Vatican II was a good thing

  • Thread starter Thread starter edwest2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bob_Aliano said:
If V-II was such a good thing why is it we expend so much energy analyzing, rationalizing and justifying it?
Click to expand...
I’m sure they said the exact same thing after Vatican 1. And Trent. And the Fourth Lateran Council.

And especially the First Council in Jerusalem, which we see in Acts. How often has that one been analyzed?
 
Bob_Aliano said:
If V-II was such a good thing why is it we expend so much energy analyzing, rationalizing and justifying it?
Click to expand...
I think there’s a bit of your sentiment that can be agreed with, but I challenge you to find a single council to which energy wasn’t expended analyzing, rationalizing and justifying. We’re still analyzing, rationalizing and justifying the Council of Nicaea, for example, and that happened in the fourth century.
 
Bob_Aliano said:
If V-II was such a good thing why is it we expend so much energy analyzing, rationalizing and justifying it?
Click to expand...
Bob, I think this is just what happens after a council. Happens after every council. Each council saw it’s share of dissenters and even saw schism. Would it really be reasonable, in this day and age especially, that the Church would speak through a council and everyone would nod their head in blind agreement? Hasn’t happened throughout history so I don’t think it reasonable to expect that type of response today.

Let’s also not forget the human element. Regardless of what the Church says and how She says it, there are ALWAYS going to be those who abuse, disagree, misunderstand, dissent, leave, enter, etc. We should not allow the human element define or redefine Truth.
 
YoungTradCath said:
I think there’s a bit of your sentiment that can be agreed with, but I challenge you to find a single council to which energy wasn’t expended analyzing, rationalizing and justifying. We’re still analyzing, rationalizing and justifying the Council of Nicaea, for example, and that happened in the fourth century.
Click to expand...
LOL, we must have been typing the same thing at the same time!!! :cool:
 
40.png
YoungTradCath:
99% of the time, the person is in their mid-fifties, at least.
It’s almost rage-inducing, how perpetually, totally ignorant people of a certain generation are about what Vatican II really says even when you try to teach them.
Click to expand...
I had decided against discussing your perceptions, since your last words about “trying to teach them” indicates an extremely prejudiced view with over-inflated confidence in one’s opinion. These personalities rarely believe a word anyone else says. So I cut my post. 😦

But since you responded while I edited it, you need to recognize that your own words DO indicate utter disrespect.
 
YoungTradCath said:
I think there’s a bit of your sentiment that can be agreed with, but I challenge you to find a single council to which energy wasn’t expended analyzing, rationalizing and justifying. We’re still analyzing, rationalizing and justifying the Council of Nicaea, for example, and that happened in the fourth century.
Click to expand...
Boulder257 said:
Bob, I think this is just what happens after a council. Happens after every council. Each council saw it’s share of dissenters and even saw schism. Would it really be reasonable, in this day and age especially, that the Church would speak through a council and everyone would nod their head in blind agreement? Hasn’t happened throughout history so I don’t think it reasonable to expect that type of response today.

Let’s also not forget the human element. Regardless of what the Church says and how She says it, there are ALWAYS going to be those who abuse, disagree, misunderstand, dissent, leave, enter, etc. We should not allow the human element define or redefine Truth.
Click to expand...
Great minds obviously think alike 😉
 
Melchior said:
I’m sure they said the exact same thing after Vatican 1. And Trent. And the Fourth Lateran Council.

And especially the First Council in Jerusalem, which we see in Acts. How often has that one been analyzed?
Click to expand...
All three of us were frantically typing away the same thing!! :cool:

Too funny 😃
 
Sirach2 said:
I had decided against discussing your perceptions, since your last words about “trying to teach them” indicates an extremely prejudiced view with over-inflated confidence in one’s opinion. These personalities rarely believe a word anyone else says. So I cut my post. 😦

But since you responded while I edited it, you need to recognize that your own words DO indicate utter disrespect.
Click to expand...
I disagree fully. The phrase “teach them” was intended to mean teaching them about Vatican Council II, not give them life lessons or something. That would have been disrespectful, I agree. But my intention was not, and I maintain that it still is not.

If I had said “…teach them about the correct teachings of Vatican II,” would you have inferred disrespect? That is what I meant by saying “teach them.”
 
YoungTradCath said:
But what these people say is not really supporting Vatican II so much as it is a making full debasement of what Vatican II really is, because what they say has no factual basis in the documents of Vatican II. I’ve seen people get giddy and put a smile on their faces when they say something like, “Vatican II forbade Latin, we’ll never use that again!” They idolize–perhaps we can say it’s not even their fault–what they think and were told Vatican II is by attributing all these false ideas and practices to it. So basically, we agree.
Click to expand...
I have personally sat in on a meeting at my Parish where a lady said basically what you just described about attitudes towards Latin.
 
Sirach2 said:
I had decided against discussing your perceptions, since your last words about “trying to teach them” indicates an extremely prejudiced view with over-inflated confidence in one’s opinion. These personalities rarely believe a word anyone else says. So I cut my post. 😦

But since you responded while I edited it, you need to recognize that your own words DO indicate utter disrespect.
Click to expand...
I don’t mean to sound disrespectful but I agree with his observations. It is based on my working and interacting with people at my Parish. Alot of whom have been in leadership roles or faith committees there.
 
jam070406 said:
I don’t mean to sound disrespectful but I agree with his observations. It is based on my working and interacting with people at my Parish. Alot of whom have been in leadership roles or faith committees there.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but you’re from Michigan, so it doesn’t count 😉

Kidding of course! Being raised a Buckeye I just can’t help myself!!! 😃
 
YoungTradCath said:
I think there’s a bit of your sentiment that can be agreed with, but I challenge you to find a single council to which energy wasn’t expended analyzing, rationalizing and justifying. We’re still analyzing, rationalizing and justifying the Council of Nicaea, for example, and that happened in the fourth century.
Click to expand...
Yes but they don’t occupy such a large portion of all Catholic discussion although they may have in their day. One thing that fascinates me is the discussion among OF advocates equals in volume and intensity that which occurs between EF and OF advocates! I attend both forms but overall I do prefer the EF because I find there is a bit too much of a social element in the OF and I prefer to receive communion kneeling and on the tongue. If I had to choose a single concession I’d like to see in the OF it would be the option of receiving kneeling at an altar rail.
 
Bob_Aliano said:
Yes but they don’t occupy such a large portion of all Catholic discussion although they may have in their day. One thing that fascinates me is the discussion among OF advocates equals in volume and intensity that which occurs between EF and OF advocates! I attend both forms but overall I do prefer the EF primarily because I find there is a bit too much of a social element in the OF and I prefer to receive communion kneeling and on the tongue. If I had to choose a single concession I’d like to see in the OF it would be the option of receiving kneeling at an altar rail.
Click to expand...
It’s because hardly anybody except perhaps clerics probably even knew councils were going on back then.

You can receive kneeling and on the tongue in the OF, and there’s not a thing a priest or bishop or even a cardinal can say to you to make you stand and receive in the hand and standing.
 
Bob_Aliano said:
Yes but they don’t occupy such a large portion of all Catholic discussion although they may have in their day. One thing that fascinates me is the discussion among OF advocates equals in volume and intensity that which occurs between EF and OF advocates! I attend both forms but overall I do prefer the EF because I find there is a bit too much of a social element in the OF and I prefer to receive communion kneeling and on the tongue. If I had to choose a single concession I’d like to see in the OF it would be the option of receiving kneeling at an altar rail.
Click to expand...
Why not suggest this to your priest? They could place a small kneeler or one railing in a part of the Church where people can receive kneeling and on the tongue. This is what happened in my Church and there was a great “revival” back to this form of receiving. Now, the entire Altar is surrounded on three sides by a railing and everyone approaches the railing. They can stand there or kneel. Guess what most people do now?

Try suggesting it, you never know what may happen!

By the way, it was Vatican II that allowed for the congregation to have more “say.” So instead of complaining about what happened, speak up! Just remember to not let pride get in the way of Church teaching. Personal preferences are just that, personal. They don’t even reflect Church discipline, let alone tradition or Tradition.
 
Boulder257 said:
Why not suggest this to your priest? They could place a small kneeler or one railing in a part of the Church where people can receive kneeling and on the tongue. This is what happened in my Church and there was a great “revival” back to this form of receiving. Now, the entire Altar is surrounded on three sides by a railing and everyone approaches the railing. They can stand there or kneel. Guess what most people do now?

Try suggesting it, you never know what may happen!

By the way, it was Vatican II that allowed for the congregation to have more “say.” So instead of complaining about what happened, speak up! Just remember to not let pride get in the way of Church teaching. Personal preferences are just that, personal. They don’t even reflect Church discipline, let alone tradition or Tradition.
Click to expand...
Is it more prideful to demand a greater lay participation in the Liturgy or to witness the sacrifice in prayerful reflection and relative silence ? At our Low Mass we, the congregation, only respond by praying the “Domine non sum dignus…” and that in very quiet voice.

I have tried to use kneelers and failed due to a disability that requires the structural support of a permanent rail to aid me in kneeling and rising. In addition, our sanctuary is configured in such a design that it would be very difficult to install any form of permanent rail, a regrettable remodeling a few years back.
 
Bob_Aliano said:
Is it more prideful to demand a greater lay participation in the Liturgy or to witness the sacrifice in prayerful reflection and relative silence ?
Click to expand...
I take issue with the word “demand.” Yes, to demand would be prideful. However, I don’t think either celebration of the Mass is inherently more prideful is more prideful than the other. Especially because the Church gives us the right to do both. Some draw closer to the lord by serving him in Mass. Others draw closer to him by remaining silent and in reflection. What a wonderful Church we have that recognizes this fact and provides us with both means.

I think pride can also come in when we forget why we attend Mass. I don’t like when people hold hands during the Pater Noster, but am I going to let it get between me and my Lord? No! I and my personal opinion are just not that important nor am I going to allow the devil to take my focus away from my Lord so I can seethe in my chair about this abuse of the Mass. I am there to see Him. I am there to worship Him. I am there to tell Him I am sorry for what I have done. I am there to learn about Him. I am there to remind Him and myself that He is most important in my life. I allow the Church to tell me how we are going to do that for one hour each week (since I can decide the other 167 hours a week) and I mold myself to HIS Church.

I can’t wait till we all get to heaven and people start saying to God, “ummm, I really don’t like that hymn, so can we worship you with a different song right now. And Bob over there isn’t kneeling while we worship your beatific vision. Hey, are those two people holdings hands! Heretics!!!” :rolleyes:

Let’s not lose focus of why we are there.
 
Boulder257 said:
I take issue with the word “demand.” Yes, to demand would be prideful. However, I don’t think either celebration of the Mass is inherently more prideful is more prideful than the other. Especially because the Church gives us the right to do both. Some draw closer to the lord by serving him in Mass. Others draw closer to him by remaining silent and in reflection. What a wonderful Church we have that recognizes this fact and provides us with both means.

I think pride can also come in when we forget why we attend Mass. I don’t like when people hold hands during the Pater Noster, but am I going to let it get between me and my Lord? No! I and my personal opinion are just not that important nor am I going to allow the devil to take my focus away from my Lord so I can seethe in my chair about this abuse of the Mass. I am there to see Him. I am there to worship Him. I am there to tell Him I am sorry for what I have done. I am there to learn about Him. I am there to remind Him and myself that He is most important in my life. I allow the Church to tell me how we are going to do that for one hour each week (since I can decide the other 167 hours a week) and I mold myself to HIS Church.

I can’t wait till we all get to heaven and people start saying to God, “ummm, I really don’t like that hymn, so can we worship you with a different song right now. And Bob over there isn’t kneeling while we worship your beatific vision. Hey, are those two people holdings hands! Heretics!!!” :rolleyes:

Let’s not lose focus of why we are there.
Click to expand...
You did a good job explaining why I prefer to attend the EF, I don’t have to suppress my thoughts about hand-holding or lay use of the orans position or EMHC, they simply do not exist in the EF. You are absolutely correct that to brood about such things is not spiritually healthy, it is better to avoid the occasion of such thoughts than attempt to suppress them.

I think we are in violent agreement. Peace.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top