Martin Luther is quoted saying that the withdrawal of mass would herald the end of the church. Departure from the traditional catholic mass appears to have had similar effect. Debate has been simmering over the decades since Vatican II instituted drastic changes. It has pitted conservatives against modernists with evident cracks among the congregation. The debate revolves around what benefits the changes brought.
The Vatican II appears to be a point of reference with its injection of modernism. The argument against modernism suggests that the call for ecumenism has led to false faith. It is an attempt to restore or maintain the tradition of a church that has survived centuries following the same format.
The desire to modernize the liturgy is not monopolized by the current generation. History has it that St. Athanasius was faced with the same quest in the fourth century. His letter to the faithful helped to stop a wave that sort to change the status. He encouraged Catholics to remain faithful to tradition and resist the urge to adopt practices that would cripple the body of Christ.
The old order, referred to as Trindentine, is supported since it had taken centuries to curve. Dismantling it by the stroke of a papal declaration would be erroneous. Conservatives are alive to the fact that the faithful owe the pope blind obedience. His Extraordinary Magisterium allows him to institute such changes, but they must not be at the expense of its essence or form.
The entry of a new version did not mean that the old one was to be abandoned. The pope formed a commission that was to advise him on the best way forward. The difference can be felt in the order of mass and arrangement at the altar. These differences make the two versions distinct.
Before the Eucharistic celebration begins, the priest would perform the rite of consecrating water for sprinkling to the faithful. It was mixed with salt and a defined psalm sung as the priest sprinkled the water on the congregants. There was a different dress code for the main celebrant from that of co-celebrants.
The procession entered the church with a chalice that was placed on the credence table. All the while, the deacons, altar servers and priests had their back on congregants. An antiphon is recited before the sign of the cross can be made.
Changes in the administration of the communion also instituted by Vatican II are subjects of controversy. Originally, only the priest administered the communion. It was to be placed on the tongue instead of receiving using hands. Tabernacles were also removed from the center and place on the side. This signaled dilution of the centrality of communion in the lives of Catholics.
The effects of introduction of this new order appear to border a disaster other than helping the church. Since the 1960s, there has been a dramatic decline in numbers within the global Catholic Church. Vocations have also dwindled to a trickle causing concern among the masses. The debate has shifted to the possible effects of reverting to the old order. Conservatives wonder if reverting would reverse this trend.
The Vatican II appears to be a point of reference with its injection of modernism. The argument against modernism suggests that the call for ecumenism has led to false faith. It is an attempt to restore or maintain the tradition of a church that has survived centuries following the same format.
The desire to modernize the liturgy is not monopolized by the current generation. History has it that St. Athanasius was faced with the same quest in the fourth century. His letter to the faithful helped to stop a wave that sort to change the status. He encouraged Catholics to remain faithful to tradition and resist the urge to adopt practices that would cripple the body of Christ.
The old order, referred to as Trindentine, is supported since it had taken centuries to curve. Dismantling it by the stroke of a papal declaration would be erroneous. Conservatives are alive to the fact that the faithful owe the pope blind obedience. His Extraordinary Magisterium allows him to institute such changes, but they must not be at the expense of its essence or form.
The entry of a new version did not mean that the old one was to be abandoned. The pope formed a commission that was to advise him on the best way forward. The difference can be felt in the order of mass and arrangement at the altar. These differences make the two versions distinct.
Before the Eucharistic celebration begins, the priest would perform the rite of consecrating water for sprinkling to the faithful. It was mixed with salt and a defined psalm sung as the priest sprinkled the water on the congregants. There was a different dress code for the main celebrant from that of co-celebrants.
The procession entered the church with a chalice that was placed on the credence table. All the while, the deacons, altar servers and priests had their back on congregants. An antiphon is recited before the sign of the cross can be made.
Changes in the administration of the communion also instituted by Vatican II are subjects of controversy. Originally, only the priest administered the communion. It was to be placed on the tongue instead of receiving using hands. Tabernacles were also removed from the center and place on the side. This signaled dilution of the centrality of communion in the lives of Catholics.
The effects of introduction of this new order appear to border a disaster other than helping the church. Since the 1960s, there has been a dramatic decline in numbers within the global Catholic Church. Vocations have also dwindled to a trickle causing concern among the masses. The debate has shifted to the possible effects of reverting to the old order. Conservatives wonder if reverting would reverse this trend.
About the Author:
You can visit traditionalcatholicpriest.com for more helpful information about The Traditional Catholic Mass Debate.
No comments:
Post a Comment