Conciliar Documents. What are they?

[JonW]

I apologize for my ignorance. I have been looking at the Vatican II documents, both conciliar and post-conciliar. I guess my question is: are the documents binding absolutely? I am ignorant of when, where, and why the Tridentine Mass was still allowed after V II. I am not making a judgment or anything, I am truly ignorant and don’t understand. Additionally, are the post-cincilar documents as binding as the conciliar ones? How so, and what are the differences, etc.? What did the Pope’s Motu Proprio actually amount to?

In other words, am I being unfaithful to the Church by preferring one form of the Mass over the other, leaning towards traditionalism, etc.?

Also, what are we to think of the Ottaviani intervention? I have read a book about it published by TAN, and I don’t know what to think about it.

If I am asking too much, maybe you could just direct me to the relevant (and faithfully Catholic) literature on the subject. Thanks a lot for your responses.

God Bless

Jon Winterburn

 

[Deacon_Ed]

I apologize for my ignorance. I have been looking at the Vatican II documents, both conciliar and post-conciliar. I guess my question is: are the documents binding absolutely? I am ignorant of when, where, and why the Tridentine Mass was still allowed after V II. I am not making a judgment or anything, I am truly ignorant and don’t understand. Additionally, are the post-cincilar documents as binding as the conciliar ones? How so, and what are the differences, etc.? What did the Pope’s Motu Proprio actually amount to?

The documents of Vatican II are “binding” in that they are from the highest teaching authority in the Church except for papal infalliblity. The Mass of Pius V (Tridentine Mass) was permitted by indult by Pope John Paul II and as an Extraordinary Form by Pope Benedict XVI. This latter provision means that any priest may offer the EF under the conditions outlines in the moto proprio.

In other words, am I being unfaithful to the Church by preferring one form of the Mass over the other, leaning towards traditionalism, etc.?

Not as long as you recognize both forms as being valid and do not denigrate either one.

Also, what are we to think of the Ottaviani intervention? I have read a book about it published by TAN, and I don’t know what to think about it.

The Ottaviani Intervention is a document that presented concerns regarding the validity of the Mass of Paul VI (the Ordinary Form). The document suggested (stated?) that there were points in the Mass that were theologically imprecise and could, therefore, lead to misunderstanding regarding the teaching of the Church. This document, while interesting, has been considered by the Church to be moot since Cardinal Ottaviani withdrew his objections. There are some who question whether or not he really did since he was blind at the time – however such arguments seem spurious since he was still quite capable of making his intentions known.

If I am asking too much, maybe you could just direct me to the relevant (and faithfully Catholic) literature on the subject. Thanks a lot for your responses.

I’m not sure what sort of literature you are looking for so it’s hard to point you in a given direction.

Deacon Ed

 

[JonW]

Thanks very much for your reply, Deacon Ed. How do I draw the line between what I perceive as abuses and the documents themselves? Also, are you saying that the post-conciliar documents carry as much authority as the conciliar documents?

Is it OK to think of the objections to the new Mass as good ones and worthy of being taken seriously? The loss of the sacred, the Mass as sacrifice as opposed to assembly of faithful, the distinction between priest and congregation being blurred in the new mass, the ommission of prayers which call to mind what the mass is supposed to mean, etc.?

As far as literature, I guess I am looking for a more Traditional take on the situation which wouldn’t be swept aside as unfaithful to VII, etc.

Thanks again for your help.

Jon

 

[franklinf]

Is it OK to think of the objections to the new Mass as good ones and worthy of being taken seriously? The loss of the sacred, the Mass as sacrifice as opposed to assembly of faithful, the distinction between priest and congregation being blurred in the new mass, the ommission of prayers which call to mind what the mass is supposed to mean, etc.?

As far as literature, I guess I am looking for a more Traditional take on the situation which wouldn’t be swept aside as unfaithful to VII, etc.

Thanks again for your help.

Jon

Yes, objections have been raised by such esteemed scholars as Dietrich von Hildebrand, Cardinal Ratzinger, and Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci. As for literature, Klaus Gamber and Michael Davies would be a good start.

For example,
Ottaviani Intervention
ewtn.com/library/curia/reformof.htm

The Case for the Latin Mass
by Dietrich von Hildebrand
latin-mass-society.org/dietrich.htm

Liturgical Shipwreck
by Michael Davies
catholictradition.org/Eucharist/shipwreck.htm

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Thanks very much for your reply, Deacon Ed. How do I draw the line between what I perceive as abuses and the documents themselves? Also, are you saying that the post-conciliar documents carry as much authority as the conciliar documents?

That’s a good question. As you no doubt know, the documents of the Church come at different levels of authority. Clearly conciliar documents have more authority than non-conciliar documents. The weight of the post-conciliar documents is based upon what they present, how they present it and who signed it. In general, however, they are all official documents of the Church and cannot be ignored. And, as the pope has so carefully noted, all documents must be interpreted in the context of the 2,000 years of Church teaching, not in isolation.

Is it OK to think of the objections to the new Mass as good ones and worthy of being taken seriously? The loss of the sacred, the Mass as sacrifice as opposed to assembly of faithful, the distinction between priest and congregation being blurred in the new mass, the ommission of prayers which call to mind what the mass is supposed to mean, etc.?

There is no doubt that there has been a loss of the sacred. The problem is how to go about recovering that sense. It’s not as easy as replacing the OF with the EF – it’s a matter of catechesis and of correcting the places where that sense of the sacred is lost. The Mass is both a sacrifice and an assembly of the faithful – the word “church” in Greek is ekklesia which means “the community called out.” The Mass is liturgy, a word that comes from the Greek laos meaning people and ergon meaning work – it is the work of the people. So we have to be careful about drawing false distinctions, yet we must also make sure we do not emphasize one aspect so much that we forget the other.

As far as literature, I guess I am looking for a more Traditional take on the situation which wouldn’t be swept aside as unfaithful to VII, etc.

I can’t help you on this because most of what you will find is too strongly polemical to be really useful.

Deacon Ed

 

[Domini_servus]

The mere fact that a Council makes a pronouncement on doctrine does not make that statement infallible. The Council must infallibly proclaim dogma with a solemn definition. If it is not defined, it is not an infallible act. It is a very simple matter, and that is the teaching of the Church. There are grave errors in the Second Vatican Council. The teaching on ecumenism, strictly speaking, is heretical.

fatimacrusader.com/cr80/cr80pg32.asp

 

[Domini_servus]

Also,

fatimacrusader.com/cr79/cr79pg57.asp

 

[Verbum]

Hi Domini,

There are grave errors in the Second Vatican Council. The teaching on ecumenism, strictly speaking, is heretical.

Are you a Catholic? If so, you’re out of line and possibly… heretical.

Verbum

 

[Domini_servus]

Verbum,
I am a traditional Catholic. Ecumenism is virtually synonymous with the error of “religious indifferentism”

“All religions, indeed, may be said to contain some measure of truth; and God may accept the imperfect worship of ignorant sincerity. But it is injurious to God, Who is truth itself, to assert that truth and falsehood are indifferent in His sight. Since various religions are in disagreement, it follows that, wherever they conflict, if one possesses the truth the others are in error.” (my changes)

newadvent.org/cathen/07759a.htm