Vatican 2: What do you like about it?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Michael16
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The massive pipe organ in our church is extremely loud. Loud instruments did not come about because of V2.
 
Last edited:
How would you feel if a parish still uses Latin, and the priest faces liturgical East (not facing the people)? Because I"m pretty sure those things were still considered the norm for the documents of Vatican II. The documents “allowed” English and “facing the people” as options, but I don’t believe the documents of Vatican II treat those as the new norm.

" The Mass on EWTN, which is said in the vernacular but includes some Latin, is according to the current norms. The Second Vatican Council desired the retention of Latin as the ritual language of the Roman Rite. In the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy the Council stated,
  1. § 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/latin_and_english_in_the_mass.htm

Also, this, about the priest facing the people:
“The cardinal explains further that the almost universal change to altars
facing toward the people is not a decree of the II Vatican Council.”

http://www.ewtn.com/library/liturgy/smturned.txt
 
Last edited:
It is a stereotype that pre V2 laity were not involved beyond Mass and school. My father was very much involved with the Knights of Columbus and St. Vincent de Paul. My mother and father were part of the CFM (Catholic Family Movement) a small group discussion that met in members homes weekly.
I was in the 8th grade when the V2 Mass was introduced. I liked and still like the variety of readings that we hear at Mass. And a reverently celebrated V2 Mass is wonderful.
 
I know there are some people here that don’t like the V2 music and don’t think it was actually allowed by V2. Sorry, but I don’t agree. Not only do I like it, a lot, but it has given me an avocation as a music minister for 40 years.

There is the saying you all know, “He who sings, prays twice.” I have witnessed in my own life and by observing the congregations I’ve served that V2 music has done that. Another saying you know is “pray unceasingly.” In my life, preparing to play music at a Mass is a week-long thing and I work to get the tunes in my head, as well as my fingers. It causes me to “pray unceasingly.” So if my soul have been saved, that has been part of it being saved.

As to it being permitted by V2, excuse me, but it has been going on at most parishes for a half a century. I think the Vatican would have gotten the hint and put out some prohibition if it were not permitted. Pope Francis had that recent letter, but he did not specify exactly what music he was talking about. Personally, I think a lot of parishes’ butchering of Gregorian Chant is “mediocre and banal.”
 
First af all, I must state that i was born post V2 so don’t really know that much about how things were previously. I have just picked up on what people have told me.

I believe that the whole V2 discussion needs to be seen in the broader perspective of changes that would have occurred anyway, and so to some extent V2 was following trends rather than setting them. Barking at v2 is thus scapegoating. And as others have said, a lot of wrong was done in the name of V2 that wasn’t necessarily in the spirit of V2.

So the rest of this post is not really about V2 but abot the broader changes that have occurred to churches at that time and since.

Personally, i like the older style of churches. i like the old statues and paintings that reflect a heartfelt sense of piety and belief rather than many of the modern statues and artwork and music that just shouts, look what a cool artist or architect or musician i am and thus doesn’t necessariyl lead people in prayer but just fills space and time in churches.

Other people may look at the older artwork and just see tired cliches. Maybe there was a time that there were too many of them and they became cliches, but now that so many churcjhes have been modernized it’s the modern stuff that has become the cliche and there is a need to carefully bring some older stuff back.

Personally, I love the gold trimmed cassocks and incense and commnion rails and Gregorian chant in Latin and many of the other things that are often associated with pre V2 and that are now mostly only to be found in traditionalist parishes. But I also understand that others may disagree,
 
Last edited:
People in USA didn’t like the gold and fancy cassocks and so forth in the 1950s, 60s and 70s because they thought it symbolized a rich Church and rich people ignoring poverty. To be fair, the US had fewer social welfare programs then, and there were more people, including children, living in bad conditions, so it was right to be concerned, but turning churches into bare-looking buildings was not to me the best way to go about expressing the concern. Nevertheless, many thought the Church should not have any appearance of looking rich and should sell off all of its gold and art and so forth and give all the money to the poor. The idea of richness as a way to honor God was lost along the way.
 
Just saying, the actual saying is “He who sing well, prays twice”.
 
Well, I’ve heard it my way and I think that is more inclusive. A music director I had once quipped, “If you sing well, sing loudly to thank the Lord for your great voice. If you sing badly, sing loudly to get back at Him!” It’s meant facetiously, of course.
 
I know there’s one lady who always comes to daily Mass and Benediction at a church near me who is completely tone deaf and sings loudly but completely off key. She is very devout and I have adjusted to hearing her voice. It’s what God gave her and she’s using it to praise Him, I’m sure He is pleased. I simply sing loudly myself, on-key.
 
“… changes that would have occurred anyway…?” Changes made by who? Decided by who? Jesus Christ is just as relevant today as he was 2,000 years ago. The older Churches were built as houses of worship. The statues, the stained glass and so on, are all there for a reason. Cliche is for art but not God.
 
edwest211 said:
n’s groups. Banners used by these groups w
Click to expand...
I like that it was the largest/most inclusive Council in the history of the Church. I like that the primary focus of the Council was to “Return to the sources” and shed much of the daintiness of the clergy.

Ecumenism, universal call to Holiness, the Mass, sources of revelation…all great steps forward for the Church.
 
You know, this term “the universal call to holiness” kind of baffles me. Isn’t this the goal of all Christians, regardless of era? I can’t help but think that I have an impression of pre-Vatican II Catholics being just as holy, if not more holy, than we are now. Undoubtedly some of you will point out how wrong I am…
 
I don’t know if pre-Vatican II Catholics were more holy, but I could sense the presence of God permeated people and American society more deeply. I certainly thought about God each day - still do.
 
I think there was more of a sense that priests and nuns were called to be holy. The rest of us were down in the trenches, going to work, raising our families, living our lives – nothing very holy at all.
 
That was all holy too. It’s Biblical. Most of our moms and dads did the best they could, worked hard and had good family relationships. No, it wasn’t perfect but growing up, I had a number of real-life role models that helped form me. To be good was a good thing.
 
edwest211 said:
“inclusive” ? Anyone can go to Church. No one will be excluding anyone at the door. There is no ‘daintiness.’ When Pope Benedict celebrated Mass while wearing old vestments, one prominent critic of the Church said, “The Pope wants to return the Church to the Middle Ages.”
Click to expand...
Inclusive was the wrong word to use… Representative is a better word. The council had reps from all over the world…and the Eastern Catholic Church…that is what I meant. It was the most truly ecumenical, global council in the Chirch’s History… less Italian… more inclusive of all cultures… a very good thing
 
Last edited:
I think there was a lot of abuse of Vatican II, like removal of Communion rails, the tabernacle location changed from the center of the altar (I hate that one, people pass by the tabernacle and genuflect to the table), holding hands during the Lord’s Prayer, some of the music, women not wearing head covers, etc., VII didn’t call for any of those things.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top