Are Catholics Bound to Assent to Vatican II?

  • Thread starter Thread starter StudentMI
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
My goodness you are attempting to put a lot of words in my mouth, Rubee.

Do you watch EWTN? Their Masses are a good example of what the council envisioned; Latin in the parts like the Credo, Gloria, Agnus Dei etc., ‘vernacular’ otherwise.

Rubee, the way the Mass is set up started from the Jewish civilization. The gestures of sitting, standing, and kneeling came into being throughout all parts of the Roman Empire which at times extended into India, Northern Africa and the Middle East, and then over the last 500 years spread to every country in the world.

People in Asia (not Europe!), especially in Japan, carried on the Catholic faith underground yet for a couple hundred YEARS, with a Mass in Latin and its ‘European heritage’ out of love for the FAITH, and obviously not love for ‘Roman civilization’.

Maybe you’d be a little more comfortable thinking that Catholic is just that —universal— and knowing that it is not just a ‘white European thing’.
 
stpurl said:
Maybe you’d be a little more comfortable thinking that Catholic is just that —universal— and knowing that it is not just a ‘white European thing’.
Click to expand...
I’m not the one with a problem hearing that catholics elsewhere don’t use Latin and pianos and going so far as to suggest it’s disobedience. I do think Catholic is universal which is why I make a distinction between the faith and the cultures it lives in. I’m not here trying to force Latin or any language on people, am simply dismissing the idea that Africans must use Latin or all sorts European cultural elements. The church clearly doesn’t think we must or people in my home parish/diocese would already know some Latin. As it stands we have our masses in vernacular, and the church has never expressed any issue.
 
Last edited:
stpurl said:
Maybe you’d be a little more comfortable thinking that Catholic is just that —universal— and knowing that it is not just a ‘white European thing’.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately that attitude seems to be becoming prevalent in society.
 
The Roman Missal is governed by its General Instruction. The GIRM provides an explanation of the use of the vernacular that concludes:
since no Catholic would now deny a sacred rite celebrated in Latin to be legitimate and efficacious, the Council was also able to concede that “not rarely adopting the vernacular language may be of great usefulness for the people” and gave permission for it to be used. The eagerness with which this measure was everywhere received has certainly been so great that it has led, under the guidance of the Bishops and the Apostolic See itself, to permission for all liturgical celebrations in which the people participate to be in the vernacular, so that the people may more fully understand the mystery which is celebrated.

In this regard, although the use of the vernacular in the Sacred Liturgy is a means, admittedly of great importance, for expressing more clearly catechesis on the mystery, a catechesis inherent in the celebration itself, the Second Vatican Council ordered additionally that certain prescriptions of the Council of Trent that had not been followed everywhere be brought to fruition, such as the Homily to be given on Sundays and feast days and the faculty to interject certain explanations during the sacred rites themselves.
Click to expand...
This is an example of changing circumstances moving past the text of Vatican II and “under the guidance of the Bishops and the Apostolic See itself” adopting new rules for the Church.
 
Last edited:
OrbisNonSufficit said:
Haec Sancta promulgated by Ecumenical Council of Constance is actually purely wrong.
Click to expand...
Hæc Sancta was never promulgated by any Ecumenical Council; it lacked any Papal approval or ratification, and of course was later repudiated by later Popes.
 
Another contribution to this discussion.

catholicfamilynews.com

Vatican II and the Calvary of the Church - Catholic Family News

PDF Button Editor’s Note: The interventions of Archbishop Viganò and Bishop Schneider have certainly ignited a debate about what the Church should do regarding the problem of Vatican II. Catholic Family News was honored to be asked to publish the English translation of a new intervention on this...
catholicfamilynews.com catholicfamilynews.com
 
Again you’re putting words and sentiments into my mouth that I never said. You are assuming that by my pointing out that some Latin according to the Council was to be preserved everywhere that I am somehow ‘forcing Latin’ on people who do not have a ‘European cultural heritage.’

This is not about either-or, either we have an ‘old European Mass’ orwe have lots of countries having their OWN Mass and their own heritage.

Vatican II, contrary to what was erroneously implied by some, did not slap itself upside the head, “Oh mercy me, look at all the non European heritage places with Catholics, let us immediately stop forcing Latin on them all and race to allow them to have a Mass in their ownlanguage instead with no trace of some upstarty EUROCENTRICITY.”

Once we can get past the idea that there were all kinds of ‘wrongs set right’ and get into the idea that this was a ‘both-and’, that the EF (AKA TLM) was still perfectly right and good, and that after a few missteps the OF is now getting it right with its vernacular plus Latin We are much more likely to have the proper appreciation for both valid forms.
 
Dovekin said:
This is an example of changing circumstances moving past the text of Vatican II and “under the guidance of the Bishops and the Apostolic See itself” adopting new rules for the Church.
Click to expand...
I am simply saying that Vatican II Fathers never meant to exclude Latin. African Bishops who do so aren’t following Vatican II - but they may well be following canon law which is okay. Though it isn’t thing of Vatican II hence that particular part isn’t binding anymore. It isn’t binding because it has been overruled already.
 
stpurl said:
Once we can get past the idea that there were all kinds of ‘wrongs set right’ and get into the idea that this was a ‘both-and’, that the EF (AKA TLM) was still perfectly right and good, and that after a few missteps the OF is now getting it right with its vernacular plus Latin We are much more likely to have the proper appreciation for both valid forms.
Click to expand...
But you’re still insisting that Latin must be used, even though you’re doing it in a ‘polite’ way. The thing is, the church does not appear to think it’s a must or I’d know some Latin from my parish or diocese back home. We simply do not use Latin and the church is cool with that; I think you should be too.

PS: I have ZERO problems with the use of the Extraordinary form of the mass. I’m talking about language and the bringing in of cultural symbols/items from the local area. I’d have no problem replacing the OF with EF, but I’d complain about the language/music etc if it had to be done in a European way and leave out the local expressions.
 
Last edited:
I agree with you. Vatican II called for a continued use of Latin in the liturgy.

The decision to use vernacular almost exclusively came later, as described in the GIRM.

I can certainly see why many see the Council’s allowing the vernacular is the start of the universal use of the vernacular, despite the Council‘s insistence on retaining Latin.
 
OrbisNonSufficit said:
So Bishops > Vatican II ? Documents exist for all to read. We must avoid Clericalism.
Click to expand...
Following canon law is not clericism.

Can. 838 §1. The direction of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church which resides in the Apostolic See and, according to the norm of law, the diocesan bishop.

§4. Within the limits of his competence, it pertains to the diocesan bishop in the Church entrusted to him to issue liturgical norms which bind everyone.

For a layperson to say they just accept what the bishop does is an assent of obedience, and such obedience is proper to the laity.
 
Last edited:
Of course. I meant that saying only current administration can understand Vatican II is clericalism. Anyhow current canon overrides Vatican II so it’s not really a question of Sacrosanctum Concilium anymore.
 
OrbisNonSufficit said:
I meant that saying only current administration can understand Vatican II is clericalism.
Click to expand...
It seems to me it’s all bishops and popes since Vatican II, not just current. The church can’t just have got it wrong as a whole somehow and forgot its own teaching. That to me sounds like a suspect idea.
 
Last edited:
Of course not. However that does not mean that every interpretation made by hierarchy is clear and correct. History proves otherwise.

Take Conciliarism for example. College of Cardinals was surely in favour of it.
 
The thread title is misleading. I was confirmed before the Council, never was asked to “assent” to Trent or V1.

Since V2 I got married, served in many Catholic ministries, including Religious education, known countless others who were confirmed, married, worked in ministries, who never “assented” to documents of V2 (or Trent for that matter). I don’t know how or where a layperson would do that, let alone be “bound” to do that.

I guess the vast majority of religion teachers today have never read, let alone "assented’ to documents of V2.

These threads are indirectly planted by websites to artificially create a “What’s Trending Now”, and happen to coincide their lead article or book coming out. They are a distraction from the 2020 work of prolife and Evangelism.
 
Last edited:
commenter said:
These threads are indirectly planted by websites to artificially create a “What’s Trending Now”, and happen to coincide their lead article or book coming out. They are a distraction from the 2020 work of prolife and Evangelism.
Click to expand...
These threads? I posted the OP. Did you mean article?
 
StudentMI said:
40.png
commenter:
These threads are indirectly planted by websites to artificially create a “What’s Trending Now”, and happen to coincide their lead article or book coming out. They are a distraction from the 2020 work of prolife and Evangelism.
Click to expand...
These threads? I posted the OP. Did you mean article?
Click to expand...
Yes, their article/new book/upcoming conference/speaking engagement, etc. There’s always a tie-in.

No criticism of you implied.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top