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

[RobbyS]

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

I prefer Chesterton’s line: “God writes straight with crooked lines.” We call his sketches, Creation, and strain our little brains trying to discern his patterns.

 

[ProVobis]

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

Weird theology.

 

[Tsuwano]

Weird theology.

Limitless God.

 

[Lucky7]

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.

This is where I am at. Not a traditionalist (although I seem to post as one…lol), but my common sense tells me that there is something inherently wrong to go from all Latin to practically no Latin. Having said that, I don’t think going to the vernacular is the main issue. I happen to believe it certainly helped me to convert. However, I still wonder why the need for soooooo many changes. It certainly gives the impression that the liturgy was sooooo wrong for hundreds of years.

The vernacular was just one of many extreme changes, but the extreme change in general is probably caused by the same thing. I hope that the Pope’s comments here means that he is looking to clarify what should have happened and what the understanding should have been, and then enforce universal changes to clearly reflect that.

 

[oldcelt]

I have personally never understood the issue with using local languages for the mass. Latin ceased to be a relevant language long ago. It is incredibly complex with all its various conjugations and an utterly unworkable numbering system that is, in my view, best suited for an absolutely hilarious Monty Python sketch. It was also the language, not of Christ or any of the disciples, but of the people who persecuted them…and millions of others.
The notion that it somehow adds to the mystery and reverence of the mass doesn’t add up with me either. I am just old enough to remember how thrilled I was that the priest was, for the most part, speaking in a language that I could understand.

John

 

[markomalley]

This is where I am at. Not a traditionalist (although I seem to post as one…lol), but my common sense tells me that there is something inherently wrong to go from all Latin to practically no Latin. Having said that, I don’t think going to the vernacular is the main issue. I happen to believe it certainly helped me to convert. However, I still wonder why the need for soooooo many changes. It certainly gives the impression that the liturgy was sooooo wrong for hundreds of years.

The vernacular was just one of many extreme changes, but the extreme change in general is probably caused by the same thing. I hope that the Pope’s comments here means that he is looking to clarify what should have happened and what the understanding should have been, and then enforce universal changes to clearly reflect that.

Regarding the bold, red text (my emphasis) above, that was not the work of the Council.

The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, stated the following:36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
2. 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.

(snip)

1. In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and “the common prayer,” but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to the norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution. **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. **

And wherever a more extended use of the mother tongue within the Mass appears desirable, the regulation laid down in Art. 40 of this Constitution is to be observed.

(snip)

1. Liturgical worship is given a more noble form when the divine offices are celebrated solemnly in song, with the assistance of sacred ministers and the active participation of the people.

As regards the language to be used, the provisions of Art. 36 are to be observed; for the Mass, Art. 54; for the sacraments, Art. 63; for the divine office. Art. 101.

Sadly, so few clerics have been given serious instruction in Latin in recent decades, it would be very difficult to fix this any time soon. I understand that this is in process of being corrected in many seminaries, but it will be a tough slog for a while.

 

[sennincatholic]

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.

Great post…clarifies a lot of things…

 

[floresco]

This is where I am at. Not a traditionalist (although I seem to post as one…lol), but my common sense tells me that there is something inherently wrong to go from all Latin to practically no Latin. Having said that, I don’t think going to the vernacular is the main issue. I happen to believe it certainly helped me to convert. However, I still wonder why the need for soooooo many changes. It certainly gives the impression that the liturgy was sooooo wrong for hundreds of years.

The vernacular was just one of many extreme changes, but the extreme change in general is probably caused by the same thing. I hope that the Pope’s comments here means that he is looking to clarify what should have happened and what the understanding should have been, and then enforce universal changes to clearly reflect that.

We did not need so many changes. If people had only implemented the changes actually called for by the Council, we would not have the problem you identify above. But the Council was misunderstood or used as an excuse to make many additional changes that it did not really call for. I completely agree with you about wanting the Pope to clarify this.

 

[ProVobis]

Having said that, I don’t think going to the vernacular is the main issue.

It could be if it leads to the wrong level of understanding. That means not only the liturgy, but the documents themselves. With hundreds of vernaculars and hundreds of thousand possible translations, it would be impossible for everyone to understand things the same way. Even math isn’t always accurate but at least the world keeps the symbols the same so that everyone understands the principles. Lawyers and botanists too have a predetermined set of Latin phrases that when used mean one and only one thing. I would hate to go to court and hear a lawyer say “may you have a body” instead of “habeas corpus” and have the judge ask what the heck he was talking about. No doubt he’d at least find it humorous. Or maybe not so humorous.

Think about all the possible translations and interpretations and then think about the 30,000 Protestant denominations there are out there. Could there be a connections?

 

[OriginalJS]

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.

Isn’t this resistance to change and the desire to go back to the old ways exactly one of the things he is talking about?

 

[floresco]

Isn’t this resistance to change and the desire to go back to the old ways exactly one of the things he is talking about?

No. All change is not from the Spirit. Resisting the Spirit is wrong, of course, but we must resist those changes which are not from the Spirit.

There is a vocal group claiming that the Church should change her teaching that reserves priesthood to men. Is this change from the Spirit? Should we embrace this change or resist it?

 

[CatholicGeek1]

Maybe I’m being overly optimistic (I am trying VERY hard to be optimistic), but in the past two days we got the re-affirmation of the LCWR refrom, and this possibly questionable homily; its a trade off I’ll take

And take it in context with his other homilies (remember a week ago he said negotiating away parts of the faith is apostasy against Christ). I don’t think he said anything objectively wrong here, its just that we know that the liberal crowd will jump all over it, so its frustrating. At least thats how I’m looking at it

I am glad that you are willing to accept the “questionable” homily of our Pope! :rolleyes"

 

[commenter]

Quote:
Originally Posted by commenter
My reading of the Council documents shows a lot that still needs to be implemented.

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

There are things in the documents we have done incompletely. For instance, in the document on the laity there is a challenge to lay Catholics to bring the gospel into the world. Instead, we see huge numbers of laity passively accepting legal abortion, etc. The decree on the laity has been turned around by many, so as to blur the distinction between laity and priest that is fully reflected in the Council. The tendency is for laity to implement whatever the media chooses, not unified with the Church. Decrees on the bishops, or on priests, include the need to proclaim doctrine; some have, and some have not. Some convents are implementing the actual documents on Religious LIfe, and other documents; but other convents seem to be implementing whatever agenda the media promotes.
When I talk to Catholics most have no idea today what the actual documents say, they have a vague general idea, most of which comes from HuffPost, CNN, etc.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

ProVobis

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!

Of course it can, because the statement is to preserve Latin in the Latin rite does not mean at every Mass in every parish throughout Catholicism.

Latin is to be preserved within the context where it is best used to serve the Church and that is, in official communications, and Mass where it’s celebrated among people of various nationalities and languages, such as at St Peter’s. All the Bishops and Priests attending, not being of one native tongue, Latin use in those Masses serves the purpose.

However, at my parish, your parish or others, Latin merely distances people from the Mass because it’s not their native language and therefore doesn’t serve the purpose of full participation by the people, which Vatican II called for.

Yeah, some people will learn Latin, but most will not and then there are those who are incapable of learning it, for whatever reason. The Church serves the poor and desires to include all and not exclude anyone, which is why allowing the Mass in the vernacular was called for.

In the end, Vatican II allowed for the experimentation and development and was watched and communicated by the Bishops. Vernacular was accepted so well, that the Mass in most cases is now said in the vernacular, and there is no desire by most to return to Latin.

My wife and myself use to attend a Novus Ordo Mass at the local Benedictine Monastery, where they said the parts of the Mass in Latin, everyday except Thursdays, which was entire in Latin.

Without the use of the Roman Missile, we’d be lost, but even then, we were just following the Latin words that we didn’t easily understand. It was reverent.

However, we also attend Mass at a local Trappist Monastery where it’s said in English, It too is very reverent.

In both cases, the reverence has to do with the people in attendance, not the language the Mass is celebrated in.

Jim

 

[jja619]

Does anyone have the full text from the homily? I think that would be helpful in clarifying what the Holy Father intended in his words.

 

[floresco]

I am glad that you are willing to accept the “questionable” homily of our Pope! :rolleyes"

While a homily of the Pope is, of course, not questionable in itself, the way it has been transmitted is very much open to question. Are we being given the entire homily? Are the words taken out of context? Was it translated correctly?

I saw words of Pope Benedict twisted by the media far too many times, not to question what I see attributed to the Pope.

 

[opus101]

Latin is to be preserved within the context where it is best used to serve the Church and that is, in official communications, and Mass where it’s celebrated among people of various nationalities and languages, such as at St Peter’s. All the Bishops and Priests attending, not being of one native tongue, Latin use in those Masses serves the purpose.

However, at my parish, your parish or others, Latin merely distances people from the Mass because it’s not their native language and therefore doesn’t serve the purpose of full participation by the people, which Vatican II called for.Jim

IMO, there is no way that Latin can be used well in the situations that you first described, without being present on the local parish level. As far as shorter parts of the Mass are concerned (the Greek “Kyrie”, “Sanctus” and “Agnus Dei”) and the short responses, it is not hard at all to eventually learn them just through being present for a few months at a Mass where these are being said. The translations are (or should be) right next to them, and it becomes more natural as time goes by, to the point where the translation isn’t even referred to - one can pray and “mean it”/understand it, in the Greek/Latin. And it’s good to remember that we are only talking about Ecclesiastical Latin as far as it is connected to the Sacred Liturgy, we are not referring to the actual study of the language with all of its difficulties, and are not talking about people being required to actually be able to communicate and write in Latin.

Poor and uneducated people have done this for centuries upon centuries.

I’m not saying that the entire Mass needs to be in Latin, but a certain minimum needs to be returned to. As you said, it would be necessary at Masses at St. Peter’s, etc., and places where people of many nationalities gather (like right in front of the TV set).

Once when I was traveling in a French-speaking country, I went to Mass. I was so happy that certain parts were in Latin, as I could join in with everyone else at those moments.

Latin sort of undoes Babble.

 

[Elizabeth502]

In his homily at Mass today, Pope Francis talked about the Holy Spirit and Vatican II:

Any thoughts about what changes he thinks are needed? How do we change and avoid turning back the clock?

One central concept that V2 proclaimed, and tried to support through various encouragements, was an active Catholic Christianity by the lay faithful. Engaged. Committed. A consciousness of individuals being, like the early Church, significant to the work and success of that Church. A consciousness of how such commitment promises earthly joy (not only heavenly).

Not hand-holding at the Our Father and folk Masses and skipping Confession and supporting polymorphic sexuality. and considering it fashionable to be ignorant of the tenets of the Faith.

Conversion. Witness. (There’s the “change,” to answer your question.) Openness to the Holy Spirit in our individual lives, and to the pervasiveness of that Spirit in the Body of the Church (each other). That all requires radical ***personal ***change which Our Holy Father has discussed, including before his papacy. Some of the specific external changes allowed and supported by V2 were all intended to work toward individual consciousness of the lay Catholic as a member of the Church “Militant,” needed by Christ for transforming the world. And that global transformation is not possible without personal conversion.

The Spirit (divine and human) of V2 never contradicted the Tradition of the Church. That would be impossible. God is not divided and never contradicts His own Truth. In fact, in order to implement the divine and human Spirit of V2 it is essential to draw on the Tradition of the Church, because in that Tradition are many aids to personal conversion.

 

[opus101]

One central concept that V2 proclaimed, and tried to support through various encouragements, was an active Catholic Christianity by the lay faithful. Engaged. Committed. A consciousness of individuals being, like the early Church, significant to the work and success of that Church. A consciousness of how such commitment promises earthly joy (not only heavenly).

Not hand-holding at the Our Father and folk Masses and skipping Confession and supporting polymorphic sexuality. and considering it fashionable to be ignorant of the tenets of the Faith.

Conversion. Witness. (There’s the “change,” to answer your question.) Openness to the Holy Spirit in our individual lives, and to the pervasiveness of that Spirit in the Body of the Church (each other). That all requires radical ***personal ***change which Our Holy Father has discussed, including before his papacy. Some of the specific external changes allowed and supported by V2 were all intended to work toward individual consciousness of the lay Catholic as a member of the Church “Militant,” needed by Christ for transforming the world. And that global transformation is not possible without personal conversion.

The Spirit (divine and human) of V2 never contradicted the Tradition of the Church. That would be impossible. God is not divided and never contradicts His own Truth. In fact, in order to implement the divine and human Spirit of V2 it is essential to draw on the Tradition of the Church, because in that Tradition are many aids to personal conversion.

 

[ProVobis]

…because it’s not their native language and therefore doesn’t serve the purpose of full participation by the people, which Vatican II called for.

“Actuoso participatio” is possible within a Spanish or Italian Mass as well as a Latin Mass if you’re an Anglophone.