Vatican II

[ncjohn]

Breaking bread without a Priest, no consecration, no Mass? yeah sure whatever

Proves how much you know about the basic nature of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. What’s your next relpy, Christ never Offered the first Mass at the Last Supper?

Thus priests have existed since the very founding of the Church at the Last Supper and have always been with us.

Before you go making condescending remarks about people’s understanding, it might behoove you to read a bit of Church history and the early fathers. If this is “nonsence” then complain to those fathers.

There were no “priests” in the early Church, at least not until the second century. There were only “bishops” and deacons and bishops did not attend every eucharistic meal held in someone’s home. Bishops were not “ordained” originally to preside over eucharistic meals or to “say Mass” but to lead their flocks and preach the gospel.

Regardless of that though, the whole point is that the TLM and the Eastern liturgies developed over time and did NOT exist “from the beginning”. The concept that we are to worship in one of those forms because they have “always existed” is totally false.

 

[mchale]

Before you go making condescending remarks about people’s understanding, it might behoove you to read a bit of Church history and the early fathers. If this is “nonsence” then complain to those fathers.

There were no “priests” in the early Church, at least not until the second century. There were only “bishops” and deacons and bishops did not attend every eucharistic meal held in someone’s home. Bishops were not “ordained” originally to preside over eucharistic meals or to “say Mass” but to lead their flocks and preach the gospel.

Regardless of that though, the whole point is that the TLM and the Eastern liturgies developed over time and did NOT exist “from the beginning”. The concept that we are to worship in one of those forms because they have “always existed” is totally false.

I think it is at least debatable as to whether or not there were presbyters (which in English we commanly call priests) in the early Church. Granted, the office of Deacon and Bishop both preceded the Presbyters, but there are clear references to presbyters in the New Testament. Whether they served the modern role that Priests do might be up to debate.

–
Bill

 

[bostonboy23]

Vatican II, though a valid council is non-dogmatic, and a pastoral council; and is very ambiguous. Now, that being said, the Council was a blunder, in that it severely muddled our relationship with the Orthodox and Protestants. (I.e. making Catholics forget that the Orthodox ARE schismatic, and the Protestants ARE heretics). And It let to the promotion of a false-ecumenicism.

Vocations and Mass attendance, and conversion at an all time high prior to the Council in the 1950’s dropped by approx. 75% after the Council. Some may elucidate that this is due to the “mis-interpretation” of the council’s documents; whilst this is so, it still remains a fact that the documents of Vatican II are highly ambiguous and have been used adversely as a sort of “cudgel” by Liberals, Modernists, and Heretical clerics to chip away at the orthodox remnent of faithful that remain within the Holy Catholic Church.

The Council was opened with all sorts of optimism, and a naive notion that it would lead to a new “springtime” within the Church [despite the objections of a many clergy advised the Holy Father, Bl. John XXIII that calling a council was testing God: in other words, Ecumenical Councils are only to be called in times of emergency to fight heresy and clarify true Catholic Teaching]. It didn’t; the exact opposite effect happened. Instead of having the Church grow by “leaps and bounds:” there was a mass exodus as a result of this new liberalized pseudo-teachings [teachings that were not what the Council said at all.]

It [Vatican II] was an attempt to “reach out” to “world,” to Protestants, and to the Orthodox, but it acted in a way contrariwise to the Catholic Church’s perennial stance of battling the temptations and errors of the World, the schismatics (Orthodox), and Heretics (i.e. Protestants, Gnostics, Donatists, Jansenist, Mohammedans, etc.), and Pagans (Hindus, Buddhism, Shintoism, etc.). Hence, given this new openness that followed the council, heretical clerics utilizing an very broad misinterpretation of the Council [made possible by the grave ambiguity and lack of clarity and specificity within the Second Vatican Council’s texts’] twisted the council’s pastoral prescriptions towards their own errant and malovent ends.

Also, the texts of Second Vatican Council’s documents were also in conflict with prior Catholic Encyclicals and teaching on Ecumenism, and salvation: or so it was wrongfully interpreted by heretical clerics.

However, in spite of this mass confusion and heresy that has resulted with the Church post-Vatican II, Pope Benedict XVI is working on reinterpretation of the Second Vatican Council’s documents in light of Sacred Tradition, attempting to reconcile VII with previous papal and church teachings. It is still on-going.

And we pray that it continues and that the Holy Mother Church can get up on her feet so to speak, bury the amibuigity of Vatican, recover the clarity and specificity of the First Vatican Council and the Council of Trent, and surge ahead in a renewed Catholic Reformation/Counter-Reformation!

:knight1::getholy:

P.S. I realize that my post is convulated. I apologize.

alas even after centuries there are still people full of hate.

to answer your orginial question i think Vatican II did a wonderful job modernizing the church. However the attitude they have now for the Eucharist is very troubling.

 

[LumenGent]

Before you go making condescending remarks about people’s understanding, it might behoove you to read a bit of Church history and the early fathers. If this is “nonsence” then complain to those fathers

I have read alot of Church history, and there is no indication of what you describe. Maybe you could provide a source?

There were no “priests” in the early Church, at least not until the second century. There were only “bishops” and deacons and bishops did not attend every eucharistic meal held in someone’s home. Bishops were not “ordained” originally to preside over eucharistic meals or to “say Mass” but to lead their flocks and preach the gospel

Just so we are on the same page, the Eucharistic Liturgy is not a ‘meal’. The Church never viewed the Eucharistic Liturgy as a meal. This is a protestant view which only resulted during the reformation and has become a central theme in the NO. From the moment Christ ordained his Apostles Priest’s, he commissioned and commanded them to do what he did and this was not to preside over a ‘meal’. The Eucharistic Liturgy is a Sacrifice and can only be offered by a Priest. From the Begining the Church has always believed where the Eucharist is there also is the Bishop. A Priest is the ordinary Minister of the Eucharist without him there is no Eucharist.

Regardless of that though, the whole point is that the TLM and the Eastern liturgies developed over time and did NOT exist “from the beginning”. The concept that we are to worship in one of those forms because they have “always existed” is totally false.

The Eastern liturgies predate the TLM. Sure they have evolved over time, but organically. The Structure of the Liturgy never changed, neither the essentials, and this can never change. Therefore they did exist from the beginning. Read about the Eastern Liturgies and you will see that the Liturgy has been present right from the beginning, but have organically evolved. Don’t think if you were in the 2nd or 3rd century, the Church’s understanding of the Liturgy or the Liturgy itself was different than the Liturgy present today. The reason why the NO is different is that it is a fabrication (in the words of PP B XVI) and is not an organic development of the ancient Liturgy. the Liturgy is public prayer of the Church and that has been the same form the beginnning. To think otherwise is to
deny the fact that Christ instituted the Priesthood and the Eucharist. Keep in mind that the Apostles were instructed on the Liturgy by Christ himself, and how they celebrated the Liturgy essentially how it is celebrated today. There are also Ancient Liturgies ascribed to the Apostles themselves.

 

[Extempore]

i think Vatican II did a wonderful job modernizing the church. However the attitude they have now for the Eucharist is very troubling.

In what way would you say they did a good job re: modernization?

 

[ncjohn]

I have read alot of Church history, and there is no indication of what you describe. Maybe you could provide a source?

Just so we are on the same page, the Eucharistic Liturgy is not a ‘meal’. The Church never viewed the Eucharistic Liturgy as a meal. This is a protestant view which only resulted during the reformation and has become a central theme in the NO. From the moment Christ ordained his Apostles Priest’s, he commissioned and commanded them to do what he did and this was not to preside over a ‘meal’. The Eucharistic Liturgy is a Sacrifice and can only be offered by a Priest. From the Begining the Church has always believed where the Eucharist is there also is the Bishop. A Priest is the ordinary Minister of the Eucharist without him there is no Eucharist.

The Eastern liturgies predate the TLM. Sure they have evolved over time, but organically. The Structure of the Liturgy never changed, neither the essentials, and this can never change. Therefore they did exist from the beginning. Read about the Eastern Liturgies and you will see that the Liturgy has been present right from the beginning, but have organically evolved. Don’t think if you were in the 2nd or 3rd century, the Church’s understanding of the Liturgy or the Liturgy itself was different than the Liturgy present today. The reason why the NO is different is that it is a fabrication (in the words of PP B XVI) and is not an organic development of the ancient Liturgy. the Liturgy is public prayer of the Church and that has been the same form the beginnning. To think otherwise is to
deny the fact that Christ instituted the Priesthood and the Eucharist. Keep in mind that the Apostles were instructed on the Liturgy by Christ himself, and how they celebrated the Liturgy essentially how it is celebrated today. There are also Ancient Liturgies ascribed to the Apostles themselves.

Wow, this is so full of misunderstanding and misrepresentation that there is no place to even really begin to discuss anything. Pretty much everything you’ve said here is the stuff that comes off the amateur “traditionalist” websites, most of which are full of stuff contrary to what the Church says.

Perhaps if you can provide a single source of Church fathers saying there were ordained priests before the second century we might have a place to start with something. Nowhere in Acts or the writings of Paul are there indications of any such thing, nor have I seen anything from any of the early historians.

And surely you are aware that the Church teaches that the Eucharist is both meal and sacrifice? A simple reading of 1 Corinthians shows the character of that celebration in the early Church. To deny that the Church recognized the “meal” aspect of it is to deny both Church teaching and scripture.

Peace,

 

[Ockham]

The distinction between meal and sacrifice is apparent when comparing the Lutheran service and a Catholic Mass; likewise when comparing the NO Mass and Tridentine. It has become a fault line between traditional and modernist Catholics.

What is your position here? Are you in favour of the Eucharist as a meal along with Holy Communion in hand, EMHCs, ad populus, venacular, themed Masses, clamshell church architecture, tabernacle to the side or back of the church, etc, etc, etc?

 

[ncjohn]

It has become a fault line between traditional and modernist Catholics.

So as I understand this statement, one either agrees with you or is guilty of the heresy of “modernism”? If one accepts Church teaching that the Eucharist is both meal and sacrifice, then one is a “modernist”? If one accepts what the Pope says that the OF and EF forms are of equal dignity that one is then “inferior” at best and heretical at worst?

I wish I could make things so black and white but neither my Catholic religion or the teachings of Jesus allow for that.

Good deflection away from the points though about claims that the TLM has always existed.

Peace be with you.

 

[Ockham]

The deflection is you not admitting to what ulterior motives you have with this topic. From my research the Tridentine Mass has been developed organically, slowly over hundreds of years. The Pauline Mass has created by a chap named Bugnini and launched without cause or much notice in 1969. This is in stark contrast to the teachings and traditions of the Church you espouse.

 

[diggerdomer]

The Pauline Mass has created by a chap named Bugnini and launched without cause or much notice in 1969.

Being promulgated by Pope Paul VI via an Apostolic Constitution is “without cause or much notice”?

Please, read, it’s not too long (it might help your research too): vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19690403_missale-romanum_en.html

I think you’ll be as impressed as I was with how Paul VI refers to Pius V and all his predecessors in harmony. I was especially impressed with this paragraph toward the end:

In conclusion, we wish to give the force of law to all that we have set forth concerning the new Roman Missal. In promulgating the official edition of the Roman Missal, Our predecessor, St. Pius V, presented it as an instrument of liturgical unity and as a witness to the purity of the worship the Church. While leaving room in the new Missal, according to the order of the Second Vatican Council, “for legitimate variations and adaptations,”(15) we hope nevertheless that the Missal will be received by the faithful as an instrument which bears witness to and which affirms the common unity of all. Thus, in the great diversity of languages, one unique prayer will rise as an acceptable offering to our Father in heaven, through our High-Priest Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit.

 

[ncjohn]

The deflection is you not admitting to what ulterior motives you have with this topic. From my research the Tridentine Mass has been developed organically, slowly over hundreds of years. The Pauline Mass has created by a chap named Bugnini and launched without cause or much notice in 1969. This is in stark contrast to the teachings and traditions of the Church you espouse.

Well, since you statement was that the Tridentine Mass was handed to us by Christ, that is pretty much in contrast to developing “…slowly over hundreds of years.” The point was that the early Church liturgies looked absolutely nothing like the TLM and to claim that we should be using the TLM because it is the form that always existed is just baloney.

By your definitions, the change to the Latin vernacular in the 4th or 5th century would be unacceptable and the codified form put together by Gregory would be a “fabrication”. By contrast, there is very little difference in form between the TLM and the Pauline Mass. The Pauline Mass–promulgated by the Pope, not Bugnini–has all the same essential elements in the same form and the same order. The fact that the sign of peace was reinstated and the language changed doesn’t make this any less organic or any more “fabricated” than any of the other changes that have been made through the centuries.

As to my “ulterior motives”, there are none other than to correct misinformation that is damaging to the unity of the Church. I have no idea what “teachings and traditions” you are imputing to me in your omniscience but my teachings and Tradtions are those of the Church. I may not share your preference for the TLM but you are way off base to be inferring that that makes me some kind of “modernist”.

 

[palmas85]

Because it had not been updated since the Council of Trent in 1563.

True, Jesus Christ founded the Church. He did not give us the “Trinitarian Mass” and specify all the rubics of liturgical worship. The Church does change. Otherwise the liturgery of the Mass would be Aramiac and look almost exacetly like a first century Jewish Seder meal…which is what the Last Supper was.

If you actually read the documents of Vatican II you will see that they are heavily cross referenced with Church teachings from ages past.

The Holy Father is continuing to implement Vatican II. As a faithful Catholic I support him.

Implying as you so pointedly did that the Church prior to Vatican II was not relevant is just as bad as and is quite probably a worse viewpoint than saying that the Vatican II Council itself was the cause of the problems that plague the Church today.

The problems and issues that boiled forth in the aftermath of Vatican II had less to do with what was actually discussed, argued over written about and adopted at that Council than did the feverish desire for change at any and all costs that occurred in the minds of many of the reformers. It would be very difficult to justify in any context whatsover many of the radical changes that were thrust upon the Church by the ardent zeal of the reformers

When you look at the aftermath of the Council there really isn’t a lot of good to be seen and quite frankly a lot of bad. Again, I don’t blame the Council. I blame the reformers, many of whom, just like you apparently do, felt that the Church was no longer relevant and had to change, and change radically in order to adapt itself to the mentality and spirituality of modern man.

I think that we can all see what has happened as a result of that particular tactic.

As far as implementing Vatican II, I would go so far as to say that it’s true implementation really hasn’t started as yet except in bits and pieces. I dare say that only the most die hard progressives would even think that it had. The devastation left in the wake of that Council speaks volumes to what can happen when radical change is attempted without a definite goal and plan in mind.

I am sure that one day, the Church will right itself, as it has done in the past and will once again steer the correct and true course. Until that time, though, we as the members of the Body of Christ must do all we can to hold onto what the Church has taught throughout the centuries and continue to hold the faith in our hearts. We cannot allow those eternal truths to be erased by those who claim that prior to Vatican II the Church was not relevant…

Because that simply is not true.

 

[Ockham]

By contrast, there is very little difference in form between the TLM and the Pauline Mass. The Pauline Mass–promulgated by the Pope, not Bugnini–has all the same essential elements in the same form and the same order. The fact that the sign of peace was reinstated and the language changed doesn’t make this any less organic or any more “fabricated” than any of the other changes that have been made through the centuries.

your omniscience .

The Bugnini created/Paul VI promulgated NO Mass has stark differences compared to the TLM. Although the original design of the Mass was in Latin and ad orientum, once the window opened and the ‘spirit of Vatican II’ blew in we ended up with the mass confusion that is associated with the Ordinary Form.

It seems to me there are just as many traditionalists creating division as there are modernists. You and digger for example seem to be defenders of liturgical innovation yet come into the traditionalist forum for debate. Who is causing ripples here?

You forgot to wish me peace.

 

[ncjohn]

The Bugnini created/Paul VI promulgated NO Mass has stark differences compared to the TLM. Although the original design of the Mass was in Latin and ad orientum, once the window opened and the ‘spirit of Vatican II’ blew in we ended up with the mass confusion that is associated with the Ordinary Form.

I’m not sure what you mean by the “original design”, unless you’re referring to the quickly-assembled 1965 Mass that was pretty universally recognized immediately as unworkable and confusing with its hybrid form. The documents themselves though were clear that the episcopal conferences were to decide how much vernacular would be appropriate as well as other details of what the final form would look like.

I’m also not sure what “mass confusion” you see, unless you are referring to the fact that there have been those who have created abuses in the Mass. One can’t judge the form by the abuses however, any more than I can judge the TLM deficient because of the large number of abuses I saw in it pre- Vatican II. Quite frankly I don’t find anything the least bit confusing about the Pauline Mass so I’m totally in the dark by what you mean.

In a previous post you questioned what my ulterior motive is here. I’ve been giving that thought and it makes me wonder what your ulterior motive is in consistently tearing down a Mass licitly promulgated by a Pope with the same authority as every previous Pope. One which the current Pope has declared to be of equal status with the EF. I can understand one having preferences for one form or the other but I really have a hard time figuring out what it is that creates the need to tear down someone else’s preference. I may not share your preference for the TLM but I certainly feel no need to denigrate it or deny its potential appeal for others.

It seems to me there are just as many traditionalists creating division as there are modernists.

On that I think we are in full agreement and the continued division between brother and sister Catholics causes great pain and detracts from our ability to effectively evangelize because of the confusion it creates with those who need to hear the gospel.

You and digger for example seem to be defenders of liturgical innovation yet come into the traditionalist forum for debate. Who is causing ripples here?

I’m again not sure exactly what you mean by “liturgical innovation”. I prefer the Pauline Mass but that doesn’t translate into supporting “innovation”, at least as I understand the term. If you are actually referring to supporting abuses, I certainly don’t, any more than I supported them in the TLM.

As to causing ripples, I would say that those causing ripples are those who state or imply that things are true, or even “objectively true” that clearly are not and then claim that nobody should call them on it because they think it’s “their” forum. There are some people who debate simply for the “fun” of debating or from a need to “win” or prove themselves “superior” in some way. My only interest here is in trying to heal the divisions that continue to creep in, many or most of which are due to improper understandings of Vatican II–from both “sides”. I truly seek peace within the Body of Christ and for people to journey together in an honest attempt to more fully find the Truth rather than locking themselves in to what some website calls their version of the Truth and then trying to beat others into submission to the peripheral while ignoring the essential. We should be fully capable of accepting each other’s worship preferences while uniting on our doctrinal core.

You forgot to wish me peace.

My apologies. I most certainly do wish us both peace.

 

[PJM]

=ncjohn;5105791]Do you guys actually believe this stuff?

Yep

What the “early Church” celebrated was a eucharistic meal in people’s home. No priests, no “consecration”, no “Tridentine” Mass or any “eastern liturgy”. Even the earliest forms of what would over centuries develop into the TLM didn’t occur for centuries. Even then there were many forms of the Latin Mass through the centuries, one of the reasons that Trent tried to standardize things except for allowing for some significant forms that had existed for many years. If “what the early Church celebrated in the Liturgy is what is supposed to be practiced and celebrated throughout the ages for ever” the we should all be sitting at our dining room tables in small groups without a priest, “breaking bread”.

The key word in your respoce is "early (church)"

So your saying the Apostles and many thousands of other early Chrsitians actually, willingly gave their bodies up to torture, to be lunch for lions, and suffer crucufixion, because they were simply eating togeather?:tsktsk:

Catholic catechism: "1345 As early as the second century we have the witness of St. Justin Martyr for the basic lines of the order of the Eucharistic celebration. They have stayed the same until our own day for all the great liturgical families. St. Justin wrote to the pagan emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161) around the year 155, explaining what Christians did:

On the day we call the day of the sun, all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place.

The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits.

When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things.

Then we all rise together and offer prayers* for ourselves . . .and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation.

When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss.

Then someone brings bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the brethren.

He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks (in Greek: eucharistian) that we have been judged worthy of these gifts.

When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying: ‘Amen.’

When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the “eucharisted” bread, wine and water and take them to those who are absent.

As to the concept that the OF doesn’t resemble the TLM, as if it came from some other planet, that is such hogwash as to be incredible. Yes, the Mass is in the vernacular and there have been a couple elements added. Yes, the altar is turned the other way. Yes, we have additional readings available and a wider variety of them. But it is the same essential Mass that I grew up with pre-Vatican II in the same essential order.
And yet the Pope says exactly the opposite. You are certainly welcome to feel a preference for those and to feel that they speak more clearly to you. But it is far from any sort of “objective truth” that they are superior in any way, shape or form. The “superior” Mass for any individual is the one that most clearly communicates the mysteries of God to that individual and calls him or her to the deepest worship. All this “My Mass is better than your Mass” bickering is so destructive to the unity of the Church that I can only wonder how God must weep at the division. Nobody seems to take the least issue with the fact that people prefer the TLM or some specific Eastern liturgy, but get their panties all tied in a knot because many of us prefer to hear our liturgy in our native tongue, which is of course the only reason why the liturgy changed to Latin to begin with.

Father, forgive us for the way we wound You in wounding each other!

Friend, it doe not sound like it chaged too much!

But over time, things to evolve.

Evoluation for example. Our undestanding is different today than it was say 100 years ago.

And what about Luther. He broke away from the RCC in about 1600. One new religion. Today it is reported that Luters ONE (true?) religion has grown world wide to about 30,000 different sets of beliefs and practices. But still only ONE Catholic Church still holding to the same Faith and set of Moral principles. Yes 20+ brances, still one church. Not some 30,000!

Yes friend, we do Believe!

 

[ncjohn]

So your saying the Apostles and many thousands of other early Chrsitians actually, willingly gave their bodies up to torture, to be lunch for lions, and suffer crucufixion, because they were simply eating togeather?

Nope, didn’t say any such thing. What I said was exactly what you read: that the Eucharistic meal they celebrated did not look anything at all like what would later become “the Mass”. I’m not denigrating the sacredness of the celebration at all, simply explaining why the statements that we should be using the TLM because it has existed since the beginning are not true.

Catholic catechism: "1345 As early as the second century we have the witness of St. Justin Martyr for the basic lines of the order of the Eucharistic celebration.

When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the “eucharisted” bread, wine and water and take them to those who are absent.

And thanks very much for this, which lends more support to my other two arguments. The first being that it wasn’t until the second century that we started to see anything that looked like the Mass. Also notice that there is no mention whatsoever of a “priest” or a formal “consecration” and that it is the deacon who distributes the “eucharisted” (prayed over in thanksgiving) bread. The “presider” may be one of the “presbyters” that a previous poster referred to but it is not a “priest”.

Second that the basic form from then has continued to this day, which includes the Pauline Mass. Yes, there have been minor variations through the years, as there are differences between the TLM and the Eastern liturgies. But the basic form has not changed and the idea that the Pauline Mass is a “fabrication” and grossly different from the TLM is ludicrous.

Peace,

 

[bostonboy23]

In what way would you say they did a good job re: modernization?

making the mass in the language of the people and not in latin(the only reason the mass was in latin was because that was the world language at the time) reaffirming church doctrine for the new times that we live in(contraception for example) getting rid of silly rules from the cultures of 500 years ago. back to the language part if you really want the mass in a language of Jesus then you should have it in aramaic or hebrew and not latin.

 

[diggerdomer]

You and digger for example seem to be defenders of liturgical innovation

Hmm, I’ve never considered myself a defender of liturgical innovation (and certainly no one in any parish I’ve been in would!).

I guess I do defend the Church’s liturgy, though (the whole of it, not just certain centuries are parts I prefer). If that’s innovative then I’m guilty.

Peace.

 

[palmas85]

making the mass in the language of the people and not in latin(the only reason the mass was in latin was because that was the world language at the time) reaffirming church doctrine for the new times that we live in(contraception for example) getting rid of silly rules from the cultures of 500 years ago. back to the language part if you really want the mass in a language of Jesus then you should have it in aramaic or hebrew and not latin.

Church doctrine really did not really need reaffirming as you say because it was never unaffirmed for lack of a better word. The language issue has been beaten to death already. Nowhere in any of the documents of Vatican II was the intent brought forth to banish the use of Latin in either the day to day running of the Church or in the Mass. As far as the elimination of “silly rules” as you put it, please give some specific examples of which silly rules were expunged directly as a result of Vatican II.

It seems to me as if you have merely parroted what you have been fed about the Council without really understanding exactly what it set out to do.

Unless you can come up with something just a tad more concrete than what you have presented here you will not really receive much support for your propositions excpt from the more progressive crowd.

 

[FAB]

I’m just beginning to learn about Catholicism. I’ve been reading all the books I can, and I’ve recently been learning about the changes that took place after the Second Vatican Council.

I’m wondering what the average Catholic thinks about these changes. A good thing? Bad? Both?

Thank you!
Heather

One of the comments I read said that formum is not a good place to get a possitive comments on the reforms of Vatican II.
I have been is studies for 6 years now concerning many aspects of the the church and it’s teachings and there are still much about the reforms of council I am still learning, but unlike others who believe it has been the detrament to the church, many more, like myself see it as the salvation of the church.
It just didn’t happen over night. The first threads of the reforms started a hundred years earlier when Itally was unified and the church lost the Papal states. It had to look at itself and it’s role in the world. Without property , except for the Vatican, it had to turn it’s efforts from political roles it had held in Europe for 100’s of years to a Church focused a a light for the spiritual needs of the world. Vatican II was a culmination of many thoughts and a true need get back to the it’s roots of the early church.
The most obvious change was in the mass, but the changes have effected ever aspect of the Church. Most for the possitive. There have been problems and some issues, but that is to be expected any time change is made.
The most possitive aspect is the pastoral changes. It went from an organization that went from top down, to one of which the layity plays and is expected to share in a much larger role in the life of the church. It changed the idea that all peoples of all lands had to conform to the European idea of the Church, to allow it to adapt and incorporate others ideas and cultural difference into the practices of the Chruch.
The council opened up the scriptures to the people. Before the council, many families may had a family bible to record deaths and births, now we have the year of the bible encouraging the reading and stuy of the scripture.
There were many other changes, none of which I can see were harmful.
Many, such as many who call themselves traditionalist on this site will find many objections, but seriously, outside of the site, I don’t find any.
If you want the know the Church, join a good parish, get involved and you will see the true love and works of Jesus in action.

Peace,
FAB