How has Vatican II helped the Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter jasonjessica09
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
thewanderer said:
I would say its quite likely serious, there are many people for whom having the mass in the vernacular is a huge bonus.
Click to expand...
What portion of the astronomical 1/4 to 1/3 of Catholics who still go to mass on sundays are you talking about? Not saying thereā€™s none out there, Iā€™m just saying if the question is what good fruits did the council produce, and the fact is that less catholics attend mass than ever before, then in light of that, mentioning that a few like the vernacular or a few converted from protestantism (a blessing, of course) doesnā€™t seem like a very accurate or honest answer.
 
YoungTradCath said:
The true, true efforts of Vatican II have yet to come upon the Church. We are seeing slight sparks here and there, but we have yet to truly implement and understand the Council. We have absolutely been called, as lay Catholics, to engage the world. But we have not been called, nor will we ever be, to be ā€œmini clerics.ā€ The priestā€™s environment is the clerical duties. The lay personā€™s environment is the world. It is the priestā€™s duty to offer sacrifice. It is the lay personā€™s duty to bring the world to the Church.
Click to expand...
Exactly! šŸ‘ YTC, youā€™ve hit the nail squarely on the head.
 
What if someone was a Protestant convert to Catholicism FOR and because of, in part, the Latin Mass?

What if said convert found out after they started attending the OF that EF was available locally and so they started attending that instead?

What if, in the process of this, said convert now attends the TLM solely?

What if, in the process of this, said convert sees blatant Protestant kowtowing in the OF as it is often performed?

What if said convert has never, despite seeking them out, seen a reverent OF Mass, or even one said ad orientem and in Latin?

What if said convert realizes the only way to really convert and be ecumenical is to tell the truth even if it kinda hurts?

What if, and who, and where?

Oh, here I am.
 
thewanderer said:
Some people have a lot of trouble learning new languages etc. So Mass being available in the Vernacular is one that I would point out!
Click to expand...
But remember, the most convenient Mass to you may not always be in YOUR vernacular. Nor do I think it is a good idea to split the Spanish-speaking and the Anglophones in the same parish. I feel there will be a time when people will appreciate that Vatican II held fast to preserve Latin in the Latin Rite liturgy. Itā€™s not like you have to memorize the entire Latin dictionary.
 
The Liturgy is so much better now that in the US alone, Mass attendance among Catholics was
75% in 1960
now [2012] its at around
25%.

ā€œSave the Liturgy, save the World,ā€
 
God forbid someone should make an effort or just, ya know, buy a dang Missal.

Swiss Guy- the reason YTC said what he said is because, in one fell swoop, you just called over 1400 years of tradition stupid and unbiblical.

How on earth did the missionaries ever evangelize without ā€œpagan indian dialectā€ Mass?:rolleyes:
 
If Vatican II hadnā€™t occurredā€¦

considering the deprivation that our societies (North American societies) have sunk toā€¦

what would have happened to the Church if Vatican II had not occurred just as it had?

I donā€™t know about all of you but I trust our Lord 100% and I trust that whatā€™s going on is happening just as it needed to for us to ride out the culture we now find ourselves stuck in.
 
Vatican II, being a Pastoral Council, absolutely failed in all generations to the current to pastor anyone into orthodox Catholicism. Instead, the fruits have been totally opposite.

The council itself, the documentsā€¦ I agree theyā€™re valid.

I totally disagree with the issue of ā€œpositive reformulationā€ without absolutely, positively making the bare facts known.

Finding truth in Vatican II documents is like finding a needle in a stack of needles. Iā€™d prefer the haystack personally.
 
BlindManWalking said:
Well, it really kick-started that whole ā€œunderstand the faithā€ movement.

Catechesis is better than ever

Vocations to the Priesthood are skyrocketed to the point I donā€™t know if the seminaries will be able to handle all these men

Reverence is supreme

The governments world-wide recognize the truth of Catholic teaching

The understanding of other religions is such that the RCC now claims over 3/4 of the population of the globe

The Real Presence is 100% unquestioned across the board

And the Jesuits are starting a long-range shooting team to compete in the world F-Class championships.

Itā€™s been super!šŸ‘
Click to expand...
What diocese are you in again?
 
nickybr38 said:
If Vatican II hadnā€™t occurredā€¦

considering the deprivation that our societies (North American societies) have sunk toā€¦

what would have happened to the Church if Vatican II had not occurred just as it had?

I donā€™t know about all of you but I trust our Lord 100% and I trust that whatā€™s going on is happening just as it needed to for us to ride out the culture we now find ourselves stuck in.
Click to expand...
That would make sense if indeed the Council had condemned the errors of the world which you speak of, but it didnā€™t Many council fathers wanted to condemn Communism, Athiesm, Relativism, Liberalism, Modernism, and all of the other tiny ā€œismsā€ that have some along with that (utilitarianism, consequential, etc) but we refused to do so. (e.g. atheistic communism wasnā€™t condemned because we didnā€™t want any offense to the russians to cause them to not allow the schismatic russian orthodox to attend as a sign of ecumenism). Instead we looked at the deprived world full of all of those evil ā€œismsā€ and said, ā€œhmm, how do can we change ourselves to make them love us moreā€.

Prior to this, ecumenical councils had always either condemned error or defined dogma. This council did neither. That doesnā€™t mean it wasnā€™t valid or legitimate, the pope has the authority to call an ecumenical council and say ā€œnow that youā€™re all here, Iā€™d like to discuss the best pizza toppingsā€¦ā€ and it would still be valid and legitimate.

I agree with you that given the ā€œismsā€ that the world was falling into, it was an opportune time for a council, but my agreement ends when we fail to admit that the opportunity wasnā€™t used. The world loved the council, read about media coverage sometime. The ā€œismā€ filled world loved the councilā€¦bad signā€¦
 
nickybr38 said:
I donā€™t know about all of you but I trust our Lord 100% and I trust that whatā€™s going on is happening just as it needed to for us to ride out the culture we now find ourselves stuck in.
Click to expand...
I agree.

I love the EF, but I also believe that the OF is a wonderful rite when done reverently. After VII we did go through a period where things got a bit crazy liturgy wise, but it has gotten much better in the last decade.

It typically takes a century to sort our after an Ecumenical Council, let us give it a little more time. Itā€™s obvious that the pendulum is now swinging toward the conservative side in the Church.

I have a feeling that some very beautiful things are yet to come out of VII. If one takes time to read the documents one can see that there is a lot of good material. I think that in the first 30 years we suffered from poor interpretation.
 
Inego_de_Loyola said:
What diocese are you in again?
Click to expand...
Wherever I go, there I am.

šŸ¤·

Not considering myself a permanent fixture in any geographic location, I am merely a Catholic, not a Catholic of X diocese. Tomorrow might find me across the country. Or in 10 years, having never left the city limits of my current location. Who knows.

Your question has what purpose?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top