- Nov 2, 2013
- 89
- 56
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Pax et bonum, omnes.
I've been thinking for a while about the liturgical travails that we have endured both before and since the 1970s, how far we have come, and how far we may have to go. One thing I have wondered, being a relative new-comer to the traditional side of Catholicism, is where people see the greatest problems with the post-conciliar liturgy.
Let me state some things outright: I am not interested in debating the validity of the Second Vatican Council's teachings on liturgy or anything else. I accept Vatican II as a valid council of the Catholic Church. While the Ordinary Form Mass may not be what St John XXIII had in mind when he called the council, it is a valid and licit Mass that can be celebrated reverently. But there's the issue: Mass should always be celebrated reverently, right? So is the problem with the Mass, or with the priests?
Now, permit me also to explain what I mean in the poll answers. Please feel free to specify further in a response. I understand there are problems in each of these fields, but pick only the one you think would give the most benefit towards restoring reverence in the Liturgy.
Overly Loose Rules: The rubrics for the New Mass are too loose, permitting irreverent actions or not promoting a spirit of absolute reverence (communion in the hand; the paten, chalice veil, and amice being optional; etc). So is the biggest problem that the Ordinary Form Mass is too easy to say badly?
Alterations of Prayers and Rubrics: I believe many of the traditional Collects have been restored in recent years, as have the Lenten Prayers over the People, but I have heard much grief over the different Offertory prayers, for example. So is the biggest problem that things were changed with no just cause?
Abuses: Even within the sometimes-ambiguous wordings of the GIRM, there are things that are beyond the pale. A layperson reading the Gospel, overuse of Extraordinary Ministers, ad-libbing prayers, these things are not envisioned in Bl Paul VI's Mass, but they happened. Is the biggest problem that people thought they knew better than the Pope in how to renew the Mass, and have strayed from Mother Church's instruction?
Perhaps another way to think about it is this: If the Ordinary Form were always celebrated reverently, would there still be controversy about what it may or may not permit, or whether this prayer or that should have been changed?
I've been thinking for a while about the liturgical travails that we have endured both before and since the 1970s, how far we have come, and how far we may have to go. One thing I have wondered, being a relative new-comer to the traditional side of Catholicism, is where people see the greatest problems with the post-conciliar liturgy.
Let me state some things outright: I am not interested in debating the validity of the Second Vatican Council's teachings on liturgy or anything else. I accept Vatican II as a valid council of the Catholic Church. While the Ordinary Form Mass may not be what St John XXIII had in mind when he called the council, it is a valid and licit Mass that can be celebrated reverently. But there's the issue: Mass should always be celebrated reverently, right? So is the problem with the Mass, or with the priests?
Now, permit me also to explain what I mean in the poll answers. Please feel free to specify further in a response. I understand there are problems in each of these fields, but pick only the one you think would give the most benefit towards restoring reverence in the Liturgy.
Overly Loose Rules: The rubrics for the New Mass are too loose, permitting irreverent actions or not promoting a spirit of absolute reverence (communion in the hand; the paten, chalice veil, and amice being optional; etc). So is the biggest problem that the Ordinary Form Mass is too easy to say badly?
Alterations of Prayers and Rubrics: I believe many of the traditional Collects have been restored in recent years, as have the Lenten Prayers over the People, but I have heard much grief over the different Offertory prayers, for example. So is the biggest problem that things were changed with no just cause?
Abuses: Even within the sometimes-ambiguous wordings of the GIRM, there are things that are beyond the pale. A layperson reading the Gospel, overuse of Extraordinary Ministers, ad-libbing prayers, these things are not envisioned in Bl Paul VI's Mass, but they happened. Is the biggest problem that people thought they knew better than the Pope in how to renew the Mass, and have strayed from Mother Church's instruction?
Perhaps another way to think about it is this: If the Ordinary Form were always celebrated reverently, would there still be controversy about what it may or may not permit, or whether this prayer or that should have been changed?