If, as some of the progressives on this forum would have us believe, a person is “disobedient” when they question the liturgical reforms of 1970; then how do they explain the fact that Cardinal Ratzinger wrote the Preface to “The Reform of the Roman Liturgy” by Klaus Gamber?
In this book Gamber stated the following:
“Obviously, the reformers wanted a completely new liturgy, a liturgy that differed from the traditional one in spirit as well as in form; and in no way a liturgy that represented what the Council Fathers had envisioned, i.e., a liturgy that would meet the pastoral needs of the faithful” (p. 100).
Gamber is clear and unequivocal: a large mistake has been made with regard to the liturgy, unprecedented in the Church’s history.
Was Cardinal Ratzinger “disobedient” in supporting Gamber’s work?
The manner in which the question was stated seems to express a bit of a “gotcha” mentality…which may simply be my mistaken reading. I hope its not as we should all act in charity.
I have not read Gamber’s work and therefore can not react to his specific qoate. But Benedict, in his moto proprio on the Tridintine Liturgy, acknowledged the validity of the liturgical reforms carried out by the Second Vatican Council. I would suggest that indeed one cannot disclaim the teaching validity of an ecumenical council confirmed by a Bishop of Rome. Nor do I suspect that Benedict ever had this in mind, even if writing a forward to a book who’s author supports such a notion. Obviously it is important to recognize that Klause Gamber is not an authoritative interpretation of the will of the Council. Simply an author with an opinion.
Benedict seems to offer us a view liturgy which is gratious - affirming both the liturgical renewal of the council and the desire of those who find value in the Tridintine liturgy. Hopefully this generosity of spirit marks us all in the era of “post liturgical wars” that Benedict has ushured in.
You are missing the point. Many of the changes were not sanctioned by VII and are being repudiated by the present Pope. The days of Paul VI are OVER dude. Mass facing the people, for example, is one of the changes not called for by VII. Watch this outstanding video on this point: gloria.tv/?video=qmiojfeadzvdmgeit1sz
The phrase “The days of Paul VI are OVER dude.” is a little odd to say the least. The tone of response lacks charity first of all. Such English is indicative of a culture slavish to disrespect and casualness in all things.
Sacrosanctum Concillium doesn’t speak explicitly of the celebration of liturgy ‘versus populum’ becuase the Constitution established guidelines for reform and not its particularities. That task was left to the Concilium and the Holy Father. The Concilium and Paul VI all found the liturgy ‘versus populum’ to be a legitimate option. Three factors confirm its validity:
All popes since the Council - Paul VI, John Paul the Great and Benedict XVI - have celebrated ‘versus populum.’ More importantly it has never been ‘forbidden’, just the contrary.
The Concilium - the canonically established interpreters of Sacrosanctum Concillium - repeatedly affirmed this option.
National bodies of Bishops, those who made up the Council and voted on its documents, requested the practice, thus indicating that they indeed believed that Sacrosanctum Concillium envisaged such a possibility.
If such a practice was contrary to the will of Council it would have never been introduced. It’s rather odd that if Benedict is repudiating something, he does regularly what he repudiates, both as Secretary of the CDF and now as the Bishop of Rome.
Lastly, it’s important in this internet-era to do historical research with primary sources (i.e. original texts, eyewitnesses, sound historical commentary, etc.).
Benedict’s generosity in spirit, including things liturgical, should mark all our lives.
Not true. The Council was kept in the dark about how radical the changes would be. Read the dialogue from the Council floor that is presented in the book The Rhine Flows into the Tiber. and you will see that there were statements made by individuals about major changes but none of that was put into the Constitution on the Liturgy
Monsignor Klaus Gambler was there and as he says in his book Reform of the Roman Liturgy
“ One statement we can make with certainty is that the new Ordo of the Mass that has now emerged would not have been endorsed by the majority of the Council Fathers.”-
Cardinal Heenan in his book, A Crown of Thorns wrote:
“The subject most fully debated was liturgical reform. It might be more accurate to say that the bishops were under the impression that the liturgy had been fully discussed. In retrospect it is clear that they were given the opportunity of discussing only general principles. Subsequent changes were more radical than those intended by Pope John and the bishops who passed the decree on the liturgy. His sermon at the end of the first session shows that Pope John did not suspect what was being planned by the liturgical experts. “
The Council was never told of the changes that were going to be introduce by a group of theologians after the Council was over.
The priest facing the people was never discussed.
"**The liturgical renewal in our own century took up this alleged model and developed from it a new idea **for the form of the Liturgy. The Eucharist, so it was said, had to be celebrated versus populum (towards the people). The altar – as can be seen in the normative model of Saint Peter’s – had to be positioned in such a way that priest and people looked at each other and formed together the circle of the celebrating community
…These arguments seemed in the end so persuasive that after the Council (which says nothing about "turning to the people") new altars were set up everywhere, and today celebration versus populum really does look like the characteristic fruit of Vatican II’s liturgical renewal. In fact it is the most **conspicuous consequence of a re-ordering that not only signifies a new external arrangement of the places dedicated to the Liturgy, but also brings with it a new idea of the essence of the Liturgy – the Liturgy as a communal meal…This is, of course, a misunderstanding **of the significance of the Roman basilica and of the positioning of its altar, and the representation of the Last Supper is also, to say the least, inaccurate…
For right now Pope Benedict is putting up with the priest facing the people until he can makes changes. If you saw the Papal Mass at St Patricks in New York he was facing a crucifix and at the same time facing the people. The crucifix represents liturgical “East”. Only a matter of time before he introduces the rubric of the priest and people facing the same direction, toward the Tabernacle, most likely during part of the offeratory and the consecration and elevation of the host.
Originally Posted by oblsbdc If such a practice was contrary to the will of Council it would have never been introduced. It’s rather odd that if Benedict is repudiating something, he does regularly what he repudiates, both as Secretary of the CDF and now as the Bishop of Rome
How do you explain communion in the hand which was never spoken of at the Council and was in fact contrary to the will of Pope Paul VI.
Memoriale Domini 1969****
“in view of the gravity of the matter and the force of the arguments put forward, the Holy Father has decided** not to change **the existing way of administering holy communion to the faithful.”
If you use "sound historical commentary "you will come to the conclusion that the Constitution did not explicity establish guidlines because the theologians that wrote the New Mass knew that such changes would have never passed.
One important thing to remember , the *Constitution *was written by the same theologians that wrote the new Liturgy.
They knew before the Council started that there would be radical changes made to the Mass but they kept silent about their plans.
It’s simple, we had an extremely weak Pope and a weak man in Pope Paul VI.
I rememeber hearing stories that Pope Paul VI spent nights in his room crying because he didn’t know what to do.
Pope Paul VI was also mislead with ecumenism. He believed the lies that were told to him about ecumenism and the liturgy. He honestly believe the New Mass would attract the Protestants to the Church in massive numbers. There would an ocean of conversions.
Sadly, the conversions went the other way as massive numbers of Catholics exited the Church.
=ethelzguy;3732784]I am constantly baffled by the repeated claims that Church leaders somehow changed the whole Catholic world, unbeknownst to Rome and the others in charge of things.
Do some research and you won’t be 'baffled"
We didn’t have the internet back then, but it wasn’t exactly Pony Express days either.
I was alive back then. There was protest. Mostly in Europe.
How are we to believe that a group of “renegade bishops” somehow hoodwinked Rome?
When Cardinal Ratziger states in *Spirit of the Liturgy *that the priest facing the people was not addressed at the Council and Archbishop Ranjth saying that communion in the hand was introduced as an abuse, are they conspiracy nuts or just stating the honest facts.?
And, that being said, if what was done was so awful, why didn’t Rome step in and squish it like a bug, as is her right and duty?
Rome moves slowly and Rome does seem to be stepping in now.
I too think you missed the point. All authors seem to have an opinion. Apparently, though, some are more influential than others. Hans Kung was probably much more influential than others, in fact, some say he was the guiding force behind Vatican II, but would you call him obedient? Only to the extent he hasn’t been formally excommunicated maybe. But aside from that, many could say he is still in good standing with the Church.
Hmm…well, as to the discussion at large, I suppose I really don’t have much of an opinion whether the preist should celebrate toward the people or not. It has been allowed, indeed, the Pope does it, and I find nothing wrong with it. If the Holy See ever decides to change the practice (which I believe is very far from a foregone conclusion, very far indeed), I will readily obey.
I do find it unjust to condemn a Pope of Rome based on a rumor that he wept in his room every night becuase he did not know what to do. First of all, we have no idea whatever of whether or not that is true. Secondly, even if it is true, then we were surely blessed to have a Pope who cared so much about doing the right thing that he approached God with tears of heartfelt sincerity.
More caution should be urged when speaking of Hierarchy and especially Popes, present and past. Whether or not we agree with everything they did, we risk sinning by speaking of them without the respect their holiness and God-given office deserves. We particularly risk sinning if we spread rumors about them which may harm their reputation.
Apparently Sherlock Holmes has joined the discussion!
Yes, I “lifted” the quote from a man named Alcuin Reid. Do you know who Alcuin Reid is? He knows more about liturgy than you or I could ever hope to. He is one of the Church’s foremost experts on liturgical history. So please excuse me if I trust his judgment. Actually, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote a preface to one of his books as well: The Organic Development of the Liturgy.
The point of the thread was to show that one could question the wisdom of the liturgical reforms of 1970 without being “disobedient” or schismatic. So I would ask progressives on this forum to stop levelling such charges against Traditionalists.
Once again I am ashamed at the tone of those who supposely so spiritually and ardently advance a liturgical cuase:
*"Apparently Sherlock Holmes has joined the discussion!
Yes, I “lifted” the quote from a man named Alcuin Reid. Do you know who Alcuin Reid is? He knows more about liturgy than you or I could ever hope to."*
You should go to confession and confess your lack of charity.
In the end the entire argument in this thread comes down to the necessary conclusion that somehow an elite set of five theologians has hoodwinked the universal church, four popes including, John Paul the Great, who all apparently could have issued a moto proprio and brought the entire great scandal/ cherade to an end but failed to do so.
The fact that the same bishops who voted on SC and went home then requested and recieved permission for communion in the hand, and liturgies celebrated “versus populum,” more eucharistic prayers, celebrations in the vernacular - but never intended any of it, either in thier vote for SC (becuase they were duped) and then in the subsequent seeking of permision for all these things, which the Holy See granted, is absolutely absurd.
Is one to belive that the the indefectable Church has indeed apparently defected? It has errored in its liturgy for 40 + years. It is an apostate unto itself - for the Holy Spirit who led the calling of a ecuemencial council was duped in its implementation by a handful of liturgists and theologians!? The incredulity of this assertion boggles my mind. Those who hold such views, as the Lefebvrist, are at least logically coherent on this account.
Moreover, The General Instruction of the Roman Missal - American adaptation (aproved by Rome with juridical force by the recognizio of the Holy See) indicates that the American posture for recieving communion is to stand - and those who do contrary are to be catechized at an appropriate time upon the instruction and reasons for the rubric. Yet all this is one great farse, approved by Rome, during the reign of John Paul the Great with Ratzinger as head of the CDF and will soon be put aright by the man who oversaw the approval to begin with?
If all this can happen to a Council of the Church we are standing on sand.
I think John Paul II’s initial moto proprio granting access to the Tridintine liturgy for the elderly, and Benedict’s broad appeal to access of the pre-vatican II liturgy, all while afirming and upholding the validity of the rites approved by Paul the VI show a generosity in spirit that we are all missing. May we all pray for humility in thought and action as saint Benedict proposes in his Rule. Only then will we be found worthy of eternal life.