Implementation Of Tridentine Ruling Frustrates Some

[Barbarus]

[quote name='mortify' post='1663819' date='Sep 25 2008, 08:25 PM']Can you point me to a time in history where the Church made huge alterations to her liturgical practice?[/quote]
I don't have time to list specific examples over the years; you can do that research for yourself. But I know that aspects of the Mass have changed significantly from time to time. It was not, for example, always in Latin. Parts have been added and taken out. Is the change from forty years ago more significant than in the past? I don't think the intended liturgical reforms were strikingly out of keeping with the historical Church. They were shocking because worship had been the same for 400 years, but we must look at the Church as a whole, not just the Church since Trent. Trent was not the culmination of Church perfection. It was necessary, and the reforms introduced then were good, but when it introduced Trent it is not as though the Church was absolved of its duties to continue discerning the call of the Holy Spirit in doctrine or liturgy.

[quote name='mortify' post='1663819' date='Sep 25 2008, 08:25 PM']Let's start with the fact that great changes have taken place. Why make such radical changes to the Church's form of worship if what our fathers passed on to us was good? The Church matured from Apostolic times to a more serious and elaborate form of worship, why isn't this nearly 2,000 year movement of maturation seen as the work of the Holy Ghost? Why the sudden desire to return to what is *thought* to be Apostolic worship? To me it says we went wrong somewhere.[/quote]
Why make such changes? Because the Church must present the gospel to people who do not think as people did at the time of Trent. This does not mean that Trent was bad or wrong, or that Vatican II was bad or wrong. It means that they were responding to different challenges. One was primarily doctrinal in its thrust and the other primarily evangelistic. We answer different challenges in different ways, but both must be understood in the context of Tradition -- the WHOLE of tradition.

[quote name='mortify' post='1663819' date='Sep 25 2008, 08:25 PM']I was referring to your views of the Council. The Church will survive the current crisis.[/quote]
I apologize. That was not clear to me from your post.


[quote name='MissyP89' post='1663893' date='Sep 25 2008, 10:32 PM']Not to interrupt the current discussion, but something Barbarus said struck me.

Why shouldn't the Church be sensitive to seekers? Isn't that our goal, to nurture the faithful while reaching the lost?[/quote]
Protestant "seeker sensitive" churches are primarily focused on getting people into the Church, often at the cost of doctrinal integrity. This movement focuses on appealing to people's temporal desires in order to make Christianity more appealing. So, things like sin and punishment and other "bad" things associated with Christianity are toned down. Often these churches lose any sort of definitive doctrinal statement, because it becomes more about attracting people than about giving people Truth.

As Catholics, we have to believe that certain things are True -- the things we recite in the Creed. Some churches would downplay or throw out that sort of talk because that kind of "absolutism" can be a "turnoff" to non-believers. So the message they end up spreading is often not much more substantial than "God is love." As they progress, they get in people with such divergent views that this eventually becomes the only thing they can actually believe in common. They believe God is love, but who God is and what Love is -- all that's up to your own interpretation. The focus instead becomes the "experience" of worship and of God -- how the music makes you feel, etc. The substance is stripped out.

[StColette]

[quote name='princessgianna' post='1660686' date='Sep 21 2008, 07:57 PM']\

Wow the seminary in my town was lucky to finally started the seminarians to take 2 years of Latin! Like what are the people so afraid of???

people are so weird like my grandma absolutely refuses to go to a Latin Mass! Like she will NOT GO end of disscussion!!!

my Grandparents 50 anniversary is coming up and my mom was thinking how cool it would be if my grandparents do a Traditional Latin Mass since that was the formant of the Mass they were married in! My grandma got all defensive and was like "if you do that i won't come"! Like what are people so afraid of???

I of course mean no offense to the Novus Ordo Mass i sometimes go to that Mass but people are like so afraid of the traditional Mass!

i wonder why that is?

pax~[/quote]

You can always have a priest celebrate the Novus Ordo the way it supposed to be celebrated according to Vat II for your grandparents. The similarities between the correct form of the Novus Ordo and the Trid. form are shocking.

[mortify]

[quote name='Barbarus' post='1664302' date='Sep 26 2008, 02:47 PM']I don't have time to list specific examples over the years; you can do that research for yourself.[/quote]

I was under the impression when you offered to debate you were up for a discussion.

[quote]But I know that aspects of the Mass have changed significantly from time to time. It was not, for example, always in Latin. Parts have been added and taken out.[/quote]

How much of this have you researched yourself?

Personally, changing the liturgical language is not the most significant change so long as the meaning of the liturgy is preserved. If the only thing changed to the liturgy was the language there wouldn't be a problem.

If anyone wants to see how much was changed just attend a TLM (be sure to read your missal.)

[quote]Is the change from forty years ago more significant than in the past?[/quote]

I believe so, though I may be mistaken.

[quote]I don't think the intended liturgical reforms were strikingly out of keeping with the historical Church. They were shocking because worship had been the same for 400 years, but we must look at the Church as a whole, not just the Church since Trent.[/quote]

They were shocking because the changes were radical and numerous. An example of a radical change includes the Priest facing the congregation instead of East. This practice goes so far into antiquity that every Apostolic based Church celebrates this way, except of course for the contemporary Roman Catholic Church. How shocked would the average parishioner be if Pope Benedict suddenly restored the TLM and the Priest was celebrating facing East again?

And yes, I agree we must look at the Church as a whole. My understanding is the TLM is not 400 but 1500 years old, going back to at least Pope St Gregory the Great. Changes occurred but they were small and they developed over long periods of time. This maturation can't be compared to what happened in the 1960's.

[quote]Why make such changes? Because the Church must present the gospel to people who do not think as people did at the time of Trent. This does not mean that Trent was bad or wrong, or that Vatican II was bad or wrong. It means that they were responding to different challenges. One was primarily doctrinal in its thrust and the other primarily evangelistic. We answer different challenges in different ways, but both must be understood in the context of Tradition -- the WHOLE of tradition.[/quote]

The Church has been involved in Evangelism long before Vatican II, and was quite successful at it. In fact, up the 19th or so century it was the Catholic Church that was responsible for bringing the most souls in contact with the Gospel and it's the reason why we are the largest Church in existence.

Secondly, I don't see how abandoning our tradition helps us evangelize. It seems to me the Church is evangelizing less and losing more faithful today than it did in the past.
[quote]Protestant "seeker sensitive" churches are primarily focused on getting people into the Church, often at the cost of doctrinal integrity. This movement focuses on appealing to people's temporal desires in order to make Christianity more appealing. So, things like sin and punishment and other "bad" things associated with Christianity are toned down. Often these churches lose any sort of definitive doctrinal statement, because it becomes more about attracting people than about giving people Truth.[/quote]

How is this different from us trying to make the Mass more palatable to Protestants? Archbishop Bugnini, one of the chief architects of the changes, said the motive behind the changes was to...

[color="#0000FF"]“to strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants.”[/color]

[i]L'Osservatore Romano[/i], March 19, 1965

Edited September 27, 2008 by mortify