Vatican 2: What do you like about it?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Michael16
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
By those standards, every church should look today exactly as it did in 1870 or whenever.

There have been some very nice repaintings and remodelings of old churches.

If you see it another way, then that’s your opinion, but there’s nothing “wrong” about a difference of opinion in how many statues, drapes, paintings, hanging lights, etc. one puts in a church.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
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.
Click to expand...
Born in 1964, agree with all of Tis_Bearself’s points.
 
Personally, I miss the communion rails and wish they would put them back.
 
Vatican II itself never called for their removal. It was a product of those who embraced the so-called “Spirit of Vatican II.”
 
Yes, Vatican II was used as an excuse for “change” which it never called for.
 
Someone should start yet another thread on the evils of Vatican II. This thread is supposed to be Vatican 2: What do you like about it?
 
Your last sentence sums it up. As far as liking Vatican II, Holy Mother Church made a decision and I obeyed - that’s it. The Liturgical Reform was a given but some decided ‘creativity’ and ‘deformations of the liturgy’ were called for. There was nothing to like ‘per se,’ like a new flavor of ice cream. When I came to Church and saw for the first time, a smaller altar in front of the larger High Altar and the priest facing the people and speaking English instead of Latin, I knew the Church had the authority to do this. I calmly accepted.
 
Last edited:
edwest211 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well, they might be restored in some places, but in others they are not
 
In regards to the Liturgy,
  1. one big part of the problem was that the German Bishops were given too much influence.
  • Many wanted to see the reforms be a way to bring back Protestants, and due to Germany’s unique situation with Catholics & Lutherans, the Germans were kind of considered as experts in this area. Well, they went too far in some areas.
  1. I heard a story from one of my Deacons that the Blessed Paul VI (while a great and holy man) was a little too naïve as a leader. He trusted people too much and didn’t proof things before signing them into Church law. One example my Deacon gave was the elemination of the Octive of Pentecost. The story is that the day after the first Pentecost with the new mass, the Pope Paul was starting to get ready for mass and said to the person helping him: you have the wrong color, it’s not green we are supposed to be wearing red, it’s the Octive of Pentecost. His assistant told His Holiness that Octive we removed from the new calendar. The Pope then responded with “what?!? Who approved that.” His assistant responded with “you signed your approval Your Holiness.” Finally, the Pope then broke down crying.
  • Pope Paul was a great man, but some people took advantage of his kindness- which is why I beleive is why Pope Paul said the smoke of the devil has entered the sanctuary.
God Bless
 
I like most things about V2: most but not all changes to the Mass, universal call to holiness, Humanæ Vitæ, increasing involvement of the laity. I dislike how modernists abused and warped the documents of V2 to support their agenda.
 
I love that I can understand the words of the mass, and the increased participation that the parishioners are able to have with V2. This is a hot button issue, but for me personally I like that I can receive the Eucharist in my hand. For me the thought is uncomfortable, of sticking my tongue out and having someone put the host on it, especially if it isn’t a priest or deacon doing it. And my husband is very OCD and has sensory sensitivity at times and I think he would have had a harder time converting if it were the only option. I would love if the above mentioned things would be combined with the solemnity of the EF mass as the standard. I don’t prefer contemporary music etc.
 
This is all very informative; thank you all for posting. As for the Communion rails: I’d like to see them come back. Ever since I came into the Church; I’m a bit of a stickler for tradition. As for the abuses perpetrated under the the “ Spirit of V2 “, I agree that’s modernists pushing an agenda for something the Holy Mother Church never countenanced.

I also wonder: Why did the Church leave the details, so to speak; for everyone to work out?

Also: What was the role of the Jesuits in V2?
 
Last edited:
I like communion rails too. I’m too young and too recent of a Catholic (2004) to have known what it was like before. But I see communion rails in some Episcopalian churches, and they nudge the participants in the liturgy towards reverence at one of the instances of the liturgy that calls for the most reverence. I like it.

And, many documents from V2 are great, but my 3 favorites are Dei Verbum, Lumen Gentium and Unitatis Redintegratio. When I was becoming Catholic, all three provided a lot of helpful clarity to my mind in important areas of the church.
 
Michael16 said:
I also wonder: Why did the Church leave the details, so to speak; for everyone to work out?
Click to expand...
The Council ran from 1962 to 1965. If they had to come to agreement about every detail of every reform, it would probably still be in session today.
 
I was born in 1980 and know no different. I like everything but the main thing I like is the priest facing the congregation during mass
 
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger talks about the priest:
“The turning of the priest toward the people has turned the community into a self-enclosed circle” (80).

“They did not close themselves into a circle; they did not gaze at one another; but as the pilgrim People of God they set off for the Oriens , for the Christ who comes to meet us “(80).

“Every age must discover and express the essence of the liturgy anew. The point is to discover this essence amid all the changing appearances” (81).

“Looking at the priest has no importance. What matters is looking together at the Lord” (81).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The Church did not leave any details to be worked out. The small altar, the priest facing the people and speaking English. Not rocket science. But then clown masses, secular music/songs, loud instruments? That wasn’t written down anywhere. For some, there is an idol, a god called Change that drives them. All everyone had to do was stick to the basics. They had no authority to do a lot of things.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top