I’m saying it strains credulity to believe that the real problem with Vatican II is it hasn’t been interpreted properly. As if the only ones with power in the Church over the past 40 years have been the misinterpreters. Cardinal Luciani, Cardinal Wojtyla, Cardinal Ratzinger…they were (and are) powerless in the face of the wicked misinterpreters.Please explain, you think that the abuses which exist in the Mass today were intended by the Second Vatican Council?
The problem that you are overlooking is that Rome itself never misinterpreted the council. Bishops and priests used the council to implement things that were already seeping in like what the focus of the liturgy should be. These things didn’t suddenly pop up after the council, they were brewing long before hand. (for reference, read theological works from that time period, in particular stuff like liberation theology) The council’s work in bringing about liturgical renewal and changes (much of which was reviving elements of the liturgy from the early church) was simply a spring board for liturgical innovation. Read the documents of the council yourself, they are pretty clear on what was intendedI’m saying it strains credulity to believe that the real problem with Vatican II is it hasn’t been interpreted properly. As if the only ones with power in the Church over the past 40 years have been the misinterpreters. Cardinal Luciani, Cardinal Wojtyla, Cardinal Ratzinger…they were (and are) powerless in the face of the wicked misinterpreters.
But perhaps the question should be asked: What does it say about a Council that it can be so easily hijacked and implemented “improperly?” Not much, I’m afraid. No, the more reasonable explanation is the Council has been implemented just as it was intended to be, the hand-wringing about misinterpretation from certain quarters notwithstanding. Those who, some 40 years after the fact, are attempting to put a new, more positive spin on the Council “in light of Tradition” are the ones who are misinterpreting. You can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube, as someone wiser than I once said.
Yes, I realize that. And what was *intended *is what happened. This wasn’t an accident.The problem that you are overlooking is that Rome itself never misinterpreted the council. Bishops and priests used the council to implement things that were already seeping in like what the focus of the liturgy should be. These things didn’t suddenly pop up after the council, they were brewing long before hand. (for reference, read theological works from that time period, in particular stuff like liberation theology) The council’s work in bringing about liturgical renewal and changes (much of which was reviving elements of the liturgy from the early church) was simply a spring board for liturgical innovation. Read the documents of the council yourself, they are pretty clear on what was intended
So Rome intended to have liturgical dancing, improper matter, priests not wearing their vestments, the loss of priestly role in the liturgy, the loss of the meaning of Sacrifice, lay people giving homilies, etc., etc., etc.,Yes, I realize that. And what was *intended *is what happened. This wasn’t an accident.
I never claimed Rome misinterpreted the Council. On the contrary, Rome interpreted the Council exactly as it was intended. To the letter, one might say.
What happened after the Council was totally different: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy.
latin-mass-society.org/ratzshow.htmWe left the living process of growth and development to enter the realm of fabrication. There was no longer a desire to continue developing and maturing, as the centuries passed and so this was replaced - as if it were a technical production - with a construction, a banal on-the-spot product.
ec2.images-amazon.com/images/P/0918344379.01.AA240_SCLZZZZZZZ.jpgSo Rome intended to have liturgical dancing, improper matter, priests not wearing their vestments, the loss of priestly role in the liturgy, the loss of the meaning of Sacrifice, lay people giving homilies, etc., etc., etc.,
give me a break, please supply some documentation before making these claims
Indeed, it does not strain credulity to believe that the Second Vatican Council has been misinterpreted, **particularly in this country. **I’m saying it strains credulity to believe that the real problem with Vatican II is it hasn’t been interpreted properly.
It’s also interesting to note that Council has been implemented differently in other countries. Some countries seem to have largely escaped the liturgical corruption that plagues the U.S. Even in England (which has its great share of ecclesiastical troubles- and they pre-date the Council) one meets with liturgical craziness far less frequently than in the U.S. and it tends to be craziness of an entirely different sort.As if the only ones with power in the Church over the past 40 years have been the misinterpreters.
FYI, Vatican I was convened because the Church felt that the policies of the Council of Trent (300 years earlier!!!) hadn’t been properly implemented.But perhaps the question should be asked: What does it say about a Council that it can be so easily hijacked and implemented “improperly?”
Ok, cite something in the text of the Vatican II documents that shows a separation from Tradition. Please provide all references necessary to support your argument.Not much, I’m afraid. No, the more reasonable explanation is the Council has been implemented just as it was intended to be, the hand-wringing about misinterpretation from certain quarters notwithstanding. Those who, some 40 years after the fact, are attempting to put a new, more positive spin on the Council “in light of Tradition” are the ones who are misinterpreting.
Pax tecum!Ok, cite something in the text of the Vatican II documents that shows a separation from Tradition. Please provide all references necessary to support your argument.
Just curious, the few documents I have read from Vatican II read like some politician wrote them. The same passage may say everything or nothing–so many modifiers such as “may” or “if necessary” and things like that, it ends up saying nothing.He can’t because references from the Council that would support his arguments don’t exist. He may copy and paste some lines from Bugnini’s book from another site, but he won’t be able to cite anything from the Council.
Please refute what Ferrera, Esq said. Again, he is a lawyer. His education gives him a good insight in to these matters.ARgh! Bugnini nor Ferrara equal truth. Also, I don’t recall Cardinal Ratzinger (a.ka. the Holy Father) ever calling for the revocation of the Novus Ordo. He only called for its proper implementation. Fr. Fessio, who studied under him, followed suit.
Here is why Latin was defact abolished:
SC
Lets examine clause 36:
36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
- 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.
- 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.
- Translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned above.
Pax tecum!“Proper implementation”, whatever that is, is certainly difficult when the actual official TEXT of the Novus Ordo allows for numerous instances of ad libbing, etc…
We’ve been hearing about “if only the Council’s vision were PROPERLY implemented” for decades…
…the problem is the documents were DESIGNED to allow for wide experimentation and almost endless variety…
That was by explicit intention.