Help me with vatican Two

[Will_Pick]

What’s the Deal with Vatican II?

Maybe you guys can explain this one to me. What’s the basic summary of V2? Is the Tridentine Mass forbidden, or limited, and why? Why was the liturgy changed? What’s the difference between the Empty-Seat folks (forgot their shmancy name) and SSPX and Novus Ordo, and whatever else there are? Perhaps more importantly, are the leniencies introduced in the Second Vatican Council opening the way for serious compromise in the Church?

Kind of curious about this–is the new Mass watered down and ecumenicized from the old one, and what are the implications of a relaxed attitude toward the Holy Mass?

 

[Pjs2ejs]

I don’t know everything about Vatican II but I do know a few generalities. Vatican II restructured church disciplines, such as the liturgy. No church doctrines were changed. Meaning, the church did not change its stance on dogma or doctrine with the changes. Many traditionalists were upset by the changes in the mass. I guess it is okay to feel that way but the Church made its decision. Authority and guidance through the Holy Spirit, in my opinion, should not be criticized.

The SSPX group and ones similar to it, have decided upon themselves to be their own authority, kind of like our protestant brethren.

I encourage others to elaborate on this subject as I don’t know everything about it. I would also encourage you to research the topics yourself.

 

[banjo]

What’s the Deal with Vatican II?

Maybe you guys can explain this one to me. What’s the basic summary of V2? Is the Tridentine Mass forbidden, or limited, and why? Why was the liturgy changed? What’s the difference between the Empty-Seat folks (forgot their shmancy name) and SSPX and Novus Ordo, and whatever else there are? Perhaps more importantly, are the leniencies introduced in the Second Vatican Council opening the way for serious compromise in the Church?

Kind of curious about this–is the new Mass watered down and ecumenicized from the old one, and what are the implications of a relaxed attitude toward the Holy Mass?

Will,

Try this link for general ideas about the documents of Vatican II.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0307fea1.asp

 

[George_Waters]

Pjs2ejs:

I don’t know everything about Vatican II but I do know a few generalities. Vatican II restructured church disciplines, such as the liturgy. No church doctrines were changed. Meaning, the church did not change its stance on dogma or doctrine with the changes. Many traditionalists were upset by the changes in the mass. I guess it is okay to feel that way but the Church made its decision. Authority and guidance through the Holy Spirit, in my opinion, should not be criticized.

The SSPX group and ones similar to it, have decided upon themselves to be their own authority, kind of like our protestant brethren.

I encourage others to elaborate on this subject as I don’t know everything about it. I would also encourage you to research the topics yourself.

Good post!

 

[the-3rd-parent]

What’s the basic summary of V2?

Perhaps this will shed some light. catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=2&art_id=17685

Is the Tridentine Mass forbidden, or limited, and why?

Depends on the diocese. For a priest to perform the tridentine Mass he needs permission from the bishop. In my diocese, the bishop made a big stink about not mixing the Tridentine and the Venacular. Such as the Tridentine follows a different church calender than the Venacular. So the celebration of the Feast Days vary.

I’d say that the main issue is that Vatican 2 was very poorly implimented and those who were looking for more radical reforms than the council actually intended took advantage of the fact that very few people actually bother to read Church documents, especially during that time. I’d say that the whole fall out really shows the poor condition that the Church was in at the time of the council and just how much that council was needed.

The form the Venacular is in today still probably isn’t to snuff with what the council intended but further reforms to it should be done carefully and under supervision to avoid it becoming whatever the parish priest individual vision becomes.

Why was the liturgy changed?

Well first it is spoken in the venacular, or the common language of the area rather than the traditional latin. The priest now faces the people during the concecration instead of having his back toward the people and there is more active particpation in the Mass by the laity.

I think the Tridentine Mass is absolutely beautiful and went to my parish’s every weekend for almost a straight year, and while I still see flaws in the Venacular, the Tridentine Mass is one where the parishioner acts much more as an observer. It actually had become rather common for Catholics to pray the rosary during Mass and to merely wait to hear the bells announce when the concecration of the Eucharist had taken place and then to simply file up to receive communion. This gives a lot more leeway to people simply daydreaming during Mass and doing other things than the Venacular though unforunately you do see the same empty stares at many Venacular Masses. People aren’t perfect, but at least the Venacular encourages them to particpate. When I was getting used to the Tridentine Mass, my awe over the beauty and foriegnness of it kept my attention, but I have sense found that the Venacular holds my attention a lot better.

What’s the difference between the Empty-Seat folks (forgot their shmancy name) and SSPX and Novus Ordo, and whatever else there are?

I have only heard of SSPX. They believe that Vatican 2 was one of the most terrible things to occur to the Church. They refuse to accept the updated code of canon law and perform the Mass only in the Venacular. Their Masses are valid but illicit since they are acting in direct disobedience to the bishop of their diocese and to the Holy See.

They also believe that Protestants are doomed to Hell and that you have to be completely Catholic to be saved. The doctrine on this has been clarified by Vatican 2, but the SSPX sees this as the Church doing something it has no authority to do and that is to change doctrine. I do not see this as changing doctrine but as merely clarifying it.

 

[CollegeCatholic]

I think the Tridentine Mass is absolutely beautiful and went to my parish’s every weekend for almost a straight year, and while I still see flaws in the Venacular, the Tridentine Mass is one where the parishioner acts much more as an observer. It actually had become rather common for Catholics to pray the rosary during Mass and to merely wait to hear the bells announce when the concecration of the Eucharist had taken place and then to simply file up to receive communion. This gives a lot more leeway to people simply daydreaming during Mass and doing other things than the Venacular though unforunately you do see the same empty stares at many Venacular Masses. People aren’t perfect, but at least the Venacular encourages them to particpate. When I was getting used to the Tridentine Mass, my awe over the beauty and foriegnness of it kept my attention, but I have sense found that the Venacular holds my attention a lot better.

I thought that this was an excellent and most importantly, fair, analysis of the implications of both forms of Liturgy. I think that some “traditional” Catholics can be so blind that even the unfortunate “side-effects” of the “old” Mass have been labeled as being “pious” such as the praying of the Rosary during Mass. During Mass is one of the very few times that the praying of the Rosary is literally a “bad” thing to do. It is sad that the beauty of the Mass would be replaced by an attempt of the laity to somehow participate, even in the form of a misguided personal spirtual expression (in the context of the Mass).

 

[the-3rd-parent]

sorry, I need to clarify. I just realized I said the opposite of what I meant. The SSPX only does Mass in the Latin. They refuse the Venacular. Sorry.