Vatican 2 questions

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Jul 15 2005, 01:04 AM']For the record: I would rather eat bantha fodder for the rest of my life than betray the faith of our fathers.
[right][snapback]644325[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Here, have a hamburger and a pepsi instead.



:pepsi:

[Laudate_Dominum]

"I love rock and roll" - Johnsonville brat Van Dyke

[goldenchild17]

Before I continue:

Pope Paul VI, discourse closing Vatican II, December 7, 1965

"There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it AVOIDED ISSUING SOLEMN DOGMATIC DEFINITIONS backed by the Church's infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it AVOIDED PROCLAIMING IN AN EXTRAORDINARY MANNER ANY DOGMATA CARRYING THE MARK OF INFALLIBILITY."

Isn't this saying that the council was not infallible?

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
7/15 - St. Bonaventure
[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Jul 15 2005, 12:07 PM']Before I continue:

Pope Paul VI, discourse closing Vatican II, December 7, 1965

"In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it AVOIDED PROCLAIMING IN AN EXTRAORDINARY MANNER ANY DOGMATA CARRYING THE MARK OF INFALLIBILITY."

Isn't this saying that the council was not infallible?
[right][snapback]644505[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Don't leave out those words "in an extraordinary manner." Apoutheon mentioned earlier that the definitions of the council were made in the [i]ordinary[/i] way, not in the extraordinary way.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Jul 15 2005, 04:13 AM']

"I love rock and roll" - Johnsonville brat Van Dyke
[right][snapback]644329[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I thought that was Joan Jett and the Blackhearts......

[Semperviva]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Jul 15 2005, 03:13 AM']
"I love rock and roll" - Johnsonville brat Van Dyke
[right][snapback]644329[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Rock and Roll = “Vehicle of anti-religion.”
BenXVI

(is this out of context?) hmmm, oh well...

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Pio Nono' date='Jul 15 2005, 01:57 PM']JMJ
7/15 - St. Bonaventure

Don't leave out those words "in an extraordinary manner."  Apoutheon mentioned earlier that the definitions of the council were made in the [i]ordinary[/i] way, not in the extraordinary way.
[right][snapback]644589[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

oh yeah good point.
___________________________
Okay, next...

Well I was having a hard time getting what I needed out of the documents mentioned below(Documents on the Liturgy 1963-1979: Conciliar, Papal, and Curial Texts)
So I'll just ask my questions here.

In Sacrosanctum Concilium it says(before I continue I should ask if there were any other Vat II documents dealing expressly with the Mass and Liturgy stuff?)
Anyways, it says:

[quote]3. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority[/quote]

Does this apply to the cases where the priest might ad-lib his own prayers into the liturgy?

[quote]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.[/quote]


This seems to say that the vernacular can be used, but limited in it's use(i.e. not used the entire Mass for every single prayer) correct?

[quote]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.[/quote]

Who is the "territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned for the United States? Has this person decided that the extent of the vernacular in this region can be as much as it is? Has the Apostolic See approved this person's decree?

[quote]50. The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved.

For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance; [u]elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded; other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored[/u] to the vigor which they had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary.[/quote]

What are the elements that were discarded because they were duplicated? And what are the elements that have been restored?

[quote]The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact (40), communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit, not only to clerics and religious, but also to the laity, in cases to be determined by the Apostolic See, as, for instance, to the newly ordained in the Mass of their sacred ordination, to the newly professed in the Mass of their religious profession, and to the newly baptized in the Mass which follows their baptism.[/quote]

I don't suppose that every single Catholic who goes to recieve Communion falls under one of the categories of those who can recieve under both kinds? Is this correct?

[quote]116. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.

But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action, as laid down in Art. 30.[/quote]
Is the typical praise & worship/contemporary music played in many U.S. parishes in accord with the spirit of the liturgical action? How strongly is this to be heeded?


That's all for now .

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Jul 15 2005, 10:46 PM']In Sacrosanctum Concilium it says(before I continue I should ask if there were any other Vat II documents dealing expressly with the Mass and Liturgy stuff?)
Anyways, it says:

[quote]3. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority...[/quote]
Does this apply to the cases where the priest might ad-lib his own prayers into the liturgy?[/quote]
This norm applies to more than simply alterations in the wording of the prayers of the liturgy. What it ultimately means is that no one, not even a priest, can change [i]anything[/i] in the liturgy on his own authority, and moreover this directive has been reaffirmed and been made a part of canon law (cf. canon 846 § 1). Only the Apostolic See, and the Local Ordinary and the episcopal conference with the [i]recognitio[/i] of the Apostolic See, can make changes to the mutable elements of the Liturgy.

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Jul 15 2005, 10:46 PM'][quote]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.[/quote]
This seems to say that the vernacular can be used, but limited in it's use (i.e. not used the entire Mass for every single prayer) correct?[/quote]
This conciliar directive has been substantially modified by later enactments of the Apostolic See. Pope Paul VI gave permission for a wider use of the vernacular languages in the Mass by the end of the 1960s. In fact, one could say that within most particular (diocesan) Churches the use of the vernacular is the normative practice. Now that does not mean that Latin should be ignored in the Roman Rite, but it does mean that the use of the vernacular is legitimate. According to canon law vernacular translations are to be prepared by the episcopal conferences and should then be submitted to the Apostolic See for its [i]recognitio[/i]. Once the Apostolic See confirms the translated text it can be used in the celebration of the Mass in the region that receives the proper [i]recognitio[/i].

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Jul 15 2005, 10:46 PM'][quote]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.[/quote]
Who is the "territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned for the United States? Has this person decided that the extent of the vernacular in this region can be as much as it is? Has the Apostolic See approved this person's decree?[/quote]
The competent territorial authorities are first and foremost the diocesan bishop, and according to the norm of law the episcopal conference (cf. Pope John Paul II, [u]Apostolos Suos[/u]; and the [u]Code of Canon Law[/u], canons 447-459).

As far as the use of the vernacular is concerned, as I indicated above, the various episcopal conferences asked that the Apostolic See permit the use of the vernacular in the celebration of the liturgy, and the Pope granted that request.

According to the norms established in canon law, all vernacular translations are to be prepared by the episcopal conferences and after being approved by the members of the conference, they are to be submitted to the Apostolic See for its review and [i]recognitio[/i]. If the [i]recognitio[/i] is given, the translation becomes the normative vernacular text of the Mass for the region controlled by the episcopal conference which made the translation and which requested its use. If the Apostolic See does not give its [i]recognitio[/i] to a translation, the translation in question cannot be used for divine worship.

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Jul 15 2005, 10:46 PM'][quote]50. The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved.

For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance; elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded; other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the vigor which they had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary.[/quote]
What are the elements that were discarded because they were duplicated? And what are the elements that have been restored?[/quote]
To answer this would require writing an essay on the liturgical changes instituted by the Magisterium in the late 1960s.

Suffice to say, those elements that were determined, after detailed study, to have been private devotions of the priest, like the "Last Gospel," or repetitions added over the course of centuries, were in most instances suppressed when Pope Paul VI promulgated the revised Roman Missal in the late 1960s. To really answer your question, one would have to compare the old Missal to the new Missal in order to see what the Concilium -- the group charged with overseeing the reform of the liturgical books -- changed in the ceremonies of the Roman Rite. I really don't have the time to do that, but there were a large number of changes of an aesthetic nature. The tendency of the Concilium was to try and simplify the rites by getting rid of what it saw as useless repetition. The thing to remember is that the changes made to the liturgical books of the Lain Church did not effect the substance of the sacramental action itself. As far as the changes are concerned, a man is free to hold that they were imprudent or even unnecessary, but he may not say that they effected the substance of the rite or that the changes have invalidated the Ordo Missae of Paul VI.

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Jul 15 2005, 10:46 PM'][quote]The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact (40), communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit, not only to clerics and religious, but also to the laity, in cases to be determined by the Apostolic See, as, for instance, to the newly ordained in the Mass of their sacred ordination, to the newly professed in the Mass of their religious profession, and to the newly baptized in the Mass which follows their baptism.[/quote]
I don't suppose that every single Catholic who goes to receive Communion falls under one of the categories of those who can receive under both kinds? Is this correct?[/quote]
Various episcopal conferences around the world requested permission for the distribution of communion under both species, and these requests received the [i]recognitio[/i] of the Apostolic See; as a consequence, the text that you have quoted from [u]Sacrosanctum Concilium[/u] has been superseded by the later norms granted by Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Jul 15 2005, 10:46 PM'][quote]116. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.

But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action, as laid down in Art. 30.[/quote]
Is the typical praise & worship/contemporary music played in many U.S. parishes in accord with the spirit of the liturgical action? How strongly is this to be heeded?[/quote]

As far as music in the Roman Rite is concerned, most of what is used today should simply be burned on the trash heap of history.

Now of course, because of the wider use of vernacular languages in the liturgy, a somewhat modified form of Gregorian chant would have to be developed in order to serve the modern languages used in prayer. In my own Church the traditional Carpathian plain chant has been modified somewhat in order to adapt it to the use of the English language. This leads to a liturgical celebration that still contains and expresses the unique characteristics of the historic Ruthenian chant, while also recognizing both the strengths and the weakness of the English language in conveying the proper sense of reverence and worship suited to a liturgical celebration.

Hopefully at some point this same kind of process will be done in the Roman Rite, i.e., making minor adaptations to the chant in order to fit it to the various vernacular languages. In this way, what is truly unique about the Roman Rite would be protected and maintained, while also allowing for the genius of the native languages of the people, free of ideological influence and ambiguity, in the expression of the liturgical worship of the Holy Trinity.

Clearly this is not an impossible task, because it has been done by various Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, and was even accomplished by the Anglican Church after the Reformation many centuries ago.

What is clear is that the music presently used in the Roman Rite is banal and uninspiring, and as such it should be tossed out in favor of a reverent form of music that allows the entire congregation to sing the prayers of the Mass itself, and not simply hymns that take on the characteristics of modern secular entertainment. The liturgy is about worshipping almighty God, and not about being entertained. If you want to be entertained go to a concert.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Jul 15 2005, 10:07 AM']Before I continue:

Pope Paul VI, discourse closing Vatican II, December 7, 1965

"There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it AVOIDED ISSUING SOLEMN DOGMATIC DEFINITIONS backed by the Church's infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it AVOIDED PROCLAIMING IN AN EXTRAORDINARY MANNER ANY DOGMATA CARRYING THE MARK OF INFALLIBILITY."

Isn't this saying that the council was not infallible?
[right][snapback]644505[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
No council of the Church is infallible in all of its acts; instead, it is infallible only when it is the intention of the Fathers of the council to teach a dogma or doctrine definitively. In the case of the Second Vatican Council some things were taught definitively, but the council Fathers did not solemnly define any dogmas.

The degree of teaching authority engaged by the council varies with the different documents issued, but those things that were taught as [i]definitive tenenda[/i] by the council Fathers must be seen in the light of the entire chain of authority expressed through the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, of which the Second Vatican Council is a particular expression. To put it simply, the Second Vatican Council did not solemnly define any dogmas, but it did teach some doctrines definitively.

With this clarification in mind the words of Pope Paul VI at his general audience on 12 January 1966 can be better understood: "In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statement of dogmas that would be endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the Supreme Ordinary Magisterium. This Ordinary Magisterium, which is so obviously official, has to be accepted by all the faithful, in accordance with the mind of the Council on the nature and aims of the individual documents." [1] Now this does not mean that the teachings of the council lack definitive status; instead, it means that the teachings are not dogmas.

In the case of the Second Vatican Council, the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church taught several doctrines definitively even without recourse to a solemn dogmatic definition, and in doing so it set forth those doctrines as [i]definitive tenenda[/i], i.e., as irrevocable, while at the same time it did not a define anything as a [i]de fide credenda[/i] dogma.

NOTES:

[1] Pope Paul VI, [u]The Pope Speaks[/u], volume 11, no. 2, page 154.

[goldenchild17]

Thanks for helping me with this. Maybe I'll come up with a logical conclusion to all my random questions .

Another one. Pope Pius V - APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION -
QUO PRIMUM [url="http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius05/p5quopri.htm"]http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius05/p5quopri.htm[/url]

Mentions that the Missal he oversaw was not to be changed. Is this infallible? It mentions [quote]We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription - [u]except, however, if more than two hundred years' standing.[/u] [/quote]

See the underlined. Does this mean that after 200 years this no longer was to be absolute? Or am I misreading that?

[goldenchild17]

Another random question:

are "pro multis" and the removal of "mysterium fidei" mandatory and necessary words for the sacrament of the Eucharist to be legit?

(note: even though it might seem that I'm questioning the Church, I'm really not. I just have some things that interest me that I want to know about, especially if these questions ever get asked to me by one who does believe them.)

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Jul 17 2005, 09:49 PM']Thanks for helping me with this.  Maybe I'll come up with a logical conclusion to all my random questions .

Another one.  Pope Pius V - APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION -
QUO PRIMUM [url="http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius05/p5quopri.htm"]http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius05/p5quopri.htm[/url]

Mentions that the Missal he oversaw was not to be changed.  Is this infallible?  It mentions
[quote]We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription - [u]except, however, if more than two hundred years' standing[/u].[/quote]
See the underlined. Does this mean that after 200 years this no longer was to be absolute? Or am I misreading that?
[right][snapback]647081[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
What the decree means is that the missal promulgated by Pope Pius V may not be changed by any authority except the original authority that issued it, i.e., the Papal Magisterium. In other words, the authority that gives an indult can revoke an indult, and no Pope can bind his successors on disciplinary matters; and quite clearly, the issuance of a liturgical book is a disciplinary matter. Thus, when Pope Paul VI issued the new Roman Missal in 1969, he was acting with the authority given to him by Christ the Lord Himself in the person of blessed Peter, and was establishing the normative liturgical prayers for use within the Roman Rite.

Decrees of this kind are not infallible acts; instead, they are merely normative, that is, they are disciplinary acts to which obedience must be given.

As far as the underlined portion of the text you quoted is concerned, it simply means that a practice that is more than 200 years old is not suppressed by the present decree.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Jul 17 2005, 10:09 PM']Another random question:

are "pro multis" and the removal of "mysterium fidei" mandatory and necessary words for the sacrament of the Eucharist to be legit?

(note: even though it might seem that I'm questioning the Church, I'm really not.  I just have some things that interest me that I want to know about, especially if these questions ever get asked to me by one who does believe them.)
[right][snapback]647091[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Pope Paul VI established the words of institution to be used in the Roman Missal that was issued in 1969, and so no authority, except that by which the determination was made in the first place, can alter those words.

It should be pointed out that the words "pro multis" are in the Latin text of the present Roman Missal, but that the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) translated those words as "for all." The Vatican, after clarifying that the words "for all" are not to be taken as indicating that all men will be saved, gave its [i]recognitio[/i] to the ICEL text for use in the English language edition of the Roman Missal.

The words "mysterium fidei" were removed from the words of institution by the authority of Pope Paul VI, and so no one should have a problem with that. Moreover, it should be noted that no other rite in the Church used those words when reciting the institution narrative, and so removing them cannot make the Ordo Missae of Paul VI invalid.

[Technicoid]

Thanks for the education, Apotheoun. This is excellent information.

Edited July 18, 2005 by Technicoid