What good has come out of Vatican II?

[Jacafamala]

That being the case, one could argue the Mass should be said in Greek. If truths may be lost by translation from Latin to another language, then you could argue that it is at least possible that certain truths that where taught by the Apostles could have altered through translation from Latin to Greek. If these truths where not lost, then why do some advocate they may be lost by translation from Latin to another language?

In relation to the above, why did the Church opt for Latin as it’s official language as opposed to Greek in order to preserve truths?

Because Latin is a dead language, and the meanings of the words won’t change. Thus there could be no confusion as to the meanings of Doctrine and other documents.

minkymurph: I can understand why people want to preserve the use of Latin from what has been said here. However It would be fair to say that the message of the Gospel was first heard in Greek and had to be translated into Latin. How do people here feel about opinions that exist today that the Bible has been subject to years of human fallibility, that truths may have been lost as a result of translation and higher criticism of scripture?

You couldn’t prove it by the Dead Sea scrolls. Google that up, and you’ll see how little Scripture changes.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

That being the case, one could argue the Mass should be said in Greek. If truths may be lost by translation from Latin to another language, then you could argue that it is at least possible that certain truths that where taught by the Apostles could have altered through translation from Latin to Greek. If these truths where not lost, then why do some advocate they may be lost by translation from Latin to another language?

In relation to the above, why did the Church opt for Latin as it’s official language as opposed to Greek in order to preserve truths?

Latin was originally adopted because it was becoming the vernacular of the people in the west. Later, in a different religious climate, Latin was stuck to because it was seen as being more formal and holy than the vernacular languages. Also it was reasoned that since Latin was dead it wouldn’t change and would be more suitable to preserve truths.

Yes, it’s very ironic! Especially since the latin vs. greek in west and east led to all sorts of disputes and then schism.

 

[minkymurph]

Because Latin is a dead language, and the meanings of the words won’t change. Thus there could be no confusion as to the meanings of Doctrine and other documents.

You couldn’t prove it by the Dead Sea scrolls. Google that up, and you’ll see how little Scripture changes.

Please understand that I am not seeking to ‘prove’ anything. I am currently a student at a teacher training college and my main subject of study is Religious Studies. The University I attend is a Catholic University and my lecturers in Religion are Priests. The Priest who taught me scripture at foundation level said that what prompted higher criticism of scripture was that many Bible scholars are of the opinion, (he didn’t say whether or not it was his), that the actual texts of scripture have been altered as a result of translation and that translators of the Bible allowed their own views to influence them in relation to translation.

In relation to the topic of the thread I would therefore say that I can understand why there is a desire to see Latin preserved. However I would also say that translation from Latin to English or another language does not necessarily mean truths will be lost. It depends on the ability of the translator and perhaps more significantly, the motive of the translator. My personal opinion would be that as it is the Holy Spirit that preserves truth, divine truths are not lost by Spirit inspired translation. Truths are lost by translation that is not Spirit inspired if that makes sense.

 

[Lisa44]

May I add my two bits to the OP.
I read the thread up to page 15 and it was very informative and many great posts.

On the subject of RCIA.
I went through it last year. I have to say it was a disappointment for me. Standing in a circle holding hands and praying together. (as someone mentioned, the emphasis on ‘love’).

I had an impression of Catholics as being traditional and that being a good thing. But RCIA gave me another impression.

Does anyone know how my enterence into the church would have differed before Vatican II?

Or should be a new post?

 

[japhy]

Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek.

Remember that the sign on the crucifix was written in Latin too…

 

[KingAlfred]

For decades I considered JP2 an absolute hero. Now that he’s gone and I’ve started posting here, I see that many Trads don’t like him. They see him as a V2 crusader, and downplay if not dismiss his many great achievements. So sad. So very sad.

 

[neitsab]

Not much. Since then we have become liberal, cafeteria Catholics, more Protestant-like. Many of our newer churches with their stark enteriors, lack of kneelers, Tabernacles being taken off the altar, altar rails gone and the elimination in some cases of statues of our Lord and the saints. Not to mention the Novus Ordo condensed Mass,(condensed versions of anything are never as good as the original) Thank God the Latin Mass is on it’s way back. Our belief in birth control and abortion has sky rocketed (case in point: when the media tells us the percentage of the Democratic Party’s Catholic vote. The post Vatican II Catholics now throw the Churches teachings out the window if it benefits them.). We’ve had the Priest scandals and the millions of dollars paid off by liberal Bishops to bail out their dirty little secrets. Women do not wear veils on their heads since then, it might muss their hair. How people dress for Church now is shameful and disrespectful of Jesus. It seems that bare midriffs, short skirts, dirty t-shirts and baggy pants are ok for Jesus, but not for their secular haunts. Many think the church is a place to talk to their friends and never consider that someone might be trying to pray before Mass. Quite a few will come late sit as far back as they can and leave early. Why bother, if Jesus is worth only a few minutes a week, he must not be a high priority. When they go to their secular movies or plays they are dressed to the nines and pay enormous prices to sit up front. That tells me that the priests and bishops are not doing their jobs. They should be at the entrance and tell those who are not properly dressed to come back when they are or even better, point them out to the congregation from the pulpit. Oh yes, I know, we must not treat our people like that because they might not return. I say: Too bad for them, they should be embarrassed not insulted.

That’s how I feel and it is my personal view and I don’t expect a lot of people to agree with me, judging from the state of the Church now-a-days. Please pray the Rosary for our Priests and out Church…

 

[elts1956]

Please understand that I am not seeking to ‘prove’ anything. I am currently a student at a teacher training college and my main subject of study is Religious Studies. The University I attend is a Catholic University and my lecturers in Religion are Priests. The Priest who taught me scripture at foundation level said that what prompted higher criticism of scripture was that many Bible scholars are of the opinion, (he didn’t say whether or not it was his), that the actual texts of scripture have been altered as a result of translation and that translators of the Bible allowed their own views to influence them in relation to translation.

In relation to the topic of the thread I would therefore say that I can understand why there is a desire to see Latin preserved. However I would also say that translation from Latin to English or another language does not necessarily mean truths will be lost. It depends on the ability of the translator and perhaps more significantly, the motive of the translator. My personal opinion would be that as it is the Holy Spirit that preserves truth, divine truths are not lost by Spirit inspired translation. Truths are lost by translation that is not Spirit inspired if that makes sense.

It is my understanding that in translating the Torah, much, much care is given to carrying the previous translation over to the new one. If the new translation is not in accord with the old one, it is not accepted. So how did the translators of the Bible in the Catholic Church get by with altering meanings?

 

[Ad_Deum]

It’s hard to say what good things Vatican II brought to the Roman Church. Traditional Catholics believes that Vatican II brought liberalization and modernization to the church. Vocations and Sunday attendance absolutely went down the chart, doctrinally and liturgically messed up, and most of all there is big confusion and massive split between church members.

Post Conciliar members would say that there is ease in the liturgy, involvment in parish activities (liturgically), and everything is happy clappy. Average Catholics did not go to a Catholic school, does not read the Scripture nor the Cathechism (simplified doctrinal beliefs and teachings)…

To ask the good things with good answers would be impossible, unless the Church will re-enforced again true Catholic discipline in the church (doctrinally, liturgically, and spiritually).
Just observed an average post-conciliar church, and see what Vatican II brought in.

I believe there is a revolution going on, I thank God for Pope Benedict XVI for bringing back Catholic traditions and teachings.

May the Lord God bless and keep you.

Frater

 

[KingAlfred]

Not much. Since then we have become liberal, cafeteria Catholics, more Protestant-like. Many of our newer churches with their stark enteriors, lack of kneelers, Tabernacles being taken off the altar, altar rails gone and the elimination in some cases of statues of our Lord and the saints. Not to mention the Novus Ordo condensed Mass,(condensed versions of anything are never as good as the original) Thank God the Latin Mass is on it’s way back. Our belief in birth control and abortion has sky rocketed (case in point: when the media tells us the percentage of the Democratic Party’s Catholic vote. The post Vatican II Catholics now throw the Churches teachings out the window if it benefits them.). We’ve had the Priest scandals and the millions of dollars paid off by liberal Bishops to bail out their dirty little secrets. Women do not wear veils on their heads since then, it might muss their hair. How people dress for Church now is shameful and disrespectful of Jesus. It seems that bare midriffs, short skirts, dirty t-shirts and baggy pants are ok for Jesus, but not for their secular haunts. Many think the church is a place to talk to their friends and never consider that someone might be trying to pray before Mass. Quite a few will come late sit as far back as they can and leave early. Why bother, if Jesus is worth only a few minutes a week, he must not be a high priority. When they go to their secular movies or plays they are dressed to the nines and pay enormous prices to sit up front. That tells me that the priests and bishops are not doing their jobs. They should be at the entrance and tell those who are not properly dressed to come back when they are or even better, point them out to the congregation from the pulpit. Oh yes, I know, we must not treat our people like that because they might not return. I say: Too bad for them, they should be embarrassed not insulted.

That’s how I feel and it is my personal view and I don’t expect a lot of people to agree with me, judging from the state of the Church now-a-days. Please pray the Rosary for our Priests and out Church…

I respectfully disagree. I don’t consider ritualism that important. In fact, my wife and I were discussing this lastnight on our way home from Saturday evening Mass. I said I’d like to see the entire practice of standing, kneeling, and sitting changed to just sitting throughout the entire Mass. I, for one, cannot kneel throughout the entire Eucharist, due to back pain.

 

[japhy]

I don’t consider ritualism that important.

What you call “ritualism” might be what the Church considers “faithful and reverent celebration of the liturgy”.

I said I’d like to see the entire practice of standing, kneeling, and sitting changed to just sitting throughout the entire Mass.

Back pain out of the way, why? Our postures and gestures during the Mass are significant and have spiritual and theological reasons associated with them. Why should we sit the whole time?

I, for one, cannot kneel throughout the entire Eucharist, due to back pain.

And because you cannot, you are freed from the obligation to keep that posture.

 

[pnewton]

Post Conciliar members would say that there is ease in the liturgy, involvment in parish activities (liturgically), and everything is happy clappy. Average Catholics did not go to a Catholic school, does not read the Scripture nor the Cathechism (simplified doctrinal beliefs and teachings)…

All members of the Catholic Church are now post-conciliar. I do not know where you get the idea that scripture reading has decreased or that the beliefs are simpler. Just putting the CCC on a set of scales with something like the Baltimore Catechism and one can see which has more detailed information. I have always thought of the Baltimore Catechism as the simple one. Therefore, to stay on topic, increased understanding of theology among the laity and increase emphasis on scripture reading would be two positive things from VII.

 

[Ad_Deum]

All members of the Catholic Church are now post-conciliar. I do not know where you get the idea that scripture reading has decreased or that the beliefs are simpler. Just putting the CCC on a set of scales with something like the Baltimore Catechism and one can see which has more detailed information. I have always thought of the Baltimore Catechism as the simple one. Therefore, to stay on topic, increased understanding of theology among the laity and increase emphasis on scripture reading would be two positive things from VII.

You may say that there is an increse of Scripture reading within the liturgy (that’s true), and that the Baltimore Catechism helped. In reality, what I observed to most Catholics I know is that they don’t have a clear understanding of the Catholic Faith eventhough they went through the Catechism class.

Pax Christi

Frater

 

[alih]

for what it may be worth…quote st. vincent of lerins (ca.400-ca450) confessor of the church “what then should a catholic do if some part of the church were to separate itself from communion with the universal faith? what other choice can he make but to prefer to the gangrenous and corrupted member the whole of the body that is sound. and if some new contagion were to try to poison no longer a small part of the church, but all of the church at the same time, then he will take the greatest care to attach himself to antiquity which, obviously, can no longer be seduced by any lying novelty.” (commonitorium) have a good year. (alih)

 

[SFD]

All members of the Catholic Church are now post-conciliar. I do not know where you get the idea that scripture reading has decreased or that the beliefs are simpler. Just putting the CCC on a set of scales with something like the Baltimore Catechism and one can see which has more detailed information. I have always thought of the Baltimore Catechism as the simple one. Therefore, to stay on topic, increased understanding of theology among the laity and increase emphasis on scripture reading would be two positive things from VII.

Really? What about The Catechism of the Council of Trent?

Also, there were several Catechisms for different age levels under the guise of the Baltimore Catechism…As I write this, I am looking at a pretty detailed 1943 copy of A Catechism of Christian Doctrine, Baltimore Catechism, A text for Secondary Schools and Colleges.

SFD

 

[elts1956]

I respectfully disagree. I don’t consider ritualism that important. In fact, my wife and I were discussing this lastnight on our way home from Saturday evening Mass. I said I’d like to see the entire practice of standing, kneeling, and sitting changed to just sitting throughout the entire Mass. I, for one, cannot kneel throughout the entire Eucharist, due to back pain.

I don’t do too well kneeling either due to knee pain. Then I always think a half a kneel is better than none especially at the Consecration. I don’t think sitting throughout Mass would hack it as each movement of the priest, which the congregation follows has a meanings. If all we did was sit, the priest would not have any interaction from us other than answering him.

 

[pnewton]

Really? What about The Catechism of the Council of Trent?

Never read it. I don’t need to since we have one very undated. I also haven’t read any from the middle ages. i am trying to stay on topic of the good that has come out of Vatican II, not the Council of Trent.

 

[maurin]

Never read it. I don’t need to since we have one very undated. I also haven’t read any from the middle ages.

pnewton,

I respectfully and sincerely ask you to consider one thing: is this, if not the same then very similar reasoning the protestants use in denying the Faith of the Fathers of the Church of the first 5 centuries concerning the Tradition, the Eucharist, the Mass, the Communion of Saints…?

 

[pnewton]

pnewton,

I respectfully and sincerely ask you to consider one thing: is this, if not the same then very similar reasoning the protestants use in denying the Faith of the Fathers of the Church of the first 5 centuries concerning the Tradition, the Eucharist, the Mass, the Communion of Saints…?

Not at all. I am not denying any thing from the past tradition of the Church. I am only saying that I have not read any catechisms from the Middle Ages. I have read much more of the Fathers from the first few centuries and some other writings from the Middle Ages.

In fact, it the very idea of letting every Christian interpret theology for themeslves that I try to avoid. Protestants fall into the sola scriptura fallacy of everyone interpreting the Bible for themselves. Then they argue over those scriptures which appear “self-evident.” Catholics must not do the same thing, only expanding the field of “self-evident” materials from scripture to scripture and anything written in between.

It is not that I haven’t read anything, it is just that when it comes to the norm of Catholic Theology, I do not define that for myself, but rather stick to what the Church is teaching.

 

[maurin]

Not at all. I am not denying any thing from the past tradition of the Church. I am only saying that I have not read any catechisms from the Middle Ages. I have read much more of the Fathers from the first few centuries and some other writings from the Middle Ages.

In fact, it the very idea of letting every Christian interpret theology for themeslves that I try to avoid. Protestants fall into the sola scriptura fallacy of everyone interpreting the Bible for themselves. Then they argue over those scriptures which appear “self-evident.” Catholics must not do the same thing, only expanding the field of “self-evident” materials from scripture to scripture and anything written in between.

It is not that I haven’t read anything, it is just that when it comes to the norm of Catholic Theology, I do not define that for myself, but rather stick to what the Church is teaching.

But what if one could detect changes, whether these changes be explicit or implicit, which even though could be read and interpreted Traditionally, in practice are implemented differently?

For example, the Traditional definition of the Church is “The Church of Jesus Christ is the Catholic Church.” In other words, there is only one ark of Salvation.

Does not the new catechism describe the “Church of Jesus Christ” as “subsisting in the Catholic Church?”

One can read the Traditional understanding into this new definition, certainly and rightly so.

However, in practice isn’t this new definition sometimes used to dissuade those who seek formal entrance into the Catholic Church, the Church of Jesus Christ, as not necessary by well-meaning but misguided Priests who counsel some such as these that God uses even protestant communities as vehicles of Salvation?

Do not the Faithful have the ‘sensum fidei’ to recognize such errors?

This is a problem inherent in the vague definitions of the documents of the Second Vatican Counsel. One just need to attend, although I would not recommend it, the ‘average’ Catholic Church to see how even the Liturgy is held hostage by such vague definitions.