties when Vatican II barely addressed the liturgy. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Could you please rephrase it a different way if I am still incorrect?

[quote]So do not let us talk about "the new Mass." Let us rather speak of the "new epoch" in the Church's life[/quote]

Of course. Norvus Order means "New Order".

I'm not sure why you are refuting me. I am not disagreeing with you. I never said I disagreed with Norvus Ordo, but the abuses that individuals take with it that need to be addressed. My Latin is not very good. I would be slightly confused in the Latin Mass today. I appreciate the vernacular and the full participation of the congregation. I love Pope John Paul II. I am addressing the abuses with Norvus ordo. I am not persecuting Vatican II, Pope John Paul II, or Norvus Ordo. I am upset with the abuses and liberties people have taken with Church teaching/council/documents, starting with Vatican II.

I know of priests that use potato chips and Coke as the Precious Body and Blood. I am deeply saddened that the reverence is gone in many (not all ) Masses I have attended. I do not think I am being trivial or incorrect.

Did you read my last post?

Edited August 13, 2004 by Madonna

[MorphRC]

[quote name='God Conquers' date='Aug 13 2004, 11:55 PM'] I disagree, JPII is currently the driving force behind the new orthodoxy being promoted by the magisterum. [/quote]
I got warned for criticizing Vatican II. I think its hypocritical to allow this thread.

[MorphRC]

[quote name='Madonna' date='Aug 14 2004, 12:43 AM'] I disagree as well. That was not my intention in starting this thread. I think the Church in America (individual priests and some bishops) have butchered the liturgy, using Vatican II as an "excuse". In actuality, Vatican II barely even touched on the liturgy. This is about the extent that Vatican II documents addressed the liturgy:



[i]paragraph 14 of Sacrosanctum Concilium [/i] [/quote]
I got warned for criticizing Vatican II. I think its hypocritical to allow this thread. Same msg.

[Madonna]

How is getting upset with how some people have interpreted Vatican II to the extreme the same as criticizing Vatican II?

[p0lar_bear]

Madonna,

I apologize if I offended you. I realize that I started the post as addressed to you then went on to general comments for everyone. That was my mistake, I'm sorry.

I understand that you are not schismatic and are interested more in addressing the abuses. However, the liturgy tends to be a very....contentious...issue for many, so it's generally best to clarify that you are talking about abuses in the liturgy, not the liturgy itself. Also, these threads often take on a life of their own and become "new Mass" vs. "old Mass" or attacks on the hierarchy regardless of the intention of the original author.

[MorphRC]

[quote name='Madonna' date='Aug 14 2004, 02:21 AM'] How is getting upset with how some people have interpreted Vatican II to the extreme the same as criticizing Vatican II? [/quote]

[i]warnings are between you and the moderator [/i]

[p0lar_bear]

Morph,

Madonna isn't criticizing Vatican II, the Pope, or the current Magisterium. She is criticizing the liberties some people take in a "spirit of Vatican II" which generally has little to do with the actual documents of Vatican II or the Magisterium.

[Madonna]

[quote name='p0lar_bear' date='Aug 13 2004, 10:52 AM']Madonna,

I apologize if I offended you. I realize that I started the post as addressed to you then went on to general comments for everyone. That was my mistake, I'm sorry.

I understand that you are not schismatic and are interested more in addressing the abuses. However, the liturgy tends to be a very....contentious...issue for many, so it's generally best to clarify that you are talking about abuses in the liturgy, not the liturgy itself. Also, these threads often take on a life of their own and become "new Mass" vs. "old Mass" or attacks on the hierarchy regardless of the intention of the original author.[/quote]
I was offended at first and you are most definitely forgiven. I am new to phatmass. I was deeply confused to why everyone was jumping all over and talking to me in a condescending manner. I have not addressed anyone as so. I think that it is bad debating form not to give the other person respect, so in trying to see it from your side, I realized that Vatican II is probably a severely touchy subject here that has most probably taken a turn for the worst when discussed. However, I think we should be adults here. I am interested in learning more and getting other people's perspective. If sensitivity can be set aside, I would appreciate having a respectful discussion on Vatican II.

[MorphRC]

Yeah.

[p0lar_bear]

I do seem to be talking like a professor or something today, don't I? eech!


We can talk about Vatican II and what it meant, but posts which claim that it was heretical or imply that the current Magisterium is acting contrary to Church teaching are not allowed. dUSt, in his infinite wisdom as Master of Phatmass, has decided not to allow Catholic vs. Catholic debate. It gets really messy really quickly (this is experience talking here).

[Madonna]

[quote name='p0lar_bear' date='Aug 13 2004, 11:08 AM']
We can talk about Vatican II and what it meant, but posts which claim that it was heretical or imply that the current Magisterium is acting contrary to Church teaching are not allowed. dUSt, in his infinite wisdom as Master of Phatmass, has decided not to allow Catholic vs. Catholic debate. It gets really messy really quickly (this is experience talking here). [/quote]
I couldn't agree more. I am on staff at onerock, and I know how message boards go.