It seems likely that Pope Benedict had some concerns about the loss of Latin, considering that he established an academy to promote its use, at which time he made a speech about Latin’s importance. If you are trusting the leaders of the Church to know what is best for us in this area, you would be studying Latin.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.
or maybe they haven’t taken swift action to bring it back because it would cause a divide in the Church?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.
Just because the Church is permitting something does not mean there is no problem with it. We a discussing a statement by Pope Francis that the Church has still not done everything that Spirit called her to do through the 2nd Vatican Council. This means that the way things are right now is not necessarily the ideal of how they ought to be. The Pope is telling us to look at the Council to figure out how they ought to be. When we look at what the Council says about language of the liturgy, we see that there should be Latin.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.
The documents of the Second Vatican Council does specifically indicate that the liturgy is to be done in a native language as well as respecting and adapting to local customs.Just because the Church is permitting something does not mean there is no problem with it. We a discussing a statement by Pope Francis that the Church has still not done everything that Spirit called her to do through the 2nd Vatican Council. This means that the way things are right now is not necessarily the ideal of how they ought to be. The Pope is telling us to look at the Council to figure out how they ought to be. When we look at what the Council says about language of the liturgy, we see that there should be Latin.
Implicit? Then why should anyone keep studying Latin as the Popes have asked? JPII quoted Cicero, whose moral code the early church fathers adopted. I think that’s pretty serious.Whichever way you want to read it, the implicit conclusion is that the Church has no problem with an all-vernacular Mass.
The Council documents gave specific recommendations about which parts of the Mass should be in Latin and which in the vernacular. There was no recommendation for a completely vernacular Mass. The fact that the current norm does not match the recommendations suggests that further changes in the celebration of the Mass are called for. Given the comments of Pope Francis, it further suggests that people who are stubbornly clinging to the current norm are resisting the Holy Spirit.The documents of the Second Vatican Council does specifically indicate that the liturgy is to be done in a native language as well as respecting and adapting to local customs.
Your right however, things in the church are not necessarily to ideal of how it should be, there is much more to do and even change that has not been accomplished. This doesn’t mean futher changes in the celebration of the mass.
Are they now?The Council documents gave specific recommendations about which parts of the Mass should be in Latin and which in the vernacular. There was no recommendation for a completely vernacular Mass. The fact that the current norm does not match the recommendations suggests that further changes in the celebration of the Mass are called for. Given the comments of Pope Francis, it further suggests that people who are stubbornly clinging to the current norm are resisting the Holy Spirit.
Several people in this thread seem to think that anything that is happening in the Church must therefore be approved and must therefore be the ideal. But this is not how we should figure out the ideal. We should look at the Council documents to understand the ideal to which we are called. That is what Pope Francis said in the homily we are discussing here.Are they now?
Or are those people just using the English Missal that was approved by the Holy See not even 2 years ago?
You seem to be fine with believing that Pope Benedict XVI was a living, walking contradiction. At the same time you want to say that he approved the all-english Missal (3rd edition) and at the same time that he secretly hated the fact that it didn’t require latin but did nothing to change that (even though he never expressed such a thing about the 3rd Ed. English RM) even though he has the power as Pope to do that? The 1st Principle of logic is the principle of non-contradiction, and you seem to be violating it.
It’s a logical contraction and absurd to believe that the Church at the same time allows the use of the all-English Missal and believe that they are not happy with it (even though nobody from the relavent Curia office or even the Pope has expressed any such disapproval). It just doesn’t make any logical sense. You’re holding onto nothing more than a conspiracy theory at that point.
What you’re doing is accusing the Church of being downright schizophrenic. What it seems like if that, instead, it is you who are projecting your opinions on the Church. The old phrase goes “actions speak louder than words”, and the actions of the Church are pretty clear that She has no problems with an all-vernacular Mass by virtue of the fact that She approved the all-english Missal.
They didn’t have much choice. It would have been nice if they had banned all barbaric languages but they were already committed. English is hard to translate into but the first version was very sloppily translated. The Church couldn’t deal with the “for all” theology any more. It wasn’t just the English Missal either. And the number of English Masses percentagewise comprise only about 5% of all worldwide Masses. Things would have been less expensive had they kept the Mass in Latin. Fewer royalties. No translation wars. Less parish divisiveness. More recognizable Catholic worship. Less adlibbing. More uniformity. The list grows.It’s a logical contraction and absurd to believe that the Church at the same time allows the use of the all-English Missal
The changes in the Church that were most noticeable to the average Catholic were the changes in the liturgy. They impact our lives on a weekly basis. None of the other subjects treated at the Council are like this.I fail to understand why each time that Vatican II comes up the conversation quickly turns to the liturgy. First of all, Vatican II had nothing to do with the Pauline reform. That was completely the initiative of Pope Paul VI, an initiative that he had a right to take.
Consider that the majority of the changes were not done by the Council, but were implemented by Paul VI after the Council.The changes in the Church that were most noticeable to the average Catholic were the changes in the liturgy. They impact our lives on a weekly basis. None of the other subjects treated at the Council are like this.
I think you overstate the situation when you claim that the Vatican council had nothing to do with the Pauline reform. While the changes were not directly from the Council, the Pauline reform was a response to the Council. And many people were told that the changes in the liturgy were due to Vatican II or “the Spirit of Vatican II”. This is a very common popular perception, in my experience.
Personally, I am the other way around. When the subject of liturgy comes up, my thoughts turn to Vatican II and what it called for. That is a standard that I use to evaluate liturgy.
It is clear that there are many on CA are not happy with the liturgy of the mass. For those of us who love the liturgy as it now is , we are thankful that those on this site represent a small minority.The changes in the Church that were most noticeable to the average Catholic were the changes in the liturgy. They impact our lives on a weekly basis. None of the other subjects treated at the Council are like this.
I think you overstate the situation when you claim that the Vatican council had nothing to do with the Pauline reform. While the changes were not directly from the Council, the Pauline reform was a response to the Council. And many people were told that the changes in the liturgy were due to Vatican II or “the Spirit of Vatican II”. This is a very common popular perception, in my experience.
Personally, I am the other way around. When the subject of liturgy comes up, my thoughts turn to Vatican II and what it called for. That is a standard that I use to evaluate liturgy.
I have read the Vatican II documents out of my desire to understand and obey the Church. When reading the document on liturgy I notice that most OF Masses in my experience do not resemble what it calls for. I mention my observation when the subject comes up. What about this leads you to question my obedience to our shepherds?It is clear that there are many on CA are not happy with the liturgy of the mass. For those of us who love the liturgy as it now is , we are thankful that those on this site represent a small minority.
With to continual critique is does cause one to question thier obediance to our shepherds who many participated in it’s revisions and approvral.
Br JR, fair point, but as Vatican II produced a lot of documents, of which many Catholics have no familiarity with and which deal with many different issues, some even doctrinal, whenever someone (SSPX, Vatican, bishops, etc.) speak of Vatican II, exactly what are they speaking about in particular? Many speak of accepting Vatican II, but they accept it in the abstract. When faced with particulars, however, wars erupt. I think you yourself said that many things were discussed but the only thing that mattered was what the Pope himself approved. In fact, he had it in his power to null and void the entire council, as I believe John XXIII tried to do. Can we say the Pope had the power to overturn the will of the Holy Spirit?We have to be very careful not to reduce Vatican II to the mass. I’ve been noticing this tendency on CAF for a number of years. Why not speak about what Vatican II said on any of these other subjects? Does anyone even care to know?
Even though you may not see the OF in the documents as we have it today, our shepherds have. The council needs to be seen as a begining, not the end. The liturgy was not promulgated in a vacuum or in some dark room.I have read the Vatican II documents out of my desire to understand and obey the Church. When reading the document on liturgy I notice that most OF Masses in my experience do not resemble what it calls for. I mention my observation when the subject comes up. What about this leads you to question my obedience to our shepherds?
For the record, obedience to the Magisterium is very important to me. I think that I have written about obedience far more than I have written about liturgy, although perhaps not on this forum.
[Square brackets are my addition]I have read the Vatican II documents out of my desire to understand and obey the Church. When reading the document on liturgy** I notice** that most OF Masses in my experience do not resemble what I believe] it calls for.
Was not the 1962 Missal in Latin, part of the Mass reforms begun in 1948, restored by our shepherds (2 Popes, many Cardinals) as well? Where’s the enthusiasm in implementing their wills on this?Even though you may not see the OF in the documents as we have it today, our shepherds have. The council needs to be seen as a begining, not the end. The liturgy was not promulgated in a vacuum or in some dark room.
When the 3rd edition was realeased, my ordinary who is also a cardinal told his deacons and priest that we would without question, implement the liturgy. To me that is the final word, discussion over.
Even though I have no statistics, I would guess that 98% of the ordinaries relayed the same message.
DcnFAB
There are phrases in the first person because I have internalized Church teaching. It has been my goal to learn to think with the mind of the Church. I do not set my personal opinions or interpretations against Church teaching.[Square brackets are my addition]
Notice how many of those phrases are in the 1st person. Everything is about “me” and how “I understand”, but that has never been the Catholic way. In fact, the emphasis on the self come out of the Modern period (especially the philosophies of Descartes and Kant). In the Modern sense, everything becomes about how I see the world.
I am looking at the Church. I see a Vatican II document that says there should be Latin in the Mass. I saw Pope Benedict celebrate the Mass in Latin more often than any other language. I saw him create an academy for the purpose of promoting Latin. I see Pope Francis saying that there is more to do to implement Vatican II. I am doing my best to understand and obey the Church and you imply that I am infected with Modern philosophy.But that’s not how our Faith works. The proper way to read a Church document like Vatican II is through the eyes of the Church, because the Church is the sole authentic interpreter. And you learn about interpretation through external actions.
In the same way, it is through the actions of the Church that you understand what the teachings authentically mean. It is not for me to interpret, but only for me to watch what the Church does. I trust the Church to lead me to salvation because the Holy Spirit guides Her.
The Church chose to use the jussive subjunctive mode in interpreting its wishes.The proper way to read a Church document like Vatican II is through the eyes of the Church, because the Church is the sole authentic interpreter.