Must We Believe All VCII Documents?

  • Thread starter Thread starter albert_cipriani
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

albert_cipriani

Guest
Are Catholics bound to accept as infallible all 600 pages of Vatican II documents? If not, how can we know which pages to take seriously?

For example, must we hold to the belief that Section 36, paragraph 1 of Sacrosanctum Concilium is correct? (It commands the following in reference to the Mass: “Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved…”) But the Novus Ordo Mass promulgated after Vatican II does not preserve a single word of Latin.

If Catholics are obliged to believe in all of the Vatican II documents, then aren’t most Catholics disbelieving and disobeying Vatican II every Sunday that they attend an all-vernacular Novus Ordo Mass? – Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic
 
Code:
albert cipriani:
Are Catholics bound to accept as infallible all 600 pages of Vatican II documents? If not, how can we know which pages to take seriously?

For example, must we hold to the belief that Section 36, paragraph 1 of Sacrosanctum Concilium is correct? (It commands the following in reference to the Mass: “Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved…”) But the Novus Ordo Mass promulgated after Vatican II does not preserve a single word of Latin.

If Catholics are obliged to believe in all of the Vatican II documents, then aren’t most Catholics disbelieving and disobeying Vatican II every Sunday that they attend an all-vernacular Novus Ordo Mass? – Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic
Click to expand...
As lay folks we have no choice but to attend the Novus Ordo and participate of it. Perhaps the ones disobeying “the use of the Latin language is to be preserve” are our bishops and only they can come into compliance with that particular conciliar document.

Now, I do trust the 16 documents of Vatican II. I do. What I don’t trust are those folks who misread them and wrongly implemented them in our church causing the suffering of many of us for the last 40 years of church history.

Antonio :crying:
 
Antonio B:
As lay folks we have no choice but to attend the Novus Ordo and participate of it.
Click to expand...
As lay folks, don’t we have a choice to attend the Latin Mass offered by independent priests and SSPX?
“Perhaps the ones disobeying ‘the use of the Latin language is to be preserve’ are our bishops and only they can come into compliance with that particular conciliar document.”
Click to expand...
Yes. No doubt our bishops are being disobedient both to the documents of VCII and to our pope’s Ecclesia Dei which ordered them to make the Latin Mass “generously” available. But do we not add to the bishops sin of disobedience by obeying them in their disobedience?
“Now, I do trust the 16 documents of Vatican II. I do.”
Click to expand...
Do you trust those 16 documents to be infallible? That’s the question. If they are infallible oracles of the Church, then what excuse do we have in being disobedient to them just because our bishops are disobedient to them. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic
 
Wait a second here. The use of Latin does not fall under infallibility. The Church is only infallible in mattes of “faith and morals”. Matters of practice, discipline, etc do not fall under infallibility. The Church has the power to bind and to loose, and this power includes imposing disciplines, so were are obliged to follow these disciplines, but they do not fall under infallibility because they are not a matter of faith but of practice.
 
Let us just back track for a minute. Most of us are not clear on what changes Vatican II has done to the mass and what it did not do.

*Sacrosanctum Concilium *was issued by the Second Vatican Council. This is one of the most important, least understood, most unfulfilled, most ignored most misinterpreted documents of Vatican II. Its intent was liturgical renewal.

paragraph 14

“MotherChurch earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that full, conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations, which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy.”

“In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else.”

“And, therefore, pastors of souls must zealously strive to achieve it by means of the necessary instruction in all their pastoral work.”

Read it again. Renewal through active participation in the liturgy by the laity is proposed through education. There is no reference in this document to change the rite itself! On the contrary! Read the next few statements.

paragraph 23:

“There must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them.”

“And care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.”

But what took place was NOT organic growth! Organic growth is not something fabricated by intellectuals, or reinvented from the past. Organic growth comes out of something living. Organic growth is no invention.

continued
 
The title of Paragraph 48 is “The Most Sacred Mystery of the Eucharist.” (Not mass, not Eucharist) Most Sacred Mystery!

Paragraph 48

increased awareness and knowledge by the faithful:

“For this reason the Church, therefore, earnestly desires that Christ’s faithful, when present at the mystery of faith should not be there as strangers or silent spectators. On the contrary, through a good understanding of the rites and prayers, they should take part in the sacred action conscious of what they are doing with devotion and full collaboration.”

paragraph 49

“For this reason the sacred Council, having in mind those Masses which are celebrated with assistance of the faithful, especially on Sundays and Feasts of Obligation, has made the following decrees in order that the sacrifice of the Mass, even in the ritual forms of its celebration, may become pastorally efficacious in the fullest degree.”

What were the most important liturgical proposals of Vatican II?

rites to be simplified, (Paragraph 50)

duplications to be discarded, (Paragraph 51)

expansion of the selection of Biblical readings,* (Paragraph 52) *

greater effort to have good homilies, (Paragraph 53)

Prayer of the Faithful to be restored,

Paragraph 54 is key:

“In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue.”

What does suitable place imply: the readings and the Prayer of the Faithful. That is all!

“Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass”

The Council did not abolish Latin in the liturgy. So what is with NOVUS ORDO?

The Council permitted the vernacular in limited ways, but it is clear the fixed parts were to remain Latin.

continued
 
Paragraph 55

The Council DID NOT CALL for offering communion under both species routinely, only under special circumstances such as:

“to the newly ordained in the Mass of the Sacred Ordination”

“to the newly professed in the Mass of Profession”

“to the newly baptized in the Mass which follows baptism.”

These are the proposals by the Council concerning changes in the ritual.

But there is more:

“The musical tradition of the Universal Church is a treasure of inestimable value, greater even than that of any other art.” (Paragraph 112)

“The main reason for this preeminence is that, as sacred song united to the words, it forms a necessary or integral part of the solemn liturgy.” (Paragraph 112)

“Sacred music is to be considered the more holy in proportion as it is the more closely connected with the liturgical action itself.” What are these? the Kyrie, the Agnus Dei, the Sanctus, the Acclamations, the Alleluias

“The treasure of sacred music is to be preserved and fostered with great care.” (Paragraph 114)

“The Church acknowledges Gregorian Chant as specially suited to the Roman Liturgy. Therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.” (Paragraph 116)

So then where does the guitar, the drums, the front stage fit in? I believe we should singing Gregorian Chants instead of charismatic folksongs in the post Vatican II liturgies!

continued
 
What Vatican II did NOT say?

It did not say tabernacles should be moved from the center to some other location. Quite the opposite, it said to place the tabernacle in a “dignified” place.

It did not say to remove the altar rails.

It did not say take out kneelers.

It did not say turn the altar around.

It did not say to use multiple canons.

It did not say that Mass should be celebrated facing the people.

None of these innovations are mentioned ANYWHERE IN ANY VATICAN II DOCUMENT!

The Mass celebrated in the traditional way, the priest faces the people when he speaks on God’s behalf to proclaim the Word and explain it. He faces the people when he receives their gifts. And then he turns to face with the people and to offer those gifts up to our common Father, praying that the Holy Spirit will come down and transform those gifts into the Body and Blood of Christ. And after that the priest turns to offer the gifts back to the people. The Pope does this each and every morning in his chapel.

Here’s what the Pope said to the US bishops:

“The two-thousandth anniversary of the birth of the Savior is a call to all Christ’s followers to seek a genuine conversion to God and a great advance to holiness. Since the Liturgy is such a central part of the Christian life, I wish today to consider some aspects of the liturgical renewal so vigorously promoted by the Second Vatican Council, as the prime agent of the wider renewal of Catholic life.”

“To look back over what has been done in the field of liturgical renewal since the Council is first to see many reasons for giving heartfelt thanks and praise to the Most Holy Trinity for the marvelous awareness which had developed among the faithful of their role and responsibility in the priestly work of Christ and his Church. **It is also to realize that not all changes have always and everywhere been accompanied by the necessary explanation and catechesis. As a result, in some cases there has been a misunderstanding of the very nature of the Liturgy, leading to abuses, polarization, sometimes even grave scandal.” **

“The challenge now is to move beyond whatever misunderstandings there have been and to reach the proper point of balance, especially by entering more deeply into the contemplative dimension of worship, which includes a sense of awe, reverence and adoration which are fundamental attitudes in our relationship with God.”

How do we restore balance? We must move back into contemplation. Who can enter into a contemplative liturgy with drumming and clapping and dancing, and hand holding? None of these are Vatican II.

So my point is this: It is quite irrelevant if Vatican II was correct or not. The Vatican II proposed liturgical renewal never even happened.
 
I don’t think VCII called for dumbing down the Mass, either. I don’t like attending what I would describe as “Mass-lite”

Having lived through it all, I was hoping for a much richer liturgy with much greater emphasis on scripture (after all, if we didn’t have “this is my body” we wouldn’t have a Eucharist celebration) and I thought there would be a renaissance of quality music originating from someplace in the Church.

If nothing else, the Catholic press at the time raised my expectations up to almost dizzying levels. Let’s just say I’ve never really been impressed by the results.
 
I believe that in fact, Latin is still the official language of the liturgy in the Roman Rite. The English that we use is a translation of the official Latin text. Any priest may say the Mass in Latin at any time, with no special permission needed, using the official Latin text. If I am wrong about this, someone please let me know.
 
Code:
albert cipriani:
As lay folks, don’t we have a choice to attend the Latin Mass offered by independent priests and SSPX?

What exactly do you mean by “independent” priests? A priest, at least in Roman Catholicism, is either directly responsible to his bishop or to the superior of his Order if he is a religious priest.

Yes. No doubt our bishops are being disobedient both to the documents of VCII and to our pope’s Ecclesia Dei which ordered them to make the Latin Mass “generously” available. But do we not add to the bishops sin of disobedience by obeying them in their disobedience?

I don’t think so. It was and is up to the Bishops to implement the directives of the Council. They, and they alone will have to answer to God for their failures regarding the Council. As a lay person, not being an expert in the liturgy, I follow their lead.

Do you trust those 16 documents to be infallible? That’s the question. If they are infallible oracles of the Church, then what excuse do we have in being disobedient to them just because our bishops are disobedient to them. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic
Click to expand...
I am not so sure one would be correct in calling the decrees of the Council “infallible” since, after all, Vatican II is considered a “pastoral” council. Yet, I know they are documents such as the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, which are definitely intended as documents written in stone.

Antonio 🙂
 
Code:
40.png
JimG:
I believe that in fact, Latin is still the official language of the liturgy in the Roman Rite. The English that we use is a translation of the official Latin text. Any priest may say the Mass in Latin at any time, with no special permission needed, using the official Latin text. If I am wrong about this, someone please let me know.
Click to expand...
You are correct but it is more theory than practice.

Also, although our Mass is a translation of the official Latin text, the translation has not always been faithful to the original Latin.
 
Only two of the 16 documents are infallible and they are not part of the extraordinary magisterium, they are part of the ordinary magisterium since they only repeat what has always been taught. Since 14 of the documents are not dogmatic constitutions they may contain errors and erroneous prudential judgements.
 
40.png
twf:
The use of Latin does not fall under infallibility… Matters of practice, discipline, etc do not fall under infallibility.
Click to expand...
Cool. Then if I disobey my disobedient bishop by attending a Latin Mass, Catholics ought not to call me a schismatic Catholic, right?

At worse, I am a bad Catholic, not a schismatic Catholic. I am someone who may be likened to a Catholic who, in the old days, disobediently ignored the Church discipline by eating hamburgers on Friday, right? – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic 9/18/04
 
albert cipriani:
Cool. Then if I disobey my disobedient bishop by attending a Latin Mass, Catholics ought not to call me a schismatic Catholic, right?

At worse, I am a bad Catholic, not a schismatic Catholic. I am someone who may be likened to a Catholic who, in the old days, disobediently ignored the Church discipline by eating hamburgers on Friday, right? – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic 9/18/04
Click to expand...
No Jim. You problem is: you belong to schismatic group, formerly headed by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre who illicitly consecrated bishops against the expressed instructions of the Roman Pontiff. They refuse to submit in obedience to the Holy Father. This is what makes you schismatic, not partaking in the Latin Mass.
 
40.png
JimG:
I believe that in fact, Latin is still the official language of the liturgy in the Roman Rite. The English that we use is a translation of the official Latin text. Any priest may say the Mass in Latin at any time, with no special permission needed, using the official Latin text. If I am wrong about this, someone please let me know.
Click to expand...
Far from being wrong, Jim, you are totally correct. I have attended a number of Latin Novus Ordo Masses. No permission is required - all he needs is a Missal with the Latin in it. And, if you have a Roman Missal, it will have all the Latin, too, so you can follow, and respond at the appropriate places. I can even figure out which Eucharistic prayer the priest is using, if he did not announce it!!
 
Are Catholics bound to accept as infallible all 600 pages of Vatican II documents?

No.

If not, how can we know which pages to take seriously?

You seem to be suggesting we are only bound to infallible dogmas. That’s incorrect. We owe our religious assent to all teachings of the magisterium, so we have to take them all “seriously.”

The Latin liturgy is preserved. Does that mean it is to be celebrated in Latin everywhere and always? I don’t think so.
 
My Daily Roman Missal is in both Latin and English. Some priest say the Agnus Dei in Latin. I like that.

Additionally, in my town one can attend the Traditional Latin Mass in accord with the 1962 Roman Missal, offered by an obedient priest of the - Fraternitas Sacerdotalis Sancti PetriFSSP . It is offered everyday and twice on Sunday.
 
At worse, I am a bad Catholic, not a schismatic Catholic.
There’s a place in hell for bad Catholics as well as schismatic Catholics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top