Posted on 01/18/2002 1:10:57 PM PST by Notwithstanding
The teaching of the Council on liturgical reform is contained in its "Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy" Sacrosanctum Concilium" , which is dated Dec. 4, 1963. There is not a single word in the entire Liturgy Constitution of Vatican II requiring a single change to be be made to the traditional Roman Rite, or the sanctuaries in which it was celebrated.
The Latin language was to be preserved in the Latin rites (Article 36) and steps were to be taken to ensure that the faithful could sing or say together those parts of the Mass that pertain to them (Article 54). All lawfully acknowledged rites were held to be of equal authority and dignity and were to be preserved in the future and fostered in every way (Article 4).
The story of how the Novus Ordo arose, is a long one and takes more time and space than I have here. However, its origin can be traced to the periti gaining power to interpret the council as they wished.
Article 128 of the Liturgy Constitution is a good example. It reads:" The canons and ecclesiastical statutes which govern the provision of external things which pertain to sacred worship should be revised as soon as possible, together with the liturgical books, as laid down in Article 25. These laws refer especially to the worthy and well-planned construction of sacred buildings, the shape and construction of altars, the nobility placing and structure of the eucharistic tabernacle, the suitability and dignity of the baptistry, the proper ordering of sacred images and the scheme of decoration and embellishment. Laws which seem les suited to the reformed liturgy should be amended or abolished. Those which are helpful are to be retained, or introduced , if lacking."
Looked at with the benefit of hindsight, this passage provides an open-ended mandate for drastic change to anyone with an agenda.
Of course, in the USA, we will have to revise Seminary education programs to include Latin--and Thomas Aquinas 101 wouldn't be a bad idea, either, along with Woywood...
They are not. Liturgy is not a matter of faith, and has never been formally defined as such.
However, many of these practices which arose after Vatican II--mass in vernacular languages, Communion in the hand and under both species to the laity, priest facing the people--were in fact those carried out by the Protestant Reformers to deny the Real Presence and the sacrifical element of the Mass in favour of a symbolic celebration of a meal. For that reason alone, these changes are contrary to Catholic faith.
This is so riddled with falsehoods as to be laughable.
Communion in the hand can, in fact, be traced back to Jesus Himself. Did the apostles stick out their tongues to share in the Bread Jesus gave them?
The Last Supper WAS a meal. The Real Presence in the tabernacle is the same Real Presence as is celebrated in the Mass.
The Tridentine Mass is a manner of celebrating the Eucharist. The Novus Ordo is as well.
The SSPX is simply not going to turn back the clock and force the reimposition of the Tridentine Mass.
Those who wish to celebrate it, should do so.
Those in the SSPX should be invited to join a separate rite in the Catholic Church.
The Novus Ordo is the normative Mass in the Latin Rite. Priests who wish to celebrate the Tridentine Mass are welcome to join the new "Old" rite.
But of course, the Pope NEVER makes an infallible pronouncement about matters of discipline, such as the specific form of the Mass.
Infallibility is reserved for faith & morals, not discipline.
An "agenda"? Celebrating the Lord's Supper in a native language is an "agenda"? Receiving the Body of the Lord in the hand, as Jesus Himself invited His apostles to share His Body, is an "agenda"?
Celebrating the Sacraments, in which Jesus makes Himself present to His people, in their native language, is an "agenda"?
I'm not a "clown Mass" advocate, nor do I support those priests who play fast and loose with the officially approved Sacramentary.
But to act as if the Novus Ordo, in English, in its present format, fully approved by the Congregation for Divine Worship, is some kind of aberration is just ludicrous.
In other regards, your correspondent is quite correct. All Reformation churches removed as much Latin as fast as possible.
In a way, it is clear that the promise regarding the 'gates of Hell' applies to the Roman Catholic Church--because we have seen those gates (especially in Milwaukee) and have not yet disappeared.
The arrangement of the sanctuary of a church is hardly "the gates of Hell."
The Novus Ordo is hardly "the gates of hell" (though the SSPXers would have you think to the contrary).
I belong to a vibrant parish with 10,000 members, about 6,000 of whom come to Mass every Sunday.
I just can't imagine retrograding to a Tridentine Mass in our parish. That act alone would simply kill it.
I thought I made my point perfectly clear. It was not to flame the Novus Ordo. It was to explain how it was that the Tridentine Rite was suppressed and the Novus Ordo came to be.
Yes there was an "agenda" on the part of the periti. It was to ditch the Tridentine Rite. When not a single word was said about doing so in Vatican II documents. If there was, find it for me.
Thank you. You've made my day.
as accurate as Sinkspur
Don't worry. The Novus Ordo will be spared the ignominy which befell the Tridentine Rite, when it vanished, almost overnight.
The irony of all this is that those devoted to the Tridentine Rite ask simply for it to be made available. For some reason, this is construed as a threat to the Novus Ordo.
Thanks for spitting on the thread.
Got anything of substance to say?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.