This is a portion of an article from Praytell. Press HERE for the full article. It is a commentary on work done by The New Liturgical Movement. The so-called pre-Vatican II liturgical movement spearheaded by the much maligned Bugnini is evident in bishops prior to the council wanting to promote a liturgical movement that Pope Paul VI's post Vatican II committee called consillium would accomplish. It has Bugnini written all over it and would be the thread pulled on the liturgy that would lead to only 12% of Catholics in some dioceses actually participating in the Mass today. In other words in some dioceses, there is absolutely no actual participation in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass by 88% of Catholics, compared to almost 95% of Catholics actually participating in the Mass prior to and up to and shortly after Vatican II!
From Praytell:
In addition to the official preparatory (pre-Vatican II) document on the Liturgy, the online treasury includes many of the vota, or responses, from bishops around the world, who were asked what they would like to see the Council discuss. And it provides much of the Analyticus Conspectus; in this collection, as Matthew notes, “all the responses of the bishops, prelates and religious are distilled into 9,348 brief propositions, organised by subject, with each proposition having one or more diocese/religious order cited in the footnotes.”
I found these propositions fascinating, because they again reflect a combination of the “conservative” and the “progressive”. The Conspectus makes it clear that many changes to the liturgy were in the mind of the worldwide Church long before the Consilium started its work, indeed well before the beginning of preparatory work for the Council.
[As with the translations, I have selected material rapidly and not systematically, and I welcome corrections and challenges.]
Quidam in administratione sacramentorum neglegunt « caeremonias secundarias » utpote non ad validitatem necessarias. Ideoque Concilium affirmet praeter efficacitatem signi attendendum esse ad significationem ipsam secundum multiplices sensus in signis sacramentalibus contentos.
Some people, as they administer the sacraments, regard “secondary ceremonies” as of no consequence because they are not necessary for validity. Accordingly, the Council insists that, beyond the mere effectiveness of any sign, it is important to pay attention to its deeper meaning, exploring the many senses entailed in a sacramental sign.
Permittatur laicis designatis administratio Baptismi.
Designated laypeople should be permitted to administer Baptism.
Permittatur laicis designatis S. Communionis distributio.
Designated laypeople should be permitted to distribute Holy Communion.
Aliqui laici etiam uxorati, auxiliares cleri in statu quodam clericali constituantur.
Some lay people, even married ones, should be established as auxiliaries to the clergy, and given a standing that is to some extent clerical.
Si diaconatus restauratio non convenit, concedantur sororibus missionariis facultates convenientes circa praedicationem, conservationem, distributionem Eucharistiae, etc.
If it is not practical to restore the diaconate, missionary sisters should be allowed to preach, reserve the Sacrament, distribute Holy Communion, etc.
Agatur de potestatibus quae dari possint mulieribus (praesertim monialibus) in cultu divino.
Consideration should be given to the roles that women – especially monastics – could be given in divine worship.
In administratione sacramentorum adhiberi possit lingua vernacula, exceptis verbis quae « sacramenti formam » exprimunt.
The vernacular should be allowed in the administration of the sacraments, except for the words which convey “the form of the sacrament”.
Baptismus in pluribus sectis acatholicis invalidus est ex intentionis defectu, ergo, iudicio Ordinarii, baptizari debent omnes ex his sectis neo-conversi.
In many non-Catholic sects, Baptism is invalid because it lacks the right intention; therefore, based on the judgement of the Ordinary, all who convert from these sects should be baptised.
Ritus Baptismi parvulorum, praesertim quoad primam partem, notabiliter brevietur.
The rite of infant baptism, especially the first part, should be greatly abbreviated.
Abrogentur infusiones salis et salivae.
The imposition of salt and saliva should be removed from the baptismal rite.
Agatur de usu et abusu S. Communionis.
Consideration should be given to the use and abuse of Holy Communion.
Osculum anuli Episcopi ante Communionem supprimatur.
The kissing of a bishop’s ring before Communion should be eliminated from the rite.
Catholici, in pagis sine ecclesia et sacerdotibus catholicis, recipere possint S. Communionem in ecclesiis acatholicorum.
Catholics in regions lacking a Catholic church and Catholic priests should be able to receive Holy Communion in non-Catholic churches.
Liceat S. Communionem ministrare, ut in primis christianismi diebus, sine tot requisitis secundariis ut v. g. altari, ieiunio, paramentis, mappis, cereis, etc.
It should be allowed to celebrate Communion as the early Christians did, without all the extras – for example, an altar, fasting, altar cloths, candles, altar adornments, etc.
Maior fiat simplificatio legum circa ieiunium eucharisticum.
Rules concering the eucharistic fast should be greatly simplified.
* * *
The vota call into question the notion that the Council fathers could not possibly have anticipated the changes that appeared in the post-conciliar work of the Consilium, or the way in which parishes around the world have implemented the Mass of Paul VI. They also illustrate the inability of simple narratives or labels (“traditional”, “conservative”, “progressive”, etc.) to shed much light on the Second Vatican Council and its work.
7 comments:
The sad thing is that most Catholics don't even care about this.
This is interesting. I admit I am not familiar with all this.
So what does this really tell us? Three things come immediately to mind:
1. Many of us will often say that what came about after the Council was not what the bishops at the Council intended. It might be better to say that it was what some bishops intended; but that's not the same thing as saying it's what the entire group intended.
2. What cannot really be maintained is that the post-Vatican II developments in the liturgy were entirely a surprise to all concerned. They were very much a surprise to the faithful; but there were liturgists, including bishops, who hoped more or less for what transpired.
3. With all that in mind, the comparative conservatism of Sacrosanctum Concilium becomes more intentional, doesn't it? Even acknowledging the document was a result of compromise among many voices, it remains the case that the bishops were given a pretty wide menu from which to select: and the resulting work shows us what they chose, doesn't it? To maintain Gregorian Chant and Latin, with vernacular as an option, rather than a replacement for Latin; and the people were to be able to sing and say the Ordinary in Latin. And when it came to what changes might ensue, the Council urged care and limitation, not anything goes.
Everyone knows that the movement for liturgical change was very strong after the first world war, and finally started after the second world war. The "experts" were let out of their ivory tower cages to take over the entire debate, forcing change which the popes finally authorised.
Looking at these statements, we see how pastoral in nature they are, eventually leading to the dated pastoral statements on the liturgy of Vatican II. As Bishop Scheneider has pointed out, the crisis in the Church has a lot to do with infallibilising pastoral statements of Vatican II which only responded to pastoral situations of a certain period of time, as well absolutising erroneous interpretations of those statements that are actually ambiguous:
"We must free ourselves from the chains of the absolutization and of the total infallibilization of Vatican II. We must ask for a climate of a serene and respectful debate out of a sincere love for the Church and for the immutable faith of the Church."
There is a great fear at the Vatican, already expressed by Benedict XVI in his reluctance to reform the reformed liturgy, to open such a debate, for fear that the hidden schism in the Church, between the orthodox and the modernists, already becoming more apparent during this papacy, will erupt into a full open and nasty confrontation not seen since the Protestant deformation. In a sense there has been a lack of courage by playing for time in the hope that the schism will eventually go away; but all indications have shown during the past 100 years that it will get worse.
This sounds like comments from people from around the world with different views of what they want or think they need to reach more people with the message of the Gospel. It is dosappointing that these people are bishops. So it shows, perhaps, how we remain children of our homeland. It confirms for me more than ever that we should have retained the old form and changes should come slowly and with much greater deliberation.
"In many non-Catholic sects, Baptism is invalid because it lacks the right intention; therefore, based on the judgement of the Ordinary, all who convert from these sects should be baptised."
This is why I question the validity of my own baptism. Not only that, but if the pastor who baptized me was not validly baptized, he would not be qualified to baptize me. A case of the blind leading the blind. This, above all else, is my greatest fear.
A non-Baptized person can, I think, baptize validly with the proper intention and the proper form.
The validity of Mormon Baptism is doubtful, so a convert to Catholicism from LDS is baptized conditionally.
Accd to Fr. John Huels, invalid baptisms are Apostolic Church, Bohemian Free Thinkers, Christadelphians, Christian Community Churches, Christian Scientists, Church of Divine Science, Jehovah's Witness, Masons, New Church, Swedeborgians (aka Church of the New Jerusalem in the USA), Peoples Church of Chicago, Quakers, Salvation Army, Unitarians.
There is no way in Hell a Mormon baptism could be valid...they are non-Trinitarian and embody a host of other heresies, some unique to them....so, we were all gods on another planet at one time, Jesus came to America, married, and had children...need anymore?
Post a Comment