20 August 2007

God has a sense of humor

For so many years, if you tried to protest the innovations in the Mass, you could be severely reprimanded by Sister/Father/Bishop/whoever. "Vatican II required it."

Thanks to the Internet, cellphones with cameras, YouTube, blogs, etc., the truth about what Vatican II did, and did not, teach is out there.

Fr. Martin Fox is one of those serene and sane priests who is taking much of his valuable time to use the Internet as another way to teach.

He writes in his blog, Bonfire of the Vanities:
... this discussion raises a very significant question: have we got Vatican II right? If not, what would a proper celebration of the liturgy, in view of Vatican II, look like?

This really is the question facing us. This is why we’ve had so much activity, in recent years, focused on the Mass: revision in the Missal, revision of the translation, stricter norms from Rome and the bishops, a lot of re-evaluation of music and particular components of the liturgy, a greater emphasis in the seminaries on liturgy, the exhortation we’re studying, and a revival of questions about the old rite, the Mass of Pius V.

And if I haven’t piqued your interest enough already, let me do so with some more surprises, concerning what Mass according to Vatican II might look like:

Ø The Mass does not envision use of hymns as we know them. None.
Ø The Mass can be celebrated legitimately in Latin or the local language (i.e., English for us), but even where the vernacular is used, some Latin is expected.
Ø While communion under both species is encouraged, it is not required, and has some practical difficulties that may make not doing it all the time more appropriate. One of those concerns has to do with over-using "extraordinary ministers of holy communion." I.e., how "extraordinary" is a ministry if it is routine?
Ø There is nothing wrong with the "old" architecture.
Ø While the priest facing the people is a well known change since Vatican II, the Council did not require it nor even mention it! In fact, what happened was that 1964 document, from Rome, proposing implementation steps, merely said the following: "It is better for the main altar to be constructed away from the wall so that one can easily walk around the altar and celebrate facing the people" (Inter Oecumenici, 91).
Father points out to a commenter that this last was not from a document from the Council.

We are blessed to have the right to have reverent worship again ... whether in the ordinary or extraordinary form of the Latin rite.

No comments: