Talk:Mass of Paul VI
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details. |
| A | This article has been rated as A-Class on the Project's quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale. |
This article has gone off the deep end, with contributers refrencing each other in a way that is very confusing for the reader.
I'm moving the older contributions to archivs
For new Talks please KISS --Emes 10:37, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Revision
I've tried to delete some unqualified sentence. --Emes 10:37, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Revision II
I've done a full rewrite of the article; much of the old content has been retained, but in a reworded/clarified form. Please leave your Questions/Comments/Insults here. -- Essjay · Talk 00:52, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
Question for Dominick: You removed a link to two screen captures of EWTN's "Ask an Expert" Q&A. The screen captures in question are of Fr. Levis saying that the Novus Ordo Missae is a "complete fabrication," followed by an edited version of that answer. I would like to see proof of this "denial." Seattle Catholic linked to the "complete fabrication" post with a link entitled "EWTN Expert on the Novus Ordo Mass." Traditio.com and Novus Ordo Watch (two sedevacantist outfits) also linked to it. But most importantly, I "reported" on it before any of them because I saw the Q&A posts -- both of them, the original "complete fabrication" post and the edited version -- with my own eyes at EWTN's website. One of those screen captures at the link you deleted is my own; the other was taken by someone else. If EWTN is "denying" this, then some serious liars work for them. So: did EWTN lie on top of editing Fr. Levis's post? Used2BAnonymous 10:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I have no response to you, however the response from Fr. Levis was in error. Your website seems to be one of the few to carry this "revelation". Dominick (TALK) 16:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Remove Monograph link
I removed the fisheaters link, it is to a monograph website, inserted in violation of wikipedia guidelines by the website owner. Dominick (TALK) 17:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
For the story behind the slanderous accusations from Dominick and JG of Borg regarding the EWTN screen shots, see this page and, especially, the associated discussion page (half way down) Used2BAnonymous 21:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
For the story behind Used2BAnonymous's false accusations, spamming, consensus ignoring, and POV pushing, see [this RFC page] (unsigned User:Jgofborg) oops, sorry about that JG of Borg 00:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
How silly this is. Ok sorting this out. Dominick (TALK) 00:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] External links
The "external links" section is manifestly excessive. WP:EL suggests good reasons for including links; what we seem to have here is a rehash of the argument which the article describes (and describes well) via offsite forks. In my view there should be a small number (one or two) links to authorities describing / supporting the establishment view, and a similar number of sites to authorities (i.e. not monographs) presenting the dissenting view. And those should really be sources, not external links. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 11:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I express no opinion for or against this view by Just zis Guy, you know?. I just don't understand Samuel J. Howard's justification for removing it. I have therefore reverted. Lima 12:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Hmm, I think I just made a mistake and removed instead of restoring stuff I thought had been anonymously removed.--Samuel J. Howard 00:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] The Liturgy of the Eucharist
I added a section on how The Liturgy of the Eucharist had changed when the Mass was revised. Aside from the language used, I think the changes made there are major ones. Probably 80% of that part of the Mass was said silently by the priest, as opposed to today when it's all said aloud.
JesseG 19:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] This is a most useful article~!
I am writing a book on this and many other topics related to modern Catholicism and how both the "rabid Traditionalists" who believe the Church began in Trent and the "rabid Modernists" who want to sink the Church into a pit of experimentation are both just plain wrong. In the end, our Church is led by Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, and for each age, the Church has its own independent level of "appropriateness" that never forgets that God's values and priorities never change. I am very much looking forward to the new English Liturgy, as admittedly the current version was, at best, a paraphrase. I hope to locate the authors to ask them a few things, and to get permission to use some of the comments in the book. sullivan72@att.net -
[edit] Archbishop Bugnini
The sentence which Lima and I disagree about reads as follows:
"Many Traditionalists regard it as very significant that one of the churchmen most heavily involved in the liturgical reform was Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, who remains a controversial figure in the eyes of some."
I can't see that this is POV. Surely the fact is that trads do indeed look upon Bugnini as a villain figure, and that, for that reason, he is controversial. As to whether there is any substance in the rumours against him, the merits or otherwise of the evidence are discussed in the article on Bugnini himself, from which the wikireader can draw their own conclusions. Ancus 12:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- We need, I think, something more concrete than the vague "controversial figure". I hope Ancus will agree with my revision specifying the Traditionalists' accusations against him. Lima 13:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Text merge needing verification
I'm making Tridentine a dab page and mergine text to appropriate places. This content, if true, seems like it might fit in this article. (Note: I didn't write this.) Gimmetrow 14:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Before his election as Pope Benedict XVI, then Cardinal Ratzinger showed great interest in supporting the traditional Catholic movement, himself offering the Traditional "Tridentine" Mass for groups such as the Fraternity of St. Peter. In the preface to "La reforme Liturgique en question" by french liturgist Klaus Gamber, then Cardinal Ratzinger called the new rite of Mass promulgated by Pope Paul VI, "a banal on the spot fabrication." He meant that it had been formed by a commission of liturgical experts rather than changing by the traditional practice of "organic development." He wrote, "In its [the liturgical movement after Vatican II] practical materialization, liturgical reform has moved further away from this origin. The result was not re-animation but devastation."
There are two elements, as I see it, in what is here said about Cardinal Ratzinger.
The first seems to me to be quite an exaggeration: calling "great interest in supporting the traditional Catholic movement" the fact that he (how many times?) offered Mass in the 1962 form for the Fraternity of St. Peter and perhaps similar groups not in dispute with the Holy See. It would be far more significant if he had even once offered Mass in the 1962 form for a group of the ordinary faithful. What he actually did does not, as far as I can discern, indicate any special support for "the traditional movement".
The second concerns a curious interpretation of what Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in his preface to the French translation (La Réforme liturgique en question) of the book Die Reform der Römischen Liturgie. The person who wrote the above text would have us believe that Cardinal Ratzinger called the 1970 Roman Missal "a banal on the spot fabrication", expecting us to swallow the notion that a revision that took I do not know exactly how many years to prepare could be described as "on the spot". What Cardinal Ratzinger actually wrote can be read, for example, here. He was, of course, talking not about the revision, but of how the revision was all too widely misapplied in actual practice ("dans sa réalisation concrète"), turning the liturgy into a show, trying to make religion interesting through fashionable nonsense and seductive moral maxims - truly "a banal on the spot fabrication" and not the liturgy of the Church.
Cardinal Ratzinger at no point of the preface proposed a return to the pre-1972 liturgy. He called instead for "a new spiritual impetus", so as to wrest the liturgy from the whims of parish priests and their "liturgical teams" and return it to being a community activity of the Church ("une nouvelle impulsion spirituelle est nécessaire pour que la liturgie soit à nouveau pour nous une activité communautaire de l’Église et qu’elle soit arrachée à l’arbitraire des curés et de leurs équipes liturgiques").
What Cardinal Ratzinger condemned was the do-it-yourself "liturgies", the can-you-top-this showmanship that pays little attention to the texts and norms prescribed by the Church. In fact, what he wrote was in support of the Mass of Paul VI against these aberrations.
The writer of the Wikipedia text claims instead to know what Cardinal Ratzinger really meant, and that he meant something quite different from what he seemed to mean: "He meant that it (not the malpractice of certain parishes, as one would think from the context, but the 1970 Roman Missal) had been formed by a commission of liturgical experts rather than changing by the traditional practice of 'organic development'." This quite unfounded statement I attribute not to bad faith, only to wishful thinking. Lima 15:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- If you think any of it fits in the "criticism of practices introduced after 1970" section, please add it. One other point from the Tridentine text that may fit this article: it mentioned that the Second Vatican Council "called for a continuation of Latin in the Mass and Gregorian Chant and did not call for wholesale changes to the rite of Mass. Instead, the council fathers of Vatican II spoke of the use of vernacular languages in the Mass and more active participation of the faithful." Gimmetrow 15:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Not everyone would agree with the implicit claim that there have been "wholesale changes to the rite of Mass". "Called for" is somewhat too strong: what the Council decreed on the use of Latin was: "The use of the Latin language, with due respect to particular law, is to be preserved in the Latin rites. But since the use of the vernacular ... may frequently be of great advantage to the people, a wider use may be made of it, especially in ..." (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 36). And on Gregorian chant: "The Church recognizes Gregorian chant as being specially suited to the Roman liturgy. Therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services" (ibid., 116). The emphases are mine. Lima 18:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Generally I think if someone has taken the trouble to add coherent text, it probably contains something worth preserving. (This is why I object to people reverting two weeks of edits.) I removed a lot of text from Tridentine to make it a dab page, and that text had a couple ideas that weren't really mentioned well elewhere. One of those ideas is that Vatican II encouraged preserving Latin/Chant, which isn't preserved. That criticism may not be valid, but it seems likely that some people make that criticism. Gimmetrow 19:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Sacrosanctum Concilium called for the use of Latin/Chant in the mass above other forms. So it is correct to state that Vatican II encouraged the preservation of Latin/Chant. Roydosan 12:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, the criticisim states that current practice is not in accord with Sacrosanctum Concilium. Gimmetrow 14:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Then it is a fair criticism. Roydosan 15:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
