It appears to have just been a misunderstanding Brother (and sorry about the “Pope of Rome”, I guess my foreign friend did have a point about our language being heavily influenced by this Protestant nation).
I was trying to make the point that the Papal liturgy should be distinct from a normal Pontifical High Mass. You explained the administrative peculiarities of the Roman diocese. That’s all
.
That’s OK. I too have a weakness. I have knee-jerk reactions to Protestant language. If you will indulge me a moment, I’ll explain. I was born Jewish consider myself a Jew. The more common term is Hebrew Catholic, though I don’t like it too much, but it conveys an ethnic and cultural background that one does not leave behind because one becomes Catholic.
My mother is a holocaust survivor, but five of her brothers did not make it. I remember growing up with my grandfather telling us the story of the night that his five sons were captured and how he could do nothing to protect them without endangering the lives of his 13 other children.
I grew up in the South, during the era of segregation. The White Protestant Anglos treated Catholics, Jews, blacks, and foreigners with disdain. They actually reveled in the massacre of Jews and they often accused Catholics of things that were untrue, such as worshipping “the pope of Rome.”
Personally, I found nothing particularly ambiguous about it. I know that this is the trendy thing to say – oh, the problem with Vatican II is that the documents are all just so
ambiguous, waahh, what do they mean?! – but that is to be expected when the Church makes an effort to explain, teach, and justify rather than just saying “We decree X.” So in this case, the title was simply dropped. That’s “straight to the point” for you, without any “flowery language.” But then people asked for information and explanation about why, and so the Vatican issued the communiqué in question. Now what do you expect them to say – “It’s dropped because we say so, and that’s all there is to it. Anathema if you disagree”?
This is why reading documents from older Councils is not always particularly enlightening. For instance, the Fathers at Trent famously said concerning the language of the liturgy, “Although the mass contains great instruction for the faithful people, nevertheless, it has not seemed expedient to the Fathers, that it should be every where celebrated in the vulgar tongue.” That’s the entirety of what they had to say. Well, it’s
clear enough, as far as it goes, right? “You asked, and the answer is no.” It just provides later generations with no information whatsoever about what “expedient” means, what criteria they were applying, whether it might be expedient in some places even though not “every where,” why they came to the opinion they did, what sort of different conditions or circumstances, if any, might make it expedient to use the vernacular, and so on and so forth. Of course, if they went on to provide three pages of arguments, explanations, and justifications for their decision, then people would be complaining about how ambiguous it was.
I have often wondered about this. I read these documents and for the most part, I can see what they’re saying. I can see the prallels to previous documents or certian practices that were never written down, but were in place for a long time and even to other writings that were not official documents, such as letters, journals and things like this, kept by saints and great Catholic thinkiers. I have a gentleman charge me with all kinds of things that I did not say, because I did say that the early Franciscan, Dominican and Jesuit missionaries believed that Truth was also to be found in other faiths, not just Catholic. If it were legal, I’d be burned first thing in the morning.
But this kind of reaction comes from not reading history, literature and other writings that give us an isight into the mind of the Church without them being dogmatic in the sens of an official document with a seal, etc. Much of what we know comes through Catholic culture, not just documents. Many of these documents reflect that culture.
Maybe they should not assume that every Catholic is as well versed in Catholic culture as the writers. But there are many of us who read these things and say, “Oh yeah, that’s just like what so and so said or what these people did.” It’s like a :newidea: “Ahah moment.”
If you’re less familiar with Catholic culture, then you sit there are go, “What are they talking about?”
It’s also important to remember that just because we have everthing on the Internet, it does not mean that everything that the Church says is meant to be read by the laity. The Holy See does not care if the laity reads it. Along with that, it does not care if the laity understands it or not. It’s mean for bishops, a priests, or religious or world leaders, etc. In other words, they had a target audience in mind.
I don’t write a book of physics to be understood by musicians. They’re welcome to read it. It’s really meant for students of physics. So, it is the case with many Church documents and statements.
The Vatican is still pretty aristocratic in that regard. It focusses more on speaking to a certain group of people and not to every one. We must always ask, “Who is the target audience of this statement?” It may not be me and that’s why I have no clue what it’s saying.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
