A couple of thoughts on Vatican II

[maurin]

So he spoke Ebonics?

Are you implying that God, sicut erat in principio, et nunc et semper, et in saecula saeculorum, does not?

You are very comical. Very comical.

 

[ProVobis]

So he spoke Ebonics?

Or English, for that matter?

 

[choy]

Errr… the Son Of God couldn’t speak the language of the occupiers of His adopted country?

whether He can or cannot may be besides the point
i don’t think there is a need for him to. Aramaic is primarily the language used and Greek would be the more universal language.

remember, Jesus shared in our humanity, which would mean he would be confined to humanity as well for the most part. otherwise He wouldn’t die on the cross. so yes, Jesus on earth may be limited in learning languages as well

 

[ProVobis]

So he spoke Ebonics?

Or the crazy English we have to listen to, for that matter?

 

[choy]

An interesting idea.

What would have happened if the Jews had unanimously accepted Jesus? Probably not the Crucifixion, (which act has reverberated throughout the Cosmos and into eternity) and therefore, Christianity as we know it.

Those who were disposed the hear Him, heard Him, I suppose.

good point
but i think Jesus would have still died one way or another. probably directly by Roman hands, if the Jews accepted Him. or if the Jews accepted Him after the resurrection. the problem is that even after Pentecost, many Jews rejected Jesus

 

[ProVobis]

So he spoke Ebonics?

Or the crazy English we have to listen to, for that matter?

 

[ProVobis]

but all human language before and after His time on earth?

This, of course, extends to all body language and the distinct vocabulary set of every single individual. How we individually understand things is also known to Him.

 

[Redratfish]

1. The Sacred Language of the Mass: Vatican II truncated the use of the sacred language. He describes the use of sacred language as an integral part of the experience of the sacred, not just the viewing of it. In Buddhism and Hinduism, repetitive chanting that borders on sub-audial droning (I actually really do enjoy listening to Buddhist mantras from time to time) creates a psychological change in the brainwaves of those hearing the mantras, let alone those participating in them. The use of ancient Hebrew in Judaism and old Arabic in Islam maintains a cultural continuity with the religious culture’s past that not only reinforces the monumental sense of history the congregation has, it also provides a written record that cannot be accused of falsification in translation–a problem the USCCB is currently dealing with in regards to the English translation of the Mass. Secondly, the discontinuation of the sacred language destroys the universal access one has to the Mass. If I had a Latin Missal in 1949, I could travel to France, Russia, China, Brazil, or anywhere in the world and attend Mass and be able to understand what was happening in the liturgy (I might not understand the homily, but the liturgy is of course the most important part). Now this is impossible unless I know the local language. My access to the Mass has been deeply impacted, and considering the slight variations in the Mass structure between here and a parish fifty miles away, I can only imagine what I would have to acclimatize myself to if I were to go to Russia and seek to attend Mass.
2. The movement of the Tabernacle: When the Tabernacle was the focal point of the altar, and the altar was in such a position that even the Priest was facing it, the focus of the Mass was understood. The personage of Christ being present in that space, and the sacred majesty of that space, was understood. The entire congregation could direct its prayers and intentions to the one place where the connection between the earthly and divine was most manifest. Growing up, my parents’ parish had maintained the old altar and maintained the Tabernacle’s housing there while constructing a new altar in front of it. I had a visual reference with which to focus so that my mind did not wander while I was praying.

1. I don’t know about you, but I don’t speak latin. Sure, I can follow along in a Latin mass, but do I understand the language? No. Do I think that the words itself make the Mass holier? No. Quite frankly I don’t care what the Islamics or jews do. I am neither, their ways of life are not mine. In terms of being able to go to any mass and understand, think about it. As I said before, I do not speak latin. I can follow a latin, but not understand a word of what they said. Which do you think helps the normal Church goer for that country? Speaking in their own language, one that they understand? Or one that they can follow along to? Do you think that the 5 visitors a week from another country mind if you speak in your native language? If I went to Spain, I couldn’t care less if they speak Spanish.
2. I agree, my Church has the tabernacle as the focal point, and I dislike that it was moved. that much I will give you.

 

[Redratfish]

(continued)
3. Bishops’ and Priests’ negligence and ambivalence about Church law: I have read dozens of stories on these boards concerning Priests and Bishops that are rather ignorant if not negligent in their knowledge of Church Law. People genuinely and rightly concerned about the validity of their marriage, baptism, etc. or even just the state of their immortal soul turn to the only people they trust to be able to answer their questions and they are told “not to worry about it.” WHAT!? Most of these ordained men hold advanced degrees in theology and canon law. Pairing the two, they should understand and be sympathetic to the concern these people have. Especially concerning the validity of a sacrament such as baptism, a Priest who disregards a baptism that could truly be invalid will incur mortal sin by continuing to administer the Eucharist to the person in question who will also be incurring sin because their confessions have all been invalid. And a Priest will tell them not to worry about it? I do not doubt that such Priests existed before Vatican II, but I refuse to believe that it was as widespread a problem. The rigors of the Church’s training and the insistence on examining one’s immortal soul far outstripped the same training and the same self-examination we have today. The mystery of the Church has largely become something we can pay lip service to without truly experiencing. And the ambivalence of the clergy is a big part of it.

In short, I am highly critical that Mass has become a chore for the great multitude of Catholics that simply attend out of habit anymore. I am critical of the Priests and Bishops that allow this to go on and actually foster this atmosphere. In such an atmosphere, a community cannot grow, it can only wither. And we see this every day. Cardinal Ratzinger, in his book “Salt of the Earth” alluded to his fear that Catholicism is on the retreat and will soon be found only in small pockets putting up fierce resistance to the evil forces assailing her. This is not only because of a renewed attack against the Church by the media, the politicians, and the atheists in general, it is because of a cancer within the Church known as ambivalence that in the cases of the shepherds of the flock is akin to criminal negligence. This all has its roots in the problems that arose after Vatican II. I commend Vatican II for a great many things, but all of them pale in comparison to the harm the Council did. Unfortunately, it has taken forty years to get the die-hard liberals out and get the work underway to correct these problems that should have been corrected thirty years ago.

1. I never thought I would have to use my Catholic abuse defense on a fellow Catholic…

You’re not using common sense at all. How can you let around say 2 percent of priests affect what you think of the universal Church? Thats stupid, and insensitive. Thats like saying that all of America is bad, because some Senators are bad. Does that make sense to you? If it does, then you need to move to another country. Some priests are stupid in their knowledge of the teachings of the Church. Some always have. You know why you don’t think there were this many before? Because you weren’t looking for it. Vatican 2 did not make priests stupider. I don’t follow your logic at all.

Calling me a die hard liberal won’t help either. Im not a liberal, and hate liberal Catholics. Using logic, and understanding does not make someone a liberal. By your observations, I see no harm done to the Church, other than the tabernacles being moved.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

remember, Jesus shared in our humanity, which would mean he would be confined to humanity as well for the most part. otherwise He wouldn’t die on the cross. so yes, Jesus on earth may be limited in learning languages as well

Only in his human nature but not in his divine person.

 

[ProVobis]

Sure, I can follow along in a Latin mass, but do I understand the language? No.

Not a matter of understanding the language. I wish I could understand English sometimes. My interest should be in understanding concepts and ideas. Words and vocabulary are worthless in themselves. Whether it’s philosophy, mathematics, or words of Christ, it’s more important that I understand what is meant. If you can’t understand what He meant, you won’t understand it in any language. I could say to someone “like the kingdom of heaven” in 50 different languages and that person may not be able to understand it. Often priests try to explain something in their own words, and still not everyone understands them. Other times, they resort to using other tactics like chalkboards and people understand the concepts better. (So why is there not a Mass in chalkboard vernacular? But I digress.) Language is only a tool, sometimes it works, oftentimes it doesn’t. My cats don’t care whether I tell them “dinnertime” in English or Polish, what’s it to them? They know what I mean, however, by opening up a can of cat food and they can associate whatever word I use to food. Same thing on a different level should occur on the liturgical level, I would think. The Mass was translated to us in some vernacular. Please provide the evidence to show that more understood it better.

 

[doanli]

Except then why do so many people who’ve grown up with guitar Masses go to the TLM now? You cannot equivocate what is objectively correct with nostalgia.

I am one of those who grew up with guitar Masses , love the TLMs, and try to attend one whenever and wherever I can.

 

[Ockham]

i don’t think there

The problem with most of your posts is they are your uneducated opinion. The Catholic Church has already done the thinking. When you get into personal interpretation you are making the same error as the Protestants.

Example: in your opinion Jesus Christ could not understand Latin.

 

[Abu]

IntegraCatholic
The pope…could even remove the Church’s obligation to assist at Mass on Sundays (perhaps, reduce it to simply Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost, or something along those lines).

IHeartAquinas
I commend Vatican II for a great many things, but all of them pale in comparison to the harm the Council did.

This is the sort of disinformation that shows no regard for truth. The statement that a Pope “could remove the Church’s obligation to assist at Mass on Sundays” against the third Commandment, is puerile.

Face reality with Vatican II: “It must be stated that Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent, namely, the Pope and the College of Bishops in communion with him, and that also with regard to its contents, Vatican II is in strictest continuity with both previous councils and incorporates their texts word for word in decisive points…” (The Ratzinger Report, p 28).

The crisis in Christ’s Church is due to the modernist errors abroad before Vatican II, whose promoters tried to take over the Council, and are referred to in *Christ Denied *TAN, 1982, by Fr Paul Wickens.

Before Vatican II, by May of 1964, the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) had approved the sex education program put forward by 2 Swedish delegates, and the whole sordid conglomerate is exposed in Claire Chambers The SIECUS Circle, 1977. The power structure exerts pressure on local schools and the gullible public for its school sex education program. The network promotes population control, legalised abortion, homosexuality, pornography, sensitivity training and drugs. (p xv). We surely know how dissenters have spread these into the People of God.

The '60’s saw the rise of anarchy in the USA, flower power etc., with much that was good in society decried and destroyed with nothing worthy to replace it. The new religion of the so-called Enlightenment was welcomed by selfists.

The degradation of sacred order, at the invitation of nuns, occurred from 1967 in the USA through humanistic psychologists especially Carl Rogers, and I have heard one of his lieutenants, Dr J W Coulson in person, apologising for the grave harm caused. [See *The Emperor’s New Clothes by William Kirk Kilpatrick, 1985, p 149-150]. The destruction of whole Catholic school systems and religious orders occurred.

Then followed the disgraceful public dissent against *Humanae Vitae *by Karl Rahner and numerous dissenting theologians, Richard McBrien’s Catholicism (full of errors), the revolt of the Catholic universities and the bureaucratic/theological tail wagging the episcopal dog so to speak – coupled with lax or dissenting bishops this resulted in a grave crisis, which is worldwide with relativism, selfism and secularism. The seminaries were filled with dissenting formators.

So the idea that Vatican II was harmful or destructive is also puerile. It comes from disinformation as to what the Council taught and the harm done by those who subsequently constructed the false “spirit of Vatican II.”

 

[MarkK]

A couple of thoughts on Vatican II

For all the well he spoke on Vatcian II, former Cardinal Ratzinger also had this to say about Vatican II;

“The naive optimism of the Council and the self-exaltation of many who made and diseminated it justify in a disturbing way the most somber diagnoses of early churchmen about the danger of Councils. Not all valid Councils, after being tested by the facts of history, have shown themselves to be useful Councils; in the final analysis, all that was left of some was a great nothing.” " From a global perspective, one should say that the years of euphoria [of the post-conciliar era] were followed by a phase of disillusionment and crisis." - J. Ratzinger, Zehn Jahre Vaticanum II, Regensburg, 1976, in Rosino Gibellini, "Siamo d’ accordo sul concilio?, in Il Regno, 12/15/1984, p. 545.]

+++

 

[Abu]

Facing Reality
The present Pope places Vatican II in its rightful place
"I am convinced that the damage that we have incurred in these twenty years is due, not to the ‘true’ Council, but to the unleashing within the Church of latent polemical and centrifugal forces; and outside the Church it is due to the confrontation with a cultural revolution in the West: the success of the upper middle class, the new ‘tertiary bourgeoisie’, with its liberal-radical ideology of individualistic, rationalistic and hedonistic stamp. The cardinal exhorts all Catholics who wish to remain such “to return to the authentic texts of the original Vatican II.” The Ratzinger Report, Vittorio Messori, Ignatius, 1985, p 28-31].

Cardinal Ratzinger expressed the required fidelity to Vatican II as: “to defend the true tradition of the Church today is to defend the Council…And this today of the Church is the documents of Vatican II, without reservations that amputate them and without arbitrariness that distorts them.” (The Ratzinger Report, Ignatius Press, 1985, p 31).

Fr William Most examined ten legitimate changes at Vatican II and found not one was a reverse of doctrine. All gave answers to previously debated points. Fr Most concludes: “It is obvious then that Vatican II did not create a revolution in theology. There are no reversals of teaching at all, and some…are only a little different or stronger than previous teachings, but all are in the same direction.” Catholic Apologetics Today: Answers To Modern Critics, Fr William G Most, TAN, 1986 (p 200)].

 

[IntegraCatholic]

This is the sort of disinformation that shows no regard for truth. The statement that a Pope “could remove the Church’s obligation to assist at Mass on Sundays” against the third Commandment, is puerile.

The Third Commandment requires that one honor the Sabbath. We no longer do that. The only part of that commandment that seems to maintain is the obligation in justice to offer divine worship to God. The Church already changed the precept insofar as she changed the day of its observance. The question would be whether she could remove a weekly obligation. It seems that she could, but I would have to read more about that to be sure.

 

[edwest2]

Facing Reality
The present Pope places Vatican II in its rightful place
"I am convinced that the damage that we have incurred in these twenty years is due, not to the ‘true’ Council, but to the unleashing within the Church of latent polemical and centrifugal forces; and outside the Church it is due to the confrontation with a cultural revolution in the West: the success of the upper middle class, the new ‘tertiary bourgeoisie’, with its liberal-radical ideology of individualistic, rationalistic and hedonistic stamp. The cardinal exhorts all Catholics who wish to remain such “to return to the authentic texts of the original Vatican II.” The Ratzinger Report, Vittorio Messori, Ignatius, 1985, p 28-31].

Cardinal Ratzinger expressed the required fidelity to Vatican II as: “to defend the true tradition of the Church today is to defend the Council…And this today of the Church is the documents of Vatican II, without reservations that amputate them and without arbitrariness that distorts them.” (The Ratzinger Report, Ignatius Press, 1985, p 31).

snip

Thank you. This is entirely true and I ask my brothers and sisters in Christ to consider this: In the period from 1965 to 1968, forces within the Church and without were executing a coordinated attack. The great trust that so many of us Catholics held in our government, in our neighbors and even the media was about to be abused. Humanae Vitae was the document that had to be buried. Chaste and married life both had to be overcome by a massive poisoning of the public mind and through lies, distortions and manipulations.

From the full page ad that ran in the New York Times in 1968 that was against Humanae Vitae to the appearance of Adult Bookstores, topless bars, and the legalization of abortion. The ‘alternative lifestyle’ of cohabitation began. And some of us fell for it. Why?

We Were Not Taught How To Lie Or Manipulate People. Our trust was abused. When false ‘experts’ spoke, it was assumed by some, that they were telling the truth.

The anarchists, Hippies and radicals wanted to see the destruction of the family and the normal male-female relationship turned into ‘just sex.’

Wake up, my fellow Catholics. Understand what happened and why.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Abu]

Sunday participation in Holy Mass is mandatory for the able. The day of worship was changed to Sunday to honour the Resurrection of Jesus. It was an apostolic custom from the beginning (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor 16:2; Rev 1:10), later made ecclesiastical law for the universal Church.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

Right. The question is whether the Church can remove that obligation.