Can't wait for Papal Action

[Mrvoll]

I hope it is something like Dominus Iesus(highy dout it though).

[conservativecatholic]

[quote name='Mrvoll' date='Jun 11 2005, 02:40 PM']I hope it is something like Dominus Iesus(highy dout it though).
[right][snapback]609325[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

That would be nice....real nice.

The thing that is so great about Benedict is that he valiantly defends Church law and doctrine without hesitation. There will be nothing fuzzy or cloudy regarding this pontiff's papacy, I pray. Our Holy Father has guts as seen in Dominus Iesus! May God Bless him!

Edited June 11, 2005 by conservativecatholic

[dspen2005]

THe Holy Father has already taken steps to change things in the way the papal Liturgies are done.... the papal master of ceremonies is due to be changed....

JP2, and we all luv him, injected international flavor into the liturgy -- dance, etc.... B16 being more reserved, quiet and a "strict constructionist" if u dont mind the phrase, if we are go by the papal installation Mass, will be more on the traditional side....

[Good Friday]

[quote name='KizlarAgha']The biggest barrier I see to restoring communion with Orthodoxy is the state of the Catholic Church. After leaving Orthodoxy because of a belief in the Pope, I searched around and around and around. Every Catholic parish was liberal irreverent and very new age. It was terrifying. Now that I've switched over to Eastern rite, I've really found my home. However, I definitely agree with what was said about inviting people into a messy house. I hope the pope really uses a heavy handed policy on the US and European Churches so that we might be prepared for reconciliation with the Orthodox.[/quote]

I'm glad to see that you're happier in the Eastern Catholic Church. I thought you might be.

[quote name='dspen2005']JP2, and we all luv him, injected international flavor into the liturgy -- dance, etc.... B16 being more reserved, quiet and a "strict constructionist" if u dont mind the phrase, if we are go by the papal installation Mass, will be more on the traditional side....[/quote]

Well, this largely depends upon what you mean by "traditional." If by traditional you mean the Tridentine Mass and that era, then Pope Benedict XVI broke with several elements of that traditionalism in his inaugural Mass and in other Masses. If you're referring to traditionalism in the sense of returning to the roots or sources of the Church, [i]ressourcement[/i] in French, which predates the Tridentine Mass and that era, then yes... he is that kind of traditionalist. As an example, the pallium that he used would have been unrecognizable to the Catholics of the Tridentine era -- it was much longer, and reminiscent of the pallium used in the earliest centuries of the Church, when East and West were still in communion with one another.

I have little doubt that Pope Benedict XVI is going to make the liturgy much more reverent than it has been since the post-Vatican II liturgical abuses began. But I don't think that "traditionalists," who are really Tridentinists, are going to be as thrilled with him as some think. What the so-called "traditionalists" want is a return to doing things how the Church did them before the Second Vatican Council, and that simply can't be done by any Pope -- the Council has happened, and there's no going back, because it was an ecumenical council inspired by the Holy Spirit. Rather, what we're going to see Pope Benedict XVI doing is undertaking a serious and reverent reform in the [i]authentic[/i] spirit of the Second Vatican Council, which will in fact make the liturgy more reverent and, yes, more "traditional" -- but not traditional in the sense of Tridentine, traditional in the sense of returning to the Church's earliest roots in the apostolic and patristic eras.

This is not to say that he won't make the Tridentine Mass more available, but those who want to see him abrogate the Pauline Mass and return to the way of doing things prior to Vatican II are going to be sorely disappointed. Rather, what I suspect he'll do is make the Tridentine Mass a bit more available, but I think his focus will be on reforming the Pauline Mass so that it is more reverent and a more "organic" reform of the liturgy. This will not satisfy most traditionalists, and especially not those who have broken with Rome, such as the Society of St. Pius X.

[mulls]

action, eh?


i personally would like to see him do the robot, or maybe some poppin' and lockin'

[marboniface]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='Jun 15 2005, 02:13 PM']Well, this largely depends upon what you mean by "traditional."  If by traditional you mean the Tridentine Mass and that era, ......If you're referring to traditionalism in the sense of returning to the roots or sources of the Church, [i]ressourcement[/i] in French, which predates the Tridentine Mass and that era, then yes... he is that kind of traditionalist. 

[right][snapback]612457[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]



There are two types of "Traditionalists" as you correctly point out - the "Tridentine-ists" and the "Patristic liturgy-ists".

But this is a false dichotomy - not of the types of traditionalists, but of the forms of liturgy. What you have to remember is that the missal set down after the Council of Trent was not a work of liturgists, but rather, a tidying-up of the Mass as it already existed at the time: the number and rank of saints' feasts, the rubrics here and there, but basically the Roman Liturgy was laid down after Trent in much the same form as it was before Trent. Indeed the Roman Canon can be traced back as far as existing books/records allow - and is atributed to St. Peter himself. Now there is another Roman rite which died out which was the so-called base for Eucharistic Prayer II in the Novus Ordo Missal, but if you actually examine the source document, I have been told, it actually bears very little resemblance to Euch. Prayer II.

Again if you actually read the Vatican II documents and apply them to the Mass which existed at that time (the so-called tridentine Mass, which is only to say, the Mass according to the books produced after the Council of Trent) you will find that the Novus Ordo just doesn't seem to fit with what the documents seem to request.

So in the case of either 'tridentine-ists' or 'patristic-liturgy-ists' the desire is the same: a return to the Roman Canon, ie. the Roman liturgy; and a move away from a rite which was developed over many months of trial-Masses which were often assessed on the basis of how long they took to celebrate. (Please do read any history of the production of the Novus Ordo Mass - but I must warn you, it isn't very edifying).

Finally, I consider the move to traditional forms of Mass the best pastoral option at present. Remember, that the Novus Ordo was introduced not on doctrinal grounds but for pastoral reasons - now the writing is certainly on the wall - the Novus Ordo has been a pastoral disaster considered from every point: levels of practice of the faith; belief in the real presence; Mass attendance of youth; etc. etc.

Marboniface

[Good Friday]

[quote name='marboniface']So in the case of either 'tridentine-ists' or 'patristic-liturgy-ists' the desire is the same: a return to the Roman Canon, ie. the Roman liturgy; and a move away from a rite which was developed over many months of trial-Masses which were often assessed on the basis of how long they took to celebrate. (Please do read any history of the production of the Novus Ordo Mass - but I must warn you, it isn't very edifying).

Finally, I consider the move to traditional forms of Mass the best pastoral option at present. Remember, that the Novus Ordo was introduced not on doctrinal grounds but for pastoral reasons - now the writing is certainly on the wall - the Novus Ordo has been a pastoral disaster considered from every point: levels of practice of the faith; belief in the real presence; Mass attendance of youth; etc. etc.[/quote]
I should preface this by saying that I am not a fan of traditionalism, as is well known at Phatmass.

Some of the elements you mention as "disastrous" were also present within the Tridentine Mass just prior to the Second Vatican Council: levels of practice of the faith, disbelief in the Real Presence, Mass attendance of youth, etc. Youth were not anymore interested in the Tridentine Mass than they are in the Pauline Mass, not because of the Mass, but because they're not interested in any Mass in any form. Disbelief in the Real Presence was also occurring while the Tridentine Mass was still normative; disbelief in the Real Presence is a result of the modernist heresy, not either of the two Masses. And finally, Catholics were not practicing their faith very well prior to the Second Vatican Council. There were no lay apostolates, few lay movements, and the Church was widely regarded as the clergy -- not the laity. Evangelization had come to a dead stop. Modernism, the sum of all heresies, had prevailed. And Catholics were not paying attention at the Tridentine Mass; they were often praying the rosary during the Mass, instead of participating in the Mass as they were supposed to be doing. Why? Because the Mass was entirely in Latin, and because the priests were not encouraging them to participate.

Was the answer to this crisis the Pauline Mass? I don't know. I don't think it's gone very well. I do know that the Pauline Mass was instituted by Pope Paul VI, and it is normative now for the Latin Church, and that's not likely to change. If it did change, however, I don't think a strict return to the Tridentine Mass is going to fare any better than the Pauline Mass has. It may go quite a bit worse. I think the answer to this crisis is a reform that is authentically consistent with [i]Sacrosanctum Concilium[/i], and I think that Pope Benedict XVI is the perfect pope to do just that. I think that such a reform would work on reforming the Tridentine Mass with a view to being somewhat consistent with the Pauline Mass; but I don't think that a return to the Tridentine Mass as such is going to do any good.

[marboniface]

Goodfriday,

true, there were certain levels of un-belief and abuse in the "pre-1960's Church" but they were the exception, whereas they are now the rule.

Modernism, which is basically Kantian/idealist philosophy dressed-up as theology spread through the clergy and religious, mostly after Vatican II, but one cannot claim that it was necessarily caused by the Council, but is consistent with the changes that were occuring in the secular world. However, the huge numbers of priests and religious who left their vocation after Council cannot be simply explained on the grounds of their being infected with modernism, because the evidence tends to suggest that those who were the worst modernists were precisely the ones who stayed.

I suspect that many faithful priests and religious left not because they had lost their vocation, but because their religious congregations had changed, so if a nun had a vocation to be a contemplative benedictine, she soon found herself to be living in a feminist den of politics - hence she should leave.

Anyhow, returning to the Mass... your claim that young people were not interested or could not understand latin are not supported by the evidence of what actually was occurring then or is occuring now. Until about fifteen years ago, latin was a compulsory secondary school subject in most states here, and further, young people and young (ie. not 50-something) vocations were always abundant in all the parishes and dioceses of the Tridentine-Mass parishes of only 45 years ago. Now-a-days having any young people at Mass is a rare exception, usually supported by pop-music and charismaniac banter in a couple of parishes here and there. Now the diocesan media may often make a big deal about these exceptional parishes (exceptionally irreverant) but the fact remains, that a very very small proportion of people between 18 and 40 yrs of age actually go to Mass, which was not the case in the Tridentine Roman Catholic Church of only four decades ago - that is less than a lifetime.

Marboniface

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]"I think we have to restore not so much certain ceremonies, but the essential idea of liturgy – to understand in liturgy, we are not representing ourselves, but we receive the grace of the presence of the Lord with the Church of the heaven and of the earth. And the universality of the liturgy, it seems to me, is essential. Definition of liturgy and restoring this idea would also help to be more obedient to the norms, not as a juridical positivism, but really as sharing, participating what is given to us from the Lord in the Church."

--Pope Benedict XVI, "Television interview with Raymond Arroyo"[/quote]

I think the appeal of the Latin Mass to the young is that it gives witness to a firm Catholic faith that is not found in many parishes today. It's not so much a rebellion against authentic Liturgical reform. If all Catholics were given the choice between an EWTN style Mass at their parish, and a Tridentine Mass, I think they would choose overwhelmingly the EWTN mass. The Tridentine Mass is closer to the Spirit of Vatican II than the banality found in parishes today, and so many people flock to it. But when Vatican II truly takes root in the local Church, I think Liturgical wars will cease.

[Cam42]

[quote name='marboniface' date='Jun 18 2005, 09:51 AM']Goodfriday,

true, there were certain levels of un-belief and abuse in the "pre-1960's Church" but they were the exception, whereas they are now the rule.

Modernism, which is basically Kantian/idealist philosophy dressed-up as theology spread through the clergy and religious, mostly after Vatican II, but one cannot claim that it was necessarily caused by the Council, but is consistent with the changes that were occuring in the secular world. However, the huge numbers of priests and religious who left their vocation after Council cannot be simply explained on the grounds of their being infected with modernism, because the evidence tends to suggest that those who were the worst modernists were precisely the ones who stayed.

I suspect that many faithful priests and religious left not because they had lost their vocation, but because their religious congregations had changed, so if a nun had a vocation to be a contemplative benedictine, she soon found herself to be living in a feminist den of politics - hence she should leave.

Anyhow, returning to the Mass... your claim that young people were not interested or could not understand latin are not supported by the evidence of what actually was occurring then or is occuring now. Until about fifteen years ago, latin was a compulsory secondary school subject in most states here, and further, young people and young (ie. not 50-something) vocations were always abundant in all the parishes and dioceses of the Tridentine-Mass parishes of only 45 years ago. Now-a-days having any young people at Mass is a rare exception, usually supported by pop-music and charismaniac banter in a couple of parishes here and there. Now the diocesan media may often make a big deal about these exceptional parishes (exceptionally irreverant) but the fact remains, that a very very small proportion of people between 18 and 40 yrs of age actually go to Mass, which was not the case in the Tridentine Roman Catholic Church of only four decades ago - that is less than a lifetime.

Marboniface
[right][snapback]615178[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


This is not necessarily the case. There have been faith issues for centuries.....it is nothing new. The only thing that is new now, is the means by which it is spread...mass media. The old addage holds true: there is no new heresy.

Who wrote the encyclical on Modernism again? And when did Kant live? Modernism is much older than Vatican II. To assume that Vatican II was perveyor of Modernism is totally incorrect. Vatican II brought forth many needed changes. Reform of the Liturgy was one of them, incidentally.....the abuses that are taking place are not due to Vatican II, but rather the disobedience of priests today.

Most who left their vocation, left not because the congregations changed, but because they changed. If one held true to the promises (priests) and vows (religious), then they would have stayed, the main priniciple behind all religous life, obedience. They left because they felt that they had license to be disobedient. It was social change of the 60s that invaded the Church, not the congregations changing.....I am not saying that there are not problems and that modernism isn't prevalent right now, but what I am saying is that you are being obtuse if you lay it all on Vatican II and modernism.

I agree about the Latin. It is normative and should be used, even in the Missa Normativa. I do disagree about young people at Mass. The college from which I graduated had a Campus Ministry program that packed (literally) the chapel (which seats about 400) for 3 Masses a weekend. That would be roughly 1200 students at Mass on any given weekend, in a college that had 5000 undergrad and about 1000 kids living on campus. Incidnetally, I have a lot of problems with CM at my alma mater, because of the liberalism there, but they got kids to Mass. It is only one example, but it is a fair representation.

As far as the Tridentine is concerned, I have a great love for it and I know quite a bit about it. I can say this....it should be the indult. The Normative Mass is the Missa Normativa. It should be that way. The Trid is not the reason kids go to Mass, but rather it is the faith of the kids.....Mass is Mass....Normativa or Trid....the same action takes place....we should be catechizing the youth telling them that.....not saying the Trid is right and the Missa Normativa is not....

[conservativecatholic]

Our youth director recently proposed the idea of having a Youth Mass celebrated at our parish so that we could "rock out" on Sunday. The Mass would have drums, guitars, tambourines, electric pianos, and a whole other gang of musical instruments that are so appealing to the youth's ears! (sarcasm)

The thing that stumped us though was the director's motive to propose a Youth Mass. We attended Mass on a regular basis anyway. We had developed an affinity for traditional worship with organs and latin motets that embodied nothing but the Eucharist. So why a contemporary Youth Mass? It turned out that only a few adults who were all in a "liturgically liberal" christian band of the parish desired to "jam" at Mass, not the youth!

Nearly our entire confirmation class was infuriated about our director's reference to the liturgy as a rock concert... so we visited our pastor. It was a very interesting conversation. It turned out that he wasn't very fond of creating "specialty Masses" for certain age groups or races. He just liked cleberating the Mass as it is. So everything turned out A-OK!

[marboniface]

Reply (short form)

I have heard some old religious say that it was precisely through obediance that many religious were corrupted by crazy superiors.

I think that the old Roman Rite should be the normative, simply on the grounds that it has been the normative for the whole history of western Church; and the novus ordo, which is an adaption for contemporary circumstances be given as indult for 100 years, or until circumstances change, requiring a new adaption of the original Roman Rite.

The principal should be: the Roman Canon is the normative rite, which may be adapted to suit particular eras - the only example being the novus ordo, which was suited for the world of the mid to late 1960's. Future new adaptions should not be adaptions of the adaption, but rather, adaptions of the ancient normative rite.

[dspen2005]

if u speak of the old Roman Rite as theTLM... you are mistaken in saying that it has been the normative for the western church during its history.... it did not become the normative rite until the Council of Trent in the 16th century -- where the Tridentine Mass was codified.

[LittleLes]

Yes, it will be interesting to observe Papal action in the case of Fr. Leon DeHon.

Pope John Paul II was big on canonizations having performed more than all his predecessors put together. Founders of religious movements were almost sure to be canonized.

Fr. Leon DeHon, who founded the Priests of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, evidently had his prerequisite miracles, and was about to be beatified. But then Pope John Paul died.

This has created an immediate problem for Pope Benedict XVI.

"In a highly unusual move, Pope Benedict XVI has suspended the planned beatification of the French priest while the Vatican investigates allegations of anti-Semitism in his writings, including one that called the Jewish holy book the "manual of the bandit, corruptor, social destroyer." Dehon's case is even more remarkable because he likely would have been beatified had Pope John Paul II lived a few weeks longer."

More interesting still is that some members of the clergy's consciences would not "assent to the Church" and support his beatification.

It will be interesting to see Papal action in this case.

[Good Friday]

[quote name='LittleLes']"In a highly unusual move, Pope Benedict XVI has suspended the planned beatification of the French priest while the Vatican investigates allegations of anti-Semitism in his writings, including one that called the Jewish holy book the "manual of the bandit, corruptor, social destroyer." Dehon's case is even more remarkable because he likely would have been beatified had Pope John Paul II lived a few weeks longer."

More interesting still is that some members of the clergy's consciences would not "assent to the Church" and support his beatification.

It will be interesting to see Papal action in this case.[/quote]
If his beatification has been suspended because of the allegations of anti-Semitism, and if his writings really say that, then I doubt very seriously that Pope Benedict XVI will allow his beatification to go through. Contrary to popular belief, Pope Benedict XVI cares very much about the concerns of the Jewish people, and I don't think he will allow the beatification of an anti-Semite.

If Pope John Paul II had allowed it, it would have been because he was a rather poor administrator (although a fantastic pope on all other fronts); not because he was an anti-Semite. Anyone who proposes that Pope John Paul II was in any way anti-Semitic or sympathetic to anti-Semitism is, simply, a fool.