Vatican 2 questions

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Jul 18 2005, 11:02 PM'][quote]To answer this would require writing an essay on the liturgical changes instituted by the Magisterium in the late 1960s.

Suffice to say, those elements that were determined, after detailed study, to have been private devotions of the priest, like the "Last Gospel," or repetitions added over the course of centuries, were in most instances suppressed when Pope Paul VI promulgated the revised Roman Missal in the late 1960s. To really answer your question, one would have to compare the old Missal to the new Missal in order to see what the Concilium -- the group charged with overseeing the reform of the liturgical books -- changed in the ceremonies of the Roman Rite. I really don't have the time to do that, but there were a large number of changes of an aesthetic nature. The tendency of the Concilium was to try and simplify the rites by getting rid of what it saw as useless repetition. The thing to remember is that the changes made to the liturgical books of the Lain Church did not effect the substance of the sacramental action itself. As far as the changes are concerned, a man is free to hold that they were imprudent or even unnecessary, but he may not say that they effected the substance of the rite or that the changes have invalidated the Ordo Missae of Paul VI.[/quote]
I'll try to take the time to compare the Missals when I get the chance. This might be too much of a loaded question as well, but what are all the changes that people consider "imprudent" and that people have problems with? I don't know what they are in whole.[/quote]
A person can argue that the entire reform was imprudent and unnecessary, but of course that would only be his individual subjective opinion on the matter, and the Magisterium of the Church, which Christ the Lord Himself appointed as the guardian of the liturgy, determined that a reform of the Roman Rite was necessary.

Now, I have no intention of giving a complete list of the particular changes that a person might hold were imprudent, but here are a few things that some people find problematic with the reformed Roman Rite:

(1) The indult permitting communion in the hand.
(2) The indult allowing Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.
(3) The reform and suppression of some of the Minor Orders.
(4) The indult permitting altar girls, which breaks the Apostolic Tradition of only allowing males to serve at the altar.
(5) The composition of three additional Eucharistic Prayers ([i]special note:[/i] even more Eucharistic Prayers have been approved over the last 30 years).
(6) Allowing the priest to face the people during prayer, which involves the suppression of the Apostolic Tradition of facing East while praying.
(7) The removing of the tabernacle from the altar, because as Pope Pius XII stated, "It is through the sacrifice of the altar, first of all, that the Lord becomes present in the Eucharist, and He is in the tabernacle only as the [i]memoria sacrificii et passionis suae[/i]. To separate tabernacle from altar is to separate two things which by their origin and their nature should remain united." [Pope Pius XII, "Allocution to the International Congress on Pastoral Liturgy," from the book, [u]Papal Teachings: The Liturgy[/u] (Boston: Daughters of St. Paul, 1962), page 514]

Of course these are just a few of the modern practices that some people find problematic. Nevertheless, a member of the Roman Rite, whether he thinks these indults and reforms were imprudent or not, must be respectful of the authority that issued the directives. Certainly, in the case of many of these indults, a person remains free to work for their revocation, but he must be respectful to legitimate authority even while he works to [i]reform[/i] the [i]reform[/i] of the Roman liturgy.

[phatcatholic]

i was reading [url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/instlabeuch.HTM"][i][b]Instrumentum Laboris[/b][/i][/url], the document that summarizes the responses of the bishops in preparation for their meeting in october, and para 64 had some interesting words on the direction of the altar (emphasis mine):[list]Some responses reported other occurrences, opposed to afore-mentioned Church tradition, which obscure the sense of the sacred and the transcendent character of the sacred mysteries. For example, many new Churches—not to mention older ones after renovation—are built on the fundamental architectural plan of bringing the faithful into close proximity to the altar to ensure visual contact and communication between the celebrant and the assembly. Likewise, [i][b]the tendency to turn the altar around to face the people—in practice eliminating the presbytery—is based on the same idea[/b][/i]. In doing so, what might be gained in communication might not sufficiently safeguard a sense of the sacred, which is also an essential part of liturgical celebrations.
[/list]the direction of the altar is presented here as a "tendency", but don't all altars in the Latin Rite face the people? it used to not be that way. what document changed this?

personally, i'm all for turning it back around so that the priest's back is to the people. in this way, the direction the priest is facing more properly depicts what he is actually doing, offering a sacrifice to the Lord on our behalf. "Look Lord, i have all your people behind me. With them, and for them, i offer this sacrifice to you on your holy altar."

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[phatcatholic]

anyone have an answer to the questions i raised in my last post? (where's apotheoun?) also, what do you all think of the reasoning presented in this article for placing the tabernacle in a separate chapel?

[url="http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Sep1996/wiseman.asp#F2"]http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/.../wiseman.asp#F2[/url]

this is the first time i've read a response like this and my initial reaction is to disagree. what do u all think? let me know

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[goldenchild17]

I had kind of forgotten about this. Still very interested in the topic though. It seems that the American churches(in general) have over-done everything and read into the documents. Like what you brought up, "the tendency" is now "the norm", integrating "some vernacular for some of the prayers" is now "all vernacular all the time". etc. etc.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 18 2005, 11:06 AM']What the decree means is that the missal promulgated by Pope Pius V may not be changed by any authority except the original authority that issued it, i.e., the Papal Magisterium.  In other words, the authority that gives an indult can revoke an indult, and no Pope can bind his successors on disciplinary matters; and quite clearly, the issuance of a liturgical book is a disciplinary matter. Thus, when Pope Paul VI issued the new Roman Missal in 1969, he was acting with the authority given to him by Christ the Lord Himself in the person of blessed Peter, and was establishing the normative liturgical prayers for use within the Roman Rite.

Decrees of this kind are not infallible acts; instead, they are merely normative, that is, they are disciplinary acts to which obedience must be given. [/quote]

Is there anything in the document that shows that this missal can be changed by the magisterium at a later date? There seems to be strong language in the document that says for always and eternity etc.

I have been told that this is a disciplinary matter and is therefore not infallible for always and eternity. But is there a document that says this? The document uses pretty strong language that this missal is to be used in "perpetuity" as the document states...

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Cam42' post='644786' date='Jul 15 2005, 06:26 PM']I thought that was Joan Jett and the Blackhearts...... [/quote]
Alan Merrill and Jake Hooker of The Arrows actually. For them it was a nice little tune, for Joan Jett it would be a hit.

No fair.

[goldenchild17]

wow, two years has passed since I started this thread... I remember this like it was yesterday.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1305236' date='Jun 29 2007, 04:58 AM']wow, two years has passed since I started this thread... I remember this like it was yesterday.[/quote]


this thread rocks!

[goldenchild17]

haha, somebody in a good mood today?