No where in Vatican II or any actual authoritative, dogmatic teaching, does the Church say we must do this to churches! This is contrived for the Ordinary Form and much of the Ordinary Form was contrived by liturgists, to include inculturation, banal music and casualness. It also contrived where the choir should be and how the cantor should act, all of which turned the "music ministry" into entertainment for high strung artists.
Pope Benedict before he was pope stated that an OF and EF Mass both chanted and in Latin, ad orientem and kneeling for Holy Communion would be very similar to one another and few lay people would notice much of a difference. I agree.
But he also stated that there is more variance from parish to parish in how the OF Mass is celebrated and even from various Mass times in a particular parish.
That is the problem and a dogmatic solution from a dogmatic pope, like Pope Francis, could change things over night. Pope Benedict simply proposed but never really mandated too much in terms of the "reform of the reform" in continuity. That is way too bad!
What I believe is contrived is the ideologies imposed upon the Ordinary Form. One example that a commenter made on another thread is the USCCB's 1970's "Art and Architecture" for Catholic Church, new ones being built and old ones being renovated. It was a contrived disaster.
What is worse, is that those who tried to implement it in various parishes, and I include myself in this in my first parish assignment in Albany, Georgia in 1980, made this little booklet and the Bishops' Conference a dogmatic teaching, infallible and had to be implemented, like it or not, because they knew better. There wasn't to be any disagreement about it! We are doing what the bishops are asking us to do and case closed!
This approach by modern liturgists and their enablers, like the USCCB, is what has led in part to about 70% of Catholics not believing in what Jesus teaches about the Most Holy Eucharist.
Liturgists who are more difficult to deal with than terrorists, as the old saying goes, contrived so much as it concerns the Ordinary Form and that contrivance is a fact!
Pope Benedict before he was pope stated that an OF and EF Mass both chanted and in Latin, ad orientem and kneeling for Holy Communion would be very similar to one another and few lay people would notice much of a difference. I agree.
But he also stated that there is more variance from parish to parish in how the OF Mass is celebrated and even from various Mass times in a particular parish.
That is the problem and a dogmatic solution from a dogmatic pope, like Pope Francis, could change things over night. Pope Benedict simply proposed but never really mandated too much in terms of the "reform of the reform" in continuity. That is way too bad!
What I believe is contrived is the ideologies imposed upon the Ordinary Form. One example that a commenter made on another thread is the USCCB's 1970's "Art and Architecture" for Catholic Church, new ones being built and old ones being renovated. It was a contrived disaster.
What is worse, is that those who tried to implement it in various parishes, and I include myself in this in my first parish assignment in Albany, Georgia in 1980, made this little booklet and the Bishops' Conference a dogmatic teaching, infallible and had to be implemented, like it or not, because they knew better. There wasn't to be any disagreement about it! We are doing what the bishops are asking us to do and case closed!
This approach by modern liturgists and their enablers, like the USCCB, is what has led in part to about 70% of Catholics not believing in what Jesus teaches about the Most Holy Eucharist.
Liturgists who are more difficult to deal with than terrorists, as the old saying goes, contrived so much as it concerns the Ordinary Form and that contrivance is a fact!
33 comments:
Joseph Ratzinger had come to realize by the year 2000 that the liturgical malaise had come about about because popes, instead of being the servants of liturgical tradition believed that they could alter the liturgy at will, especially if they could claim the mandate of an ecumenical council (Spirit of the Liturgy pp 165-166). This is a clear criticism of Paul VI.
So it would have been out of the question for him, as Pontiff, to have done what Paul, and to a certain extent Pius XII, had done. This is also a lesson for his successor. However dictatorial PF might be, should he try (and there is no evidence that he will) to suppress the traditional Mass, he will not succeed, as he would be acting ultra vires. There are enough people as it is who believe he is skirting dangerously close to heresy.
Please do not confuse 'dogmatic' (PF seems to have little time for dogma, preferring to reach the truth through 'discernment') with 'dictatorial', which it appears he most certainly is.
John Nolan,
Well stated. Another thing I might add. Although the OF can be celebrated to resemble the EF, the prayers are spiritually impoverished compared to the EF. Case in point, the EF Offertory prayers which are nearly non existent in the OF.
Why anyone would want to beatify Paul VI is a mystery to me.
On September 22, 1956 A.D., Pope Venerable Pius XII delivered the final address to the International Congress on Pastoral Liturgy that had been held in Assisi.
Via his address in question, Pope Venerable Pius XII declared that the Holy Ghost had inspired Rome/Liturgical Movement to introduce radical changes to the Roman Liturgy.
For several days at Assisi, Cardinals, bishops, priests, and laity from around the world had expressed tremendous enthusiasm for the radical liturgical innovations that Pope Venerable Pius XII had introduced to date.
The American bishops, for example, had been slow to follow Pope Venerable Pius XII's lead since the 1940s when said Pope had first authorized vernacular Masses in various countries.
However, in 1956 A.D. at Assisi, the American bishops declared that the Faithful in America had expressed great joy in regard to Pope Venerable Pius XII's radical liturgical reforms — in particular, to the vernacularization of the Mass as approved by Pope Venerable Pius XII.
In light of that, the American bishop's contingent at Assisi declared that they would join the bishops of numerous countries who, since the 1940s, had requested (and received) Pope Venerable Pius XII's authorization to vernacularize the Mass.
Among the points addressed by Pope Venerable Pius XII at Assisi was the call to introduce "new elements" into the designs of churches.
Pope Venerable Pius XII had issued his approval in regard to new designs for churches.
Pope Venerable Pius XII declared:
"From the Churchʼs side, todayʼs liturgy involves a concern for progress, but also for
conservation and defense. It returns to the past, but does not slavishly imitate.
"It creates new elements in the ceremonies themselves, in using the vernacular, in popular
chant *******and in the building of churches."*******
The modernization of churches to accommodate the Mass predates the Novus Ordo.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
MT,
I see you moved your dump and run machine here and so here I go again:
Still taking Pius XII out of context in your execrable cut and paste method. Please read Mediator Dei before pontificating here. Also please enumerate for us the "radical" changes Pius XII imposed on the EF. Which rubrics changed, which texts changed? Where was the vernacular allowed in the Mass in the US? No running away this time!
John Nolan said..."Joseph Ratzinger had come to realize by the year 2000 that the liturgical malaise had come about about because popes, instead of being the servants of liturgical tradition believed that they could alter the liturgy at will, especially if they could claim the mandate of an ecumenical council (Spirit of the Liturgy pp 165-166). This is a clear criticism of Paul VI."
Did Cardinal Ratzinger declare that his statement in question is a clear criticism of Pope Saint Paul VI?
Or is that your speculation on the matter?
Mr. Nolan, I question your claim in question as Pope Benedict XVI/Cardinal Ratzinger declared time and again that Pope Saint Paul VI's liturgical reform was in line with the Latin Church's liturgical tradition.
Cardinal Ratzinger insisted that Pope Saint Paul VI's liturgical reform had enriched the Church.
========================================================================================
By the way, Pope Benedict XVI altered the Roman Liturgy at will when he tossed aside the Church's ancient, tradition Good Friday prayer for the Jews.
He declared that said ancient, traditional prayer had served only to "wound" Jews.
Therefore, he concocted a prayer to replace the "severe" traditional prayer in question.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas
You say that Pius XII approved 'the vernacularization of the Mass'.
Can you tell us where exactly in the Latin Church Mass was celebrated entirely in the vernacular prior to 1958?
John Nolan said..."Joseph Ratzinger had come to realize by the year 2000 that the liturgical malaise had come about about because popes, instead of being the servants of liturgical tradition believed that they could alter the liturgy at will, especially if they could claim the mandate of an ecumenical council (Spirit of the Liturgy pp 165-166). This is a clear criticism of Paul VI."
If you are correct that Cardinal Ratzinger had taken a swipe at the awesome authority that Pope Saint Paul VI exercised over the liturgy, then Cardinal Ratzinger must have been enraged at Pope Venerable Pius XII.
Pope Venerable Pius XII introduced radical liturgical reforms at will.
Pope Saint Paul VI at least was backed by an Ecumenical Council.
On September 22, 1956 A.D., Pope Venerable Pius XII had made it clear that the radical liturgical reforms in question, as well as the Liturgical Movement, were inspired by the Holy Ghost.
Pope Venerable Pius XII:
"If one compares the present state of the liturgical movement with what it was thirty years
ago, it is obvious that undeniable progress has been made both in extent and in depth.
"The liturgical movement is thus shown forth as a sign of the providential dispositions of God for the present time, of the movement of the Holy Ghost in the Church..."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
John Nolan,
Notice how MT never backs up his assertions with facts? He merely runs away
Mark Thomas is trying to convince us that Pius XII was a rabid revolutionary. Perhaps he gave Bugnini too much of a free rein regarding the Holy Week liturgy, but apart from that the Mass experienced by the faithful in 1958, when he died, was the same as it had been when he was crowned in 1939.
In Mediator Dei (1947) he gave credit to the Liturgical Movement but warned against the excesses of some of its adherents, which even at that date were causing scandal.
Those same excesses became common currency after Vatican II. And when Paul VI died in 1978 the Mass experienced by most of the faithful was radically different from what it had been when he was crowned in 1963.
No amount of selective quotation can alter the facts.
Mark Thomas
'After the Second Vatican Council the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council. Eventually, the idea of the givenness of the liturgy, the fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the public consciousness of the West.' (Ratzinger, 'Spirit of the Liturgy'). If this doesn't refer to Paul VI, to whom does it refer?
Also, changing an intercessionary prayer on Good Friday is not comparable to altering the Mass Ordinary. After all, we no longer pray for the Holy Roman Emperor, and Propers have always been subject to change, even to the extent of composing new Masses (like the one for the Assumption). This is not liturgical reform by any stretch of the imagination.
I asked you to name one location in the Latin Church where the Mass was celebrated in the vernacular at the time of Pius X's death in 1958. You have not done so. Why the reticence?
John Nolan,
People on the left have contempt for facts. Unlike MT, you and I experienced the Mass pre-Vatican II, and based on my experience, felt the liturgical “reform” unnecessary. Our Churches were filled on Sunday, the Church was welcoming more converts then than now, and the Church had greater influence and did more good for more people than she does today. Inconvenient facts that the left ignores
Mr. Nolan, do you claim that from at least 1943 A.D. (beginning with the Church in Germany, through 1958 A.D.), that Pope Venerable Pius XII did not authorize bishops in various countries to introduce vernaculars into the Roman Liturgy?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Vernacularized Masses authorized by Rome were offered in France (1946 A.D.), Belgium (1948 A.D.), Croatia (1929 A.D.), Czechoslovakia (1920 A.D.), Slovenia (1933 A.D.).
In 1943 A.D., Pope Venerable Pius XII authorized vernacularized Masses in Germany.
"Under Pius XII, the Sacred Congregation of Rites granted permission for the use of local languages in countries with expanding Catholic mission activities, including in Indonesia and Japan in 1941-2.
"In 1949 permission was granted for using Mandarin Chinese in Mass except for the Canon, and for the use of Hindi in India in 1950."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
MT,
Please cite your sources. These sound like they are coming from some Sedevacantist website.
If you believe that any pope can alter the liturgy as he pleases, the result is that any one pope's opinions about the liturgy are meaningless since popes come and go.
Regarding usage of "A.D."...
A.D. denotes Anno Domini, and as such, it belongs before the numeral, as in:
In the year of our Lord two thousand and nineteen...
When you put "A.D." after the year, it makes no sense: Two thousand and nineteen in the year of our Lord? Two thousand and nineteen what? In what year?
Many people do not know what "A.D." stands for. Do you wish to suggest that includes yourself?
And, yes, I am well aware that many people place these initials in the wrong place, just as many people misspell and mispronounce words. A recent survey suggests a large majority of American Catholics errantly think the Eucharist is only a symbol of Christ. Just because lots, or even most, people say or do something doesn't make it right. Especially since "A.D." is about our Savior and his presence in, and sovereignty over, history. We Christians ought to get this right.
Mark is copying and pasting from Wikipedia. The source for the assertions on Wikipedia doesn't actually make the broad claim asserted on Wikipedia, and the source itself is a book about Dynamic Equivalence.
Marc, ah the old comme le prevoit trick! MT is not the sharpest knife in the drawer
Everybody is aware that throughout the 1940s and 1950s, Pope Venerable Pius XII issued radical liturgical reforms.
-- Vernaculars were introduced into the Roman Liturgy...although his predecessors also permitted the use of vernaculars at Mass.
-- He reduce the ancient, traditional Midnight Eucharistic Fast to that of three hours.
-- He gutted Holy Week.
-- He reformed the Eastern Vigil.
-- Priest facing the people.
Additional radical reforms...
==========================================================================
But what has received little attention is he authorized for this or that country, radical liturgical reforms prior to universal legislation.
The Handbook for Liturgical Studies, Volume I: Introduction to the Liturgy documents that fact.
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0814662862
-- Pope Venerable Pius XII had granted to certain countries permission to offer evening Mass — examples: Poland, India, Belgium, Japan...
-- Prior to 1953 A.D., Pope Venerable Pius XII permitted the Church in India to shorten the ancient Midnight Eucharistic Fast.
Anyway...
It is interesting, at least to me, to study the manner in which Pope Venerable Pius XII initiated, as well as paved the way, for additional radical liturgical reforms.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Also it is pedantic and tiresome to keep adding AD to a date when there is no way it can be mistaken for BC. It is also tiresome, if not preposterous to keep referring to 'Pope Venerable Pius XII'. It is akin to my constantly referring to the Queen as 'Her Britannic Majesty Queen Elizabeth II'. We know that Pius XII was pope, and that he has been declared Venerable, so let's just leave it at that, shall we?
Anyway, MT has obliquely answered my question. Nowhere in the Latin Church was Mass offered entirely in the vernacular in 1958. Twenty years later, when Paul VI died, all-vernacular Masses were the norm.
It is true that a limited use of the vernacular was permitted in the administration of the sacraments, for instance Baptism, and in other parts of the Roman Ritual. Also, in the 1950s, the singing of vernacular hymns at Low Mass was authorized (although it was not permitted to sing liturgical texts, either in Latin or the vernacular; the distinction between Low and High/Sung Mass was to be maintained).
In Germany it had been an established custom to sing vernacular hymns, even at Solemn Mass, and Pius XII retrospectively approved this in 1943. But this did not affect the priest's parts as contained in the Roman Missal, which continued to be in Latin. A peculiarity of the Mass in Germany is that the congregation often sing hymns which are paraphrases of texts such as the Gloria and the Agnus Dei. However, in the 1950s the celebrant would have read the texts in Latin from the Missal, so none of the Mass was omitted. In the Novus Ordo, however, he does not do so, so the continuation of the custom is arguably an abuse.
Allowing some use of the vernacular by the people, as in MT's examples, is not 'vernacularizing' the Mass. I don't dispute the fact that in Europe there were many unauthorized and experimental liturgies; Pius knew about them, and condemned them. If MT wants to know more about the state of liturgy in 1958 I suggest he read 'De musica sacra' which Pius signed off a month before he died.
Pius XII believed he could satisfy the more moderate aims of the Liturgical Movement and rely on his authority to prevent things getting out of hand. Perhaps he believed that he 'really could do anything in liturgical matters'.
One final point. Although Latin was normative for the Roman Rite, for centuries there was a version in Old Church Slavonic which was allowed in certain Slavic countries (the Glagolitic Mass) and its use was extended by Leo XIII in 1886. In 1624 Urban VIII allowed the Carmelites to translate the entire Missal into Arabic. The Roman Rite in Mandarin Chinese dates from 1615 (Paul V). Unfortunately for MT's argument, none of these languages is strictly speaking a vernacular, and these were not initiatives of Pius XII.
John Nolan said..."Anyway, MT has obliquely answered my question. Nowhere in the Latin Church was Mass offered entirely in the vernacular in 1958."
I said that Pope Venerable Pius XII had authorized radical liturgical reforms.
I said that Pope Venerable Pius XII, among other things, had authorized the use of vernaculars at Mass.
What I said is correct. Pope Venerable Pius XII had authorized Vernacularized Masses/
By the way, you answered my question obliquely as to whether Pope Venerable Pius XII had introduced radical reforms.
You answered said question when you declared:
"Joseph Ratzinger had come to realize by the year 2000 that the liturgical malaise had come about about because popes, instead of being the servants of liturgical tradition believed that they could alter the liturgy at will, especially if they could claim the mandate of an ecumenical council (Spirit of the Liturgy pp 165-166). This is a clear criticism of Paul VI.
"So it would have been out of the question for him, as Pontiff, to have done what Paul, and to a certain extent Pius XII, had done."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
MT,
John Nolan and others have exposed your silly assertions. I suggest you go over to Father Z’s blog and try your luck there. He might find your non-scholarly approach amusing for 2 seconds
Mark Thomas
The changes in the Holy Week Ordo were indeed radical, were controversial at the time, and remain controversial, to the extent that the pre-1955 rites have in recent years undergone something of a revival.
Among critics of the revised Ordo were Evelyn Waugh, John Carmel Heenan and Cardinal Roncalli (later Pope John XXIII).
Changes to the Eucharistic fast are disciplinary, not liturgical. The fast from Midnight could be (and indeed was) relaxed on occasions. Evening Masses had been allowed during the war years. Mass versus populum was never illicit, but was unusual before 1964.
Allowing a limited use of the vernacular to accompany the Mass is not 'vernacularizing' the Mass itself. Pius XII was under pressure from progressive elements in Germany, France and the Low Countries who wanted more autonomy, not least in liturgical matters. In October 1962 they gained effective control of the Council, and the rest, as they say, is history.
Perhaps Pius came to feel, with Louis XV (or as you would no doubt insist on styling him, ad nauseam, 'His Most Christian Majesty, Louis XV, King of France and Navarre') that 'après moi, le déluge'. He certainly blocked Montini from succeeding him. However, your attempts to portray Pius as the trailblazer for Paul VI's revolution are very wide of the mark.
Another thing: please refrain from quoting back at me, at length, things I have previously said. I know what I have written, and everyone else on this blog is quite clear as to what I mean.
John Nolan,
Another inconvenient fact that MT ignores is that on the eve of the Council John XXIII issued Veterum Sapientia which mandated seminarians learn to speak Latin and stated that "Latin is the language which joins the Church of today!" A sharp rebuke to the liturgical "progressives." I always felt that if John XXIII had survived, any liturgical reform would have been quite modest, given his statements on the Latin language. John XXIII also gave Bugnini, the evil architect of the liturgical "reforms" the shaft
John Nolan said..."Allowing a limited use of the vernacular to accompany the Mass is not 'vernacularizing' the Mass itself. Pius XII was under pressure from progressive elements in Germany, France and the Low Countries who wanted more autonomy, not least in liturgical matters."
Oh, okay. He was pressured into having authorized one radical reform, liturgical and otherwise, after another.
He was "pressured" when he...
-- Launched the Church into the Ecumenical Movement.
-- Empowered Monsignor Bugnini to serve as Secretary on the Commission to reform the Roman Liturgy.
-- Insisted upon the modernization of women's religious orders, including their manners of dress.
-- Revolutionized the ancient Midnight Eucharistic Fast.
-- Authorized the use of vernaculars at Mass in one country after another.
-- Authorized evening Masses.
-- Gutted Holy Week.
-- Reformed the Easter Vigil.
On and on go Pope Venerable Pius XII's revolutionary reforms.
But he was "pressured" into having done so.
Oh. Okay.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
John Nolan said..."Allowing a limited use of the vernacular to accompany the Mass is not 'vernacularizing' the Mass itself. Pius XII was under pressure from progressive elements in Germany, France and the Low Countries who wanted more autonomy, not least in liturgical matters."
Pope Venerable Pius XII was "pressured" into having given into "progressive elements" who demanded radical liturgical reforms, according to Mr. Nolan.
Translation (should we accept Mr. Nolan's comment in question): Pope Venerable Pius XII was a weak Pope.
That corresponds to outstanding priest/theologian Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton's (during Pope Venerable Pius XII's reign had served as a Papal Chamberlain, as well as a domestic prelate) October 19, 1962 A.D. declaration:
"We should, I believe, face the facts. Since the death of [Pope] St. Pius X the Church has been directed by weak and liberal popes, who have flooded the hierarchy with unworthy and stupid men."
That is, if we believe Mr. Nolan, Pope Venerable was weak as he (the Pope) had bowed to the radical liturgical agenda promoted by Progressives.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
I will give Mister Nolan the following credit:
Mister Nolan has pretended that Pope Venerable Pius XII was "pressured" into having authorized radical reforms, liturgical and otherwise, that "Progressives" had demanded.
However, Mister Nolan, to his credit, has acknowledged that Pope Venerable Pius XII — "pressured" or otherwise — engaged in radical reforms...including having granted permission to introduce vernaculars into the Mass.
Certain folks here have insisted for years that such was not the case. Pope Venerable Pius XII never, ever, ever, ever, ever authorized a single radical reform.
The Pope never, ever, ever, ever, permitted Mass with vernaculars.
Thank you, Mister Nolan, for having acknowledged otherwise.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
MT,
Please take your meds and apologize to John Nolan
John Nolan said..."Allowing a limited use of the vernacular to accompany the Mass is not 'vernacularizing' the Mass itself."
Mister Nolan, we could quibble in regard to the phrase "vernacularizing the Mass."
The bottom line is that as early as 1943 A.D. with the Church in Germany, and, throughout the 1940s and 1950s, as requested by the bishops of many nations, Pope Venerable Pius XI authorized the introduction of vernaculars into the Roman Mass.
Pax.
Mark Thomas.
To say that Pius XII was under pressure is an understatement. The pressures from both outside and inside the Church were huge. However, this is not to say he was 'pressurized' into doing anything - in fact I pointed out that the 'progressive elements' did not get their way until Vatican II, for which Pius was not responsible.
Compared with what happened in Paul VI's reign, Pius XII's changes don't appear that revolutionary. British and American Catholics, whose hierarchies tended to be conservative, in 1958 went to a Mass that was the same as it had been in 1939. In fact, the most noticeable change had happened in 1913 when the balance between the temporal and sanctoral cycle was restored. Ecumenism was not on the radar until 1965.
Before he was elected Pope, Pacelli's ecclesiastical career had been as a diplomat. To be diplomatic is not necessarily a sign of weakness, and nowhere did I suggest that Pius was a weak pope.
MT,
Quit spreading your lies about Pius XII, it is beyond revolting
John Nolan:
Also it is pedantic and tiresome to keep adding AD to a date when there is no way it can be mistaken for BC.
It can be, but I think it is also a legitimate statement of faith. This is not merely 2019; it is the year of our Lord 2019. I agree it can be overdone.
I’m just sitting back waiting for the heresies that will come from the Amazon synod. Which I believe will be the straw that breaks the camels back or releases the grip of Our Blessed Mother on her sons arm that holds the sword of justice that will sweep across the globe much like a sowers scythe.
Post a Comment