Vatican II? Why didi we need to make our churches more modern

[RomanRyan1088]

Ok, i went on this website called LIFETEEN.COM and it gave an explanation about what happened at Vatican II. It said that it was a meeting to Modernize the Church. Now i have only known the Church after Vatican II, but my question is, why did we have to Modernize the church? I think many of the things that were eliminated defined us as Catholics. Why did we do this, so that we could be like the Protestants? I am starting to think that Vatican II was no good, am i being to Old School, or am i right?

 

[Psalm45_9]

Ecumenism was a big part of Vatican II; the Pope wanted to open the doors of the church to all. The liturgy was reformed due to the fact that many people did not understand what was going on and the meaning of the customs and prayers were lost over the centuries. So the mass was allowed to be celebrated in vernacular languages, although Latin is still allowed to be the language of the current liturgy. Prayers were shortened, bigger is not always better. Some prayers were completely omitted. The lay clergy were allowed to have more participation in the mass, responding to the priests; reading the scripture; and distributing communion. And the liturgy of the word was changed to a three year cycle, instead of the same readings on the same Sundays each year. The responsorial psalm and second reading were added. Communion was then allowed to be received either standing or kneeling, an issue that had to be clarified in the most recent missal. Things like the Last Gospel, the Salve Regina and prayer to St. Michael were omitted because they took place after the final blessing and therefore are not technically part of the mass. Psalm 42 was removed for reasons beyond me. Much of the kneeling during the Tridentine Liturgy was replaced with standing. As I have said before Vatican II had many good intentions, but the liberals took over, and many things were lost. They’re slowly coming back though. I still prefer the Tridentine Mass though, for aesthetic reasons.

 

[aridite]

I think the Church always has to preach the gospel in a manner in which it will be best understood, all the while preserving its truth. Missionaries have always adapted the gospel to the people they are trying to reach. When the 4th Lateran Council used the term “transsubstantiation” it was using language and concepts that were very “modern” for its day, even though the Church has always believed in Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist.

I don’t think its very helpful or accurate to describe Vatican II as “modernizing” the Church. The Council Father understood it as the Church engaging the modern world (both the good and the bad) with the fulness of the Gospel. After the Council of Trent, the Church adopted a siege mentality with the non-Catholic world. It was attacked by protestants and rationalists, and so it sought to preserve the truth, but it did not win many converts (except in mission lands). Vatican II was mostly about bringing the gospel to the modern world. I think these forums and the current evangelization efforts are examples of good things to come from Vatican II.

Not everything done “in the spirit of Vatican II” was actually called for, much less permitted by, the Council. I always think it is fun to confront those pushing for the most extreme “modernization” with the actual texts of the Council. Unfortunately, such people tend to dismiss being bound to the documents and decrees of the Council as outdated!

 

[Psalm45_9]

I agree.

 

[hermit]

Was it necessary to change the ambiance of churchs. When you entered one of the older churches you knew you were in a Catholic church and not a Protestant one. Modern churches look like gymnasiums with an altar.

When’s the last time you smelled incense during mass or the characteristic smell of beeswax candles?

We had a priest in our parish who used to incense the altar before consecration, but he has moved on so now we are back to Unitarianism with a Pope.

 

[Minerva]

regarding the ambience of Catholic churches these days, you really should read “Ugly as Sin” by Michael Rose. It is an excellent account of how and why church architecture changed after Vat2. Basically a protestant architect wrote some stuff about how to design churches in a way that overtly downplays Catholic doctrine on Christ’s sacrifice, the Real Presence, and instead puts the focus on the community and the meal. This was quickly adopted by Catholics working in ‘the spirit of Vatican 2’ The reason why Catholic churches look the way they do is because they are supposed to look more protestant and make the congregation forget about what the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass means.

 

[Brendan]

Minerva:

regarding , you really should read “Ugly as Sin” by Michael Rose.

I second that recommendation.

There is no ambiance in most modern Catholic Chuches. The emphais in on a sense of ‘community’ instead of a sense of Holy.

Community we get elsewhere, I want HOLY at Mass

 

[bengal_fan]

paul talks about becoming all things to all men so that he might save some. i think this was the point of vatican II. the church needed to become more in touch with the culture they are trying to reach. this does not meet accomodating but it does mean adapting. (the difference being that the former would be to condone all of culture and overlook that which is in opposition to the church, the latter is to take the good things from the culture and use them for the glory of God and to reach His people). vatican II happened, it’s over, it’s infallible. rome has spoken, the case is closed.

 

[Mike_C]

The reason why Vatican II was held was that people, like Bl. John the XXIII thought that the church was in a war-like defense since the Reformation for too long. Well, maybe in Italy it was. How much contact would the everyday Catholic in Italy have with 1) Protestants 2) Jews, 3) Muslims?

But in the US we had everyday contact with other religions.
Also, in Italy, before Vatican II the attendence at Sunday Mass was at 33%, now its 13% Wow! Some relevance. In the US it was 98% now in some dioceses its 32%. So what has Vatican II done for US Catholics???

 

[Sherlock]

I would second those who pointed out that much of the negative fallout from Vatican ll came from those who twisted it to fit their own dissenting agenda, and support for their agenda is not to be found in the documents. I would guess that the somewhat gentle, non-confrontational, ambiguous nature of some of the documents gave enough room for the dissenters to run wild—and they have, though I think things are turning around.

Although Church attendance was higher in pre-Vatican ll days, all was not well. Just look at Italy, Catholic Italy, falling for Mussolini. Christian faith, Catholic and Protestant, didn’t exactly keep Germany from voting in Hitler (he was elected, remember). So let’s not pretend that all was peachy in Christendom. Those looking for the roots of our current dilemma are not well-served by pinning everything on Vatican ll. Philip Trower has an excellent book, “Turmoil and Truth–the Historical Roots of the Modern Crisis in the Catholic Church”. that goes into some depth.

 

[SeekerJen]

hermit:

Was it necessary to change the ambiance of churchs. When you entered one of the older churches you knew you were in a Catholic church and not a Protestant one. Modern churches look like gymnasiums with an altar.

When’s the last time you smelled incense during mass or the characteristic smell of beeswax candles?

We had a priest in our parish who used to incense the altar before consecration, but he has moved on so now we are back to Unitarianism with a Pope.

Don’t a lot of high Episcopalian/Anglican churches use incense, have “traditional”-looking church buildings, etc.? As great as incense is, it’s not a marker of “official Catholicism”. The Episcopal cathedral that backs up against my workplace has some of the most beautiful stained glass I’ve ever seen, and it’s a big Gothic-looking stone building that could easily be mistaken for a Catholic church.

And if your church is “Unitarian” as you say, does that mean no more Eucharist, Gospel, mention of God the Father or Christ or Holy Spirit, or prayers of the faithful, or the Creed, etc.? Those are the earmarks of Unitarianism, not a lack of sacramentals.

Sorry, I’d rather worship in a Catholic church that looks like a gymnasium than in a Protestant congregation with all the externals, aka “smells and bells”.

(Although I agree that too many liberties have been taken in the “spirit of Vatican II”. The council was what it was, we don’t need to have three bazillion different interpretations of it, all supposedly correct because they are in the right “spirit”. Reminiscent of Sola Scriptura, isn’t it?)