Vatican II

[mjdonnelly]

I’m not debating anything here, just looking for information.

On other threads I’ve seen alot about mis-interpretation of Vatican II. Or something is in the spirit of Vatican II. I thought the Church told us what to do and how to do it. It is not up to us to try to interpret what was being said.

I was wondering if someone knew where there was an explanation of the changes made, list of changes including old practices and new practices.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I want to comment on “Interpretation”. It is necessary to Interpret any written document to put it into use. We read a document and then decide on how to implement it under the circumstances that we are faced with. The trouble is in: Who has the authority to interpret it? and What do they use to interpret it? The Who is usually the Bishop(s). The how must be in union with the past tradition and teachings of the Church. Some of the implementations of Vatican II have conflicted with the past traditions and teachings of the Church.

For instance we have a Consitiution in this nation. We have hundreds of thousands of laws in this nation those laws are an interpretation of the Constitution in a sense. We have to take the rights and principles found in the document and apply them to everyday life. We do sometimes get it wrong.

 

[baltobetsy]

mjdonnelly:

I was wondering if someone knew where there was an explanation of the changes made, list of changes including old practices and new practices.

Mike, I suggest reading the documents for yourself - then you can have a better idea of what the Council really said. And the documents themselves are very beautiful and rich. It may surprise you, considering what some people say about the “spirit.”

Betsy

 

[theMutant]

Mike,

While we must obey the laws of the Church, that doesn’t mean we have to like them. We also don’t have to agree that the changes that have been made to the liturgy are consistent with what the Council said.

I disagree with the changes but they are licit (they were made by someone with the authority to make such a change) and the current rites are valid. My disagreement with the changes does not prevent me from defending the right of the pope to make them or from requiring myself to obey the laws of the Church in such matters.

I hope that this helps to clarify your confusion.

 

[T.A.Stobie_SFO]

You need to be careful and verify that the changes you have in mind were approved by Vatican II or just done by someone (not the Magisterium) claiming the “Spirit of Vatican II”.

The later if not permitted under the rules of the Church you need to report up the chain of authority of your parish (priest, pastor, bishop, vatican) giving each level full time to respond before climbing the ladder.

 

[BobCatholic]

baltobetsy:

Mike, I suggest reading the documents for yourself - then you can have a better idea of what the Council really said. And the documents themselves are very beautiful and rich. It may surprise you, considering what some people say about the “spirit.”

Great point! too many people misinterpret these documents (on both sides of the aisle)

 

[Charlemagne]

Here’s an example where something in a Vatican II document has simply been ignored for the most part. This is taken from SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.

1. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

In this case, the Bishops pretty much chose (or interpreted, somehow) to ignore the use of Latin even though the above statement leaves no wiggle room in my mind (“is to be preserved”, not “should br preserved”) as to its intent.