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

[Lucky7]

Levity and irony?
Oh, so instead of rebuking the mindset of those who do not want Vatican II to have ever happened he just made fun of them?

I doubt the Holy Father makes fun of anyone. However, I, too, am not getting how there was irony and levity wrt this topic.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

If the 2nd Vatican council is the work of the Holy Spirit, so is this part of the document.

1. § 1. Linguae latinae usus, salvo particulari iure, in Ritibus latinis servetur.

Particular law in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rite.

But you leave out the following to this;

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

1. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.

1. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.

Also, this is the important part;

1. To ensure that adaptations may be made with all the circumspection which they demand, the Apostolic See will grant power to this same territorial ecclesiastical authority to permit and to direct, as the case requires, the necessary preliminary experiments over a determined period of time among certain groups suited for the purpose.

As a result of what happened throughout the Latin Rite, the Novus Ordo developed into the Missile of Paul V, and the use of Latin in most parishes in the world, is rarely used.

Jim

 

[McCall1981]

I doubt the Holy Father makes fun of anyone. However, I, too, am not getting how there was irony and levity wrt this topic.

I don’t know, I don’t speak Italian. He said: “…listening to it makes a big difference and you can detect some of the irony Italians use when speaking seriously, but adding a bit of levity.”

He also said it was"nice" when listened to in Italian, but “not so nice” when read in English. Beyond that I don’t know, he just had a more positive impression of it having listened to it in Italian as oppossed to reading the English.

So, take it for whatever its worth…

 

[ProVobis]

But you leave out the following to this;

No, I didn’t. I stated the key part in Latin. I was making a point out of the Latin and its translation. What you gave (and most use) is the translation to the whole thing. The English isn’t supposed to be the authoritative.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

No, I didn’t. I stated the key part in Latin. I was making a point out of the Latin and its translation.

It’s a fundamentalist interpretation.

You take one sentence and ignore the rest.

Jim

 

[Lucky7]

It’s a fundamentalist interpretation.

You take one sentence and ignore the rest.

Jim

Actually, I think by adding the parts you included only proves the point that it is all vague and open to interpretation. Should it be?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Actually, I think by adding the parts you included only proves the point that it is all vague and open to interpretation. Should it be?

It’s not because it leaves it up to the local Bishop.

1. 1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.

1. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.

Jim

 

[ProVobis]

It’s a fundamentalist interpretation.

Which becomes contradictory upon your interpretation and that was the point others have raised about the translated documents. I don’t believe the Holy Spirit allows contradictions.

How can Latin be preserved in the Latin Rite and allowance made for full-vernacular all-the time at the same time? CANNOT BE DONE!

The Latin clearly states that when particular laws allow it, Latin is to be retained. IT IS NOT AN OPTION. IT’S A CLEAR COMMAND. However not rarely (not “frequently”) where its to the advantage the bishops may extend the vernacular (not “mother tongue”) … What about when there are mixed languages, what determines the mother tongue? And what advantage does it serve to those not fully understand that language? I say that there was no clear advantage in the US to have Mass in English, especially when people left in droves, hispanics don’t think the English Mass is for them and Anglophones don’t think the Spanish Mass applies to them. In many areas people don’t get that choice either.

I do admit that the vernacular has been of advantage in Asia and other countries, though. But even here clarification is made later to have parts of the Mass in Latin.

 

[ProVobis]

It’s not because it leaves it up to the local Bishop.

If everything were left to the local bishop, why does the Pope bring up the other points of the Second Vatican Council at all?

 

[floresco]

It’s not because it leaves it up to the local Bishop.

It gives certain principles and leaves their application to the Bishop. This does not mean that the principles ought to be ignored. We cannot consider the current situation, in regards to the language of the Mass, as following the directives of the Council.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Practically speaking, I do see good fruits of VII. I won’t go into those.

Practically speaking, I also see things that clearly haven’t worked following the Council. I won’t go into those, either.

I didn’t live through the Council, and I’m fully glad for that. It seems, and this is only my observation, that most in-union-with-the-Pope traditionalists don’t reject VII so much as they are keenly aware of all of the pain, hurt and silliness they have been put through, and so are skeptical when anyone uses phrases like “workings of the Spirit” and similar others. I am, too. We can trust the Pope when he discusses true intent and stuff like that, but when I hear others talk about stuff like that, I am highly skeptical, of course while discriminating against the source.

 

[McCall1981]

It seems, and this is only my observation, that most in-union-with-the-Pope traditionalists don’t reject VII so much as they are keenly aware of all of the pain, hurt and silliness they have been put through, and so are skeptical when anyone uses phrases like “workings of the Spirit” and similar others. I am, too. We can trust the Pope when he discusses true intent and stuff like that, but when I hear others talk about stuff like that, I am highly skeptical, of course while discriminating against the source.

Well said, this is how I feel too.

Its a strange situation, because objectively, in a vacuum, I agree with everything Pope Francis said here. But its also very upsetting because it gives ammunition to people who (in my opinion) are enemies of the Church

And I too am glad I didnt live through the Council, I think it may very well have killed me…

 

[markomalley]

Pope Benedict XVI, 14 Feb 2013, Audience with the Parish Priests and Clergy of the Diocese of Rome:

I would now like to add yet a third point: there was the Council of the Fathers – the real Council – but there was also the Council of the media. It was almost a Council apart, and the world perceived the Council through the latter, through the media. Thus, the Council that reached the people with immediate effect was that of the media, not that of the Fathers. And while the Council of the Fathers was conducted within the faith – it was a Council of faith seeking intellectus, seeking to understand itself and seeking to understand the signs of God at that time, seeking to respond to the challenge of God at that time and to find in the word of God a word for today and tomorrow – while all the Council, as I said, moved within the faith, as * fides quaerens intellectum*, the Council of the journalists, naturally, was not conducted within the faith, but within the categories of today’s media, namely apart from faith, with a different hermeneutic. It was a political hermeneutic: for the media, the Council was a political struggle, a power struggle between different trends in the Church. It was obvious that the media would take the side of those who seemed to them more closely allied with their world. There were those who sought the decentralization of the Church, power for the bishops and then, through the expression “People of God”, power for the people, the laity. There was this threefold question: the power of the Pope, which was then transferred to the power of the bishops and the power of all – popular sovereignty. Naturally, for them, this was the part to be approved, to be promulgated, to be favoured. So too with the liturgy: there was no interest in liturgy as an act of faith, but as something where comprehensible things are done, a matter of community activity, something profane. And we know that there was a tendency, not without a certain historical basis, to say: sacrality is a pagan thing, perhaps also a thing of the Old Testament. In the New Testament it matters only that Christ died outside: that is, outside the gates, in the profane world. Sacrality must therefore be abolished, and profanity now spreads to worship: worship is no longer worship, but a community act, with communal participation: participation understood as activity. These translations, trivializations of the idea of the Council, were virulent in the process of putting the liturgical reform into practice; they were born from a vision of the Council detached from its proper key, that of faith. And the same applies to the question of Scripture: Scripture is a book, it is historical, to be treated historically and only historically, and so on.

We know that this **Council of the media** was  accessible to everyone. Therefore, this was the dominant one, the more effective  one, and it **created so many disasters, so many problems, so much suffering:  seminaries closed, convents closed, banal liturgy** … and the real Council had  difficulty establishing itself and taking shape; the virtual Council was  stronger than the real Council. But the real force of the Council was present  and, slowly but surely, established itself more and more and became the true  force which is also the true reform, the true renewal of the Church. It seems to  me that, 50 years after the Council, we see that this virtual Council is broken,  is lost, and there now appears the true Council with all its spiritual force.

Something to put Francis’ statements in context.

I will assume that His Holiness today is speaking of the Council of the Fathers. Not the Council of the Media.

 

[Tsuwano]

Which becomes contradictory upon your interpretation and that was the point others have raised about the translated documents. I don’t believe the Holy Spirit allows contradictions.

How can Latin be preserved in the Latin Rite and allowance made for full-vernacular all-the time at the same time? CANNOT BE DONE!

The Latin clearly states that when particular laws allow it, Latin is to be retained. IT IS NOT AN OPTION. IT’S A CLEAR COMMAND. However not rarely (not “frequently”) where its to the advantage the bishops may extend the vernacular (not “mother tongue”) … What about when there are mixed languages, what determines the mother tongue? And what advantage does it serve to those not fully understand that language? I say that there was no clear advantage in the US to have Mass in English, especially when people left in droves, hispanics don’t think the English Mass is for them and Anglophones don’t think the Spanish Mass applies to them. In many areas people don’t get that choice either.

I do admit that the vernacular has been of advantage in Asia and other countries, though. But even here clarification is made later to have parts of the Mass in Latin.

Of course the Holy Spirit allows contradictions! Every miracle by definition is a contradiction. The resurrection itself is a contradiction.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Well said, this is how I feel too.

Its a strange situation, because objectively, in a vacuum, I agree with everything Pope Francis said here. But its also very upsetting because it gives ammunition to people who (in my opinion) are enemies of the Church

And I too am glad I didnt live through the Council, I think it may very well have killed me…

Precisely.

 

[Megan7]

Pope Benedict established an Academy for the promotion of Latin. catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1204748.htm That is how important he thinks it is. Yet some people will dismiss studying and using Latin as “turning back the clock”.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with “versus populum”. However, the Church never taught that it should be the only direction for the Mass, which is what the situation practically was.

Thanks for the link., God bless you

 

[RobbyS]

but what if truly following the 2nd Vatican Council and the Holy Spirit means turning back the clock (especially when it comes to liturgy)? There are things that were implemented after V II that were never truly supposed to implemented in the way they were.

For example, while there was supposed to be reform to the liturgy, it was never supposed to be as drastic as it was. We’re only now starting to slowly see some of what was abandoned come back into the liturgy and we can’t even say that it’s universal.

There have been many councils, and if we wish to discern the will of the Holy Spirit that was guiding some of them them, we would be hard pressed,even after so long. As for the lturgy, the liturgy, there never was a “Tridentine liturgy,” as such. but one better called baroque, a development of the culture of the age. Unlike what we have now, however, it was not, nor did it seems, like a product of its time, to be overthrown out of whimsy, so to speak, to suit the spirit of that age. Our age, unfortunately, revels in ugliness rather than beauty.

 

[opus101]

Pope Benedict established an Academy for the promotion of Latin. catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1204748.htm That is how important he thinks it is. Yet some people will dismiss studying and using Latin as “turning back the clock”.

The above link makes an important point: serious study of theology, liturgy, the church fathers and canon law “require knowledge of Latin because most of the sources in all those fields were written in Latin.”

I know that most priests ordained during the last 40 or so years know precious little Latin. I don’t know how many of them defend their dissenting opinions on theology and liturgy with such vehemence when they can’t even do research with the primary documents. They can only rely on secondary sources ( if that) without a knowledge of Latin.

 

[RobbyS]

Thanks for the link., God bless you

To considers the sheer quantity, as well as the great beauty of the music in Latin, is almost to be overwhelmed. That it should be so little used in churches, while the Roman rite remains Latin, is very odd. But we even refuse to use the music of Anglicans like John Rutter.

 

[RobbyS]

The above link makes an important point: serious study of theology, liturgy, the church fathers and canon law “require knowledge of Latin because most of the sources in all those fields were written in Latin.”

I know that most priests ordained during the last 40 or so years know precious little Latin. I don’t know how many of them defend their dissenting opinions on theology and liturgy with such vehemence when they can’t even do research with the primary documents. They can only rely on secondary sources ( if that) without a knowledge of Latin.

Or Greek or Hebrew?