Are Catholics Bound to Assent to Vatican II?

[StudentMI]

I think the best approach to the Vatican II documents must start with ceasing the School of Bologna approach of viewing the Council as an ‘event’ and focus instead on looking at the documents themselves as written. This is the approach Agostino Marchetto uses in his hermeneutic of continuity.

It seems many in the Church could use a class in New Criticism analysis.

 

[JimG]

I have no quarrell with Vatican II. But I found this tidbit interesting:

“The documents of the Council are twice as long as those of the first seven ecumenical councils put together.”

From Vatican II: A Lawyer’s Perspective

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

So your opinions are just that.

The well-known number 36 of Sacrosanctum Concilium established the following principle:

“Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites”(§ 1).

You see, you actually have problem with Vatican II, not us.

 

[Rubee]

You see, you actually have problem with Vatican II, not us.

I have a problem neither with you nor Vatican II. I just trust that our Bishops and Popes who have never forced us to use Latin know church teaching and its proper application better than any of you.

PS: We tend to be much more faithful than you guys in the West when it comes to church obedience, i.e. not challenging our church or faith. Maybe you guys don’t understand everything about Vatican II’s application everywhere.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I have a problem neither with you nor Vatican II. I just trust that our Bishops and Popes who have never forced us to use Latin know church teaching and its proper application better than any of you.

So Bishops > Vatican II ? Documents exist for all to read. We must avoid Clericalism.

Anyway Africa has their own Rite. Alexandrian Rite is born from African culture. If one uses Latin Rite they are bound to experience European influence. It’s actually inevitable.

PS: We tend to be much more faithful than you guys in the West when it comes to church obedience, i.e. not challenging our church or faith. Maybe you guys don’t understand everything about Vatican II’s application everywhere.

Where are you from? I am from Slovakia and obedience towards Bishops and Holy Father is great here too. I have no problems with that.

We also use Latin in Liturgies here… not often but sometimes. Little phrases but it is present.

 

[Rubee]

So Bishops > Vatican II ?

Anyway Africa has their own Rite. Alexandrian Rite is born from African culture. If one uses Latin Rite they are bound to experience European influence. It’s actually inevitable.

Most of us are in the Roman Rite not Alexandrian and yes, there’s inculturation and we say Mass in the languages we use everyday, not Latin. Sometimes that includes European Languages like French and English that became used during colonialism.

I don’t know when the point became “not having European influence:” I said we do have some of that but also our local stuff as well which wasn’t possible/common before Vatican II. More and more, our churches look like the local cultures, with time, which is something Catholics should celebrate: No idea why its problematic for some CAF posters. Catholic: Universal.

And I’m glad you’re not in a rebellious part of the church but a lot of these guys trying to push Latin on me here as if its equivalent to Catholicism are from the most rebellious and dare to talk to me about obedience just because I say I’m glad we don’t have to use European items and can say Mass and prayers in our languages. I’m sorry, but their interpretation and yours is just an interpretation. Pope St. John Paul II loved us and our inculturated masses, as have the other two popes and no Bishop has seen fit to force us to use Latin so your read of Vatican II is just a read. It doesn’t particularly mean Vatican II or the church. It’s just what you think Vatican II means.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Most of us are in the Roman Rite not Alexandrian and yes, there’s inculturation and we say Mass in the languages we use everyday, not Latin.

That’s all fine. I am simply saying that of course there will be some European things present. Latin Rite has to be regulated globally and globally speaking it is more influenced by European culture. Isn’t there Zairo Use in Africa?

I don’t know when the point became “not having European influence:” I said we do have some of that but also our local stuff as well which wasn’t possible/common before Vatican II. More and more, our churches look like the local cultures, with time, which is something Catholics should celebrate: No idea why its problematic for some CAF posters. Catholic: Universal.

I think that’s all fine. But there exist regulations for Latin Rite globally- one example being it stays Latin. It could technically develop gradually into African Rite which is born out of Latin Rite (but therefore regulates itself on local, and later global, level).

so your read of Vatican II is just a read. It doesn’t particularly mean Vatican II or the church. It’s just what you think Vatican II means.

I see. How do you then interpret passage from Sacrosanctum Concilium above?

Also note this post

Are Catholics Bound to Assent to Vatican II? Traditional Catholicism

You’re forgetting the clause “according the mind of the Sacred Council” which is what the rest of my post you omitted demonstrates. The Council itself stated much of its acts to not have permanent value being based instead on changing circumstances (certainly, its enunciation of the revelation of God, and those doctrines necessary for defending and expounding upon it, always have permanent value). The whole point of the Council was to address the Church’s approach to the “modern world” (by de…

Vatican II and it’s approach is no longer up to date hence perhaps document of Sacrosanctum Concilium is not up to date either. Which is why Popes and Bishops allow you to go without Latin (and hence it’s fine). But this also means that Vatican II isn’t fully binding anymore. Either you are or are not bound by above document.

 

[Rubee]

Vatican II and it’s approach is no longer up to date hence perhaps document of Sacrosanctum Concilium is not up to date either. Which is why Popes and Bishops allow you to go without Latin (and hence it’s fine). But this also means that Vatican II isn’t fully binding anymore. Either you are or are not bound by above document.

Vatican II is binding and the competent authorities have interpreted it not to force African Catholics to use languages at Mass that they cannot understand. Both are true at once.

Question: I could easily see “Latin is to be preserved” as meaning it remains the common language in official documents from which translations come. Why is that a problem? That would mean the church/conciliar documents would be in Latin and we would still never say a word of it in our countries. What’s wrong with such an interpretation?

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Vatican II is binding and the competent authorities have interpreted it not to force African Catholics to use languages at Mass that they cannot understand. Both are true at once.

That interpretation goes, word for word, against Vatican II. Only plausible scenario is that Vatican II is binding but there has been dispensation from that rule for some cultures. However, wouldn’t that have to be official dispensation?

In history, Popes rejected Council of Chalcedon’s Canon that Ecumenical Patriarchate in Constantinople is ranked #2 in Church. However, later Popes who came did not know that such Canon was rejected and some have even considered it already accepted. Does that mean it was ever officially accepted? Of course not!

Question: I could easily see “Latin is to be preserved” as meaning it remains the common language in official documents from which translations come. Why is that a problem?

Because this document is about Liturgy. It makes no sense in the context.

And just to make sure- I am against forcing Latin on foreign cultures too. I have no problem with what is happening in Africa. I am just saying that it’s against Vatican II document.

 

[Rubee]

And just to make sure- I am against forcing Latin on foreign cultures too. I have no problem with what is happening in Africa. I am just saying that it’s against Vatican II document.

But even in Europe they do not use Latin. When I was in France I heard mass in French. And I’ve seen on TV in the U.S. they hear mass in English. Maybe that interpretation is just incorrect and preserving Latin doesn’t mean it must be used for Mass.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

But even in Europe they do not use Latin. When I was in France I heard mass in French. And I’ve seen on TV in the U.S. they hear mass in English. Maybe that interpretation is just incorrect and preserving Latin doesn’t mean it must be used for Mass.

It probably does not mean “every single Mass”. With our old Priest it was somewhat of a “every Sunday” or “every 2nd Sunday”. On important days we had Kyrie in original Language and so on… also some Masses during Advent were in Latin altogether.

There is no other interpretation when text about Liturgy says “Latin is to be preserved in Latin Rites”.

 

[Rubee]

There is no other interpretation when text about Liturgy says “Latin is to be preserved in Latin Rites”.

I’ve found this on the official Vatican website: http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/details/ns_lit_doc_20091117_lingua-latina_en.html

Here it is in full:

The Code of Canon Law (canon 928) stipulates: “The eucharistic celebration is to be carried out in the Latin language or in another language provided that the liturgical texts have been legitimately approved.” Taking into consideration the present situation, this canon translates in a concise manner the teaching of the Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy of the Second Vatican Council.

The well-known number 36 of Sacrosanctum Concilium established the following principle:

• “Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites”(§ 1).

In this sense, the Code affirms first of all: “The eucharistic celebration is to be carried out in the Latin language.”

In the sections which follow, Sacrosanctum Concilium admits of the possibility of using also the vernacular languages:

• “But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters. (§ 2)
• “These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language. (§ 3)
• “Translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned above.” (§ 4)

 

[Rubee]

On the basis of those subsequent sections, the Code adds: “or in another language provided that the liturgical texts have been legitimately approved.”

As can be seen, likewise according to present norms, the Latin language still holds primacy of place as that language which, based on principle, the Church prefers, even though she recognizes that the vernacular can be useful for the faithful. In the present concrete situation, liturgical celebrations in Latin have become rather rare. Hence, a motivation for using Latin is because in the Papal Liturgy (but not only in the Papal Liturgy), Latin should be safeguarded as a precious inheritance of the Western liturgical tradition. Not by chance did the Servant of God, John Paul II recall that:

• “The Roman Church has special obligations towards Latin, the splendid language of ancient Rome, and she must manifest them whenever the occasion presents itself” ( Dominicae cenae , n. 10).

In continuity with the Magisterium of his Predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, besides wishing that there would be a greater use of the traditional Latin language in liturgical celebrations, especially during international gatherings, wrote:

• “Speaking more generally, I ask that future priests, from their time in the seminary, receive the preparation needed to understand and to celebrate Mass in Latin, and also to use Latin texts and execute Gregorian chant; nor should we forget that the faithful can be taught to recite the more common prayers in Latin, and also to sing parts of the liturgy to Gregorian chant” ( Sacramentum Caritatis , n. 62).

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I agree. I am not saying Sacrosanctum Concilium claims vernacular can’t be used- it just claims that Latin should be used at least occasionally.

 

[Rubee]

I agree. I am not saying Sacrosanctum Concilium claims vernacular can’t be used- it just claims that Latin should be used at least occasionally.

To the contrary, it says that’s up to the local ecclesiastical authorities. Here it is again,

• “These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language. (§ 3)

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

That is about liturgical translations to vernacular, not about use of Latin.

How it usually works is that vernacular translation it used and sometimes instead of “Lord have mercy” people sing “Kyrie Eleison” or something like that. It’s minor, it’s not in the translation itself and it may be used (and should be occasionally used) according to Sacrosanctum Concilium.

And below text:

“These norms being observed

also includes that Latin should not fall out of use.

 

[Rubee]

That’s not what that Vatican document says: It’s first titled the use of Latin Language.

• The Code of Canon Law (canon 928) stipulates: “The eucharistic celebration is to be carried out in the Latin language or in another language provided that the liturgical texts have been legitimately approved.” Taking into consideration the present situation, this canon translates in a concise manner the teaching of the Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy of the Second Vatican Council.

It says further down that celebration in Latin has become very rare in the church hence the need for Pope Benedict’s promotion (to keep Latin from being lost in use). It just does not read to me like that Vatican office understands those VII documents like you, which is probably why no one thinks it’s problematic that Africans don’t use Latin in church.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

It just does not read to me like that Vatican office understands those VII documents like you

Again, how current administration understands them hardly matters.

In history, Popes rejected Council of Chalcedon’s Canon that Ecumenical Patriarchate in Constantinople is ranked #2 in Church. However, later Popes who came did not know that such Canon was rejected and some have even considered it already accepted. Does that mean it was ever officially accepted? Of course not!

If they do not change this and include “previous norms being observed” it clearly doesn’t nullify Vatican II.

 

[Rubee]

If they do not change this and include “previous norms being observed” it clearly doesn’t nullify Vatican II.

But they are not nullifying it, they are saying the Canon is a translation of Vatican II, meaning they just don’t interpret Vatican II to mean Latin must be used occasionally in every parish/diocese.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

and the gravity of the storm of sexual revolution , most of all Our Lady herself at Fatima, but these warnings were ignored or literally silenced and mocked by the majority faction at Vatican II"

Our Lady warned against the effects of V2?

That’s not what the sentence says. If you read it carefully, it states that She warned us about the effects of the sexual revolution not VII, which is consistent with Her messages to Jacinta before she (i.e. Jacinta) died so young. “Certain fashions will be introduced which will offend Our Lord very much.” is one of the many things She told Jacinta. Does She specifically use the words “sexual revolution”? No, but we know in hindsight about the fashions from the 1920s to today which accordingly offend against the virtue of modesty. Anything Goes by Cole Porter: