Vatican II from a young person's perspective

[edwest2]

But it did facilitate them. After all, if a new Mass hadn’t been written then there wouldn’t have been … a new Mass. If anything, it invited trouble by failing to take the firm hold necessary (especially given the rapid decline in secular society at that point).

Many traditionalists agree that there were problems before Vatican II. I agree with this - I don’t believe that things were perfect, but be that as it may I think that they were still better than what we have now in terms of Mass attendance, reverence, adherence to Catholic doctrine, quality of catechesis and Catholic education, number of vocations, etc. Reforms were needed yes - certain changes were necessary given the state of the world but Vatican II did little towards implementing them. Instead, it chose a full over-haul of the Mass and in choosing an overhaul, it opened the door to the problems and confusions we see today.

To be perfectly frank, given the progression of society at the time, what was needed was a strict condemnation of relativism, subjectivism, modernism and communism. Unfortunately, the Church instead (whether intentionally or not) projected an image of flexibility and accommodation to modern ideas. Couple the poor understanding of ecumenism to the religious pluralism that society was touting and many poor Catholics mistakenly thought that the Church was endorsing these ideas too. The bottom line is that all this gave the impression that the immutable, unchangeable Catholic Church had changed and this confusion and distress lead to many people falling away from a faith that they no longer felt they understood.

Edit: I just noticed the post above mine and I agree completely. How interesting that the lack of reverence in the Church has tracked the general lack of reverence in society. With one follows the other when, in fact, the Church needs to stand up against the lax attitudes in society through the clear imposition of doctrine and moral education. I’m a young person and I want to know what is right and wrong - my generation, for a large part, is sick of hearing that 'it depends upon each person/circumstances/culture, etc".

Your generation did not hear the following over a 40 year period:

“Hey. You know what the problem is with you Catholics? You’re sexually repressed!”

“All you do is listen to the Pope. Can’t you think for yourselves?”

And then, when young people began cohabitating with sex, their parents asked them: “Why are you doing this?” The reply? “We’re adults, we can do what we want.” Or “Leave me alone. I don’t have to listen to you anymore.”

When society called cohabitation a scandal: “Leave us alone! Mind your own business! We’re responsible adults.” At the time, this type of living arrangement was called an “alternative lifestyle.” Alternative to marriage, that is.

The Hippies in the late 1960s rejected religion and marriage. They called fornication “natural acts.” One Hippie friend of mine said, “I don’t need no piece of paper to live with my old lady.” (old lady was a terrible synonim for wife).

And what about TV and the movies? There used to be love and romance, followed by marriage. Today? A couple has ‘just sex’ which is meaningless.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

I have to disagree with this post on some levels. Certainly things were not perfect, and certainly Vat II is not the cause of all evils, but from the lay perspective, Vat II did embrace certain elements of the age. As a “cradle” protestant I can attest to this. Vat II had ramifications that led far beyond the Catholic Church.
Most of the “old mainstream” protestant denominations suffered greatly from the perspectives that came from that time and “endorsed” by Vat II. Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians ect. The reach of Vat II went far beyond Rome. I saw it happen.

All eyes are on Rome, and anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded.

As far as “understanding the Mass”, that’s irrelevant to a degree. It is a participation in a Sacrament. Infants do not understand their Baptism. I spent the first few years of my “Catholic” faith immersed in a Byzantine liturgy where even most of the Greeks knew little of what what was said (similar to how many protestants, who speak English, can’t handle the King James or a high Anglican liturgy).

If you participate, you know the Mass, regardless, imo.

The sacramental was diminished for other agendas. Thank God, it seems the Church has weathered the storm. Thank God for Pope Benedict and his reforms.

Understanding the Mass and participating go hand and hand…don’t you think? For those of you that think we should go back to the EF…do you really expect it to stay as reverent? Because now it will be “cluttered” up with those Catholics who only go once in awhile and are there just because. Or those like me who have no idea what is going on in Latin…excuse me if I didn’t go to Catholic school.

My dad and my grandma grew up pre V2…and they never taught us the faith. It certainly didn’t make my dad any more holier…or any more knowledgable about his faith…as I am quickly learning…not even a year back and I know more about it then he does.

I for one am glad that there are 2 forms for people to worship in. My NO Mass is not irreverent but then again I don’t go in specifically looking for things that are wrong. I am just there to worship.

 

[SisterSnowflake]

…To some exent, I agree with this. We shouldn’t have “hippie” priests and nuns that try to make the Church “cool”.

OR, might I add, “hippie lay people”.

 

[basinite]

But it did facilitate them. After all, if a new Mass hadn’t been written then there wouldn’t have been … a new Mass. If anything, it invited trouble by failing to take the firm hold necessary (especially given the rapid decline in secular society at that point).

Many traditionalists agree that there were problems before Vatican II. I agree with this - I don’t believe that things were perfect, but be that as it may I think that they were still better than what we have now in terms of Mass attendance, reverence, adherence to Catholic doctrine, quality of catechesis and Catholic education, number of vocations, etc. Reforms were needed yes - certain changes were necessary given the state of the world but Vatican II did little towards implementing them. Instead, it chose a full over-haul of the Mass and in choosing an overhaul, it opened the door to the problems and confusions we see today.

To be perfectly frank, given the progression of society at the time, what was needed was a strict condemnation of relativism, subjectivism, modernism and communism. Unfortunately, the Church instead (whether intentionally or not) projected an image of flexibility and accommodation to modern ideas. Couple the poor understanding of ecumenism to the religious pluralism that society was touting and many poor Catholics mistakenly thought that the Church was endorsing these ideas too. The bottom line is that all this gave the impression that the immutable, unchangeable Catholic Church had changed and this confusion and distress lead to many people falling away from a faith that they no longer felt they understood.

Edit: I just noticed the post above mine and I agree completely. How interesting that the lack of reverence in the Church has tracked the general lack of reverence in society. With one follows the other when, in fact, the Church needs to stand up against the lax attitudes in society through the clear imposition of doctrine and moral education. I’m a young person and I want to know what is right and wrong - my generation, for a large part, is sick of hearing that 'it depends upon each person/circumstances/culture, etc".

 

[skinny_pumpkin]

Understanding the Mass and participating go hand and hand…don’t you think?

Essentially, when you distill it down, participation is humbling yourself before God and partaking of the Eucharist and the sacraments.

It’s a powerful thing to have a communion of people, all being led in the same prayers and receiving communion. Having universal/“catholic” rubrics with an universal/“catholic” language, which is what Latin used to be, is certainly a part of this “catholic” spirit.

Before Vat II, I believe there was in place a “Kingdom” that transcended nations and cultures upon which the sun never set. “Participation” was approaching the throne of the King and our Lord and being in communion with something much larger than just yourself.

After VAT II, much of this view was diminished, the changes in the Mass reflected a general shift in perspective more towards the individual, instead of being a part of the militant Church, or Army of God on earth, if you will.

Not to be critical of other faiths, but this shift embraced the protestant or even “Evangelical” paradigms which I think have hurt the faith, and contrary to some people’s opinions, hurt ecumenical efforts instead of aiding them. The sacraments were placed on the back burner for an indulgence of the individual ego, imo, and the Church became less “catholic”. The essence of the ecclesia was damaged.

God bless.

 

[basinite]

I think it comes down too the following:

If you are a liberal; Then Vatican II was great and was the Churches very own version of “Woodstock”.

If you are a conservative; Then Vatican II was nothing but a wild party with a group of liberal hippie European Bishops controlling the food and booze. Which we are still suffering from the Hangover almost fifty years later.

Here is a great article showing the decline of the Church after Vatican II.

wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29948

 

[wisdomseeker]

I think it comes down too the following:

If you are a liberal; Then Vatican II was great and was the Churches very own version of “Woodstock”.

If you are a conservative; Then Vatican II was nothing but a wild party with a group of liberal hippie European Bishops controlling the food and booze. Which we are still suffering from the Hangover almost fifty years later.

Here is a great article showing the decline of the Church after Vatican II.

wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29948

Now i wonder if this is good or bad. does this mean that the liberals are the ones holding on to the Church still? or does this mean that the liberals are out the door and the Church once again will be taking by the Traditions of the Church? just thinking.
does anyone has the figures for the seminars run by the Traditional Church?

 

[FrancisB]

I think it comes down too the following:

If you are a liberal; Then Vatican II was great and was the Churches very own version of “Woodstock”.

If you are a conservative; Then Vatican II was nothing but a wild party with a group of liberal hippie European Bishops controlling the food and booze. Which we are still suffering from the Hangover almost fifty years later.

Here is a great article showing the decline of the Church after Vatican II.

wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29948

I think you’re missing one key option: if you actually read the documents that were written during the council, you know that both sides are intentionally misinterpreting the “spirit” of the council without any regard for what the council said. The left does it to justify their continued fascination with novelty and the undermining of anything that might disagree with them. The right does it to build up a straw-man argument against the council so that it can reject the council and try to return to the way things used to be.

At their heart, though, the council documents are not a lengthy statement that anything goes. They didn’t call for the wholesale abandonment of our rich patrimony. They didn’t call for the writing of a new order of the mass. They didn’t call for widespread use of the vernacular. It didn’t ask us to ignore the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism. That’s just simply not what the council fathers wrote. The other misconception about the council is that it caused all of the problems with the church. We hear things like “mass attendance is down since the council,” and are left to conclude that this is because of the changes in the council. What it neglects to notice is that participation in organised religion has dwindled across the board in the Western world. It’s not because of the council; it’s because of the times. That’s not to say that there’s nothing that the Church can do about it, or that the council didn’t fail to stem the tide of apostasy. But failing to keep people in the church isn’t the same as driving them out of the church.

In the last few years we have seen the emergence of the “reform of the reform.” The left cries out that the changes of Vatican II are being repealed. The right grumbles that until Vatican II is repealed, nothing will be right in the world. Essentially the people (including most notably our Holy Father Benedict) that are trying to ensure that the Council documents are finally followed are being attacked from both sides. Even the moderates don’t seem to largely recognise the fact that the “reform of the reform” is actually just an embracing of Vatican II. Liturgically it is a return to the things that the council asked for: the continued use of the Latin language, the singing of Gregorian chant and sacred polyphony rather than hymns, the priest facing East, and so forth. These aren’t rejections of the council; they are all either explicitly stated in documents or implied by them. No where was the universal use of the vernacular directed. No where was the “four hymn sandwich” requested (and this originated before the council). No where was the priest told to turn around and face the people. No where were priests asked to ad lib. In fact no where was there any statement that any mass other than the traditional Latin mass be used. That’s why in the years immediately following the council they used a version of the Latin mass that included some vernacular (but not all vernacular).

If we could learn to separate Vatican II from the “Spirit of Vatican II,” I think we’d be shocked at what would emerge. Even Archbishop LeFebvre accepted the council until he was disillusioned by the new missal which didn’t emerge until years after the council. The purpose of Vatican II wasn’t to change everything. It was to address pastoral issues within the church that had been slowly emerging since our Holy Father of Happy Memory, St. Pius X, if not earlier. If you think the guitar masses are bad now, look back at the opera masses of our past. In 1903 St. Pius X formally condemned them, and for the same reason. This isn’t really about Vatican II, it’s about the ages-old struggle between the people that seek to make the church more like the world and those that seek to keep the world and the church two separate entities. Ultimately, I think both are flawed strategies. That’s why Vatican II was necessary. It isn’t about keeping the world out or letting the world in. It’s about sanctifying the world through the church.

 

[edwest2]

I urge my fellow Catholics to read what Pope John XXIII actually said as to why there was a Second Vatican Council.

ourladyswarriors.org/teach/v2open.htm

God bless,
Ed

 

[skinny_pumpkin]

… Even the moderates don’t seem to largely recognise the fact that the “reform of the reform” is actually just an embracing of Vatican II. Liturgically it is a return to the things that the council asked for: the continued use of the Latin language, the singing of Gregorian chant and sacred polyphony rather than hymns, the priest facing East, and so forth. These aren’t rejections of the council; they are all either explicitly stated in documents or implied by them. No where was the universal use of the vernacular directed. No where was the “four hymn sandwich” requested (and this originated before the council). No where was the priest told to turn around and face the people. No where were priests asked to ad lib. In fact no where was there any statement that any mass other than the traditional Latin mass be used. That’s why in the years immediately following the council they used a version of the Latin mass that included some vernacular (but not all vernacular).

If we could learn to separate Vatican II from the “Spirit of Vatican II,” I think we’d be shocked at what would emerge…

If this is true, then how did it come about that the Latin Mass was basically “outlawed”, suppressed by bishops and driven underground? How/why did it happen?

 

[FrancisB]

The Latin mass was not outlawed nor was it driven underground. It fell out of favour with priests and bishops that were caught up in a wave of liberalism that did not originate in the church nor was it confined to it. But this was not called for in the council documents. Go and read the documents. You are mistaking the events that followed the council in the “Spirit of Vatican II” with what the church actually agreed upon, wrote, and promulgated in the council. There has always been fall out following a council. One has only to go back to the previous council, Vatican I, which was much less controversial, to see that every time there is a council there is backlash after it. We cannot any more define Vatican I based on the schisms it created than we can define Vatican II based on the liturgical backlash it created, a backlash that caused two extremes: one camp that rejected the new missal altogether and the other that wanted to continue the changes well beyond what the council said. Look at the missal of 1965; that follows the letter of the documents of Vatican II. It contains all of the authentic changes included in the council and none of the extra-conciliar changes that came about after the council. Even Archbishop Lefevbre accepted it without complaint at the time. No one was clamouring to go back to 1963 or earlier until after the much larger changes that took place after the council and are not justified by the actual text of the council.

Go find me a quote from the council documents that asks for the suppression of the Latin mass or any part of it. Quote it for us here. We’ll discuss it.

 

[skinny_pumpkin]

The Latin mass was not outlawed nor was it driven underground. It fell out of favour with priests and bishops that were caught up in a wave of liberalism that did not originate in the church nor was it confined to it…
…Go find me a quote from the council documents that asks for the suppression of the Latin mass or any part of it. Quote it for us here. We’ll discuss it.

I am not disagreeing about what the actual council said, and obviously the Latin Mass did fall out of favor. I would not know where to begin to look on why it came into being that:

1. The Latin Mass could only be recited with permission from the local bishop.
2. Parishes were forced to align with bishops outside of their diocese in order to practice the EF.
3. It took an edict from Pope Benedict to change this.

I was hoping you knew.

 

[FrancisB]

I am not disagreeing about what the actual council said, and obviously the Latin Mass did fall out of favor. I would not know where to begin to look on why it came into being that:

1. The Latin Mass could only be recited with permission from the local bishop.
2. Parishes were forced to align with bishops outside of their diocese in order to practice the EF.
3. It took an edict from Pope Benedict to change this.

I was hoping you knew.

1. That is simply inaccurate. It took special permission from the local bishop to say the old form of the mass (what Benedict dubbed the EF). That was because a new missal was released in 1970 and although the traditionalists saw it as a brand new mass, the church treated it no differently than the missal released in 1962: just another new missal in a long line of new missals that were part of the same mass. When a new missal for a mass is released, the older form vanishes. This has been the case since well before Trent. It was nothing new. What never required special permission from anyone is the use of the OF chanted in Latin, with EP I, ad orientem on the high altar, with communicants kneeling and receiving on the tongue. It was rare, but it didn’t require special permission. The thought was that this was the successor to the missal of 1962; this was the Latin Mass, the Mass of the Ages. Some conservatives disagreed with this and said that the changes were too significant that led to 2.

2.) Some conservative groups decided that they wanted to use the older form of the mass because they thought there were errors in the missal of 1970. This is not the first time that this has happened; in fact it’s common when changes are made. From this movement came the distinction between the Mass of St. Pius V and that of Paul VI. Of course this was in some ways an artificial distinction because they are the same mass: the mass of the Latin Rite. The same mass that has been used since the dawn of the Latin Rite. They are just different historical missals along the same line. Benedict pointed this out in 3.

3.) In a gesture of extreme pontifical wisdom, Pope Benedict gave permission for the frequent use of what he dubbed the EF (the missal of 1962). This is a revolutionary move. Typically when people refused to use the new missal, they were just simply written off and forced to leave the church or assimilate.

None of this, however, was requested by Vatican II. It was a result of many other factors in the church that existed before, during, and since the council.