Vatican II

[Aramis]

So how do the ambiguous documents of Vatican II supercede the specifics of Trent where the Mass was codified not to be changed?

If you take that approach, then Trent must be ignored in entirety, since changes to the missal have been made every 10-20 years since Trent.

 

[Tsuwano]

all this seems to me that it is all up to you. there is no firm or clear imposition of one or the other. this is the problem. there is why we have so many problems no one knows what to do. one priest say one thing the other says another. one Bishop says one thing, the other says another thing. this becomes a big problem. that is the confusion in the Church. the world sees and so do we.

i am not attacking the Council in any way. who am i to do so. but we cannot deny the problem. wether is the document itself or just the enterpretation. something went wrong the holy father has criticized about the priest facing the people. it becomes a circular thing. the priest in my parish says that the reason the priest faces the people today is because today we have found out that God is everywhere and not in the east. see the problem? so all this time before VII, people did not know this. now we do.

Well, whatever form the liturgy takes is certainly not up to me. It is up to the local bishop who must be in union with the Magisterium of the Church and the Holy Father. Over a decade ago Bishop David Foley of the Diocese of Birmingham in Alabama forbade the practice of a priest in his diocese saying Mass with his back to the people, contrary to the custom that had been in place for more than thirty years. Whatever his reasons, it certainly seems, according to Canon Law and the Documents of the Church, that he was within his rights as a bishop to do so. This does not mean that neighboring dioceses in Mississippi, for instance, were obliged to follow Bishop Foley’s directives. Can this cause confusion? Well, it certainly can, but if a priest is confused about the directives within his own diocese he need only consult his bishop and the canon lawyers present in the diocesan office. Bishops need only consult the Magisterium of the Church for guidance. The faithful are also able to consult the documents of the Church and are encouraged to do so, with the understanding that interpretation of those documents and their implementation in the life of the Church is the responsibility of the bishop in union with the Magisterium. There needn’t be confusion if the faithful approach these documents with a spirit of humble acceptance and faithful trust that the Holy Spirit guides the Church and her leaders.

 

[Ockham]

Because the form the Mass takes, as long as all the essential elements are present, is a matter of discipline over which each Pope has jurisdiction. No Pope can bind a future Pope on matters of discipline or forbid a future Pope from modifying a disicipline.

So what if our current pontiff came out and ordered all Masses to be said on Fridays in German, facing sideways, Holy Communion to be distributed to the congregation seated (pass the cup around) and homilies to be given by the laity. Would that be ok?

 

[wisdomseeker]

Well, whatever form the liturgy takes is certainly not up to me. It is up to the local bishop who must be in union with the Magisterium of the Church and the Holy Father. Over a decade ago Bishop David Foley of the Diocese of Birmingham in Alabama forbade the practice of a priest in his diocese saying Mass with his back to the people, contrary to the custom that had been in place for more than thirty years. Whatever his reasons, it certainly seems, according to Canon Law and the Documents of the Church, that he was within his rights as a bishop to do so. This does not mean that neighboring dioceses in Mississippi, for instance, were obliged to follow Bishop Foley’s directives. Can this cause confusion? Well, it certainly can, but if a priest is confused about the directives within his own diocese he need only consult his bishop and the canon lawyers present in the diocesan office. Bishops need only consult the Magisterium of the Church for guidance. The faithful are also able to consult the documents of the Church and are encouraged to do so, with the understanding that interpretation of those documents and their implementation in the life of the Church is the responsibility of the bishop in union with the Magisterium. There needn’t be confusion if the faithful approach these documents with a spirit of humble acceptance and faithful trust that the Holy Spirit guides the Church and her leaders.

i see a big problem here. if each bishop is his own man, than we have a big problem. i thought that all must agree how things are done in the Church. that is how it is done in the protestant community, each decide what it is right for them. it should not be in the CC. the Apostles all agree how things should be done. it has been like this from the beginning. we just dont pick the essentials and then applied with add ons or takes from.

that is why we have so many divisions. no leadership, everyone does whatever. it does not work. it is a house against herself. it will fall.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Originally Posted by ncjohn
Because the form the Mass takes, as long as all the essential elements are present, is a matter of discipline over which each Pope has jurisdiction. No Pope can bind a future Pope on matters of discipline or forbid a future Pope from modifying a disicipline.

not necessarily true. the Mass codified by, i believe by Pius V? i am not sure. it says that “if any man change anything in this Mass, let the wrath of God be upon him.”
if any body knows more about this jump in.

 

[Tsuwano]

i see a big problem here. if each bishop is his own man, than we have a big problem. i thought that all must agree how things are done in the Church. that is how it is done in the protestant community, each decide what it is right for them. it should not be in the CC. the Apostles all agree how things should be done. it has been like this from the beginning. we just dont pick the essentials and then applied with add ons or takes from.

that is why we have so many divisions. no leadership, everyone does whatever. it does not work. it is a house against herself. it will fall.

Well, the present governing structure of the Church has been in place for many centuries, and certainly finds its roots in the structure which Christ himself initiated when he called twelve men to be his closest followers and gave them the responsibility of governing his Church in his name and through his power. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “Christ is himself the source of ministry in the Church.” Of course, history shows us that there have been conflicts in the Church between bishops and sometimes between bishops and the Roman Pontiff, but this has only occurred when there is a lack of charity and a failure to realize that “the sacramental nature of ecclesial ministry is its character as service.”

To be clear, The Catechism states “The bishops, as vicars and legates of Christ, govern the particular Churches assigned to them by their counsels, exhortations, and example, but over and above that also by the authority and sacred power which indeed they ought to exercise so as to edify, in the spirit of service which is that of their Master.” It continues “The power which they exercise personally in the name of Christ is proper, ordinary, and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately controlled by the supreme authority of the Church. But the bishops should not be thought of as vicars of the Pope. His ordinary and immediate authority over the whole Church does not annul, but on the contrary confirms and defends that of the bishops. Their authority must be exercised in communion with the whole Church under the guidance of the Pope.”

In the end, the Church, as an institution governed by fallible human beings, may indeed experience conflict and differences of opinion, but as an institution founded by our Lord and guided and inspired by the Holy Spirit, we know the faith will remain inviolate and will be passed down to succeeding generations until the coming of our Lord. The Church is not a house against itself. It will not fall. To think otherwise, is to be something other than Catholic.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Well, the present governing structure of the Church has been in place for many centuries, and certainly finds its roots in the structure which Christ himself initiated when he called twelve men to be his closest followers and gave them the responsibility of governing his Church in his name and through his power. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “Christ is himself the source of ministry in the Church.” Of course, history shows us that there have been conflicts in the Church between bishops and sometimes between bishops and the Roman Pontiff, but this has only occurred when there is a lack of charity and a failure to realize that “the sacramental nature of ecclesial ministry is its character as service.”

To be clear, The Catechism states “The bishops, as vicars and legates of Christ, govern the particular Churches assigned to them by their counsels, exhortations, and example, but over and above that also by the authority and sacred power which indeed they ought to exercise so as to edify, in the spirit of service which is that of their Master.” It continues “The power which they exercise personally in the name of Christ is proper, ordinary, and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately controlled by the supreme authority of the Church. But the bishops should not be thought of as vicars of the Pope. His ordinary and immediate authority over the whole Church does not annul, but on the contrary confirms and defends that of the bishops. Their authority must be exercised in communion with the whole Church under the guidance of the Pope.”

that is not what i am say at all. i am talking about agreements as far as the Mass should be. how is one make up his own type of the Mass Catholic? is it not the Mass already stablished once by the early Christians? why is that one bishop or another has the authority to do whatever he pleases with the Mass?

dissagreements is understandable among them, but not to put into practice as far as changes the Mass as one pleases. it should be a cause for concern. where do we go from here if this continues? do you not see that the power of the enemy can permiate the Church and do damages? i hear a lot of new age going in the Church. next week the RCIA teacher is bringing a woman to teach us centering prayer. and he is telling everybody to come. now, i heard bad things about this prayer. but no one is protecting the laity against these things. the people dont believe me if i told them about this. they will follow the leaders. these leaders could be missguided and who is telling them this is wrong? no one. see my point?

 

[Aramis]

not necessarily true. the Mass codified by, i believe by Pius V? i am not sure. it says that “if any man change anything in this Mass, let the wrath of God be upon him.”
if any body knows more about this jump in.

That formulation is curiously non-valid, since Pious himself was violating a prior such promugaltion. And further, after the council, within 20 years the papacy imposed changes on the mass.

 

[ncjohn]

So what if our current pontiff came out and ordered all Masses to be said on Fridays in German, facing sideways, Holy Communion to be distributed to the congregation seated (pass the cup around) and homilies to be given by the laity. Would that be ok?

I don’t usually like dealing in hypotheticals, especially totally off-the-wall ones, but while I certainly don’t think it would be prudent to do so, I don’t see anything in the list you present that is doctrinal so I would think that the Pope would have the authority to do so. And of course the next Pope would have the authority to change it right back. It is hard to imagine a Pope being so seriously out of touch with the needs of the Church and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, not to mention a tremendous cadre of curial offices and thousands of bishops and cardinals who would be advising him against such a thing.

wisdomseeker:

not necessarily true. the Mass codified by, i believe by Pius V? i am not sure. it says that “if any man change anything in this Mass, let the wrath of God be upon him.”

And this is precisely why it is so dangerous to try to interpret old documents without a sound understanding of both the circumstances of the times, previous history, language structures common to such documents, etc.

It has been consistent Church teaching that no Pope can bind another Pope in matters of discipline, and the form of the liturgy is unquestionably a matter of discipline. If it wasn’t Pius V would not have had the authority to do what he did either.

I expect that the language used in the sentence you quote is similar to the paragraph in SC that states that nobody can add anything to the liturgy, even if he be a priest, and that it was meant to keep individuals from tampering with what had been put in place and ending up with endless variations as had existed before Pius implemented it.

Peace,

 

[pnewton]

I don’t usually like dealing in hypotheticals, especially totally off-the-wall ones,

I agree. Extreme exmples of “what if” can not be addressed without the “why”. Since this sort of scenario generation precludes understanding why something is done, it becomes nonsensical and unanswerable.

 

[Ockham]

Here’s a question: what exactly are we debating here anyway?

 

[diggerdomer]

Here’s a question: what exactly are we debating here anyway?

Extraneous hypothetical situations aside, my understanding is the debate was about opinions regarding changes following Vatican II (at least that’s how I understood the OP).

 

[Ockham]

I’m not interested in what you think is being debated as your intentions here seem to be pointless contention of tradition anyway.

 

[Tsuwano]

I’m not interested in what you think is being debated as your intentions here seem to be pointless contention of tradition anyway.

I’m interested in what Diggerdomer thinks, as well as what you think. This would indeed be a pointless and boring thread if only one view was parroted over and over again.

 

[Ockham]

Actually, digger is a parrot: “it’s in the GIRM, CITH is permitted, spirit of Vatican II, etc”

What do you think we are debating?

 

[pnewton]

Actually, digger is a parrot: “it’s in the GIRM, CITH is permitted, spirit of Vatican II, etc”

What do you think we are debating?

The first two are totally legitimate points. I have never seen anyone here use the third, although urban legend has it is quite common. The characterization of someone as a parrot does not detract from the legitimacy of deferring to Church authority.

Person A makes claim X There is something objectionable about Person A Therefore claim X is false

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

 

[diggerdomer]

I’m not interested in what you think is being debated as your intentions here seem to be pointless contention of tradition anyway.

Sorry, I thought you were posting the question to everyone.

 

[Ockham]

Ok, I’m going to ask again: what is it we are debating?

 

[pnewton]

Ok, I’m going to ask again: what is it we are debating?

From post one:

I’m just beginning to learn about Catholicism. I’ve been reading all the books I can, and I’ve recently been learning about the changes that took place after the Second Vatican Council.

I’m wondering what the average Catholic thinks about these changes. A good thing? Bad? Both?

 

[Ockham]

Oh, right, thus the title.

I’m finding this thread to be out of gas. Those enamoured with the post Vatican II changes, most notably the Novus Ordo Mass have made their case and seem to me at least to be incapable of answering further questions. As long as the position of the NO Mass being licit and containing the essential elements gets defended primarily from the aspect of being the status quo then there’s no point in continuing the debate. If you support the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass being transformed into a “Liturgy Service”, merely containing the essential elements, then a more substantial defence should be available.