Worse than deja vu all over again: Vatican caves

The Remnant ^ | March 31, 2004 | Thomas Drolesky

[pascendi]

There is no valid reason this retort.

Request denied.

[pascendi]

"If you continue to do so, I will inform the moderator."

This would be the best strategy option I believe, as to take any stance against the doctrine and tradition of 2,000 of Catholicism is pretty much fruitless.

To make this clearer, perhaps it would be best to proceed with an examination of nika's claim that ultima is a heretic.

[pascendi]

Hey nika.

[nika]

Hi pascendi,

My daughter is in the hospital. Life has been busy. I can't keep up with all the posts and have just been throwing in what I can. Why don't you start off by letting me have it with both barrels and then I will respond as I find time.

God bless!
nika

[pascendi]

I think I pretty much did that already, and I stand by it. Sure, I would like to discuss this more when you have a chance.

First though, I certainly hope all does go well with your daughter. That's a separate and important concern.

[nika]

I propose the following remarks of Cardinal Ratzinger as defending the authority of Vatican II, in particular in its authority over the liturgy, even if Vatican II did not make any "definitive" statements.

Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent, namely, the Pope and the College of Bishops in communion with him ...

It is likewise impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I, but against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils ...
--Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Ratzinger Report

17. Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and in a particular way, to the Roman Pontiff as Pastor of the whole Church, when exercising their ordinary Magisterium, even should this not issue in an infallible definition or in a "definitive" pronouncement but in the proposal of some teaching which leads to a better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals and to moral directives derived from such teaching.

One must therefore take into account the proper character of every exercise of the Magisterium, considering the extent to which its authority is engaged. It is also to be borne in mind that all acts of the Magisterium derive from the same source, that is, from Christ who desires that His People walk in the entire truth. For this same reason, magisterial decisions in matters of discipline, even if they are not guaranteed by the charism of infallibility, are not without divine assistance and call for the adherence of the faithful.
--Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian

[ultima ratio]

Traditionalists don't question the right of the pope and bishops to call a council into session. That is not the issue. The issue is whether its declarations--which were not binding and not infallible--were consistent with past Magisterial teachings. The Council, moreover, deliberately utilized a language which was ill-suited to defining anything clearly. Much of what was stated was ambiguous by design--intended to be understood in two ways--by traditionalists in one way, by modernists in another. This makes true "adherence" to such "teachings" impossible.

Even Ratzinger's final point--that while the Council declared nothing infallibly, it demands our adherence is simply false. Before we lend credence to murky ambiguities, Catholics owe allegiance to those magisterial definitions of the Church which are NOT ambiguous and which ARE infallible--such as the well-known declaration of Pius XII that the Mystical Body of Christ IS the Catholic Church. This seems to contradict the declaration of VII that the Church of Christ only SUBSISTS IN the Catholic Church--a very unclear formulation, deliberately ambiguous.

[nika]

Traditionalists don't question the right of the pope and bishops to call a council into session. That is not the issue.
--ultima ratio

I see you knocked over a straw man.

The issue is whether its declarations--which were not binding and not infallible--were consistent with past Magisterial teachings.
--ultima ratio

Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent, namely, the Pope and the College of Bishops in communion with him ...
--Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

You are really saying Vatican I and the Council of Trent were "not binding and not infallible," according to Cardinal Ratzinger, since "Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent."

I will leave you to ponder two items. First, the remark of Eck in his debate against Luther at Leipzig, after Luther admitted he believed an ecumenical council was fallible:

"If you believe a legitimately assembled council can err and has erred, then you are to me as a heathen and publican."

Second:

Between heresy and schism there is this difference, that heresy perverts dogma, while schism, by rebellion against the bishop, separates from the Church. Nevertheless there is no schism which does not trump up a heresy to justify its departure from the Church.
--St. Jerome

[ultima ratio]

Nonsense. Vatican I and Trent were dogmatic councils that defined truths which were binding on all the faithful. Vatican II, on the other hand, while legitimate, was purely pastoral and made no attempt to bind the Church by any of its declarations. I don't question its legitimacy, only its wisdom.

Your confusion is on several levels. First, you seem to equate dogmatic councils, which deliberately set forth a set of definitions, with a council which is solely pastoral. That is mixing apples and oranges. Second, only those truths of faith which have been clearly defined are divinely protected--not each and every conciliar utterance without discrimination.

[nika]

First, you seem to equate dogmatic councils, which deliberately set forth a set of definitions, with a council which is solely pastoral.
--ultima ratio

You are confused. You seem to think that a pastoral council has no authority. It does: the same authority as Vatican I and Trent. It has the authority to change the liturgy.

You don't like Vatican II's liturgical changes, so you throw up this smoke screen claiming its being pastoral makes it non-binding. Its being pastoral does not inhibit its authority in any way.

What makes you think authorised liturgical changes have to be accompanied by dogmatic statements? Find me the dogmatic statements that accompanied the transition from a Greek liturgy to a Latin liturgy under Pope Damasus, or admit that according to your own logic the Latin liturgy was never authorised.

only those truths of faith which have been clearly defined are divinely protected
--ultima ratio

Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and in a particular way, to the Roman Pontiff as Pastor of the whole Church, when exercising their ordinary Magisterium, even should this not issue in an infallible definition or in a "definitive" pronouncement ...
--Cardinal Ratzinger

[pascendi]

"You are confused. You seem to think that a pastoral council has no authority. It does: the same authority as Vatican I and Trent. It has the authority to change the liturgy. You don't like Vatican II's liturgical changes, so you throw up this smoke screen claiming its being pastoral makes it non-binding. Its being pastoral does not inhibit its authority in any way."

You were aware that the Novus Ordo Mass did not come from Vatican II, right?

[ultima ratio]

You don't know what you're talking about. The radical change in the Liturgy came later, after Vatican II closed. What liturgical changes do you imagine Vatican II mandated? It made a few harmless suggestions--and laughed out of the hall Bugnini's first version of the Novus Ordo--but in the end said nothing radical, not even at its most ambiguous--such as when it suggested the Church had "always venerated" the Body of Christ on the altar just as it "venerates" Sacred Scripture. It doesn't--and never did, since it adores Christ in the Blessed Sacrament on the one hand but shows only due reverence to Scripture on the other. But the word "venerate" cleverly conflates the enormous difference in Catholic attitudes between worship and showing respect--deliberately--thus eliminating the theological disparity between us and Protestants, between the Real Presence and the Virtual Presence of Christ. Nice semantic trickery--of the sort that made Vatican II a field of anti-Catholic land mines ready to detonate at a later date--and another reason for true Catholics to be wary about the ambiguous declarations of Vatican II which, while appearing harmless, can be interpreted any which way. At any rate, Novus Ordo came later--after the Council closed and modernists took up its so-called "spirit" as the excuse they needed to wreck two thousand years of Catholic Tradition.

[nika]

You were aware that the Novus Ordo Mass did not come from Vatican II, right?
--pascendi

Here is a link to a page with links to the official instructions for the correct implementation of Vatican II's reforms of the liturgy. Cardinal Ottaviani sent his letter of criticism of the "Novus Ordo Missae" to Paul VI about 2 1/2 years after the second instruction which was issued in May of 1967:

St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology

What liturgical changes do you imagine Vatican II mandated? It made a few harmless suggestions ...
--ultima ratio

So, I can safely assume that you completely approve of all of the following excerpts from SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM:

1. This sacred Council has several aims in view: ... to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change; ... The Council therefore sees particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy.

...

4. ... The Council also desires that, where necessary, the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition, and that they be given new vigor to meet the circumstances and needs of modern times.

...

21. In order that the Christian people may more certainly derive an abundance of graces from the sacred liturgy, holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself. For the liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change. These not only may but ought to be changed with the passage of time if they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become unsuited to it.

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.

...

22.

1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.

2. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.

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

...

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. ...

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.

...

37.Even in the liturgy, the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters which do not implicate the faith or the good of the whole community; rather does she respect and foster the genius and talents of the various races and peoples. Anything in these peoples' way of life which is not indissolubly bound up with superstition and error she studies with sympathy and, if possible, preserves intact. Sometimes in fact she admits such things into the liturgy itself, so long as they harmonize with its true and authentic spirit.

38. Provisions shall also be made, when revising the liturgical books, for legitimate variations and adaptations to different groups, regions, and peoples, especially in mission lands, provided that the substantial unity of the Roman rite is preserved; and this should be borne in mind when drawing up the rites and devising rubrics.

...

40. In some places and circumstances, however, an even more radical adaptation of the liturgy is needed, and this entails greater difficulties. Wherefore:

1) The competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, must, in this matter, carefully and prudently consider which elements from the traditions and culture of individual peoples might appropriately be admitted into divine worship. Adaptations which are judged to be useful or necessary should then be submitted to the Apostolic See, by whose consent they may be introduced.

2) To ensure that adaptations may be made with all the circumspection which they demand, the Apostolic See will grant power to this same territorial ecclesiastical authority to permit and to direct, as the case requires, the necessary preliminary experiments over a determined period of time among certain groups suited for the purpose.

3) Because liturgical laws often involve special difficulties with respect to adaptation, particularly in mission lands, men who are experts in these matters must be employed to formulate them.

...

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.

...

54. In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and "the common prayer," but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to tho norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.

...

And wherever a more extended use of the mother tongue within the Mass appears desirable, the regulation laid down in Art. 40 of this Constitution is to be observed.

[ultima ratio]

You are again way over your head. The reform of the liturgy never meant a total re-write. What the council fathers anticipated was the elimination of some redundancies in the ancient Mass--such as the two confiteors--and a possible use of the vernacular in those parts of the Mass which are specifically meant for the enlightenment of the community--the Scripture readings.

Such minor adjustments in text and rubrics had always been allowed and were consistent with tradition. What had never been permitted and which had never been anticipated was an all-out suppression of the Old Mass and the introduction of a thoroughly protestantized New Mass.

There is absolutely no indication the council fathers ever intended by "restoration" the kind of phony restoration that Bugnini attempted. Bugnini's claim, in fact, is little more than an attempt to align the Catholic liturgy with Martin Luther--who also threw out the Offertory and eliminated sacrificial features of the Mass to make it more of a memorial paschal meal instead. This notion had been soundly rejected by Trent--and repeated by preconciliar popes, including Pius XII who warned about such false efforts specifically in Mediator Dei. Vatican II does not refute such warnings.

Finally, I am tired of these exclusively cut-and-paste responses of yours. If you don't know enough to argue your point, then have the class to admit it. Anybody can play this selective, time-consuming game which takes quotes out of context, each of which requires a separate prolonged refutation. The bottom line is this: you seem to think Vatican II somehow introduced the new Protestantizing liturgy, rather than Paul VI years after the Council had closed. This is totally false and betrays colossal ignorance on your part.

[pascendi]

You're not only dealing with the fact that the Novus Ordo Missae was not derived explicity from the Second Vatican Council, but also, the fact that the English translation of the Ordo Missae Cum Populo is yet another step removed from the Latin text in which the new Mass was issued.

In the 1975 Edition of the Ordo Missae Cum Populo, during the Consecration, the Novus Ordo text reads the same as the old traditional Mass:

"Mysterium fìdei."

The reference is to the Blessed Sacrament itself, which is the Mystery of Faith. This fact is stated by Pope Paul VI himself within the first couple paragraphs of his encyclical called, of all things believe it or not, Mysterium Fidei:

"The Catholic Church has always devoutly guarded as a most precious treasure the mystery of faith, that is, the ineffable gift of the Eucharist which she received from Christ her Spouse as a pledge of His immense love..."

But the translation "Mysterium Fidei" into English version of the Mass we're all familiar with reads as follows:

"Let us proclaim the mystery faith:"

Followed of course, by "Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again."

Now the whole time I was growing up, I thought that the "Mystery of Faith" was "Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again." Now where did I get that goofy idea? Is that what was intended? Imho, yes. Is it correct? No. Who drew that conclusion? Me.

So we have this translation of "Mysterium Fidei" translated as "Let us proclaim the mystery faith:"... but it wasn't until I attended the traditional Latin Mass that I finally understood this phrase "Mysterium Fidei", because before that quite frankly, I wondered exactly what it meant and I didn't get it. It's just one example of many that, for whatever reason, made the biggest impression on me when comparing the new Mass with the old.

There's more to all this than meets the eye.

[nika]

I am tired of these exclusively cut-and-paste responses of yours.
--ultima ratio

I'll bet you are! You make dogmatic-sounding statements with your laughable, pretended "expertise" as your only real authority for making them and then I demonstrate that they are totally wrong by citing authoritative sources. Of course you are tired of that!

Why don't you back up your position with some citations instead of making your ridiculous proclamations with your pathetic "expertise" as your only authority? That is the whole problem. Your disobedience to the Church founded by Christ is without authority and without expertise.

[nika]

Thanks for a thoughtful response. Let me absorb that and I will get back to you.