Post intelligent and civil comments. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the NLM
Don't be surprised to see in the document on the Most Holy Eucharist a total repudiation of 90% of what USA liberal priests, bishops, liturgists and nuns have stood for for the last 40 years !
I will be flabbergasted if the document contains anything of the sort. It's exciting to imagine what would ensue if it did: but total repudiation isn't the sort of thing we've come to expect.
Well... maybe. Modern popes aren't known for repudiating things. Encouraging, yes... repudiating, not so much. The principle dilemma faced by the current Holy Father is integrating the competing (is there another word for it?) realities of Sacrosanctum Concilium on the one hand, and Ecclesia Dei on the other. Good luck with that! Everybody turn in your Liber to page 1866, and sing Oremus pro Pontifice nostro Benedicto... like, every day.
"This fall may bring a papal document on the Eucharist spelling out what he wants to see changed."
Why does it have to be assumed that change is coming? Why not just improve on the quality of preaching, music, art, and archtiecture?
Todd, there's the whole ad orientem thing, for one, with regard to the Pauline Rite. While I don't think B16 is going to"repudiate" versus populum liturgies outright, I think that in this upcoming document he is going to call for a re-discovery and return to the classic orientation, in addition to affirming it as the normative way to celebrate Holy Mass.
I think too that he is going to do more than simply "liberalize" celebrations of the older rite; I sincerely believe he will make a most impassioned appeal for each and every priest in the world to become "intimate" with it, to know and understand its movements and prayers, and to learn to celebrate it; and that without calling for it to replace the modern rite, but rather to enrich their ministry and devotion, and the devotion of the entire Church.
"Why does it have to be assumed that change is coming? Why not just improve on the quality of preaching, music, art, and archtiecture?"
Maybe we assume or hope for change because a liturgical revolution has rocked our Church since the late 1960s.
What excuse can be given for the Novus Ordo Missae? In the opinion of many conservative liturgists, our Holy Father included, the Paul VI missal creates inexcusable breaks with liturgical tradition. This, we believe, must change for we are a Church that develops organically, not radically. And we are a Church that respects the past, not scorns it. It is only fitting that the conduit for expressing this Faith of the Church, the Liturgy, should reflect these sentiments.
Whosebob,
Yeah, we all wish! But your already using quotation marks from an imaginary document that may or may not be forthcoming!
This pope is sincere.
"Anyone like myself, who was moved by... the Liturgical Movement on the eve of the Second Vatican Council, can only stand, deeply sorrowing, before the ruins of the very things they were concerned for." -Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.
The so-called classic orientation is not a major liturgical issue. If you want to go patristic-classic, you can be assured that the root tradition of the Pesach would find people oriented as they would be at table. Trust me: there is no driving theological reason for legislating a single orientation for the clergy.
I can't imagine any serious theologian would encourage *all* clergy to aspire, in effect, for a liturgical bi-rituality. People want and need good preaching.
The supposed breaks from tradition with the 1970 Missal are illusory.
Todd: I would not be so sure about the ad orientem issue if I were you. As I've stated on this site many times, I believe the change to versus populum was far more radical and had more serious consequences even than change in language and music. It turned the priest into an entertainer or a personality rather than a celebrant. The old rubrics were designed to obviate the very thing that occured. I believe returning to the ad orientem posture for the Canon would have a profound salutory affect, by reining in the "entertainer priest" and restoring much of the balance that was lost. Tom
"I believe returning to the ad orientem posture for the Canon would have a profound salutory affect, by reining in the 'entertainer priest' and restoring much of the balance that was lost."
I agree that the 'entertainer' is a burden, but if you look at any traditionalist web page, the photos are all about the clergy, servers, and other assistants.
Antiphonal worship or worship in the round also can do much to rub out the performer on stage mentality, something that clergy and musicians can abuse and have abused through the years.
If you did a survey of mainstream Catholicism, you'd find a lot of suspicion coming with "turning one's back" on the people or sealing oneself in a loft. Certainly, there's no cure-all for performers intruding on the liturgy. But any system can be coopted by narcissism. I suspect the pope realizes this.
Todd: Thanks for commenting. Mainstream Catholicism is pretty sick at this stage in its history, liturgically speaking, so I don't know if I would appeal to that. The Church is not a democracy and needs to lead and not follow polls. In terms of traditionalist websites, the focus is more on the altar of sacrifice and the tabernacle with the priest as just the humble servant severely circumscribed by the rubrics as to what he can or cannot do. If more priests adhered to the current rubrics, truly adhered to them, much of the entertainer problem might go away, but clearly, returning to celebrating the canon ad orientem would be an objective means of putting a severe crimp in the style of the entertainer priest. Tom
"The supposed breaks from tradition with the 1970 Missal are illusory."
Hmmm. We got a new temporal cycle, re-organized sanctoral cycle, the abolishment of Epistles and Gospels dating back to the first millennium, the replacement of proper prayers dating to around the same time, the addition of Eucharistic Prayers formed by committies or lone scholars, an Offertory different from Offertories in all other rites (the rest focus on the coming Sacrifice, the new Offertory focuses on bread and wine), and the removal of ancient rituals and ceremonies, en masse.
Of course, this is all illusory and the Church regularly experiences this kind of radical change. And the tractors are still running, right? :)
Todd,
You advocate better preaching, but the Missal you advocate stripped from our priests the books and commentaries that enabled them to plum the depths of the missal. In short, the new missal removed from them the centuries of wisdom that accompanied the classical Roman Liturgy, and has told them to start over. This is the recipe for bad homilies. And the 1969 Reform is to blame.
You advocate better music, art, and architecture. However, the Novus Ordo Missae has made the Liturgy that built the Catholic culture of regal music, art, and architecture a distant memory. The roots between the normative Mass today and the Mass that inspired such people and work as Giotto, Mozart, Palestrina, and Romanesque and Gothic churches, has been severed. The only heritage that the Novus Ordo can claim is a Lutheran or Anglican one, for it is in those reformed rites that one can find a prototype of the 1969 reform, not the Gregorian Catholic Mass and culture.
The answer is a return to New Revised Liturgy of Vatican II - the 1967 Roman Missal. With a return to this reformed Mass, the liturgical spirit can be recovered. I believe that this return to true reform would strengthen the "hermeneutics of continuity" that our Holy Father has encouraged in regard to the Second Vatican Council.
If we're willing to settle for nothing less than continuity in our liturgical rites, we'll be more willing to seek continuity in other areas of our Faith (e.g. religious liberity, collegiality, our approach to the world, ecumenism, renewal of religious life, etc.).
Todd,
The supposed orientation of the patristic-classic liturgy would not find the participants sitting around the table. The would in fact all be orientated in the same direction. Further, regardless of what the Pesach meal originally consisted in, the universal development throughout the whole of Christianity was orientation to the East. This orientation is that which can truly be called the Patristic orientation. Thus St. Basil includes praying towards the east as among the kergyma of the Church which should be regarded as sacrosanct as the sacred scriptures themselves.
The Holy Mass is not identical to the Pesach. It arises from it, to be sure, whether directly or indirectly through the influence upon Sabbath meals and such. However, Christ gives to this "meal" a new meaning and a greater reality. Therefore, we cannot and should not attempt to reduce our liturgical forms, gestures, etc. in order to replicate what only foreshadowed the Last Supper. Rather, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is a far greater reality which found its traditional expression in the classical liturgies, all of which are agreed on the principle of orienation.
"Why all these somewhat esoteric things? Why not some of the major badness you see in the average parish that they will never get rid of"
You just answered your question. You said these parishes will never get rid of their liturgical breaks with minor traditions. Why won't they get rid of them? I say it is because they know of no other paradigm in which to operate. If you spurn the past in regard to your proper prayers, Canon Missae, and temporal/sanctoral cycles, then Communion in the hand and female altar boys is little to be concerned about.
Restore a reformed missal (not a revolutionized one), and you'll have a better chance at restoring liturgical sanity in the small things, not to mention, a restoration of tradition in other areas of the Church.
My friends, you're focused on peripherals. Catholics of the period 1850-1960 were losing track of the essentials--priests and bishops included.
Some--but certainly not all--of the traditionalists are caught up in a meterialism and narcissism of their own. Their photos are almost always about the clergy. Far less often do you see the view from the pew and of the people in the pew.
Discussions like this quickly descend to the level of personal taste. I don't like female servers. I don't like seeing the priest's face. I don't like music with meter. I don't like lay people giving me Communion.
Speaking for myself, I think I have more important things to worry about today.
"Total repudiation isn't something we've come to expect from modern popes."
You obviously haven't read John Paul the Great's Encyclical on the Eucharist, which IMHO contains the most definite, clear, concise explaination of the Mass being a sacrifice, and not just a "fraternal meal," that has been issued in modern times.
To put that Encyclical into context, when it came out, I was about a month away from being received into the Church. I was in the middle of studying the nature of the mass, making sure I knew exactly what went on during it, and when this wonderful document came out, it ensured that I would never fall prey to any of the liberal theology that we've experienced over the last 40 years. It leaves no ambiguity about transubstantiation, the role of the ordained priesthood, etc. John Paul the Great specifically said in that document that it was hope that the Encyclical would help to beat back the shadows that have crept into the Church over the last 40 years.
Read the Encyclical and see for yourself.
Todd: It seems you've become dismissive of people you disagree with. It's not all about taste, it's not all peripheral, a lot of the posters bring up substantive points and instead of answering them you regress to generalities, opinion, and go off in a huff. You're better than that. Tom.
The Holy Father will not act as decisively as people expect with the speculated document. People keep expecting the axe to fall but BXVI has shown us from the beginning that this will not be the papal style under his reign. The change of the tiara to the miter tells all. He does see the problems in the liturgy and has been outspoken in a reform of the reform. He also knows the chaos created by sudden change and so he will continue to work on the foundations rather than the lofty archicture to create a solid basis of renewal. He will plant seeds that will only grow after his pontificate is over and the blooms will come much later than that. That is the history of the Church with regards to change (outside of VII).
Tom, I'm afraid that for many people, it is all about personal taste. LAst time I checked "major badness" was a modern expression for "something I don't like."
Just show me in Sacrosanctum Concilium or the GIRM where it criticizes female servers, lay ministers of Communion, worship in the round, the vernacular. Such criticisms are not rooted in any kind of pronounced theology coming from the Magisterium. They are expressions of liegitimate pastoral need and appropriate diversity.
Time to go back into my huff. If you want to talk real theology, e-mail me with a question to answer or visit my blog on comment on Lumen Gentium.
but you of course are above that...right Todd?
CatholicMonarchist...
I hear the pope's next encyclical is entitled "Tiara nostra".
" ... but you of course are above that...right Todd?"
Not at all, my friend. I struggle with the same junk anyone else does. I just put up more bluffs because I run in the minority here.
touche!
Tom:
Congratulations! Once again you have garnered all the attention. It true that its all negative; but heck there is no bad publicity. Right.
Also, as a good church bureaucrat when in doubt you mumble and when you lost an argument you change the subject. What has good preaching to do with anything? Did Vatican 2 mandate bad preaching so that all the Pope has to do is correct this one lttle thing, which incidentally is not your worry. You are the liturgist. Don't anybody invade your job security!
We have a liturgist like you. I believe our liturgist will have to be chased away cause that person has a tin ear too.
Good luck if and when reforms are introduced.
Todd: None of what you cited is relevant to Sacrosanctum Concilium. In truth (other than the vernacular) none of what you cited would have been authorized in 1963, no chance, no way. Those items would have derailed it from ever passing. Girl altar servers came about through rank disobedience eventually "normalized" by a demoralized Magisterium and virtually no Church in the US adheres to the actual rules mandated by the Magisterium for extraordinary ministers. What we do know is that the letter and the spirit of SC is violated everyday by priests, no Latin, no organ, etc. So if you must, please go back in a huff to your website. I guess lex orandi, lex credendi carries no weight with you. Tom
All I know is that when I follow the rubric which tells me to greet the people with the Dominical formula "eyes down" I am reminded that I am "alter Christus" - as St John Vianney said the priest does not say "This is the Body..." he says "This is My Body"...
IF rubrics and propriety were taught in our Seminaries still the Pauline Mass would not have become the awful mess we see it as now. I remember watching pre-VCII priests say the new Mass with dignity, decorum and in full rememberance of their "alter Christus" status as celebrants. If only this attitude had been continued we would not have quite the same polling we have now about "who and how" priests say Mass like minor celebrities of the coffee morning set!
I await with eager anticipation for what the Holy Father will say - but I won't hold my breath for a victory for traditionalism. It won't happen like that, it will be subtle - let's just hope that whatever it is, it is backed up forcibly and not allowed to be brushed away by the Bishops' Conferences...
John, you must be referring to Todd?
Yes, I think John misaimed on that one.
"What has good preaching to do with anything?"
That was the point, in part of my original post on this thread: "Why does it have to be assumed that change is coming? Why not just improve on the quality of preaching, music, art, and archtiecture?"
The point is that outside of the legislative arena, there is much to improve upon in the liturgy as it is celebrated in parishes. We need more clergy like John Chrysostom. Did you know he was against applause at Mass? That should make him a reform2 hero.
"Don't anybody invade your job security!"
Doesn't really matter. I've moved on from parishes when my work in those places was done. If liturgists were no longer needed in parishes, I'm sure I'd find some way to further the Gospel and have fun in the trying.
Tom, you posted, "Girl altar servers came about through rank disobedience eventually 'normalized' by a demoralized Magisterium ..."
I find it interesting that organum and polyphony have the same pedigree.
" ... and virtually no Church in the US adheres to the actual rules mandated by the Magisterium for extraordinary ministers."
Really? My parish does. Are you saying our 10-minute Communion processions at our two big Sunday Masses are for naught and we should just grin and go for thirty or forty? Seriously, though: what *are* you talking about?
This would be a prime example of what I'm complaining about: the indulgence for bringing up peripherals and nurturing long-simmering resentments.
There are a lot of picky things I dislike at my parish. Most of the time, I recognize them as fairly important, but bucking them is not essential to the core mission of the gospel. I could spend time on them I wouldn't be spending elsewhere, and at some point I just have to let go. That would be my advice for people who are so distracted by what other people are doing in your parish, or what other parishes are doing, or the hurt you feel from long ago. At some point you have to get over it and move on.
or spend your energy making them better-part of which is not settling for what is wrong.
Todd, I seriously doubt that the introduction of organum and polyphony were introduced through rank disobedience. The introduction of altar girls was purely ideological. And yes, I have been in many many parishes where there were adequate numbers of priests to distribute communion and they didn't. That is a violation of the rules governing extraordinary ministers. By the way, when the little things (peripheral)become unimportant the big things generally end up becoming unimportant as well. Tom
It probably won't happen, and that's a missed opportunity, but I wish Benedict XVI would ban altar girls, women at the altar, lay "Eucharistic MInisters of Holy Communion", Communion under both kinds and in the hand, as well as Mass facing the people.
I don't know if many of the contributors watched the EWTN papal coverage in Germany, but I caught two ceremonies with the Pope in magnificent cathedrals. I saw the beautiful high altars in marble, bronze and gold. Then I saw the hideous Vatican II table-altars that looked like picnic tables placed in front of them. They looked very Lutheran (or any kind of Protestant for that matter) . They'd fit in well in any evangelical Church.
Looking at what we've lost in those beautiful marble altars which really were masterpieces of art, and then gazing at the Protestant style tables now in use, I was suddenly enlightened.
Now I know why so few people the world over go to Mass, and why vocations have dried up to almost nothing.
When you see beauty and are surrounded by it, and participate in the best (as with the marble altars) then you want to give God the best.
But when you see the stark, bland, banal, boring, uninspiring, unimpressive, simplistic, everyday run of the mill junk, then the opposite holds true.
It's mirrored in the faces of people I've gone to Mass with.
At the Tridenitne Latin Mass everyone is bright and attentive, absorbed in the beauty of the Mass.
At the Novus Ordo (like last week), everyone's expression seems to be saying "Get on with it so we can get this over with and go home".
What a difference.
"Some--but certainly not all--of the traditionalists are caught up in a meterialism and narcissism of their own. Their photos are almost always about the clergy. Far less often do you see the view from the pew and of the people in the pew."
Todd certainly has a point. Of course, the modern traditionalist movement gets most of its impetus from priestly movements: Piux X Society priests forming the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter; the Institute of Christ the King and their growing priestly apostolates; various monasteries; etc. I am all for giving him more of the view from the pew. It is obvious from his comments that he does not know personally many of the young Catholics who have claimed an attachment to the Missal of 1962, nor has he inquired as to the theological rationale they brought to that decision, or the spiritual benefits they garner from it, for themselves and their young (often large) families. Probably all easily dismissed as matters of taste. But if in the traditional Mass movement we are dealing simply with an overreaction to peripherals, it's looking more and more like mass hysteria on a grand scale.
Priests and babies. Sort of all comes down to that in the end. You do the math.
Yes, Kenjiro, in the great battle against secularism, and in the fight for the recognition of the Christian roots of western culture, I hope at the least, Benedict reclaims Christian art and architecture. In making such things redundant the Church has been complicit, in a major way, in the secularisation of the west.
Says Todd: "Speaking for myself, I think I have more important things to worry about today."
Well, off you go and worry about them Todd. SOMEHOW we'll get by without your omniscient dismissiveness.
"At the Tridenitne Latin Mass everyone is bright and attentive, absorbed in the beauty of the Mass."
Yes, think of how less hospitable to the attention and gaze of children the stripped-down churches are. My kids miss the cathedral. There they could, and did, gaze at the Austrian stained-glass windows, ask questions about the statues, and who they were, be in awe of the sanctuary, where Important Things Happened, and in general find themselves in a delightful wonderland.
Now, in the "family parish" with the school, there is less of that. It has been stripped, and is very "brown" in that 1970's brown style. And the kids are not as sensorily engaged. Books about Mass help: the ones with beautiful illustrations of the churches before the ecumenical iconoclasts (however well-intentioned) got to them.
In my young adulthood, I visited Baptist churches regularly. There, the sanctuary has only the preacher and the choir. I looked in vain for something to focus on. It was more like a meeting. Granted, Christ was there, but it's a very abstract sort of feeling to think about that. You have no visual focus. You have to "generalize." How much more fully was I engaged when I returned to a relatively unscathed Roman Catholic church.
Abstraction is an adult skill and requires the exercise of reason without aid and comfort. It can easily lapse into a Protestant mode of, in my opinion, over-spiritualization.
I am Roman Catholic in my blood and bone, and I thank God he instituted the sacraments and nurtured a Church to give them a form I, though darkly, can recognize. In this sense, even the most riotous Baroque decoration is an act of mercy.
Pes
You are absolutely right about children having a hard time in bare churches. My parish church was 'renovated' in the '60s when i was a small child. They removed the high altar and reredos and the triumphal arch, opening up the whole sacristy. With all that room around it, the altar ended up looking quite small and insignificant. And so it became hard to focus on anything. I always had a hard time concentrating in church after that. Taking out the statues didn't help either.
"I am Roman Catholic in my blood and bone, and I thank God he instituted the sacraments and nurtured a Church to give them a form I, though darkly, can recognize. In this sense, even the most riotous Baroque decoration is an act of mercy."
I couldn't agree more, although i think riotous Baroque decoration would be absolutely delightful! ;)
I am an ad orientem man myself, but I can see some benefits in versus populum. One particular aspect of versus populum that I find very beneficial is the fact that one can see the sacrificial offerings before your eyes. You can adore Christ's Real Presence more easily as It seems more 'real'. When Novus Ordo is done properly and reverently, the fact that you can here the eucharistic prayer really helps you pray. I often find in the Tridentine mass the sacrifice becomes disjointed from the faithful. I'd say that there a pros and cons for each approach, but there is no absolute rule. I don't think therefore that it would be wise to legislate against versus populum. What is more important is the priest's attitude towards the sacrifice. In the average parish, unfortunately, the priest himself becomes the centre of attention. This is not because of versus populum but because of the way in which the priest celebrates it. Versus populum can be done well, but it is certainly harder than ad orientem.
Sorry Tom, it should have been Todd.
John
"One particular aspect of versus populum that I find very beneficial is the fact that one can see the sacrificial offerings before your eyes. You can adore Christ's Real Presence more easily as It seems more 'real'. When Novus Ordo is done properly and reverently, the fact that you can here the eucharistic prayer really helps you pray. I often find in the Tridentine mass the sacrifice becomes disjointed from the faithful." -Daniel
Daniel imagine, if you will, never having the experience of a versus populum mass. What would your attitude be toward the fact that the sacrifice was done that way? I remember the first time that I went to the Divine Liturgy to see what Eastern Catholics did, I knew that the priest did not face the congregation, and was curious about what this would be like. I soon realized that this was my first experience of a truly transcendent liturgy, it had the stability and feel of something that transcended time itself, ageless. There was a very strong sense of mystery that was immediate, and undeniable in its impact. I had a felt that I was witnessing a sacrificial act, it was a feeling that I had never felt with the modern Roman rite which felt banal in contrast. This liturgy was done in the old St. John's Prep High School in New Orleans. The environs were to say the least humble, iconography somewhat poor, the acoustics dead, and the space was small with a dropped ceiling and florescent lights, not exactly inspiring. But to this worshiper it touched eternity. I chalk this experience up to the novelty of being my first time, but more importantly the liturgy itself, since I returned many many times and even assisted as a acolyte, the novelty of it naturally wore off, what remained was the genius of the liturgy in its beauty. Ad orentium, beautiful language(vernacular and Old Church Slavonic) and gesture, mystery and transcendence, tradition and impassioned faith, made this experience what it was. In reading the Vat II constitution on the liturgy, I was left with the impression that what the Council Fathers desired to achieve was something closer to what our Byzantine brothers experience. Perhaps we can pick up some clues from them.
Ad orientem in my mind is something indispensable to this experience, it its obviously congruent with the words and actions of the liturgy at least in my perspective as a priest. Why would I face Joe Shmoe when I was speaking to John Q or the congregation when I was appealing to God? Would John Q be confused or Joe? Indeed they would. A few months ago I asked the attendants of a daily Mass (versus populum) who was being addressed when I said "Through Him, With HIm, In Him..." They sheepishly responded to this unexpected question "Us?" These were people who I would say were more attentive and understanding of the Mass than most Catholics, yet due to the mixed signals of and confusion of versus populum they at least on the gut level got the wrong message. Multiply the exp
Daniel,
I once felt exactly like you. However, over time I've realized the obligation we have to not innovate. We can no more break with apostolic and patristic tradition on facing East during the Liturgy of the Eucharist than we can make dogmas out of personal opinions. We don't innovate in the Catholic Church, no matter what our sentiments on the matter might be.
That said, saying the Canon aloud is a fine restoration of ancient and patristic practice (at one time the Canon could be said both silently and aloud). The aloud Canon was permitted by "Tres Abhinc Annos", in May 1967, two years before the New Mass.
Well said Fr. John!
Let's face it, it is just bad manners and downright rude to face the people during the EP! I look at someone (or a group of people) and talk to someone else? Duhhhh! Even Miss Manners would have to arguably be an "ad orientem (ad Deum)" girl!!!
Facing in someone's direction is not the same as making eye contact with them. One of the reasons I favor worship in the round is that it makes the presider's direction irrelevant: neither toward or away from the people, and it maintains a common radial orientation of the people.
By the way, to whom is Jesus facing when he rebukes Peter in this Sunday's Gospel?
But the celebrant's direction IS relevant! That's the whole point of liturgy Liturgy is symbol, it reveals an unseen reality! Even Pope Ratzinger believes this is a superior orientation.
Do you get the irony of Our Lord's words to Peter in this Sunday's Gospel??
He's looking at Peter, of course.
8.33 says "turning and seeing his disciples". So ESV and RSV and DR. Jerome put "videns". Mark wrote "idon". (Which mean seeing.)
The only translations that say "looking at" are the NRSV and the ASB, hmm, those are the translations used liturgicall in Canada and the US.
"But the celebrant's direction IS relevant!"
In relation to God, yes. Not the people.
Sometimes we talk too much to ourselves.An awful lot of people drifted out of the church at the time of the reform and some of them because of the reform.I know because too my shame I was one of them.Many are still out there and so are their children.On my own return to the church,and evn now much about the reform and particularly its frequently banal performance represented an obstacle to me and I'm sur to many others.People come to the church in search of the transcendent not the cosy.Indeed the problem with the cosy is that it becomes inward looking and fails to reach the many, detached, who hunger for transcendence.
I fear that the much anticipated document on liturgy, will be a GREAT disappointment to many. For all of the hand wringing and loud lamentations of regret regarding the liturgical mess, our current Holy Father has chosen to 'gently suggest', rather than 'authoritatively mandate'. We all know what happens with 'gentle suggestions'--they are generally ignored, and eventually evaporate. Perhaps some greater latitude may indeed be granted to the celebration of the TLM, but the wording of the document will be of such cautious ambiguity, as to make any substantial freedom virtually unobtainable in reality--the Bishops will see to that.
I dunno truefaith
Im getting more and more cautiosly optimistic all the time. Our pope is gentle but pretty unwavering as far as I can see. he may yet suprise us all besides, he has the Holy Spirit on his side!
Todd...
It IS relevant to us!!! That's the point of the liturgy. The liturgy is for US to encounter a reality of God. God does not have need of sacraments! He IS the sacrament. The orientation of the celebrant as well as everything else is most important, to us. We need revealed to us the divine realities.
However we are not the focus of the liturgy however, Christ the Father is (an ancient patristic theme). Todd, I feel that given your posts of the past, you instinctively know this very basic liturgical theology, so I just don't know what you're really trying to say here.
Thy Kingdom Come!
I'm most interested in the speculation that generated this thread. What evidence do we have that such a document is coming? I'm just remembering the rumor frenzy surrounding the universal indult that was supposedly coming on Holy Thursday this past year!
I imagine a lot of the Holy Father's influence in the liturgy will be simply by example and gentle suggestion. It will be up to the pastors of souls to take the hint and move things forward on the ground. Without cooperative clergy, even commands won't be effective.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
