How has Vatican II helped the Church

[NewsTheMan]

As to the idea that it is not a difficult task to ask everyone to learn latin, well, St. Leonard certainly didn’t agree with you on that one. In his book The Hidden Treasure, Holy Mass his advice to the general populace about how to attend mass well was not to learn latin and follow along with the responses, he suggested dividing mass into four parts and offering up four different kinds of prayer for each of those parts… I know thanksgiving was one of them… I don’t remember the rest, but the point is that the EF is not set up to be the most accessible to the general populace, especially when so much of it is almost whispered, it is easy to get lost if you try to follow along with the prayers.

I’m sorry, but it doesn’t look like St. Leonard disagrees with me at all from what you have written. If he advises the laity not to learn Latin - that doesn’t mean he should be promoting such a view, nor does it mean that his opinion is necessarily a good one, nor does it mean that he really means “Don’t even learn a single word” (in fact, I have a feeling that if he discourages learning it, he means learning it in a scholarly sense). In any case, St. Francis de Sales has the same advice regarding how to follow along with the Mass. But this is nothing to do with the language issue; rather, these are ways to participate in the Mass. One can follow this spiritual advice whether or not one knows the Latin. Again, learning Latin for the laity has less to do with learning it as a subject and in order to qualify for the Priesthood and more to do with exposure, prayers and basic understanding. Even if it were the case that St. Leonard was literally saying “don’t learn the Latin at all!” this actually helps with the traditionalist case against the liberals — because it is the liberals who insist that every word must be understood by the laity in order for the Mass to be fruitful; whereas it seems that on your reading of St. Leonard he actually feels quite the opposite. Traditionalism is vindicated at every turn

 

[thewanderer]

Why is it unrealistic to expect Catholics to learn latin? Every Muslim person I know speaks arabic, regardless of where they are from.

My response about it not being necessary to learn latin was in response to the above post. I agree wholeheartedly that all Ctholics would be much better off if they knew some latin, I certainly do not disagree with you there. I also am not trying to attack traditionalism… All I am saying is that the EF is not the only good form of the mass, and I think it is good that there is an OF and I think it would be even better if both forms were available.

I’m really not sure where we are in disagreement.

 

[ProVobis]

My response about it not being necessary to learn latin was in response to the above post. I agree wholeheartedly that all Ctholics would be much better off if they knew some latin, I certainly do not disagree with you there. I also am not trying to attack traditionalism… All I am saying is that the EF is not the only good form of the mass, and I think it is good that there is an OF and I think it would be even better if both forms were available.

I’m really not sure where we are in disagreement.

There is probably more Latin to learn if one were to go to a Latin OF and respond accordingly.

 

[BlindManWalking]

My response about it not being necessary to learn latin was in response to the above post. I agree wholeheartedly that all Ctholics would be much better off if they knew some latin, I certainly do not disagree with you there. I also am not trying to attack traditionalism… All I am saying is that the EF is not the only good form of the mass, and I think it is good that there is an OF and I think it would be even better if both forms were available.

I’m really not sure where we are in disagreement.

This requires more vocations, or, it requires more effort on the time of current priests.

One does not simply “Itroibo ad altare Dei”. It takes a while to learn the EF, and it’s not just a matter of reciting what one doesn’t know by reading it from a book. It’s practically imperative that the priest also learn Latin, a thing which most priests now have no idea of or training on.

Only FSSP, ICK, etc teach this. The FSSP puts on workshops for non-FSSP priests who want to learn the EF.

It would, of course, be awesome to not have to drive all over the place looking for an EF Mass, but we’re talking about the American Catholic milieu… You’re lucky to get priests with enough time to have real confessions and not this McDonald’s Drive Thru ridiculousness.

Vocations are the only way to solve this issue.

Hopefully the upcoming crop of Bishops will turn the tide as so much is in their hands.

 

[thewanderer]

There is probably more Latin to learn if one were to go to a Latin OF and respond accordingly.

This is true! I have been blessed with being able to attend the OF in latin for 4 years while in college.

Although you do bring up a good point. [EDIT: whether you intended to or not] The difference between the EF and OF is not simply one of language. So my point of saying that the OF is good because it allows the vernacular does not speak to all of the differences between the two which draw people to the different liturgies. I admit that I am not aware of all of the differences, and so, the reasons why people prefer the liturgy they do, which is partially why I stuck with the simple answer of talking about language. I believe the difference goes much deeper than simply one of language, and ultimately comes down to a matter of the spirituality and culture of the particular culture. If a person is drawn to all the intricate details of the EF it is because it helps them to come closer to God, when a person prefers the OF it is because they are drawn more to its simple way of worshiping God.

Even though I made my point specifically with respect to the difference in language when I should have expanded it to the whole spirituality behind each form, all I meant to say is that, since people are drawn by God to different spiritualities, the OF is a good that came from Vatican II.

 

[ProVobis]

Even though I made my point specifically with respect to the difference in language when I should have expanded it to the whole spirituality behind each form, all I meant to say is that, since people are drawn by God to different spiritualities, the OF is a good that came from Vatican II.

Okay but my point was that one can’t really escape the Latin regardless of form. This is/was evidenced by all the questions and controversy surrounding the new English translation. One MUST have the Vatican II-mandated Latin, at least on a side-by-side basis with his vernacular to fully and truly appreciate the OF.

 

[thewanderer]

Okay but my point was that one can’t really escape the Latin regardless of form. This is/was evidenced by all the questions and controversy surrounding the new English translation. One MUST have the Vatican II-mandated Latin, at least on a side-by-side basis with his vernacular to fully and truly appreciate the OF.

I do not advocate “escaping” the Latin… I never said any such thing. In fact, I would have assumed, given my previous comments on the ** importance ** of Latin, ** even in the vernacular OF **I really have no idea why you brought this up… Unless I’m missing something, this is, again, something we both agree on.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I really wish the Ordinary of Mass (Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, etc.) was required to be in Latin/Greek but with the Proper prayers and antiphons in Latin or the vernacular, and call it a day.

 

[Deo_Gratias42]

I really wish the Ordinary of Mass (Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, etc.) was required to be in Latin/Greek but with the Proper prayers and antiphons in Latin or the vernacular, and call it a day.

We can’t do that though. It would cut down on active participation of the laity because they don’t know Latin.

 

[edwest2]

First, what did Vatican II not do?

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1145

And what about the “change” in the way the Mass is celebrated?

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1451

It is quite obvious that Vatican II (regardless of accusations) did not intend for changes to happen. Dissidents inside and outside the Church were at work.

And what’s wrong with Latin? People can’t understand it? Prior to the 1962 missal, one could get the St. Joseph Daily Missal with both the English and Latin.

The so-called “fresh air” comment is nothing more than an excuse for the well thought out attack on the family and the right understanding of conception, human sexuality and marriage. The American public was more trusting of strangers back then, and of our government, so when the Hippies and radicals and anarchists appeared, we did not discern their ideas properly. Freedom! What freedom? To have sex with anyone, at any time of any variety.

And what about Catholic institutions of higher learning in 1967?

catholichistory.net/Events/LandOLakesStatement.htm

And let your conscience be your guide regarding artificial contraception?

lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2008/mar/08031805

The bomb was dropped by Pope Paul VI when he had Humanae Vitae published in 1968:

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

What was the reaction? “Within 24 hours, in an event unprecedented in the history of the Church, more than 200 dissenting theologians signed a full-page ad in The New York Times in 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.”

Source:
regnumchristi.org/english/articulos/imprimir.phtml?se=362&ca=967&te=707&id=21122&opcion=1

And how did abortion become the law? Through manipulations and falsehoods. 1968 again.

aboutabortions.com/Confess.html

What else happened in 1973? With all due respect to persons with Same-Sex Attraction, Homosexuality was removed as a disorder in the Diagnostic and Statical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association by vote.

Throw in Adult Bookstores selling pictures of prostitutes, strip clubs and topless bars in the early 1970s as well.

There’s more but I don’t want to go too far off topic.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Abu]

The crisis in Christ’s Church is due to the modernist errors abroad before Vatican II, whose promoters tried to take over the Council, referred to in Christ Denied, by Fr Paul Wickens, TAN, 1982).

The present Pope places Vatican II in its rightful place
"I am convinced that the damage that we have incurred in these twenty years is due, not to the ‘true’ Council, but to the unleashing within the Church of latent polemical and centrifugal forces; and outside the Church it is due to the confrontation with a cultural revolution in the West: the success of the upper middle class, the new ‘tertiary bourgeoisie’, with its liberal-radical ideology of individualistic, rationalistic and hedonistic stamp. The cardinal exhorts all Catholics who wish to remain such “to return to the authentic texts of the original Vatican II.” The Ratzinger Report, Vittorio Messori, Ignatius, 1985, p 28-31].

“It must be stated that Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent, namely, the Pope and the College of Bishops in communion with him, and that also with regard to its contents, Vatican II is in strictest continuity with both previous councils and incorporates their texts word for word in decisive points…” (The Ratzinger Report, p 28).

Cardinal Ratzinger expressed the required fidelity to Vatican II as: “to defend the true tradition of the Church today is to defend the Council…And this today of the Church is the documents of Vatican II, without reservations that amputate them and without arbitrariness that distorts them.” (The Ratzinger Report, Ignatius Press, 1985, p 31).

Fr William Most examined ten legitimate changes at Vatican II and found not one was a reverse of doctrine. All gave answers to previously debated points. Fr Most concludes: “It is obvious then that Vatican II did not create a revolution in theology. There are no reversals of teaching at all, and some…are only a little different or stronger than previous teachings, but all are in the same direction.” Catholic Apologetics Today: Answers To Modern Critics, Fr William G Most, TAN, 1986, p 200].

So pastorally inclined like all Councils, Vatican II also developed doctrine profoundly, as Fr John a Hardon, S.J., affirms. Vatican II confirmed that even non infallible doctrine must be received with assent: “This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra”…when doctrine is proposed or formulated. Lumen Gentium (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church), 25].

Similarly, “collegial infallibility…marks a turning point in doctrinal history.” [See *The Catholic Catechism, 1975, Doubleday, p 232-233]. This refers to the bishops around the world when teaching in accord with the Pope; when reflecting historical continuity of teaching; and in an Ecumenical Council when approved by a Pope.

The Dogmatic Constitution On The Church #8 (Vatican II) teaches that “The one mediator, Christ, established and ever sustains here on earth His holy Church…(T)his is the sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic.” Fr John Hardon, S.J., describes as “unequivocal” (= clearly defined), “for the first time in conciliar history — the Church is not one of many branches.” [See *The Catholic Catechism, 1975, Doubleday, p 213].

 

[moon1234]

I firmly believe that the time we are living in now is very similar to the arian heresy. Much of the Church fell into this heresy for almost 70 years. It survived for almost 300 years until it was pretty much stamped out.

Over 85% of the “Church” during the time of the Arian heresy was following this heresy. It was only the small few who knew their faith that were not swept up in the Arian Heresy.

I do think it will take a hundred or more years, but I beleive that either the Church will continue to shrink in numbers of those who actually follow traditional Catholic teaching or it will slowly dump all of the “reforms” or Vatican II.

Many cite increasing vocations, but when taken in context of world population the number of vocations has dropped more quickly after Vatican II than during any time in Church history. Saying "Gee in 1950 we had 50 vocations per diocese and now we have 60 says very little. If you knew that in 1950 the population of a diocese was 1 million people and today it is 5 million people would you still consider the increase in vocations great? The numbers should be 250 vocations, but in reality it is less than 25% of what it was before Vatican II.

Some cite the permanent diaconate as being a good fruit of Vatican II, but in reality the permenant diaconate has led to even less men choosing the priesthood. The numbers back it up.

Most Catholics use contraception at some time in their lives, get steralized, etc.

My wife and I have been married for 13 years and we have 7 children. On the rare times we attend the N.O. we get asked by CATHOLICS if we are “OLD TIME” Catholics because we have some many kids. When we go shopping people ask if we are mormon or Islamic due to the number of kids we have. We don’t look anything like Muslims, they are usually shocked when I say Catholic. If we are out with friends I just hang out with the ladies so I can have some fun saying I am shopping with my wives? Ha ha. That really makes people think.

Was VII good for the Church? I don’t think you will ever get a solid anwser on that one. I tend to judge based on “You will know them by their fruits”. Draw your own conclusions.

 

[Abu]

moon1234 #90
Was VII good for the Church? I don’t think you will ever get a solid anwser on that one. I tend to judge based on “You will know them by their fruits”. Draw your own conclusions.

You have the fruits in post #89 – face the facts.

How confused, after the development of doctrine in Vatican II, and the faithful stewardship of Bl John Paul the Great and Pope Benedict XVI. Readers should know that:
The crisis in Christ’s Church is due to the modernist errors abroad before Vatican II, whose promoters tried to take over the Council, referred to in *Christ Denied *TAN, 1982, by Fr Paul Wickens).

But before Vatican II, by May of 1964, the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) had approved the sex education program put forward by 2 Swedish delegates, and the whole sordid conglomerate is exposed in Claire Chambers The SIECUS Circle, 1977. The power structure exerts pressure on local schools and the gullible public for its school sex education program. The network promotes population control, legalised abortion, homosexuality, pornography, sensitivity training and drugs. (p xv). We surely know how dissenters have spread these into the People of God.

The '60’s saw the rise of anarchy in the USA with much that was good in society decried and destroyed with nothing worthy to replace it. The new religion of the so-called Enlightenment was welcomed by selfists.

The degradation of sacred order, at the invitation of nuns, occurred from 1967 in the USA through humanistic psychologists especially Carl Rogers, and I have heard one of his lieutenants, Dr J W Coulson in person, apologising for the grave harm caused. [See *The Emperor’s New Clothes by William Kirk Kilpatrick, 1985, p 149-150]. The destruction of whole Catholic school systems and religious orders occurred.

Then followed the disgraceful public dissent against *Humanae Vitae *by Rahner and numerous dissenting theologians, Richard McBrien’s Catholicism (full of errors), the revolt of the Catholic universities and the bureaucratic/theological tail wagging the episcopal dog so to speak – coupled with lax or dissenting bishops this resulted in a grave crisis, which is worldwide with relativism, selfism and secularism.

How many Catholics know this? The great papal teaching and guidance of popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have nurtured the reform of seminaries and the rejuvenation of the apostolate of the laity, with a resurgence of faith and action among the young, in the midst of the secular chaos of today.

 

[Judith48]

That we are to be active in our faith, and not just observers, or merely present as the priest does what he doeshttp://www.datamar.info/avatar4.jpg

 

[moon1234]

That we are to be active in our faith, and not just observers, or merely present as the priest does what he doeshttp://www.datamar.info/avatar4.jpg

There is a widespread belief that people were not “active” in their faith prior to VII because there were not doing something physical or saying something during Mass. This is NOT was active participation means. Uniting your prayers with those of the priest and being active in prayer during Mass is what “active participation” means.

This misunderstood idea that someone needs to DO something during the Mass is directly why we have all of the abuses in the Mass today. We have no right to want to insert ourselves into the Mass as if we were clergy.

It is time that this idea of “active participation” means we have to do or say something during Mass is abolished. If you feel the need to speak at Mass, how about joining the choir and singing. Then you get to pray twice!

 

[Big_Feet]

There is a widespread belief that people were not “active” in their faith prior to VII because there were not doing something physical or saying something during Mass. This is NOT was active participation means. Uniting your prayers with those of the priest and being active in prayer during Mass is what “active participation” means.

But, praying the rosary DURING mass (as often was done pre-1969 missal) because one didnt know what in the world was being said was NOT correct, or considered “participation” either. This practice was widespread, and should have been quashed during it’s time as well.

Every “time” has abusers. It is weather you can recognize it or not, and weather one can make good, hearty fraternal correction, and lead by personal example.

 

[ProVobis]

But, praying the rosary DURING mass (as often was done pre-1969 missal) because one didnt know what in the world was being said was NOT correct, or considered “participation” either. This practice was widespread, and should have been quashed during it’s time as well.

Every “time” has abusers. It is weather you can recognize it or not, and weather one can make good, hearty fraternal correction, and lead by personal example.

I’ll agree with you to some extent. I have, however, seen people bring rosaries to the OF as well, taking them out at communion time or at those other quiet times during the liturgy or by those who don’t speak English.

 

[Big_Feet]

I’ll agree with you to some extent. I have, however, seen people bring rosaries to the OF as well, taking them out at communion time or at those other quiet times during the liturgy or by those who don’t speak English.

I agree! I believe that one should participate IN THE MASS, not one’s personal devotions during mass. The sacrifice of the mass is the highest form of prayer that we can participate. To bring these lesser forms only degrades it.

A lot of the people you see doing what you say are those who themselves did the same thing during the previous missal, and or saw their parents do it. It is not true participation.

 

[moon1234]

But, praying the rosary DURING mass (as often was done pre-1969 missal) because one didnt know what in the world was being said was NOT correct, or considered “participation” either. This practice was widespread, and should have been quashed during it’s time as well.

Every “time” has abusers. It is weather you can recognize it or not, and weather one can make good, hearty fraternal correction, and lead by personal example.

Praying the rosary during Mass is was and is STILL acceptable, at least according to the Holy Father. Many people today dismiss anything that is not rote prayer as printed in the Missal as somehow less of a participation in the Mass. As long as that person was actively praying and uniting their prayer with the priest, then they were fully participating. I can tell you with almost 100% certainty that many people at the novus order have the responses memorzied and are on autopilot. They are thinking about the upcoming sports game after Mass (football, etc.).

You might forget that in almost ALL Masses the choir is singing somthing different than what the priest is Praying. Are you saying that the choir should be quashed so that you can HEAR the Priest or say a response? Offertory hyms in the NO almost always happen during the offering of the gifts. Do you feel slighted or somehow not participating if you don’t get to actively participate by saying “Thanks be to God”?

I put forth that praying the rosary during Mass before VII, and some still do today is perfectly fine. (like me when I have no choice but to go to the NO and don’t want to be distracted by all of the silliness going on).

 

[TimothyH]

But, praying the rosary DURING mass (as often was done pre-1969 missal) because one didnt know what in the world was being said was NOT correct, or considered “participation” either. This practice was widespread, and should have been quashed during it’s time as well.

Every “time” has abusers. It is weather you can recognize it or not, and weather one can make good, hearty fraternal correction, and lead by personal example.

The problem is that everyone thinks that everyone else is an abuser and that they are the one to lead everyone else by their own personal example.

The issue is that everyone is worried about what everyone else is doing and happy to explain to everyone else what they are doing wrong, explain what proper worship is, and explain to everyone else what the dispostion of their heart should be.

-Tim-