There is no doubt that the Second Vatican Council commissioned the reform of the Tridentine Mass and the other sacraments of the Church. It also asked for "Bible Services," the promotion of popular devotions derived from the Liturgy and leading back to the Liturgy and cultural adaptations of the Liturgy. I believe the "cultural adaptations" have been the most controversial. But this will not be the purpose of this post; but the following excerpts are:
The Following are excerpts from SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM which you can read in full by pressing this sentence.
4. Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy. Such participation by the Christian people as "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people (1 Pet. 2:9; cf. 2:4-5), is their right and duty by reason of their baptism.
In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community.
Sacred scripture is of the greatest importance in the celebration of the liturgy. For it is from scripture that lessons are read and explained in the homily, and psalms are sung; the prayers, collects, and liturgical songs are scriptural in their inspiration and their force, and it is from the scriptures that actions and signs derive their meaning. Thus to achieve the restoration, progress, and adaptation of the sacred liturgy, it is essential to promote that warm and living love for scripture to which the venerable tradition of both eastern and western rites gives testimony.
25. The liturgical books are to be revised as soon as possible; experts are to be employed on the task, and bishops are to be consulted, from various parts of the world.
Wherefore, in the revision of the liturgy, the following general norms should be observed:
34. The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions; they should be within the people's powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation.
35. That the intimate connection between words and rites may be apparent in the liturgy:
1) In sacred celebrations there is to be more reading from holy scripture, and it is to be more varied and suitable.
2) Because the sermon is part of the liturgical service, the best place for it is to be indicated even in the rubrics, as far as the nature of the rite will allow; the ministry of preaching is to be fulfilled with exactitude and fidelity. The sermon, moreover, should draw its content mainly from scriptural and liturgical sources, and its character should be that of a proclamation of God's wonderful works in the history of salvation, the mystery of Christ, ever made present and active within us, especially in the celebration of the liturgy.
3) Instruction which is more explicitly liturgical should also be given in a variety of ways; if necessary, short directives to be spoken by the priest or proper minister should be provided within the rites themselves. But they should occur only at the more suitable moments, and be in prescribed or similar words.
4) Bible services should be encouraged, especially on the vigils of the more solemn feasts, on some weekdays in Advent and Lent, and on Sundays and feast days. They are particularly to be commended in places where no priest is available; when this is so, a deacon or some other person authorized by the bishop should preside over the celebration.
36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.
3. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.
4. 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. MY COMMENT:(In the revision of the English translation of the Mass, this held true, but Rome orchestrated the revision, which the Bishops' Conferences approved--many progressives in the Church felt this was a case of the "reform of the reform" centralizing authority over the Liturgy once again and a move away from this norm.)
MY COMMENT: Let there be no doubt that Vatican II mandated a reform of the Mass and other sacraments and the excerpts above prove it. Does this mean this document is the final document on the Liturgy. Certainly not.
10 comments:
Father, surely YOU of all people know that the line about "active" participation in #4 is mistranslated and it should read "actual" participation.
The document itself is poorly written. It tells us that the use of Latin is to be preserved, then suggests that we can use the vernacular. It tells us that all the rites are of equal right and dignity and the Church wishes to preserve them in every way, yet goes on to say, "WHERE NECESSARY the rites be revised CAREFULLY in the light of sound tradition."
Why do we have this ambiguities and contradictions? Could it be because that is exactly the kind of "wiggle room" Cardinals like Suenens and Lienart micromanaged after they demanded new candidates to chair the drafting commissions, to replace those proposed by the Curia? Isn't it curious that Suenens later boasted that Vatican II was the "French Revolution" of the Church? The French Revolution was not peaceful and it resulted in the persecution of FAITHFUL Catholics. Vatican II's "Implementation" has been anything but peaceful and those who have been faithful to what they have been taught have been persecuted by their own Church.
It is very possible that one of the reasons the Third Secret of Fatima has never been completely released to the public is because part of it is a warning about the Church falling into apostasy after an evil council took place. In other words, it would embarrass our Church leaders into having to admit that they have supported a failed program. Conspiracy theorist lunacy you say?
Judge the council's "success" by its fruits!
Vatican II has done for the Church what Bonnie and Clyde did for banks.
Vatican II has been as successful for the Church as New Coke was in the 1980's.
Vatican II improved the Church's image about as much as the sinking of the Titanic improved the image of sea travel.
Vatican II has renewed the Church about as much as last year's earthquake and tsunami renewed Japan's fishing industry.
The man who became our current pope himself admitted that Vatican II defined no new dogmas and restricted itself to being a mere "pastoral council" (whatever that means) and in the same speech admitted that it has been treated as a "superdogma" that is treated as a new starting point that erases all that comes before it.
I think we have fallen for a big mistake, huge mistake, a deception that has caused a diabolical disorientation of colossal proportion. And, in our pride, we persist in it. Our refusal to see is only increasing our blindness.
While I wouldn't disagree with some of your comments concerning how the Council was implemented, I will have to say you read like a disciple of Martin Luther, only faith and only the Bible. But therein lies the rub with Luther's two premises, which faith and which interpretation of the Bible. For as you well know, there are many interpretations of faith and what the Bible actually says and all the negative things you attribute to the Council's Documents itself, not necessarily the practical outcomes, you can attribute to the Holy Bible and its interpretation depending on who is interpreting it. In the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, the role of Teaching, sanctifying and ruling the Church is left to the Pope and Bishops in union with them and it belongs exclusively to them to be the arbiters of what the Bible and Tradition (including Councils of the Catholic Church) mean, in other words, they are the interpreters of the Bible (especially when there is confusion based upon the actual documents of the bible)and also with Councils of the Church and the proper interpretation and implementation of these. That does not belong to you or me to decide as though we're Southern Baptists and each person decides for himself how to interpret the Bible and in our case, also an Ecumenical Council. Don't be a Protestant Catholic, be in union with the Church's Magisterium in the areas of faith, moral and canon law and the Pope's and Bishops' mandate to teach, sanctify and rule the Church even in non-infallible declaration for to limit your assent to the Church only to infallibly defined articles is to become a rather dramatic minimalist Catholic!
Again, the problem is not what the Council said--it is with the application, or "praxis," which has given us what we typically have today.
A liturgical reform program along the lines of what has been written about by Bishop Schneider could just as well have fit the bill for the prescribed reforms of the liturgy.
Keeping in mind what Sacrosanctum Concilium 23 said about "no new Rites unless" (to paraphrase an excerpt), it's pretty evident that we could have just as well had an approved vernacular option for the 1962 Missal with an expanded lectionary (something like the '65 Missal).
I very much agree with your ending observation, Father, where you state that we do not have the "final word" yet!
"Let there be no doubt that Vatican II mandated a reform of the Mass"
Hmm . . . I wonder whether any informed Catholic has ever expressed such a doubt. Though one--who has actually read the minutes of the 50+ meetings of the Council's commission that prepared SC--can certainly doubt that the reform intended by the Council fathers was faithfully carried out. Or was it sidetracked and forestalled, so that we still await the promised liturgical fruits of Vatican II.
On the other hand, one can argue that Vatican II is now past history. It was a council that restricted itself to pastoral questions particular to its time, a special time a half century ago, one that preceded a turbulent era with consequences that no one could then anticipate.
As a consequence, the pastoral solutions of that time may not fit well our time, when the problems the Church confronts are, in so many ways, very different from those perceived then. Indeed, many of the pastoral documents of Vatican II, when read now, seem dated and formulated for a time much different from our own.
Some would like to argue that the mistakes of the intervening decades can be corrected by going back to the fork in the road where the wrong turn was taken. But surely must start now where we are now. That is--instead of going back to the Tridentine Mass as it was in 1962 and trying now to carry out faithfully the reform intended then--the Church must start with the "misreform" now in place, and fix it as Pope Benedict models (and Bishop Schneider and so many others are now advocating) with the traditional Mass serving as a guide and anchor for reform of the new Mass.
Henry, I'm in complete agreement with you. We cannot shove the revised English Missal (which was revised in Latin around 2002) and return to the 1962 missal exclusively. But we can look to the 1962 missal as a template for the reformed missals spirituality and praxis and revised order. What the bishop proposes is not impossible even the restoration of the EF's offertory prayers, but apart from that I don't see him suggesting anything really radical.
By the way, it now appears that the SSPX has been given an April 15th deadline to clarify their position.
Pray for them and for our Holy Father. Pray for reconciliation. . .
Vatican II cannot be relegated to "history" as if no longer has relevance or as if the issues addressed no longer obtain.
While it took place at a particular time, the thought that underlies the Council was developing for at least a century before John 23rd announced the Council.
The "questions particular to its time" remain questions for the Church today. This is true not only for Vat II, but for all the councils of the Church.
Sacrosanctam Concilium - increasing vigor to the life of the faithful; adapting institutions to the needs of our times; fostering union among Christians; calling all into the household of the Church. (SC 1)
Inter Mirifica - promoting the use of new technologies that contribute to our entertainment, instruction, and to the spread of the Kingdom of God. (IM 1, 2)
Lumen Gentium - bringing the Light of Christ to all people. (LG 1)
Orientalium Ecclesiarum - supporting the Eastern Churches so that they may flourish with new Apostolic vigor in order that they may achieve the task entrusted to them. (OE 1)
Unitatis Redentigratio - the restoration of unity among all Christians. (UR 1)
Christus Dominus - supporting the bishops in their God-given task of teaching, hallowing, and feeding the faithful. (CD 2)
And on and on and on.
These are not issues "particular" to the time of the Second vatican Council. They are issues we have encountered from the beginning and will face until the Second Coming.
Pope Benedict has instructed the Church to revisit the documents of Vat II, to study them, and to embrace the challenges they present to the Church. Surely this pope would not instruct us thus if the Second Vatican Council were not still valuable and instructive for the Church today and in the future.
Some on this Board -- especially the Fathers -- sound like a bunch of old bitties.
Vatican II is over, Gentleman; it's as relevant as a screen door on a submarine.
The counter-revolution against that time-bound piece of irrelevance from the 1960s is DONE! AMEN!!
Bartholomew, What are you talking about?
A screen door on a submarine might be VERY relevant to the sailors inside the vessel....
The maxim you wanted was "as useless as a screen door on a submarine."
Post a Comment