Original design followed by contrived design for a manufactured Liturgy followed by a restoration and fidelity to Amoris Laetitia's ecology of restoration not only for the planet's health but for the Church's health. We only have about 10 years or so to save the planet and the liturgy or else the planet and the Church will be destroyed.
Pope Francis is concerned about ecology and has been especially critical of what has been done to the Amazon's ecology with the stripping of the rain forests there that sustain the life of the planet, so we are told.
But what about the ecology of the Liturgy, stripped by debacling liturgists for the past 50 years after Vatican II beginning with Pope Paul VI's committee on the liturgy that fabricated a stripped Liturgy prone to the cult of the personality and idiosyncrasies imposed upon it by idiosyncratic and/or creative celebrants which challenge the simple rubrics of the fabricated Ordinary Form Mass?
Obviously we must protect and restore the ecology of the Liturgy as much as we must protect and restore the ecology of the Amazon. As it concerns the Liturgy, it is for the salvation of souls as we prepare for the Parousia where creation will be restored as well as our bodies, except for those souls in hell, especially those unrepentant destroyers of the Amazon and Liturgy.
What would a restored Liturgy faithful to Vatican II look like?
Restoration of mandated spoken or chanted propers. The restoration of the order of the Introdution rite and the geographical symbolism of facing Jerusalem, facing Golgatha/Calvary, facing the rising Son and facing the heavenly Jerusalem even in a symbolic way through ad orientem.
The Introductory Rite at the foot of the Altar beginning with the Sign of the Cross, all reciting a restored Confietor with the absolution and then the Kyrie at the center of the altar along with the Gloria and the Collect at the Epistle side of the altar.
The Liturgy of the Word from the ambo as is the norm for the Ordinary Form to include lay lectors.
The Credo at the center of the Altar and the elimination of the Universal Prayer or a fixed litany of petition which is brief.
No presentaton of the offerings as the Liturgy of the Eucharist begins. The Liturgy of the Eucharist as currently is.
The suppression of the Kiss of Peace or restoration of it as in the EF for a Solemn High Mass only.
Holy Communion kneeling.
Post Communion Prayer at the Epistle side of the altar.
The placeat restored and at the middle of the altar as the congregation kneels, then the priest turns to the congregation for the Blessing and then all stand for the Ite Missa Est.
How easy would that be?
34 comments:
For decades now we have heard "well the council did not call for this or that" such as ripping out high altars, tearing down statues, ripping out communion rails, confessionals, kneelers, replacing Latin with English, altar girls, lay lectors, guitars, drums, well once and for all WHY did all of this happen???? It a valid question that needs a valid answer! Anyone????????????
There is no reason why the introductory rites should not be done facing the altar (the priest turning towards the people at 'Agnoscamus peccata nostra ... but turning towards the altar for the Confiteor, and turning towards the people again for the Misereatur).
The GIRM also gives the option of performing the concluding rites at the altar. In 1967 the Placeat was no longer said before the blessing but it was recommended that the priest recite it on his way back to the sacristy.
Since the early 1970s I have been used to the Novus Ordo in its solemn Latin form with Gregorian chant and other traditional music. Why not use the options available to preserve the solemnity and musical heritage, along with the Latin language, even if the celebrant sings many of his parts in the vernacular? I have seen this done in Germany and elsewhere and it seems to me to be authentically Catholic.
John Nolan,
My late mother, raised a Methodist and soloist in her church before she converted to Catholicism, would heartily agree with your statement. She always said the greatest loss created by the “reforms” was the jettisoning of Chant and polyphony
Anonymous @ 10:53 AM -
I cannot prove the following, I just remember reading it someplace years ago. As I understand it, the Council and it's mandates were not complete, the "ink" was not dry and, participants were already returning to their home countries implementing change at an accelerated pace. Part of this was driven by the euphoric reaction to that event, part was driven by personal agenda. The proverbial ship had really sailed before it was possible to regain control. Additionally, those charged with implementation were more driven by personal agenda, than being faithful to written mandate. That period of world history was the "perfect storm", culturally, socially etc. Had Vatican II occurred in 2010 instead of during the 1960s, the result would likely have been very much different.
"How easy would that be?"
Rather easy, but completely unnecessary.
Bee here:
"We only have about 10 years or so to save the planet and the liturgy or else the planet and the Church will be destroyed."
Gee, sounds like a prophecy. I sure would like to know the source. I hope it's not from a guy on the corner with a sign reading, "The end is near." or from the alarmists who run the MSM now, the ones that brought us the COVID-19 panic-demic (you know...millions upon millions will die, our hospitals will be overwhelmed, no place to put all the bodies....).
God bless.
Bee
Ecology is the interaction between things. It’s the interaction of insects and the leaf litter on the forest floor, the interaction between fish populations versus water temperature, or the interaction between factories effluents on the surroundings. Applying the science of ecology to the Church is valid. The Church is surrounded by Protestantism, secularism, paganism, modernism etc etc. Unfortunately the council didn’t understand their environment or ignored it. Rather than maintain their garden, they let the weeds overrun it.
The kiss of peace prior to the Pandemic not only un-Catholic but as a Registered RN I found it to be absolutely germ city not to mention lay people handing out communion wafers and the germ laden chalice, I’m fortunate to attend the TLM for years and was never subjected to all of those germs by lay people. Another post Vatican II disaster, either you need the priest or not make up your minds Novus Ordonarians!
Registered RN - You fear the germ city of the kiss of peace and the germ laden chalice, yet you continue to shake hands when you meet people, frequent public restrooms when the occasion arises, pull of door handles to enter public buildings, turn door knobs, handle one dollar bills, 71% of which have been found to have traces of cocaine and which harbor Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli, among many other daily activities that subject you to similar or worse potential contamination than the Peace and the Cup.
Makes no sense.
Bean:
Communion on the tongue from the priest who properly washed his handling fingers at the Lavabo avoids the germ city for the communicant. The communicant does not use his contaminated hands or a contaminated cup to put anything in his mouth. This is called centuries upon centuries of refined Catholic practice.
Bean Kavanaugh,
You are assuming facts not in evidence. You do not know if RN has engaged in any of those activities. You are getting beyond tiresome
Vic, fingers touch lips and/ or tongues.
Virus passed from communicate to communicant.
TJM, this isn't a courtroom.
Bean Kavanaugh,
Well you are certainly acting like the judge and jury
TJM - Not at all - RN is still doing the things I mentioned, the evidence is quite clear. So his/her protestations about tghe Sign of Peace and common communion cup are hollow.
Bean Kavanaugh,
You do not know that. Her protestations about the Sign of Peace and Communion Cup (Chalice) are spot on, Mr. "I am a member of the party of science where abortion is an essential healthcare service."
The Novus Ordo is HOLLOW. This is The RN.
TJM - What evidence do you have that I do not know her? You are certainly acting like judge and jury here! You have been beyond tiresome since the first post you made to this website.
And this post is SPOT ON!
Bean Kavanaugh,
You are a child. You start something, don’t like the response, and like Mark Thomas, you never respond to statements which challenge your Catholic bona fides. You lack self-awareness of your tiresome and tedious ways. You also come across as a Democratic operative and not a Catholic priest. I am not the only one posting here who thinks so. Since you are compulsive and must have the last word, I expect another one of your non response responses imminently. It is highly unlikely you know RN
TJM - No one here is required to establish their Catholic bona fides to you. THAT expectation, not my self- awareness, is what is childish. If you can cite a single post of mine that does not represent Catholic teaching - actual teaching, not your version of it - do so. Your constant responses and non- responses, including your ad hominem attacks on me and others, clearly indicate that you enjoy the give and take here as much as anyone.
So keep whining that you can't get thing as you want them and when you want them. It will do you no good whatsoever.
Bean Kavanaugh,
Thanks for taking the bait! You have trashed your betters on this website to no avail!
'If you can cite a single post of mine ...' But we're not supposed to know who you are, since you usually post as 'Anonymous' or use a variety of pseudomyms, and only occasionally comment under your real name. When confronted with this you get huffily defensive. So if TJM or anyone else were to take up your challenge, you can always fall back on 'It wasn't me, your honour.'
TJM - You accomplished nothing in terms of "baiting." You might as well challenge the sun to rise tomorrow morning, then try to claim the sun "took you bait." Utter nonsense.
John - You regularly reprimand those who , in your view, presume to know your mind or your motivations. But, the instant it serves your purposes, you jump right in.
"So if TJM or anyone else were to take up your challenge, you can always fall back on 'It wasn't me, your honour."
Sorry, that is NOT my motivation or intention. I would thank you not to presume to know what you cannot know.
Bean Kavanaugh,
Your own words demonstrate your presumptiveness:
"Registered RN - You fear the germ city of the kiss of peace and the germ laden chalice, yet you continue to shake hands when you meet people, frequent public restrooms when the occasion arises, pull of door handles to enter public buildings, turn door knobs, handle one dollar bills, 71% of which have been found to have traces of cocaine and which harbor Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli, among many other daily activities that subject you to similar or worse potential contamination than the Peace and the Cup."
You are a major league berk, not worth our time or attention.
TJM - You will continue to give me your time and attention - you WANT to give me your time and attention - because it makes you feel good. And maybe it keep you from spewing your anger and hate at the poeple around you, which would be a good thing.
Keep up with the ad hominem attacks, it'll give you something else to discuss in confession.
Bean Kavanaugh,
LOL - so self unaware. Your supporting the Abortion Party definitely gives you something to confess
Bean - The sentence from my comment which you quote does not impute motivation or intention, hence the word 'can' rather than 'will'. As a statement of fact it is unremarkable.
You have consistently refused to divulge your motivation and intention in this regard, so the rest of us can only speculate. However, should you wish to dissociate yourself from anything not posted under your real name, you have at least the opportunity to do so, whether or not you intend to avail yourself of it.
Also, however one defines 'argumentum ad hominem' (and you choose to define it as a personal attack) there has to be a person (homo) involved. Otherwise one is only attacking an anonymous or pseudonymous comment, which isn't quite the same thing.
"You have consistently refused to divulge your motivation and intention in this regard, so the rest of us can only speculate."
As with TJM, John, I am under no obligation to reveal anything to you.
"So if TJM or anyone else were to take up your challenge, you can always fall back on 'It wasn't me, your honour.'"
Yep, John, you impute motivation. You can play with the meaning of the words all you want, but you've gone and done what you chide others for doing - presuming to know the motivations in others. It suits you to do so, to bolster your "Spot On!" cheerleader.
"Otherwise one is only attacking an anonymous or pseudonymous comment, which isn't quite the same thing."
Bunk. A book is authored by "Anonymous," but you expect us to believe that there is no person involved? A witness is granted anonymity in testifying before Congress, and you think there's no person there?
Bean Kavanaugh,
I am not perfect but you really are a sorry excuse for a priest. I saw your nasty comment about the lovely First Holy Communion at St. Patrick’s in New Orleans
Bean, you still haven't explained how anyone can cite a single post of yours which does not represent Catholic teaching when most of your posts are anonymous or pseudonymous and only a few are under your real name. Were you referring only to those comments posted under 'Bean'?
If so, one can safely say that none of the comments under 'Bean' on this thread represents Catholic teaching. Only a lack of basic reading comprehension, the usual inapt analogies, and opinions stated as facts.
John - I would challenge TJM to pick ANY comment be ANYONE he disagrees with and show that it is contrary to Catholic teaching.
He has a minimal grasp of Catholic doctrine and theology, and when anyone expresses and idea that he, due to his ignorance, is not familiar with, he goes off on a tear.
Or when someone exprssses an opinion that he does not share, same result.
As our illustrious president likes to say, "It is what it is."
Bean Kavanaugh,
Looks like President Trump lives in your head rent-free. Like I said, you are a sorry excuse for a priest.
Returning to the original topic, it is misleading to blame the genesis of the Novus Ordo on an ad hoc committee 'formed afterwards' or to suggest that the Council fathers 'envisaged' a particular form of Mass. Sacrosanctum Concilium (the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy) was promulgated on 4 December 1963. On 25 January 1964 Paul VI issued, motu proprio, Sacram Liturgiam, which announced the creation of the Consilium which would implement the reforms. Yet certain recommendations of SC were to be implemented more or less straight away. Some of these concerned the setting up of diocesan commissions; others related to the Divine Office. Some related to the Mass. In particular, the administration of two sacraments were now to take place during Mass (just before the Offertory); Confirmation (where opportune) and matrimony (mandatory). Both of these were novelties, since only in the Ordination rite was the sacrament integrated into the Mass itself.
Pope Paul also mentioned that it would take time to compose new texts and produce new liturgical books, so he was already thinking beyond simplifying the Roman Rite and allowing more use of the vernacular. The Concilium published Inter Oecumenici on 26 September 1964. It made substantial changes to the rite of Mass, but made it clear that this was merely an interim rite. Those who like to think that this was the 'authentic' Mass of the Council are engaging in wishful thinking; it wasn't, nor was it intended to be.
The next major change came in 1967 (Tres Abhinc Annos) and was more a dry run for the Novus Ordo than another set of changes to the Roman Rite. In November 1969 Paul VI announced the New Mass and made it quite clear that it represented a new departure. He acknowledged that the change would be painful, but seems to have forgotten that most of the changes had been implemented in nearly all parishes over the previous five years. He also laments that the great treasury of Gregorian Chant would be lost, yet Solesmes was already working on a new Graduale Romanum which rearranged the chants to fit the new calendar but did not discard any (it was ready by the end of 1973).
Pope Paul's two allocutions of 1969 make bizarre reading, in that he makes an overwhelming case for the historic Roman Rite and the Latin language before dismissing them peremptorily and, it has to be said, unconvincingly. It's like an art critic extolling the qualities of an Old Master painting and then consigning it to the flames as not being relevant to modern man.
Bean Kavanaugh - Inspector Javert!
John Nolan,
Bravo, once again Anonymous Kavanaugh gave up when confronted with a superior intellect!
Post a Comment