7 The Mystery of the Gift of Revelation - John Paul Jackson--last week a priest ws trying to explain in his homily what mass was boring, and un eventful-- and un satisfying-- and alluding to the fact that gee -- but it is the real presence-- so it can't be un satisfying so it must be you the people -- who is a miss fit--

ay 17, '13, 11:50 am

rucatholic Banned   Join Date: May 17, 2013 Posts: 4 Religion: catholic

Re: Pope Paul VI confused. Quote: Originally Posted by latingirl You know what, I come here asking honest questions because I am very troubled in my heart about something and I get sarcasm and mockery in exchange. I am tired of this. My feelings about the liturgy are legitimate feelings, shared by many other people. They are also feelings in line with the intentions of the Second Vatican Council. People here need to stop assuming everyone who wants a return to more traditional worship is rejecting the Second Vatican Council!! That gets really old and it reflects a lack of charity. I thought this would be one place where I'd be understood after all this forum sub-heading being "Traditional Catholicism" but apparently I was wrong. I wish for reverence, mystery and beauty. I wish to feel connected to the ancient church. All I get from people here is hassle. Well I'm sorry for having these views. I'm sorry that I am STARVING for something otherworldly and transcendental that I want worship to be an embrace of God in his heavenly realm and realization of heaven touching earth, a standing in awe at the hill of Calvary instead of social time where Mass is just like the rest of the world. I suppose I must not be a real Catholic. Maybe people like me who are "behind the times" aren't welcome in the Roman Catholic Church. Thanks for getting me to realize that. thanks for bring up this thought thread-- last week a priest ws trying to explain in his homily what mass was boring, and un eventful-- and un satisfying-- and alluding to the fact that gee -- but it is the real presence-- so it can't be un satisfying so it must be you the people -- who is a miss fit-- gee if the homily or the ceremony dosen't bring in the presence of God-- and its the people 's fault-- then what are we to do?

#33   May 22, '13, 4:01 pm

SBeard1238 Observing Member   Join Date: June 22, 2010 Posts: 2 Religion: Roman Catholic

Re: Did we confuse Pope Paul's liturgical reform? Just a note of caution....one of the fundamental chasms between a catholic understanding of how God relates to us and a Protestant understanding is the Catholic Church's Sacramental Theology. If sacraments are "efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us." And "The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament" then claiming that the externals aren't important is heretical. We know that the Lord makes up for what is deficient but that does not excuse us from making our utmost effort to celebrate the sacraments as perfectly as possible. Also, letters and comments by a Pope are by definition not Ex Cathedra so we must look to the officially promulgated teachings of the Magesterium for guidance. I believe that the documents put forth by VC II make explicit that Latin and Gregorian chant were to remain firmly in place and I am unaware of any document put forth by a council of bishops changing that. On the other hand, Rome apparently made no comment that the English language GIRMs prepared by ISEL made no attempt to maintain any Latin.

#34   May 22, '13, 5:17 pm

manualman Banned   Join Date: December 17, 2004 Posts: 11,949 Religion: Catholic - no buts.

Re: Did we confuse Pope Paul's liturgical reform? It's important to remember what charisms the popes really have and what they don't. While the decision to retain sacred language for liturgy versus change to vernacular was certainly an important one, it hardly qualifies for the protection of infallibility! The passage sounds to me like Paul VI decided that there was a profoundly building crisis of faith already coming and he believed that perhaps allowing people to use prayer language they actually understood might be helpful in prodding people towards an active living of the faith, rather than a passive submission to it. In hindsight, one can easily argue that it was a mistake. But one CAN'T reasonably say there was no crisis in the church at the time. All the rebellion, all the dissent, the majority of the abuser priests were already in place. It was the old catechesis and liturgy that existed when all those heretics were formed and educated. Clearly, then, it was no guarantor of ecclesial purity. I do think we were substantially lied to by certain "Spirit of VaticanII" types. I don't think Paul VI was one of them. The council documents themselves certainly don't call for a purge of Latin or even the loss of ad orientum posture. Most of what traditional catholics despise were not products of the council at all. Paul VI may not go down as the perfect pope, but I'm pretty sure he did a far better job than I could have. And who am I to complain if that's the case?

#35   May 22, '13, 5:25 pm

Cider Regular Member Book Club Member   Join Date: September 23, 2007 Posts: 3,724

Re: Did we confuse Pope Paul's liturgical reform? If the Pope's over the years didn't want the changes that occurred they could have done something to stop them. What's the saying "by their fruits" or something like that.

#36   May 22, '13, 5:49 pm

ProVobis Forum Elder   Join Date: January 26, 2008 Posts: 30,266 Religion: Catholic

Re: Did we confuse Pope Paul's liturgical reform? Quote: Originally Posted by manualman The passage sounds to me like Paul VI decided that there was a profoundly building crisis of faith already coming and he believed that perhaps allowing people to use prayer language they actually understood might be helpful in prodding people towards an active living of the faith, rather than a passive submission to it. In hindsight, one can easily argue that it was a mistake. But one CAN'T reasonably say there was no crisis in the church at the time. All the rebellion, all the dissent, the majority of the abuser priests were already in place. It was the old catechesis and liturgy that existed when all those heretics were formed and educated. Clearly, then, it was no guarantor of ecclesial purity. Then it also can be argued that relearning (in many cases) the prayers in the vernacular when 70%+ already had been weekly exposed to the Gloria, Kyrie, Sanctus, Credo in the Latin was an unnecessary burden as well. Sure, had you taken a poll of churchgoers in 1966-67 as to which they preferred, they would have chosen the English but do realize that many voted with their feet as it seemed inevitable that the Mass that they did understand would disappear. I mean, it's possible to understand the Latin Mass even if one doesn't know Latin, given enough exposure to it. Didn't Paul VI make it a point to address those who favored Latin in his 1970 promulgation of his Missal? Certainly then there was a significant number who fell into that category. Did he feel it was out of his control to retain the Latin perhaps?

#37   May 22, '13, 6:36 pm

sw85 Account Under Review   Join Date: July 22, 2010 Posts: 3,550 Religion: Baptized and confirmed Easter Vigil, 2012

Re: Pope Paul VI confused. Quote: Originally Posted by Sirach2 No, you SHOULD look into church history and be corrected and informed. Who is "they," Latingirl? THEY is the Holy-Spirit-guided-Magisterium that promulgated this change. You left out a critical part of your quotes from the document. As We said on another occasion, we shall do well to take into account the motives for this grave change. The first is obedience to the Council. That obedience now implies obedience to the Bishops, who interpret the Council's prescription and put them into practice. 6. This first reason is not simply canonical—relating to an external precept. It is connected with the charism of the liturgical act. In other words, it is linked with the power and efficacy of the Church's prayer, the most authoritative utterance of which comes from the Bishop. This is also true of priests, who help the Bishop in his ministry, and like him act in persona Christi. It is Christ's will, it is the breath of the Holy Spirit which calls the Church to make this change. A prophetic moment is occurring in the mystical body of Christ, which is the Church. This moment is shaking the Church, arousing it, obliging it to renew the mysterious art of its prayer. 19. In every case, and at all times, let us remember that "the Mass is a Mystery to be lived in a death of Love. Its divine reality surpasses all words. . . It is the Action par excellence, the very act of our Redemption, in the Memorial which makes it present". Either we believe the Holy Spirit guided this change, ... or we do not believe. If we believe, then let us obey with a generous heart. ... if anyone does not believe, then join Luther and start a new denomination which will be more akin to one's preferences. Those are very strange words on Paul VI's part.

#38   May 22, '13, 6:46 pm

Thomas Casey Moderator   Join Date: October 21, 2009 Posts: 8,202 Religion: Catholic

Re: Did we confuse Pope Paul's liturgical reform? MODERATOR NOTE Pope Paul VI is not on trial here. Either accept what he said or walk away from it. End of story. It is very bad example to non-Catholics when Catholics challenge the Holy See at every turn and question its every utterance. We're not going to do that on this forum. Use the forum wisely. Try to understand rather than to find fault at every turn. __________________ FORUM RULES Mary, Mother of Wisdom, be with us as we navigate through faith

#39   May 25, '13, 11:22 pm

hoop0826 Junior Member   Join Date: October 14, 2010 Posts: 229 Religion: Catholic

Re: Did we confuse Pope Paul's liturgical reform? It seems that in the NO, The Holy Spirit is urging us to re-examine our prayer, the prayer and Sacrifice of the Mass. Admittedly, it at times seems to have more of a secular touch to it than does the EF. Perhaps its gestation period for this change is a very long time? Can it be agreed that the liturgical music of the OF has not quite advanced in beauty as the EF has? Either way, it cannot be doubted that the faithful for the most part that I have met, are not indifferent to what goes on at Mass. I pray the Holy Spirit guide the OF of the Mass of the Church.