This blog is to guide those seeking the Church's traditional liturgy, devotions, teachings, and cultural identity in the Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge, Guelph areas and beyond. It does not bear any bishop's imprimatur, nor is associated with the Diocese of Hamilton, any parish, order, or lay association. Actually being Catholic isn't easy, but it's simple if you know how.
"It is...Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as 'profane novelties of words,' out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: 'This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved' (Athanasian Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim 'Christian is my name and Catholic my surname,' only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself." -- Pope Benedict XV, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum 24 (1914)
From September 12-14th an academic conference took place at the University of Freiburg, Germany, organized by Dr. Helmut Hoping of Freiburg, entitled “The Roman Mass and Modernity: the Reform of the Missal in the Twentieth Century”; the conference involved participants from many German universities and liturgical centres from across the liturgical spectrum. Dr. Alcuin Reid presented a paper “Refining ‘The Organic Development of the Liturgy’ – The Fundamental Principle for Assessing the Reform of the 1970 Missale Romanum.”
During the conference Katrin Krips-Schmidt of the Catholic paper Deutsche Tagespost conducted the following interview with Dr. Reid, published in German and presented here on NLM in English:
1. What positive things came from Vatican II regarding the reform of the liturgy?
The most positive element was the insistence that participatio actuosa – true, actual participation in the liturgy – was the heart of the life of the Church. This was the goal, the ‘why’ of the reform. The liturgical movement had been promoting this for over fifty years before.
The second was the Council’s requirement that thorough liturgical formation take place at all levels of the Church. This was the means, or the ‘how’ of the reform. But this important element of the Council has been forgotten. Without this formation the foundation necessary to facilitate participatio actuosa is lacking, no matter how many changes to the rites are made.
The Council also asked for the use of a wider selection of sacred scripture in the rites, gave permission for a more extended use of the vernacular, Holy Communion under both species, concelebration, etc., as other ways to facilitate participatio actuosa.
2. What criteria are there for liturgical development in continuity? Is a Council competent to change or to remake the liturgy?
Neither councils nor popes are competent to construct the liturgy. The Council’s does not speak of making a new liturgy, or of “change” – it uses the word “renewal” (“instauratio”). The Council wished to bring about fruitful participatio actuosa through widespread liturgical formation at all levels of the Church and through moderate ritual reform, not a rupture either in the official ritual or in the perception of the faithful in their experience of the liturgical celebration.
The criteria for development in continuity are found in article 23, read in context and as it was approved by the Fathers of the Council. I have published a paper on this. It means that development is proportionate – the liturgical tradition may be developed, as is necessary, but it is not completely changed. There must be a continuity of rite where new texts or practices are integrated, naturally, over time. A good example is the Ordo Missae of 1965. It is the rite of Mass as handed on to the Council, pruned and developed in line with the discussions at the council. But the 1969 Ordo Missae is very different, a new construction of the Concilium. To be sure, it is more conservative than they wanted because Paul VI refused their requests to abolish the Roman Canon, the Orate fratres and the sign of the cross at the beginning of Mass. But even so, the 1969 Ordo as a whole is a radical ritual and theological innovation, not an organic development in line with Sacrosanctum Concilium 23.
3. Continuity or Rupture? Could one say that “traditionalist” Catholics agree with the thesis of a rupture?
I am not a “traditionalist”. I am a Catholic. I am also a liturgical historian. As the latter I can say that there is evidence that those responsible for the reform intended rupture – ritual and also theological. They did not want what was handed on in tradition. They did not want to develop that. They wanted something new, something that would reflect ‘modern man’ in the 1960’s and what they thought he needed.
This is an historical reality, not an ecclesio-political position. Liturgists from ‘both sides’ agree that the reform was radical and a rupture. As a Catholic I regard this as a significant problem, because it is unprecedented in liturgical history and it is not what the Council, out of respect for liturgical tradition, called for.
4. What authority did the Consilium – the body to reform the liturgy - have? Did it follow the intentions of the Fathers of the Council or exceed its competence? Are there examples of radical innovations?
The Consilium’s full name indicates that it was an organ to implement the Council’s Constitution. In effect its work rested on the personal authority of Pope Paul VI, who followed it very closely and authorized each change in forma specifica. It is clear that they went well beyond the Constitution: there is no authorization there for any new Eucharistic Prayers, for the 100% celebration of the Mass in the vernacular, etc. But all of these reforms enjoy the authority of Paul VI.
5. If the liturgy is seen as “changeable” as Sacrosanctum Concilium 21 says, is there the risk to its impact upon ordinary people, as Martin Mosebach speaks about the “Heresy of formlessness”?
Elements of the liturgy that do not come from the Lord Himself are, of course, able to develop or even to be left aside, and new elements can be introduced. Change is possible. We know that from history. But if, all of a sudden, everything in the liturgy except those things concerning validity are seen as changeable – and almost constantly so – then the rite as a whole can be subjected to a “formlessness” whereby it looses its nature as a rite and becomes a temporary conglomeration of the “good ideas” of those who celebrate it. That would not be Catholic liturgy, which is always the liturgy of the Church, received by her in tradition and carefully handed on, with proportionate development as necessary. Even authorized developments, if they involve disproportionate changes to the received tradition imposed very quickly, risk bringing about such a “formlessness”.
6. Sacrosanctum Concilium has been criticized for having too much room for interpretation. Do you share this view?
Yes, it is clear that much of the language of the Constitution is capable of different interpretations. Article 36-2 is just one example. It is also clear from the memoirs of Archbishop Bugnini himself that there was a very wide interpretation of this article, and others.
7. What consequences are there for the future of the liturgy?
We must look again at the liturgical reform following the Council, not as partisans of any side, but as good historians, good theologians, good Catholics. If it is clear that we have lost important elements of the liturgical tradition, or have introduced ones that are harmful, then we must have the honesty to admit this and do what is necessary. This has been begun through Sacramentum caritatis and Summorum pontificum and the personal example of Pope Benedict XVI in his liturgical celebrations.
We must also move forward with charity and pastoral sense. It is not possible to re-impose the past rites on everyone or to take away the new ones in an instant. At this moment, though, it would be possible to permit – facultatively – some older elements (the offertory prayers, some of the ritual gestures made by the priest, etc.) in the modern rites. It is also possible to adopt that ars celebrandi spoken about in Sacramentum caritatis, where the modern rites are celebrated with a liturgical richness that is in more tangible continuity with tradition.
History will see how the liturgy develops from this point. Our duty is to ensure that nothing “sacred and great” is lost to the Church of today or of the future.
Feast of Bl Pope John XXIII and 49 years since the opening of the Second Vatican Council - Good Pope John would have been distraught by the modernist "spirit" attributed to Vatican II
You would look in vain for a precise definition of the “spirit of Vatican II.” The phrase is not easily traceable to any specific documents or events connected with the Second Vatican Council, which opened forty-nine years ago this week. The references we hear to this “spirit” are often connected with various aspects of liberalization, which emerged in the Church in the aftermath of the Council.
These included:
Liturgical developments: such as the use of the vernacular instead of Latin; the Novus Ordo Mass, facing the people; communion in the hand; the Sign of Peace; and females as servers, Eucharistic ministers, etc. For many of us, other innovations come to mind – such as guitar Masses; nuns indistinguishable from the local Ladies’ Auxiliary; liturgical dancing; ad-libbing by the celebrant; and systematic replacement throughout the Mass of all instances of “he,” “him,” and “man” by more “inclusive” language.
Ecumenical developments: Rabbis, Protestants, and other non-Catholic religionists were invited as observers to the Council, and the practice of including other religions in public Catholic functions has continued often since then. Multiple official dialogues have been conducted with Orthodox, Lutherans, and other Protestants, looking for common ground. Efforts at reconciliation have also included papal apologies to the world for mistreatment of Galileo, the Inquisition, etc.
Changes of attitude regarding sexual mores: The widespread opposition of theologians, priests and prelates, as well as lay Catholics, to Pope Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical against contraception, Humanae vitae, is still fresh in the memory of many older Catholics. Not unconnected with this, as I have argued elsewhere, have been the movements against sacerdotal celibacy requirements, and in favor of the acceptance of homosexuality.
But what exactly was the “etiology” of the new “spirit”?
The French philosopher, Jean Borella, a Catholic traditionalist (although opposed to the extremes of traditionalism like the SSPX movement founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre), conducted the most exhaustive philosophical analysis of these developments in his book, La charité profanée. Borella emphasized that, for effective reform of the “reform,” it is important to understand the metaphysical roots of what has taken place.
La charité profanée discusses three stages of the “degradation of the Christian soul.” In the first stage, grace and faith are received as a gift by Christians, placing them on a supernatural level, and entrusting them with a spiritual energy altogether outside the ambit of physical energy, which is subject, like all elements of the physical order, to an entropic “winding down.”
This state of grace is buttressed for the Christian by both the “supernatural religious order” and the “natural religious order,” each containing hierarchical distinctions and differences. These oppositions engender a certain tension, but also an equilibrium that resists reduction to equivalence and homogeneity. The unity characterizing these orders “does not result from the nature of their constituents, but is a principle of hierarchization of all the constituents, each in rapport with the other.”
Jean Borella
The supernatural religious order includes the following oppositions: Creator/creature, sacred/profane, sacred places/secular places (e.g., temples/ordinary buildings), sacred/secular times (e.g. Sunday/weekdays), sacred/secular language (Latin/vernacular), sacred/secular vestments (e.g., cassocks or monastic garb/lay clothing), sacred/secular functions (priesthood/careers), and sacred/secular institutions (Church/civil society).
The natural religious order incorporates the following differences: Man/woman, parents/children, master/disciple, prince/subjects, past/present, upright persons/indecent persons, and the normal/the pathologic.
What then happened, according to Borella, is that:
in both the supernatural and the natural orders, there is not one of these tensions and oppositions that the post-council reformers have not tried to destroy. . . .The post-council spirit. . . .intends to annihilate all the forms which try to establish the distinction between the sacred and the profane. Let us not forget something rather comical – that these destructions have operated in the name of a spirit of community, although, as can be seen, nothing has come of this effort but the disappearance of mutual relations, the destruction of all the cohesion among the ordered elements. . . .An “advanced” clergy pursues its own intellectual and cultural modernization. . . .striving to transform the celebrations of the Eucharist into the congregation’s celebration of itself.
In the natural order, a similar dismantling ensued, blurring the distinction between man and woman, child and parents, master and disciple, normal and pathological, etc.
The conditions for such diminutions were established when the magisterium, in Paul VI’s pontificate, was torn “between rival factions that he supported and contended with by turns.” Borella offers the example of a historic, watershed moment at the Council when a specially prepared schema, concerned primarily with combating error, upholding the rights of the Church, and the defense of sacred tradition, was put forward for vote, but suspended/postponed by Cardinal Liénart for further deliberation, in accord with the wishes of the “reform” block at the Council.
In the third stage, he says, as the abolition of the natural and supernatural distinctions succeeds, and entropic disorder ensues, signs of “negative entropy” (negentropy) become manifest – i.e., attempts to create differentiations and oppositions, particularly in areas where they have never been perceived. Borella offers as an example the extension of the Marxist theory of “class conflict” and Freudian emphasis on sexual identity to all domains of life.
Borella, however, sees favorable omens of a reversal – steps taken in recent decades to “reform the reform.” He welcomed the arrival in the chair of St. Peter of an “exceptional pope,” Pope John Paul II, who undertook “with a steadfast obstinacy and without denying the Second Vatican Council, the mending of Christian unity through a return to the unity of faith,” i.e., the “new evangelization.” And he has strongly supported the accession to the papacy of Cardinal Ratzinger, who once criticized self-constructed liturgies as something analogous to the Hebrew worship of the Golden Calf, and has issued a Motu Proprio to facilitate the revival of the traditional liturgy.
Howard Kainz is emeritus professor of philosophy at Marquette University.
Maybe you noticed a story in last week's Catholic Herald about new norms for Communion under both species in the Diocese of Phoenix. You may have wondered why this story from Arizona received such prominent coverage here (on page 3 of the Catholic Herald, where letters from Bishop Morlino appear). In fact, the story was featured because it will be significant for us as well. Bishop Morlino spoke to us priests about this while we together at Wis-consin Dells at the end of last month. In the last couple of decades, Com-munion under both species (with the congregation able to receive the Pre-cious Blood as well as the Sacred Host) has become routine in our ex-perience. I knew (as many of you do) that Communion under both species was first introduced, on a limited basis, after the Second Vati-can Council, and that it has become much more common since. What I did not know was that the widespread American practice of offering both species at most Sunday Masses began here under an indult (special permission) given by the Vatican in 1975, which expired in 2005.
Almost no one realized that until very recently. Maybe we can be for-given for forgetting that we were operating under a temporary indult. After thirty years, something can seem pretty permanent. But it wasn‟. The bishops of our country did apply for an extension of the 1975 in-dult, but that was denied.
So, all over the United States, we now find ourselves needing to bring our practice into conformity with current regulations (and with the rest of the world). In his comments at Chula Vista, Bishop Morlino men-tioned a few instances in which Communion under both kinds is still permitted: the Chrism Mass, the Feast of Corpus Christi, for the bride and groom at a Nuptial Mass, and for those so allergic to wheat that they cannot tolerate even low-gluten hosts. Beyond those occasions and circumstances, Communion can be offered under both species at cele-brations of special importance. But it is clear that we will not be seeing Communion under both species as a weekly practice.
Bishop Morlino understands that this comes as news to all of us. He is giving pastors considerable latitude as to the timetable for implement-ing this change. He suggested that the beginning of Advent (when the new translation of the Missal is fully implemented) would be one plau-sible date to make the change. That will be our timetable here at the Cathedral Parish (and also at St. Paul‟ University Catholic Center, the other parish clustered with us). Msgr. Kevin D. Holmes
Rector Cathedral Parish Madison, Wisconsin
Friday, October 7, 2011
"Full of Himself"
FATHER JAMES SCHALL, S.J.
A student recently asked me if I could recommend any nearby Catholic churches. He had just heard a sermon that, as far as he could make out, justified relativism.
I often hear parishioners comment that their pastor or assistant is "full of himself." The very remark is enough to give any reflective priest pause. Every priest is there in persona Christi, not in his own charming or otherwise qualified personality.
The priest is not there to call attention to himself. He is not the main course. Such considerations, plus strange liturgical rubrics, send folks off looking for other parishes where they do not preach relativism or where the pastor is not "full of himself," where the Mass follows the norms of the Church.
Such thoughts came to mind in reading comments by Australia's George Cardinal Pell on the new English-language liturgical translations of the missal (he is in charge of coordinating the effort). On hearing these newly translated words, we may finally realize how vapid the present ones we use are. But we are people of habit. Some people won't like it. A "conservative" will henceforward be someone who does not want to change the present translations, whereas a "liberal" will be one who likes the new ones.
Pell was asked about the direction the priest should face during Mass. He would favor the priest and congregation facing the East, all together facing towards the Lord, the proper focus of attention. Why? "Because it makes it patently clear that the priest is not the center of the show, that this is an act of worship of the one true God, and the people are joining with the priest for that."
"The priest is not the center of the show" -- that is a great line and a great truth.
Joseph Ratzinger made this same point in his Spirit of the Liturgy: "A common turning towards the East during the Eucharistic Prayer remains essential�.Looking at the priest has no importance. What matters is looking together at the Lord." A drum-major marches with his back to the band because he is leading them all to something in front of them. All go in the same direction. An orchestra director has his "backs to the people" so that both he and the audience can see and hear something beyond and in front of them.
Cardinal Pell adds something that I had not seen stressed before. If we insist, as many will, on the priest looking at the congregation and they at him, a "crucifix" should always be placed between the priest and the congregation. It reminds those on both sides of what is going on here. Neither priest nor congregation is the center of attention.
The temptation of the priest at Mass is to be an actor. Not a few excel at it. Ratzinger says, however, that, at the altar, the "priest must decrease, the Lord increase," referring to John the Baptist.
The temptation of the priest at Mass is to be an actor. Not a few excel at it. Ratzinger says, however, that, at the altar, the "priest must decrease, the Lord increase," referring to John the Baptist.
The following Ratzinger words constantly remind us that the "silence" within the Church is there for a reason: "Whenever applause breaks out in the liturgy because of some human achievement, it is a sure sign that the essence of liturgy has totally disappeared and been replaced by a kind of religious entertainment." We do not attend Mass to be entertained, or to see a good performance, but to worship God. This awe in the presence of the Almighty ought to envelop priest, musicians, and congregation.
Cardinal Pell also touched on something that strikes me as of great importance. In his encyclical on the Eucharist (Ecclesia de Eucharistia), among other places, Pope John Paul II specified that neither the Mass nor the priest is a function of the community. Without the Mass, as it is in its integrity, no community exists. The community does not "ordain" its ministers. The Church is not a club or meeting hall or a political party.
All ministers in the Church testify to the truth as it is found in the Creed. This is why the Creed must be said every Sunday. It should begin, as in Latin and Greek, with "I believe," not the present "we believe." We stand at Mass attesting to our personal affirmation in the intelligibility of what we hold. We are a religion of intelligence.
At Mass, we are full of the Lord, not ourselves. What makes the community is the Mass, not vice versa. The priest is not an actor. He is a priest. He points beyond himself. What he does is not of his own making. He is a servant. He literally follows the books. He does not write them. With his people, he praises the Father through the Son in the unity of the Spirit, Whom he, along with them, worships. This worship is what goes on at Mass, nothing less.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
James V. Schall, S.J., "Full of himself." The Catholic Thing (May 1, 2009).
James V. Schall, S.J., is Professor of Political Philosophy at Georgetown University and the author of numerous books in the areas of social issues, spirituality and literature
It gives me great joy to meet you in this short North American living.
The future of the Church, which is certain, because it is in the hands of its Head and Lord, who is Christ, the pulses in your lives. Seminarians today, tomorrow's priests are the living hope of the journey that the Church always does in the world.
Our heartfelt thanks, on behalf of the Church, for your so generous! Know right now that the Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy pray for you, because your Lord is to ensure total and unconditional.
Is this the secret of happiness, the secret of fulfillment of the priestly life: give everything, with nothing to keep for themselves, following the example of Jesus!
I do not intend to propose a conference at this meeting, but simply an informal conversation, giving space to your questions spontaneously. I state to your questions just some brief thoughts on what I think is crucial now, and always, in priestly formation.
1. The primacy of God
It is now accepted by the experience of the Church, that the vocations are born, flourish, grow and reach maturity only when it is clearly recognized the primacy of God Any other motivation, which can also accompany the beginning of the perception of a call to the priesthood, flows into the motion of the total donation to the Lord and in recognition of its primacy in our lives, the Church's life and that of the world.
Primacy of God means the primacy of prayer, intimacy with God, the primacy of the spiritual and sacramental life. The Church does not need managers, but of men of God! He does not need sociologists, psychologists, anthropologists, political scientists-and all the other variations that we know-and we can imagine. The Church needs men and therefore credible believers, men who received the call of the Lord, are His witnesses motivated in the world!
Primacy of God means the primacy of the sacramental life, lived today, and offer, at the time, to all our brothers! Many things can be found in other men, they are attempting in the priest that he alone can give: Divine Mercy, the Bread of eternal life, a new horizon of meaning that makes life more human that can present and eternal!
You live, dear seminarians, this time in the seminary-transient-like which is a great opportunity that is given to make an extraordinary experience of intimacy with God The relationship you build with him over the years, certainly during the course of life will be deepened and will change, but the foundations, the core of that relationship, it is now! The seminary is in this sense, unique! While every good experience that can happen in your life, before and after this time, the wisdom of the Church indicates the educational community as necessary for the formation of its priests.
The Church needs strong men! Firm in the faith of men, capable of bringing the brothers to an authentic experience of God
The Church needs priests who, in the storms of the dominant culture, when "the boat of many brothers and tossed by the waves of relativism" (cf. J. Ratzinger, Homily at the Mass Eligendo Roman Pontiff ), know in real communion with Peter, keep in balance the helm of his own existence, of the communities entrusted to them and the brothers who ask for help and light their journey of faith.
2. The priority of training
In addition to the unquestioned primacy of God, it is necessary that the man occupying the central place it deserves. No one can wait for a perfect humanity to enter holy orders, but it is essential, in all honesty, get involved, by giving to God through the spiritual director all about themselves. Do not give up the illusion that the issues not resolved (or not properly dealt with) you will suddenly dissolve after ordination. Not so! And experience proves it!
This formation has certainly needs a fair degree of self-knowledge, and in this sense the so-called human sciences can provide valuable assistance, and more importantly need to "stay in touch" with the Holy Christ's humanity!
It is being with Him that we come gradually shaped! Is he real trainer! In this sense, the prolonged Eucharistic adoration plays a fundamental role in the formation and above all human! Letting "tan" from the Eucharistic Sun, means, over time, limerebbe its edges, to learn from the par excellence, standing at the school of Charity made flesh.
In addition to human, is the intellectual center. It is no doubt that it has occupied in recent decades, an important part of the entire seminary formation. Now, most likely in this area is necessary to assess the proportions and balance. While desiring a good education for all, not all priests will have to theologians.
The training should aim to convey the intellectual content of certain faith, reasonable argument sritturistici the fundamentals, those of the great Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church as well as making life examples accompanied by six priests saints. You must not lose your way in the maze of the various theological opinions that do not provide certainty and raise the Truth revealed to be just like any other "human thought". There is certainty about the shape and aiming to have their luggage in a vision of synthesis with the enthusiasm of the mission.
I am personally convinced that a good and usual theological training, which will also rediscover the philosophical foundation of metaphysics and is not afraid to accept the whole truth, is also the best antidote to the many "identity crisis" that some live unfortunately. In this sense, the Holy Father Benedict XVI has repeatedly called all'imprescindibile use of the Catechism of the Catholic Church as a horizon as a reference to look at and some of our current theological thinking.
The Catechism is also a great tool that Blessed John Paul II gave to the whole Church, for the proper hermeneutics of Vatican II. Even this aspect is necessary that the intellectual alive misunderstanding whatsoever.
You were born in the Post-Second (I think almost all) and perhaps for that very reason you are both children of the council, is more immune to the biases, sometimes ideological, that the providential interpretation of that event has caused.
You will be you, probably, the first generation to properly interpret the Second Vatican Council, not according to the "spirit" of the Council, which has brought so much confusion in the Church, but according to what is actually said Reconciling the Event, in his texts and the Church the world.
There is no other than the Second Vatican Council that produced the texts in our possession today! It is in those texts that we find God's will for his Church and with them it is necessary to measure, accompanied by two thousand years of tradition and Christian life.
The renewal is always necessary for the Church, because the conversion is always required of its members, poor sinners! But there is, or could exist, a pre-Conciliar Church and a post-Conciliar! If so, the second-we-would be historically and theologically illegitimate!
There exists a single Church of Christ, of which you are part of that is from our Lord to the Apostles, the Blessed Virgin Mary to the Fathers and Doctors of the Church since the Middle Ages to the Renaissance, from Romanesque to Gothic to Baroque, and so on, until the present day, continuously, without interruption, ever!
And all because the Church is the Body of Christ, is the unity of His Person, which is given to us, his members!
You, dear seminarians, priests will be of the same Church of St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Charles Borromeo, St. John Vianney, St. John Bosco, S. Pius X, to the Holy Father Pius, St. Jose Maria Escriva and the Blessed John Paul II. You will be priests of the Church itself, which is made up of many holy priests who for centuries have made it bright, beautiful, radiant and therefore easily recognizable face of the Lord Christ in the world.
The real priorities and the true modernity, then, my dear, is holiness! The only possible source for a genuine and comprehensive reform is the holiness and we need reform! Holiness is not there for a seminar, if not the grace of our Lord and freedom that opens up humbly to his formative action and renewing!
The Seminar of holiness, then, Dean has a truly magnificent and is a woman: the Blessed Virgin Mary. Her that we will repeat throughout his life: "Do whatever he tells you," to accompany us in this difficult but fascinating journey!
Here, I told you some of what I wanted to tell you the rest I'll tell you in prayer every day, because from now on I will carry you with me every day to be priests at the altar and remember that in these difficult times it is nice-but priests priests. They are happy only if you are not half measures: all or nothing!
by Catholic Chapter House. Written By: David Gilbert Recently, on business trip to Chicago, my father went to Mass at St. John Cantius Parish (http://www.cantius.org). The story of this parish is very interesting. In the past it was a thriving Polish community but eventually fell into decay and was about to be closed. Now it is a spiritual gem that is enriching and bringing people back to the faith. How? By restoring the Sacred – not adding anything to the liturgy, nor by taking anything out. From this parish an order of men has been created and both Novus Ordo and Extraordinary Form Masses are held. This is such a beautiful story and definitely a church I would like to attend Mass. If any of you are going to Chicago, I would encourage you to go to St. John Cantius Parish 825 N. Carpenter St., Chicago, Illinois
Video about Saint John Cantius Church
This video investigates how a decaying old church in Chicago became a thriving religious and cultural treasure. When a Catholic priest with no previous parish experience arrived, he faced a building in severe disrepair, but he realized that there was an even deeper need: to restore the faith and sacred culture of the parish community.
Monsignor, you have participated in the dialogue with the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X. What is your personal impression of these meetings? Where do we stand right now? Do you believe we will soon reach a reconciliation?
My impression is substantially positive as far as the cordiality with which the dialogue, the colloquy, developed, and I must say that it has always been a very frank and sincere dialogue, and at times lively, as is also understandable, given the problematic questions and the themes under discussion. Although certainly not conclusive, I think we have reached a decisive point on this path, which has largely and profoundly served to clarify in detail the respective positions of the Society of St. Pius X and those of the experts of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; what is needed now is precisely to move on to a more evaluative stage, to a level of evaluating controversial points in order to verify the concrete possibility of overcoming the doctrinal difficulties and issues that have been addressed.
Is there a modus procedendi, a way of moving ahead in case the doctrinal Preamble is not signed?
At this time the text of the doctrinal Preamble has been handed to Bishop Fellay and the superiors of the Society for them to examine and give an answer, which we hope will be substantially favorable, positive and affirmative. They always have the possibility of asking for some specific details or clarifications, which, for our part, we will certainly provide within a reasonable time frame. To me it seems misplaced to raise the question now of what will happen if such difficulties were to be considered serious, insurmountable. At this time there is no such problem.
The Society was not born out of thin air, but as a response to a very serious ecclesial crisis, especially in countries like Germany, France and Switzerland. This crisis continues. Do you believe that after an agreement is reached in Rome, the Society will be able to coexist in those countries under the umbrella of the institutional Church?
Well, I would say simply that those who are truly and fully Catholic can live fully and properly in the Catholic Church wherever the Catholic Church exists and develops. This is not just a statement of principle; it is an existential affirmation which corresponds to the reality of the Catholic Church. This of course does not mean that there are no difficulties, and also because of the critical situation in which many Catholics, and the Catholic world, find themselves in these and other countries, but I do not believe history has lacked similar cases, and therefore the answer is very simple: those who are truly and fully Catholic not only have a right to, but actually do live well and find themselves content within the Catholic Church.
What are the reasons for the hostility in many Church circles toward a liturgy that the Church and so many saints have celebrated for so long and was instrumental in a spectacular development of the Church?
This is a complex question because I think there are many factors involved in understanding why this prejudice against the extraordinary form of the liturgy of the Old Rite is still widespread. One needs to keep in mind that for many years now a really appropriate and comprehensive liturgical formation in the Catholic Church has not been offered. Some have tried to introduce the principle of a rupture, a distancing, a radical break between the liturgical reform proposed, established and promulgated by Pope Paul VI and the traditional liturgy. In reality things are different, because it is clear that there is substantial continuity in the liturgy and in the history of the liturgy; what you find is growth, progress, renewal, but not a break or discontinuity, and hence these prejudices decisively affect the mindset of various people, including clergy and the faithful. We must overcome this prejudice, we must provide a complete and authentic liturgical formation and see how, in actual fact, the liturgical books of the liturgical reform desired by Pope Paul VI are one thing; something else, however, are the other forms of implementation that have occurred in practice in many parts of the Catholic world which are, in reality, abuses of the liturgical reform of Paul VI and also contain doctrinal errors that must be corrected and rejected. This is what the Holy Father Benedict XVI, in a recent speech at the Pontificium Athenaeum Anselmianum in late spring of this year, sought to reaffirm. The books of the liturgical reform are one thing, something else, however, are the concrete forms of implementation which, unfortunately, have spread to many places and are not consistent with the principles laid down and made explicit in the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on divine liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium.
The confidential Preamble was given to Bishop Fellay on September 14. One day later, Andrea Tornielli had already been informed. How come confidential Vatican information is passed on so quickly to the press?
Journalists have a remarkable ability to intercept news, which is rather admirable in one respect, but I would say that in this case journalists, not just Tornielli but also other journalists, took up substantially the press release of the following day, reporting on some essential elements of the Doctrinal Preamble, and so I would say the substantial contents of the Preamble in its details are still not known, or at least have not been made public thus far; and journalists have not spoken about them or described the development and elaboration of the Doctrinal Preamble in detail. In that sense I believe confidentiality has basically been maintained in this case. I hope that this will continue to be the case.
Did you have any personal experience with the Latin Mass before becoming part of Ecclesia Dei? How did you experience the liturgical changes in the sixties?
These are two questions. To the first I answer that, before the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum of 2007, I had no contact at all with the celebration of the Mass in the old rite; I began to celebrate Mass in the extraordinary form of the rite with the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, which allowed the Mass to be celebrated in this form.
How have I lived the changes in the sixties and seventies? I must say that, according to the manner in which I was formed and trained by my teachers at the seminary, and especially my professors of theology at the Pontifical Gregorian University, I have always tried to understand what the Magisterium proposed through the reading of its texts and not through what some Catholic theologians or publications attributed to the Magisterium. So I never had any problems accepting the Mass in the liturgical reform of Paul VI, but soon realized that because of the great disorder that had been introduced into the Church after 1968, very often the Mass of Paul VI became completely deformed and came to be celebrated in a manner absolutely contrary to the profound intentions of the legislator, that is, the Holy Father; so I also have experienced quite directly this disorder, this collapse of the liturgy of which the former Cardinal Ratzinger has spoken in some of his books and publications on the liturgy, and I have always sought to keep the two things separate: the rites, the texts of the missal, which are one thing; another thing however is the way in which the liturgy is or has been celebrated in many places and circumstances based especially on a principle of creativity, a wild creativity that has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit and is instead, I would say, exactly the opposite of what the Holy Spirit wants.
Why is it worthwhile to promote the Latin Mass?
Because the ancient rite of the Mass makes explicit and highlights certain values and certain fundamental aspects of the liturgy that deserve to be maintained, and I am not speaking only about the Latin or Gregorian chant, I am speaking about the sense of mystery, of the sacred, the sense of the Mass as a sacrifice, the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the fact that there are great moments of interior recollection, interior participation in the divine liturgy. All these are fundamental elements which are particularly highlighted in the ancient rite of the Mass. I am not saying that these elements do not exist in the Mass of Paul VI's reform, but I am saying that they are highlighted much more and this can enrich even those who celebrate or participate in the ordinary form of the Mass. Nothing prevents one from thinking that in the future we will also be able to achieve a reunification of the two forms, with elements that come together and complement one another; but this is not a goal to be attained in a short time, and particularly not with decisions taken at a desk, but one which requires a maturation of the entire Christian people called to understand the value of both liturgical forms of the same Roman Rite.
Alas,he often comes cloaked in beauty,in sheep’s clothing. He claims to offer us freedom and autonomy from an unreasonable God and Church,liberation from rules and being “told what to do.” He cloaks himself in the false righteousness of being “tolerant” and “not judging others.” He exalts us by telling us we have finally come of age and can disregard the “hang-ups” and “repression” our ancestors had of sex and pleasure. He flatters us by extolling our scientific knowledge and inflates us by equating it with wisdom and moral superiority over our “primitive” fore-bearers. He reassures us by insisting we are merely the victims here,victims of biological urges,bad parenting,economic injustice,that we are not depraved,just deprived. He humors us by making us laugh at sin,making light of it in comedian’s routines,sitcoms,music and otherwise turning sin into a form of entertainment. He anesthetizes the pain of guilt and sin by sending us teachers who tickle our ears and assure us that what we know deep down to be wrong is actually fine,even virtuous. He affirms us by insisting that whenever shortcomings in us have been called to our attention it is simply unfair since other people are surely worse,that self esteem is something owed to us and others who lessen it are unkind. He sings us the lullaby of presumption assuring us that consequences and judgment will not be our lot and with this lullaby we drift off into a moral sleep of indifference and false confidence.
But in the end,there is a wolf under the sheepskin. Satan is ugly. He enslaves,condemns,ridicules and ensnares. His “reassurances” bring pain and grief as the awful effects of sin unwind: hatred,fear,resentments,revenge,suffering,disease,addiction,bondage,strife,divorce,estrangement,war,insurrection,disloyalty,scorn,bitterness,depression,anxiety,depletion,poverty,loss and deep,deep sorrow.
Beware,Satan has many disguises and he seldom presents as he really is. The movie The Passion of the Christ brilliantly presented Satan in the Garden. At first there was almost a strange beauty. But a closer look revealed increasingly hideous details:cold,fixed eyes,sharp and discolored nails,sickly pale skin,suddenly androgynous qualities,and a disgusting maggot crawling in and out of the nose. An audible moan came from the audience in the theatre where I first saw it. Would that,beyond the movie,we could sense this revulsion and clarity as to the evil of Satan and his truest reality. http://www.courageouspriest.com/satans-disguises
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Vatican Diary / Not All Bishops Are of Good Will
The Italians are at the front of the line in disobeying Rome, with regard to the translation of the words of consecration. The Germans and Austrians are bringing up the rear. And even in the translations of the Our Father and of the Gloria, there is disagreement
by ***
VATICAN CITY, October 4, 2011 – At the present time, all of the parishes and churches of the United States are receiving the new English version of the Roman Missal, which will be used starting on the first Sunday of Advent, this November 27.
The variations with respect to the previous version are numerous, and hotly debated. But the change that has prompted the greatest dispute is certainly the one that concerns the words of the consecration of the wine, where it says in the Latin version: "Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei [...] qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur." The "pro multis" of this formula has generally been translated, in the vernacular translations of the postcouncil, as "for all": a translation that not only does not respect the letter of the original Latin, which in turn is derived from the Gospel texts, but has also generated a subtle but lively theological debate.
In order to resolve this problem, in October of 2006 the presidents of the episcopal conferences all over the world were sent a letter, under the "guidance" of Benedict XVI, from the congregation for divine worship, headed at the time by Cardinal Francis Arinze. It asked that "pro multis" be translated as "for many." This was done by the episcopates of Hungary (from "mindenkiért" to "sokakért) and of various countries in Latin America (from "por todos" to "por muchos"). The Spanish episcopate is preparing to do so, and the change has already been made, not without very lively discussions even among the bishops, by the episcopate of the United States (from "for all" to "for many"). As for the episcopates of Germany and Austria, they are showing strong resistance to the change from fur alle" to "fur viele."
As for Italy, the issue was addressed by the bishops during the plenary assembly of the episcopal conference held in Assisi in November of 2010, during the examination of the material of the third Italian edition of the Roman Missal.
On that occasion, the Italian bishops showed tremendous reluctance to introduce "per molti." During the sessions, in fact, it was insisted that the episcopal conferences of the individual regions were already "unanimous" in choosing the version "per tutti." And when the bishops of all of Italy were called to vote on this specific point of the Missal, the result was the following: out of 187 voters, in addition to one blank ballot, there were 171 votes in favor of keeping "per tutti," 4 for the introduction of the version "per la moltitudine" (taken from "pour la multitude," used in the French Missal), and just 11 for the "per molti" requested by the Holy See in 2006.
At the same meeting, the Italian bishops also voted in favor of two changes to the Our Father and the Gloria.
For the Our Father, in a two-part vote, the bishops first rejected the idea of keeping the phrase "non ci indurre in tentazione [do not lead us into temptation]"; this phrase, in fact, received only 24 votes out of 84, fewer than the two others that were then voted on: "non abbandonarci alla tentazione [do not abandon us to temptation]" (87 votes) and "non abbandonarci nella tentazione [do not abandon us in temptation]" (62 votes). Of these two, the largest number of votes went to the first, with 111 against 68.
As for the Gloria, out of 187 voters, 151 approved the variation "Gloria a Dio nell’alto dei cieli e pace in terra agli uomini che egli ama [glory to God in the heights of heaven and peace on earth to the men whom he loves," in the place of the phrase currently in use, "Gloria a Dio nell’alto dei cieli e pace in terra agli uomini di buona volontà [glory to God in the heights of heaven and peace on earth to men of good will," which obtained 36 votes.
Regarding these same texts, the bishops of the United States preferred not to touch the Our Father, leaving unaltered the phrase "and lead us not into temptation," linguistically more faithful to the Latin "et ne nos inducas in tentationem."
But with regard to the Gloria, they decided to change the words "and peace to his people on earth" to "and on earth peace to people of good will," also in this case following literally the original Latin, "et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis."
T he memory of the Second Vatican Council, 40 years after the opening of the council, continues to arouse both acclamation and vilification. Its champions, in many cases, see it as having liberated Catholics from a long night of oppression, thus restoring to the people of God their rightful liberties. Its detractors blame it for shattering the unity and order of the church and introducing an era of contestation and doubt. While reformers caricature the preconciliar church as tyrannical and obscurantist, traditionalists idealize the preconciliar church as though it were a lost paradise.
In part, the quarrels are due to a conflict of interpretations. The council documents, like most committee products, reflect some compromises. Four factors make the interpretation especially difficult.
1. The council fathers, under the direction of Pope Paul VI, made every effort to achieve unanimity and express the consensus of the whole episcopate, not the ideas of one particular school. For this reason, they sought to harmonize differing views, without excluding any significant minority. In some cases they adopted deliberate ambiguities.
2. Pope John XXIII, in his opening speech on Oct. 11, 1962, declared that although the church had sometimes condemned errors with the greatest severity, it would best meet the needs of our time “by demonstrating the validity of her teaching rather than by condemnations.” Because the council saw fit to follow this instruction, it did not dwell on the negative implications of its doctrine. Framed so as not to offend any large group, except perhaps atheistic Communism, the documents are markedly irenic.
3. The council occurred at a unique moment of history, when the Western world was swept up in a wave of optimism typified by Pope John XXIII himself. The “new humanism” was confident that if free play were given to human powers and technology, the scourges of poverty, disease, famine and war could be virtually eliminated. Christians, on this theory, had no good reason for standing apart from the rest of humanity. They should throw in their lot with all the forces making for humanization and progress. Books like The Secular City (1964), by Harvey Cox, served as bibles for the new gospel of freedom and creativity. Secular enthusiasts interpreted Vatican II as an invitation for Catholics to jump on the bandwagon.
4. In the postconciliar period, the communications media favored the emphasis on novelty. Progressive theologians were lionized for writing books and articles that seemed to be breaking new barriers and demolishing the old edifice of preconciliar Catholicism.
In this atmosphere, early interpreters of the council suggested that the documents contained revolutionary implications not apparent on the surface. Some propounded the hermeneutical principle that where there are ambiguities in the council documents, these should always be resolved in favor of discontinuity. Others used the device of preferring to follow the “spirit of Vatican II” at the expense of the letter.
Whereas this innovationist hermeneutic of Vatican II was clearly predominant in the literature of the first decade after the council, another school of interpretation began to surface toward the middle 1970’s. Such distinguished theologians as Henri de Lubac, S.J., Hans Urs von Balthasar and Joseph Ratzinger banded together to found a new international review, Communio, which was widely viewed as an attempt to offset the progressive Dutch-based journal Concilium. Writers for Communio preferred to interpret Vatican II with what they called “a hermeneutics of continuity,” emphasizing the diachronic solidarity of the council with the whole Catholic tradition.
To overcome polarization and bring about greater consensus, Pope John Paul II convened an extraordinary assembly of the Synod of Bishops in 1985, the 20th anniversary of the close of the council. This synod in its final report came up with six agreed principles for sound interpretation, which may be paraphrased as follows:
1. Each passage and document of the council must be interpreted in the context of all the others, so that the integral teaching of the council may be rightly grasped.
2. The four constitutions of the council (those on liturgy, church, revelation and church in the modern world) are the hermeneutical key to the other documents—namely, the council’s nine decrees and three declarations.
3. The pastoral import of the documents ought not to be separated from, or set in opposition to, their doctrinal content.
4. No opposition may be made between the spirit and the letter of Vatican II.
5. The council must be interpreted in continuity with the great tradition of the church, including earlier councils.
6. Vatican II should be accepted as illuminating the problems of our own day. These principles seem to me to be sound. Applying them, I should like to propose 12 points on which I believe that the council has been rather generally misunderstood.
1. It is widely believed that the council taught that non-Christian religions contain revelation and are paths to salvation for their members. A careful examination of the documents, however, proves the contrary. The council taught that salvation cannot be found in any other name than that of Jesus (Acts 4:12; cf. Ad Gentes, the “Decree on the Church’s Missionary Activity” [1965], No. 9, and Gaudium et Spes, the “Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World” [1965], No. 10). In solemn language it declared: “This sacred Synod professes its belief that God has made known to mankind the way in which men are to serve him, and thus to be saved in Christ and come to blessedness” (Dignitatis Humanae, the “Declaration on Religious Freedom” [1965], No. 1). Without denying that there are truths and values in other religions, the council asserted that these truths and values are commingled with serious errors, and that even the truths have salvific value only to the extent that they are preparations for, or reflections of, the Christian Gospel (Lumen Gentium, the “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church” [1964], No. 16; AG, No. 9).
2. Regarding the means by which revelation is transmitted, many theologians have argued that the council gave priority to Scripture as the written word of God, and demoted tradition to the status of a secondary norm, to be tested against the higher norm of Scripture.
An impartial reading of Vatican II’s Dei Verbum, the “Dogmatic Constitution on Revelation” (1965) indicates on the contrary that the council gave a certain priority to tradition. It asserts that the Apostles and their successors, the bishops, by their preaching and teaching have faithfully preserved the word of God. Scripture is an inspired and privileged sedimentation of tradition but not an independent or separable norm. Scripture and tradition together constitute a single indivisible channel of revealed truth, in which neither element could stand without the other (DV, No. 9).
3. A third error relating to revelation is the view that, according to the council, God continues to reveal himself in secular experience through the signs of the times, which therefore provide criteria for interpreting the Gospel. Vatican II, in fact, rejected the idea of continuing revelation. It taught that revelation became complete in Jesus Christ and that no further public revelation is to be expected before the end of time, when Christ returns in glory (DV, No. 4). In Gaudium et Spes the council spoke of the church’s duty to interpret the signs of the times, but it specified that these signs are to be interpreted in the light of the Gospel (GS, No. 4).
4. Turning now to the church, we can put the question of its necessity. It has become almost a platitude to say that the council, reversing earlier Catholic teaching, taught that the church is not necessary for salvation. But in reality the council affirmed that faith and baptism are necessary for salvation (Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5), and that, since baptism is the door to the church, the church too is necessary. The council went on to say that anyone who knows that the church is necessary has the obligation to enter it and remain in it as a condition for salvation (LG, No. 14).
Vatican II did, however, face the question whether persons who have no opportunity to hear the Gospel are necessarily lost. It replied that they can be “associated with the paschal mystery” if, with the help of God’s grace, they consistently strive to do God’s will as it is known to them (GS, No. 22). But because people outside the church fall frequently into sin and error, the Gospel and the church could greatly help them on their way to salvation (LG, No. 16).
5. Turning now to the ecumenical problem, we must evaluate the common impression that the council, in stating that the church of Christ “subsists” in the Roman Catholic communion (LG, No. 8), implied that the former is wider and more inclusive than the latter. Cardinal Ratzinger, rejecting this view, argues that because the church of Christ has its subsistence in Roman Catholicism, it cannot subsist anywhere else. This reading coheres well with the full teaching of the council. Certain endowments of the church can, to be sure, exist in other Christian communions, bringing their members into “imperfect communion” with the Catholic Church (Unitatis Redintegratio, the “Decree on Ecumenism” [1964], No. 3). Non-Catholic communities that have a genuine apostolic ministry and a valid Eucharist are properly called churches, but they should not be reckoned as constituent parts of the one and catholic church in which the true religion subsists (DH, No. 1).
6. The doctrine of collegiality is frequently misunderstood as though it restricted the powers of the pope, requiring him to establish a consensus of the world’s bishops before deciding important issues. Vatican II did indeed affirm that the bishops as a college, when acting together with their head, the pope, enjoy supreme authority, but it affirmed that the pope likewise has supreme authority as successor of Peter and head of the college. The full power of the college is present in the pope alone, who is always free to exercise his primatial office according to the grace given to him. The college, on the other hand, cannot act except when summoned to collegial action by the pope. Its decisions have no efficacy without the pope’s approval. Thus the primacy of the pope, as it had been defined by Vatican I, remains intact. His power is in no way limited by that of the episcopal college (LG, No. 22).
7. Passing to another point, we may ask whether the council recognized that theologians and others have a right to dissent from noninfallible teachings of the magisterium. Some Catholic theologians, while admitting that all the faithful are obliged to submit to infallible teaching, contend that faithful Catholics are entitled to reject noninfallible teaching when it conflicts with their private judgment.
Vatican II never mentioned dissent, but by implication rejected it. It stated that even when the pope and the bishops do not speak infallibly, their authoritative teaching is binding, and that the faithful are required to adhere to it with a “religious submission of mind” (LG, No. 25). Vatican II, therefore, cannot be quoted as favoring dissent.
8. Regarding the laity, the council did much to clarify their active role in the worship and mission of the church and their vocation to refashion secular society according to the norms of the Gospel. At several points Vatican II urged pastors to consult the laity and to listen to them when they speak within their competence (LG, No. 37; GS, Nos. 43, 62). But at no point did it suggest that the hierarchy have any obligation to accept the recommendations of the laity with regard to matters pertaining to the pastoral office. While encouraging cooperation with priests, deacons and laypersons, the council placed the powers of authoritative teaching, sacramental worship and pastoral government squarely and exclusively in the hands of the hierarchy (Christus Dominus, the “Decree on the Bishops’ Pastoral Office in the Church” [1965], No. 30).
9. It is often said that with Vatican II the church, reversing its earlier position, acknowledged marriage as a vocation no less blessed than celibacy. The council wrote eloquently of the sacrament of matrimony as a sacred bond mirroring the union between Christ and the church (GS, No. 48), but it also reaffirmed the teaching of Trent that it is better and more blessed to remain in virginity or celibacy than to be joined in matrimony—a doctrine that Trent traced back to Jesus (Mt 19: 11-12) and to Paul (1 Cor 7:25-26, 38, 40). In Optatam Totius, the “Decree on Priestly Formation” (1965), Vatican II declared that seminarians “should acquire a right understanding of the duties and dignity of Christian marriage, as representing the love between Christ and his church (cf. Eph 5:22-33). They should, however, realize the greater excellence of virginity consecrated to Christ, so that by a maturely considered and magnanimous free choice they may consecrate themselves to the Lord by an entire dedication of body and mind” (OT, No. 10). If this passage had been better understood and more energetically taught, the present crisis of vocations to the priestly and religious life might be less severe.
10. Opponents of Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae (1968) make much of the fact that Vatican II was silent on the morality of contraception. The council did not explicitly condemn contraception because the pope had reserved this question to a special commission outside the council. But after declaring that the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation must be preserved in marital intercourse, the council declared: “Such a goal cannot be achieved unless the virtue of conjugal chastity is sincerely practiced. Relying on these principles, sons and daughters of the church may not undertake methods of regulating procreation which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the church in its unfolding of the divine law” (GS, No. 51). At this point the fathers inserted footnotes referring to documents of Pius XI and Pius XII forbidding contraception. If this passage had been written after Humanae Vitae, no revision would have been needed except the addition of a reference to that document in the footnote.
11. The council’s teaching on religious freedom has been poorly understood. It is widely believed that the council recognized that members of non-Catholic and non-Christian religious bodies have a right to believe as they do and to propagate their beliefs freely. But the council declared no such thing. In its “Declaration on Religious Freedom” it rejected coercion by the state in the area of religion, but it did not set all religions on the same level. The “one true religion,” it stated, “subsists in the Catholic and apostolic church to which the Lord Jesus committed the duty of spreading it abroad among all men” (DH, No. 1). Other religious and churches do not have the same mandate. The late John Courtney Murray, S.J., stated in his commentary: “Neither the declaration nor the American Constitution affirms that a man has a right to believe what is false or to do what is wrong. This would make moral nonsense. Neither error nor evil can be the object of a right, only what is true and good. It is, however, true and good that a man should enjoy freedom from coercion in matters religious.”
12. Turning in conclusion to the liturgy, I shall limit myself to one question. Vatican II is frequently praised or blamed for having authorized the translation of the Latin liturgy into the vernacular. But the matter is not so simple. In Sacrosactum Concilium, its “Constitution on the Liturgy” (1963), the council declared: “The use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rite, except where a particular law might indicate otherwise” (SC, No 36, Paragraph 1). In the following two paragraphs the constitution went on to say that competent local ecclesiastical authorities may determine that certain readings, instructions, prayers and chants be translated into the mother tongue of the people. The council fathers would not have anticipated that in the space of a few years the Latin language would almost totally disappear. It would be well if Catholics could be familiar with the Mass in Latin, the official language of the Roman rite. But since there are sound pastoral reasons for the vernacular, faithful translations of high quality should be provided. We may hope that such translations are in the making.
Because the hermeneutics of discontinuity has prevailed in countries like our own, the efforts of the Holy See to clarify the documents have regularly been attacked as retrenchments. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was denounced for its declaration on infallibility, Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), for the new profession of faith issued in 1989, for its ecclesiology of communion in Communionis Notio (1991) and for its document on Christ and the Church, Dominus Iesus (2000). The Roman document on the collaboration of the laity in the sacred ministry (1997) was angrily dismissed, as was, in some quarters, John Paul II’s apostolic constitution Apostolos Suos, on the status and authority of episcopal conferences (1998). In each of these cases there was a clamor of protest, but the critics did not convincingly show that the official teaching had departed from the teaching of Vatican II, interpreted according to the principles set forth in the Extraordinary Synod of 1985.
I am not seeking in this brief article to defend the teaching of Vatican II on points that someone or other might wish to challenge. My authority could not add anything to that of the council, which spoke with the promised assistance of the Holy Spirit. I can say only that I find the teaching of Vatican II very solid, carefully nuanced and sufficiently flexible to meet the needs of our own time and place. The artful blending of majority and minority perspectives in the council documents should have forestalled the unilateral interpretations. There is no reason today why Vatican II should be a bone of contention among Catholics.
History, of course, does not stop. Just as Vatican II made important changes reflecting new biblical studies, the liturgical movement and the ecumenical movement, we may expect future developments in doctrine and polity. Progress must be made, but progress always depends upon an acceptance of prior achievements so that it is not necessary to begin each time from the beginning.
Cardinal Avery Dulles, S.J., is the Laurence J. McGinley Professor of Religion and Society at Fordham University, New York City. This article is based on lectures given in October 2002 at Loyola University in New Orleans and Georgetown University in Washington, D.C.
The temptation of the priest at Mass is to be an actor. Not a few excel at it. Ratzinger says, however, that, at the altar, the "priest must decrease, the Lord increase," referring to John the Baptist.
