Stop Blaming Vatican II

[c4csp]

That is good. I just want the Church to be proud that we are Christ’s Church and proudly profess the true faith through our witness. We do not need to appease protestants or others. The best evangelization is us living our catholic faith; praying rosary in public, public blessed sacrament processions, processing Our Lady for world to see, having altar boys carrying candles when priest walks eucharist through a hospital to bring to sick. Let us live our faith publicly and everyone will flock to it, but when we modernize, people go astray.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Lobster_Johnson:

but when was the last time your church had them publicly

Public recitation of the Office ‘with the people’ ( cum populo ) was, for the most part, a minority practice after the 15th century in the Latin Church.

When I used to go on retreat, the priests invited us to pray Prime and Compline with them (and Sext on Saturday for those who hadn’t left the retreat house yet).

 

[JSRG]

Interesting. The only thing that still has me flummoxed is how does changing the mass to vernacular and facing the people give to God?

The mass originally was in the vernacular. They didn’t start doing it in Latin because they thought Latin was such a great language, it was because Latin was what people spoke in the western areas of the Roman Empire (before reaching there, it was done in Greek and Aramaic–the languages that were spoken in their areas). The Catholic mass was in the vernacular for the first 800 years of Catholicism, give or take a few centuries depending on when you consider Latin to have stopped being the vernacular due to it splitting up into a bunch of different languages that eventually became French/Italian/Spanish/etc.

Therefore, if someone is going to ask “how is changing to the vernacular giving to God?” then I will ask “given that the mass was done in Latin so it was understood by the common people, how was persisting in conducting the mass in Latin after it stopped being the vernacular giving to God?”

 

[c4csp]

The mass originally was in the vernacular. They didn’t start doing it in Latin because they thought Latin was such a great language, it was because Latin was what people spoke in the western areas of the Roman Empire (before reaching there, it was done in Greek and Aramaic–the languages that were spoken in their areas). The Catholic mass was in the vernacular for the first 800 years of Catholicism, give or take a few centuries depending on when you consider Latin to have stopped being the vernacular due to it splitting up into a bunch of different languages that eventually became French/Italian/Spanish/etc.

Therefore, if someone is going to ask “how is changing to the vernacular giving to God?” then I will ask “given that the mass was done in Latin so it was understood by the common people, how was persisting in conducting the mass in Latin after it stopped being the vernacular giving to God?”

Ok. So changing the vernacular includes the priest facing the people and many churches gutted of their statues and beauty? What does the vernacular have to do with those things?

“We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Prostestants.” -Bugnini

Was that for God? It sounds very temporal to me and we all know who is the prince of the temporal.

 

[c4csp]

That is the problem. For safety reasons, God almighty’s glory and honor is reduced. The problem is that we have allowed the almighty God to be subject to the rules and order of the temporal. Those rules came through incrementalism. The more we allow the world to paint the boundaries of how we worship almighty God, the more God is reduced and disrespected. We as Catholics, need to live our faith. It is said that if one has to ask if you are catholic, you are not. We need to start living it.

 

[puer.dei]

That is the problem. For safety reasons, God almighty’s glory and honor is reduced.

So you want candles taken around in hospitals with oxygen tanks and people on oxygen.
How would a fire or explosion in a hospital, caused by such blatant disregard for safety, serve “God’s honor and glory?”

 

[c4csp]

So you want candles taken around in hospitals with oxygen tanks and people on oxygen.
How would a fire or explosion in a hospital, caused by such blatant disregard for safety, serve “God’s honor and glory?”

I understand your point. But please explain how almighty God is supposed to be processed into such places?

 

[puer.dei]

I understand your point. But please explain how almighty God is supposed to be processed into such places?

With recognition that He doesn’t want anyone killed by stupidity, would be my guess.
And you didn’t answer my question.

 

[Motherwit]

JSRG:

The mass originally was in the vernacular. They didn’t start doing it in Latin because they thought Latin was such a great language, it was because Latin was what people spoke in the western areas of the Roman Empire (before reaching there, it was done in Greek and Aramaic–the languages that were spoken in their areas). The Catholic mass was in the vernacular for the first 800 years of Catholicism, give or take a few centuries depending on when you consider Latin to have stopped being the vernacular due to it splitting up into a bunch of different languages that eventually became French/Italian/Spanish/etc.

Therefore, if someone is going to ask “how is changing to the vernacular giving to God?” then I will ask “given that the mass was done in Latin so it was understood by the common people, how was persisting in conducting the mass in Latin after it stopped being the vernacular giving to God?”

Ok. So changing the vernacular includes the priest facing the people and many churches gutted of their statues and beauty? What does the vernacular have to do with those things?

“We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Prostestants.” -Bugnini

Was that for God? It sounds very temporal to me and we all know who is the prince of the temporal.

Affording you the benefit of the doubt, this ‘quote’ has been misused by anti Vatican II agitators to discredit the Council nefariously. The soon to be Pope Paul VI was addressing the Good Friday liturgy that referred to the Jews as ‘perfidus’ and the Protestants as ‘schismatics’ and ‘heretics’ which did nothing but perpetrate the atmosphere of disunity among Christians. Here is what the real quote is.

“The 7th prayer [of the new rite for Good Friday] bears the title: ‘For the Unity of Christians’ (not ‘of the Church’, which was always one.) No longer used is the pariah ‘heretics’ and ‘schismatics’ but ‘all brethren who believe in Christ…’

Scholars think to shed light on biblical and liturgical sources from which the new texts are derived or inspired, which the Study Groups of the “Council” accomplished by using a chisel. And let’s say that often the work proceeded ‘with fear and trembling’ by sacrificing terms and concepts so dear, and now part of the long family tradition. How not to regret that ‘Mother Church- Holy, Catholic and Apostolic - deigned to revoke’ the seventh prayer? And yet it is the love of souls and the desire to help in any way the road to union of the separated brethren, by removing every stone that could even remotely constitute an obstacle or difficulty, that has driven the Church to make even these painful sacrifices."

I pray that you recognize that you are getting your formation from unholy sources on the internet.

 

[c4csp]

Affording you the benefit of the doubt, this ‘quote’ has been misused by anti Vatican II agitators to discredit the Council nefariously. The soon to be Pope Paul VI was addressing the Good Friday liturgy that referred to the Jews as ‘perfidus’ and the Protestants as ‘schismatics’ and ‘heretics’ which did nothing but perpetrate the atmosphere of disunity among Christians. Here is what the real quote is.

“The 7th prayer [of the new rite for Good Friday] bears the title: ‘For the Unity of Christians’ (not ‘of the Church’, which was always one.) No longer used is the pariah ‘heretics’ and ‘schismatics’ but ‘all brethren who believe in Christ…’

Scholars think to shed light on biblical and liturgical sources from which the new texts are derived or inspired, which the Study Groups of the “Council” accomplished by using a chisel. And let’s say that often the work proceeded ‘with fear and trembling’ by sacrificing terms and concepts so dear, and now part of the long family tradition. How not to regret that ‘Mother Church- Holy, Catholic and Apostolic - deigned to revoke’ the seventh prayer? And yet it is the love of souls and the desire to help in any way the road to union of the separated brethren, by removing every stone that could even remotely constitute an obstacle or difficulty, that has driven the Church to make even these painful sacrifices."

I pray that you recognize that you are getting your formation from unholy sources on the internet.

We can hope for unity. However, there is only one Church. Anyone outside is outside the ordinary means of salvation. Catholic teaching is that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. How are those outside the Church having any mortal sins forgiven?

Any “Church” outside the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is a heretical church.

 

[Crusader13]

The actual translation of the words, even if the cited quote is an incorrect translation, still proves the mindset of Bugnini.

His words aren’t meant to discredit the council as a whole, but merely to the address the motive behind the changes to the liturgy.

Even if you gave him the benefit of the doubt that he was merely addressing the 7th prayer, the changes went far beyond that.

Which stones was he referring to that needed to be removed for non-Catholic Christians?

He tells you exactly what he’s thinking

by removing every stone that could even remotely constitute an obstacle or difficulty

What did the disciples of Jesus do when they encountered a difficult saying? They left Him.

Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.
John 6:60,66

 

[MarkRome]

Which stones was he referring to that needed to be removed for non-Catholic Christians?

Referring to non-Catholic Christians as heretics and schismatics.

No longer used is the pariah ‘heretics’ and ‘schismatics’ but ‘all brethren who believe in Christ…’

 

[Crusader13]

Crusader13:

Which stones was he referring to that needed to be removed for non-Catholic Christians?

Referring to non-Catholic Christians as heretics and schismatics.

No longer used is the pariah ‘heretics’ and ‘schismatics’ but ‘all brethren who believe in Christ…’

I’ll give you that in the article he may have been referring to those two words only.

Yet, he goes on to say “every stone that represents an obstacle or difficulty“. And everyone is well aware that the liturgical changes included far more the just the removal of two words.

 

[MarkRome]

And everyone is well aware that the liturgical changes included far more the just the removal of two words.

And as the video in OP explains, liturgical changes have happened numerous times throughout the centuries.

 

[Crusader13]

No doubt. Changes aren’t necessarily bad in all cases.

If the liturgy is viewed as a cathedral slowly built over the centuries, you can see where changes have greatly enhanced the structure as a whole. Some out of necessity and others out of a belief that certain changes can better the liturgical experience. But these changes left the external and internal elements the same, essentially leaving the cathedral as it was.

Bugnini came in and gutted the interior. Tore down certain structures of the Church and placed drywall throughout the inside with shag carpeting, linoleum and wood wall paneling.

 

[c4csp]

No doubt. Changes aren’t necessarily bad in all cases.

If the liturgy is viewed as a cathedral slowly built over the centuries, you can see where changes have greatly enhanced the structure as a whole. Some out of necessity and others out of a belief that certain changes can better the liturgical experience. But these changes left the external and internal elements the same, essentially leaving the cathedral as it was.

Bugnini came in and gutted the interior. Tore down certain structures of the Church and placed drywall throughout the inside with shag carpeting, linoleum and wood wall paneling.

The thing I just have such a difficult time with is why did the churches have to stop appearing “Catholic” in appearance and instead appear Protestant. That is just very difficult to reconcile the hermeneutic of continuity.

Also, why the resurrected Jesus instead of crucifix above altar? The mass is the holy sacrifice at calvary. We see today, many churches going back to the crucifix. It all smells fishy when you look at big picture.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Thank you. You said it much better than I.

 

[Canvas]

It doesn’t need to tell us when to go to Mass

Then why does the Church have the First Precept?

 

[Tolle_Lege]

“Stop blaming Vatican II.”

It’s like a hurricane tearing through your town and demolishing your house, but blaming its destruction on somebody who sneezed 50 miles away.

 

[AlNg]

Is Vatican II the hurricane or is it the person who sneezed?