Replies

In order that the Christian people may more certainly derive an abundance of graces from the sacred liturgy, holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself. For the liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change. These not only may but ought to be changed with the passage of time if they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become unsuited to it.

The changes willed by the approximately 2700 to 4 vote of the world's Catholic bishops in the document cited above can be summarized as 1) restore the active participation of the people, 2) remove accretions and duplications which crept into the Roman Mass in millennium before Pope Pius V imposed it on the Latin Church, and 3) manifest the proper sacramentality of the Mass as an act of Christ, Head and Body. These were legitimate and long over-due reforms, as the virtually unanimous vote of the hierarchy shows. Other goals of the reforms can be read in Sacrosanctum Concilium.

It seems these discussions surface periodically. Given the number of threads currently running on the topic of the mass, I felt it was time to toss this one out for discussion.

The bishops voted 2700 to 4 in favor of a general restoration of the liturgy itself.

Whether or not you agree with the liturgical changes undertaken by these 2700 bishops, the liturgy of the Novus Ordo remains valid.

The lay person's role in the effecting of the Eucharist was accidental (in the philosophical sense of not being "of the essence"), though the rubrics required the presence of at least one layman (to complete the sign of Christ, Head and members). As a consequence, the people were left to pray privately, their active role fulfilled by the servers. Put another way, their Mass participation was primarily devotional (the rosary, prayer books etc.), as opposed to liturgical (giving the responses, following the prayers devoutly etc.

In fact, that's the reason for the proliferation of popular devotions, like the rosary, the Stations, Novenas, litanies, and other "sacramentals."

The laity did other things during Mass to keep occupied and to give themselves some form of prayer that THEY could participate in.

Thanks for this, BTW. Donovan is very concise and clear.

Thank you for posting this article. It is an elegant reply to all those who blame "the spirit of Vatican II" for the current liturgical train wreck. The facts of history as described by Donovan make it clear that Vatican II itself, in its very first document, 3 years before the council came to a close, many years before the "legacy of the council" could have been "hijacked," initiated the overthrow of the traditional Catholic Mass and the start of a new era of endless experimentation. The vote of 2700 to 4 shows how thoroughly bamboozled were all the bishops, including Lefebvre. I wonder who were the 4?

Bumping for a later read. I read a few years ago that Cardinal Ratzinger favored a liturgy like the Byzantine(sp?)rite.That would be beautiful,IMHO! The more we can have a liturgy like the Tridentine rite or the Byzantine rite is all for the good. We do not need further protestanization of the liturgy,IMHO. When a person tells me that they went to an Episcopalian service and "it was just like our Mass" something is VERY, VERY WRONG!!

Fr. D's analysis of "actuosa participatio" can be the topic of a long discussion. He leans toward the translation "active" which is not precisely accurate. A better word would be "actual" and some very learned theologians have interpreted this in the sense of 'metanoia,' a 'conversion'or 'conformance' of oneself to Christ.

This aside, the utilization of the 'dialogue' Mass prior to V.II was a fruit of the liturgy movement, and a good one. Although people were to respond in Latin (and they did,) few complained of "not understanding," as their Missals were quite plainly in both English and Latin, side-by-side.

The complaint voiced by Sinkspur (the Rosary ladies) is accurate, but voiced in a manner which tends to overstate the problem. There were a number who said the Rosary. There were a number who fell asleep. There were a number who came late/left early. So what? There are those, TODAY, who fall asleep/don't sing/talk between themselves.

We will always have those who don't SEEM to "participate" at Mass--or don't even seem to PRAY at Mass. What shall we do about that?

The answer of some was, in effect, reductio ad absurdum, and they managed to eliminate, almost root and branch, the idea of "sacred time/sacred space," beginning with elimination of the sacral language and proceeding with the elimination of sacred music, then going far beyond both--to the elimination of the Tabernacle as the center of sight and worship.

This has led to blue-jeaned, shorts-attired, T-shirt & sneakers worshippers and, as one would expect, a somewhat casual treatment of the King of the Universe in ways both minor and major. Yet this is applauded as "active" participation.

Go figure.

The new G. I. R. M. (Including Adaptations for the Dioceses of the United States of America)

And the new G. I. R. M. without the Americn Diocese adapatations

Questions and Answers about the General Instructions for the Roman Missal

G. I. R. M. adapatations (American) approved by the Holy See

General Instruction of the Roman Missal [G. I. R. M.]

Bishop: "Let chaos storm! When will it stop, change after change in liturgy? Never!"

The Return of the Latin Mass?

A reform of the reform of the reform--what a looney hall of mirrors. In fact what the Vatican needs to do is scrap the Novus Ordo altogether. It has already destroyed the faith of millions and has protestantized an entire generation. The Pope and his bishops need to return to the Catholic faith.