Vatican II and changes that followed were necesary changes in the Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter SenorSalsa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SenorSalsa

Guest
Now, hang with me before you yell at me.

Naturally, i realize that most on this forum dont like all the changes. But if you can find at least one change that was good, i say it was all good. It has shown us what we think should be changed, and shown us why other things should be left alone.

In my opinion, it was necesary to go too far, in order to realize that we needed to come back, as opposed to not going far enough, and people always saying we need more
 
I won’t yell. 😃 But I have to ask, what was a good change that came out of Vatican II, in your opinion?
 
i personally think the use of vernacular is a good change.

After all, the gift of tounges was a gift given to the Apostles, and they used it. They didnt go to the corners of the Earth, understand thier languages, and yet speak in thier own
 
SenorSalsa said:
i personally think the use of vernacular is a good change.

After all, the gift of tounges was a gift given to the Apostles, and they used it. They didnt go to the corners of the Earth, understand thier languages, and yet speak in thier own
Click to expand...
A lot of people might also argue that use of the vernacular is what led to liturgical add-libbing and inclusive language. I personally don’t have a problem with the concept of a mostly vernacular liturgy, but I definitely prefer Latin. Besides, comprehension is not an issue. Even for those who don’t wish to take the time to actually learn a little Latin (it’s really not a difficult language…), the vernacular translation is printed right in the missal.
 
SenorSalsa said:
But if you can find at least one change that was good, i say it was all good.
Click to expand...
So because Hitler made the trains run on time, created the autobahn and the volkswagon then all of Nazi Germany and the “change” that it wrought was good? Your logic is false.

I think the lack of respect for the eucharist, the plummeting attendance, the watering down of theological teaching and tradition, the lack of vocations and the erosion of our Catholic idenity and heritage far outweigh any good that come out of the interpertation an implementation of Vatican II.
 
SenorSalsa said:
i personally think the use of vernacular is a good change.

After all, the gift of tounges was a gift given to the Apostles, and they used it. They didnt go to the corners of the Earth, understand thier languages, and yet speak in thier own
Click to expand...
Your analogy is false. The gift of tounges acted as a universal tounge that allowed everyone to understand the apostles. We have this in the Catholic Church today, it is called Latin. What we have to day is multiple tounges. If I went to a foriegn country I could not understand the NO Mass. If all the Masses were in a universal tounge like latin and I knew the Latin Mass I could understand the Mass and more fully participate in it where ever I was. The use of the vernacular besides excluding non-native speakers creates division (i.e. American Catholic, German Catholic, French Catholic etc) because the form of the Mass is no longer universal and specific to that country.
 
One good change was the modicum of respect finally shown to Eastern Catholics. Whether the bad changes can be blamed directly upon the Council or not I cannot say.

CDL
 
I’m not known as a fan of V II particularly when it comes to liturgy but one of the very best things to come out of V II was the increased emphasis on Scripture - three readings and a psalm and a three year cycle. That was a beneficial change.
 
thedavidwilson said:
Your analogy is false. The gift of tounges acted as a universal tounge that allowed everyone to understand the apostles. We have this in the Catholic Church today, it is called Latin. What we have to day is multiple tounges. If I went to a foriegn country I could not understand the NO Mass. If all the Masses were in a universal tounge like latin and I knew the Latin Mass I could understand the Mass and more fully participate in it where ever I was. The use of the vernacular besides excluding non-native speakers creates division (i.e. American Catholic, German Catholic, French Catholic etc) because the form of the Mass is no longer universal and specific to that country.
Click to expand...
While you might not understand the specific foreign language one would understand the OF anywhere. The OF is universal and NOT specific to any country.

The missal used is the same.

The ‘divisions’ you speak of (German Catholic etc) existed LONG before Vat II - often falling along the lines of which ethnic group built a specific parish church.
 
brotherhrolf said:
I’m not known as a fan of V II particularly when it comes to liturgy but one of the very best things to come out of V II was the increased emphasis on Scripture - three readings and a psalm and a three year cycle. That was a beneficial change.
Click to expand...
If you read the 1962 Mass you will notice that OT readings were integrated thoughout the Mass in addition to the Epistle and Gospel reading. I have never made a one-to-one comparison but I would imagine there is just as much scripture in the Tridentine Mass as there is in the NO.
 
thedavidwilson said:
If you read the 1962 Mass you will notice that OT readings were integrated thoughout the Mass in addition to the Epistle and Gospel reading. I have never made a one-to-one comparison but I would imagine there is just as much scripture in the Tridentine Mass as there is in the NO.
Click to expand...
I agree - and it always seems to me like these propers (aside from always speaking to my heart) fit in much better with the mass of that day and the liturgical season and drawn more from Psalms & other OT Scripture than I see in their counterpart (for those that still exist) in the OF.

I don’t know how to say it, it’s kind of hard to put a finger on it. They just seem less like, eh, “generic” prayers and more geared to the particular mass of the day.

For example, here are the propersfor this past Sunday’s mass - the Introit especially just sets the “Lenten” tone and disposition:Introit
(Psalm 24: 15, 16) My eyes are ever towards the Lord: for He shall pluck my feet out of the snare: look Thou upon me, and have mercy on me; for I am alone and poor. – (Ps. 24. 1, 2). To Thee, O Lord, have I lifted up my soul: in Thee, O my God, I put my trust; let me be not ashamed. V.: Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the begining, is now, and ever shall be. Amen . . . *-- My eyes are ever towards the Lord . . . *.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad
 
Vatican II has caused so much disunity within the Church; the only way one could find good in it is if they had a nonCatholic spirit.

Vernacular good? No more unity.

More Scripture in the Mass? As already stated, the Tridentine Rite has so much Scripture, only a few prayers aren’t directly from the Bible. The different “approved” translations do not all say the same thing anyway. Oh yeah, no unity in the readings either, as the priest can choose which one he will go with.

More tolerance? No, just indifference. Less conversions to the Church, more conversions out of the Church, more presumption on the goodness of God, less realization that He is also the Judge…the list goes on and on and on.

If one wants to know if something is good or bad, look at what the enemy says. What do Protestants think? The Jews? The Freemasons? (I do not say that the people are bad - I’m referring to the religion as the enemy.)
 
I think that the intention of Vatican II was good; certain interpretations and implementations were not.
The vernacular liturgy combined with the active participation of the congregation is a good thing. The greater use of OT readings in the Sunday mass is another.

I also think it is a good thing that the Tridentine rite is available for folks who want it. Of course, as I understand it, in the reconciliation of certain breakaway traditionalist groups with the Church, part of the deal was that they acknowledge the validity of Vatican II, tho not necessarily all interpretations and implementations.

I have gone to Latin Masses, and can’t get into the thing. The priest does his own thing, saying the prayers quietly and at 90 mph, that it is hard if not impossible to keep up with him. This past Sunday at a Low Mass, trying to find out where we were, all of a sudden we’re at the Gospel. After the Creed, I tried to find where we were, and suddenly we are at the Consecration.
I just don’t see how this way of celebrating Mass is beneficial.

Whenever I go to Latin Mass at all, I usually go to the High Mass for the music and choir, and sit up front so I can keep an eye on what’s going on.

I will say the language of the English translations of the Latin prayers is much more beautiful than the bland language of the vernacular mass. I wonder if they couldn’t offer the possibility of having the Tridentine Mass done in English with the congregation (not just the server) making the responses. No other changes. That idea will horrify some, I think.

Can anyone refer me to a detailed explanation of how and why the rubrics of the Latin Mass came about and why?
Particularly:

Why does the priest pray silently (and all too rapidly?)
It hardly seems reverent to race thru any prayer, in any language, as if you just had to get it done.

Why does the server generally make the responses, not the congregation?

Thanks to anyone who can help.
 
=Robster7;3361018]
I have gone to Latin Masses, and can’t get into the thing. The priest does his own thing, saying the prayers quietly and at 90 mph, that it is hard if not impossible to keep up with him. This past Sunday at a Low Mass, trying to find out where we were, all of a sudden we’re at the Gospel. After the Creed, I tried to find where we were, and suddenly we are at the Consecration.
I just don’t see how this way of celebrating Mass is beneficial.
Click to expand...
To appreciate the Traditional Mass you need to understand the symbolism. Consider that in the New Mass the priest begins by kissing the altar then he goes to the side, makes the sign of the cross and then he has 3 optional prayers from the Penitntial Rite. IF he choses B or C he doesn’t even say, the Confeitor," I confess to almight God etc…
In the Traditional Mass the priest cannot approach the altar until after he has said the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar which includes his public confession the Confeitor. After the servers say their Confietor only then can the priest approach the altar.
The difference in reverence is astounding. As for symbolism the prayers at the foot of the altar symbolize the Agony in the Garden.
The priest makes the sign of the cross over 50 times as well as numerous bows genuflections.
I love the silent Canon. There is no better way to prepare yourself to receive the Body and BLood of Christ. Silence is golden. No distractions. No hand holding or shaking hands with your neighbor.
There is no reason to get lost in the TLM. The priest will say certain words in a “loud voice” that will let you know exactly where he is.
Of course the TLM has the beautiful Last Gospel of John and at a Low Mass the Leonine prayers follow.
I don’t believe that a casual Catholic, one that goes only to Mass on Sundays and sometimes on Holy Days will appreciate the Traditional Mass.
Serious Catholics that fully understand that the Mass is a sacrifice and not a social gathering will love it. Catholics that reguarly, if not daily, say the rosary, go to confession reguarly, try to go to daily Mass and understand the Tradition of the Mass will be the Catholics most attracted to it.

Here are two good articles on the Mass.
holytrinitygerman.org/tridrite.html
latin-mass-society.org/dietrich.htm
 
Well folks can moan and groan till the cows come home, but there is no doubt that both John XXIII and Paul VI saw the Council as an Ecumenical Council and therefore one which must be accepted by the Faithful. Now if one wants to talk about some of the changes that followed as being a mistaken interpretation of what the Council intended I suppose it is open season. I have never been convinced that a some of the “stuff” that changed or was implemented had anything to do with the Council, but much more to do with the rebelliousness of the times that coincided with the closing of the Council. I believe we had plenty of rebels on both sides of the aisle, so to speak. Apparently we still do.
 
First of all, did Vatican II order any changes? (We all presume in the liturgy. Vernacular had already been in force in the readings and the homily and Leonine Prayers.) But if Vatican II did order any changes, were they “necesary”? Not saying that they weren’t but necessary to do what?

PS. Use of the vernacular is not an excuse not to study Latin, which is still the official language of the Church AND ORDERED BY VATICAN II. I understand it’s outside of one’s comfort zone, but it may be of tremendous benefit to learn some Latin, vernacular allowed or not.
 
stmaria said:
I don’t believe that a casual Catholic, one that goes only to Mass on Sundays and sometimes on Holy Days will appreciate the Traditional Mass.
Serious Catholics that fully understand that the Mass is a sacrifice and not a social gathering will love it. Catholics that reguarly, if not daily, say the rosary, go to confession reguarly, try to go to daily Mass and understand the Tradition of the Mass will be the Catholics most attracted to it.

]
Click to expand...
I find this very condescending. People who only go to Mass on Sundays are “casual” Catholics? Perhaps they work all week and cannot go to Mass during the week even though they would like to. And how do you know about the prayer habits of those who go to mass only on Sunday.

As to the second part…I am, according to your description, a “serious” Catholic who does everything that you wrote, including studying and understanding the Tradition of the Mass, and I have absolutly no interest in the Extraordinary Form outside of an academic interest. I beleive people should be able to attend it if they prefer it, but no one should catagorize the spirituality of anyone based on what form of the Mass they choose to celebrate.
 
Here are good things I like about Vatican II:
  • The NO mass is easier to understand.
  • The NO mass is designed to make liturgical abuses easier to spot mainly due to most of it being audible (silent TLM = liturgical abuses easily hidden - silent prayer skipped for example)
  • The Catechism of the Catholic Church. Both the 1994 and 1997 versions.
  • We are getting lots of protestant conversions.
  • Communion under both species available to the laity. Though not in V2 explicitly, the NO mass has this, and I think this is a GOOD THING.
  • Vatican I was finally officially closed.
  • EWTN (thank you Inter Mirifica)
  • Catholic Answers
  • Catholic Radio (thank you again Inter Mirifica)
  • Coming Home Network
  • Other lay apostolates - encouraged by V2
  • More respect for the Eastern Catholic Churches - (thank you Orientalium Ecclesiarum) - yes, I agree, definitely overdue and a GOOD THING
  • Steubenville - 'nuff said.
  • Association of Hebrew Catholics. (thank you Nostra Aetate)
 
stmaria said:
The priest makes the sign of the cross over 50 times as well as numerous bows genuflections.
Click to expand...
From what i understand, during the middle ages, people made the sign of the cross 100s of times, as often as they could, during Mass and other prayer time

Then a wise mind remembered that it isnt the number of prayers, its the reverence with which the are said, and the meaning behind them. One reverent sign of the cross is more reverent than a hundred hurried.

I was recently at a discernment dinner at which my bishop, a very conservative priest, said when he still celebrated the TLM, the Pastor of the church he was serving at, told him the night before a important Mass told him “Be pious on your own time”, so at Communion, he said the line they had to say(the really long latin one) as he went down the line, so that each person got one part, in order to get the hundreds through. He said he realized even as he did it, just saying the first part(the body of Christ, except in Latin basically) would have been more reverent then a long prayer said hurredly.

Liturgical abuse existed in the TLM too, people must konw that before they so harshly judge the OF
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top