More Good News: Pope's 'reform of the reform' in liturgy to continue

[lubeltri]

The thing that is starting to disturb me most about the RCC is how we seem to be going to route the Anglicans took in the 19Th century (With High, Low, and "Broad" church parishes becoming the staple of worship).  The modern divide in the RC liturgical life seems to be betwen those who want a higher "smells and bells" form of worship, including the Pope, those who want a less ritualistic, more evangelistic type of Mass (liberals, charismatics, etc..).  Finally those who want a more "broader" type of worship and liturgy (Which would be about 90% of RC's and the majority of RC parishes that exist).  These churches will frequently strive for compromise between the ideals of the High and Low liturgical parties.

In the old days of course there was non of this division in Catholicism (Mainly because there wasn't as much emphasis on things like liturgy as a form of "community expression" as there is today).  The real irony about this is that the conservative/traditionalist RC's who are seeking to develop a more ritualistic form of Mass are really just subscribing to the principles of "communal liturgy" which the liberals were the ones to originally espouse.  So we all become liberals and "modernist" in a sense.  That's the modern world for you!

The lines drawn are, like the Anglicans based on theological persuasion and politics which often spill over into the realm of liturgy.  The RCC seems to be as divided as ever. Its only the Pope who keeps us all glued together, for now!

We are living in a crisis of civilization, and the winds that are blowing  have certainly buffeted the Catholic Church. All we can do is stick it out and do what we can to help: by becoming saints.

[Irish_Melkite]

Will the new "reform of the reform" continue to use the blasted ICEL and their phobia against men and preference for inclusive language?

I'm afraid that will continue until a certain number of bishops "grow a pair" and tell the ICEL to get lost.   Either that, or Rome is going to have to obliterate the ICEL and replace it with some good men.

Yes, the Catholic Church needs a few more good men.

Lord Jesus Christ have mercy.

Right now the ONLY American Catholic bishop that TOTALLY stands for the Catholic Faith, started his own seminary, AND excommunicated all Catholic pro-abortion leaders is Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Nebraska. 

[Maria]

Will the new "reform of the reform" continue to use the blasted ICEL and their phobia against men and preference for inclusive language?

I'm afraid that will continue until a certain number of bishops "grow a pair" and tell the ICEL to get lost.   Either that, or Rome is going to have to obliterate the ICEL and replace it with some good men.

Yes, the Catholic Church needs a few more good men.

Lord Jesus Christ have mercy.

Right now the ONLY American Catholic bishop that TOTALLY stands for the Catholic Faith, started his own seminary, AND excommunicated all Catholic pro-abortion leaders is Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Nebraska.  

Is Archbishop Chaput also among the few good men?

[stanley123]

Right now the ONLY American Catholic bishop that TOTALLY stands for the Catholic Faith, started his own seminary, AND excommunicated all Catholic pro-abortion leaders is Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Nebraska. 

I don’t think so.
Here is a statement of Bishop Bruskewitz excommunicating everyone in his diocese who belongs to the SSPX:
“All Catholics in and of the Diocese of Lincoln are forbidden to be members of the organizations and groups listed below. Membership in these organizations or groups is always perilous to the Catholic Faith and most often is totally incompatible with the Catholic Faith.
…
Society of Saint Pius X (Lefebvre Group)
…
Any Catholics in and of the Diocese of Lincoln who attain or retain membership in any of the above listed organizations or groups after April 15, 1996, are by that very fact (ipso facto latae sententiae) under interdict and are absolutely forbidden to receive Holy Communion. Contumacious persistence in such membership for one month following the interdict on part of any such Catholics will by that very fact (ipso facto latae sententiae) cause them to be excommunicated. Absolution from these ecclesial censures is "reserved to the Bishop."
This notice, when published in the Southern Nebraska Register, is a formal canonical warning.
By mandate of the Most Reverend Bishop of Lincoln.
Reverend Monsignor Timothy Thorburn, Chancellor March 19, 1996 “
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=2863
________________________________________
So according to this bishop, membership in the SSPX is perilous to the Catholic faith. If this were so, which it is not, then why did Pope Benedict lift the excommunications of the bishops of the SSPX?

[Robb]

Right now the ONLY American Catholic bishop that TOTALLY stands for the Catholic Faith, started his own seminary, AND excommunicated all Catholic pro-abortion leaders is Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Nebraska. 

I don’t think so.
Here is a statement of Bishop Bruskewitz excommunicating everyone in his diocese who belongs to the SSPX:
“All Catholics in and of the Diocese of Lincoln are forbidden to be members of the organizations and groups listed below. Membership in these organizations or groups is always perilous to the Catholic Faith and most often is totally incompatible with the Catholic Faith.
…
Society of Saint Pius X (Lefebvre Group)
…
Any Catholics in and of the Diocese of Lincoln who attain or retain membership in any of the above listed organizations or groups after April 15, 1996, are by that very fact (ipso facto latae sententiae) under interdict and are absolutely forbidden to receive Holy Communion. Contumacious persistence in such membership for one month following the interdict on part of any such Catholics will by that very fact (ipso facto latae sententiae) cause them to be excommunicated. Absolution from these ecclesial censures is "reserved to the Bishop."
This notice, when published in the Southern Nebraska Register, is a formal canonical warning.
By mandate of the Most Reverend Bishop of Lincoln.
Reverend Monsignor Timothy Thorburn, Chancellor March 19, 1996 “
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=2863
________________________________________
So according to this bishop, membership in the SSPX is perilous to the Catholic faith. If this were so, which it is not, then why did Pope Benedict lift the excommunications of the bishops of the SSPX?

They are a schismatic group who believes that the Pope is a "semi heretic" and that the entire post Vatican II RCC can't be trusted.  Even if they don't come out and say so officially, they act as if they are the last, faithful remnant of Catholics left in the world.  They also take very purticannical/Jansenist view of morality which can lead to overscrupulousness and depression.  Bishop Bruskewitz did the right and Catholic thing by excommunicating them.  Would that all the worlds RC bishops, including the Pope do the same!  The Pope lifted these excommunications in order to facilitate a reunion between the Vatican and the SSPX (Which seems to have failed miserably as the SSPX still denounces the Pope and his decisions often).

[Iconodule]

And yet, without the SSPX, the old Tridentine mass would be dead.

[lubeltri]

If Rome's position is that the SSPX is not in schism, then it isn't in schism. I'm not intimate with the SSPX, but I've been to some of their churches, and there may be  eccentric and troublesome Williamson types, but there are also some wonderful priests in that society.

I've always found it astonishing that many bishops are so chummy with Protestants and Eastern Orthodox (who deny papal jurisdiction in principle and maintain erroneous or heretical views) while refusing even to speak with that horrific, nasty, too-Catholic SSPX. Fortunately an increasing number of bishops are taking Pope Benedict's lead in reaching out. I am reminded of that French bishop last year who invited the local SSPX priests to his cathedral to celebrate Mass and attend a meeting of diocesan priests.

Vatican II's vague ruminations on religious liberty and ecumenism are not a church-dividing issue.

[Robb]

And yet, without the SSPX, the old Tridentine mass would be dead.

Surprisingly I've heard just the opposite, that the schism of the SSPX and their intrusions towards the Vatican lead to a mutual atmosphere of fear and suspicion which delayed the various "liberation's" of the Tridentine Mass much later then they would have been done.  I've even heard that Cardinal Ratizinger was considering some form of "universal indult" as early as 1982, but this was stopped because of the continued disobedience of the SSPX to Rome.

[Robb]

If Rome's position is that the SSPX is not in schism, then it isn't in schism. I'm not intimate with the SSPX, but I've been to some of their churches, and there may be  eccentric and troublesome Williamson types, but there are also some wonderful priests in that society.

I've always found it astonishing that many bishops are so chummy with Protestants and Eastern Orthodox (who deny papal jurisdiction in principle and maintain erroneous or heretical views) while refusing even to speak with that horrific, nasty, too-Catholic SSPX. Fortunately an increasing number of bishops are taking Pope Benedict's lead in reaching out. I am reminded of that French bishop last year who invited the local SSPX priests to his cathedral to celebrate Mass and attend a meeting of diocesan priests.

Vatican II's vague ruminations on religious liberty and ecumenism are not a church-dividing issue.

I don't find it suprising at all that many RC bishops and clergy find more solidarity with our separated Orthodox and Protestant brethren they with the schismatic SSPX.  After all, at least the separated brethren are not openly opposed to Vatican II and such reforms as ecumenism and religious liberty.  The SSPX on the other hand is die hard against them and, if they had there way the Church would be infiltrated with their likes and they would attempt to do away with Vatican II.  There are those in and out of Rome who don't want that to happen anytime soon.  
As the late archbishop Lefebvre once mused about the Vatican , "Liberty for everyone except the enemies of liberty." Yet you cannot give liberty to the enemies of liberty because those enemies would destroy liberty if they could.  Unless the SSPX accepts all of Vatican II and its reforms, there will be no reconciliation between them and the Vatican anytime soon.  This seems to be the mutual conscensus of both sides:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_between_the_Society_of_St._Pius_X_and_the_Holy_See

[Justin Kissel]

at least the separated brethren are not openly opposed to Vatican II and such reforms as ecumenism and religious liberty.

 

[Robb]

at least the separated brethren are not openly opposed to Vatican II and such reforms as ecumenism and religious liberty.

 

Well, maybe not in the same way or for the same reasons as the Rc traditionalist would be.

[lubeltri]

Catholics are quite free to disagree with Vatican II's vague language on ecumenism and religious liberty. Groups like the St. Benedict Center, the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, the Sons of the Holy Redeemer, the Institute of the Good Shepherd, the Society of St. Vincent Ferrer, and the Personal Apostolic Administration of Saint John Mary Vianney were never required to affirm Vatican II's characterization of these things when they were regularized by or established with the approval of Rome.

How can they, when the murky language begs for clarification?

[stanley123]

Catholics are quite free to disagree with Vatican II's vague language on ecumenism and religious liberty. Groups like the St. Benedict Center, the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, the Sons of the Holy Redeemer, the Institute of the Good Shepherd, the Society of St. Vincent Ferrer, and the Personal Apostolic Administration of Saint John Mary Vianney were never required to affirm Vatican II's characterization of these things when they were regularized by or established with the approval of Rome.

How can they, when the murky language begs for clarification?

Does the St. Benedict Center follow the teachings of Father Feeney? And wasn't Father Feeney excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church?

[Robb]

I'm sure that these groups must have to affirm some type of acceptance of Vatican Council II in order to be legitimately recognized as Catholic religious orders by the Vatican.  It would set an extremely bad precedent if the hierarchy were to, on the one hand attack the cafeteria Catholicism of the left while turning a blind eye to the same actions on the right.  After all if extreme groups like the St Benedict Center can openly declare that all non Catholics will be damned to Hell, then why can't a more progressive order like the Jesuits preach universal salvation?

If there going to let one side get away with their own set of  antics, then they must let the other get away with theirs too.

[jwinch2]

Whenever a thread like this pops up with people chiming in about just how great the Tridentine mass is, and how wonderful it would be if it could just come back and displace the novus ordo once and for all, I consider it my duty to reply and say something like: Give me a properly celebrated novus ordo mass with good music any day over any Tridentine mass.  I really wonder how many people who sing the praises of the Tridentine mass have ever actually been to one, and if they have, whether they were paying attention (as much as is possible for the laity to do in this mass!) to what was going on.  The entire canon of the mass (ie anaphora)- all of it!- and many other important parts of the liturgy - are recited privately by the priest with a couple of acolytes or an acolyte and a deacon!  Does the novus ordo have problems?  There is no doubt that this is the case.  It is in need of reform in so many ways, and yet it is clear in my mind that it is far superior the older mass, which is a showpiece for pre-Vatican II clericalism, among other problems.  

I agree with this 100%.  Sacrosanctum Concilium called for significant alterations to the TLM, and the vote of the world's bishops to approve the changes was 2,147 to 4. So 99.8% of the bishops, all of whom, of course (except maybe some Eastern bishops) had grown up, been ordained, and been consecrated in the TLM, believed that change was needed.  Bottom line, the Mass that is performed today is significantly closer to the manner in which Mass was done by Christians shortly following the time of Christ and I hope we never get away from it.  As for the Priest facing away from the people, to me that is hogwash.  We the faithful are the body of Christ through our adoption by the Father and we the faithful are the Church of Christ.  God is not in the alter, nor in the crucifix behind it.  He is in all of us through the gift of the Holy Spirit given in Baptism and Confirmation, he is in the Priest who is acting in the person of Christ during the Liturgy, and he is in the Eucharist in the form of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ following the consecration.  "For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matthew 18:20).  Why look somewhere else for God, when he is right there, with us? 

I admit wholeheartedly that there are far too many liturgical abuses out there.  However, that can easily be fixed without altering the nature of the Mass.  All the Holy See has to do is to tighten up the instructions for Mass to allow less wiggle room in terms of music, etc. and that will eliminate the vast majority of the problems.  We have a tendency in the Western world to throw the baby out with the bath water rather than to make small adjustments to get things on track.  I am hopeful that the implementation of the new Roman Missal coming this advent will help to facilitate this process.  Our Diocese is mandating standardized music for the first year following its implementation which I think is a good idea. 

[Monk Vasyl]

Catholics are quite free to disagree with Vatican II's vague language on ecumenism and religious liberty. Groups like the St. Benedict Center, the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, the Sons of the Holy Redeemer, the Institute of the Good Shepherd, the Society of St. Vincent Ferrer, and the Personal Apostolic Administration of Saint John Mary Vianney were never required to affirm Vatican II's characterization of these things when they were regularized by or established with the approval of Rome.

How can they, when the murky language begs for clarification?

Does the St. Benedict Center follow the teachings of Father Feeney? And wasn't Father Feeney excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church?

Fr. Feeney was reconciled with the Church:  "In 1974 Fr. Leonard Feeney SJ was reconciled and absolved from the excommunication by Pope Paul VI and special Vatican delegates. Many of his followers were subsequently reconciled to the local diocese. They could retain their strict interpretation of the Roman Catholic Dogma Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, as diversity in the evaluation of the practical implications of EENS, according to diocesan officials, had to be tolerated. Most his followers adhere to the Tridentine Mass under the 1988 Ecclesia Dei Indult."

http://www.associatepublisher.com/e/l/le/leonard_feeney.htm

[jwinch2]

.  It is in need of reform in so many ways, and yet it is clear in my mind that it is far superior the older mass, which is a showpiece for pre-Vatican II clericalism, among other problems.  

The other thing I would add is that many of those who clamor for the TLM may not understand just how Biblical the Ordinary form of the Mass is.  I could be wrong and I don't want to accuse anyone of ignorance without cause, but I would encourage Catholics in the Latin Rite to read Scott Hahn's - The Lamb's Supper which does a fantastic job of showing how the Mass relates to the book of Revelation in a number of different ways.  After reading multiple defenses of both the TLM and the OF I am completely convinced that the OF is much more Biblical and much closer to how the Liturgy was celebrated by the first Christians.  

[stanley123]

Fr. Feeney was reconciled with the Church:...

Here is a link to an article arguing the following:
"Can a Feeneyite be a Catholic in good standing with the Church? The Holy Office assured us that such is not possible. Was the "reconciliation" of Fr. Feeney and his "spiritual descendants" licit? Not under Canon Law."
http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2008/10/did-father-feeney-and-his-followers.html

[Irish_Melkite]

(snipped)

Bottom line, the Mass that is performed today is significantly closer to the manner in which Mass was done by Christians shortly following the time of Christ and I hope we never get away from it.  As for the Priest facing away from the people, to me that is hogwash.  We the faithful are the body of Christ through our adoption by the Father and we the faithful are the Church of Christ.  God is not in the alter, nor in the crucifix behind it.

(More snipped)

I find myself compelled to answer this and it is a struggle to answer in a polite fashion.  In the Tridentine Mass and the myriad of Divine Liturgies that the Orthodox (Byzantine and non-Byzantine) use, the priest DOES TURN HIS BACK ON THE PEOPLE.  All face towards GOD.  In the early Church and even up to the Middle Ages, Churches, Catholic and Orthodox faced the East, because the Garden of Eden was in the East, and Christ will come again from the East.  If you say the priest is turning his back on the people in the Tridentine Mass, older Catholic Masses and the Orthodox Divine Liturgies, your understanding of worship is flawed.  Tell me, why is it, with exception of the Novus Ordo, and the Maronite Liturgy, all other ancient Churches face the EAST? 

Now, you claim to be a Latin Rite Catholic of the Diocese of Knoxville and you say Christ is not present at the Altar, as a Catholic YOU ARE COMPELLED to believe that Christ is present at the Tabernacle.  This is part and parcel of the Catholic Faith.

[Papist]

^ Very well stated.

[biro]

When I was in the RCC, I had hoped that someone would simply take the old Latin Mass and, er, let people us a local-language translation of it. Just read what was on the 'other side of the page' in the old books!  I did read a draft copy of the forthcoming liturgical manual, and it sounds like in some ways, that's almost what they've done. I wish them well. 

[elijahmaria]

Now, you claim to be a Latin Rite Catholic of the Diocese of Knoxville and you say Christ is not present at the Altar, as a Catholic YOU ARE COMPELLED to believe that Christ is present at the Tabernacle.  This is part and parcel of the Catholic Faith.

He seems to have covered your concern here in his original note.  I think if you go back and look, what you are seeking from him is already there.  He seems to be saying something else when he says that Christ is 'not present IN the altar'...He certainly reference Christ in the Eucharist and the presence seems to be real in his mind and present in the sanctuary.

[jwinch2]

Now, you claim to be a Latin Rite Catholic of the Diocese of Knoxville and you say Christ is not present at the Altar, as a Catholic YOU ARE COMPELLED to believe that Christ is present at the Tabernacle.  This is part and parcel of the Catholic Faith.

He seems to have covered your concern here in his original note.  I think if you go back and look, what you are seeking from him is already there.  He seems to be saying something else when he says that Christ is 'not present IN the altar'...He certainly reference Christ in the Eucharist and the presence seems to be real in his mind and present in the sanctuary.

That is correct and I responded to the PM that was sent with this information.  However for the record, my statement was referring to the physical Altar itself, not the Tabernacle with the consecrated host in it or Christ truly present in the Body and Blood of the Eucharist.  

My statement simply means that because I believe God to be present in the bodies of the faithful due to the gift of the Holy Spirit received during baptism and confirmation, and because we the faithful have been stated to be the body of Christ as well as his visible Church on earth.  Because I believe Christ to be present in the priest acting in His person, and because Jesus himself said that wherever two or three are gathered in His name that He is there.  And finally, because I DO believe in Christ's presence truly there in Holy Communion I feel that no matter what direction you turn, you are facing God.  God is everywhere and I truly believe that it does not matter which way the priest faces for him to pray to God effectively.  I recognize that others feel differently and that is fine.  However, the Vatican themselves has said that the Mass can be performed facing towards the Faithful and some of their documents actually suggest that this might be preferred.  

From the GIRM: The altar should be built apart from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible. The altar should, moreover, be so placed as to be truly the center toward which the attention of the whole congregation of the faithful naturally turns.

I see the Holy Father celebrating Mass facing towards the faithful all the time.  He is on record stating that he prefers the other orientation but he obviously sees it as not required considering that he frequently disregards his own statement.  

I don't want to be complete jerk but reading my entire post might be in order before jumping to conclusions such as the ones you sent in your PM and posted above. 

[elijahmaria]

And yet, without the SSPX, the old Tridentine mass would be dead.

Surprisingly I've heard just the opposite, that the schism of the SSPX and their intrusions towards the Vatican lead to a mutual atmosphere of fear and suspicion which delayed the various "liberation's" of the Tridentine Mass much later then they would have been done.  I've even heard that Cardinal Ratizinger was considering some form of "universal indult" as early as 1982, but this was stopped because of the continued disobedience of the SSPX to Rome.

That has been my understanding as well, Robb.  The presence of the SSPX were not at all helpful.  It seems to me that the ordinary lay man and woman and the activities of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter did far more to move the reform of the reform along.

[lubeltri]

That has been my understanding as well, Robb.  The presence of the SSPX were not at all helpful.  It seems to me that the ordinary lay man and woman and the activities of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter did far more to move the reform of the reform along.

Keep in mind that the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter was formed from the SSPX in 1988 in the wake of Archbishop Lefebvre's consecrations of the four bishops. Also keep in mind that Ecclesia Dei, which encouraged bishops to give permission for the traditional Mass in 1988, was itself a response to those illicit consecrations.

In the early 1980s John Paul II formed a committee to examine whether the traditional Mass had been abrogated, and the committee (of which Cardinal Ratzinger was a member) determined that it had not. But John Paul did not "liberate" (if that's that's the right word for encouraging, not requiring, bishops to give permission for something that didn't even need permission) the traditional Mass until Lefebvre took the nuclear option (the bishop consecrations) in 1988.

So, yes, the SSPX was critical in the process of liberating the traditional Mass. Want more evidence? Summorum Pontificum was a response to an explicit request by the SSPX; such a liberation was one of the requisites before dialogue could begin again (the lifting of the excommunications was another).

You want another sign? 1962 is an arbitrary date at which to set the currently approved traditional Mass. The traditional Mass underwent reforms in 1964, 1965 and 1967. But the Holy See went back to 1962. Why? Because the SSPX was exclusively using the 1962 Missal in the 1980s when loosening the restrictions was first considered on a major basis.

I am not going to carry the SSPX's water, and I am not a supporter. But honesty demands the admission that they were pretty much the only major force in the Catholic Church in the 1970s and 1980s which refused to accept the unjust and illegal suppression of the traditional Roman rite.

[lubeltri]

Now, you claim to be a Latin Rite Catholic of the Diocese of Knoxville and you say Christ is not present at the Altar, as a Catholic YOU ARE COMPELLED to believe that Christ is present at the Tabernacle.  This is part and parcel of the Catholic Faith.

He seems to have covered your concern here in his original note.  I think if you go back and look, what you are seeking from him is already there.  He seems to be saying something else when he says that Christ is 'not present IN the altar'...He certainly reference Christ in the Eucharist and the presence seems to be real in his mind and present in the sanctuary.

That is correct and I responded to the PM that was sent with this information.  However for the record, my statement was referring to the physical Altar itself, not the Tabernacle with the consecrated host in it or Christ truly present in the Body and Blood of the Eucharist.  

My statement simply means that because I believe God to be present in the bodies of the faithful due to the gift of the Holy Spirit received during baptism and confirmation, and because we the faithful have been stated to be the body of Christ as well as his visible Church on earth.  Because I believe Christ to be present in the priest acting in His person, and because Jesus himself said that wherever two or three are gathered in His name that He is there.  And finally, because I DO believe in Christ's presence truly there in Holy Communion I feel that no matter what direction you turn, you are facing God.  God is everywhere and I truly believe that it does not matter which way the priest faces for him to pray to God effectively.  I recognize that others feel differently and that is fine.  However, the Vatican themselves has said that the Mass can be performed facing towards the Faithful and some of their documents actually suggest that this might be preferred.  

From the GIRM: The altar should be built apart from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible. The altar should, moreover, be so placed as to be truly the center toward which the attention of the whole congregation of the faithful naturally turns.

I see the Holy Father celebrating Mass facing towards the faithful all the time.  He is on record stating that he prefers the other orientation but he obviously sees it as not required considering that he frequently disregards his own statement.  

I don't want to be complete jerk but reading my entire post might be in order before jumping to conclusions such as the ones you sent in your PM and posted above. 

First of all, that English translation of the Latin GIRM is misleading. Check this article out for details. http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3963
The gist of it is that the "which is desirable whenever possible" in context is referring to the placement of the altar, not to the orientation of the celebrant.

You are right that celebrants are not forbidden to celebrate Mass facing the people. But the weight of tradition, as well as sound liturgical, psychological and sociological principles, favors facing East. And, sadly, many bishops effectively forbid priests from celebrating in the traditional direction. It is this intolerance of tradition that is most unjust.

[Melodist]

FWIW, I don't see it as "turning his back to the people", but rather facing the same direction as the people in unison with the people. I think the people should be able to hear the prayers addressed to God in order to properly give their amen to them, but the priest doesn't have to be facing the people in order for the people to hear him, especially in churches that have some sort of sound system set up. I do believe that the priest should face the people when addressing or blessing them.

[lubeltri]

Now, you claim to be a Latin Rite Catholic of the Diocese of Knoxville and you say Christ is not present at the Altar, as a Catholic YOU ARE COMPELLED to believe that Christ is present at the Tabernacle.  This is part and parcel of the Catholic Faith.

He seems to have covered your concern here in his original note.  I think if you go back and look, what you are seeking from him is already there.  He seems to be saying something else when he says that Christ is 'not present IN the altar'...He certainly reference Christ in the Eucharist and the presence seems to be real in his mind and present in the sanctuary.

But he also appears to be saying that the real, bodily, and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist is equal/the same to the spiritual presence of Christ in the congregation. That is a VERY PROBLEMATIC statement for a Catholic to make, and I hope he clarifies it.

[jwinch2]

Now, you claim to be a Latin Rite Catholic of the Diocese of Knoxville and you say Christ is not present at the Altar, as a Catholic YOU ARE COMPELLED to believe that Christ is present at the Tabernacle.  This is part and parcel of the Catholic Faith.

He seems to have covered your concern here in his original note.  I think if you go back and look, what you are seeking from him is already there.  He seems to be saying something else when he says that Christ is 'not present IN the altar'...He certainly reference Christ in the Eucharist and the presence seems to be real in his mind and present in the sanctuary.

But he also appears to be saying that the real, bodily, and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist is equal/the same to the spiritual presence of Christ in the congregation. That is a VERY PROBLEMATIC statement for a Catholic to make, and I hope he clarifies it.

That is not what I was saying at all.  I was merely making the point that God is present in the Mass in multiple and real ways and that I don't believe we need to go looking to find him as he is already there.  I don't know how I can make it much clearer than I have that I FULLY and COMPLETELY believe that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.

[elijahmaria]

That has been my understanding as well, Robb.  The presence of the SSPX were not at all helpful.  It seems to me that the ordinary lay man and woman and the activities of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter did far more to move the reform of the reform along.

Keep in mind that the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter was formed from the SSPX in 1988 in the wake of Archbishop Lefebvre's consecrations of the four bishops. Also keep in mind that Ecclesia Dei, which encouraged bishops to give permission for the traditional Mass in 1988, was itself a response to those illicit consecrations.

In the early 1980s John Paul II formed a committee to examine whether the traditional Mass had been abrogated, and the committee (of which Cardinal Ratzinger was a member) determined that it had not. But John Paul did not "liberate" (if that's that's the right word for encouraging, not requiring, bishops to give permission for something that didn't even need permission) the traditional Mass until Lefebvre took the nuclear option (the bishop consecrations) in 1988.

So, yes, the SSPX was critical in the process of liberating the traditional Mass. Want more evidence? Summorum Pontificum was a response to an explicit request by the SSPX; such a liberation was one of the requisites before dialogue could begin again (the lifting of the excommunications was another).

You want another sign? 1962 is an arbitrary date at which to set the currently approved traditional Mass. The traditional Mass underwent reforms in 1964, 1965 and 1967. But the Holy See went back to 1962. Why? Because the SSPX was exclusively using the 1962 Missal in the 1980s when loosening the restrictions was first considered on a major basis.

I am not going to carry the SSPX's water, and I am not a supporter. But honesty demands the admission that they were pretty much the only major force in the Catholic Church in the 1970s and 1980s which refused to accept the unjust and illegal suppression of the traditional Roman rite.

That does not rule out the idea that their disobedience slowed the process.  The very fact that the Priestly Fraternity had to break away to get and keep the "ear" of the Vatican is case in point.  I am very close to old members of the Fraternity and they have worked ceaselessly over the years proving that a return to the original forms would not perpetuate further rupture and disobedience.

So I understand what you are saying but I do not believe that disobedience furthers much of anything in the Church.  

[lubeltri]

FWIW, I don't see it as "turning his back to the people", but rather facing the same direction as the people in unison with the people. I think the people should be able to hear the prayers addressed to God in order to properly give their amen to them, but the priest doesn't have to be facing the people in order for the people to hear him, especially in churches that have some sort of sound system set up. I do believe that the priest should face the people when addressing or blessing them.

Agreed 100%.

Cardinal Ratzinger wrote that the question of liturgical orientation was not just a preference one way or another, but was "essential".

http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2006/ratzinger_altareast_jan06.asp

He proposed standing a crucifix centrally on the altar as a compromise solution for now, and he has implemented that himself. When the time is ripe, the wholesale return ad orientem will come, at least for the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

[elijahmaria]

Now, you claim to be a Latin Rite Catholic of the Diocese of Knoxville and you say Christ is not present at the Altar, as a Catholic YOU ARE COMPELLED to believe that Christ is present at the Tabernacle.  This is part and parcel of the Catholic Faith.

He seems to have covered your concern here in his original note.  I think if you go back and look, what you are seeking from him is already there.  He seems to be saying something else when he says that Christ is 'not present IN the altar'...He certainly reference Christ in the Eucharist and the presence seems to be real in his mind and present in the sanctuary.

But he also appears to be saying that the real, bodily, and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist is equal/the same to the spiritual presence of Christ in the congregation. That is a VERY PROBLEMATIC statement for a Catholic to make, and I hope he clarifies it.

That is not what I was saying at all.  I was merely making the point that God is present in the Mass in multiple and real ways and that I don't believe we need to go looking to find him as he is already there.  I don't know how I can make it much clearer than I have that I FULLY and COMPLETELY believe that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.

You were very clear in your original note...FWIW from me.

[lubeltri]

Now, you claim to be a Latin Rite Catholic of the Diocese of Knoxville and you say Christ is not present at the Altar, as a Catholic YOU ARE COMPELLED to believe that Christ is present at the Tabernacle.  This is part and parcel of the Catholic Faith.

He seems to have covered your concern here in his original note.  I think if you go back and look, what you are seeking from him is already there.  He seems to be saying something else when he says that Christ is 'not present IN the altar'...He certainly reference Christ in the Eucharist and the presence seems to be real in his mind and present in the sanctuary.

But he also appears to be saying that the real, bodily, and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist is equal/the same to the spiritual presence of Christ in the congregation. That is a VERY PROBLEMATIC statement for a Catholic to make, and I hope he clarifies it.

That is not what I was saying at all.  I was merely making the point that God is present in the Mass in multiple and real ways and that I don't believe we need to go looking to find him as he is already there.  I don't know how I can make it much clearer than I have that I FULLY and COMPLETELY believe that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.

And is his presence in the congregation similar to this Eucharistic presence?

[Aindriú]

Now, you claim to be a Latin Rite Catholic of the Diocese of Knoxville and you say Christ is not present at the Altar, as a Catholic YOU ARE COMPELLED to believe that Christ is present at the Tabernacle.  This is part and parcel of the Catholic Faith.

He seems to have covered your concern here in his original note.  I think if you go back and look, what you are seeking from him is already there.  He seems to be saying something else when he says that Christ is 'not present IN the altar'...He certainly reference Christ in the Eucharist and the presence seems to be real in his mind and present in the sanctuary.

But he also appears to be saying that the real, bodily, and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist is equal/the same to the spiritual presence of Christ in the congregation. That is a VERY PROBLEMATIC statement for a Catholic to make, and I hope he clarifies it.

LOL. You remind me of one of the local EO priests explaining the Eucharist. Though not as dramatic and funnier.

That is, is God present before prayer? What about when we invite Him to our worship (Great Entrance)? what about after the consecration? Wasn't He here the whole time? Well, of course! But we believe that it is somehow in a stronger way by and for the worshipping faithful.

[jwinch2]

Now, you claim to be a Latin Rite Catholic of the Diocese of Knoxville and you say Christ is not present at the Altar, as a Catholic YOU ARE COMPELLED to believe that Christ is present at the Tabernacle.  This is part and parcel of the Catholic Faith.

He seems to have covered your concern here in his original note.  I think if you go back and look, what you are seeking from him is already there.  He seems to be saying something else when he says that Christ is 'not present IN the altar'...He certainly reference Christ in the Eucharist and the presence seems to be real in his mind and present in the sanctuary.

But he also appears to be saying that the real, bodily, and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist is equal/the same to the spiritual presence of Christ in the congregation. That is a VERY PROBLEMATIC statement for a Catholic to make, and I hope he clarifies it.

That is not what I was saying at all.  I was merely making the point that God is present in the Mass in multiple and real ways and that I don't believe we need to go looking to find him as he is already there.  I don't know how I can make it much clearer than I have that I FULLY and COMPLETELY believe that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.

And is his presence in the congregation similar to this Eucharistic presence?

No.  You're fishing for something that isn't there and its about time you move on.  His presence in the congregation is through the gift of the Holy Spirit present in all baptized and confirmed faithful.  His presence in the Eucharist is in the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ.  

[lubeltri]

After reading multiple defenses of both the TLM and the OF I am completely convinced that the OF is much more Biblical and much closer to how the Liturgy was celebrated by the first Christians.  

First, please explain why you think the new Mass is "much more Biblical" than the traditional Mass. Exactly what does this mean?

Second, "how the liturgy was celebrated by the first Christians", in other words, liturgical archaeologism, is not what we are aiming at---not to mention it being impossible to accomplish because so much of it is speculation for lack of surviving evidence.

Here is Cardinal Ratzinger in The Spirit of the Liturgy:

As I see it, the problem with a large part of modern liturgiology is that it tends to recognize only antiquity as a source, and therefore normative, and to regard everything developed later, in the Middle Ages and through the Council of Trent, as decadent. And so one ends up with dubious reconstructions of the most ancient practice, fluctuating criteria, and never-ending suggestions for reform, which lead ultimately to the disintegration of the liturgy that has evolved in a living way.

Venerable Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Mediator Dei:

61. The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world.[52] They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man.

62. Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.

63. Clearly no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas by the Church, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for souls, because it pleases him to hark back to the old formulas. No more can any Catholic in his right senses repudiate existing legislation of the Church to revert to prescriptions based on the earliest sources of canon law. Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation.

64. This way of acting bids fair to revive the exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism to which the illegal Council of Pistoia gave rise. It likewise attempts to reinstate a series of errors which were responsible for the calling of that meeting as well as for those resulting from it, with grievous harm to souls, and which the Church, the ever watchful guardian of the "deposit of faith" committed to her charge by her divine Founder, had every right and reason to condemn.[53] For perverse designs and ventures of this sort tend to paralyze and weaken that process of sanctification by which the sacred liturgy directs the sons of adoption to their Heavenly Father of their souls' salvation.

(the last sentence of this encyclical is also translated in English thus: It is a wicked movement, that tends to paralyse the sanctifying and salutary action by which the liturgy leads the children of adoption on the path to their heavenly Father).

[lubeltri]

As for the Priest facing away from the people, to me that is hogwash.  We the faithful are the body of Christ through our adoption by the Father and we the faithful are the Church of Christ.  God is not in the alter, nor in the crucifix behind it.  He is in all of us through the gift of the Holy Spirit given in Baptism and Confirmation, he is in the Priest who is acting in the person of Christ during the Liturgy, and he is in the Eucharist in the form of [?] the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ following the consecration.  "For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matthew 18:20).  Why look somewhere else for God, when he is right there, with us?  

Well, since God is present everywhere, why should we bother even going to church to worship? He's present here right at home, gathered here with my family.

Don't you see that your argument against ad orientem worship above makes it seem that you think Christ's presence in the Eucharist is just like his other "presences"? That his Eucharistic presence is not something altogether different?

-

[jwinch2]

As for the Priest facing away from the people, to me that is hogwash.  We the faithful are the body of Christ through our adoption by the Father and we the faithful are the Church of Christ.  God is not in the alter, nor in the crucifix behind it.  He is in all of us through the gift of the Holy Spirit given in Baptism and Confirmation, he is in the Priest who is acting in the person of Christ during the Liturgy, and he is in the Eucharist in the form of [?] the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ following the consecration.  "For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matthew 18:20).  Why look somewhere else for God, when he is right there, with us? 

Well, since God is present everywhere, why should we bother even going to church to worship? He's present here right at home, gathered here with my family.

Don't you see that your argument against ad orientem worship above makes it seem that you think Christ's presence in the Eucharist is just like his other "presences"? That his Eucharistic presence is not something altogether different?

Considering that I have already stated that I don't believe they are the same, no. 

[lubeltri]

Consider this line from the Roman Canon, which is basically unchanged since the 7th century:

Most humbly we implore You, almighty God, bid these offerings to be brought by the hands of Your holy angel to your altar above; before the face of Your Divine Majesty; that those of us who, by sharing in the Sacrifice of this altar, shall receive the Most Sacred + Body and + Blood of Your Son, may be filled with every grace and heavenly blessing.  

Clearly at this part of the Mass the priest's prayer is being addressed to God the Father. How is it helpful to have the priest and people look into each others' faces during these prayers to the Father?

Even Jesus lifted his eyes up toward heaven when he prayed to the Father.

[lubeltri]

Considering that I have already stated that I don't believe they are the same, no.  

Well, since you admit that Christ's Eucharistic Presence is something altogether different from the other presences, do you agree that it might be good to give particular emphasis to this during the Mass, which is the re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Calvary to the almighty Father?

It is an offering, an oblation, not to ourselves, but to the Father. We unite our hearts with the priest in presenting this offering.

Where should the emphasis of the Mass be, on the congregational meal or the offering of the supreme Sacrifice? That is the question of the liturgy today.

[lubeltri]

As Cardinal Ratzinger says, liturgical orientation is very important.

It cannot be denied that the wholesale turning around of the altars to emphasize the "community meal" over the sacrifice did more than cause countless destructions of Catholic sanctuaries. It also contributed to "community meal" Catholic worship and a crisis of belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Here are some examples of the "community meal" style Catholic worship. Some of these seem extreme, but remember, they are the logical extension of the faulty reasons ("community meal" worship) for turning the altars around. It cannot be denied that these displays were made possible by the re-orientation of the Catholic sanctuary.

[elijahmaria]

As far as I am concerned it is indicative that you must reach for the fringe that has separated itself from the Church to make your point.  I cannot take you seriously now at all.

As Cardinal Ratzinger says, liturgical orientation is very important.

It cannot be denied that the wholesale turning around of the altars to emphasize the "community meal" over the sacrifice did more than cause countless destructions of Catholic sanctuaries. It also contributed to "community meal" Catholic worship and a crisis of belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Here are some examples of the "community meal" style Catholic worship. Some of these seem extreme, but remember, they are the logical extension of the faulty reasons ("community meal" worship) for turning the altars around. It cannot be denied that these displays were made possible by the re-orientation of the Catholic sanctuary.

[elijahmaria]

Consider this line from the Roman Canon, which is basically unchanged since the 7th century:

Most humbly we implore You, almighty God, bid these offerings to be brought by the hands of Your holy angel to your altar above; before the face of Your Divine Majesty; that those of us who, by sharing in the Sacrifice of this altar, shall receive the Most Sacred + Body and + Blood of Your Son, may be filled with every grace and heavenly blessing.  

Clearly at this part of the Mass the priest's prayer is being addressed to God the Father. How is it helpful to have the priest and people look into each others' faces during these prayers to the Father?

Even Jesus lifted his eyes up toward heaven when he prayed to the Father.

I have never seen a reverential Novus Ordo liturgy where the priest makes eye contact with the congregation during moments when he is not addressing the congregation directly.

[lubeltri]

As far as I am concerned it is indicative that you must reach for the fringe that has separated itself from the Church to make your point.  I cannot take you seriously now at all.

As Cardinal Ratzinger says, liturgical orientation is very important.

It cannot be denied that the wholesale turning around of the altars to emphasize the "community meal" over the sacrifice did more than cause countless destructions of Catholic sanctuaries. It also contributed to "community meal" Catholic worship and a crisis of belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Here are some examples of the "community meal" style Catholic worship. Some of these seem extreme, but remember, they are the logical extension of the faulty reasons ("community meal" worship) for turning the altars around. It cannot be denied that these displays were made possible by the re-orientation of the Catholic sanctuary.

Are you serious? You yourself go to Orthodox liturgy. Before you claim "community meal" Masses are a fringe, why don't you start going to Catholic Masses on a regular basis?

The examples pictured are some more extreme examples, but I'm afraid they still occur under diocesan auspices. And less extreme examples, which no less obscure the liturgy's sense of sacrifice, are quite common.

I have to deal with them all the time, unlike you who go Orthodox.

[Maria]

Consider this line from the Roman Canon, which is basically unchanged since the 7th century:

Most humbly we implore You, almighty God, bid these offerings to be brought by the hands of Your holy angel to your altar above; before the face of Your Divine Majesty; that those of us who, by sharing in the Sacrifice of this altar, shall receive the Most Sacred + Body and + Blood of Your Son, may be filled with every grace and heavenly blessing.  

Clearly at this part of the Mass the priest's prayer is being addressed to God the Father. How is it helpful to have the priest and people look into each others' faces during these prayers to the Father?

Even Jesus lifted his eyes up toward heaven when he prayed to the Father.

I have never seen a reverential Novus Ordo liturgy where the priest makes eye contact with the congregation during moments when he is not addressing the congregation directly.

In Los Angeles, I saw such abuse all the time. Cardinal Mahony did a great disservice to the Church.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: More Good News: Pope's 'reform of the reform' in liturgy to continue