Pope: 2nd Vatican Council, work of Holy Spirit but some want to turn back the clock

[Lucky7]

Pope John XXIII, who called the Second Vatican Council, seemed to think retaining Latin was pretty important.
clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/gwh.htm

Wow…the first thing he writes is that it is our heritage…something I just wrote.

 

[jwinch2]

Wow…the first thing he writes is that it is our heritage…something I just wrote.

Well, you know, “great minds…”, and all that sort of thing.

 

[Lucky7]

Well, you know, “great minds…”, and all that sort of thing.

 

[jwinch2]

 

[curlycool89]

I am not aware of any official statements that there is nothing further to be done on the liturgy. That sure is not what it looks like when I read Sacrosanctum Concilium Perhaps you are happy with the liturgy, but there is no reason to claim this is the view of the Church.

It was the Church that promulgated the recent Missal. Unqualifiedly, without saying anything about “this is not the final version” or “we’re going to keep working on this”.

Are you saying that the Church has given us a Liturgy that goes against the will of … the Church? Because that sounds schizophrenic.

I never said that it had to be the language from the beginning. Even if Latin was the language for the last 1500 years, I still think that to rid ourselves of it completely is wrong. And for the thousandth time on this forum the Vatican II documents never called to rid ourselves of it completely. Why is there such a push to get rid of it?? It is part of our heritage at the very least. Where is the respect for that?

If you really want to split hairs, selling indulgences is also part of our heritage and it was done for quite a while. Clericalism is a something that comes back again and again and has been there for a long time in the Church, but is not a good thing.

Look, I’m not looking so much at your ideas as your argument style. The arguments that you are making are frankly not convincing. As is seen by the fact that I can use your exact arguments to point to undesirable conclusions.

Pope John XXIII, who called the Second Vatican Council, seemed to think retaining Latin was pretty important.
clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/gwh.htm

With respect to Bl. John XXIII, I’m not sure how relavent that is anymore.

Frankly, the Church has spoken and allowed a vernacular Mass, which clearly contradicts several parts (number 9 especially). I’m not sure how much you can say such a document is “in force” when it is not enforced. A rule that is not enforced is not a rule at all.

 

[jwinch2]

A rule that is not enforced is not a rule at all.

Lots of rules haven’t always been enforced well. Should we just get rid of them then?

 

[jwinch2]

From what I understand, Pope Francis said absolutely nothing about ‘turning back the clock’; that little phrase apparently came from somebody’s translation of what he said.

Sigh.

Do you have a link or some way to demonstrate this? If so, that certainly changes the context and tone of the statement. I’m not doubting you, but that is pretty audacious if it happened as you say.

 

[ProVobis]

Do you have a link or some way to demonstrate this? If so, that certainly changes the context and tone of the statement. I’m not doubting you, but that is pretty audacious if it happened as you say.

Perhaps it’s not a literal translation, but it’s been used enough times in English where anything close to the meaning (or what the translator may think is close) comes to be translated as such. I wouldn’t put it into the idiomatic category such as “turn the tables on” or “ruffle someone’s feathers” as that would really be suspicious. On second thought…

 

[Lucky7]

If you really want to split hairs, selling indulgences is also part of our heritage and it was done for quite a while. Clericalism is a something that comes back again and again and has been there for a long time in the Church, but is not a good thing.

Look, I’m not looking so much at your ideas as your argument style. The arguments that you are making are frankly not convincing. As is seen by the fact that I can use your exact arguments to point to undesirable conclusions.

With respect to Bl. John XXIII, I’m not sure how relavent that is anymore.

Frankly, the Church has spoken and allowed a vernacular Mass, which clearly contradicts several parts (number 9 especially). I’m not sure how much you can say such a document is “in force” when it is not enforced. A rule that is not enforced is not a rule at all.

Comparing Latin to the abuse of selling indulgences? Now whose argument style is out in left field?

Just because masses do not use Latin does not mean it was supposed to happen that way. And to say what Pope John XXIII said was irrelvant despite the fact that he was the one to open Vatican II is beyond me.

 

[agnes_therese]

Comparing Latin to the abuse of selling indulgences? Now whose argument style is out in left field?

Nobody compared Latin to the selling of indulgences, for crying out loud. The point being made was very clear. Perhaps a second reading of the post would help.

 

[markomalley]

Comparing Latin to the abuse of selling indulgences? Now whose argument style is out in left field?

Just because masses do not use Latin does not mean it was supposed to happen that way. And to say what Pope John XXIII said was irrelvant despite the fact that he was the one to open Vatican II is beyond me.

Second Vatican Council:

1. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites…

54…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 which pertain to them.

1. 1. In accordance with the centuries-old tradition of the Latin rite, the Latin language is to be retained by clerics in the divine office.
      Or is it that we can disregard the Council when it doesn’t fit our ideas?

 

[jwinch2]

Nobody compared Latin to the selling of indulgences, for crying out loud. The point being made was very clear. Perhaps a second reading of the post would help.

Yes actually, he did. The argument was made in a previous thread that Latin is part of our heritage. In an attempt to refute this position, (which is the same position of Pope John XXIII by the way) the comparison to selling indulgences was made.

 

[Digitonomy]

Could you say more about this? Are there things w haven’t done at all? Or things we’ve done incompletely?

One thing which hasn’t been pursued is a fixed calendar:

A DECLARATION OF THE SECOND ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF THE VATICAN ON REVISION OF THE CALENDAR

The Second Ecumenical Sacred Council of the Vatican, recognizing the importance of the wishes expressed by many concerning the assignment of the feast of Easter to a fixed Sunday and concerning an unchanging calendar, having carefully considered the effects which could result from the introduction of a new calendar, declares as follows:

The Sacred Council would not object if the feast of Easter were assigned to a particular Sunday of the Gregorian Calendar, provided that those whom it may concern, especially the brethren who are not in communion with the Apostolic See, give their assent.
The sacred Council likewise declares that it does not oppose efforts designed to introduce a perpetual calendar into civil society.

But among the various systems which are being suggested to stabilize a perpetual calendar and to introduce it into civil life, the Church has no objection only in the case of those systems which retain and safeguard a seven-day week with Sunday, without the introduction of any days outside the week, so that the succession of weeks may be left intact, unless there is question of the most serious reasons. Concerning these the Apostolic See shall judge.

 

[FAB]

I am not aware of any official statements that there is nothing further to be done on the liturgy. That sure is not what it looks like when I read Sacrosanctum Concilium Perhaps you are happy with the liturgy, but there is no reason to claim this is the view of the Church.

Sacrosanctum Concilium is an instruction manuel, a clarification of practices the same is in the GIRM. May statement was that the liturgy is fairly settled, there is no reason to expect of look for any major changes in the mass. It took over 10 years for the third edition of the missal to be written and approved. All the issues that are repeated ove and over on this site were discussed and pretty much settled with action or inaction. TO continue the stir the pot expecting that some thing new will come from it seems very futile.
The focus of the Church is turning to other much more pressing issues.

DcnFAB

 

[curlycool89]

Comparing Latin to the abuse of selling indulgences? Now whose argument style is out in left field?

You might want to check your history.

Strictly speaking, there is no abuse in the selling of indulgences. Indulgences are the Church’s to dispense of how She sees fit (including for certain prayers, making certain pilgrimages, for fighting in the Crusades, etc). Rather, it is a question of whether such an action would be prudent.

I’m not comparing, I’m analyzing your argument type. Your argument is essentially of the type “x is part of our heritage, therefore x is good”, and I’m showing you why that’s not a very good argument.

Or is it that we can disregard the Council when it doesn’t fit our ideas?

Ok, here’s an argument.

The Mass was something the Council spoke about.
The Church is the authoritative interpreter of any Ecumenical Council.
The Church has promulgated and approved a Missal (well, a whole set of them) that is 100% in the vernacular (english, etc).
This Missal was not released with any conditions nor with any comments about its use.​

Therefore, the Church’s interpretation of the Council is that a 100% vernacular Mass is allowed. Furthermore, the Church does not discourage the use of a 100% vernacular Missal in any way.

I prefer not to argue with the authority of the Church.

 

[markomalley]

Ok, here’s an argument.

The Mass was something the Council spoke about.
The Church is the authoritative interpreter of any Ecumenical Council.
The Church has promulgated and approved a Missal (well, a whole set of them) that is 100% in the vernacular (english, etc).
This Missal was not released with any conditions nor with any comments about its use.​

Therefore, the Church’s interpretation of the Council is that a 100% vernacular Mass is allowed. Furthermore, the Church does not discourage the use of a 100% vernacular Missal in any way.

I prefer not to argue with the authority of the Church.

Are you saying, then, that it is improper to have the “Ordinary Form” Mass in Latin? Are you saying that the faithful should not bother to learn the common prayers of the Ordinary in Latin?

Because the Roman Missal was translated in English?

What exactly are you arguing for?

 

[ProVobis]

Furthermore, the Church does not discourage the use of a 100% vernacular Missal in any way.

Then why did Paul VI spend the time to promote Jubilate Deo?

In April 1974 Pope Paul VI sent to every bishop in the world a booklet of some of the simplest selections of Gregorian Chant, much of it drawn from the Graduale Romanum. This booklet, called Jubilate Deo, was intended as a “minimum repertoire of Gregorian chant”. It is, in other words, an official Latin “core repertoire” for the Roman Rite. It was prepared, the Pope said, in order “to make it easier for Christians to achieve unity and spiritual harmony with their brothers and with the living tradition of the past. Hence it is that those who are trying to improve the quality of congregational singing cannot refuse Gregorian chant the place which is due to it” (Voluntati Obsequens).

Pope Paul VI gave permission for the selections in Jubilate Deo to be freely reprinted. The booklet was accompanied by a letter in which the Holy Father made this request of the bishops:

“Would you therefore, in collaboration with the competent diocesan and national agencies for the liturgy, sacred music and catechetics, decide on the best ways of teaching the faithful the Latin chants of Jubilate Deo and of having them sing them…. You will thus be performing a new service for the Church in the domain of liturgical renewal” (Voluntati Obsequens).

Jubilate Deo contains simple chant settings in Latin of the parts of the Ordinary of the Mass: Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Memorial Acclamation, Agnus Dei. It also provides musical settings for the dialogues between priest and people, such as before the Preface, and the Ite Missa est, the response to the Prayer of the Faithful, and others.

An, expanded edition of Jubilate Deo was later issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1987.

adoremus.org/JubilateDeo.html

 

[curlycool89]

Are you saying, then, that it is improper to have the “Ordinary Form” Mass in Latin? Are you saying that the faithful should not bother to learn the common prayers of the Ordinary in Latin?

Because the Roman Missal was translated in English?

What exactly are you arguing for?

What I’m saying is that the Church has said it is 100% ok to have a Mass completely in the vernacular. What I’m saying is that that the Church has said is that those who say “The Mass must have some Latin” are wrong.

That’s not to say that having a Mass completely in Latin or having parts in Latin is improper. What it means is that it is just as proper to have Mass in all-English as in all-Latin. The Church would not have approved the unrestricted use of an all-English Missal if they had thought it improper to have an all-English Mass.

Then why did Paul VI spend the time to promote Jubilate Deo?

There is a difference between “promoting” and “requiring”. Nothing the Church says requires the use of Latin in the Mass. Whichever way you want to read it, the implicit conclusion is that the Church has no problem with an all-vernacular Mass.

The Church (and the Pope in particular) has sole authority over the Mass. If the Pope wants something to become required or a standard he just has to say so. In the case of Latin, the Pope has said nothing about it necessarily needing to be there, so the implication is that its ok if it’s not there.

 

[markomalley]

What I’m saying is that the Church has said it is 100% ok to have a Mass completely in the vernacular. What I’m saying is that that the Church has said is that those who say “The Mass must have some Latin” are wrong.

That’s not to say that having a Mass completely in Latin or having parts in Latin is improper. What it means is that it is just as proper to have Mass in all-English as in all-Latin. The Church would not have approved the unrestricted use of an all-English Missal if they had thought it improper to have an all-English Mass.

I can’t speak for others, but, sure, Mass that is 100% in the vernacular is 100% licit.

But I find it atrocious that many people are unable to participate when the Ordinary is in Latin. When some of the prayers are not regularly offered in Latin.

Please note the following:

General Instruction for the Roman Missal (41):

Since faithful from different countries come together ever more frequently, it is fitting that they know how to sing together at least some parts of the Ordinary of the Mass in Latin, especially the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer, set to the simpler melodies. [yes, I know it says fitting, not mandatory]
John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Vicisimus Quintus Annus

Given that the Liturgy is the school of the prayer of the Church, it has been considered good to introduce and develop the use of the vernacular – without diminishing the use of Latin, retained by the Council for the Latin Rite (55) – so that every individual can understand and proclaim in his or her mother tongue the wonders of God (cf Acts 2:11). It has likewise been considered good to increase the number of Prefaces and Eucharistic Prayers, so as to enrich the Church’s treasury of prayer and an understanding of the mystery of Christ.
John Paul II, Letter Dominicae Cenae:

Nevertheless, there are also those people who, having been educated on the basis of the old liturgy in Latin, experience the lack of this “one language,” which in all the world was an expression of the unity of the Church and through its dignified character elicited a profound sense of the Eucharistic Mystery. It is therefore necessary to show not only understanding but also full respect towards these sentiments and desires. As far as possible these sentiments and desires are to be accommodated, as is moreover provided for in the new dispositions.(55) **The Roman Church has special obligations towards Latin, the splendid language of ancient Rome, and she must manifest them whenever the occasion presents itself. **

Benedict XVI, Post Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritas:

1. None of the above observations should cast doubt upon the importance of such large-scale liturgies. I am thinking here particularly of celebrations at international gatherings, which nowadays are held with greater frequency. The most should be made of these occasions. In order to express more clearly the unity and universality of the Church, I wish to endorse the proposal made by the Synod of Bishops, in harmony with the directives of the Second Vatican Council, (182) that, with the exception of the readings, the homily and the prayer of the faithful, it is fitting that such liturgies be celebrated in Latin. Similarly, the better-known prayers (183) of the Church’s tradition should be recited in Latin and, if possible, selections of Gregorian chant should be sung. 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. (184)
   Don’t get me wrong: I am not proposing that it be mandatory that the entire Ordinary be done in Latin. Hardly.

That is not the “Council of the Media” abuse that I have that much of a heartache with. (Personally, I’d be happy to hear the Sanctus and the Agnus Dei in Latin on a regular basis). My big issue is how many (most?) parish liturgies have devolved into banal jokes. If a Mass is celebrated using 100% English…but with the reverence / awe that is fitting for the King of Kings, I’d be thrilled to death. However, sadly, that is the exception these days.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

Comparing Latin to the abuse of selling indulgences? Now whose argument style is out in left field?

Just because masses do not use Latin does not mean it was supposed to happen that way. And to say what Pope John XXIII said was irrelvant despite the fact that he was the one to open Vatican II is beyond me.

Here is the thing for me. Whether or not the masses were supposed to eliminate Latin, they have for the most part. The Church in Rome is well aware of this, and have not come out and said that it is wrong, improper, etc. Therefore, there is no problem. I trust the leaders of the Church to know what is best for us. Perhaps they have come to the conclusion that using less or no Latin will bring more people to the Church and through Her to salvation, which is in fact the goal of the Church.