In the July 24 bulletin, Deacon Dean reflects on Vatican II.
He begins by framing his view of the Mass in the Extraordinary Form (aka the Latin Mass), through the fifty-year-old Vatican II. By Church standards, 50 years is the blink of an eye. Vatican II, as everyone knows, is controversial primarily because of the enormous upheaval that the Church experienced in the years afterward. There are endless arguments about Vatican II, both for and against the changes that resulted. To read the actual documents go here. It is important to know what these documents say because they have often been interpreted in ways that do not reflect the intent.
Deacon Dean states, "One purpose of the Council was to make the Church more truly catholic or universal." I cannot find within the writings of the Second Vatican Council any such purpose. The Church, by its very genesis as founded by Jesus Christ, is, was, and always will be universal. This is clearly stated in the documents. That is a presupposition that all Catholics should understand and be able to clearly articulate.
The Church cannot be more universal; it can only express its divinely-authorized universality in ways akin to St. Paul's statement, "I became all things to all men, that I might save all." (I Cor. 9:22) It is important to understand the difference between a Church that is universal by nature of its divine founding, and a Church that needs to become more 'truly catholic or universal'. One is correct in its Tradition, in the Magisterium, in its proclamation of Truth and law. The other is deficient.
Deacon Dean goes on to say, "...the Catholic Church became too entrenched in a single culture (Latin, rooted in the Roman Empire) to be really universal." Again, he is mistaking the divinely held universal nature of the Catholic Church for the expression of it in human affairs. This is a significant error.
Then our pastor goes on to say, "The Church ought not to be stuck as [a] single-cultural institution, using a dead language of an ancient and irrelevant empire." The Catholic Church has never been a single-cultural institution. Latin, as the Church's universal language, served (and often still serves) as a unifying factor at masses all over the world. Latin is also the basis for numerous languages, including English, of which about 70 percent is based upon Latin. The study of Latin is heralded in academia. While it is no longer the spoken language of any nation, to say it is dead is hyperbole. It is inextricably intertwined in the language and cultures of many nations.
Also, to suggest that the Roman culture is irrelevant is breathtakingly arrogant. The Roman Empire remains one of the most influential cultures to have arisen in human history. It's customs, writings, political system, and military prowess continue on in those of modern nations, most notably the political system of the United States.
Deacon Dean then cites the following regarding Vatican II, "Ironically, in 1900 about 2/3 of all Catholics resided in the northern hemisphere and 1/3 in the southern, and in 2000, those statistics reversed. The Second Vatican Council changed the Church into the global body it is today. Its impact was massive."
To state the obvious: Vatican II did not occur until 1962, more than halfway into the century, yet our pastor credits the Council by citing statistics from 1900-2000! It would be much more accurate to state statistics from the 1960s to 2000. I wonder why he did not. In fact, one could probably make a statistical case for the fallout from Vatican II as a reason for the decline in Catholic identity in the northern hemisphere! Wasn't it Mark Twain who said, "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Finally, Deacon Dean says, "...for some, having a Latin Mass is like running a confederate flag up the pole, symbolizing a protest against the accomplishments of Vatican II." This statement is needlessly provocative and one can hardly imagine anyone in our parish feeling that way.
This is how our Holy Father characterizes such a view: "I am of the opinion, to be sure, that the old rite should be granted much more generously to all those who desire it. It's impossible to see what could be dangerous or unacceptable about that. A community is calling its very being into question when it suddenly declares that what until now was its holiest and highest possession is strictly forbidden and when it makes the longing for it seem downright indecent." (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Salt of the Earth: The Church at the End of the Millenium)
Also, Deacon Dean characterizes the Latin Mass as a "bygone tradition." Not so. Not according to our Pope, and to Catholics the world over who attend Latin Masses. It is truly sad that Vatican II is being used in such a way as to characterize Mass in the Extraordinary Form as anything other than a continuity with the Church past, present, and future.
UPDATE: Go here for some more commentary on the Deacon's article.
Some resources:
Summorum Pontificum
What Does the Prayer Really Say?
Canterbury Tales
Crisis Magazine
I agree that the article in question was poorly written, but will give the Deacon a favorable nod for allowing the Mass to be provided.
ReplyDeleteNot a question of 'allowing' or not allowing. It is a question of obedience to the Church, since the Church has said the traditional mass can be said whether a local pastor likes it or not. The man knows he MUST allow it. Please don't give him credit where it is NOT due.
ReplyDeleteThe Vatican II Council, so different from previous Councils which were often called to counteract hereasy, was called to "update the Church". Pope John XXIII called for it and Pope Paul VI was pope when the council concluded. The update included "looking the "signs of the times" so as to develop a meaningful social ministry in the church; the theology of church which helped recover the church as the people of God,and stating that the people are the Church, thus restoring the laity to a rightful place in liturgical worship, education, social and other vital ministries and administration within the institutional church. The document on the Church emphasized Church as community also.
ReplyDeleteThe document on Ecumenism is a document that highlights the need for Catholics to understand, accept,and embrace other Christians and religions as all are people of God.
The unifying factor I fouind in all the documents and especially for Catholics was the Eucharist, thus , its celebration in the language of the local culture in order to help us draw closer to God, understanding our prayers and bringing us closer as a community with the "interaction" between the celebrant and people.
Finally, as someone who lived before, during and after the Council I believe the fallout from the Catholic Church has very little to do with the Latin Language. There was no consistent implementation of the Vatican II teachings from church leaders including John PaulII and Benedict VI. who seem to want to go back to what they grew up with. I find the attempts to dismantle Vatican II so disturbing, especially when at the time of it, we were taught that a Council, by definition is supposedly the collective wisdom of the Church and its results are official and to be implemented and lived, until a future Council changes things. That is exactly what Vat.II did after over 500 years of living with the results of Trent. We were living in the twentieth century except for the Church which remained in the thirteenth century. So, let's get back to the meaning and pracrtice of Eucharist in the language we understand and hopefully, there will develop some real community of worship and of socuialization.
I agree that it is fine we have a Latin Mass but let's not make it more than it is, a Mass in Latin, period.
4:21 I think Dean still has to give permission for an "outside" priest to say mass in this parish. Whether we like it or not, he does have veto power and has been known to flex his muscles.
ReplyDeleteIf I remember correctly, Vat.II did not encourage any Latin Mass because if the Council called for Mass in the language of the local community there is no community that speaks Latin as the dominate language. It is only the leaders who insisted on not following the teachings of Vat. II that eventually brought back the pope saying Mass could be offered in Latin once again but "rarely" and it was up to the bishop to decide for the diocese. For all one says about how bad/liberal Bishop Clark is he could have prohibited the Latin Mass.
ReplyDeleteGretchen did not attack the council. All she did was say that is has been a point of controversy and that it was mis=characterised by Dean. Get real, people.
ReplyDeleteA lot to respond to here...
ReplyDelete"The document on Ecumenism is a document that highlights the need for Catholics to understand, accept,and embrace other Christians and religions as all are people of God. "
So long as this acceptance does not lead to indifferentism, which is the false idea that all religions are the same and it doesn't matter to which you belong. Our duty is to promote Christian unity whereby our fallen away brethren come back to the Catholic Church.
There was no consistent implementation of the Vatican II teachings from church leaders including John PaulII and Benedict VI. who seem to want to go back to what they grew up with. I find the attempts to dismantle Vatican II so disturbing,
Popes JPII and Benedict XVI (not VI) have not dismantled the Second Vatican Council as you so claim. What they have attempted is to evaluate the Council in light of Catholic tradition (continuity vs. rupture).
We were living in the twentieth century except for the Church which remained in the thirteenth century.
So are we living in the 1970s today when we should be living in the 2010s? Who made you the arbitrator of what is 13th century Catholicism vs. what is 20th century Catholicism?
4:21 I think Dean still has to give permission for an "outside" priest to say mass in this parish. Whether we like it or not, he does have veto power and has been known to flex his muscles.
Technically, Deacon Condon has NO power according to the Code of Canon Law as only a priest can be pastor and it is up to the pastor to care for the souls entrusted to his care (see Canons 519, 521)
If I remember correctly, Vat.II did not encourage any Latin Mass because if the Council called for Mass in the language of the local community
This is wrong. The Council did not call for Mass in the vernacular, but rather permitted its greater use. From S.C. (note my emphasis): "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" and "The vernacular language may be used in administering the sacraments and sacramentals, according to the norm of Art. 36." and "In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue" and finally "Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites."
For all one says about how bad/liberal Bishop Clark is he could have prohibited the Latin Mass.
How soon we forget. The faithful of Rochester requested that Bishop Clark allow a Traditional Latin Mass to be offered regularly in this diocese and the bishop obstinately refused to permit it. Only after appealing to the Vatican through the St. Joseph Foundation were we able to secure the Extraordinary Form Mass at St. Stanislaus. See here for Bishop Clark's rejection of a request for a Latin Mass.
Thanks for the clarification, Dr. K.
ReplyDeleteIt interesting to hear from someone who says they lived before during and after the council, and relate what they were told...of course it isn't what they read, because none of us really read the documents as they weren't available until much later, and by that time those who were telling us what the "spirit of Vatican II" meant not what it said, was not necessarily what the council did. Considering That both Popes John Paul and Benedict were at the council, and were and is the Pope, they have more credence than the "Spirit of Vatican II" because as we have found out since the Internet, the Spirit and the Actual words of the documents of the Vatican II council don't match. Anonymous 4:26 is right about one thing, there certainly was a terribly flawed implementation of the Vatican II Council. I look forward to the continued reform of the reform that Pope Benedict XVI is currently engaged in. We are called upon by holy mother Church to be obedient and humbly comply with the wishes of the Holy Father.
ReplyDeleteOne last thing, the latest Instruction on the Extraordinary Form of the Mass makes it pretty clear that the Pastor or a bishop cannot deny a validly ordained and accredited priest from saying a mass for a group of the faithful in their church. In fact the latest instruction calls for the pastor or bishop to be "charitable" and find the means (ie, priest, etc.) that will even accommodate just a group of the faithful who ask for an Extraordinary mass. The Instruction, and for that matter, the pope's recent Moto Proprio, state that no one can keep a priest from privately saying mass in the Extraordinary Form.
ReplyDeleteThese documents became necessary because Bishops such as our own, were not, in the Holy Father's word's, "charitable" in granting permission to the faithful who were still attached to the old mass according to the old indult of JP II. The instruction became necessary, because again, bishops tried to thwart the Holy Father or ignore the Moto Proprio. In their disobedience they are responsible for the resurgence of the old mass. Funny how the Holy Spirit works some times.
"Funny how the Holy Spirit works some times."
ReplyDeleteAmen to that, Tom.