An overview of the Second Vatican Council - Vatican News
- Thread starter ralfyman
- Start date
- Status
FrancesP
New member
It is a positive thing that you are sharing Second Vatican Council articles that may bring some clarification to those who were born long after the event.
I was raised with Missal having Latin on one page and English on the facing page; and with Latin hymns, and singing them in the choir, during Mass and during Benediction. I still have the old hymnal, with cover missing, in a box.
I never became part of the Traditional versus the post-Vatican 2 ways, for instance, regarding the Eucharist.
The Mass is the Mass is the Mass, in it’s essential being, and that was enough for me. If something is true and valuable, that truth and value, was and is, in its essence, and deserves reverence. It doesn’t have to be a decorative reverence, so long as it is a profound recognition. For some it does need to be ornate and colorful, but not for me, and I suppose, persons like me.
I guess I don’t have the nature to regard how things are dressed up can value or devalue something truly valuable. Some people do, and that’s their right.
The argument about traditional and modern forms and ways would possibly occur less often if people were able to accept that different natures play a part in our preferences.
We ordinary families just accepted the changes, and it was really rather easier to participate in the vernacular. We saw nothing wrong with that. The Last Supper, institution of the Eucharist by the quintessential Priest, was simpler than any later development.
We didn’t object to the changes, they came from the Vatican, and perhaps we were a less divided generation. We were told. The changes unfolded. We accepted them. We experienced the benefits. Some changes were easier, some were more fair.
However we did read of the number of priests who could not face the changes, and left the priesthood. Perhaps many people did. There was no Internet then. so there was less division and upset than would occur now.
There are always the positives and the negatives to any change, and people, and events, and institutions will begin to exhibit either or both, because human beings are imperfect, and vulnerable: and often opinionated and polarized, with elements of positives and negatives on every side.
My response is possibly far from anything you hoped to elicit by sharing your thoughtful articles, but you’re doing good stuff, and I’d not want anyone discouraged, you discouraged, when thus far no one has responded on your worthy threads. I’m a blunt realist saddled with an inconvenient nature that tends to look out for others whether they need it or not … just in case they do need it and in this case, might feel like he’s talking to an empty room.
Sorry. But it’s a response, anyway
I was raised with Missal having Latin on one page and English on the facing page; and with Latin hymns, and singing them in the choir, during Mass and during Benediction. I still have the old hymnal, with cover missing, in a box.
I never became part of the Traditional versus the post-Vatican 2 ways, for instance, regarding the Eucharist.
The Mass is the Mass is the Mass, in it’s essential being, and that was enough for me. If something is true and valuable, that truth and value, was and is, in its essence, and deserves reverence. It doesn’t have to be a decorative reverence, so long as it is a profound recognition. For some it does need to be ornate and colorful, but not for me, and I suppose, persons like me.
I guess I don’t have the nature to regard how things are dressed up can value or devalue something truly valuable. Some people do, and that’s their right.
The argument about traditional and modern forms and ways would possibly occur less often if people were able to accept that different natures play a part in our preferences.
We ordinary families just accepted the changes, and it was really rather easier to participate in the vernacular. We saw nothing wrong with that. The Last Supper, institution of the Eucharist by the quintessential Priest, was simpler than any later development.
We didn’t object to the changes, they came from the Vatican, and perhaps we were a less divided generation. We were told. The changes unfolded. We accepted them. We experienced the benefits. Some changes were easier, some were more fair.
However we did read of the number of priests who could not face the changes, and left the priesthood. Perhaps many people did. There was no Internet then. so there was less division and upset than would occur now.
There are always the positives and the negatives to any change, and people, and events, and institutions will begin to exhibit either or both, because human beings are imperfect, and vulnerable: and often opinionated and polarized, with elements of positives and negatives on every side.
My response is possibly far from anything you hoped to elicit by sharing your thoughtful articles, but you’re doing good stuff, and I’d not want anyone discouraged, you discouraged, when thus far no one has responded on your worthy threads. I’m a blunt realist saddled with an inconvenient nature that tends to look out for others whether they need it or not … just in case they do need it and in this case, might feel like he’s talking to an empty room.
Sorry. But it’s a response, anyway
Last edited:
ralfyman
New member
There are some notable points here:
- Status