Vatican II and the Extraordinary Form

  • Thread starter Thread starter AveMaria12
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AveMaria12

Guest
Where in the documents of Vatican II does it say that the Extraordinary Form is to be preserved? Answers to this would be a tremendous help for me.
 
AveMaria12 said:
Where in the documents of Vatican II does it say that the Extraordinary Form is to be preserved? Answers to this would be a tremendous help for me.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t. But it does say Latin should be preserved and Gregorian chant has the pride and place above other liturgical music.
 
AveMaria12 said:
Where in the documents of Vatican II does it say that the Extraordinary Form is to be preserved? Answers to this would be a tremendous help for me.
Click to expand...
Right, nowhere. It actually calls for it to be overhauled: “The rite of the Mass is to be revised,” they said in Sacrosanctum Concilium, which is actually the document you’re looking for (or not looking for, as the case may be).
 
I think it is a bit much to equate “revision” with “overhaul”.

Vatican II said:
  1. Lastly, in faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that holy Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way. The Council also desires that, where necessary, the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition, and that they be given new vigor to meet the circumstances and needs of modern times.
Click to expand...
Also:
  1. Finally, there 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.
Click to expand...
Many, like myself, would argue that an “overhaul” would not be organic growth, but a Frankenstein-type of liturgy. Whether or not that is in fact what we got, that’s another debate.

This is all academic, anyway, because Pope Benedict XVI, now gloriously reigning, has stated in his motu proprio that the older rite was never formally abrogated. His motu proprio is now law, so it doesn’t matter what people try to read into V2.
 
spartan_cop said:
It doesn’t. But it does say Latin should be preserved and Gregorian chant has the pride and place above other liturgical music.
Click to expand...
Hahaha!!! Because Latin is the official language of heaven! Right?
 
Vatican II never meant to create a new distinct form of the Roman Liturgy, but simply called for a reform of the liturgy. Instead what can only realistically be called a new liturgy to replace the historical Roman one was instead written and promulgated. This put those who wished to continue using the old liturgy in a confusing position, which fortunately has since been clarified.

It really shows how unwise massive liturgical changes are, no matter what form they take or however well intentioned they may be. A Catholic layman ought to be able to go to mass and not worry about the liturgy, because he knows it will be celebrated properly in accordance with tradition handed on from the Fathers. While there is plenty of good to be said about the current Ordinary Form (I’m in no way implying that either form is better than the other) any drastic liturgical change draws an undue attention to the nuts and bolts of the liturgy, whether one likes or dislikes the changes. This is the real tragedy of modern liturgy: the loss of innocence and trust on the part of the laypeople, and the shift in focus from Christ to disputes about words and gestures and other such minutia.
 
The Second Vatican Council declared, in Sacrosanctum Concilium, #4 (quoted above already, but repetita iuvant):
Lastly, in faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that holy Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way
Click to expand...
The idea, as shown in Sacrosanctum Concilium, section 50, was to revise and simplify. Abrogation or “corrections” were totally impossible, as proclaimed infallibly in the Council of Trent, Canon VI on the Sacrifice of the Mass:
If any one saith, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated; let him be anathema.
Click to expand...
Indeed Pope Benedict XVI clearly states in Summorum Pontificum:
It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated
Click to expand...
 
R_C said:
The Second Vatican Council declared, in Sacrosanctum Concilium, #4 (quoted above already, but repetita iuvant):
Lastly, in faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that holy Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way
Click to expand...
I am afraid you have interpreted the quote from the Council of Trent incorrectly. The quote you provided states that the liturgy could not be abrogated due to the false claim that it contained theological errors. The quote does not state that the liturgy could never be abrogated in the future for other reasons.

Also, Pope Benedict’s quote is a clarification that the issuing of the 1969 missal did not suppress all previous editions, not a statement that it was impossible to suppress the previous editions. Indeed, the 1962 missal did in fact suppress all previous editions, which may have led to the confusion over whether the 1969 missal did the same.
Click to expand...
 
CatholicGuy22 said:
Hahaha!!! Because Latin is the official language of heaven! Right?
Click to expand...
Its the official language of the church

From TheCONSTITUTION ON THE SACRED LITURGY SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI
    1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the **Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
      **
      and
    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. But in individual cases the ordinary has the power of granting the use of a vernacular translation to those clerics for whom the use of Latin constitutes a grave obstacle to their praying the office properly. The vernacular version, however, must be one that is drawn up according to the provision of Art. 36.
Article 36 refers to approved translations into the vernacular from the Latin

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.

So while Latin may not be the as you called it the official language of heaven it is most definitely the official language of the Holy Mother Church:thumbsup:
 
ProVobis said:
If it means anything the EF (1962 Missal) was said before every Vatican II session.
Click to expand...
Except for when the various Easter Liturgies were celebrated 😉

But you are totally right, that is an incredibly important point to make. It was an intentional feature specifically of Vatican II that the liturgy be the start of every session.
 
spartan_cop said:
But it does say Latin should be preserved and Gregorian chant has the pride and place above other liturgical music.
Click to expand...
And yet from this, in the “Spirit of Vatican II”, everyone took this to mean “Latin and Gregorian Chant is to be BANNED”?
 
AdDeum said:
And yet from this, in the “Spirit of Vatican II”, everyone took this to mean “Latin and Gregorian Chant is to be BANNED”?
Click to expand...
Everyone didn’t. Only those following their own agendas who were positioned in such a way that they could exert influence did so. Since most others either didn’t know any better or hated Latin to begin with or just plain didn’t care, those pushing for changes generally got their way.

That happened a lot after Vatican II in a lot of areas.
 
runningdude said:
I am afraid you have interpreted the quote from the Council of Trent incorrectly. The quote you provided states that the liturgy could not be abrogated due to the false claim that it contained theological errors. The quote does not state that the liturgy could never be abrogated in the future for other reasons.
Click to expand...
This is interesting. Thank you.
 
runningdude said:
I am afraid you have interpreted the quote from the Council of Trent incorrectly. The quote you provided states that the liturgy could not be abrogated due to the false claim that it contained theological errors. The quote does not state that the liturgy could never be abrogated in the future for other reasons.
Click to expand...
The Trent quote dealt with the Canon of the Mass. The 1969 Mass kept this canon intact, while adding the option to say others.
 
R_C said:
The idea, as shown in Sacrosanctum Concilium, section 50, was to revise and simplify. Abrogation or “corrections” were totally impossible, as proclaimed infallibly in the Council of Trent, Canon VI on the Sacrifice of the Mass:
Click to expand...
Trent refers to the Canon of the Mass only, which is preserved in the OF as EP1.

Trying to extend that to apply it to the entire EF would be erronious.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top