What good has come out of Vatican II?

[minkymurph]

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?

Perhaps that’s something I will discover more about during my course…

One of the arguements used here for keeping the Mass in Latin was that the meaning can be lost through translation which is why I opened this area of debate.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

One of the arguements used here for keeping the Mass in Latin was that the meaning can be lost through translation which is why I opened this area of debate.

Is this not moot? When the Mass was in Latin, the laity followed in missals that provided translations. By the argument that meaning is lost in translation, were not those translations inherently flawed, prior to the advent of the Pauline Mass?

I think we simply need to get the best translation we can. Seems like that will be here in about a year or so.

 

[elts1956]

Perhaps that’s something I will discover more about during my course…

One of the arguements used here for keeping the Mass in Latin was that the meaning can be lost through translation which is why I opened this area of debate.

I have heard that too. I wonder if when a revision of the Bible, or other documents takes place if the original documents in Latin and Greek are checked before anything is changed? Anybody know for sure?

 

[pnewton]

I have heard that too. I wonder if when a revision of the Bible, or other documents takes place if the original documents in Latin and Greek are checked before anything is changed? Anybody know for sure?

I do not know the date or name of the document, but a few years ago a rule on translations came out stating that the original languages were to be consulted for all new translations.

 

[japhy]

I do not know the date or name of the document, but a few years ago a rule on translations came out stating that the original languages were to be consulted for all new translations.

Probably Liturgiam Authenticam. Also see Norms for the Translation of Biblical Texts for Use in the Liturgy.

 

[elts1956]

I do not know the date or name of the document, but a few years ago a rule on translations came out stating that the original languages were to be consulted for all new translations.

Thanks pnewton. I now vaguely remember that.

 

[minkymurph]

I have heard that too. I wonder if when a revision of the Bible, or other documents takes place if the original documents in Latin and Greek are checked before anything is changed? Anybody know for sure?

I would guess that Catholic editions of scriputure are checked against Latin documents. As far as I know, and I stand to be corrected, there are very few original Greek documents that have survived. I did hear that a passage from the Gospel of John is preserved in the Vatican however I did not hear this from a reliable source. Perhaps someone else here knows more.

Further to your question, there are Bibles around that have been doctored beyond belief so in relation to accuracy of translation, it depends what translation your reading and there are conflicting views over which translation is the most ‘accurate.’ Some Protestants would say the King James is the most accurate and some Catholics would say the New Jerusalem is the most accurate. In my class we use the NRSV Catholic Edition.

 

[JMMK]

I’m too young to notice the difference. However, from those I know who saw both sides said that the forms and procedures before the council were very good but the Christian spirituality was lacking. Now It’s reversed. Or so he said.

From a study of history, its not surprising either way. There is always a problem amongst the members of the Church. But if we hold true to the See of Peter, the Corner Stone of the Church, the Holy Spirit will guide and protect us.

That said, we should never be complacent. We should always be striving for a higher reverence, a deeper understanding, and a greater holiness. We will never achieve ecclesiastic perfection in this vale of tears, that comes at the end, but like the good servants we should go and multiply what we are given. This is best done by respecting the Authority of the Church in it’s totality. That means to accept the authority of this council, the Holy Father, all with the hermenutic of continuty (i.e. the authority of all preceding councils and pontiffs.)

 

[KingAlfred]

I* love *Vatican II and John Paul II.

 

[bkovacs]

insidebayarea.com/ci_10532925
:dancing: :extrahappy:

 

[japhy]

insidebayarea.com/ci_10532925

From the article: “This is the modern-day version of stained glass in a cathedral,” said Mike Brown, director of communications for the construction project. “The tradition of stained glass began hundreds of years ago to tell stories for an illiterate population. We don’t need that today.”

That’s somewhat depressing. Now that (everyone?) can read, we don’t need the beauty of stained glass. Such functionalism is often associated with modernism.

 

[ncjohn]

From the article: "This is the modern-day version of stained glass in a cathedral," said Mike Brown, director of communications for the construction project. “The tradition of stained glass began hundreds of years ago to tell stories for an illiterate population. We don’t need that today.”

That’s somewhat depressing. Now that (everyone?) can read, we don’t need the beauty of stained glass. Such functionalism is often associated with modernism.

While I agree that the leaning toward functionalism here is somewhat depressing, I think we need to keep in mind that one’s preference in things artistic is still just that–a preference. There are many in the world who prefer a minimalist presentation in both art and function, just as there are those who prefer other styles of art, architecture, furniture and clothes design etc.

To make the leap of implying that this makes someone a “modernist”, which has clear heretical implications, is a tad unfair in my humble opinion. I realize that there has not been an accusation per se, but the implication certainly seems to be there.

Peace,

 

[maurin]

While I agree that the leaning toward functionalism here is somewhat depressing, I think we need to keep in mind that one’s preference in things artistic is still just that–a preference. There are many in the world who prefer a minimalist presentation in both art and function, just as there are those who prefer other styles of art, architecture, furniture and clothes design etc.

To make the leap of implying that this makes someone a “modernist”, which has clear heretical implications, is a tad unfair in my humble opinion. I realize that there has not been an accusation per se, but the implication certainly seems to be there.

Peace,

I believe, ncjohn, that it is precisely the fact of ‘lex orandi lex credendi’ that comes into play here: one has, in the light of the reality of the state of the Liturgy, the responsibility to fear that a bare and minimalist environment leads to a bare and minimalist Faith.

 

[ncjohn]

I believe, ncjohn, that it is precisely the fact of ‘lex orandi lex credendi’ that comes into play here: one has, in the light of the reality of the state of the Liturgy, the responsibility to fear that a bare and minimalist environment leads to a bare and minimalist Faith.

I would respectfully disagree that there is any such correlation. I have seen saints come from worship secretly conducted at an outside table in a Siberian prison camp or German concentration camp, or from the barest of chapels in monastic orders.

And conversely, I grew up with the traditionally ornate churches, but with Catholics that seemed totally indifferent, for the most part, to their “worship”, part of the “pay, pray, and obey” culture that existed for so long.

In saying that I do not mean at all to imply that there were more or less “saints” in one era or the other, or that there is greater or lesser faith in one environment or the other. I am simply pointing out my point that it is not the environment that makes for saints or for greater or lesser faith. “Lex orandi lex credendi” is certainly a valid statement, but it is far from the only indicator or influence.

The environment is not “the moon”; it is only a finger pointing at the moon. Yes, different environments can be more or less conducive, but not universally. Different priests can be more or less conducive, but not universally. Different liturgies can be more or less conducive, but not universally. Different music can be more or less conducive, but not universally. That is where I take issue with those who assume a feeling that their liturgy, or their language, or their devotions are somehow objectively “superior”, especially when the Church says no such thing and, in fact, reinforces that our diversity is perfectly natural and will call us in different directions while still adhering to the same faith.

I’m sorry Maurin, but this is one case where I fully disagree that ‘lex orandi lex credendi’ comes into play to any significant degree at all. I just know of far too many cases in both directions to provide any correlation.

Peace,

 

[maurin]

I would respectfully disagree that there is any such correlation. I have seen saints come from worship secretly conducted at an outside table in a Siberian prison camp or German concentration camp, or from the barest of chapels in monastic orders.

And conversely, I grew up with the traditionally ornate churches, but with Catholics that seemed totally indifferent, for the most part, to their “worship”, part of the “pay, pray, and obey” culture that existed for so long.

In saying that I do not mean at all to imply that there were more or less “saints” in one era or the other, or that there is greater or lesser faith in one environment or the other. I am simply pointing out my point that it is not the environment that makes for saints or for greater or lesser faith. “Lex orandi lex credendi” is certainly a valid statement, but it is far from the only indicator or influence.

The environment is not “the moon”; it is only a finger pointing at the moon. Yes, different environments can be more or less conducive, but not universally. Different priests can be more or less conducive, but not universally. Different liturgies can be more or less conducive, but not universally. Different music can be more or less conducive, but not universally. That is where I take issue with those who assume a feeling that their liturgy, or their language, or their devotions are somehow objectively “superior”, especially when the Church says no such thing and, in fact, reinforces that our diversity is perfectly natural and will call us in different directions while still adhering to the same faith.

I’m sorry Maurin, but this is one case where I fully disagree that ‘lex orandi lex credendi’ comes into play to any significant degree at all. I just know of far too many cases in both directions to provide any correlation.

Peace,

I believe, ncjohn, that it is precisely the fact of ‘lex orandi lex credendi’ that comes into play here: one has, in the light of the reality of the state of the Liturgy, the responsibility to fear that a bare and minimalist environment leads to a bare and minimalist Faith.

But were not the prison camps in which the Liturgy was celebrated The Cross Itself?, which is what the Celebration of the Liturgy is?

ncjohn, I respect your understanding, as I am certain that you respect mine. It is just that in my experience here in this Diocese, the Churches that have had all of their Crucifixes and Tabernacles excised from their Sanctuaries (and these types of Sanctuaries are the rule here, and not the exception) are the worst Parishes to expect any silence in, except of course when they are empty. This Diocese is the home of the Diocesan Seminary of the Dioceses of the State. There is no Crucifix in its Chapel’s Sanctuary either (however the Tabernacle is behind the Altar).

When one is not confronted with the images of the reality of the Mass, one will certainly not have reverence. This is clearly the case here, and bears the witness to the truth in my statements.

 

[Fran65]

When one is not confronted with the images of the reality of the Mass, one will certainly not have reverence.

I respectfully disagree.

A faithful, sincere and devout Catholic may not need images or objects to feel reverence.

Of course the crucifix is central, and an important reminder of the reality of Christ’s passion and death. One of things I love about the Church is its use of art, architecture and iconography. I find them very helpful and they bring me closer to God in many ways, but they are not strictly necessary. What is necessary is faith**** - in my opinion.

God bless

 

[ncjohn]

I respectfully disagree.

A faithful, sincere and devout Catholic may not need images or objects to feel reverence.

Of course the crucifix is central, and an important reminder of the reality of Christ’s passion and death. One of things I love about the Church is its use of art, architecture and iconography. I find them very helpful and they bring me closer to God in many ways, but they are not strictly necessary. What is necessary is faith**** - in my opinion.

God bless

Exactly!

If the statement made was true then it would be impossible for a blind person to be reverent.

Images are indeed helpful, but far from “necessary”. And to claim that one cannot have reverence without them…well…I too must just respectfully disagree.

Peace,

 

[maurin]

I respectfully disagree.

A faithful, sincere and devout Catholic may not need images or objects to feel reverence.

Of course the crucifix is central, and an important reminder of the reality of Christ’s passion and death. One of things I love about the Church is its use of art, architecture and iconography. I find them very helpful and they bring me closer to God in many ways, but they are not strictly necessary. What is necessary is faith**** - in my opinion.

God bless

Exactly!

If the statement made was true then it would be impossible for a blind person to be reverent.

Images are indeed helpful, but far from “necessary”. And to claim that one cannot have reverence without them…well…I too must just respectfully disagree.

Peace,

Dear fran and ncjohn,

both of you have made some very good points, and I appreciate your statements and opinions, as I am sure you can appreciate mine.

If we go into Churches which have been excavated from the first few centuries of the CHurch (have you ever seen the show “History Underground”?), there was hardly a space left empty on the walls and the ceilings that didn’t contain some sort of image.

Good points though, and certainly there are quite a few people who do not need images to remain reverent. Need I say that I meant no disrespect to those who do not have their sight? If so, please accept my apologies.

Unfortunately I live in a Diocese whose churches are devoid for the most part of images (these are the rule, the others are exceptions), and unfortunately these churches seem more like carnivals–both before and during the Mass, than they do Masses.

Just my experience. Didn’t mean to rile you

 

[lentang2]

The question itself implies that there may not be ANY good that came out of the council. Hence it is an “implied Pre-bash”.

He asked a question. No bashing of any type is even remotely implied by the OP.

James

 

[maurin]

The question itself implies that there may not be ANY good that came out of the council. Hence it is an “implied Pre-bash”.

This reminds me of, which future Apostle was it?, who asked, “What good has come out of Nazareth?”

I think you are judging the OP too harshly. I know her very well. Your accusation, though understandable, is not correctly applied to her.