Vatican 2: What do you like about it?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Michael16
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Michael16

Guest
I’ll admit: I’m only two years in the Church. But, I love what I’ve seen and experienced in the Church. I think this’ll be a good discussion.

From what I gather; there’s a lot of controversy regarding V2 after 53 years. From what my inexperienced eyes see, there’s a lot of good it did in the Church. The main thing for me is the revitalizing of laity and the universal call to holiness. It seems to me that lay Catholics are on fire; a sweet flowering of lay ministry.

It seems to me, this could be a stereotype; that pre V2 laity just weren’t that involved beyond Sunday Mass and Catholic school.

My question is: What do y’all like about V2? Thanks ahead for your replies.
 
You mentioned my favorite thing – the universal call to holiness. It’s a huge blessing and responsibility.
 
I grew up with the post-V2 OF Mass.
It’s okay with me.
I like Latin Mass too, but don’t want it every day.
St. Pope John XXIII was a cool guy.
It’s helpful to only have to fast 1 hour before Mass, especially on weekdays, and it’s good to have afternoon Mass options and Saturday vigil options.
I like guitar Masses.
 
I agree that the universal call to holiness is Botha a blessing and a responsibility. I don’t know much about John XXIII. I like the OF Mass; though I’d like to go to a Latin Mass one day. My favorite Pope is Francis.
 
I think adding a reading from the Old Testament was a good change, especially when all 3 readings are explained in relationship to each other during the homily, the way Archbishop Chaput does it.
 
Yes, the revised lectionary. The current version of the Liturgy of the Hours came out of Vatican II. RCIA as well. And the restoration of the permanent diaconate. Lots of good things.
 
Opening Speech to the
Vatican II Council

Pope John XXIII

October 11, 1962

….”In the daily exercise of our pastoral office, we sometimes have to listen, much to our regret, to voices of persons who, though burning with zeal, are not endowed with too much sense of discretion or measure. In these modern times they can see nothing but prevarication and ruin. They say that our era, in comparison with past eras, is getting worse, and they behave as though they had learned nothing from history, which is, none the less, the teacher of life. They behave as though at the time of former Councils everything was a full triumph for the Christian idea and life and for proper religious liberty.

We feel we must disagree with those prophets of gloom, who are always forecasting disaster, as though the end of the world were at hand.

In the present order of things, Divine Providence is leading us to a new order of human relations which, by men’s own efforts and even beyond their very expectations, are directed toward the fulfillment of God’s superior and inscrutable designs. And everything, even human differences, leads to the greater good of the Church….”

Peace
 
You’re welcome!

I only remembered it myself when seeing this thread because I had occasion recently to look up Tom Lehrer’s “National Brotherhood Week” to show a buddy. I was mentioning that we could use an updated version for the country today in the 21st century.
 
Michael16 said:
I’ll admit: I’m only two years in the Church. But, I love what I’ve seen and experienced in the Church. I think this’ll be a good discussion.

From what I gather; there’s a lot of controversy regarding V2 after 53 years. From what my inexperienced eyes see, there’s a lot of good it did in the Church. The main thing for me is the revitalizing of laity and the universal call to holiness. It seems to me that lay Catholics are on fire; a sweet flowering of lay ministry.

It seems to me, this could be a stereotype; that pre V2 laity just weren’t that involved beyond Sunday Mass and Catholic school.

My question is: What do y’all like about V2? Thanks ahead for your replies.
Click to expand...
The pre-Vatican 2 laity was highly involved (and more involved then than today) with social/fellowship things. But less so with ministry.

If you read the actual documents of Vatican II, there is lots to love about it. It also did a lot to help the advancement of the Faith in Africa & Asia.

What most people don’t like about Vatican II are the abuses made in the name or “Spirit of Vatican II.” In other words, people claiming they were doing XYZ because Vatican II told them to do so, even though Vatican II never addresses such things.

In other words, it was the people who took things too far, beyond what the Pope and Council intended.

God Bless
 
I was there before Vatican II. Aside from going to Mass and School, there were a number of men’s groups and women’s groups. Banners used by these groups were collected by the first and farthest pew to the left of the altar. People were more civil in general and God was more in our daily lives. No, it was not perfect but reverence for God meant respect for others. I remember Mass at Dawn or Sunrise Mass at my Church. The procession was wonderful. Carrying the potted lily…

After Vatican II, some took it upon themselves to remove altar/communion rails and statues. None of this was even suggested by Vatican II.
 
The documents give an outline, but not necessarily the specifics of how things should be revised. It was left to others to work out the details, for example, the order of the Mass.

In other cases, changes were made in the spirit of the times. For example, removing communion rails is a favorite bugbear of certain Catholics, but nothing in the documents of Vatican II talks about communion rails. They attribute to Vatican II something that was done at the behest of a particular pastor in a particular parish.
 
Cajun joy-- is this news to you? Or is that a rhetorical question?
 
Which is why altar/communion rails and statues are being restored. The primary reason: “Because of what happened in the 1960s.” No one had any right to remove them or ‘blame it on Vatican II.’ Vatican II is blameless.
 
With respect to the changes in Church interiors, yes, that’s my understanding.

Granted, some of them were probably overcluttered and ripe for a re-do, but they went too far in many cases.
 
I liked that it promulgated the doctrine on the nature of the episcopate, especially as a body, that was in the schemas and relatios of the First Vatican Council, but which that Council could not get to because Rome was taken over as part of Italian unification.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top