Resources re: Vatican II changes, Latin/English, etc.?

[milkbar]

I’m in RCIA at the moment. If we’re going to cover these things, we haven’t yet. And anyway, I do better with reading than with listening.

I have almost no prior experience with the Catholic church, its traditions, culture, history, etc. I hear about Vatican II all the time. Is there a Cliff’s Notes type thing where I can get a broad outline of what the significance of Vatican II is/was to those practicing at the time, what changes were made, what’s different now, why some people seem to be miffed about this or that…? Some people seem to see it in a positive light, others not so much. I don’t really want to start up a discussion here because I gather it might be a hot-button issue… but links to resources you know are accurate would be helpful… hopefully, unbiased resources aimed at someone like me who knows close to zilch at this point.

Also, the same re: Latin vs. English. Why does it matter to some people and not to others? I don’t know Latin yet. I’m thankful I know what’s being said at Mass, seeing as how I was raised in a Protestant church where I understood what was being said. Unbiased links re: why the change, why some people like it and others really, really don’t?

Thanks in advance. Please don’t yell at me if these are things best not spoken of. I want to know what fish swim in the Tiber and if any have sharp teeth…

 

[IHeartAquinas]

Well, I googled Vatican II and, to be honest, I couldn’t find an article that I really felt comfortable posting. Too many wiki articles and not enough scholarly articles…soooo…here’s a link to the text of an assessment of the article. Not Cliffnote’s per sey, but if you have some spare time and a warm cup of coffee, you can noodle your way.

christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/v1.html

As for a very short answer to your questions…

Vatican II was convened “to increase the fervour and energy of Catholics, to serve the needs of Christian people.” (Pope John XXIII) To do this, saying the Mass in the vernacular was instituted, and the laity became more involved in the ordinary of the Mass (readers, cantors, Eucharistic ministers, etc.). Additionally, this “opening up” if you will of the Mass to the lay parishioners was supposed to aide in a greater education of the laity in the how and why of the Mass.

Two things resulted: One, a lot of people got very angry. This is to be expected. I myself am a little miffed that the Apostle’s and Nicene Creeds have changes in wording (though, like Vatican II, no doctrine has actually changed), while I am very pleased that the Confietor now has a better translation of “mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa” than “through my own fault.” This leads me to the second part of my two resultant things, that a lot of people were absolutely ecstatic.

Those that were angriest left the Church altogether. One group, the Society of Saint Pius X, was excommunicated (though I’m fairly certain that was lifted and they are now renegotiating their Communion with the Church). Those that were overly-eager to embrace this new change in the Liturgy delved deep into the heresy of modernism in which proponents of modernism try and bring Church teaching in line with popular trends of the day.

The long-term effects of the Council, in my opinion, were two fold: one, it did allow a deeper appreciation of the Mass. I have attended both the Extraordinary (Latin) Form, and the Ordinary (Vernacular) Form, and though I pray my rosary in Latin, I must confess my affinity for the OF. I feel I have a greater love for the beauty and majesty of the Church because I was raised in the OF rather than the EF, though had I been raised under the EF my opinion would probably be otherwise.

Secondly, the Council caused some great upheaval within the Church, some of which we are still dealing with today. Liturgical abuse, in which a Priest changes certain prayers during the Mass, is one that doesn’t seem to affect my parish, but I’ve heard stories. And secondly, the uniformity of the Mass is no longer strictly enforced. I have attended Mass in other states and, though I can’t remember exactly what was different, I was intently aware at the time that certain things seemed out of place in regards to what I was used to.

I believe that both long-term effects I mentioned above are key in the recent re-translation of the Roman Missal that is to be approved soon in 2010 and go into effect some time in 2011.

I hope this helps somewhat. I am not knowledgeable about the finer points of Vatican II to go into any more depth, and if anyone spots an error in what I said, please point it out and correct it so that I am not inadvertently misleading milkbar.

 

[Phemie]

On this page you will find links to all the documents of Vatican II. The one that is easiest to read and understand and which lists a lot of the changes is “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy” . The link to the CSL is to the Vatican website so you can be certain it’s legit.

Part of the reason why many people were upset after Vatican II was that changes were rapid, without explanation, and in many, many cases done for no reason. We weren’t told anything that I can remember about the ‘why’ of the changes. I can just remember that we students were taken by the good sister who taught in our school and trained in the responses that would now be ours to make and in a language that we spoke. We were excited by this. Our poor parents, though, walked in to the church one morning to find little yellow pamphlets in all the pews and the Mass being completely different from what they’d celebrated just the day before.

In the name of Vatican II, beautiful churches were gutted: marble altars ripped out, smashed and carted to the dump; statues completely removed; etc. Some of these changes were done without reason since absolutely nothing in Vatican II required them. Some of the changes required, such as the freestanding altar, could have been done without even touching what was already there and, luckily, some wise pastors did exactly that. But when you see pictures of churches and see what they looked like in the 1950s and then see what is there now it’s enough to make you cry for the loss of beauty and art alone.

The use of the vernacular wasn’t “required”, it was “allowed” and suggested for the readings and the homily in particular. We were still expected to know the Mass in Latin and to be able to respond in Latin but that was totally ignored in most places. Few adults in North America today below the age of 45 have ever attended an Ordinary Form Mass where Latin was the primary language.

 

[Just_Lurking]

I’m in RCIA at the moment. If we’re going to cover these things, we haven’t yet.

The very presence of the RCIA program which you are in is due to the changes brought about by Vatican II.

Here is a retrospective news article that gives a good summary of Vatican II. There were also many indirect changes resulting from the "spirit of Vatican II’, including allowing girls to be altar servers.