Pope Francis emphasizes that Second Vatican Council is the work of the Holy Spirit [CWN]

[CWReding]

Much has been done “in the spirit of Vatican II” that is contrary to Vatican II; which has resulted in disunity (I think SSPX, for example, may be more a consequence of disobedience to Vatican II among the clergy than a rebellion against Vatican II itself).

From the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy:
“36. 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.”

“101. 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.”

I have come to believe that the failure to preserve the Latin Mass is the most significant cause of disunity.

My “Aunt Min” (aka, Sr Marian Grace, an Incarnate Word nun), told me of an experience that brings the point home. Traveling in Europe, she recalled feeling isolated after a few days among non-English speakers and attending mass in the language of her host country.

It had been years since she had attended a mass in Latin (and she had never missed it!); but upon finding a parish that offered the Novus Ordo in Latin, she decided to attend.

Reflecting, she said that she finally understood why Vatican II required that the Latin Mass be preserved. She explained that everyone there, regardless of their mother tongue, were fully engaged in the mass as they prayed together in “our national language”; and saw the occasion as evidence of the first mark of the True Church. Not only “Holy, Catholic and Apostolic” but in a profound way, that in providing a common language for the faithful all over the world, the Church is “One”.

I had to ask, would she have preferred that there would have been a separate mass offered for English-only speakers? “Not at all” was her reply. Attending such a mass would only have served to make her feel more isolated from the locals. In celebrating the mass together in Latin, everyone there knew that they were “citizens” of the same Holy Church. That is unity!

Contrast that with what we have today… Rather than a Latin Mass, many parishes offer separate masses for people who do not speak (or do not want to speak) English. As a consequence, immigrant communities are isolated from other members of the parish. In the Houston area, it seems that a slim majority of parishes have a Spanish mass (attended almost exclusively by Mexican immigrants). Some offer Vietnamese, Chinese, etc. Our diocese even has separate programs for one ethnicity or another.

I’m sure that the separate programs and separate masses were established with good intentions. But intentions aside, the result has been disunity and isolation of immigrants. It is a soft bigotry of accomodation, it is disobedient to Vatican II, and it is tearing the Church apart.

 

[JamesCaruso]

I have come to believe that the failure to preserve the Latin Mass is the most significant cause of disunity.

My “Aunt Min” (aka, Sr Marian Grace, an Incarnate Word nun), told me of an experience that brings the point home. Traveling in Europe, she recalled feeling isolated after a few days among non-English speakers and attending mass in the language of her host country.

It had been years since she had attended a mass in Latin (and she had never missed it!); but upon finding a parish that offered the Novus Ordo in Latin, she decided to attend.

Reflecting, she said that she finally understood why Vatican II required that the Latin Mass be preserved. She explained that everyone there, regardless of their mother tongue, were fully engaged in the mass as they prayed together in “our national language”; and saw the occasion as evidence of the first mark of the True Church. Not only “Holy, Catholic and Apostolic” but in a profound way, that in providing a common language for the faithful all over the world, the Church is “One”.

I had to ask, would she have preferred that there would have been a separate mass offered for English-only speakers? “Not at all” was her reply. Attending such a mass would only have served to make her feel more isolated from the locals. In celebrating the mass together in Latin, everyone there knew that they were “citizens” of the same Holy Church. That is unity!

Contrast that with what we have today… Rather than a Latin Mass, many parishes offer separate masses for people who do not speak (or do not want to speak) English. As a consequence, immigrant communities are isolated from other members of the parish. In the Houston area, it seems that a slim majority of parishes have a Spanish mass (attended almost exclusively by Mexican immigrants). Some offer Vietnamese, Chinese, etc. Our diocese even has separate programs for one ethnicity or another.

I’m sure that the separate programs and separate masses were established with good intentions. But intentions aside, the result has been disunity and isolation of immigrants. It is a soft bigotry of accomodation, it is disobedient to Vatican II, and it is tearing the Church apart.

First, let me say that I have no argument against the Latin Mass or the Novus Ordo. I have traveled at times and wound up at a foreign language Mass, Italian to be specific. I could figure out of course what was happening at various parts of the Mass, but what dismayed me at my unlucky choice of times (other hours had the English Mass), was that I didn’t have a clue what the homily was about. I think the same applies to the Latin Mass, which while I can see your point that it is international, a single Church language, a half of the liturgy is the Liturgy of the Word, so that had to be a cause of disunity to some, at least, it would be to me. Certainly they did not have the homily in Latin, and certainly, hardly anyone would understand it if it was. In fact, I have known a number of priests who say the EF of Mass, but none of them can speak Latin. They only know the meaning of the Latin prayers from frequent repetition, not from being fluent in Latin, as I think is mostly the case. I suppose some could with great effort compose a homily in Latin and read it off, but I doubt that more than 5% of the congregation would understand it.

So, in summary, I don’t buy the unity argument, unless you want to downgrade the homily, a part of the Mass which I find important to my spiritual growth and to the structure/composition of the Mass, and which is alloted a significant period of time on Sundays. The only place where the Latin Mass does promote unity is where the people can all understand the sermon in their native language, and where that is the case, Latin is not needed to promote unity, because everyone speaks the same language.

I think we will continue to see the vernacular in most places, simply because most people prefer Mass in their own language and feel they can participate more fully. I think we will continue to have the EF Masses at particular times in particular places because there are a certain number of people who will seek it out. At my own parish we had the EF on Wednesday morning and Saturday noon. However, when new priests took over the parish, both were soon dropped probably owing to the fact that there were never more than a dozen people in attendance, whereas 100 or more attend the OF each day. I had always hoped that more people would join over time, but it didn’t seem to be the case in the two or three years I was attending. There is another parish that has the EF on Sunday morning at 6:30, which is a bit early for me, plus the fact that I sing in the choir at 10:30, so as much as I would like to get more into the EF, it’s far too inconvenient at this point. I do like the more sacrificial focus of the EF, but that is also something you can carry with you to the OF as your understanding of the Mass allows.

I guess this is far afield from Pope Francis’ emphasis on Vatican II, but maybe not. I do not think he will break from Pope Benedict’s encouragement of the EF, and I think more emphasis on the Vatican II documents will make the OF even better. Peace.

 

[HelenRose]

I would like to know where these folks get these ideas. When the man was an Archbishop, he made his position very clear on all of these issues.

I would love to see the day when we no longer use vocabulary like liberals and traditionalists. These are terms that often describe extremes. Most people think of traditionalists and they think of Archbishop Levebvre ordaining bishops without a papal mandate and Bishop Fellay ordaining priests without permission from their ordinaries. The truth is that most people who love tradition are not part of the camp.

When people hear liberal, they think of the women’s ordination, gay marriage, pro-choice, and boogie-boogie mass. The truth is that the mainstream Catholic does not fit into that mold at all. He may not be a TLM person and he may have questions on these other issues, but he’s not a rebel either.

I think that Pope Francis may be the man who will pull together what Pope Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI planted. Each of these great men gave us a necessary piece. We need someone to pull it all together.

I don’t know where people get these ideas. I agree with you. I think that Pope Francis will be the man to bring together what these wonderful Popes have set in motion. Perhaps it is better to say “What the Holy Spirit has set in motion.” I am excited for the Church.

 

[JReducation]

I don’t know where people get these ideas. I agree with you. I think that Pope Francis will be the man to bring together what these wonderful Popes have set in motion. Perhaps it is better to say “What the Holy Spirit has set in motion.” I am excited for the Church.

Many years ago I had an opportunity to attend a workshop of sorts with then Cardinal Ratzinger. The Roman universities had these mini courses, a little longer than a workshop, but much shorter than a summer course. He taught one on Theology of History. The one thing that I took away from that program was that God builds in stages. We don’t see the whole, because He’s building around us.

We have to learn to be patient. Someday, we’ll get to see the whole and we will be utterly amazed at the glory of God and how it has been manifested through human history without interfering with the natural course of our lives and our free choice.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Haha! “As it is written” implementation of Vatican II may not please some who think they like Vatican II. If the focus is drawn to the substance of Vatican II and not the loopholes, some people may be in for a shock IMHO. .

My reaction as well, James. As soon as I saw that phrase I recognized it as something that in some quarters has never materialized. Rather, something that is a poor imitation, or in some cases a distortion, has substituted for the V2 documents & directives themselves.

V2 promised the laity a participation in the life of the Church, not a prerogative to oppose the Church. Two very different things.

 

[TimothyH]

Haha! “As it is written” implementation of Vatican II may not please some who think they like Vatican II. If the focus is drawn to the substance of Vatican II and not the loopholes, some people may be in for a shock IMHO.

Overall I like Pope Francis’ approach, and find it refreshing and swift to go to the bottom line, spiritually speaking. I have not observed that his leaning toward informality has affected his love for devoutness in the Mass.

I hope the traditionalists will be relieved with his continued support for the EF, and the conservatives will find hope in the OF becoming more in line with the written documents of Vatican II. I hope the liberals will be pleased with Pope Francis’ obvious concern for the poor, disabled, diseased and disadvantaged. I think he has something for everyone, and that’s how it should be.

The idea that he has “Something for everyone”, that he is pleasing two different crowds with two different sets of doctrines is a false division. This is a major propblem in the mindset of many Catholics.

Progressive/liberal/social justice crowd or conservative/traditionalist/personal morality crowd - call them whatever you want. Both sides have to realize that all sin is injustice and all injustice is sin. There is no division between personal morality and social justice.

Injustice is when you deny somone something that is theirs by right. When a man cheats on his wife, he denies her fidelity which is hers by right. When a homeless man freezes to death on a cold winter night, he is denied the dignity which, as one created in the image and likeness of God and whom Christ died for, is his by right. Both are injustice and both are sin. There is no division.

Pope Francis is not a “Something for everyone” Pope. He understands that injustice and sin go hand in hand, and that personal morality can never be divorced social justice. He understands that a world without sin would be perfectly just and a perfectly just world would have no sin. He understands that it is all or nothing.

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

Many years ago I had an opportunity to attend a workshop of sorts with then Cardinal Ratzinger. The Roman universities had these mini courses, a little longer than a workshop, but much shorter than a summer course. He taught one on Theology of History. The one thing that I took away from that program was that God builds in stages. We don’t see the whole, because He’s building around us.

We have to learn to be patient. Someday, we’ll get to see the whole and we will be utterly amazed at the glory of God and how it has been manifested through human history without interfering with the natural course of our lives and our free choice.

I read a little bit about the Theology of History, how history finds it’s ultimate meaning and end in Christ. It was fascinating but what I was reading quickly went over my head.

I think I tried to read Cardinal Ratzinger’s book on St. Boneventure, or maybe a summary of that. What was I thinking???

ignatius.com/Products/THB-P/theology-of-history-in-bonaventure.aspx

I don’t know if you are aware but I have found a few who invoke the phrase “Theology of History” to assert that God is working through the traditionalist movement to fight progressivism in the Church. They say things like “God has always worked through a small group of faithful Catholics” and go on to point to the traditionalist movement’s preservation of the Latin Mass as part of that, akin to the Levites staying faithful at Mt. Sinai or the initial generation of Franciscans reforming the Church.

-Tim-

 

[Michael_Francis]

Having descending into contention and poor charity, this thread is now closed.
i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/nun_slapping_ruler_hg_clr-1.gif