Two Views of Vatican II

[johnmann]

Joseph Campbell, a lapsed Catholic (The Power of Myth):

There’s been a reduction of ritual. Even in the Roman Catholic Church, my God - they’ve translated the Mass out of ritual language and into a language that has a lot of domestic associations. The Latin of the Mass was a language that threw you out of the field of domestricity. The altar was turned so that the priest’s back was to you, and with him you addressed yourself outward. Now they’ve turned the altar around - it looks like Julia Child giving a demonstration - all homey and cozy… They play a guitar. They’ve forgotten that the function of ritual is to pitch you out, not to wrap you back in where you have been all the time.

Pope Paul VI (Address to a General Audience 1969-11-26):

What is more precious than these loftiest of our Church’s values?
The answer will seem banal, prosaic. Yet it is a good answer, because it is human, because it is apostolic.
Understanding of prayer is worth more than the silken garments in which it is royally dressed. Participation by the people is worth more—particularly participation by modern people, so fond of plain language which is easily understood and converted into everyday speech.
If the divine Latin language kept us apart from the children, from youth, from the world of labor and of affairs, if it were a dark screen, not a clear window, would it be right for us fishers of souls to maintain it as the exclusive language of prayer and religious intercourse? What did St. Paul have to say about that? Read chapter 14 of the first letter to the Corinthians: “In Church I would rather speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue” (I Corinthians 14:19).

Traditionalists would probably agree entirely with Campbell and recently Jeff Ostrowski at Corpus Christi Watershed called Pope Paul VI “schizophrenic.” But I think the two views can be reconciled to a large degree. Campbell was talking aesthetics, not faith. Not believing in the resurrection, it was of no consequence to him if people didn’t understand it. Pope Paul VI was speaking of the exclusive use of Latin. He did envision the sung responses of the Ordinary would still be in Latin, believing that people could easily learn and understand it. He underestimated the degree to which Latin would disappear once it’s no longer mandatory.

Mass, both lifts our hearts up to God because it it right and just, and also we receive God in the Word and the Eucharist. We celebrate the mysterious without celebrating ignorance. We celebrate beauty while recognizing that the goal has to be the salvation of souls.

I think a lot of times what’s missing from discussions of liturgical reform is the fact that people are different. What some think of guitar Masses is what others think of Gregorian chant. I.e., banal and only a generation away from dying out. You might think, “Anyone can be taught to appreciate sacred music.” Even so, you can’t teach people who won’t listen. If a guitar gets people through the door, so be it.

 

[RPRPsych]

But I think the two views can be reconciled to a large degree.

Certainly.

Campbell was talking aesthetics, not faith. Not believing in the resurrection, it was of no consequence to him if people didn’t understand it.

True. His use of the word ritual is the give-away: for him, the transcendent aspect of the Mass is the “mysterious” nature of the ritual, not the True Presence of Christ. He would probably have been equally impressed by a pagan ritual if it had seemed “mystical” enough to him. While ritual is important, the Mass is the Mass, not just a ritual.

Pope Paul VI was speaking of the exclusive use of Latin. He did envision the sung responses of the Ordinary would still be in Latin, believing that people could easily learn and understand it. He underestimated the degree to which Latin would disappear once it’s no longer mandatory.

Exactly.

We also need to take a global perspective on this.

In Western countries (Europe, and by extension America), Latin is an important part of cultural heritage. Elite schools taught Latin. Latin poetry and prose are among the “canon” of great literature and culture.

In most Asian and African countries - not so. For the average Indian of 1950 or 1960 to have studied English was an achievement; Latin was alien to all but a minuscule minority. And Protestants exploited this well - they developed vernacular hymns and prayers at an alarming speed, leading to a large number of defections. (In India, this was compounded by the fact that Protestants generally made sure that their converts were better educated - mainly to ensure that they could “read their Bibles”) Given such a cultural reality, a vernacular Mass was a great way to “stop the bleeding”. It still is, in my opinion.

That the implementation of Pope Paul VI’s pastoral initiative went haywire is not his fault, but must be ascribed to those local pastors and members of the hierarchy who went too far in the opposite direction.

…both lifts our hearts up to God because it it right and just, and also we receive God in the Word and the Eucharist. We celebrate the mysterious without celebrating ignorance. We celebrate beauty while recognizing that the goal has to be the salvation of souls.

Absolutely.

I think a lot of times what’s missing from discussions of liturgical reform is the fact that people are different. What some think of guitar Masses is what others think of Gregorian chant. I.e., banal and only a generation away from dying out. You might think, “Anyone can be taught to appreciate sacred music.” Even so, you can’t teach people who won’t listen. If a guitar gets people through the door, so be it.

I still think Mass music should be reverent and not banal, but that doesn’t automatically rule out all contemporary music. And when literacy and education are themselves low, sometimes a simplistic tune or words focusing on a basic dogma or truth can be quite effective. The Church is Catholic; it is global; it does not belong only to Anglophone elites who happen to debate these issues on the Internet.

 

[edwest2]

I think both views are incomplete. On the one hand, there are those that argue a Rupture occurred, while Pope Benedict argued a Continuity that was hampered by media misrepresentations that clouded what Vatican II was all about.

First, it needs to be understood that Latin was and is important, though the Church allows for Latin and the local tongue. Any other changes were not even suggested by Vatican II.

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1145

I was there before and after Vatican II. Missals were available that had the Latin and English together so English speakers certainly understood what was being said.

Guitars and other instruments are going out, and Gregorian chant is going back in.

Peace,
Ed

 

[RPRPsych]

First, it needs to be understood that Latin was and is important, though the Church allows for Latin and the local tongue.

Agreed. Which is why I feel the hierarchy in non-Latin culture countries fell short.

I was there before and after Vatican II. Missals were available that had the Latin and English together so English speakers certainly understood what was being said.

True. My mother still has one of them. But getting them in 20-odd Indian languages is a little bit more difficult, and frankly, no one bothered.

Guitars and other instruments are going out, and Gregorian chant is going back in.

This is good, but it certainly isn’t happening all over the world. In our Churches, the older English-language hymns are the Gregorian Chant (as in, it’s the highest form of music we’ll ever get to hear). If I were to mention Gregorian Chant to the average Indian Catholic, he’d either blink or assume I was talking about Enigma.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Megan7]

I think both views are incomplete. On the one hand, there are those that argue a Rupture occurred, while Pope Benedict argued a Continuity that was hampered by media misrepresentations that clouded what Vatican II was all about.

First, it needs to be understood that Latin was and is important, though the Church allows for Latin and the local tongue. Any other changes were not even suggested by Vatican II.

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1145

I was there before and after Vatican II. Missals were available that had the Latin and English together so English speakers certainly understood what was being said.

Guitars and other instruments are going out, and Gregorian chant is going back in.

Peace,
Ed

Thanks Ed,

 

[Cat]

Guitars and other instruments are going out, and Gregorian chant is going back in.

Peace,
Ed

No, it isn’t, at least in the U.S.

The state of music education in the U.S. is horrible, and the people don’t have the musical chops to read, hear, and certainly not sing Gregorian chant or much of any other kind of music, including contemporary.

Chant sounds particularly dreadful when sung by people who know only the pop and country music that they listen to on the radio.

Even people who like chant can’t necessarily sing it if they have no training and no “feedback” from a teacher to correct their vocal and reading errors. A lot of us think we sound pretty good when we sing, but the reality is, we are singing through our noses and it sounds like caterwauling cats. Echh.

To be fair, contemporary music also sounds pretty bad when it’s sung by anyone who is not a “pop” singer. Much contemporary Christian music was written for soloists, not a group, and definitely not a congregation of mixed ages and voices.

Unless music education is given more time and money in the U.S. schools, including the private and parachial schools, we will continue to see people standing in the Mass with closed mouths during the various sung parts, and that goes for chant, too. People can’t do what they haven’t been taught.

 

[Heliotropium]

Joseph Campbell, a lapsed Catholic (The Power of Myth):

Pope Paul VI (Address to a General Audience 1969-11-26):

Traditionalists would probably agree entirely with Campbell and recently Jeff Ostrowski at Corpus Christi Watershed called Pope Paul VI “schizophrenic.” But I think the two views can be reconciled to a large degree. Campbell was talking aesthetics, not faith. Not believing in the resurrection, it was of no consequence to him if people didn’t understand it. Pope Paul VI was speaking of the exclusive use of Latin. He did envision the sung responses of the Ordinary would still be in Latin, believing that people could easily learn and understand it. He underestimated the degree to which Latin would disappear once it’s no longer mandatory.

Mass, both lifts our hearts up to God because it it right and just, and also we receive God in the Word and the Eucharist. We celebrate the mysterious without celebrating ignorance. We celebrate beauty while recognizing that the goal has to be the salvation of souls.

I think a lot of times what’s missing from discussions of liturgical reform is the fact that people are different. What some think of guitar Masses is what others think of Gregorian chant. I.e., banal and only a generation away from dying out. You might think, “Anyone can be taught to appreciate sacred music.” Even so, you can’t teach people who won’t listen. If a guitar gets people through the door, so be it.

I think Vatican II has been instrumental in showing the Church were it’s problem areas are. The liturgical practices went from “let’s do things how the Church wants them done”, to “lets do things the Church will allow or hasn’t forbidden us to do.” In a way Vatican II is the story of the Prodigal Son where the Father gave the son his inheritance and allowed him to do this own will and is now waiting for him to admit he mucked everything up and that he is ready to say sorry and start over. Furthermore, the father wants the brother who didn’t leave to drop the superiority complex and open up his arms to his way ward brother so that true family unity and healing can begin, and so the family can now move forward as a whole.

 

[Abu]

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, as Cardinal Ratzinger, places Vatican II in its rightful place:
"I am convinced that the damage that we have incurred in these twenty years is due, not to the ‘true’ Council, but to the unleashing within the Church of latent polemical and centrifugal forces; and outside the Church it is due to the confrontation with a cultural revolution in the West: the success of the upper middle class, the new ‘tertiary bourgeoisie’, with its liberal-radical ideology of individualistic, rationalistic and hedonistic stamp. The cardinal exhorts all Catholics who wish to remain such “to return to the authentic texts of the original Vatican II.” The Ratzinger Report, Vittorio Messori, Ignatius, 1985, p 28-31].

“It must be stated that Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent, namely, the Pope and the College of Bishops in communion with him, and that also with regard to its contents, Vatican II is in strictest continuity with both previous councils and incorporates their texts word for word in decisive points…” (The Ratzinger Report, p 28).

Cardinal Ratzinger expressed the required fidelity to Vatican II as: “to defend the true tradition of the Church today is to defend the Council…And this today of the Church is the documents of Vatican II, without reservations that amputate them and without arbitrariness that distorts them.” (The Ratzinger Report, Ignatius Press, 1985, p 31).

In keeping with the political terms used, Traditionalist = stubbornly conservative and narrow-minded, and this would be true for all of those who demean what the Holy Father wrote in 1985, above, whereas traditionalism = adherence to tradition. “Traditionalist” does describe those individuals who pursue their own prejudices and dissent as they choose. A faithful or traditional Catholic assents to Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium.

Whether a Catholic participates in the Extraordinary Form or the Ordinary Form of the Mass the essentials are to assent to all dogma and doctrine, to Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium which “are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others.” Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Vatican II, 10.].

The facts are that Vatican II has been dogmatic and pastoral as have other Councils, and Christ’s Supreme Vicars have consistently affirmed this.

 

[ProVobis]

Pope Paul VI was speaking of the exclusive use of Latin. He did envision the sung responses of the Ordinary would still be in Latin, believing that people could easily learn and understand it. He underestimated the degree to which Latin would disappear once it’s no longer mandatory.

This is true. The Pope issued Jubilate Deo, it was to be distributed free of charge to every parish, and he asked bishops to find ways to implement it.

adoremus.org/JubilateDeo.html

 

[edwest2]

Thanks Ed,

You’re welcome.

Best,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

No, it isn’t, at least in the U.S.

The state of music education in the U.S. is horrible, and the people don’t have the musical chops to read, hear, and certainly not sing Gregorian chant or much of any other kind of music, including contemporary.

Chant sounds particularly dreadful when sung by people who know only the pop and country music that they listen to on the radio.

Even people who like chant can’t necessarily sing it if they have no training and no “feedback” from a teacher to correct their vocal and reading errors. A lot of us think we sound pretty good when we sing, but the reality is, we are singing through our noses and it sounds like caterwauling cats. Echh.

To be fair, contemporary music also sounds pretty bad when it’s sung by anyone who is not a “pop” singer. Much contemporary Christian music was written for soloists, not a group, and definitely not a congregation of mixed ages and voices.

Unless music education is given more time and money in the U.S. schools, including the private and parachial schools, we will continue to see people standing in the Mass with closed mouths during the various sung parts, and that goes for chant, too. People can’t do what they haven’t been taught.

I heard a priest make that statement on Catholic Radio. Some resources:

catholiceducation.org/articles/arts/al0558.htm

musicasacra.com/

Peace,
Ed

 

[johnmann]

I’ve heard a few people in the music business say this but Catholics have been neglecting music worldwide, not just in the US, for a very long time. The world’s best choirs are Protestant choirs often singing Catholic compositions. It’s sad. Catholic states, schools, and parishes can’t/won’t fund the arts like they used to.

 

[OraLabora]

Guitars and other instruments are going out, and Gregorian chant is going back in.

That it were so, I wish. As a member of a schola, and a director of the Gregorian Institute of Canada, I can say there’s a long, long way to go before it happens in Canada.

Fortunately the abbey of which I am an oblate uses it daily, and that’s where I attend Mass every Sunday. So I get a good solid weekly dose! (plus I use it to pray the LOTH at home).

 

[curlycool89]

I was there before and after Vatican II. Missals were available that had the Latin and English together so English speakers certainly understood what was being said.

Meh, I wouldn’t go so far as to use the word “understand”.

First point to be made is that hand-missals were printed and manufactured by private companies and used their own private translations. However venerable such translations are regarded, you can never call it anywhere close to an official translation, never mind one that the Vatican has looked over, approved, and said it is an accurate rendering of what the text of the Mass is saying.

You also can only use “understood” at most in a theoretical-intellectual way, or from a technical point of view. A person who didn’t speak Latin kind-of gets and idea of what happens to be going on right now. You know, like if you had subtitles for the Opera (which is, natural, in Italian).

That’s because there is undeniably a difference between reading and listening. Reading a text that someone is speaking in a different language is almost like you’re in a different context or a different location; one thing is happening in front and another on the page (which is reflected in your mind, because for most people reading has an automatic priority over listening). Spoken word has the advantage of emphasis and inFLECtion and tone and even volume to help people understand what is begin said. Sure, we try to simulate these things in written words with bolds and italics and quotation marks, but what you get is a rendering in your head which doesn’t necessarily line up with what the author intended.

I’ve seen it in my own life: a different emphasis or speaking style when someone is reading a passage from Scripture can cause me to find a different point for reflection then when I first read that same passage. The same thing can be said about all the prayers in the Missal. Hearing it said to you is different then simply reading it. And that is why it can be advantageous to hear the words spoken to you in your own language in the Mass rather then just reading them.

 

[ProVobis]

…And that is why it can be advantageous to hear the words spoken to you in your own language in the Mass rather then just reading them.

You present some interesting points but everyone doesn’t think or absorb things at the same speed when they hear things. I can only remember my psych classes where the instructor never used a chalk board but relied on his talks; good luck trying to follow him without a tape recorder because he would never repeat what he said.

And perhaps there is confusion at times; after all English does offer a lot of homophones and ambiguities. Furthermore the subjunctive, so important in prayer, is almost totally lost in English. We end up with the “modal” verbs instead (will, shall, may, must, would, let, etc.) which may become guesses as to the true nuance of the Latin.

Be that as it may, reading and listening provide two different (name removed by moderator)uts. As do Latin and the English. I’ll bet more is remembered when done that way. But that’s presuming there is a 1-1 relationship between Latin and English, which is very rare in the Mass texts, as you yourself have implied at the beginning of your post. Different missals had different translations but at least they were somewhat close to conveying the jist of the prayer. It was hoped at some point you would no longer need the English to follow the prayers. Instead we ended up with English only and the understanding wasn’t any better.

 

[edwest2]

Meh, I wouldn’t go so far as to use the word “understand”.

First point to be made is that hand-missals were printed and manufactured by private companies and used their own private translations. However venerable such translations are regarded, you can never call it anywhere close to an official translation, never mind one that the Vatican has looked over, approved, and said it is an accurate rendering of what the text of the Mass is saying.

You also can only use “understood” at most in a theoretical-intellectual way, or from a technical point of view. A person who didn’t speak Latin kind-of gets and idea of what happens to be going on right now. You know, like if you had subtitles for the Opera (which is, natural, in Italian).

That’s because there is undeniably a difference between reading and listening. Reading a text that someone is speaking in a different language is almost like you’re in a different context or a different location; one thing is happening in front and another on the page (which is reflected in your mind, because for most people reading has an automatic priority over listening). Spoken word has the advantage of emphasis and inFLECtion and tone and even volume to help people understand what is begin said. Sure, we try to simulate these things in written words with bolds and italics and quotation marks, but what you get is a rendering in your head which doesn’t necessarily line up with what the author intended.

I’ve seen it in my own life: a different emphasis or speaking style when someone is reading a passage from Scripture can cause me to find a different point for reflection then when I first read that same passage. The same thing can be said about all the prayers in the Missal. Hearing it said to you is different then simply reading it. And that is why it can be advantageous to hear the words spoken to you in your own language in the Mass rather then just reading them.

My first language was not English. My parents spoke Polish, German, Ukrainian and my mother, Russian and Serbian. I can read Polish and non-Cyrillic Russian. I have a copy of the Catholic Digest from October 1958. The back cover has an ad for the St. Joseph Daily Missal. Among the text: “Imprimatur of His Eminence, Francis Cardinal Spellman, Archbishop of New York” And: “His Holiness Pope Pius XII tells you why a Daily Missal is so important. ‘So that the faithful, united with the Priest, may pray together in the very words and sentiments of the Church.’”

Peace,
Ed

 

[curlycool89]

It was hoped at some point you would no longer need the English to follow the prayers. Instead we ended up with English only and the understanding wasn’t any better.

I think the Church came to realize what the world had already figured: Latin is a dead language, and the interest in learning Latin (outside of Catholic scholars, classicists, and a small minority of laity) is nonexistent. Average Joe (or Jane) parishioner, who make up the vast majority of most parishes, simply has no interest in it because it’s useless for everything else.

I took 1 semester of Latin at a public university, and the Latin prof was very aware of this when she basically told us that the only use anyone was going to find was working at the Vatican or reading classic works. Most people were in the class because (1) a BA requires a second language, and (2) Latin doesn’t have an oral component. With budget cuts at the university they nearly axed the entire Classic Language department (Latin and Greek) actually (the government told them they had to keep it because it’s only one of a few in the country or region, I can’t remember which).

I have a copy of the Catholic Digest from October 1958. The back cover has an ad for the St. Joseph Daily Missal. Among the text: “Imprimatur of His Eminence, Francis Cardinal Spellman, Archbishop of New York” And: “His Holiness Pope Pius XII tells you why a Daily Missal is so important. ‘So that the faithful, united with the Priest, may pray together in the very words and sentiments of the Church.’”

I think we all know that an Imprimatur only means that the book doesn’t contain anything contrary to the Catholic faith (many I see nowadays even come with the disclaimer like “The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are official declaration that the material reviewed is free from doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those granting the Nihil Obstat Imprimatur agree with the content, opinions, or statements expressed” - that’s from the Catholic Prayer Bible from Paulist Press).

Saying “there’s nothing contrary to Catholic belief” (basically) is very different from “This is an accurate reflection of the Missal texts”. And the best example of that is the English 1st Edition Missal (the Sacramentary) vs. the 3rd Edition (the Roman Missal); you can have a translation that is not contrary to doctrine that is not a very accurate rendering.

 

[johnmann]

I can thoroughly enjoy subtitled movies. The difference is that subtitles change with the spoken word. With a Latin-vernacular missal, you have to follow the Latin yourself, often leaving you with little or no time to read the translation. At best, you aren’t understanding in real time.

This can be cured by actually understanding the Latin which is doable with the ordinary, particularly the shorter responses. Antiphons can be short enough to translate and still understand in real time. Or you can actually provide subtitles on a projector built into the altar or flashing above it like a stock ticker. Or a smartphone app. Or just use the vernacular.

 

[RC_David333]

**the Catholic monk, brother Dimond, totally destroys the heretical arguments of the calvinist in this debate. Here is the link to that debate…

youtube.com/watch?v=Qn1vC1Ez-OI

To learn more about brother Dimond, his Monastery and the true teachings of our Lord, Jesus Christ, then please visit VaticanCatholic.com or MostHolyFamilyMonastery.com **

 

[Crimson_Silence]

I think the Church came to realize what the world had already figured: Latin is a dead language, and the interest in learning Latin (outside of Catholic scholars, classicists, and a small minority of laity) is nonexistent. Average Joe (or Jane) parishioner, who make up the vast majority of most parishes, simply has no interest in it because it’s useless for everything else.

I took 1 semester of Latin at a public university, and the Latin prof was very aware of this when she basically told us that the only use anyone was going to find was working at the Vatican or reading classic works. Most people were in the class because (1) a BA requires a second language, and (2) Latin doesn’t have an oral component. With budget cuts at the university they nearly axed the entire Classic Language department (Latin and Greek) actually (the government told them they had to keep it because it’s only one of a few in the country or region, I can’t remember which).

I think we all know that an Imprimatur only means that the book doesn’t contain anything contrary to the Catholic faith (many I see nowadays even come with the disclaimer like “The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are official declaration that the material reviewed is free from doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those granting the Nihil Obstat Imprimatur agree with the content, opinions, or statements expressed” - that’s from the Catholic Prayer Bible from Paulist Press).

Saying “there’s nothing contrary to Catholic belief” (basically) is very different from “This is an accurate reflection of the Missal texts”. And the best example of that is the English 1st Edition Missal (the Sacramentary) vs. the 3rd Edition (the Roman Missal); you can have a translation that is not contrary to doctrine that is not a very accurate rendering.

This is not true. Many people learn Latin because their professions require them to do so. Such as being a Lawyer, Doctor, Historian, Writer or even a priest. People even believe Latin is one of the best languages to learn for having a proper understanding of ones own language; those other exceptions such as Germanic or Slavic are minorities. More people speak French, Spanish and English than anywhere else anyway. Modern English is just an off-shoot of German, French and Latin. So it would make sense to learn Latin.

The problems are not in the Western World, but beyond it. Indians, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, various groups in Africa, can’t understand Latin. So it makes sense they follow the Ordinary Form.