• "I remember one priest saying we needed to replace the crucifix with a lighted candle to symbolize the resurrection."

    That priest is then a Protestant at heart.
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    CharlesW, you are probably right; I think we can intuit that. But there was no rationale given, no debate, no order, no discussion, no evidence that it was considered at all, so it would be wrong to call it a suppression. For all we can tell, it was an oversight.
  • Andrew
    Posts: 22
    Vatican II may not have "produced" the Novus Ordo but it was part of the "official" Vatican II reform and promulgated by Pope Paul VI who restricted the use of the Traditional Roman Rite Liturgy to aged and infirm priests and only if they were no congregation present.

    Did Pope Paul VI have a right to place these restrictions on the Traditional Roman Rite was the question raised by Archbishop Lefebvre, Abbe de Nantes and others which culminated in John Paul II's Indult and Benedict XVI's recent document freeing up the Roman Church's traditional liturgy.

    As I recall, at the time of the Vatican II "reforms" the "Mass of the Resurrection" replaced the "Requiem Mass".

    I know for a fact that white vestments were mandated -- purple or black were not allowed.

    I would venture to opine that the "Dies Irae" was intentionally suppressed by the ICEL or whatever "authority" dictated the "new liturgy" in the local parishes.

    In the immediate aftermath of the liturgical reform, I call recall stories of Catholics requesting the traditional Requiem Mass for their deceased relatives and being refused by the parish priest on the grounds that it was "forbidden".

    There was a great amount of upset and confusion at that period.

    I would venture to add that there would be unpleasant consequences for any priest who "disobeyed" these dictates from the ICEL or whatever authority ruled with an iron fist for the very things that Pope Pius rejected in "Mediator Dei."

    I remember my grandmother complaining about the Protestant hymns being played in the churches (which nobody sang) wondering why Catholics hymns that everyone knew and liked weren't played instead.

    "Praise to the Lord" she said -- "Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition!"

    Pius XII in "Mediator Dei" (1947) foresaw all of this:

    62. Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion.

    But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device.

    Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path

    were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform;

    were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments;

    were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches;

    were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.
  • G
    Posts: 1,396
    "As I recall, at the time of the Vatican II "reforms" the "Mass of the Resurrection" replaced the "Requiem Mass".

    I know for a fact that white vestments were mandated -- purple or black were not allowed."

    Surely not mandated by any one or group that had the authority to so mandate?
    And was there anything official that dubbed the new Mass of Christian Burial the "Mass of the Resurrection" or was that just jargon from the trendists?

    (Save the Liturgy, Save the World)
  • I recall one funeral our choir sang. We spoke to the celebrant and said we would sing all the chants for the Requiem Mass.

    "What do you mean? There is no longer such a thing as a Requiem Mass."

    "Oh, I'm sorry, Father, I meant Mass for the Dead."

    "Yes, ok, that's right."
  • athome
    Posts: 31
    Perhaps an easy answer exists but I cannot find it, but would someone be able to tell me how I might use the Kryie from the Requiem Mass in Ordinary Form? It is not explicitly mentioned in 'the order of Christian funerals'. Any help would be appreciated.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,835
    Quoted from Andrew:
    "Vatican II may not have "produced" the Novus Ordo but it was part of the "official" Vatican II reform and promulgated by Pope Paul VI who restricted the use of the Traditional Roman Rite Liturgy to aged and infirm priests and only if they were no congregation present."

    I would argue that the Novus Ordo was not part of the Vatican II reform, since the council had been over for several years. It was promulgated by Pope Paul VI. The one thing I do agree with Archbishop Lefebvre about, it that he supposedly told Paul VI that he wasn't worthy of the office. I am afraid his pontificate caused a greater loss of faith than was caused by any of the Protestant reformers. Paul VI was a weak and vacillating pope who took the church in directions never intended by Pope John XXIII. I do believe Paul VI was a holy man, but one whose experiences, background, and greatest abilities were as a Vatican diplomat, not a pope.
  • That's why God sent us Benedict XVI.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,835
    Amen. I believe Pope Benedict is God's gift to the Church. May God grand Pope Benedict many years in health and happiness.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,835
    *&^* typos! May God GRANT Pope Benedict many years in health and happiness. Long may he reign.
  • Andrew
    Posts: 22
    Charles W writes:

    "I would argue that the Novus Ordo was not part of the Vatican II reform, since the council had been over for several years. It was promulgated by Pope Paul VI. The one thing I do agree with Archbishop Lefebvre about, it that he supposedly told Paul VI that he wasn't worthy of the office. I am afraid his pontificate caused a greater loss of faith than was caused by any of the Protestant reformers. Paul VI was a weak and vacillating pope who took the church in directions never intended by Pope John XXIII. I do believe Paul VI was a holy man, but one whose experiences, background, and greatest abilities were as a Vatican diplomat, not a pope."

    It would seem that Pope Paul VI established the "Concilium" to "implement" the Vatican II "Constitution on the Liturgy". Telling that when put up for a vote at the Synod of Bishops in 1967, 71 bishops voted placet (approved), 43 voted non placet (not approved) and 62 voted placet iuxta modum (approved with reservations).

    Hardly a unanimous acceptance of the Novus Ordo by the bishops who presumably voted at Vatican II for the "Constitution on the Liturgy".

    "In 1964, Pope Paul VI, who had succeeded John XXIII the previous year, established the Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia, the Council for Implementing the Constitution on the Liturgy.

    "The instruction Inter oecumenici of 26 September 1964, issued by the Sacred Congregation of Rites while the Council was still in session, and coming into effect on 7 March 1965[4] made significant changes to the existing liturgy, though the form of the rite was substantially preserved.

    "Some sources speak of a "1965 Missal", but this generally refers to orders of the Mass that were published with the approval of bishops' conferences, for example, in the United States and Canada, rather than an editio typica of the Roman Missal itself. The changes included: use of the vernacular was permitted; the priest was allowed to face towards the congregation, if he wished, throughout Mass; there were some textual changes, such as omission of the Psalm Judica at the beginning, and of the Last Gospel and Leonine Prayers at the end.

    "The 1967 document Tres abhinc annos, the second instruction on the implementation of the Council's Constitution on the Liturgy,[5] made only minimal changes to the text, but simplified the rubrics and the vestments. Concelebration, and Communion under both kinds had meanwhile been permitted,[6] and, in 1968, three additional Eucharistic Prayers were authorized for use alongside the traditional Roman Canon.

    "By October 1967, the Consilium had produced a complete draft revision of the liturgy, and this revision was presented to the Synod of Bishops that met in Rome in that month. The bishops attended the first public celebration of the revised rite in the Sistine Chapel. When asked to vote on the new liturgy, 71 bishops voted placet (approved), 43 voted non placet (not approved) and 62 voted placet iuxta modum (approved with reservations). In response to the bishops' concerns, some changes were made to the text."