FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: In one sentence Pope Paul VI shows VII to be problematic...
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
"Sacred scripture is of the greatest importance in the celebration of the liturgy." - Pope Paul VI, Sacrosanctum Concilium, 24
Source: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_counc...um_en.html

Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, is one of the constitutions of the Second Vatican Council. It is no wonder that the SSPX are opposed to this Council.
I'm lost.

1. Sacred Scripture is important, are you saying the statement is a problem?

2. If it's in SC, it's not a direct quote by Paul VI.  Paul VI didn't write SC.

3. Do the SSPX oppose that statement?

Do you interpret "of the greatest importance" as "is the most important thing"?  Because that's not what it means.
Huh? I don't get what's wrong with that statement.
The TLM consists to a great amount of scripture verses. The problem is that Archbishop Bugnini and his companions did away with that and replaced it with something they made up.
Not to put words in his mouth, but I think the OP might have read the passage like this:

Sacrosanctum Concilium, 24 Wrote:"Sacred scripture is of the greatest importance in the celebration of the liturgy."

If we're to take "the greatest" as a qualifier independent of anything else (to rephrase:  "Sacred scripture is an important component of..."), which is how newyorkcatholic and Freudentaumel appear to have read it, that's one thing... but as a relative qualifier (to rephrase:  "Sacred scripture is more important than..."), which is how it seems ZekarjaSG read it, the passage becomes problematic - apparently giving the impression that Sacred Scripture > Sacred Tradition.

Oh, V2...
I understood it to mean that the Eucharist was of lesser importance compared to the Scripture which is of greatest importance in the Liturgy. I believe that, in the Liturgy, the Eucharist is of the greatest importance.

I must have misunderstood what was meant by that. Please forgive me. :(
(04-02-2012, 02:00 PM)ZekarjaSG Wrote: [ -> ]I understood it to mean that the Eucharist was of lesser importance compared to the Scripture which is of greatest importance in the Liturgy. I believe that, in the Liturgy, the Eucharist is of the greatest importance.

I must have misunderstood what was meant by that. Please forgive me. :(

Don't worry.  It's not like you can actually read that quote and make heads or tails of it anyways.  Could mean one thing, could mean another thing-- thus is modernism.
(04-02-2012, 02:00 PM)ZekarjaSG Wrote: [ -> ]I understood it to mean that the Eucharist was of lesser importance compared to the Scripture which is of greatest importance in the Liturgy. I believe that, in the Liturgy, the Eucharist is of the greatest importance.

I must have misunderstood what was meant by that. Please forgive me. :(

I think in general "of the greatest importance" just means "very important."  But I haven't checked the Latin.

Of the many problems I have with SC, this isn't really one of them.
(04-02-2012, 02:02 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-02-2012, 02:00 PM)ZekarjaSG Wrote: [ -> ]I understood it to mean that the Eucharist was of lesser importance compared to the Scripture which is of greatest importance in the Liturgy. I believe that, in the Liturgy, the Eucharist is of the greatest importance.

I must have misunderstood what was meant by that. Please forgive me. :(

Don't worry.  It's not like you can actually read that quote and make heads or tails of it anyways.  Could mean one thing, could mean another thing-- thus is modernism.

This can be problematic, for we have people like Fr. Brian Harrison who try to interpret it as best as possible, yet is this the manner in which its authors intended it to be understood?  ???

Compare the latest encyclicals with pre-VII stuff, and the difference in clarity is amazing.
(04-02-2012, 01:28 PM)tmw89 Wrote: [ -> ]....giving the impression that Sacred Scripture > Sacred Tradition.

Oh, V2...

Sorry but this is semantically null. Even V II reaffirmed the Traditional teaching of the Church on this point in Dei verbum, where, in the 10th paragraph, this statement is made:

Vatican II Wrote:Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort.
But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.
It is clear, therefore, that Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God's most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.
(04-02-2012, 03:16 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-02-2012, 02:02 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-02-2012, 02:00 PM)ZekarjaSG Wrote: [ -> ]I understood it to mean that the Eucharist was of lesser importance compared to the Scripture which is of greatest importance in the Liturgy. I believe that, in the Liturgy, the Eucharist is of the greatest importance.

I must have misunderstood what was meant by that. Please forgive me. :(

Don't worry.  It's not like you can actually read that quote and make heads or tails of it anyways.  Could mean one thing, could mean another thing-- thus is modernism.

This can be problematic, for we have people like Fr. Brian Harrison who try to interpret it as best as possible, yet is this the manner in which its authors intended it to be understood?  ???

Compare the latest encyclicals with pre-VII stuff, and the difference in clarity is amazing.

That's what I'm saying.  I'm telling the OP not to worry about "mis-interpreted" because it's set up that way.  Ambiguity, the mark of the council, the banner of modernism.
Pages: 1 2 3