PART
II:
In
Part 1 of what promises to be a lengthy serialization,
we discussed the "mentality" of the Second
Vatican
Council in general. In this overview, we
especially highlighted its ambiguous nature as to the
law, how at the outset it presented itself to the world,
and some general contradictions and omissions in some
of its texts.
In
Part 2, we will begin to summarize the errors ascribed
to Vatican II in particular, starting with
a basic division of its errors into those which are doctrinal
and those which are pastoral (recognizing
that such a distinction is not always well-demarcated).
This installment will concentrate on the doctrinal errors
concerning: 1) notions of "Tradition"
and "Catholic Truth," 2) the Catholic
Church and the Blessed Virgin Mary, 3) the
Holy Mass and the Sacred Liturgy.
DOCTRINAL
ERRORS
The
"Rethinking" of Tradition and the Doctrine of
the Church
Vatican
II's doctrinal errors emerge from propositions that, wholly
or in part, contradict what has always been taught by the
Church or that obscure, diminish, or alter it. These errors
are formulated in all of the texts-and are treated in texts
that in general concern fundamental truths-in which the
Council wanted to express its own doctrine and its "rethinking"
of sacred Tradition and Church teaching:
This
Vatican Council takes careful note of these desires in the
minds of men. It proposes to declare them to be greatly
in accord with truth and justice. To this end, it searches
into the sacred tradition and doctrine of the Church-the
treasury out of which the Church continually brings forth
new things that are in harmony with the things that are
old (Dignitatis Humanae).
To
deduce how much this last assertion corresponds to reality
we will discuss in the course of this series of articles
the following topics of which the first three are treated
here. The errors in doctrine concern: 1) the
ideas of Tradition and Catholic truth; 2) the
Holy Church and the Blessed Virgin Mary; 3) the
Holy Mass and the Sacred Liturgy; 4) the Priesthood;
5) the Incarnation and Redemption, and the
concept of "Man"; 6) the "Kingdom
of God"; 7) the sacrament of Matrimony and the
condition of woman; 8) the sects, heretics,
and schismatics (i.e., the so-called "separated
brethren"); 9) non-Christian religions;
10) politics, the political community; the
relationship between Church and State; 17) the
notion of "Religious Liberty" and the role of
individual conscience.
PASTORAL ERRORS
A
Permanent "Living-Together" Relationship with
Heretics and Schismatics
Essentially,
pastoral errors consist of proposing bad pastoral teaching-bad
because the Council's bad doctrinal errors are put into
practice and/or also wholly or in part, contradict or alter
the Church's traditional pastoral teachings or appear per
se to contradict them.
From
a general point of view, Vatican II's entire pastoral outlook
is polluted because it is founded on aggiornamento, that
is, on the principle of dialogue with error, rather
than with those who are in error in order
to convert them.
When
we begin to discuss them, we shall present the pastoral
errors in the following way. Preliminarily, we shall make
a synthetic analysis of the false value placed on man and
the world, deprived as it is of any essential reference
to Church teaching and Catholic thinking. This is primarily
developed in Gaudium et Spes and comprises the theoretical
basis for a major part of Conciliar pastoral teaching. Next,
we shall go on to give some examples of this bad pastoral
teaching as contained in Gaudium et Spes and in doctrinal
documents.
From
these examples we shall see how Vatican II's pastoral teaching
always articulates its two basic policy lines and how they
are connected, that is: 1) the clerical aggiornamento
(or updating) in all of its components to be in line
with modern, contemporary culture in all of its forms-humanistic,
scientific, technical, artistic, etc.-, 2) the
"ecumenical" collaboration of priests and faithful
with the so-called "separated brethren," with
other religions, with all men, not in order to convert them
to the one true faith, but to ally with them on behalf of
mankind's progress and unity.
For
the rest, ecumenism, clearly understood in the sense of
article 8 of Lumen Gentium (§8), and of paragraphs
1-4 of Unitatis Redintegratio, proclaimed as true
and proper the general principle of the pastoral teaching
in UR (§24):
It
is the urgent wish of this Holy Council that the measures
undertaken by the sons of the Catholic Church should develop
in conjunction with those of our separated brethren so that
no obstacle be put in the ways of divine Providence and
no preconceived judgments impair the future inspirations
of the Holy Spirit.
This
invitation to permanent symbiosis with heretics and schismatics
was naturally accepted and put into action. This practical
implementation allows us to assert that the ecumenical degeneration
in the celebration of worship and in pastoral activity that
are today so widely diffused have their roots in the Second
Vatican Council itself and not in the so-called
"post-Conciliar period."
Errors
in pastoral teaching concern the following of which we will
treat separately later in this series: 1) the
interpretation of the meaning and significance of the contemporary
world; 2) aspects of the Sacred Liturgy; 3)
aspects in the study and teaching of doctrine; 4)
the formation of religious and seminarians; the
office and duties of bishops and priests; 5) the
formation of and directives given to missionaries; 6)
directives given to the lay apostolate; 7)
the aggiornamento in education.
So,
let us now move on to speak of the first three doctrinal
errors of Vatican II, beginning with its errors concerning
ideas of Tradition and Catholic truth.
1) Errors Concerning the Ideas of Tradition and of Catholic
Truth
>Vatican
II sports an erroneous concept of SacreS Tradition as a
complex of teaching, thanks to which
as
the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly
moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until
the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her
(Dei Verbum§8).
This
is to make it sound as though Tradition, which guards the
deposit of faith from the time of the Apostles' preaching,
does not already possess "the fullness
of divine truth!" In the reading of the above, one
is led to believe there might be something else to be added
or that what is already there can be modified.
This
idea of the Church being in "incessant tension"
with the "fullness of divine truth" openly contradicts
the Church's idea of the "deposit of faith" (I
Tim. 6:20). In turn, this error is connected to "subjectivism"-the
signature of modern thinking-typified by the "New Theology,"
of which the reigning idea is that everything is always
moving in a continual upward progression, and that absolute
truth does not exist, rather, only the endless tending of
a subject toward a truth whose endpoint is himself.
>Further,
Vatican II teaches the incredible assertion, contrary to
common sense, that all of Tradition, should be subjected
to a "continual reform."
Thus
if, in various times and circumstances, there have been
deficiencies in moral conduct or in church discipline,
or even in the way that church teaching has been formulated-to
be carefully distinguished from the deposit of faith itself-these
can and should be set right at the opportune moment (UR
§6; Gaudium et Spes [hereafter GS]
§62).
This
last statement, proclaimed in the vernacular version of
John XXIII's October 11, 1962 Inaugural Address and which
Pope Paul VI confirmed to the letter, is a principle condemned
by St. Pius X (Pascendi §11; Lamentabili§§63,64}
and Pius XII (Humani Generis) .
>The
following proposition, professed by the Council to justify
religious liberty, is completely false in relation to the
truth of Catholicism, since divine truth surpasses the capacity
of our intellect, and cannot be believed without the help
of Grace.
[T]
his Vatican Council likewise professes its belief that
it is upon the human conscience that these obligations
fall and exert their binding force. The truth cannot impose
itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it makes
its entrance into the mind at once quietly and with power
(Dignitatis Humanae [hereafter DH], §1).
The
Church has always taught that faith is a gift of God. Moreover,
this assertion negates the consequences of original sin
in the intellect and will, because of which they are wounded
and weakened and therefore prone to errors and deception.
2) Errors Concerning the Holy Church and the Blessed
Virgin Mary
>Vatican
II teaches a false notion of the Holy Church in its error
known as the "subsistit in." Due to this
error, the concept of the Church is no longer that of the
one, true Church of Christ as was always taught. According
to its bold assertion the "Church of Christ" subsists
in the Catholic Church and also "through God's
goodness" in "multiple elements of sanctification
and truth" which are outside her (LG §8; DH§1;
UR§3).
Contrary
to the Faith, these statements amount to affirming that
there can be salvation of souls outside the Catholic Church.
Therefore, the Catholic Church is no longer the unique
means of salvation. Thus, too, the communities of heretics
and schismatics are also "instruments of salvation"
(f/R§3), despite their "deficiencies," because
"the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using
them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from
the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church"
(UR §3).
Still
left to the Catholic Church is that it is "the all-embracing
means of salvation" since it is "the general means
of salvation" (ibid). Therefore, the Church
finds herself demoted from being the sole means of salvation
to being just "a general means"-a very obscure
phrase. Due to these statements, the Catholic Church now
provides "the all-embracing means of salvation"
yet, it provides only the fullness of means and not
the only means. This means that, in the mind of the
Second Vatican Council, there are means said to be less
full which confer salvation. But salvation in itself cannot
be "less full," since there is no idea of being
"half-saved." Due to these less full means being
now found among the brethren termed "separated"
and due to their enjoying the Holy Spirit's assistance,
salvation can be obtained through them not as individuals
but in terms of their being separated communities of heretics
and schismatics.
We
find ourselves faced with a manifest theological error,
since the "separated" communities are precisely
so because they have refused the Holy Spirit's help in correcting
their own errors which have led them to be separated. The
Council's new doctrine is also incoherent at the level of
logic because it is incomprehensible how means of salvation
which contain "deficiencies" (and are thus less
than those of the Catholic Church) can give the same salvation
offered by the Catholic Church. Unequal means would have
to correspond to unequal results, not the same
result! [See Sidebar "Note on Dominus Jesus
',"— Ed.]
>The
obscure notion of the "Church of Christ" as "Trinitarian
mystery," which is the obscure Trinitarian ecclesiology
according to which a succession takes place from the Church
of the Father to the Church of the Son, and then to the
Church of the Holy Spirit (LG §§2-4), a notion which
is unknown in the deposit of Faith. According to it, apparently
the result of a deformation of a passage of St. Irenaeus
(Adv. Haer. Ill, 24, 1), they openly profess a rejuvenation
and renewal of the Church by the work of the Holy Spirit,
as if we were in a final third age of the Church (LG
§4). This perspective seems to reaffirm the errors of
Joachim of Floris (d. 1202) condemned by the Fourth Lateran
Council.
>An
erroneous notion of collegiality. This idea is juridically
abnormal because it recognizes, contrary to tradition and
the Church's constitution, two subjects of the supreme power
of jurisdiction: the Sovereign Pontiff and the College of
Bishops with, at its head, the Pope, although only the latter
can exercise it freely (LG §22; also Nota Praevia).
Moreover, this erroneous collegiality entails the de
facto disappearance of the personal responsibility of
each bishop in the government of his diocese, and its replacement
by the collective responsibility of the episcopal conferences
(Christus Dominus [CD] §37), which now also are ascribed
legislative powers (CD §38), and even a wide autonomy
in numerous domains traditionally reserved to the exclusive
competence of the Holy See.
>Vatican
II presents a gravely erroneous and ambiguous representation
of the traditional definition of the Catholic Church as
the Mystical Body of Christ. This is especially clear in
LG, which is dedicated to this point:
In
the human nature united to Himself the Son of God, by
overcoming death through His own death and resurrection,
redeemed man and remolded him into a new creature (cf.
Gal. 6:15; II Cor. 5:17) (Z,G§7).
The
idea here seems to express the Redemption as already having
taken place for each man (!) and that from that moment it
is declared that man was transformed "into a new creature,"
not because he believed in Christ, not because he was converted
and became a Catholic with the help of the Holy Ghost, not
by his faith supported by grace (as clearly stated in Gal.
6:15 and II Cor. 5:17 but improperly quoted by the Council),
but through the fact, per se, of Christ's Incarnation,
sacrifice, and even His Resurrection. Therefore, the "Mystical
Body" will be made up of "new creatures,"
who are considered to have been remolded in this way. This
is the error of the objective and universal redemption,
the battering ram of the "New Theology." It makes
a total abstraction of the roles of free will, faith, and
works in obtaining salvation. Obviously, the aim of this
concept is to assimilate the "Mystical Body of Christ"
into humanity (Z,G§1).
>Another
false notion of Vatican II is that of the "Church,"
which is newly conceived as "the people of God"
and no longer as "the Mystical Body of Christ"
(LG §§9-13) which is definitively more exclusive.
On the one hand, the new definition takes the part for
the whole, meaning that it takes the "people
of God," mentioned in I Pet. 2:10, for the totality
of the Church. This is a radical twist lending itself
to a strictly "democratic" and "communitarian"
vision of the Church herself, a vision alien to Catholic
Tradition but close to the thinking and meaning of Protestant
heretics. On the other hand, the hierarchy is
included in the idea of "people," and so
are defined simply as "members of the people of God"
(Z,G§13). This is an unusual and indefensible "communitarian"
perspective. According to this new perspective, the hierarchy
is dumbed down and made to seem to participate in the Mystical
Body of Christ along with "the people."
This
false notion of "the people of God" is superimposed
on the orthodox idea of the "Mystical Body."
In this new conception, the hierarchy now participates in
the "collective" as represented by the "people
of God." In this new view, the priest loses his authentic
meaning because he becomes a mere function of
the "people of God" as a whole. This function
is exercised under two forms: 1) the "common
priesthood of the faithful," and 2) the "ministerial"
or "hierarchic" priesthood, that is, the authentic
priesthood of priests.
>Vatican
II obscures the idea of the Church's holiness, which belongs
to the deposit of faith.
Similarly,
the Church encompasses with her love all those who are
poor and who suffer, the image of the poor and suffering
founder. She does all in her power to relieve their need
and in them she strives to serve Christ. Christ, "holy,
innocent and undefiled" (Heb. 7:26) knew nothing
of sin (II Cor. 5:21), but came only to expiate the sins
of the people (cf. Heb. 2:17). The Church, however,
clasping sinners to her bosom, at once holy and always
in need of purification, follows constantly the path of
penance and renewal (LG §8 [emphasis added]).
This
is an obvious theological error, since it is the sinner
who is in need of purification, not the Church
(!), thanks to whom the sinner obtains it. Holiness
and perfection belong to the Catholic Church in as much
as it is the Mystical Body of Christ, founded by Him and
governed through the intermediary of the Holy Ghost,
that is, always safeguarded by the Church through the deposit
of Faith and the Sacraments. For us, these have a religious,
metaphysical, and theological value, which the faults of
Churchmen or the faithful cannot, by definition, damage.
Therefore, it is completely erroneous to insist
that
those who approach the sacrament of Penance obtain pardon
from the mercy of God for the offences committed against
Him and are at the same time reconciled with the Church
which they have wounded by their sins (LG §11).
It
is also erroneous to insist that "the Church on earth
is endowed already with a sanctity that is real though imperfect...."
(LG §48) because of sin, which continually wounds her. This
is wrong to say because sin offends God, but wounds and
therefore damages only whoever commits it. Punishment only
applies to the sinner since judgment is for the individual.
It is not in the deposit of Faith that the Catholic Church
herself can be "wounded" by the sins of her members.
>By
its man-centeredness, Vatican II has deformed the notion
of "sin."
For
sin brought man to a lower state, forcing him away from
the completeness that is his to attain (GS§13).
In
other words, sin prevents man from attaining his "fullness."
Rather, it should say that, sin "prevents him from
attaining his salvation." The error promotes
the belief that man's "fullness" and
the absence of contradictions within himself axe the
principal values and, moreover, are elements of the idea
of sin. On the contrary, the Church's perennial teaching
is that sin is an offense committed against God because
of which we merit legitimate punishment, including eternal
damnation. This truth of the Faith was not recalled in any
of the Council's texts.
>There
is an attribution of a new mission to the Holy See-to bring
about human unity-which does not correspond to anything
ever taught before in the Catholic Church. LG§1 asserts:
Since
the Church, in Christ, is in the nature of sacrament-a
sign and instrument, that is, of communion with God and
unity among all men [emphasis added] -she here purposes,
for the benefit of the faithful and of the whole world,
to set forth, as clearly as possible, and in the tradition
laid down by earlier Councils, her own nature and universal
mission. The condition of the modern world lends greater
urgency to this duty of the Church; for, while men of
the present day are drawn ever more closely together by
social, technical, and cultural bonds, it still remains
for them to achieve full unity in Christ.
This
is not surprising, since Article 42 of GS says "the
encouragement of unity is in harmony with the deepest nature
of the Church's mission..." and then quotes the above
passage from LG to support itself.
But
this does not mean unity in service of the salvation of
souls, a unity that is therefore attained through conversion
to Catholicism. Rather, this unity seems to result merely
from the "intimate union with God" of the entire
human race as such. This idea was introduced into the Council's
texts thanks to a heterodox reinterpretation, typical of
the "New Theology," of the dogmas of the Incarnation
and the Redemption. Those texts were turned upside down
to the extent of pushing them aside in order to put into
place the idea of the so-called "objective" Redemption
being realized, thanks to the Incarnation, in all men, independently
of their conscience and will, as if they were "anonymous"
Christians.
But
the Church's mission is the one that Our Lord gave her:
"Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptising them..."
(Mt. 28:19). Thus, the Church's "intimate mission"
is to convert the greatest possible number of souls to Christ
before the Parousia, without caring about bringing about
the unity of the human race, a chimeric ideal, and one that
is intrinsically an ti- Christian because it is a form of
the divinization of man, exalting him and gazing upon him,
an ideal imported from Illuminist philosophy and piously
professed by Freemasonry.
>Vatican
II tells us "the Blessed Virgin advanced in her pilgrimage
of faith" (LG §58), as if-for one could understand
her "pilgrimage of faith" in this way-from the
Annunciation, she did not know that Jesus was the Son of
God, consubstantial with the Father, the prophesied Messiah
now announced.
>The
Council documents teach another gravely inadequate idea
of the Church, reducing her to just one sociological, descriptive,
and simple aspect, which is summarized in this excerpt:
The
Church also claims freedom for herself as a society of
men with the right to live in civil society in accordance
with the demands of the Christian faith (DH§13).
This
leads to complete amnesia of the fact that the Church has
always been denned as a perfect society by nature and by
law due to Her divine institution and exalted end:
And
just as the end at which the Church aims is by far the
noblest of ends, so is its authority the most exalted
of all authority, nor can it be looked upon as inferior
to the civil power, or in any manner dependent upon it
(Immortale Dei, Leo XIII).
Vatican
II guarded against reaffirming this traditional doctrine
of the Church's indirect power over civil society and the
State.
3) Errors Concerning the Holy Mass and Sacred Liturgy
>Vatican
II officially adopted the obscurantist idea of the "Paschal
mystery," the battering ram of the "New Theology."
Redemption is realized principally "in the paschal
mystery of the passion, resurrection and ascension"
of Christ (Sacrosanctum Concilium [hereafter SC]
§5). Therefore, redemption is no longer principally
the result from the Crucifixion's value as an expiatory
sacrifice by which divine justice was satisfied. Moreover,
the Holy Mass is identified with the "Paschal Mystery."
The Council declared that the Church, from its beginning,
was always brought together in an assembly "to celebrate
the Paschal mystery" (SC§6) and that she "celebrates
the Paschal mystery every seventh day"(SC§106)
Next,
Baptism is treated. By baptism, "men are grafted onto
the Paschal mystery of Christ" (SC§6), and not that
it causes them to enter into the Holy Church, as if the
"Paschal mystery" were the same thing as
the Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of Christ. It is
a vague, indeterminate, irrational definition that (precisely
because of these characteristics) permits altering the meaning
of the Redemption and the Mass, thereby hiding the sacrificial
and expiatory nature of the latter behind emphasis on the
Resurrection and the Ascension-on the Glorious Christ instead
of the Suffering Christ-contrary to what was affirmed at
Trent.
>The
Second Vatican Council is guilty of error in its unclear
and incomplete definition of the Holy Mass as "a memorial
of [our Lord's] death and resurrection..." with death
and resurrection placed on the same level and without the
least mention of the dogma of transubstantiation or of the
character of the Mass itself as a propitiatory sacrifice
(5'C§§47).
Because
of this silence, this definition falls again into the category
solemnly condemned by Pope Pius VI as being "pernicious,
unfaithful to the explanation of Catholic truth on the dogma
of the transubstantiation, favorable to heretics" (Auctorem
Fidei). It also introduces a false concept of the Holy
Mass, a concept which served as the basis for the new liturgy
desired by the Council, thanks to which the errors of the
"New Theology" were delivered to the faithful.
The
Protestant taint of this definition devolves even more clearly
in Article 106 of SC:
....the
Church celebrates the Paschal mystery every seventh day,
which day is appropriately called the Lord's day or Sunday.
For on this day Christ's faithful are bound to come together
into one place. They should listen to the word of God
and take part in the Eucharist, thus calling to mind the
passion, resurrection, and glory of the Lord Jesus, and
giving thanks to God who "has begotten them again,
through
the resurrection of Christ from the dead, unto a living
hope" (I Pet. 1:3).
Beyond
a shadow of a doubt, the original Latin text shows
more clearly than the English that, according to SC,
the Holy Mass's end is memorial and praise.
For more proof of this prevailing mentality, see also Ad
Gentes Divinitus (§14): catechumens participate in the
Holy Mass, meaning that they "celebrate with all the
people of God the memorial of the death of the Lord"
in which the Holy Mass is simply the memorial of the death
and resurrection of Christ celebrated by all Christian
people. There is not the least mention of the renewed
Sacrifice of the Cross offered in an unbloody way for the
expiation and pardon of our sins.
It
should be noted here that already in these Articles there
is the definition of the Mass that will be again vigorously
stated in the deadly Article 7 of the 1969 Institutio
Generalis of the new Roman Missal. This was a definition
which, at the time, elicited protests from many of the faithful
and priests, including the famous positions taken by Cardinals
Bacci and Ottaviani because of these demonstrably Protestant
words of heretical character: "The Lord's Supper is
the assembly or meeting of the People of God, met together
with a priest presiding, to celebrate the Memorial of the
Lord."
Compare
this definition with the orthodox one contained in the Catechism
of Saint Pius X:
No.
159. What is the Holy Mass? The Holy
Mass is the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ
which, under the species of bread and wine, are offered
by the priest to God on the altar in memory and renewal
of the Sacrifice of the Cross.
>The
spirit of Vatican II is to elevate the Eucharistic assembly,
presided over by the priest, to being the center of the
visible Church:
Therefore
the eucharistic celebration is the center of the assembly
of the faithful over which the priest presides. Hence
priests teach the faithful to offer the divine victim
to God the Father in the sacrifice of the Mass and with
the victim to make an offering of their whole life (Presbyterorum
Ordinis§5}.
Notice,
therefore, the function of the priest in the Holy Mass is
reduced to that of teaching the faithful to offer the divine
victim and themselves in union with that victim. Does this
mean that the priest must "teach [the faithful] to
offer the divine victim" and remain silent about the
fact that, above all, the priest makes the
offering in persona Christian behalf of sinful men
for the expiation of their sins?!
Also
manifested here is the idea of the concelebration
of the priest and the people, expressly condemned
by the pre-Conciliar Magisterium. This is an idea based
on the Protestant false conception that the faithful are
strictly all priests of the New Testament by reason of baptism,
from which it follows that there can be no real distinction
between the "priesthood of the faithful" and the
"hierarchic priesthood."
>Vatican
II is guilty of the specific meaning attributed to the "Liturgy
of the Word," a meaning not limited to preaching and
the sermon, but considered capable of realizing in itself
Christ's presence in the Holy Mass! Thus, SC states:
"[Christ] is present in his word since it is he who
speaks when the holy scriptures are read in Church"
(§7). The "word" is one of the sensible signs
by
which man's sanctification under the guise of sign perceptible
by the senses and its accomplishment in ways appropriate
to each to these signs...(SC §7; also see SC §10).
And
so:
...[T]he
preaching of the Word is required for the sacramental
ministry itself, since the sacraments are sacraments of
faith, drawing their origin and nourishment from the Word.
This is of paramount importance in the case of the liturgy
of the Word within the celebration of Mass where there
is an inseparable union of the proclamation of the Lord's
death and resurrection, the response of its hearers and
the offering of itself by which Christ confirmed the new
covenant in his blood. In this offering the faithful share
both by their sacrificial sentiments and by the reception
of the sacrament. (Presbytewrum Ordinis§4}.
From
this passage as well as from the previously quoted ones,
Scripture
seen in this way is no longer meant for the instruction
of faith, a faith from which mystical experience can
flow. Now Scripture is meant to produce mystical
experience, an experience which is supposed to nourish
knowledge of the faith ([emphasis added] The Problem
of the Liturgical Reform: A Theological and Liturgical
Study, p.66. Angelus Press. Price: $9.95).
This
is an irrational concept of Protestant origin and does not
conform to the deposit of Faith. It leads to thinking of
the Holy Mass as merely spiritual nourishment of the collective
of the faithful.
>The
Second Vatican Council devalued the "private Mass"
which the Holy Church always allowed, and which was celebrated
without the presence and active participation of the faithful,
but was individual and quasi-private. This devaluation was
expressly disapproved^ Pope Pius XII in Mediator
Dei, yet Vatican II affirmed it:
It
must be emphasized that rites which are meant to be celebrated
in common, with the faithful present and actively participating,
should as far as possible be celebrated in that way rather
than by an individual and quasi-privately.
This
applies with special force to the celebration of Mass
(even though every Mass has of itself a public and social
nature) and to the administration of the sacraments (SC,
§27).
Martin
Luther was particularly hostile to the "private Mass"
and attributed his fervor in opposing it to the Devil's
inspiration.
>Vatican
II promoted the adaptation of worship to secular culture,
to the different traditions and temperaments of people,
to their language, music, and art, through creativity and
liturgical experimentation (SC §§37-40,90,119) and
through simplification of the rite itself (^C §§21,34).
This was against the constant teaching of the Magisterium
according to which it was the peoples' cultures that must
adapt to the exigencies of the Catholic rite, with nothing
ever having been conceded to creativity or experimentation
or to any idea of men's temperaments in any given time in
history.
>The
Second Vatican Council introduced the novel" unheard-of,
and extraordinary competence attributed to episcopal conferences
in liturgical matters, including a broad faculty for experimenting
with new forms of worship (,SC §§22,39,40), as against the
constant teaching of the Magisterium, which always reserved
all competence in that area to the Sovereign Pontiff, and
was always hostile to all innovation in the liturgical domain
(Inter Gravissimas, Gregory XVI, Feb. 3, 1832.).
Canonicus
Translated
by Suzanne M. Rini and edited by Fr. Kenneth Novak. All
quotes from Vatican Council II and post-Conciliar documents
are taken from Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and
Post-Conciliar Documents, Harry J. Costello and Rev.
Austin Flannery, O.P. (Costello Publishing Co., Inc.,
1975). All Scripture references are from the Douay-Rheims
Bible (TAN Books and Publishers).
Courtesy of the Angelus
Press, Kansas City, MO 64109
translated from the Italian
Fr. Du Chalard
Via Madonna degli Angeli, 14
Italia 00049 Velletri (Roma)
March
2003 Volume XXVI, Number 3 |
