tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post5634977603760034908..comments2024-03-28T20:30:10.681-04:00Comments on southern orders: A MODEST PROPOSAL FOR THE REFORM OF THE ORDINARY FORM OF THE MASS IN AN EXTRAORDINARY FORM SORT OF WAY BUT STILL RESPECTING VATICAN II AND SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUMFr. Allan J. McDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16986575955114152639noreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-61744737106565246932012-12-14T17:02:22.921-05:002012-12-14T17:02:22.921-05:00I see Kavanaugh is still hunting bears with sticks...I see Kavanaugh is still hunting bears with sticks. He is clearly one of these lib/modernists who believes that if he just keeps perseverating about something people will eventually believe him...or, if he just makes untrue statements loud enough they will become true ones. I'm sure his few parishioners would follow him anywhere...but only out of curiosity. LOL!Genehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672484450736725268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-28166041906025769002012-12-14T12:59:45.129-05:002012-12-14T12:59:45.129-05:00Fr. Kavanaugh,
"Where is this "other to...Fr. Kavanaugh,<br /><br />"Where is this "other to replace him" that you speak of. Priests who are currently serving FOUR locations on a weekend would love to know where this critter is hiding!"<br /><br />First, with all due respect, a pries is not a critter. Second, they can be found. It happens all the time, you're just being obtuse. Priests are sent on for advanced studies from every diocese every year. Please don't play me for a fool. I do know better.<br /><br />"I'm glad you made a concerted effort to learn Latin. I don't think there is much good reason for parish priests to leave their assignments, for which there are virtually no replacements, to learn a language for which there is very little (if any) need or use."<br /><br />That is your opinion and one that is not in line with the Vatican. I'll make a mental note of that for future conversation.<br /><br />"Not all rules HAVE to be followed, especially those that don't offer much practical advantage."<br /><br />Unless of course, if they break the law, then yes, Father, they do need to be followed. Your opinion is contrary to both Liturgical and Canon Law. How do you reconcile that?<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009356356243871772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-71090500342849285962012-12-14T09:24:09.493-05:002012-12-14T09:24:09.493-05:00PI said "Not all rules HAVE to be followed, e...PI said "Not all rules HAVE to be followed, especially those that don't offer much practical advantage."<br /><br />Funny--when I recently said this same thing using slightly different language, PI accused me of improperly applying legal maxims in a theological context.<br /><br />Makes a difference whose ox is gored, neh? :-)Hammer of Fascistshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08647227447212096501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-83919194854402907322012-12-13T22:24:15.720-05:002012-12-13T22:24:15.720-05:00Anon2;
The only reason I know about the bandwidth...Anon2;<br /><br />The only reason I know about the bandwidth issues is that I have my own blog (shamless plug, just click on my name).<br /><br />As for the articles, they are informative, I would point you to the source material. I am not a fan of using wikipedia (as a rule) because anyone can edit it.<br /><br />As for the rest, Latin is a sacred language, regardless of a phantom argument against.<br /><br />Ciao!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009356356243871772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-50218063143878631812012-12-13T20:34:27.096-05:002012-12-13T20:34:27.096-05:00Andy - Where is this "other to replace him&qu...Andy - Where is this "other to replace him" that you speak of. Priests who are currently serving FOUR locations on a weekend would love to know where this critter is hiding!<br /><br />Fr. Z doesn't have to defend anything. You allow him to speak of actors in the mass, yet I am accused of destroying the faith by doing so. Go figure...<br /><br />I'm glad you made a concerted effort to learn Latin. I don't think there is much good reason for parish priests to leave their assignments, for which there are virtually no replacements, to learn a language for which there is very little (if any) need or use.<br /><br />Not all rules HAVE to be followed, especially those that don't offer much practical advantage.Pater Ignotusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-12327498105564848152012-12-13T18:30:53.070-05:002012-12-13T18:30:53.070-05:00This is a very interesting thread. I am learning a...This is a very interesting thread. I am learning a lot. At the risk of using up more of Father’s bandwidth (?? – I understand nothing of such matters, Andy), I venture to offer, for convenience, two informative Wikipedia links: on sacred languages in general and on ecclesiastical Latin in particular:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_language<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiastical_Latin<br />Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-72550385338930364292012-12-13T18:21:37.501-05:002012-12-13T18:21:37.501-05:00Marc said: "It seems he must, at least, appro...Marc said: "It seems he must, at least, approve a Missal in order for a Liturgy to be valid and licit."<br /><br />Pater said, "This is not correct. <br />The celebration of mass by a validly ordained priest using a non-approved missal is certainly not LICIT, but it may very well be VALID."<br /><br />Just to show Pater that I'm appealing to reason and not law, I'll now use grammar instead of a legal rule. Marc used the conjunctive. He stated that the pope must approve a missal in order for a liturgy to be valid AND licit. The conjunctive essentially implies a "both." Pater says that it is only one, namely, licit. Thus, Marc's statement _is_ correct. :-)<br /><br />Now, if he'd said "valid OR licit," PI would be correct. :-)<br /><br />Have we gotten reductionist and tortuous and legalistic and semantic enough yet?<br /><br />I need a spiritual drink. :-)Hammer of Fascistshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08647227447212096501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-42314096492360538542012-12-13T14:40:26.472-05:002012-12-13T14:40:26.472-05:00Pater Ignotus,
Of those 39,718 priests, how many ...Pater Ignotus,<br /><br />Of those 39,718 priests, how many have an advanced degree? I would be willing to wager that this number is in the high 90th percentile.<br /><br />Don't hang your hat on seminary experience, I have that as well and I can tell you, the majority of the men I studied with were very educated and very smart.<br /><br />"Of course there are sources that say priests should know Latin, Greek, Hebrew, among other languages. But of course, there are also sources that say "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not commit adultery" but we know how well THOSE expectations are being met... "<br /><br />You're kidding right? That is the most nonsensical thing I think that I've ever heard. I don't really even know how to coherently respond to that.<br /><br />As for holding priests to unecessary levels, I don't think that I am. I don't think that holding priests to the same level the Church holds them to is unreasonable at all. BTW, the reason I know Latin so well, I was in seminary and made a concerted effort to learn it. Go figure.<br /><br />For the 3rd time now, perhaps I wasn't clear enough before, I. HAVE. NOT. GIVEN. FATHER. ZUHLSDORF. A. PASS. I have not commented on his statement at all. Reason being, as I have stated before, (sigh...) he is not here to defend himself.<br /><br />First off, you know as well as I, that it isn't the town sending the priest off, it is the bishop. And if Fr. Kavanaugh is sent off for studies, there is another to replace him. It happens all the time. I have several priest friends now who are off for advanced studies, please don't take me or anyone else here for a fool.<br /><br />I do wonder though, why you won't answer the questions. They really shouldn't be that difficult for a human person with an advanced degree.<br /><br />I will address Latin as a sacred language as soon as you answer my questions. It certainly seems obvious to the majority here, so I don't like to state the obvious, it eats up Fr. McDonald's bandwith and it is incredibly easy to find via google. The answers to the questions I ask you, are not so easy to find and I am looking for your take on them, so google doesn't work and the bandwith use is warranted.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009356356243871772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-62905493480629449952012-12-13T13:21:32.896-05:002012-12-13T13:21:32.896-05:00Andy - Your intentional misconstrual is of my word...Andy - Your intentional misconstrual is of my words is your issue, not mine. And your failure to take to task your footpace friend for using the same word I use is all the evidence I need. <br /><br />As to your education statistics. If 7.95% of the people in the united states have a masters degree that means there are 24,771,557 US citizens with Masters degrees. In the US there are 39,718 priests in the US. That means that there are 24,667,839 who are AS educated as we priests plus another 9,347,757 who are BETTER educated than we. (Now, having been to seminary, I can tell you that not a few who were awarded MA's of MDiv's were not among the brightest, but that's altogether subjective.)<br /><br />So, where priests were once the bearers of substantially higher educational levels - we were often the only educated folks around - we are a small minority of the total of well-educated people in this country.<br /><br />Of course there are sources that say priests should know Latin, Greek, Hebrew, among other languages. But of course, there are also sources that say "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not commit adultery" but we know how well THOSE expectations are being met... <br /><br />You can hold your seminaries and priests to whatever unnecessary levels you want, but it doesn't change the reality. <br /><br />Your patience is exemplary. <br /><br />I'm waiting patiently for your explanation of why Fr Z gets a pass on saying Jesus is an "actor" in the mass and I get the pillory..... And how a one-priest town in NH or IA or anywhere else for that matter can send its priest off for a year or two to learn an unnecessary language... Or how Latin became a "sacred language"...<br /><br />We are both patient people.Pater Ignotusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-83067938831297402732012-12-13T12:10:14.392-05:002012-12-13T12:10:14.392-05:00Fr. Kavanaugh,
I am done with the actor scenario....Fr. Kavanaugh,<br /><br />I am done with the actor scenario. It is clear that you and I differ and that there will be no resolution. You may think what you wish, I have no control of that, nor do I want it. I have made my case and I stand by it. You may think me wrong, but I am not. Syntax and application of words do have meaning and you are misusing the word. Let it go.<br /><br />"I don't think that priests are among the most educated men on the planet. Maybe that was once true, but no more."<br /><br />You are just wrong. Let's look at some stats, shall we? Good.<br /><br />High school graduate -- 87.58%<br />Some college -- 56.86%<br />Associate's and/or Bachelor's degree -- 39.89%<br />Bachelor's degree -- 30.44%<br />Master's degree -- 7.95%<br />Doctorate or professional degree -- 3.00%<br /><br />That is a pretty big jump from 87.6% to 8%. I would argue that holding a Master's does consider one a very educated person in today's world. Those numbers come from the US Census Bureau.<br /><br />Priests are more educated and they do have the capacity to continue to learn.<br /><br />"There are lots of good reasons why priests aren't able to leave their parishes and spend time learning a langauge they don't need."<br /><br />The Church disagrees with you. Both coming from the Council and today. You REALLY need to look at Universae Ecclesiae 21. That is only one place. I would also have you look at Veterum Sapientia. What does Canon 249 say in the 1983 CIC? "Moreover they are to acquire a knowledge of Latin which will enable them to understand and make use of the sources of so many sciences and of the documents of the Church. The study of the liturgical language proper to each rite should be considered necessary; a suitable knowledge of the languages of the Bible and of Tradition should be greatly encouraged."<br /><br />This isn't just me dreaming, dear Father, this is me holding seminaries and priests to an expectation.<br /><br />"It is no more sacred that any other language used for the sincere worship of God."<br /><br />You already said that, but you yet give no support as to why. I suppose I could just keep saying the same things over and over without an explanation and hope that you just accept it too, but I don't, I give reasonings. Is it supposed to be a watershed moment for me where I all of a sudden say, "Whoa....Fr. Mike is right!!! Holy Cow...he only said it 3 times and now I get it?" Sorry, Fr. Kavanaugh, I don't operate that way when an individual (even if he be a priest) gives his opinion regarding Church matters with no coherent explanation.<br /><br />So, are you ready to discuss the questions posed to you yet? I'm patiently waiting. Thank you.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009356356243871772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-81350163515543438302012-12-13T10:41:31.860-05:002012-12-13T10:41:31.860-05:00Andy - "The way that I use it" (actor) i...Andy - "The way that I use it" (actor) is the same way that Fr. Z uses it. You assumed - wrongly - that I referred to actors on stages. Even when corrected, you persisted in mischaracterizing my position. That is "poisoning the well."<br /><br />I don't think that priests are among the most educated men on the planet. Maybe that was once true, but no more. <br /><br />You're not picking nits - you are engaging in dreaming about priests heading off to school to learn Latin. I recently visited a seminary classmate in Portsmouth, NH. When he worked as a seminarian in that city 30 years ago there were nine priests in the three parishes. Now, he is the only priest in town. There are lots of good reasons why priests aren't able to leave their parishes and spend time learning a langauge they don't need.<br /><br />Also, there were numerous men who were rejected from seminary because, lacking facility with alien tongues, they could not learn Latin. (This wasn't just about mass Latin, but being able to study systematic theology and moral theology in Latin textbooks.) I can imagine those who, today, are not able to learn the language being told, "Father, your services are no longer needed, so the people of the 4 parishes in three counties in Iowa that you served (another sem classmate's situation) will be without a priest."<br /><br />Latin is simply not needed for a parish priest. It is no more sacred that any other language used for the sincere worship of God.<br /><br />Marc - You want what doesn't exist and what has never existed. You want a Church where the Pope makes a pronouncement that is utterly clear and unassailably cogent and instantly, without exception, the ENTIRE world bows down in submission.<br /><br />This has never been the case, will never be the case, and should never be the case.<br /><br />If these discussions bother your conscience, shake your faith, or cause you sleepless nights, then STOP coming hear and reading them.<br /><br /><br />Pater Ignotusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-42987011619230863422012-12-13T10:34:59.568-05:002012-12-13T10:34:59.568-05:00I disagree, certainly you can say it is not a vali...I disagree, certainly you can say it is not a valid use Roman Missal, but you cannot say that the priest who uses this Missal is saying an invalid Mass, it is illicit not invalid and it could get the priest suspended for using it, but it is still valid. I think we need a canonist to chime in on this. <br />Fr. Allan J. McDonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16986575955114152639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-3413279359383044992012-12-13T10:23:03.863-05:002012-12-13T10:23:03.863-05:00The difference, Fr. McDonald, between the 1962 and...The difference, Fr. McDonald, between the 1962 and 1965 Missals is simple. The 1962 Missal was/is an editio typica. The 1965 Missal was not. The 1965 Missal was, in fact, abrogated/suppressed by the 1970 Missal. The 1962 Missal was, by Pope Benedict's judgment never abrogated, due to the fact that for the entire history of the Novus Ordo, there has been an indult to use it.<br /><br />Most simply put, there has not been an indult to say the 1965 Missal. The 1965 Missal is no longer a valid expression of the Catholic liturgical action.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009356356243871772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-59042314428786603862012-12-13T09:46:53.100-05:002012-12-13T09:46:53.100-05:00I think that we are getting very close to case clo...I think that we are getting very close to case closed as the hermeneutic of rupture in interpreting Vatican II is going to be declared a heresy and of course this affects both the progressives that have pushed the rupture envelope to an extreme and to heretical heights but also SSPX if they don't accept the Council--so case will be closed soon on this discussion and how I long for it.<br /><br />I don't accept Andy's claim that the 1965 missal would make the Mass invalid. It would be illicit, but not invalid as all that is needed for validity is present in the missal (after all it is the 1962 missal slightly modified with some vernacular.)<br />Keep in mind that until indults were given for the 1962 missal, it was thought to be abrogated too, but many still celebrated it even without approbation. Fr. Allan J. McDonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16986575955114152639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-37182646479460949502012-12-13T09:08:01.588-05:002012-12-13T09:08:01.588-05:00Fr. Kavanaugh,
" You ignored my use of "...Fr. Kavanaugh,<br /><br />" You ignored my use of "actor" in previous posts, accusing me of asserting that I believe that priests "act" as a stage or screen actor. You did this in order to "promote your view" so don't tell me NOT to do what you yourself do."<br /><br />Sour apples? Sorry, I didn't ignore your use of "actor," I disagreed with it. Big difference. Let's have some intellectual honesty here. I've spoken at length on why I think that the term "actor" is inappropriate, the way that you use it.<br /><br />"When your friend, at whose footpace you have served mass, uses the same term, he gets a pass."<br /><br />I don't think that I've given Fr. Z a pass on that. I don't think that I've addressed his usage of it at all, because he is not here to discuss it.<br /><br />"I don't have a working knowledge of Latin, so you can go on and on saying that priests should have such, but it is meaningless in the present circumstances."<br /><br />It is not meaningless. Priests, including yourself, are some of the most educated men on the planet, holding advanced degrees. There is no reason why a priest could not go back to school and learn. If, as the liberals (I'm not saying you, please be clear) say that Catholics today are some of the most modern and educated in history, then it should be no problem for a priest to go back to school and learn Latin. I know I'm picking nits, but if a priest will get an additional degree or certification in "spiritual direction" then I think that asking him to study the language of the Church is not out of bounds.<br /><br />"Latin is no more sacred that English or any other language used in sincere worship of God."<br /><br />I think that you're probably one of the few who actually still hold on to this flawed idea. Latin is a sacred language in the same way that Arabic or Hebrew is a sacred language. I would point you to several talks given by Frs. Uwe Michael Lang and Nicholas Schoefield.<br /><br />Finally, the Church has always viewed three languages as sacred, Greek, Hebrew and Latin. Those are the languages in the liturgical action and regardless of your sincere worship of God, well, what one does in private is his own business, but what one does publicly is bound by the Church. Let's not confuse the two.<br /><br />There is a reason vernacular, profane and vulgar are all connected. And there is a reason that vulgar Latin was not used in the Church.<br /><br />Now, can we please get to a point where you will address the questions and stop poisoning the well and stop with the red herrings.<br /><br />The questions I've asked should not be too difficult for a priest to answer. And they do fall in your scope of expertise. Thank you, Father.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009356356243871772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-87609707368755623502012-12-13T09:02:31.395-05:002012-12-13T09:02:31.395-05:00What a tortuous mess of legalism.
You have both ...What a tortuous mess of legalism. <br /><br />You have both now conceded the idea that the laity should be engaging in debate with the Pope (and other clerics) until he issues so sort of formal pronouncement on the particular interpretation of this (which he has arguably done in the very promulgation of the Missal and the translations of the Liturgy). In fact, you see this as a normal aftermath of a purportedly Ecumenical Council. Bear in mind that in prior instances where there was real lack of adhesion by the Church to a purported Council, it was necessarily not ecumenical. <br /><br />Father McDonald has expressly chastised commenters, including myself, for expressing views about these issues because I am not "the Pope" and now we hear his is necessary for the life of the Church. <br /><br />Neither of you make any sense and I get the feeling it's because you favor the chaos. After all, it creates a vacuum in which you are each free to express your personal liturgical tastes - one liberal, the other pseudo-traditional (aesthetically, anyway). All the while doing so in the same diocese only 10 miles from each other. <br /><br />Do you see how this gives the laity the impression of a lack of meaningful communion and causes confusion about the nature of the Church?Marcnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-87914245444190255502012-12-13T08:50:56.143-05:002012-12-13T08:50:56.143-05:00Fr. McDonald,
"If I used the 1965 missal, wh...Fr. McDonald,<br /><br />"If I used the 1965 missal, which I really, really, really would love to see included with the 1962 missal, it would be valid but illicit."<br /><br />I think that is incorrect. There was never a typica editio of the 1965 Missal and it was abrogated with the promulgation of the 1970 Missal. As of today, there are two valid expressions of the Mass in the Latin Rite, the 1970 Missal (and subsequent revisions) and the 1962 Missal.<br /><br />If you were to celebrate Holy Mass according to the 1965 Missal, knowing that it had been abrogated, then I do believe that intent would be called into question and therefore a validity issue would arise, regarding the confection of the Sacrament. In short, the priest's intention must be that of the Church. If the Church has two forms of the Mass available to use and a priest chooses another (which has been abrogated), he is not intending to do as the Church intends and validity is an issue.<br /><br />So, the case isn't really as closed as it seems.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009356356243871772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-47731911259397701612012-12-13T08:36:50.707-05:002012-12-13T08:36:50.707-05:00I would have to agree with PI here. If I celebrate...I would have to agree with PI here. If I celebrated my concocted Mass, it would be valid but illicit. If I used the 1965 missal, which I really, really, really would love to see included with the 1962 missal, it would be valid but illicit. <br /><br />In terms of discussions, yes, there is a great deal of leeway but when a local bishop or the pope calls an end to the discussion if it is leading no where or to a dead end or to a schism, then yes, the discussion should cease and desist. For example the ordination of women to the priesthood is one such topic that has had its discussion ended by the Holy Father. After all, he has absolutely no authority whatsoever to permit the ordination of women. Case closed. Fr. Allan J. McDonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16986575955114152639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-52647443872413674382012-12-13T07:53:03.521-05:002012-12-13T07:53:03.521-05:00Marc said: "It seems he must, at least, appr...Marc said: "It seems he must, at least, approve a Missal in order for a Liturgy to be valid and licit."<br /><br />This is not correct. <br /><br />The celebration of mass by a validly ordained priest using a non-approved missal is certainly not LICIT, but it may very well be VALID. Validity is not necessarily impeded by the use of non-approved prayers, rubrics, etc.<br /><br />Marc said: "Therefore, the very allowance of the current Missal in the vernacular by the Pope invalidates the need for discussion about the intent of the VII Council Fathers."<br /><br />This, too, is not correct.<br /><br />In the wake of every previous Council, discussions among laity, priests, theologians, and bishops have led to greater clarity, more effective implementation, and deeper understanding of the matters addressed in the actions of the Councils.<br /><br />These discussions have also led to dissent, disagreement, schism, and other less-than-hoped-for results.<br /><br />While popes or their delegates have the "final word" on the meaning of conciliar teaching, the discussions among those of us not so papal or papally delegated certainly are valid and, I would suggest, necessary in the life of the Church.<br /><br /><br /><br />Pater Ignotusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-58379302338788634392012-12-12T23:07:55.096-05:002012-12-12T23:07:55.096-05:00P.S. Father’s later post on the Oxford Declaration...P.S. Father’s later post on the Oxford Declaration, which I have just re-read, would appear to be quite pertinent to the issues under discussion. It would be interesting to read the book by Evelyn Waugh and Cardinal Heenan that is pictured in the post. Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-10913734090858173002012-12-12T22:23:02.330-05:002012-12-12T22:23:02.330-05:00That is a very helpful perspective and reminder, M...That is a very helpful perspective and reminder, Marc. Thank you for coming out of lurking. =). If you are right about that – and I will assume that you are – it does provide a nice, clean solution to the problem under discussion. We can assume that whatever Liturgy the Pope approves directly or through his appointed delegates is valid and licit. Papal fiat concludes that issue.<br /><br />However, perhaps I was really trying to get at a deeper point (albeit somewhat inartfully), both in this thread and in earlier threads addressing the “struggle of the Traditionalists” you reference – let’s call it the problem of “legitimacy” (for want of a better term). <br /><br />Is there such a problem of “legitimacy”? All this talk about the “smoke of Satan” infiltrating the Church, including in matters of liturgy, might suggest that there is. So, even if the Pope does indeed have the ultimate authority to determine what is a valid and licit liturgy, his determinations in that regard would be less vulnerable to this sort of questioning, indeed grumbling, if they could be shown to be in accord with earlier expressions of Tradition. This is, of course, not just a matter of the proper interpretation of Vatican II but of earlier magisterial pronouncements as well. A related reason for asking about the proper interpretation of Vatican II itself has to do with papal claims to be implementing Vatican II.<br /><br />My assumption has been that the Pope and the Bishops know what they are doing and are interpreting both Vatican II and earlier magisterial documents appropriately, and thus their interpretations possesses “legitimacy.” I hold this assumption, partly because I do not myself know what the appropriate techniques of interpretation are (hence my questions), partly because I want to trust the hierarchy, and partly because I am bound to do so to the extent of obsequium religiosum. <br /><br />Does all that sound reasonable? <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-11095856979988723692012-12-12T20:55:28.178-05:002012-12-12T20:55:28.178-05:00Andy - You ignored my use of "actor" in ...Andy - You ignored my use of "actor" in previous posts, accusing me of asserting that I believe that priests "act" as a stage or screen actor. You did this in order to "promote your view" so don't tell me NOT to do what you yourself do.<br /><br />When your friend, at whose footpace you have served mass, uses the same term, he gets a pass.<br /><br />I don't have a working knowledge of Latin, so you can go on and on saying that priests should have such, but it is meaningless in the present circumstances.<br /><br />Latin is no more sacred that English or any other language used in sincere worship of God. <br /><br /><br />Pater Ignotusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-12299006881234339852012-12-12T20:50:43.850-05:002012-12-12T20:50:43.850-05:00One further thought and clarification on all this ...One further thought and clarification on all this – Just because a text, that is any text, is itself unclear and lacks a plain meaning for the lay reader, that is for the untrained expert, does not necessarily mean that it cannot be made clear once accepted techniques of interpretation are used by experts – for example, the meaning of technical terms or “terms of art,” the use of “legislative history,” etc. As I indicated, I do not know what, if any, accepted techniques exist for the interpretation of unclear magisterial texts. There may be none -- perhaps it is never permissible to go beyond the actual text and ordinary meaning of the contested passage(s) – but perhaps there are. Does anyone know the answer to this?<br /> <br />Practically speaking, I imagine that a common approach would be to seek clarification from Rome.<br />Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-7708056498074940322012-12-12T17:18:46.645-05:002012-12-12T17:18:46.645-05:00The stronger argument here is that the "Churc...The stronger argument here is that the "Church" (whatever that may mean in this instance) is not bound by these portions of Sacrosanctum Concilium. After all, the Pope is the supreme lawgiver. And apparently he is the only one with the authority to promulgate a Missal. It seems he must, at least, approve a Missal in order for a Liturgy to be valid and licit.<br /><br />The Pope promulgated the Novus Ordo Missal and now allows its celebration in the vernacular through the use of approved translations, having delegated his authority to particular groups of translators and national bishops conferences. <br /><br />The Pope is not bound by an ecumenical council when issuing disciplinary directives or promulgating a Missal. Therefore, the very allowance of the current Missal in the vernacular by the Pope invalidates the need for discussion about the intent of the VII Council Fathers. <br /><br />Moreover, it is not the province of individual priests to interpret SC or any Conciliar documents as that is the exclusive province of the Pope and his delegates as he is the living Magisterium and interpreter of Tradition. <br /><br />So, you see, this is not a conciliar interpretation problem. It really is immaterial what the documents say. And that is the struggle of the Traditionalists - reconciling the clarity of Vatican I with the reality following Vatican II. Development of doctrine being what it is, surely the Pope can develop the liturgy in any manner he likes and force the people to whatever he likes (all the while not violating Tradition as he is the living Magisterium and its interpreter). <br /><br />I'll go back to lurking now...Marcnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-42652076115080300242012-12-12T16:24:32.793-05:002012-12-12T16:24:32.793-05:00A2,
I didn't take your post as criticism. No ...A2,<br /><br />I didn't take your post as criticism. No problem. I, too, enjoy our discussions.<br /><br />I haven't been keeping up with interpretive theory recently as much as I used to (I find the field to filled with senseless verbosity these days for my taste), but I do still have some belief in a plain meaning, or, more accurately, gradations of plainness. I could argue that since we tend to define all words in terms of other words, we can easily get into a regression in which there is no such thing as a plain meaning of any word, much less a sentence or statute or magisterial document. I tend to be suspicious of that argument because in my experience it's served too often as a postmodern bow in the quiver of relativists who seek to destabilize things for the sake of the revolution (and who then, in a delicious irony, impose their own absolutes on the vanquished).<br /><br />Further, I think "plain meaning" must be understood to be preceded by an implied "reasonable": otherwise you'll have all manner of people arguing that text of SC plainly mandates the serving of amaretto ice cream during the Confiteor or what not. In short, there must be some degree of objectivity as to plain meaning, and that objectivity must be based on reason.<br /><br />On the other hand, it's probably equally hard to reach a crystal clear, "un-vague," unambiguous meaning that admits of no doubt. Maybe we should use reasonable doubt, preponderance, and clear and convincing in this context?<br /><br />At any rate, I think any _reasonable_ plain meaning of the text of SC is that, even in light of allowed exceptions, Latin shouldn't be suppressed. But the application of that text in the English-speaking world clearly resulted in Latin's de facto suppression for more than thirty years. I think these things to be sufficiently plain, and within those broad parameters I'm willing to let people adopt whatever interpretation they choose. But if you accept my take on it, then the inevitable conclusion is that, at least prior to the motu proprio, and arguably afterwards, the American bishops were/are violating the mandate of SC.<br /><br />As to the clown Mass straw man, I am sorry to have to say there's not much straw involved. I have either personally attended or seen videos of Masses in which every element I described was, in the aggregate, present. And I have had exactly the reaction I described when attending those Masses. One of them was so bad that to this day I regret not walking out in the middle of it (and yet I still suppose it to have been a valid Mass, so what of my Sunday obligation had I left?). And, for what it's worth, while there have been far, far fewer Tridentine Masses in my lifetime than NO ones, and I have witnessed far fewer, I have yet to see, or hear of, a single abuse of the sort you describe in any of these. Hammer of Fascistshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08647227447212096501noreply@blogger.com