OCP Additions/Deletions in ‘Breaking Bread’ and ‘Music Issue’ for 2022
  • CatholicZ09
    Posts: 109
    Attached is what OCP is adding and removing in its English missals for 2022.

    Some notable changes: addition of “Jesus, My Lord, My God, My All,” “Ave Verum Corpus,” “Come Down, O Love Divine,” “Savior of the Nations, Come”.

    Most of the deletions this year come from He Who Must Not Be Named.

    Other than that, seems par for the course for OCP—a lot of new offerings by Hart et al.
    Thanked by 2MarkB CHGiffen
  • bhcordovabhcordova
    Posts: 968
    Wow! I didn't realize that Voldemort wrote music for OCP!
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,169
    He wrote devil music.
  • MarkB
    Posts: 630
    I'm amazed that Breaking Bread has had so much staying power among Catholic parishes even though I've heard it's in sharp decline from the height of its popularity. You pay for at least 90% of the same music you bought last year, the new music isn't any good, the song numbers change each year making it cumbersome to use historical archives of music plans, and you're at OCP's mercy regarding what it includes or excludes each year.

    As another current thread is discussing, the commercial hymnal model might be obsolete, given that parishes can print their own public domain hymnals or weekly music sheets and get reprint rights from One License or CCLI for commercial music they might want to use.

    It's not difficult at all these days for an enterprising music director to create a custom parish hymnal or an adequate substitute at minimal cost compared with purchasing a full set of congregational hymnals (every year).
  • I'm surprised they are removing Mass of St Francis Cabrini from Breaking Bread. In my area it is quite popular.
  • CatholicZ09
    Posts: 109
    Nathan, they have to make room for Sarah Hart!!!!
    Thanked by 1mattebery
  • irishtenoririshtenor
    Posts: 1,215
    I did the survey and argued vociferously for SWEET SACRAMENT and DOWN AMPNEY in particular. Maybe they listened to me?!
  • tandrews
    Posts: 100
    I'm surprised they are removing Mass of St Francis Cabrini from Breaking Bread. In my area it is quite popular.


    Finally, I can argue this with my pastor that we can stop using it. Then again he would probably prefer the Pony Mass knowing this.
    Thanked by 2ServiamScores tomjaw
  • stulte
    Posts: 307
    Then again he would probably prefer the Pony Mass knowing this.


    Some day, someone, somewhere will compose a Missa Equus Parvus Meus and it will be both good and popular!

    Back to the original subject...with so much PD music freely available on the internet and the ubiquity of computers and printers, who needs these kinds of publications anymore which add unpredictability to planning a parish music program (if, indeed, they ever did)?
  • Bobby Bolin
    Posts: 403
    Every time the Diocese of Cleveland mandates a mass setting, OCP pulls it from the missal. I'm a little sick of it anyway.
  • jclangfo
    Posts: 185
    It's not difficult at all these days for an enterprising music director to create a custom parish hymnal or an adequate substitute


    nd the ubiquity of computers and printers


    or...projector screens

    Regardless if people like them, they're an emerging technology and I've seen them in a handful of Catholic parishes
  • irishtenoririshtenor
    Posts: 1,215
    And they’re tacky, distracting, and wildly prone to typos and other errors.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw hilluminar
  • jclangfo
    Posts: 185
    They're tacky when you try to stick them on to an old church that wasn't built for them. If projector technology is a design consideraiton in the church though I think it works much better. They're becoming quite prominent where the Catholic Church is new and growing in the southern US.

    Also from a perspective of considerning tradeoffs, some might consider projectors a small price to pay for freedom from hymnal companies.
  • Screens have no place in a Catholic Church building, during celebrations of public worship or otherwise.

    Freedom from hymnals can be achieved with means other than screens, and these other means can (but not all do) deepen the participation of the faithful.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw hilluminar
  • jclangfo
    Posts: 185
    Screens have no place in a Catholic Church building, during celebrations of public worship or otherwise.


    Bold claim. I doubt you can find any official Church support for this claim. I think this is a matter of subjective opinion, and subjective opinions are going to differ.
  • I don't have my documents in front of me, but there are documents. Additionally, there's the argument from common sense and the nature of the building and the actions which take place there....
    Thanked by 1hilluminar
  • MarkB
    Posts: 630
    My parish has projection screens. It's a circular-shaped church, and the screens are 90-degrees of arc away from the altar, so it's not as intrusive as in some other parishes. I create slides with neumes for the chants we sing and project those, as well as musical notation for all the songs we sing. There are 50 pew hymnals on shelves along the back wall, but rarely do people pick those up to use; most prefer the convenience of the screens.

    I agree slides can be tacky, but they can also be tasteful. Minimalism ought to be the rule. No need for creative background colors nor graphics: just provide the text or the music, like a giant, communal hymnal page. It also helps if the person creating the slides knows how to keep musical phrases on the same slide.

    What I do:

    image

    and

    image

    as samples.

    I used to be ambivalent about screens, now I think they can encourage assembly participation and the church ought not oppose them, which it doesn't at the present time. Just like amplification can be overdone or misused but that doesn't mean that mics should be prohibited, same with screens. Learn to use them well and appropriately and they will enhance the liturgy. And they do provide freedom from the constraints of a hymnal.

    Of course, for people who think the Novus Ordo should be suppressed and nothing other than the Gregorian propers should be sung, no judicious use of anything new in church or during liturgy will be acceptable. Those people don't live in the real world of 98% of Catholic music ministry.
    960 x 720 - 100K
    960 x 720 - 84K
  • tandrews
    Posts: 100
    Bold claim. I doubt you can find any official Church support for this claim. I think this is a matter of subjective opinion, and subjective opinions are going to differ.


    De Musica Sacra, Paragraph 73
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • MarkB
    Posts: 630
    Oh, please... "De Musica Sacra" was issued in 1958. Before personal computers, before MS Office and Powerpoint and other presentation tools, before digitizing technology for musical scores, before the whole technological revolution in the way print media are stored and read.

    All they had in mind back then for projection were filmstrips, slide carousels and movie reels.

    De Musica Sacra is irrelevant to the discussion of whether modern computer projection technology may be used in post-Vatican II Catholic churches during liturgy to aid the participation of the faithful in singing the liturgy or singing at the liturgy.
    Thanked by 1jclangfo
  • jclangfo
    Posts: 185
    Of course, for people who think the Novus Ordo should be suppressed and nothing other than the Gregorian propers should be sung, no judicious use of anything new in church or during liturgy will be acceptable. Those people don't live in the real world of 98% of Catholic music ministry.


    I think that people who want nothing other than the Gregorian propers sung should welcome the new technology. If you're in a building that can accomodate tasteful projection this is way easier than printing your own hymnal and allows you to easily switch between the various resources that are out there.

    Of course, your point is well taken that there is often an underlying attitdue of "nothing newer than 1965" at play.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,463
    All they had in mind back then for projection were filmstrips, slide carousels and movie reels.
    the results are exactly the same... this is a ruse.
    Thanked by 1tandrews
  • MarkB
    Posts: 630
    The results are not exactly the same. Saying something doesn't make it true.

    In the reformed liturgy, based on Sacrosanctum Concilium, the full, conscious, active participation of the faithful in the liturgy is a principal aim.

    1958 was the era of the unreformed liturgy. The faithful were not expected to sing much of anything during the Mass; they hardly had any responses to vocalize at all. The danger of installing a projector in a church in 1958 was that the church would become a movie theater. What would there be to display through projection in the unreformed liturgy? Nothing.

    In the reformed liturgy, the participation and dignity of the assembly are more apparent with the greater number of responses and expectations for singing. Especially for music, that means the assembly has to be provided with written music in some form. Hymnals work. Handouts work too. Projection screens also work.

    A projection screen in the year 2021, being used in a church designed for the celebration of the reformed liturgy in order to provide a convenient way for the assembly to have printed music to sing from in order to fully exercise their role in the liturgy, can be a valid option. There is no substantial difference between music in 500 hymnals for each to view individually and music displayed on a large surface for 500 to view collectively.

    You could say that the screens are distracting, and they could be; but that's a matter of placement and tasteful slide creation, not anything intrinsically wrong with projection itself. Projection screens don't have to be obtrusive and they are not intrinsically obtrusive.

    Someday it may happen that a parish has an app that people arriving for Mass would click on and it would display the entire program for the day's Mass on their phones, which they could follow along to sing the music. So phones could replace screens and hymnals and missalettes someday. I think Source and Summit is moving in that direction. OCP and GIA are offering digital versions of pew hymnals and missalettes that can be accessed on mobile devices. Large screens in churches were first experimented with before mobile phones became smart and ubiquitous. It could happen that projection screens turn out to not have much longevity in churches because they might be replaced by content delivered to personal mobile devices.
    Thanked by 2CharlesW jclangfo
  • Mark, JClangfo, others,

    De Musica Sacra isn't relevant if the rite and the content of the faith are no longer the same, but if the content of the faith is the same.... then the reason behind the ban is still valid.

    Take as a different example, from a different field, the idea of abusing women. Abusing women is wrong, no matter what age of history one lives in not because mores don't change (they do) but because the abuse of women is always and everywhere wrong.

    The Mass is the same action pre and post reform because it is the perfect act of worship, the re-presentation of the sacrifice of Calvary. If the Mass itself is different (not merely parts of its presentation) then before the reform it was the supreme act of worship--- and what is it now?
    Thanked by 2Jeffrey Quick tomjaw
  • De musica sacra of 1958 was ALL about encouraging active participation in the liturgy. And by 1958, lots of the liturgy had already undergone reform.
    Big screens take away the purpose of the church building. I doubt there are big screens in heaven, so there shouldn’t be big screens intruding on our sacramentalized earthly heaven- the sacred liturgy and the sacred spaces in which the liturgy is enacted. Our liturgy should look, sound, taste, smell and feel like heaven. We touch the books containing the Word of God in our chants, and we should treat them with the same respect as the larger ritual books. Breaking Bread is low quality and disposable- another reason to avoid it, if you needed one. Likewise, the impermanence of screen images isn’t good liturgy. One could argue against paper worship aids too, but those may just help and direct people to the hymn book.
  • davido
    Posts: 472
    There was a time when the liturgy was memorized, when the law was engraved on our hearts and not an ephemeral thing on screens, pamphlets, or even in books. As musicians, you all know that one cannot participate more fully than when the material is memorized. If we are not asking the people of God to memorize the liturgy - and even though Notker and Guido found it difficult, maybe we should - the least we can offer them is permanence of the written record.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • davido
    Posts: 472
    Also, it is really frustrating to hear all the praises of the “reformed” liturgy on this thread. Nothing was reformed, it was de-formed.
    Please do some research on the old vs new liturgy.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • MarkB
    Posts: 630
    Also, it is really frustrating to hear all the praises of the “reformed” liturgy on this thread. Nothing was reformed, it was de-formed.
    Please do some research on the old vs new liturgy.

    Please don't be condescending about the reformed liturgy. Remarks like that, which I am reading with increasing frequency on various sites as trads get their panties in a bunch over the possibility (probability?) that Pope Francis might restrict the celebration of the TLM, make me hope he does it.

    Rather than mutual enrichment between the OF and the EF, as Pope Benedict XVI had hoped, what has happened in the years since Summorum Pontificum is that a significant number of trads have become even more disparaging towards the Novus Ordo and, contrary to the unity of the Church, consider themselves to be the stewards of true Catholicism and stewards of the only proper Roman liturgy.

    Already Kwasnieski et alia are showing their true schismatic colors by suggesting that if Pope Francis prohibits or severely restricts the TLM then it might be time for "Catholics" to stop submitting to papal or episcopal authority. To wit:

    If Summorum Pontificum is abrogated, the traditional Roman liturgy will not be abrogated thereby; if Summorum’s provisions are curtailed, that will be no reason to curtail the ever-increasing restoration of our immense treasury of faith and culture. It may be that Divine Providence sees a need to wean us still more from the milk of ultramontanism so that we may exercise our mandibles on the meat of tradition—with or without the approval of prelates.

    Source: https://www.crisismagazine.com/2021/the-tragic-flaws-of-a-great-gesture-summorum-pontificum-at-fourteen

    The postconciliar liturgy, the reformed liturgy, the Novus Ordo is the normal liturgy of the present and the future in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has spoken, the magisterium has promulgated, and the liturgical reform is unstoppable. Deal with it or go to the SSPX.

    Vatican II was not an erroneous council.
    Thanked by 2CharlesW smvanroode
  • Even today, we aren't supposed to proclaim the readings from a tablet computer. That seems like a pretty strong ban on screens in church.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Jeffrey Quick
    Posts: 1,745
    MarkB, you are a man of strong opinions and great courage.
    Sure, many of us, maybe most, work with the Missal of Paul VI. And deal with the mindset that has made functionally obsolete the patrimony of Church music before 1964. But that's (mostly) not why you're getting the reaction you're getting.

    This is:
    Of course, for people who think the Novus Ordo should be suppressed and nothing other than the Gregorian propers should be sung, no judicious use of anything new in church or during liturgy will be acceptable. Those people don't live in the real world of 98% of Catholic music ministry.


    What in the discussion, at the time that you wrote that, brought on that statement?
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • The postconciliar liturgy, the reformed liturgy, the Novus Ordo is the normal liturgy of the present and the future in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has spoken, the magisterium has promulgated, and the liturgical reform is unstoppable. Deal with it or go to the SSPX.

    Vatican II was not an erroneous council.


    At the risk of being corrected for flaming, let's start with "the liturgical reform is unstoppable". This statement (regardless of whatever else you have written) is pure, unadulterated nonsense. God's victory through Mary's Immaculate Heart is unstoppable, because we know from revelation that Christ will come again at the end of time to judge the living and the dead. No liturgical reform (good, bad, or indifferent) is unstoppable.

    As to being the future of the Catholic Church, the fact is that young families with large numbers of children are being drawn to the TLM. The constructive future of the Church (quite literally) is with the young who are raising families in the faith.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 181
    It seems rather spiteful to wish for the elimination of the Mass in the form it was celebrated for hundreds and hundreds of years simply to stick it to "trads"...
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,169

    It seems rather spiteful to wish for the elimination of the Mass in the form it was celebrated for hundreds and hundreds of years simply to stick it to "trads"...


    I think that the TLM, although not the current norm, is a perfectly valid and beautiful mass. Nothing wrong with it other than it became too clericalized over time. I don't want to do anything bad to the mass, but the thought of sticking it to some Trads is rather delightful. They may have it coming.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,611
    What Pope Benedict was calling for in SP was a mutual enrichment, that requires mutual respect. In the letter he sent to all bishops he called for a generous response from them, but he offered the assurance
    Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books.
    A bishop, for example the bishop of Dijon, is evidently morally entitled to say that he requires priests of the FSSP to be willing to concelebrate at Chrism Mass if they are to operate in his diocese. Not to be willing is, as BXVI said, to demonstrate that you are not in full communion with the bishop.
    Thanked by 2MarkB Elmar
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,169
    The priests in my area who celebrate the TLM are diocesan clergy with appointments to regular diocesan parishes. They celebrate the NO as their primary job with the TLM as an 'add-on' to their regular duties. All the flap about what Pope Francis may or may not do to restrict/change/alter the TLM seems to apply only to those societies that only celebrate the TLM. Numbers wise, those societies are minorities not even present in most places. It leads me to believe all the noise some groups are generating is over-blown.
    Thanked by 2MarkB Elmar
  • MarkB
    Posts: 630
    Yes, I think in the post-Vatican II Church, no Roman Catholic communities nor individuals should be celebrating the TLM exclusively. That is contrary to the liturgical reform and contrary to Church unity.

    The chief work to be done is in ensuring that the Novus Ordo Mass is celebrated worthily, with beautiful sacred music and dignified ars celebrandi, not in maintaining a liturgical form that the Church decided was no longer suitable.

    There is much to learn from the TLM that ought to be applied to the Novus Ordo; that should have happened immediately when the reformed liturgy was promulgated, but history didn't happen that way. Many NO celebrations of Mass are characterized by liturgical mediocrity, at best, but that's not an indictment of the NO itself; it's an indictment of those responsible for implementing and celebrating the NO in parishes, due to lax or deficient formation in priests and parish lay staff.

    If those who prefer the TLM are hardening in their stances against the NO and adopting separatist enclave attitudes -- and there is abundant evidence that is happening -- then the mutual enrichment Summorum Pontificum called for is not occurring and a remedy is needed for the sake of Church unity.

    ---

    To Jeffrey Quick: my comment about some people not living in the real world of 98% of Catholic music ministry wasn't directed at a comment on this specific thread but refers to what does come up regularly from the same few commenters on other threads here stating that no music published by OCP or GIA ought to be used at Mass. That's simply not realistic in the jobs that most music directors have. Similarly, rather than opposing screens outright, why not use them to advance sacred music. There is indeed a snobby, dismissive attitude towards anything smacking of modernizing liturgy among a few regular posters here.

    ---

    To Chris Garton-Zavesky: Pope Francis himself stated that the liturgical reform is unstoppable. That's not my quote. Actually, he used the term "irreversible," but the meaning is that Vatican II won't be undone or reversed.
    https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/what-does-pope-francis-mean-by-irreversible-liturgical-reform/
    The Church is solidly on a path that will eventually leave the TLM behind even though it has much work to do in improving the way the NO is celebrated in 9/10 parishes, at least in the United States, based on my experience.

    ---

    To Nathan the Organist: about tablet computers not being permitted for use at the altar or ambo, that has more to do with ensuring that whatever is used for the liturgy is set apart specifically for liturgical use, not used additionally for non-sacred purposes. It's not a statement against using screens in church; it's a statement against using the tablet that you watch Netflix on at home for proclaiming the readings at church. Churches that have projectors installed have them installed permanently in that space, so they are used exclusively in the church for the Mass.
    Thanked by 2CharlesW Elmar
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,169
    I sometimes wonder

    If those who prefer the TLM are hardening in their stances against the NO and adopting separatist enclave attitudes -- and there is abundant evidence that is happening

    if this hardening will eventually lead to schism or creation of groups such as the Russian Old Believers who leave the church behind and go their own way. One could almost conclude that some who post on their YouTube accounts are actually leading in this direction. I get the feeling from posts by Church Militant and others that this is actually what they desire.
  • davido
    Posts: 472
    Or, perhaps the Church is leaving trads behind, and has been for 50 years.

    The Trad position as I understand it, is that the popes authority is to conserve and to hand on the deposit of faith, nothing more. The realization happening today and since the liturgical changes, is that the deposit of faith includes the liturgy, that the rule of prayer and the rule of belief cannot be separated, and that when we have the plurality of ways of praying that the NO offers us, we are going to get the plurality of beliefs that characterize today’s Catholics. For instance, most of them not believing in the Real Presence.

    The attitude that liturgical change can be irreversible and that the Church is being propelled forward by the new liturgy seems ludicrous to me, as I play funeral after funeral for people who clearly did not pass on their faith to their progeny.
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,117
    @davido
    Or, perhaps the Church is leaving trads behind, and has been for 50 years.
    The Church in Germany, Switzerland and France are not leaving anybody behind, the churches are empty and they have no future. The Church in England is following but a number of our English bishops think that the TLM is one possibility for the future. They keep welcoming Traditional orders and erecting communities that exclusively use the TLM.
    Thanked by 1stulte
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,169
    TLM folks over-estimate their numbers and their future impact. If you look at numbers in most any diocese you find, as in my city, one TLM per week and dozens of NO masses. The numbers don't compare with the NO totals being far in excess of the numbers that attend the TLM. I don't see that the anticipated growth is there and find the demand for the TLM is limited and likely to remain so.

    The Trad position as I understand it, is that the popes authority is to conserve and to hand on the deposit of faith, nothing more.


    I suspect you are ignoring the upheavals that followed Trent, as they do for any council. The liturgy of Pius V incorporated changes in effect for the previous 300 years or so but made no attempt to match practices of the centuries prior to that. As I have said before, the church came into existence at Pentecost, not following Trent. If you propose that popes have authority to promulgate a form of the liturgy, then they have to authority to make changes in that liturgy. It goes with the office.

  • Mark,

    I'll respond only to that which you directed to me. The Holy Father is protected from teaching error as if it were truth, or truth as if it were error. He isn't infallible when he announces that the Cubs will win the World Series or when he prognosticates on the future he wishes to see. You're quite right, that he did say that it is irreversible, but the simple fact is that it isn't irreversible. The Holy Father is, straightforwardly, mistaken. Whether it should be reversed is a different question.

    The Church isn't solidly on the way to leaving the TLM behind. In some parts of the world (France, for example) the only growth is among those who adhere to traditional forms of worship and traditional formulations of doctrine and dogma. Among religious communities, which ones are experiencing robust growth in vocations, whether in France or elsewhere? Heck, the Jesuits at Louvain have decided that small is beautiful, in an attempt to cover the fact that fewer and fewer men will apply to the order.

    About the reversal of Vatican II, one would have to define what the term means. Anything the Church taught definitively before Vatican II and still taught at Vatican II can't be undone because it is true. "Active" participation means what Pius X said it means, even now, and Vatican II didn't change that.

    As a sidebar, I'm always puzzled by people who say that others "must accept" Vatican II. What doctrinally binding statements did it make that you think those who love the TLM fail to accept?
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,611
    Popes may not be infallible in their reforms of the lituurgy, but they have absolute power.
    Pastor Aeternus, end of chapter 3 :
    If, then, any shall say that the Roman Pontiff has the office merely of inspection or direction, and not full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which belong to faith and morals, but also in those which relate to the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the world; or assert that he possesses merely the principal part, and not all the fullness of this supreme power; or that this power which he enjoys is not ordinary and immediate, both over each and all the churches, and over each and all the pastors and the faithful: let him be anathema.
  • jclangfo
    Posts: 185
    What doctrinally binding statements did it make that you think those who love the TLM fail to accept?


    Well, in my experience, many trads deep down are motivated by dissenting from Dignitatis Humanae and Nostra Aetate, and not by love for the Traditional Latin Mass. Such is certinaly the case with the SSPX, and has also been the case for many non-SSPX trads I've interacted with. Not saying anyone on this message board is actually doing this, just that we should recognize what the motivations of a significant percentage of trads are if we're going to go down this road.
  • stulte
    Posts: 307
    a_f_hawkins - I don't think anyone's arguing against the Pope's jurisdiction. I certainly wasn't complaining about it when he gave the priests of the SSPX faculties to hear Confessions! It's just that the exercise of authority isn't simply an exercise of will. Authority is given to the Pope to enable him to fulfill the obligations of his position for the governance of the Church and the salvation of souls. If he commands something contrary to that, he can expect to be rightfully disobeyed on that specific point . To put it another, more concrete way; if the Pope commanded me to take part in that ceremonies with Pachamama and that bowl on the altar of St. Peter's, I would have told him no with a clear conscience.

    To all - To get back to the liturgical issue, the first critics of the liturgy were those who wanted to change it. If the rite which was handed down for centuries could be criticized and changed to the extent that it was, what logical reason is there to prevent it from happening again in yet another direction? Or, back to the way things were before Vatican II? Nothing.

    At heart, this argument is over a philosophical outlook. Ought the worship of God be dictated by the pure will of those in positions of authority without question? Or, is the use of authority tempered by sound reasoning enlightened by Faith?
  • In keeping with the Church's understanding, documents vary in the degree of assent they require. What, therefore, is the degree of assent required to the doctrine or dogma in the Decree on Ecumenism and/ or the Declaration on the relation of the Church to non-Christian religions? What, also, is the doctrine or dogma taught by each. (Remember, "pastoral suggestions" aren't dogmatic pronouncements, and the hortatory subjunctive isn't the indicative or the imperative.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,463
    Also, it is really frustrating to hear all the praises of the “reformed” liturgy on this thread. Nothing was reformed, it was de-formed.
    Please do some research on the old vs new liturgy.
    Echo
  • jclangfo
    Posts: 185
    In keeping with the Church's understanding, documents vary in the degree of assent they require. What, therefore, is the degree of assent required to the doctrine or dogma in the Decree on Ecumenism and/ or the Declaration on the relation of the Church to non-Christian religions? What, also, is the doctrine or dogma taught by each. (Remember, "pastoral suggestions" aren't dogmatic pronouncements, and the hortatory subjunctive isn't the indicative or the imperative.


    Non-dogmatic statements of ecumenical councils require the highest degree of assent of anything other than a dogmatic statement. As noted in the Code of Canon Law:
    Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

    Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.
    https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib3-cann747-755_en.html



    With this background, the following doctrinal statement is definitively declared in Dignitatis Humanae:
    2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

    The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.

    It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth. However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom. Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed.
    https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html

    Thanked by 2Elmar Paul F. Ford
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,613
    This is a bit of overreaching.

    Not in the content, but in the level of authority you seem to be entrusting to DH, jclangfo: that is, saying that something was "definitively declared". It's a mistake to say this act of teaching was done "definitively".

    For one thing, it's not terse enough. A Council may declare or otherwise teach that "the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself." But such a statement about a prolix chain of abstract concepts ("right","freedom","foundation","dignity","reason") is, by its nature, not clear and specific enough to be the material of any definitive act.

    The three Declarations presented by the Council are about matters of the Church and the world: Dignitatis Humanae is an exhortation in regard to the Church's relations with the state; the Declaration Nostra Aetate is an exhortation about the relationship of Christians with non-Christians; and the Declaration Gravissimum Educationis is an exhortation about the rights of young people and parents in regard to education.

    None of these presents a thoroughly theologically grounded doctrine to set forth man's moral duties on the subject. They are, to a large extent, addressed to the world, and they use the language of the world. Indeed, the most Scripture-based part of DH, section 14, is not about religious freedom per se, but about the Christian's duty to hold and express the Faith. That's a portion of DH that even its critics probably support.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,613

    Also from a perspective of considerning tradeoffs, some might consider projectors a small price to pay for freedom from hymnal companies.

    The materials projected on screens are subject to the same copyrights as printed materials. Cheaper, perhaps? Maybe someone who knows can say.
  • rich_enough
    Posts: 865
    Yes, I think in the post-Vatican II Church, no Roman Catholic communities nor individuals should be celebrating the TLM exclusively. That is contrary to the liturgical reform and contrary to Church unity.

    Fortunately your opinion is not the policy of the Church, and the reason you give is directly contradicted by Pope Benedict XVI.
    The chief work to be done is in ensuring that the Novus Ordo Mass is celebrated worthily, with beautiful sacred music and dignified ars celebrandi, not in maintaining a liturgical form that the Church decided was no longer suitable.

    Again, the Church has never said it is no longer suitable. Benedict XVI said quite the opposite in his letter accompanying Summorum Pontificum.
    Many NO celebrations of Mass are characterized by liturgical mediocrity, at best, but that's not an indictment of the NO itself; it's an indictment of those responsible for implementing and celebrating the NO in parishes, due to lax or deficient formation in priests and parish lay staff.

    This is true in the strict sense, and I've experienced the NO done well. It's just that a rite is more than a matter of individual celebrations. I would argue that the NO rubrics are in many cases so ill-defined and the options so numerous, that the rite itself does not serve any long-term liturgical formation in either priest or people. For example, most priests in my experience never (or almost never) say a votive Mass, and almost always omit optional memorials, thus leaving out a significant portion of the rite itself, at least for weekday Masses. And all this is perfectly in accord with the rubrics of the NO - and in some cases is actually encouraged. Any given Mass may be carefully done, but the overall effect of the rite is lacking. And this does not even mention the larger issues with the rite as a whole (deficiencies in the calendar, etc.).
    If those who prefer the TLM are hardening in their stances against the NO and adopting separatist enclave attitudes -- and there is abundant evidence that is happening -- then the mutual enrichment Summorum Pontificum called for is not occurring and a remedy is needed for the sake of Church unity.

    Assuming you take the "remedy" to mean more restrictions on the TLM, it seems this would only exacerbate the issue and that the real remedy would be just the opposite - encouragement of a greater number of celebrations of the TLM (and which also is a major factor in the mutual enrichment you mention). The hardening of the stance you lament is (in many cases) a direct result of limiting the TLM, often by unfair or even unlawful means.

    As I've seen more and more TLMs in my diocese over the past years, there's been more people with less baggage in attendance, all serving to "normalize" the TLM crowd, the very opposite of the hardening you talk about. The possible curtailment of this phenomenon - just the thing we need right now - is one of my principal laments should more restrictions be forthcoming.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,611
    rich_enough - is this quotation not contrary to your assertion at the begining of the above post?
    Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. - from LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI TO THE BISHOPS ON THE OCCASION OF THE PUBLICATION OF THE APOSTOLIC LETTER "MOTU PROPRIO DATA" SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM
    Thanked by 1MarkB
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,169
    Just a rock thrown through the window - has it occurred that Benedict is no longer pope? What a pope giveth a pope can take away?