Vatican 2 questions

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Jul 17 2005, 11:49 PM']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?[right][snapback]647081[/snapback][/right][/quote]
the following article will also be of help here:
--[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/QUOPIUS.HTM"]Pope St. Pius V and [i]Quo Primum[/i]: Did Pope Intend to Bind His Successors from Changing the Tridentine Mass?[/url]

[Apotheoun]

Concerning the translation of the words "pro multis" as "for all," the following clarification from the notitiae of the Congregation for Divine Worship clarifies the Magisterium's position on the issue:

[quote]55d. In certain vernacular versions of the text for consecrating the wine, the words "pro multis" are translated thus: English, "for all"; Spanish, "por todos"; Italian, "per tutti."

[i]Query:[/i] a. Is there a sufficient reason for introducing in this variant and if so, what is it?

b. Is the pertinent traditional teaching in the "Catechism of the Council of Trent" to be considered superseded?

c. Are all other versions of the biblical passage in question to be regarded as less accurate?

d. Did something inaccurate and needing correction or emendation in fact slip in when the approval was given for such a version?

[i]Reply:[/i] The variant involved is fully justified:

a. According to exegetes the Aramaic word translated in Latin by "pro multis" has as its meaning "for all": the many for whom Christ died is without limit; it is equivalent to saying "Christ has died for all." The words of St. Augustine are apposite: "See what he gave and you will discover what he bought. The price is Christ's blood. What is it worth but the whole world? What, but all peoples? Those who say either that the price is so small that it has purchased only Africans are ungrateful for the price they cost; those who say that they are so important that it has been given for them alone are proud" ("Enarr." in Ps. 95, 5).

b. The teaching of the "Catechism" is in no way superseded: the distinction that Christ's death is sufficient for all but efficacious for many remains valid.

c. In the approval of this vernacular variant in the liturgical text nothing inaccurate has slipped in that requires correction or emendation: [i]Notitiae[/i] 6 (1970) 39-40, no. 28.[/quote]

[phatcatholic]

this thread is freakin golden. i'm pinning it.

[phatcatholic]

colin............also see the following sections from the new reference section (early present for everyone who participates regularly at this board )

[b]--[url="http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat_id/493"]Liturgy and the [i]Novus Ordo[/i] Mass[/url]
--[url="http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat_id/571"]Liturgy of the Mass[/url]
--[url="http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat_id/574"]Sacrifice of the Mass: Norms, Requirements, and Abuses[/url][/b]

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[goldenchild17]

DUDE! The reference section is HOT! I haven't seen the new layout yet, nice stuff.

[goldenchild17]

[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]
Okay, so what happens when a priest adlibs certain things in the Mass?

[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]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]
Okay, in which document did Pope Paul make this decision?


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.

[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]
I'll try to take the time to compare the Missals when I get the chance. This might be too much of a loaded question as well, but what are all the changes that people consider "imprudent" and that people have problems with? I don't know what they are in whole.

[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.[/QUOTE]

Would you happen to know where they(Paul VI and JPII) made these changes?

[goldenchild17]

What do you know about Fr. Anibale Bugnini? He headed the comission that worked on the Novus Ordo(so I have read anyways). And according to what I have read he also worked in this comission with six protestants.

A couple of quotes I have come across:

"We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Prostestants."
-- L'Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965 quoting Archbishop Annibale Bugnini

"We must admit it is a master blow of Protestantism to have declared war on the sacred language. If it should ever succeed in destroying it, it would be well on the way to victory. Exposed to profane gaze, like a virgin who has been violated, from that moment on the Liturgy has lost much of its sacred character, and very soon people find that it is not worthwhile putting aside one's work or pleasure in order to go and listen to what is being said in the way one speaks on the marketplace. . . ." -- Dom Prosper Gueranger, Liturgical Institutions, 1840

"It is now theologically possible for Protestants to use the same Mass as Catholics." -- Max Thurian, Protestant theologian, on the New Mass, 1969

"At this critical juncture, the traditional Roman rite, more than one thousand years old, has been destroyed." -- Msgr. Gamber, considered to be the greatest liturgist of the 20th c.

"Let those who like myself have known and sung a Latin-Gregorian High Mass remember it if they can. Let them compare it with the Mass that we now have. Not only the words, the melodies, and some of the gestures are different. To tell the truth, it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists." -- Fr. Joseph Gelineau.


What do you know about all of this.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Jul 18 2005, 11:02 PM'][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]
Okay, so what happens when a priest adlibs certain things in the Mass?
[/quote]
It depends upon the particular case. If the priest alters the matter or form of the sacrament, or lacks a proper intention, it follows that the sacrament would be invalid. If he alters something that does not touch upon the substance of the sacramental action, it follows that the celebration would be illicit, but not invalid.

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Jul 18 2005, 11:02 PM'][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]
Okay, in which document did Pope Paul make this decision?[/quote]
The directives allowing for the expansion of the use of the vernacular are not found in one document, but in a large number of documents issued over several years. The majority of the documents were issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship with the approval of Pope Paul VI, and a very small number may have been issued [i]motu proprio[/i] by Pope Paul VI himself. Moreover, not all of the documents are available in the English language, but you can examine the five general instructions issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship for the implementation of [u]Sacrosanctum Concilium[/u]. These documents are available online at the [url="http://www.adoremus.org/"][u]Adoremus[/u][/url] website, and all of them in varying degrees touch upon the questions you have asked:

(1) The First Instruction on the Liturgy [url="http://www.adoremus.org/Interoecumenici.html"][i][u]Inter Oecumenici[/u][/i][/url]

(2) The Second Instruction on the Liturgy [url="http://www.adoremus.org/TresAbhinc.html"][i][u]Tres Abhinc Annos[/u][/i][/url]

(3) The Third Instruction on the Liturgy [url="http://www.adoremus.org/LiturgicaeInstaurationes.html"][i][u]Liturgicae Instaurationes[/u][/i][/url]

(4) The Fourth Instruction on the Liturgy [url="http://www.adoremus.org/VarietatesLegitimae.html"][i][u]Varietates Legitimae[/u][/i][/url]

(5) The Fifth Instruction on the Liturgy [url="http://www.adoremus.org/liturgiamauthenticam.html"][i][u]Liturgiam Authenticam[/u][/i][/url]

Now, it is important to bear in mind that these general instructions are not the only documents dealing with the issue of the use of the vernacular languages and other modifications to the liturgy approved by the Apostolic See. As I indicated above, one would have to go there dozens of instructions and particular decisions, along with hundreds of the [i]notitiae[/i] (clarifications) issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship, and in some cases one might even have to examine the decisions of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, in order to get the whole picture of how the reform of the Roman Rite proceeded.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote]one would have to go there dozens of instructions and particular decisions, along with hundreds of the notitiae (clarifications) issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship, and in some cases one might even have to examine the decisions of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, in order to get the whole picture of how the reform of the Roman Rite proceeded.[/quote]

I wish someone would do just that. It seem the issue is important enough in the Church today, a book that does just what you described would be profound.

Slan

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Jul 19 2005, 04:07 AM']I wish someone would do just that. It seem the issue is important enough in the Church today, a book that does just what you described would be profound.

Slan
[right][snapback]649466[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I agree. Let's hope some member of the Roman Rite takes it upon himself to complete this burdensome task.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Jul 18 2005, 11:02 PM'][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.[/quote]
Would you happen to know where they(Paul VI and JPII) made these changes?[/quote]
To the best of my knowledge, the various decisions and norms issued by Paul VI and John Paul II are not contained in a single book. The only book I know of that contains a large number of the directives on the reform of the Roman Rite is the one I mentioned earlier in this thread, and it only contains some of the directives issued between 1963 and 1979.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Jul 18 2005, 11:09 PM']What do you know about Fr. Anibale Bugnini?  He headed the comission that worked on the Novus Ordo(so I have read anyways).  And according to what I have read he also worked in this comission with six protestants.

A couple of quotes I have come across:

"We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Prostestants."
-- L'Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965 quoting Archbishop Annibale Bugnini

"We must admit it is a master blow of Protestantism to have declared war on the sacred language. If it should ever succeed in destroying it, it would be well on the way to victory. Exposed to profane gaze, like a virgin who has been violated, from that moment on the Liturgy has lost much of its sacred character, and very soon people find that it is not worthwhile putting aside one's work or pleasure in order to go and listen to what is being said in the way one speaks on the marketplace. . . ." -- Dom Prosper Gueranger, Liturgical Institutions, 1840

"It is now theologically possible for Protestants to use the same Mass as Catholics." -- Max Thurian, Protestant theologian, on the New Mass, 1969

"At this critical juncture, the traditional Roman rite, more than one thousand years old, has been destroyed." -- Msgr. Gamber, considered to be the greatest liturgist of the 20th c.

"Let those who like myself have known and sung a Latin-Gregorian High Mass remember it if they can. Let them compare it with the Mass that we now have. Not only the words, the melodies, and some of the gestures are different. To tell the truth, it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists." -- Fr. Joseph Gelineau.
What do you know about all of this.
[right][snapback]649323[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I posted an article that was critical of Fr. Bugnini in the Debate Table a few weeks ago, and it can be found at the Adoremus website, to read the article click the link below:

[url="http://www.adoremus.org/9-11-96-FolsomEuch.html"][u]From One Eucharistic Prayer to Many: How it Happened and Why[/u][/url]

As far as the quotations you cited are concerned, as with any quotation, context is vital, and without knowing the context of the various comments it really isn't possible to determine the intention of the author. These kinds of quotations are often used by "traditionalists" and other schismatics in order to attack the Church, and so I would advise that before accepting the quotation as genuine, one should find the original source and read it in context. That being said, it is also important to bear in mind that the views are merely the opinions of those authors, and none of them is the Magisterium of the Church.

One final note, I do know that Max Thurian converted to Catholicism in the 1980s, but I don't believe the reform of the liturgy was the only reason for his conversion; rather, he came to see that the fullness of truth is found only in the Catholic Church.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Jul 18 2005, 11:09 PM']What do you know about Fr. Anibale Bugnini?  He headed the comission that worked on the Novus Ordo(so I have read anyways).  And according to what I have read he also worked in this comission with six protestants.

[. . .]
[right][snapback]649323[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
One word of caution, I would be careful in reading SSPX and other schismatical and heretical sources. Because the views of these groups on the reform of the Roman Rite have gone to the extreme of denying, in varying degrees, the authority of the Supreme Magisterium, and clearly nothing good will come of that. So be warned, many of those who claim to defend tradition are actually undermining tradition by their refusal to submit to the authority of the successor of St. Peter.

It is one thing to disagree about a practice permitted by an indult as a prudential matter, but it is quite another thing to disagree with the indult and then to openly defy the authority of the Magisterium on that issue.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 19 2005, 09:40 AM']One word of caution, I would be careful in reading SSPX and other schismatical and heretical sources. Because the views of these groups on the reform of the Roman Rite have gone to the extreme of denying, in varying degrees, the authority of the Supreme Magisterium, and clearly nothing good will come of that. So be warned, many of those who claim to defend tradition are actually undermining tradition by their refusal to submit to the authority of the successor of St. Peter.

It is one thing to disagree about a practice permitted by an indult as a prudential matter, but it is quite another thing to disagree with the indult and then to openly defy the authority of the Magisterium on that issue.
[right][snapback]649693[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Oh yeah I definitely understand that. I just noticed some of those quotes. I will reaffirm what I said from the beginning, I am not trying to undermine the authority of the Pope or the Magisterium at all. I just want to understand some of these things and see where they came from.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Jul 19 2005, 09:53 AM']Oh yeah I definitely understand that.  I just noticed some of those quotes.  I will reaffirm what I said from the beginning, I am not trying to undermine the authority of the Pope or the Magisterium at all.  I just want to understand some of these things and see where they came from.
[right][snapback]649947[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Yes, I read your statement earlier in this thread, but my comment was directed more at those who may happen upon this thread while surfing around at Phatmass looking for things to read.