Clearing up the myths and truths about Vatican II

[edwest2]

Oh brother, Pope Benedict made it very clear that that the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms are not two separate rites. Both are acceptable.

I was there before Vatican II and you could get a missal with the Latin on the left side page and English on the right/next page - side by side. You didn’t have to guess what the words meant or just mouth them without understanding them. Sheesh.

"36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

"2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.

"3. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.

“4. Translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned above.”

Source: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

And as far as any other changes, Vatican II suggested none of them:

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1145

Peace,
Ed

 

[dominic_aquinas]

And at most, it is all a symbol (the symbology of the high priest and holy of holies. I’m not saying that Mass is just a symbol).

No priest of the Catholic Church is a High Priest because we have only 1 High Priest, who is Jesus. Nor does the priest enter into an actual Holy of Holies. Not even a copy, as was the one in the Temple (cf. Hebrews), because there is no need for a Holy of Holies on earth anymore.

The High Priest entered the Holy of Holies with the blood of an unbleamished lamb, but Christ entered the true Holy of Holies with His own blood. There’s no need for one anymore, because Christ’s sacrifice was sufficient for all the world’s sins, once for all*.

*The language of “once for all” is again from Hebrews. cf Heb 10:10

This is kind of strange. You are giving a Protestant argument against the Mass as a sacrifice. Are you Catholic? The “once and for all” means Christ is Eternally sacrificing to the Father. The mass invites us again to the SAME EXACT sacrifice that happened at Calvary. It is the sacrifice at Calvary played out throughout eternity. This “once-and-for-all argument” was condemned by the Council of Trent:

“In this Divine Sacrifice which takes place at the Mass is contained and immolated, in an unbloody manner, the same Christ that was offered once for all in blood upon the Cross . . . It is one and the same Victim, one and the same High Priest, who made the offering through the ministry of His priests today, after having offered Himself upon the cross yesterday; only the manner of the oblation is different” (Council of Trent. Sess. 22).

The priest is more than a symbol. He is ACTING in persona Christi, in the place of Christ. Since he is ACTING in the person of Christ, he has the power to make the sacrifice for our behalf and forgive our sins. The servers tell the priest: “May the Lord accept this sacrifice at your hands, to the praise and glory of His name, for our good and the good of all His Holy Church.”

I shall go in to the altar of God, the God who gives joy to my youth.

 

[curlycool89]

This is kind of strange. You are giving a Protestant argument against the Mass as a sacrifice. Are you Catholic? The “once and for all” means Christ is Eternally sacrificing to the Father.

You must not be reading what I said, so I’ll make it clearer for you.

I did not say that the Mass is symbolic, nor that the Mass is not a sacrafice. What I am saying is that the priest himself who is celebrating the Mass is not actually entering into a Holy of Holies when he is saying Mass. And that the priest is not actually himself a High Priest (becaue Christ is). Maybe you could say so by analogy, but not in actuality.

Clear?

 

[berk60]

I don’t understand what is meant by eternally sacrificing. In order to sacrifice you have to have something to offer up. I understand that Christ offered up His own life for the atonement of sin but what is it that is offered up at Mass exactly?

 

[ProVobis]

There is no Holy of Holies anymore.

Exodus 25 wasn’t just for the Jews. We now refer to it as the tabernacle.

And aren’t there Eastern liturgies when the consecration is done behind icons?

 

[dominic_aquinas]

I don’t understand what is meant by eternally sacrificing. In order to sacrifice you have to have something to offer up. I understand that Christ offered up His own life for the atonement of sin but what is it that is offered up at Mass exactly?

Good question. There’s a nice description by Bp. Fulton Sheen that might help you understand better.

"So the Christ goes out into the world gathering up other human natures who are willing to be Christs. In order that our sacrifices, our sorrows, our Golgothas, our crucifixions, may not be isolated, disjointed, and unconnected, the Church collects them, harvests them, unifies them, coalesces them, masses them, and this massing of all our sacrifices of our individual human natures is united with the Great Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross in the Mass.

When we assist at the Mass we are not just individuals of the earth or solitary units, but living parts of a great spiritual order in which the Infinite penetrates and enfolds the finite, the Eternal breaks into the temporal, and the Spiritual clothes itself in the garments of materiality. Nothing more solemn exists on the face of God’s earth than the awe-inspiring moment of Consecration; for the Mass is not a prayer, nor a hymn, nor something said – it is a Divine Act with which we come in contact at a given moment of time. "

The full text is at sanctamissa.org/en/resources/books/calvary/the-consecration.html You might want to take a deeper look.

 

[Armor_of_Light]

Good question. There’s a nice description by Bp. Fulton Sheen that might help you understand better.

"So the Christ goes out into the world gathering up other human natures who are willing to be Christs. In order that our sacrifices, our sorrows, our Golgothas, our crucifixions, may not be isolated, disjointed, and unconnected, the Church collects them, harvests them, unifies them, coalesces them, masses them, and this massing of all our sacrifices of our individual human natures is united with the Great Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross in the Mass.

When we assist at the Mass we are not just individuals of the earth or solitary units, but living parts of a great spiritual order in which the Infinite penetrates and enfolds the finite, the Eternal breaks into the temporal, and the Spiritual clothes itself in the garments of materiality. Nothing more solemn exists on the face of God’s earth than the awe-inspiring moment of Consecration; for the Mass is not a prayer, nor a hymn, nor something said – it is a Divine Act with which we come in contact at a given moment of time. "

The full text is at sanctamissa.org/en/resources/books/calvary/the-consecration.html You might want to take a deeper look.

Man…that guy was good! I was attempting to string 2 sentences together in response, but…

 

[curlycool89]

Exodus 25 wasn’t just for the Jews. We now refer to it as the tabernacle.

I’m not following where you’re going here.

And aren’t there Eastern liturgies when the consecration is done behind icons?

Yes, behind the iconostasis. That is part of their tradition, but I don’t think they would refer to it as a “Holy of Holies” except by analogy. It’s not a Holy of Holies as understood in the Levitical tradition.

It also doesn’t fit too perfectly by analogy either, because the Holy of Holies was completely separate and you couldn’t even see in, while iconostasis are not a solid wall across (the ones I have seen at least).

In any case, so far as I know it’s never been part of the Roman/Latin tradition to have a screen. Altar rails yes (to separate the sanctuary from the congregation), but never a screen.

Nor is there a divine prohibition on no one entering the sanctuary but clerics. Let’s be serious, at the very least the sanctuary needs to be cleaned once in a while (dusting, vacuuming especially if its carpet, and moping if its not especially in winter) and priests generally don’t have time because of all the other demands we make of them, and so most parishes have lay people who do some of the housekeeping tasks. And actually, making a decision that only clerics could be in the sanctuary is pretty clericalist.

 

[dominic_aquinas]

I’m not following where you’re going here.

Yes, behind the iconostasis. That is part of their tradition, but I don’t think they would refer to it as a “Holy of Holies” except by analogy. It’s not a Holy of Holies as understood in the Levitical tradition.

It also doesn’t fit too perfectly by analogy either, because the Holy of Holies was completely separate and you couldn’t even see in, while iconostasis are not a solid wall across (the ones I have seen at least).

In any case, so far as I know it’s never been part of the Roman/Latin tradition to have a screen. Altar rails yes (to separate the sanctuary from the congregation), but never a screen.

Nor is there a divine prohibition on no one entering the sanctuary but clerics. Let’s be serious, at the very least the sanctuary needs to be cleaned once in a while (dusting, vacuuming especially if its carpet, and moping if its not especially in winter) and priests generally don’t have time because of all the other demands we make of them, and so most parishes have lay people who do some of the housekeeping tasks. And actually, making a decision that only clerics could be in the sanctuary is pretty clericalist.

It is referred to as the Holy of Holies in the Eastern Orthodox as well as in the Latin Rite Mass. That is the purpose for the icon screen to seperate the outer temple from the Holy of Holies.

You can read about it from their own mouths here:
antiochian.org/content/june-6-2012-ikonostasis

I have seen Latin Missals that drew a diagram of the entire altar as the Old Temple and the parts of the Mass show the Priest rise the steps to enter the Holy of Holies. It was a teaching diagram in the front page of some missals at our Church.

The priest during the Mass says that we he is entering the Holy of Holies. It’s beautiful.

The Priest says: Take away from us our iniquities, we beseech Thee, O Lord; that, being made pure in heart we may be worthy to enter into the Holy of Holies.

Seriously, I don’t see why you have a problem with this?

 

[Cat]

Why do you need to understand every single word the priest is saying? I can see you’ve never been to a Latin Mass. Well, I have a real shocker for you: many parts of the mass are inaudible, as in silent, as in the priest is whispering and you can’t hear a word he’s saying. Scary, huh? In fact, he has his back to you so you can’t even lip read. Now that’s really scary. Many people that first experience this are uncomfortable, they don’t like it. Why? Because the priest, whispering with his back to you, is making you focus on God alone. And that is exactly the unmistakable feeling of the Latin Mass. I suggest you find one and go see for yourself. I guarantee you’ll hate it. But, trust me on this: just keep going. Let it work it’s subtle, time-tested magic on you.

To me Latin IS the heart language. In fact, I’ll call it the heart-soul-and-mind language. I hope the heart-soul-and-mind language spreads across the entire world and is available once again in every Catholic parish so that they may all be a symbol of unity.

From a purely practical point, Latin is also extremely important to know to expand our vocabulary and train the mind. It’s amazing how many words in English are based in Latin; words like Pater for Father where we get Paternal in English. We should push ourselves and not give in to sloth or dispair when it comes to learning things. Let’s give God the best we can be.

We have Latin Mass in our city and have had it for many years. Latin Mass is offered daily and several times on Sunday. You don’t have to explain the Latin Mass to me.

You’re right, I don’t wish to attend very often. I would never use the word “hate” when it comes to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and I’m surprised you’re using this word.

I wouldn’t say “scary.” This is the way the Latin Mass is. It is what it is. It doesn’t make me “uncomfortable.” And although you find it easier to concentrate on God, I don’t. I get very distracted by the lack of words, although I do love complete silence. Not everyone is alike. I appreciate your ability to concentrate on God during the Latin Mass. I find it easiest to concentrate on God while singing (or playing) hymns, either contemporary or traditional. And I also find it easiest to concentrate on God when there is silence, especially in our parish 24/7 Adoration Chapel. (Of course, Jesus is Truly Present in the Blessed Sacrament in the Adoration Chapel, so I don’t have to just think about Him–I can SEE Him!)

You ask why understanding is so important to me. I am a convert, and I spent the first 47years of my life as an Evangelical Protestant. So I figure I have about 25 years left if God blesses me with the expected lifespan of a woman in the U.S. And in that 25 years, I think it’s important that I learn as much as I can about Christ’s Church and what Jesus expects of me here on this earth, since I didn’t have the opportunity to do this when I was growing up.

In case you don’t know much about Evangelical Protestants, allow me to tell you that they love study and learning, and the group of Evangelical Protestants that I was part of distrusted “emotions and experiences.” This is probably the reason why I have a difficult time with the Latin Mass. To me, it is an “experience” and I can’t help but have a hard time with this. I can’t simply cast off 47 years of teaching and training. Maybe someday. But for now, I’m very happy with the reverent and liturgically-correct OF Masses that are done in my city and my parish specifically.

As for Latin being the basis of many of our words, yes I know that. But there are plenty of other English (American) words that have origins in other languages besides Latin. So according to your logic, ALL of these languages are important to know, too. If I were a youngster again, yes, I would probably enjoy trying to learn more languages. But at this point in my life, I have very limited time to do as I please. Between work, family, church, and community obligations, plus trying to take care of my health–I don’t have the luxury of time to spend learning foreign languages. I usually don’t even have the time to finish the Jeff Cavins Bible study that I’m enrolled in at my parish. Of course, if I didn’t spend so much time joining in the conversations on CAF, I might find lots of extra time in my life!

 

[berk60]

Good question. There’s a nice description by Bp. Fulton Sheen that might help you understand better.

"So the Christ goes out into the world gathering up other human natures who are willing to be Christs. In order that our sacrifices, our sorrows, our Golgothas, our crucifixions, may not be isolated, disjointed, and unconnected, the Church collects them, harvests them, unifies them, coalesces them, masses them, and this massing of all our sacrifices of our individual human natures is united with the Great Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross in the Mass.

When we assist at the Mass we are not just individuals of the earth or solitary units, but living parts of a great spiritual order in which the Infinite penetrates and enfolds the finite, the Eternal breaks into the temporal, and the Spiritual clothes itself in the garments of materiality. Nothing more solemn exists on the face of God’s earth than the awe-inspiring moment of Consecration; for the Mass is not a prayer, nor a hymn, nor something said – it is a Divine Act with which we come in contact at a given moment of time. "

Thanks for the reply but I still don’t get it. Don’t get me wrong, it’s very poetic, but it doesn’t answer my question of what’s being sacrificed. Are you saying that we are sacrificing our Human nature as a payment for our sins?

The full text is at sanctamissa.org/en/resources/books/calvary/the-consecration.html You might want to take a deeper look.

 

[curlycool89]

It is referred to as the Holy of Holies in the Eastern Orthodox as well as in the Latin Rite Mass. That is the purpose for the icon screen to seperate the outer temple from the Holy of Holies.

You can read about it from their own mouths here:
antiochian.org/content/june-6-2012-ikonostasis

I have seen Latin Missals that drew a diagram of the entire altar as the Old Temple and the parts of the Mass show the Priest rise the steps to enter the Holy of Holies. It was a teaching diagram in the front page of some missals at our Church.

The priest during the Mass says that we he is entering the Holy of Holies. It’s beautiful.

The Priest says: Take away from us our iniquities, we beseech Thee, O Lord; that, being made pure in heart we may be worthy to enter into the Holy of Holies.

Seriously, I don’t see why you have a problem with this?

I just want to make sure that we are understanding things correctly.

like I said above, it can probably be called a sort-of Holy of Holies by analogy, but its not the same. The Holy of Holies on earth existed in the Temple in Jereselem and had a very specific function as commanded by God. And that Holy of Holies was itself only a shadow of the real one (again, see Hebrews).

We no longer require that because Jesus entered into the real Holy of Holies in Heaven.

Here’s my reasons for wanting to be specific. One, we’re Roman, which means we’re specific about everything. Two, advocating that a Church has a Holy of Holies seems to necessarily have to tie in with some kind of extreme form of Replacement Theology.

Thirdly is the implication about people in the Mass. If the priest is entering the “Holy of Holies”, then no other people should be involved (only the High Priest could enter the Holy of Holies alone), which has the inevidible implication that the Ordinary Form is somehow “unGodly” because of the involvment of lay-people in the Mass. The last part if false, the OF is not any less Godly than the EF, and so the premise must be false. It’s a reductio argument.

There’s also a weird implication that every priest must then be a High Priest because only the High Priest could enter the Holy of Holies. That’s an absurd conclusion because there can only be 1 High Priest (it’s kind of implied in the title), and for Catholics that’s Jesus.

I’m just saying we need to be precise about our language. It’s not a bad analogy, and there’s no reason a priest can’t pray about it when processing (our prayers forever have contained analogies and figurative speech). Just make sure we understand the difference between saying “it is this” and “it is like this”.

 

[ProVobis]

CC, I think you’re overanalyzing things a bit here. Both in the OF EP1 and the EF Roman Canon there is reference to Abel, Abraham, and Malchisedech. The function of the priest is the same according to Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi. Why then don’t we believe the Sancta Sanctorum in the OF? Now maybe I’m overanalyzing things.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

MODERATOR NOTE

Common’ folks. The OP said that the purpose of the thread is **to clear things up as to what V2 said and didn’t say. **

I went through 29 consecutive posts on the EF/OF question. Please stick with the OP. Yes, the mass was part of Vatican II and so were many other documents.

That level of discussion about the liturgy belongs in the Liturgy & Sacraments Forum.

Thanks

 

[jeannetherese]

I’m just taking the word of the Church that this phrase really does mean “Lord, have mercy!” Thank goodness I trust the Church, but if I DIDN’T trust the Church, perhaps because I or someone I knew had been abused, then I would probably not trust what they were telling me about translations of foreign phrases. I could always go check it out in a secular setting, but I probably wouldn’t take the time and make the effort to do that.

I’m having a tough time understanding this argument. If someone does not trust the Church, why would Latin Latin or a lack thereof change that mistrust? Wouldn’t someone who distrusts the Church stay home until moved by the Holy Spirit? And if someone is moved by the Holy Spirit to come to Mass , I why should Latin be an obstacle?
I must be missing something here. (It wouldn’t be the first time)

 

[1AugustSon7]

"Within 24 hours, in an event unprecedented in the history of the Church, more than 200 dissenting theologians signed a … protest. Not only did they declare their disagreement with encyclical’s teaching; they went one step further, far beyond their authority as theologians, and actually encouraged dissent among the lay faithful.

Emphasis mine.

This should make it clear that these people were not worthy in this instance of the name of scholars, let alone theologians. There is no possible way they could have truly considered and digested the content and considerations of a major papal encyclical within the space of twenty-four hours, organized themselves under a common judgement and effected their rebuke. I imagine these were the sort of intellectuals who loved to dismiss others as being “reactionary” yet here they are demonstrating -if they are honest- a clear judgement against a doctrine without possibly having had enough time to consider the material or the merits of the case that the Pope presented. All Catholics owe the Pope obedience, especially in his teaching authority; these theologians, however, didn’t even bother granting the Holy Father the benefit of a doubt, which simple charity alone would normally afford someone. Their dissent stinks of agenda: the rapidity with which this happened tells me (at least) that these people caught word that the Pope was going to in some form condemn artificial birth control and, based on that, they determined to declare against his doctrine and do in all their power to frustrate the doctrine’s promulgation, dissemination and acceptance by creating confusion, controversy, division and dissension. The time-frame is too fast. These “theologians” are in fact transparently guilty of the worst sort of organized rebellion. They clearly determined beforehand to condemn this doctrine and only gave a farcial appearance to having considered it - just enough to make their dissent not appear blatantly conspired and impossibly reactionary. This was a verdict rendered without a trial - let alone even a fair trial.

"They asserted the following: “Therefore, as Roman Catholic theologians, conscious of our duty and our limitations, we conclude that spouses may responsibly decide according to their conscience that artificial contraception in some circumstances is permissible and indeed necessary to preserve and foster the values and sacredness of marriage.”

Source: Regnum Christi

Emphasis mine.

As if their personal conclusion mattered a single iota except in an academic consideration or context. The Pharisees, scribes and Sanhedrin concluded with like authority against God’s Truth, and in their trials and judgements of His doctrine they, in their charity, alloted Him about the same amount of time.

 

[1AugustSon7]

Also, I read something some time back that said that the bishops were essentially overwhelmed, and as a result, some had no idea what direction in which to go, a factor which produced a different kind of “negligence” – a negligence of paralysis.

While I imagine they were very busy implementing the directives of the Council and its subqsequent practical interpretations and realizations by the Magisterium, I do not think a bishop could seriously claim to have lost direction. Pope Paul VI took great care and effort to constantly reiterate the Church’s teaching and did provide concrete forms for the implementation of Vatican II, including the rubrics of the new Missal. Adjusting to that new Missal was, of course, a challenge, but the rubrics themselves and the GIRM gave sufficient outline for understanding. As always, Rome was only ever a phone call or a letter in the mail away should anyone have had any questions. Paul VI took great pains and made great efforts to buoy the Church’s faith and confidence that absolutely no substantial change in the faith had been made by the Council; as John XXIII said, there was a re-presentation of the same substantial faith and doctrine through a new medium (language) that was more easily and readily understood by the people of the present or modern age. I think Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Credo of the People of God would be a good example of this. Even Lefebvre admired that encyclical and subscribed wholely to its teaching and content: the Pope taught clearly the Catholic Faith so no one would have reason to fear that it had in anyway substantialy changed or been altered by, e.g., the Council.

To be sure, though, none of this meant that Vatican II did not naturally include plenty of logical developments of doctrine that were the fruit of faith and reflection upon the deposit of faith, such as Mary’s being the mother of the Church, or the outlining of the doctrine concerning collegiality, which had been desperately wanting since Vatican I, which Council was unable to take up a concise treatment on the nature of the Church or the relationship between the Pope and the Bishops, but only had opportunity to deal with the Papacy specifically. Moreover, Vatican II obviously did avail itself to alter disciplinary measures that were no longer thought beneficial for the Church and were possibly even harmful. Religious liberty was one such reversal that was arguably long overdue, but certainly constituted a dramatic and rapid reversal. Notwithstanding, that decision is well within the Magisterium’s right and competency. Still, religious liberty must be understood in the Catholic sense of the doctrine, which it is the Magisterium’s prerogative and indeed duty to provide and define. The Catechism would later outline what religious liberty, as a Catholic doctrine, means.

 

[edwest2]

Emphasis mine.

This should make it clear that these people were not worthy in this instance of the name of scholars, let alone theologians. There is no possible way they could have truly considered and digested the content and considerations of a major papal encyclical within the space of twenty-four hours, organized themselves under a common judgement and effected their rebuke. I imagine these were the sort of intellectuals who loved to dismiss others as being “reactionary” yet here they are demonstrating -if they are honest- a clear judgement against a doctrine without possibly having had enough time to consider the material or the merits of the case that the Pope presented. All Catholics owe the Pope obedience, especially in his teaching authority; these theologians, however, didn’t even bother granting the Holy Father the benefit of a doubt, which simple charity alone would normally afford someone. Their dissent stinks of agenda: the rapidity with which this happened tells me (at least) that these people caught word that the Pope was going to in some form condemn artificial birth control and, based on that, they determined to declare against his doctrine and do in all their power to frustrate the doctrine’s promulgation, dissemination and acceptance by creating confusion, controversy, division and dissension. The time-frame is too fast. These “theologians” are in fact transparently guilty of the worst sort of organized rebellion. They clearly determined beforehand to condemn this doctrine and only gave a farcial appearance to having considered it - just enough to make their dissent not appear blatantly conspired and impossibly reactionary. This was a verdict rendered without a trial - let alone even a fair trial.

Emphasis mine.

As if their personal conclusion mattered a single iota except in an academic consideration or context. The Pharisees, scribes and Sanhedrin concluded with like authority against God’s Truth, and in their trials and judgements of His doctrine they, in their charity, alloted Him about the same amount of time.

I contend that this was the turning point. What is not mentioned is that prior to the release of the encyclical, a Pontifical Commission on Birth Control had been established because, in 1960, The Pill became available. Of course, the dissenters argued for a relaxation of the Church’s position. Pope Paul VI published Humanae Vitae in 1968, reaffirming constant Church teaching, and today, I contend, it was this encyclical that had to be “that which must be stopped” according to the beliefs of the dissidents, and Vatican II takes the false blame for later “problems.”

Pope Paul VI heard the words of those for and against, and chose the correct course of action, which they had to denounce. If they did not, it might have put the sex without love revolution at risk.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Oneofthewomen]

I would say that PERFECTAE CARITATIS is one of the most important, yet often overlooked documents of VII.

From my understanding (which is very limited), it was this document that called for Religious Orders to go back to their original charisms. I know that in the US the time between VI & VII saw many grave injustices pop up in the Orders- clericalism, classism, not living in the “spirit” of the founder, etc. This document called for all Orders to convene “geneal congregations” (not sure of the exact terminology) and fix the problems. It was one of the reasons that many people left Orders after VII. Some had joined Orders during this “boom time” and were not really prepared in the way of life, as it was originally meant, and could not commit to the life. This, IMHO was a very good thing, this life is not for everyone.

Br. JReducation has written much about this. I’m sure some of what I am remembering here is things I have learned from him, as well as research done for papers in my MA Theology program. As I said, just this document went far in correcting a grave injustice, and helped to make Religious life just as relevent in the 21st century as it was in the 11th!

I know we have had enough V2 threads here. It’s like OSAS on Apologetics or Non-Catholic religions.
But I want to give people here an opportunity, not to argue, but to clear things up as to what V2 said and didn’t say.
I want this to be a POSITIVE thread. So stay away from the “spirit of” arguments.

So tell us how the Church has benefitted from the actual documents and implemination of Vatican II?

Go!!

 

[1AugustSon7]

Totally agree. And I think there should be at least one Latin Mass per weekend in every diocese, minimum. It wouldn’t be achieved instantly, but is it not something that could be achieved within 10-15 years?

I think the Latin Mass presupposes and even requires a deep knowledge of the faith that most people today would have a difficult time acquiring even if they wanted to.

I think the change to vernacular was not only expedient but, considering the cultural and work revolutions that followed in the decades to come owing to new economic models that decreased stability and strained the middle class, necessary and wise.

By Vatican II the West was becoming a secularized culture. You did not learn Christianity or acquire Christian norms of behaviour and morals from the overall cultural mileu, certainly at least not necessarily. Today you might only get some Christian culture accidentally from institutional and family traditions that are taken for granted (and thus exposed to being overturned easily ayways - we know what we do but don’t know why we do it and thus are liable to give bad or faulty reasons to justify certain customs or practices). Consequently the need for instruction in religion increased dramatically. For most people, the Mass is the most time they allot to religious instruction. It is the public celebration of the Christian religion: whether for Catholics or those just curious, the vernacular Mass makes it possible for them to see transparently not only what Christians do but also what we believe. By using a vernacular Mass even the poorest and least educated - whether they be young or old - can easily imbibe much Catholic belief and doctrine; whereas, in Latin, they would be limited, or at least frustrated, in how much they could take away from the Mass.

The EF, IMO, is a form of devotion that appeals to certain hearts. It requires on the part of the Catholic a willingness to learn and to study - it requires an extraordinary commitment of time, resources and energy that it would be needlessly burdensome to demand of everyone.