What good has come out of Vatican II?

[KingAlfred]

I believe in Vatican II, consider it official Church policy, and quite frankly, view attacks on it as schismatic. Sorry.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

I usually swing both ways when it comes to Vatican II, because I like how it gives the laypeople greater opportunity in the Church which is similar to the way it was back in Acts. However, I understand the desire of the Latin Rite, I think there is something profound and wonderful of the Latin Rite, one language celebrating Christ around the world. It really speaks about Christian Unity.

The problem with Vatican II is that the liberal and dissenting elements of the Church decided that it was time to make the changes they saw fit, and like the rest of the decade saw them experimenting, causing mass confusion among the faithful and the clergy. I think only now we are getting over the hump, I think the new generation of clergy will lead the Church into a wonderful direction, and we can put the errors of those who tried to corrupt the Church behind us.

OK, OK, THIS IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME, END THE THREAD NOW!

 

[Jacafamala]

I’ve seen a few opera songs in italian but not a full opera, why?

May, I jump in here?

Because you don’t need to know the language to know just what’s going on.

Like Shakespeare when it’s done really well. His work is that way, too. Ya just know what’s up.

The same is true with the Tridentine Latin Mass. Not that you’re going to know absolutely all the nuances, but you get the basic gist. And for what you can’t get intuitively, a missal would take care of very well.

 

[japhy]

I believe in Vatican II, consider it official Church policy, and quite frankly, view attacks on it as schismatic. Sorry.

Church “policy” is a hazy term… is it doctrine? discipline? practice?

And yes, while Vatican II is an official council of the Church, not everything that happened after it (even that which “invoked” the Council as its origin) was in line with what Vatican II itself taught. Our present pope has made such comments several times, essentially saying that the liturgical reform called for by Vatican II and the liturgical reform carried out after Vatican II are not synonymous.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

I believe in Vatican II, consider it official Church policy, and quite frankly, view attacks on it as schismatic. Sorry.

No need to apologize for your over-simplification and lack of understanding of some of the words you use.

(Claiming that Vatican II was not a valid Council, or that the Pauline Mass was not valid if said as instructed - now that would be schismatic! )

I was wondering if you could do us a favor and give us your full opinion on the 1962 missal vs the Pauline Mass. Warning, though, if there’s anything you don’t like about the old Mass, that’d be schismatic by your definition. See the problem?

Also, do you know the details of what was called for at the Council vs. what was implemented? What do you think the reasons were for the differences, and do you think they were good?

Be careful who you disagree with, though, lest you fall into schism.

I should probably apologize in advance for the sarcasm, but people who throw around that word, like a blanket, are either very confused or intending to insult.

 

[ProVobis]

Or things have changed, like have a greater literacy rate among the people, or development and re-examination of the purpose of the Church.

Ok, how is refusing to study or teach a classical language, or math or English for that matter, improve literacy? And are we supposed to believe no one else tried to re-examine the purpose of the Church for 1600 years? Or could it be that the seeds of this all-vernacular “re-examination” were sown with the Reformation 500 years ago and finally erupted in the Catholic Church as the greatest development of all time? If nothing else Latin did give all Catholics some identity, and losing that, it’s not surprising we lost a lot of other things too.

No, I fail to see how eliminating Latin served any good purpose.

PS. Paul, I’m sorry if I repeated anything you might have said just before this note was posted. A lot of sudden interest on this thread.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

Ok, how is refusing to study or teach a classical language, or math or English for that matter, improve literacy? And are we supposed to believe no one else tried to re-examine the purpose of the Church for 1600 years? Or could it be that the seeds of this all-vernacular “re-examination” were sown with the Reformation 500 years ago and finally erupted in the Catholic Church as the greatest development of all time? If nothing else Latin did give all Catholics some identity, and losing that, it’s not surprising we lost a lot of other things too.

No, I fail to see how eliminating Latin served any good purpose.

Sir, you said it better than I.

 

[Cinette]

I’ve seen a few opera songs in italian but not a full opera, why?

Well I think there are lots of reasons the mass stayed in Latin for so long. One reason is that the vulgar languages were believed to be inferior and therefore an insult to God. Also there was an attitude of emphasizing form and doctrine more and the needs of the people less.

I have always understood that the reason for the use of Latin at Mass was, since it is a “dead” language, the meaning of words does not change - it remains pure. With usage the meaning of words do change - look at what has happened with the word gay. In Portuguese it is alegre and I suppose in Latin it might be close to that.

I to think it is good to have Mass said in our own language. As I have said we do pray to God in our own language.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

I have always understood that the reason for the use of Latin at Mass was, since it is a “dead” language, the meaning of words does not change - it remains pure. With usage the meaning of words do change - look at what has happened with the word gay. In Portuguese it is alegre and I suppose in Latin it might be close to that.

I to think it is good to have Mass said in our own language. As I have said we do pray to God in our own language.

Nope - I pray in Latin.

I think this is why I got accepted to Harvard last week even though I never applied.

 

[pnewton]

Also, as has been pointed out in these forums, every positive comment about the NO in any area in which it differs from the LM is an implicit negative comment about the LM.

That way lies madness. One can point out something postive without implying a single thing negative. One can look to the positive aspects of Vatcian II, without bashing on a single thing that came before. After all, the Church has always responded to the needs of those in Her care throughout history. As things change, sometimes so must the Church. Also, as doctrine is better understood, sometimes changes become beneficial. One can love the Mass in vernacular and not dislike the fellow Catholic that loves the Mass in Latin, or believe that the Church was “late” in allowing such a change.

 

[pnewton]

Ok, how is refusing to study or teach a classical language, or math or English for that matter, improve literacy?

In the context I used it, I meant literacy as in reading and being able to write in one’s native tongue, not having obtained mulit-linguistic skills. I only meant to say that society today is not like it was 1000 years ago. One can believe that Vatican II was beneficial for the time in which it was held without the implication that the last 1500 years was screwed up. That is all.

Except for a few incidents, the Church has done a wonderful job the last 1500 years, but I would extend that back to the pre-Latin era and the post Vatican II era. In other words from inception to the present, I believe the Holy Spirit has led, is leading the Church, and will lead His Church.

 

[pnewton]

From I Corinthians 14, in reference to full participation, not only for the faithful, but for visitors:

10-23 It happens that there are many different languages in the world, and none is meaningless; but if I do not know the meaning of a language, I shall be a foreigner to one who speaks it, and one who speaks it a foreigner to me. So with yourselves: since you strive eagerly for spirits, seek to have an abundance of them for building up the church. Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray to be able to interpret. (For) if I pray in a tongue, my spirit is at prayer but my mind is unproductive. So what is to be done? I will pray with the spirit, but I will also pray with the mind. I will sing praise with the spirit, but I will also sing praise with the mind. Otherwise, if you pronounce a blessing (with) the spirit, how shall one who holds the place of the uninstructed say the “Amen” to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying? For you may be giving thanks very well, but the other is not built up. I give thanks to God that I speak in tongues more than any of you, but in the church I would rather speak five words with my mind, so as to instruct others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue. Brothers, stop being childish in your thinking. In respect to evil be like infants, but in your thinking be mature.
It is written in the law: “By people speaking strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people, and even so they will not listen to me, says the Lord.” Thus, tongues are a sign not for those who believe but for unbelievers, whereas prophecy is not for unbelievers but for those who believe. So if the whole church meets in one place and everyone speaks in tongues, and then uninstructed people or unbelievers should come in, will they not say that you are out of your minds?

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

That way lies madness. One can point out something postive without implying a single thing negative. One can look to the positive aspects of Vatcian II, without bashing on a single thing that came before. After all, the Church has always responded to the needs of those in Her care throughout history. As things change, sometimes so must the Church. Also, as doctrine is better understood, sometimes changes become beneficial. One can love the Mass in vernacular and not dislike the fellow Catholic that loves the Mass in Latin, or believe that the Church was “late” in allowing such a change.

I figured you were going to say that.

You quoted only a small portion of my post. Please read it again. By definition, if two things are mutually exclusive, and you prefer one, you don’t care for the other one - or at least “prefer it less”, which is definitely a valid way of putting it.

However, all that aside, plenty of people - here and otherwise - heavily criticize the Latin Mass. As in, shred it. Can it really be you haven’t heard a lot of that type of thing?

 

[RobbyS]

That way lies madness. One can point out something postive without implying a single thing negative. One can look to the positive aspects of Vatcian II, without bashing on a single thing that came before. After all, the Church has always responded to the needs of those in Her care throughout history. As things change, sometimes so must the Church. Also, as doctrine is better understood, sometimes changes become beneficial. One can love the Mass in vernacular and not dislike the fellow Catholic that loves the Mass in Latin, or believe that the Church was “late” in allowing such a change.

As one who was almost thirty when the Councul adjourned, and who was familiar with the way that the mass was said before, during and after the Council, I must say that before in some places the worshipers spent much of their times with private devotions, with prayerbooks or rosaries. Other worshippers used the missals with English translations of the Latin so that they could follow along. Once the mass was translated into English, some places abandoned Latin altogether, others retained responxses in Latin. I was quite content to have the “old” mass in English translation. One who agreed with me was Jacques Maritain, a hero of liberal Catholics. Like me, he did not see the necessity of the radical changes in the structure of the mass, but was willing to go along. Looking back, what troubles me is the radicalness of the liturgical reformers, who choose to abandon forms to which most people were accusomed and to force them to worship in an entirely new way. The spirit of coersion was quite like that of
Archbishop Cranmer and the leaders of the English Reformation. The worst form of clericalism, I must say. An abuse of power.
Finding themselves in an alien church, many people stopped going to mass. Others, as the Holy Father has pointed out, came to look at the mass not as a form of worship sanctfied by time and tradition but a man-made thing. suchject to endless manipulation. So they lost respect for it. They stopped coming.
Others, seeing the Church changing before their eyes, turned to the protestant churches with their “unchanging” standard, the Bible, and began attending these. Evangelical churches are full of ex-Catholics. The intention of the reformers was to recruit nonCatholics by offering them a less alien form of worship, one more like that of the Luthers or the Episcopalians. Instead they drove away many Catholics.

 

[Cinette]

Nope - I pray in Latin.

I think this is why I got accepted to Harvard last week even though I never applied.

:bounce: :whacky:

 

[pnewton]

However, all that aside, plenty of people - here and otherwise - heavily criticize the Latin Mass. As in, shred it. Can it really be you haven’t heard a lot of that type of thing?

I have seen only a few that have done that, but yes, I have seen it. I have seen people on both side show a lack of understanding toward each other. I think perhaps I should have quoted Chapter 11 and 12 of 1 Corinthians instead.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

:bounce: :whacky:

I’m not sure if that means you liked it or not.

My little joke, if it needs to be explained, is something like this: I don’t know Latin enough nearly enough to pray in it (which is quite true) but I’m such a ‘crazy traditionalist’ I try to do it anyway, silly as that is. Funny, eh? I was poking fun at myself. (Sometimes it does need to get a little lighter round here.)

Certainly, personal prayer, which is spontaneous communication, simply will be in our native tongue since that’s how we think.

Formal prayers in Latin suure are beautiful, though!

 

[Cinette]

From I Corinthians 14, in reference to full participation, not only for the faithful, but for visitors:

Learn to speak Portuguese - it is really a key language since by doing so you can understand a lot of Spanish (I don’t know why but Spanish people do not have the ease of understanding of Port as the Port have of the Spanish language!) You will also be abloe to communicate quite effectively in Italian.

 

[Cinette]

I’m not sure if that means you liked it or not.

My little joke, if it needs to be explained, is something like this: I don’t know Latin enough nearly enough to pray in it (which is quite true) but I’m such a ‘crazy traditionalist’ I try to do it anyway, silly as that is. Funny, eh? I was poking fun at myself. (Sometimes it does need to get a little lighter round here.)

Certainly, personal prayer, which is spontaneous communication, simply will be in our native tongue since that’s how we think.

Formal prayers in Latin suure are beautiful, though!

I will make a confession! My husband says I am ADD!! Maybe! I STRUGGLE to concentrate. So many thoughts are always bumping into one another. I am constantly interrupted by one thought or another. I think I may have to write all my prayer intentions on a piece of paper and when I go to Mass say to the Lord that all my intentions are contained there. Because if I pray for Mary I will start to think of Mary. If I pray for John the same thing! Sometimes I look at the words in Latin (in a Mass we might sing the Agnus Dei or the Credo - it happens) and since I have learnt to speak Portuguese I find myself comparing and trying to work out the Latin meaning - so that is a distraction.

I love the latin Mass and the chanting but if I want to concentrate then give me English! My home language changed 3 times: Franch, English, Portuguese. No thank you I have now become most used to English and I it is less complicated to concentrate in English.

But this is a small thing. What interests me most with Vatican II is the impact on the laity. THAT is BIG. THAT is IMPORTANT

 

[I_Believe]

Hello I Believe. I think we all have had negative experiences with both TLM and NO. I can remember as a child/teenager, going to Mass at TLM because “it was the thing to do”. I am very embarrased to admit I have done that at the NO as an adult.

I think the problem is, as I posted previously, not the form of either Mass, IF both are done reverently, as they were intended to be said, but rather lack of education and explanation by the clergy to us as to just WHAT we are participating in when we attend Mass. Sure, I had over fourteen years of Catholic education, but did I learn anything, or get any instruction on the meaning of the Mass other than it was the main part of the liturgy? No, I just knew it was a mortal sin to miss Mass on Sundays and Holy Days.

And I think this is where the clergy are failing many of us now. There is so little leading, so little teaching, so little explanation of what our Church is about. No wonder people are lethargic in learning about the Faith. I am sure there is overt and active leadership in other dioceses and parishes, but in mine, there is little. It is sad to see people being really unaware of where they are, who they are to be honoring and why they come to Mass. We have conversations among parishoners during homily, after Mass inside Church etc. etc. No respect whatsover. Those doing this are thankfully few in number, at least during Mass, but sometimes I just want to un Christianly slap them, or go up to a group of chatters, and say, “Mass is over. If you are through talking to Jesus, please leave.”

Well, that’s what I’ve come to realize lately. Unless we take it upon ourselves to learn the Faith, then what comes from the pulpit is all we have. Of course children are influenced and taught by their parents and family members, but if the adults only know what they hear from the pulpit, then the kids are vulnerable.

And as far as conduct, I realy have to blame that on the pastors and priests. By remaining silent, they in fact enable the bad conduct. I respect our priests, but I really have to wonder if some of them truly believe in the Real Presence when they allow the eruption of chatter immediately after Mass.

All the issues are on the table nowadays though. The internet has allowed all to see that there is division, abuse, concern, confusion, and so forth. One thing is certain, there is no conformity from one parish to the next in a lot of diocese.

It’s all in the hands of our young priests now.