Hi Brennan – thanks for your response.
There certainly is a large difference between the way documents from the Council of Trent or Vatican I were written–very clear and precise–and the documents of Vatican II.
The documents of Vatican I, for example, are the direct cause of the documents of Vatican II. We can see this historically. One event in the Church occurred … Vatican I. Then, following Vatican I we had Vatican II. So, one caused the other (as some might view it). As for which Council documents are better or worse – Trent vs Vatican I, or Vatican II – I’m very sure that the Church will not make that kind of distinction. The rest is one’s opinions.
In the article (the lawyer is a Catholic, for what it’s worth,) the author makes the assertion, backed by quotes from Popes, that the New Mass has fulfilled Sacrosanctum Concilium and people can’t argue that it goes against the document (as in having no Latin or Gregorian chant) for instance.
Pope Benedict has made it clear that he is working towards a fulfilment of the liturgical reform. He has been very critical of how the reform was implemented. A lawyer might look for “precedent” in the text, or “loopholes” to try to determine the meaning, or undermine the value of a text.
But again – the Catholic Church is not defined by texts alone. That is hard for lawyers (especially those taught in the Anglo system of jurisprudence) to accept. The supreme legislator, together with the Magisterium of the Church, has the authority to interpret conciliar decisions. We’ll see those interpretations worked out in the shaping of the ecclesiastical culture.
As one who has lived through the changes from the 1960s to the present day – I can now see how this “shape” is being manifested. The liturgical questions today are moving in a new direction now – one which is more positive.
And there is no conflict because while in certain places the document sounds traditional, in others it gives a loophole (such as the use of Latin) which enables the entire liturgy to be in the vernacular.
Because the document “enables” something, does not mean that it hasn’t offered a recommended plan as well. Both of those matters have to be recognized.
Again, referring to “loopholes” is characterizing the documents as primarily legislative – as if legalizing is the best way to communicate the faith to people. But that is a major problem, and Pope Benedict has complained about that. The Catholic Faith should not be reduced to a “collection of legalisms”. Here’s a passage where he critiques a pre-Conciliar mindset:
Conscience and Truth
The one who spoke in this manner [that it was better for non-believers not to become Catholic because Catholicism was such a burden] was a sincere believer, and, I would say, a strict Catholic who performed his moral duty with care and conviction. But he expressed a form of experience of faith which is disquieting. Its propagation could only be fatal to the faith. **The almost traumatic aversion many have to what they hold to be “pre-conciliar” Catholicism is rooted, I am convinced, in the encounter with such a faith **seen only as encumbrance. In this regard, to be sure, some very basic questions arise. Can such a faith actually be an encounter with truth? Is the truth about God and man so sad and difficult, or does truth not lie in the overcoming of such legalism? Does it not lie in freedom? … Conscience here does not mean man’s openness to the ground of his being, the power of perception for what is highest and most essential. Rather, it appears as subjectivity’s protective shell into which man can escape and there hide from reality.
Of course the Church is indefectible and will never teach error in the matter of Faith or Morals. However, this doesn’t mean, of course, that her leaders don’t need to exercise prudence in matters such as whether or not to call an ecumenical council, how the documents are to be written, changes to the liturgy, etc. These types of decisions are not infallible (although a negative infallibility applies to Church councils).
Yes, a negative infallibility does apply to councils. In the case of Vatican II, it was an expression of the Magisterium of the Church – all of the bishops gathered together.
One can question if it was a good idea or not. One can also dislike various things about the Council or the Mass.
I’ll just offer this without wanting to argue or sound disagreeable. Most of the traditional Catholics I know would think that I’m defending some kind of liberal Catholicism. I’m aware of that and sympathetic to their concerns. In the same way that I do not think it is just or honorable to attack the Novus Ordo with sweeping generalizations, I do not think it is right or charitable to offend the concerns and arguments of traditional Catholics who hold their views sincerely and humbly.
With that said – I run the risk of falling into the latter case whenever I try to bring a different perspective to these questions.
I’ve read a lot of traditional Catholic material in my life so far – probably all of the “modern traditional Catholic critique” over the past decades, and I believed it quite firmly for a long time also. So, I am sympathetic to that view and I’m not here to knock it down or marginalize it.
So, I respect and appreciate your views – but I also do not want to be divisive.
Thanks again.
