No worries at all. I know your comments were not directed at me.
To me that is a serious problem. Of course, the documents nor the CCC are really geared to the laity anyway.
I think the OF of the Mass is the biggest issue as well as formation and catechesis but your points are probably valid also.
Excellent quote. Thanks!
Agreed, and God Bless the Holy Father for pushing that initiative.
That really didn’t answer the question, even if the quote is accurate. There are still two dogmatic constitutions produced by the council. How can they contain error and still be dogmatic?
I would say more specifically the English OF for three reasons: One, the Latin OF has not been challenged severely by the FSSPX. (The Roman Canon and EP1 are virtually identical in the Latin.) Two, the English translations have been the ones that are more carefully scrutinized of late. (The Spanish Mass, for example, still has the “for all” clause in it and it seems to have gone unnoticed.) Three, you yourself have brought up the fact (post #45) that the Pope has expressed more concern for the English-speaking world and its (failed?) interpretation of Church doctrine. Seems like the FSSPX aren’t the only ones who have deviated in that respect in the eyes of the Vatican.
Acording to my understanding “dogmatic constitution” is simply one of 3 ways of phrasing “apostolic consitution”. The question should not be “what is the genre or category mentioned in the title” but rather, “whats in the document?” and is it (the doc) by its nature protected by the gift of indefectability?". In the case of vatican II the apostolic constitutions are called dogma because the repeat and rephrase earlier established dogmas, not because they establish dogma and therefore the phrasing and wording therein falls into the realm of prudential judgment (i.e. it can be imprudently worded, even in a way that is potentially and theoretically harmful to the church and the salvation of souls). As one example, the most recent of these types of constitutions was actually the one by our holy father explaining how to go about bringing Anglicans into the church. I could be wrong, but I don’t think that document teaches dogma in any way shape or form. In that document, a dogmatic/apostolic constitution, the pope could have legally stated (to borrow a Davies example) that the welsh rugby team is better than the English rugby team and many of the anglicans the letter refered to would have been made angry and could rightfully, under Canon 212 §3, call that statement in the dogmatic constitution “imprudent” and even “erroneous” while many welsh rugby fans might like the statement and might always make sure to stress the word dogmatic or apostolic when referring to the constitution, to discourage English rugby fans from challenging it…
I would disagree about the english NO vs the plain old EF argument. Even the NO in latin is still the NO and it is almost everything about the NO that they dislike. The removal of the vast majority of references to sacrifice (not just the EP) and the removal of entire prayers that stressed the sacrficial nature of the mass and the role of the priest as sacriicer (not the host of a fellowship dinner) the removal of prayers and acts that stressed our sins and the expiatory nature of the sacrifice, the removal of acts, signs and wording that stressed our belief in the real presence, etc etc. A real traditionalist who understands each of the differences between the EF and NO prayers (and the similarity between the NO missal and the anglican missals) would rather attend the EF in vietnamese than the NO in Latin…
When I said they are “called dogma” I meant to write “called dogmatic constitutions”. The whole point is that they are not called dogma. Sorry for the confusion.
I think that the OF is the most visible issue, but I tend to think that the EENS issues are actually more important, although I could be wrong.
Can you point out the falsehoods that you are alluding to? I would also note that the Pope did not say that Vatican II was not a real council or that its teachings are not true and binding.
Can you tell which particular teachings of Vatican II are ambiguous and need to be clarified? Are there particular misunderstandings among the faithful in the Church today because of these ambiguities?
Fair points but a few things here.
There are translations and misinterpretations of things other than the NO that seem to be heavy issues, and that seems to the point of the article jwinch2 posted.
I can understand what you are saying here. But in light of this, I do not think the word"error" can be used based on an opinion that the wording is imprudent. So why do the SSPX object if it is a question of prudence? More to the point, if it is a question of prudence, wouldn’t that be something we should be obedient in, yielding our opinion, not because we think the opinion of the Church is better, but because of the authority vested in the Church.
I have never understood the purpose of such a phrase as “real traditionist”. It is just too much of a cliche.
Opinion noted, but please don’t draw too much from my usage of the word. I suppose, if I wanted to use more words to get my point across I would explain that I’m distinguishing simply between the many people who think language (latin v english, latin v korean) is the primary issue and the primary reason for the traditionalist movement and those who understand that the problems from the beginning never had nearly as much to do with language as with content. But perhaps you’re right, perhaps “real traditionalist” was poor choice of wording, however I would point out that the phrase I used should be taken in its entirety, that is that I qualified the term by saying “a real traditionalist who understands each of the differences between the EF and NO prayers (and the similarity between the NO missal and the anglican missals)” which basically means everything that I just explained in this post. Perhaps my korean studies (where modifiers come conveniently before the modified noun have made me forget that the modifier “x who y y y” easily goes unnoticed in english
I think a case can be made for the word error. But that aside, a big problem here is what is drawn from the error. Is it the case that a phrase such as “means of salvation” can and does lead many people (clergy and laity) to erroneously believe that non-catholics can be saved “by” their religion rather than “in spite of” it? Yes, I think, looking around today, it is the case. We could sit here and argue about whether thats the most logical interpretation of the text, etc, but none of that matters. The church’s primary concern is the salvation of souls and the issue today is that many of these wordings ARE contributing to modernist ideas such as religious pluralism spreading throughout the church (have you read about any religious pluralism being taught in catholic schools today? I have) and those tangible things, those things that are actually happening are the reason that this is a big deal and needs to be address.
I don’t see why prudence/imprudence should be grounds for not objecting to things. But certainly their primary motivation is that they believe it is endangering the church’s mission, the salvation of souls.
I think we should be cautious regarding to what degree and in what way we mix things like “authority”, "prudence"and “opinion” together because of their respective natures. Certainly, when other factors are not involved it could be argued that the smarter thing to do is err on the side of the church (i.e. the theological concensus on the Assumption prior to it being dogmatized). However when things are actually having visible, tangible negative effects on the church, on the faithful, and we think (perhaps rightly, perhaps wrongly) that the above mentioned imprudence is the (or a) cause (and we have 2,000 yrs of examples of imprudent ordinances having negative practical effects on the church), then we have, not only the right, but according to Canon law Can. 212 §3, the duty to argue against it (i.e. petition the pope, petition the bishops, get in heated debates on CAF
).Then you should know that any language that translates “tu,” “te,” “tibi,” “vos” to the same English word (“you”) or “hic,” “hoc,” “haec,” “hunc,” “huic,” “hanc,” “hac” to the same English word (“this”) or “colere” to “worship” (as in “colere Mariam”) can’t be trusted to be one of precision which defines Church doctrine or prayer.But perhaps you’re right, perhaps “real traditionalist” was poor choice of wording, however I would point out that the phrase I used should be taken in its entirety, that is that I qualified the term by saying “a real traditionalist who understands each of the differences between the EF and NO prayers (and the similarity between the NO missal and the anglican missals)” which basically means everything that I just explained in this post. Perhaps my korean studies (where modifiers come conveniently before the modified noun have made me forget that the modifier “x who y y y” easily goes unnoticed in english
I forgot to point out another keyword in your post that I think is important to analyze: obedient. Obedience and opinion of prudence do not go together. To give a very extreme example: i believe that those who argue for optional priestly celibacy are absolutely wrong! However provided they be obedient and practice priestly celibacy, and not teach heresy, then there is nothing legally wrong about them continuing to verbally disagree with it, because it is technically a discipline that could “theoretically” not be in place…