Blaming it all on Vatican II?

  • Thread starter Thread starter agr4028
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
latinmasslover said:
“From the mouth of babes Thou hast perfected praise.”

“Let the children come to Me and forbid them not.”

How appropriate for the modern day.
Click to expand...
The issue is not the language. It seems the issue is a desire on the part of the younger generation to have a better grasp of theology. I certainly agree that they do want this.

I was very fortunate. My daughter attended school at a monastery of Visitation Nuns. They had theology and philosophy during their four years of high school. It was a girl’s school (obviously, being within a cloister). The girls were also required to read the writings of Francis de Sales and Jane de Chantal and had to live according the that spirituality. They were required to accept the Visitandine spirituality as part of their life at the school.

My daughter came out of it loving children and the formation of children.

My son attended a school run by Capuchin-Franciscans and they had Franciscan Theology and philosophy for four years. The Friars also demanded that the students accept Franciscan theology, esepcially the writings of Brother Bernardino D’Asti, Bonaventure and Duns Scotus. They were drilled in the Mirror of Perfection. This was their motto, “To Become Mirrors of Perfection as Our Holy Father Francis.”

My son loves St. Francis and his vision of the Church and the world, especially his love for the poor.

JR 🙂
 
“Do not be afraid”…as in whistling past the graveyard perhaps?
JReducation said:
Cardinal Ratzinger (then) did not say anything that was in conflict with Vatican I. He says simply the Jewish people cannot see what we see in the OT because Jesus is hidden in the covenant and it’s not easy for them to see it.

Hind sight is always 20/20. The Church sees it, because we are looking back and comparing the NT to the OT. He is saying that it will take time for the Jewish people to see the connections.

There is nothing wrong with that.

As our Holy Father John Paul II said, “Do not be afraid.”

JR 🙂
Click to expand...
 
latinmasslover said:
“From the mouth of babes Thou hast perfected praise.”

“Let the children come to Me and forbid them not.”

How appropriate for the modern day.
Click to expand...
Amen to that. the kids are starving for “meat and potatoes” - the clear and uncompromising fundamentals of the One True Faith - (those truths of the faith that all must accept, the kind that transcend various “spiritualities.”)

And the kids are awesome. They can usually smell “baloney” a mile away…which is why fuzzy modernist theology ain’t a big hit with 'em.

Break out the ol’ Baltimore Catechisms!

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad
 
bkovacs said:
But it did change the Roman Mass around completely, which really wasn’t needed at all. Hence why we now have two forms. The Eastern Churches, Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic Church never decided to get rid of the Divine Liturgies, after hundreds of years of use. So why did the Roman Rite have to change it’s liturgy completely.
Click to expand...
The Roman Catholic Church had to turn the Mass around. It was unintelligible, and the people weren’t participating with the priest. They were not exercising their priesthood as the people of God.

This business of the Latin Mass is the shibbileth of the Traditionalists, like followers of Feeney and Lefebre who were excommunicated, and count for nothing. It really has nothing to do with anything.

Arguing that the Mass in Latin was in the 'language of the angels" is such foolishness. Keep repeating it, and maybe someone of us would be convinced.

If you were around in the 1950’s you would be part of the faithful clamoring for intelligible changes in the liturgy.

The Holy Spirit was responsible for these changes. I say, “Thank God”.
 
dyspepsic said:
Arguing that the Mass in Latin was in the 'language of the angels" is such foolishness. Keep repeating it, and maybe someone of us would be convinced.
Click to expand...
Angels have no brain, therefore they do not have a language centre. Also, if that were the case, the Eastern Christians would be talking into thin air, since neither eastern rite Catholics nor Orthodox have ever used Latin.

Let’s not forget Jews, Muslims and the Reformation Christians. They don’t pray in Latin either.

I guess there are very few people who can communicate with angels.

On the other hand, if angels are multilingual, then there is no issue about language.

JR 🙂
 
dyspepsic said:
The Roman Catholic Church had to turn the Mass around. It was unintelligible, and the people weren’t participating with the priest. They were not exercising their priesthood as the people of God.

This business of the Latin Mass is the shibbileth of the Traditionalists, like followers of Feeney and Lefebre who were excommunicated, and count for nothing. It really has nothing to do with anything.

Arguing that the Mass in Latin was in the 'language of the angels" is such foolishness. Keep repeating it, and maybe someone of us would be convinced.

If you were around in the 1950’s you would be part of the faithful clamoring for intelligible changes in the liturgy.

The Holy Spirit was responsible for these changes. I say, “Thank God”.
Click to expand...
I think somebody needs a hug.
 
JReducation said:
Angels have no brain, therefore they do not have a language centre. Also, if that were the case, the Eastern Christians would be talking into thin air, since neither eastern rite Catholics nor Orthodox have ever used Latin.

Let’s not forget Jews, Muslims and the Reformation Christians. They don’t pray in Latin either.

I guess there are very few people who can communicate with angels.

On the other hand, if angels are multilingual, then there is no issue about language.

JR 🙂
Click to expand...
Umm, what does all this have to do with Roman Catholicism ?

Are you saying we should take our cues from those who pray in the venacular, and thus Roman Catholics should pray The Mass in the venacular ? That sure would mean flushing a number of Vatican documents down the toilet friend. Let’s see, that would mean flushing BXVI’s Motu Proprio not even a year after it went into effect.

Sorry, but if that is what you are getting at, I’m not buying it. The Latin Rite is the Latin Rite.
 
I_Believe said:
Umm, what does all this have to do with Roman Catholicism ?

Are you saying we should take our cues from those who pray in the venacular, and thus Roman Catholics should pray The Mass in the venacular ? That sure would mean flushing a number of Vatican documents down the toilet friend. Let’s see, that would mean flushing BXVI’s Motu Proprio not even a year after it went into effect.

Sorry, but if that is what you are getting at, I’m not buying it. The Latin Rite is the Latin Rite.
Click to expand...
It seems JR was addressing the nonsensical argument that Latin is “the language of the angels.” He wasn’t arguing that all prayers or even all Masses should be in the vernacular.
 
JReducation said:
Angels have no brain, therefore they do not have a language centre. Also, if that were the case, the Eastern Christians would be talking into thin air, since neither eastern rite Catholics nor Orthodox have ever used Latin.

Let’s not forget Jews, Muslims and the Reformation Christians. They don’t pray in Latin either.

I guess there are very few people who can communicate with angels.

On the other hand, if angels are multilingual, then there is no issue about language.

JR 🙂
Click to expand...
Not meaning to be disrespecful;) , but don’t Angels speak with Heavenly voices, like esp? Peace. Doesn’t tradition say that.???
 
Aragorn1 said:
It seems JR was addressing the nonsensical argument that Latin is “the language of the angels.” He wasn’t arguing that all prayers or even all Masses should be in the vernacular.
Click to expand...
Traditionalists don’t use the term “language of the angels” in the literal sense -which is what some folks seem to argue against. Seems a blatant attempt to belittle, if not to beat down a straw man.

Traditional folks are using the words of, I think it was Pope Paul VI himself, in describing the loss of Latin in the liturgy…a great and painful loss indeed. And actually a phenomena that is contrary to what was called for in Vatican II.

DD
 
dyspepsic said:
The Roman Catholic Church had to turn the Mass around. It was unintelligible, and the people weren’t participating with the priest. They were not exercising their priesthood as the people of God.
Click to expand...
Maybe the Church" will allow us to all consecrate too.:rolleyes:
This business of the Latin Mass is the shibbileth of the Traditionalists, like followers of Feeney and Lefebre who were excommunicated, and count for nothing. It really has nothing to do with anything.
Click to expand...
Pretty harsh things to say of priests, and your knowledge here is pathetic.

You must really hate Pope Benedict for encourage us to learn the language of Holy Mother Church.
Arguing that the Mass in Latin was in the 'language of the angels" is such foolishness. Keep repeating it, and maybe someone of us would be convinced.
Click to expand...
Now go read anything regarding the Mass that has the imprimatur. I dare you to, after reading something fit for an adult, to come back and spew that gibberish.
If you were around in the 1950’s you would be part of the faithful clamoring for intelligible changes in the liturgy.
Click to expand...
Only if I could not read and/or was lazy.
The Holy Spirit was responsible for these changes. I say, “Thank God”.
Click to expand...
Study Vatican II AND other Councils to learn what the Church *actually *teaches in this matter.
 
If all this so-called abuse is actually abuse and so widespread, why did the Church allow it to, and continue to allow it to, take place?

That’s the real question here. A papal encyclical would solve all of it in one fell swoop.

All this spewing of “abuse” is personal opinion or observation.

The HMC has not and does not squelch all these things that are claimed to be abuse, while she certainly has the authority to do so.

So, if the HMC is ok with it, then who am I to go screaming down the aisles “abuse!, abuse!”

🤷
 
DustinsDad said:
Traditionalists don’t use the term “language of the angels” in the literal sense -which is what some folks seem to argue against. Seems a blatant attempt to belittle, if not to beat down a straw man.

Traditional folks are using the words of, I think it was Pope Paul VI himself, in describing the loss of Latin in the liturgy…a great and painful loss indeed. And actually a phenomena that is contrary to what was called for in Vatican II.

DD
Click to expand...
Latin, in itself, melodic as it is, is not the language of the angels. It is the language of an empire, and not a very nice one. If it was like the Russian heard in Poland during her occupation, everybody at Golgotha knew Latin, but only the soldiers there would have spoken it.

It is the Mass and the Church that made Latin, and not the other way around. Latin is what it is and has the place it has because centuries of prayer made it so. It is not Latin that lifted prayer, but prayer that lifted Latin, into the ears of the angels. I think traditionalists know this in their bones, but it isn’t always communicated that way. You do have to pray it to know it.

The loss of Latin represents a rupture between ourselves and our ancestors in faith, just as, I may add, the loss of Greek did around the time of Gregory the Great. That loss, too, was a great one. What echoes do we have left from those earliest Masses, save the Kyrie?

I often put this in my posts as a rather tongue-in-cheek addition, but I think the loss of both classic languages in education during this century was a tragic one. Latin in high school, Greek in college, and Hebrew beyond would not be a bad direction to go in Catholic education. (But I’m not holding my breath.)
 
latinmasslover said:
Maybe the Church" will allow us to all consecrate too.:rolleyes:

Pretty harsh things to say of priests, and your knowledge here is pathetic.

You must really hate Pope Benedict for encourage us to learn the language of Holy Mother Church.

Now go read anything regarding the Mass that has the imprimatur. I dare you to, after reading something fit for an adult, to come back and spew that gibberish.

Only if I could not read and/or was lazy.

Study Vatican II AND other Councils to learn what the Church *actually *teaches in this matter.
Click to expand...
Looks like mgrfin is back. Let me tell you how excited I am. :rolleyes:
 
DustinsDad said:
Traditionalists don’t use the term “language of the angels” in the literal sense -which is what some folks seem to argue against. Seems a blatant attempt to belittle, if not to beat down a straw man.

Traditional folks are using the words of, I think it was Pope Paul VI himself, in describing the loss of Latin in the liturgy…a great and painful loss indeed. And actually a phenomena that is contrary to what was called for in Vatican II.

DD
Click to expand...
Fair enough… I guess no one on this forum has actually made that argument. (But personally, I have heard some traditionalists argue that Latin is literally the “lingua angelica”.)

And I agree about Latin in the liturgy.
 
I_Believe said:
Sorry, but if that is what you are getting at, I’m not buying it. The Latin Rite is the Latin Rite.
Click to expand...
Another Catholic who doesn’t know what he is talking about.

The term “Latin Rite” has nothing to do with the language of the Mass. There is the Eastern Rite, and there is the Latin Rite. It has to do with Rome, as opposed to the eastern cities of the Eastern churches.

As for throwing documents out: how about the constitution on the Sacred Liturgy? It promulgated the priesthood of all the faithful, as spoken of by St. Paul. The Mass in English was the way for the faithful to participate in the Sacrifice of the Mass, whereas before, when it was in this strange, unintelligible tongue, we were just on-lookers to the Divine Sacrifice.

Vatican 2 was an infallible General Council of the Church. It brought us into modern times, to worship as Jesus taught us to worship. Not to stare, and wonder what was happening at this event.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top