The Mass of Vatican II

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Pax tecum!

Read the documents carefully, and note the type of language. Is it a precise language or is the language that is ambigouous?

I presented a lawyer’s examination of the documents.
This could also be a good English lesson for all of us or in Latin if anyone wish.

Unfortunately for you, a lawyer is not infallible. The pope and the bishops are the ones guided by the Holy Spirit in Church councils, not the lawyers that look at what they wrote afterwards.

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.

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.
2. 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.
3. 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.

That is not anything new to me. I’ve read that section of SC many times, and cited it myself to many people to argue the exact opposite point you are trying to argue. I use this to argue that Latin MUST still be used. There is nothing in here about a Mass entirely in the vernacular, and with that first sentence you bolded, it makes it clear that Masses are NOT to be entirely in the vernacular. It is not a contradiction. Bishops are allowed to decide how much of the vernacular they will use, but the still must use Latin, as the first sentence states.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[bear06]

Please refute what Ferrera, Esq said. Again, he is a lawyer. His education gives him a good insight in to these matters.

Puleeeeeez! Ferrara is a lawyer with NO formal theological training

Let’s look at Ferrara’s work.

As we know, most “conservatives” are constitutionally incapable of recognizing that Vatican II opened the way to the greatest debacle in the history of the Catholic Church, producing a state of affairs which makes the Arian heresy look like a Catholic revival by comparison.

Where are the facts? As usual, he and his buddies like to ignore the fact the Church was already in a downward spiral before VII. Talk about a denial of reality. Floodgates were already opening.

It is amazing that anyone who claims to have read SC thoroughly could still maintain that its “true” interpretation precludes the liturgical innovations which have been inflicted upon us

Let’s see, we have a Pope and a priest who studied under the Pope that has been leading the charge who both say this. I guess they must have less of an education than Mr. No Formal Theological Training Ferrara.

Art. 23 - “. . .[T]here must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them, and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing . . .”

To say that there will be no innovations “unless” means, of course, that there will be innovations. This “conservative” norm introduces two unprecedented concepts into the liturgical discipline of the Church: “innovations” in the liturgy and the adoption of entirely “new forms” of liturgy, as opposed to the gradual, almost imperceptible liturgical refinements of the preceding centuries. The requirement that “any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from already existing forms” opens the way to a new liturgy whose resemblance to the preceding immemorial form is minimal.

Gee Mr. Ferrara, I thought you liked the word organic?! If it was organic, as Cardinal Ratzinger and Fr. Fessio wished, I doubt one could say the resemblence would be minimal. But, of course, Mr. Ferrara will because he sees any deviation from the TLM as wrong.

Art. 36 - “. . . (1) The use of the Latin language, with due respect to particular law, is to be preserved in the Latin rites.”

The “conservatives” constantly argue that this norm has been “violated” by a “liberal faction” of reformers in the Church, and by some liberal bishops - by which they mean to say (but do not have the candor to say), two Popes and nearly the entire hierarchy.

Of course, now we have yet another Pope who has agreed with SC and who has made more strides than anyone to preserve the Latin in the Latin rites but, of course, this article was written before Pope Benedict XVI. I’m also going to guess it was written before Redemtionis Sacramentum but it would be a guess since the link provides no date.

Msgr. Caulkins talked about this and I’d suggest reading this article because it point out a lot of Mr. Ferrara’s problems (he even refers to his crazy antics) in part of the article not quoted:
tcrnews2.com/gengen2.html

continued…

 

[bear06]

…

VII. Continuity with the Second Vatican Council

As all of us are aware, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has been a strenuous defender of the pastoral provision of the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal and “traditionalists” are always willing to cite him about this, but since they are often masters of selective quotation, they often omit many of the important clarifications which he offered in his address on 24 October 1998 on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the Motu Proprio “Ecclesia Dei”. For instance, he singled out #34-36 of Sacrosanctum Concilium and pointedly stated that these paragraphs provide the criteria by which celebrations of the Mass according to the both 1962 Roman Missal and the Missal of Pope Paul VI should be judged. In fact the Cardinal went so far as to say that

If one wished to hold these essential rules in disdain and to set to one side the general norms found in paragraphs 34-36 of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, one would be violating the obedience due to the Council!
Further, the Cardinal highlighted a number of the general norms provided by the Constitution on the Liturgy and offered two specific instances from #36. The first section of #36 states that “The use of the Latin language, with due respect to particular law, is to be preserved in the Latin rites.” This is something that “traditionalists” of all shades will vigorously applaud and, indeed, it is lamentable, as I’ve already stated, that Latin disappeared virtually overnight from the Roman Rite. There are a few notable exceptions like Saint Agnes Church in Saint Paul and Saint John Cantius here in Chicago, but these are notable precisely because they are exceptions. However, the Cardinal also cited the second section of that paragraph to the effect that

since the use of the vernacular … may frequently be of great advantage to the people, a wider use may be made of it, especially in the readings, directives and in some of the prayers and chants.
To hardline “traditionalists”, of course, such an idea is anathema, but the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith points out what many of the Council Fathers were particularly concerned about:

that the celebration of the old liturgy had slipped too much into the domain of the individual and the private, and that the communion between priests and faithful was insufficient. This should be seen particularly as a comment on the ordinary way in which the Low Mass was celebrated, which could be done with very little reference to the people on the other side of the communion rail. Indeed, it should be noted that the great majority of the Bishops at the council, including the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, were convinced that a certain reform of the liturgy was highly desirable and willingly signed the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. The matter of its implementation is a separate question.

tcrnews2.com/gengen2.html

I’m sure that poor Msgr. Caulkins is delusional in your mind too.

 

[Saint_Sinner]

Not to hijack the thread…but what the heck…

Why is ad orientum such a big deal? Since the focal point of the Mass is on the altar why does it matter on which side the priest stands? I just don’t get it.

The priest facing the people is like trying to worship God while staring at your bellybutton.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Bombay,

So, your position is that the current situation that you see as very bad (where do you live by the way because 4 of the 5 Churches near me do use some latin and incense?) is that the Council intended exactly what is going on. Do you view the council as authoritative, then? If it is not authoritative, please explain how it is not. If it is authoritative, then shouldn’t you submit to the modernist direction that you think it intended?

Thanks!

If it is teaching modernism, by definition it could not be authoritative because it would be teaching heresy.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Indeed, it does not strain credulity to believe that the Second Vatican Council has been misinterpreted, **particularly in this country. **

Might I remind you that in the U.S. we “interpret” a spurious “right to privacy” and a “separation of church and state” into the Constitution, although there is clearly no textual support for either.

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.

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.

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 for starters…

“The Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom…” (Dignitatis Humanae, §2),

“This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.” (Dignitatis Humanae,§2),

From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity,"2 viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way. (Pius IX, Quanta Cura).

 

[AlexV]

The SSPX has “cookies”?

Actually, they have the Body of Christ, since their Masses are quite valid.

 

[bear06]

The SSPX has “cookies”?

Actually, they have the Body of Christ, since their Masses are quite valid.

While I agree with you hear, Alex, I believe that Rand was NOT referring to the Body of Christ when he said cookies.

And Bombay! Are you actually saying in your very non-direct way the Vatican II was teaching heresy and it was not authoritative?!

 

[Dr.Bombay]

While I agree with you hear, Alex, I believe that Rand was NOT referring to the Body of Christ when he said cookies.

And Bombay! Are you actually saying in your very non-direct way the Vatican II was teaching heresy and it was not authoritative?!

I’m not saying anything. Pius IX and Vatican II can speak for themselves.

 

[peregrinator_it]

Dr. Bombay,

Sigh. Referencing a text, does not mean text slinging. Quoting texts without reference to the overall thrust of the work is intellectually invalid and almost always guarentees that your
deductions will be false- like the story of the blind men and the elephant.

Right, context is important here. Pius the IX is referring to Rousseauan (sp?) types back in the 1800’s, who would take a position something like that of the amoralists in our modern society. They would claim that a) true religions are not subject to any protection by the state (by contrast, the Constitution protects religion by forbidding the government to interfere with its authority) and b) there is no basis for religious authority and (more importantly) no moral basis for civil law. Thus Pius IX "And, since where religion has been removed from civil society, and the doctrine and authority of divine revelation repudiated, the genuine notion itself of justice and human right is darkened and lost, and the place of true justice and legitimate right is supplied by material force, thence it appears why it is that some, utterly neglecting and disregarding the surest principles of sound reason, dare to proclaim that “the people’s will, manifested by what is called public opinion or in some other way, constitutes a supreme law, free from all divine and human control;”

By contrast, the Council address a world in which Rousseau’s bastard progeny, the Communists, have taken the logical step and consider religion not simply not necessary, but a poison to society, which must be stamped out. Thus, they defend the inherent right (that is God-infused purpose) of man to worship God.

To sum up: The two documents aren’t addressing the same thing. Pius IX is condemning an attempt to banish religion from civil society.

VII is condemning the futile and illegitimate oppression of societies which attempt to outlaw religious practice.

Incidentally, the CCC supports this interpretation. (Sorry, I’m not tech-savvy enough to do the link-y thing.) CCC 1209 On false ideas on faith- refers the reader to Quanta Cura.
CCC 2106 That civil governments have no authority to prevent religious practice - references Dignitatis Humanae.

Can you name some principle or truth of Tradition that Vatican II denies (and support your statement with appropriate text)?

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Oh, I see how you are. You ask for cites and when I provide them you dismiss them out of hand as not to your liking.

I’m not playing that game. Sorry. You’ll dismiss anything I bring to the fore.

Of course, I could provide you with some delicious quotes from Pastor Aeternus…ahhhh…forget it…

 

[peregrinator_it]

Dr. Bombay,

Did you **read** my post?  I didn't dismiss them out of hand, rather I read your posts, and it seemed to me that  you were pointing out snippets of text which seemed to oppose each other, rather than backing up your ideas with text - rather like the people who quote "opposing" bits of the Bible...

But perhaps I misjudge you…

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Dr. Bombay,

Did you **read** my post? I didn't dismiss them out of hand, rather I read your posts, and realized you pointing out snippets of text which seemed to oppose each other, rather than back up ideas with text. Which practice is not an itellectually legitimate one.

I never claimed to be intellectual or legitimate. You call it pointing out snippets of text. I call it backing up ideas with text.

If, as you insist, VII is “defend(ing) the inherent right (that is God-infused purpose) of man to worship God” then VII is defending error. Because man has no right to worship God in any way but under the rites of the True Religion, which is only to be found in the Catholic Church. No one has a “right” to worship God as a heretic, apostate or pagan.

If you insist on putting such a convoluted spin on what are rather simple words, well…I don’t know what to say. You see, I think words mean things.

 

[peregrinator_it]

I never claimed to be intellectual or legitimate. You call it pointing out snippets of text. I call it backing up ideas with text.

If, as you insist, VII is “defend(ing) the inherent right (that is God-infused purpose) of man to worship God” then VII is defending error. Because man has no right to worship God in any way but under the rites of the True Religion, which is only to be found in the Catholic Church. No one has a “right” to worship God as a heretic, apostate or pagan.

If you insist on putting such a convoluted spin on what are rather simple words, well…I don’t know what to say. You see, I think words mean things.

Re: use of texts

I hit the submit key too quickly see my edited post above. Upon reading your reply, I assume I did misjudge you.

I do think the words mean things. But a reasoned discussion has to take into account the work as whole, and quotes only in reference and in context with the whole- otherwise the discussion will be fruitless.

Hence my parenthetical qualification on “right” in DH - this is the way I think the Council is using the word giving the matters adressed in subsequent paragraphs. *

Do you not think that man’s purpose is to worship God? And do you not think any government’s attempt to interfere with that purpose a usurpation?*

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Re: use of texts

I hit the submit key too quickly see my edited post above. Upon reading your reply, I assume I did misjudge you.

I do think the words mean things. But a reasoned discussion has to take into account the work as whole, and quotes only in reference and in context with the whole- otherwise the discussion will be fruitless.

Hence my parenthetical qualification on “right” in DH - this is the way I think the Council is using the word giving the matters adressed in subsequent paragraphs. *

Do you not think that man’s purpose is to worship God? And do you not think any government’s attempt to interfere with that purpose a usurpation?* If the government is interfering with the practice of a false religion, no. If the government is prohibiting the practice of the Catholic Faith, yes.

Remember what scripture tells us. All the gods of the Gentiles (those outside the True Faith) are devils.

 

[peregrinator_it]

If the government is interfering with the practice of a false religion, no. If the government is prohibiting the practice of the Catholic Faith, yes.

Remember what scripture tells us. All the gods of the Gentiles (those outside the True Faith) are devils.

You shock me.

If you think it licit for a civil government to interfere with non-Catholic religions (I’ll grant you the (impossible) ludicrously benignant government that would give protections to Catholics only) do you have a problem then with forced conversion? And on what ground?

One of the inherent God-given faculties of human being is his free will (that’s Thos. Aquinas, forgive me for not giving a cite, I’m still reeling) with which he is to seek God. What possible justification can there be for a government to prevent man from using that faculty (i.e. treat him as though he were not human - not made in the image and likeness of God.)

Where, in any Church document, in Scripture, is permission given for the civil government to interfere in religious affairs - even if the religion be false?

And theocracy is not an option. Christ makes it very clear that civil and religious authority are not identical. How then, can they be combined? The Church went through some very messy times when rulers of the Church were given temporal power…

 

[Dr.Bombay]

You shock me.

If you think it licit for a civil government to interfere with non-Catholic religions (I’ll grant you the (impossible) ludicrously benignant government that would give protections to Catholics only) do you have a problem then with forced conversion? And on what ground?

One of the inherent God-given faculties of human being is his free will (that’s Thos. Aquinas, forgive me for not giving a cite, I’m still reeling) with which he is to seek God. What possible justification can there be for a government to prevent man from using that faculty (i.e. treat him as though he were not human - not made in the image and likeness of God.)

Where, in any Church document, in Scripture, is permission given for the civil government to interfere in religious affairs - even if the religion be false?

And theocracy is not an option. Christ makes it very clear that civil and religious authority are not identical. How then, can they be combined? The Church went through some very messy times when rulers of the Church were given temporal power…

Governments have a right to prohibit the public practice of false religions. This isn’t about forcing anyone to convert to Catholicism. No government or individual has that right.

 

[bear06]

I’m not saying anything. Pius IX and Vatican II can speak for themselves.

Now there’s a dodge. There’s also a big interpretation of how YOU think that Pope IX would rule on Vatican II.

 

[bear06]

Governments have a right to prohibit the public practice of false religions. This isn’t about forcing anyone to convert to Catholicism. No government or individual has that right.

Just for fun, define “false religions”.

 

[Marian_Carroll]

GENERAL REMINDER

Those using pull quotes or reference material may wish to review:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=17511
**Post #4 **- giving attention to “Guidelines on posting articles to Catholic Answer Forums”.

Those using backquotes may wish to review:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=2
**Forum Conduct Rule #5. **

Please post accordingly.