What good has come out of Vatican II?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jacafamala
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh, are we bashing Vatican II for a change?

One good thing is that the Eastern Churches were encouraged to return to their original usages and discipline.
 
bpbasilphx said:
Oh, are we bashing Vatican II for a change?
Click to expand...
are you bashing the op? I didn’t read Jacafamala as bashing the Council. Rather I read a question which rises above past debates and asks one to focus on what is good that resulted. Like your contribution below.
One good thing is that the Eastern Churches were encouraged to return to their original usages and discipline.
Click to expand...
For me one good that came out of it is that looking at the state of the Liturgy and Catechesis in my experience of the last 10 years or so, it forced me to get to the roots of our Catholic Heritage: Traditionalism.
 
Jacafamala said:
This is the question I ask myself often. Anyone?
Click to expand...
A universal call to holiness.

The restoration of the adult catechumenate and development of the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults.

The changes in other sacraments to make their communal aspects more clear (baptism, penance).

The restoration of the permanent diaconate.
 
It encouraged Catholics to become more familiar with Scripture.

I think the laity has become more involved in the (non-liturgical) aspects of running the parish. This may have come about as a result of the (hopefully temporary) decline in vocations to the priesthood and religious life. But I see this involvement as a good thing.
 
Claire_from_DE said:
It encouraged Catholics to become more familiar with Scripture.

I think the laity has become more involved in the (non-liturgical) aspects of running the parish. This may have come about as a result of the (hopefully temporary) decline in vocations to the priesthood and religious life. But I see this involvement as a good thing.
Click to expand...
I think while in some areas a good thing it has been disasterous in others. For example, catechisis.

Almost all catechisis is now done by lay people, a great many who apparently really don’t have a grasp on what they are teaching. The whole emphasis in many areas is focus on love love love and let everything else go. As my old DRE used to say

DONT BORE THEM WITH DOCTRINE COVER THEM WITH LOVE👍

Such an approach cannot be good for the faith and has led directly to generations who don’t know the faith at all, but think they do. And that is frightening in the extreme

It has also led to a heirarchy if you will in the Parishes with the involved feeling that they occupy a higher level than those who are not so involved. And they in many cases tend to lord over the others in the Parish. The tremendously self important and self righteous attitudes of the multitudes of Extraordinary Ministers, Ushers, why do we even need ushers in the first place, can someone explain that?. come to mind right off the bat and lets not forget the Liturgical Committees:eek: in all their radiant glory.

The Vatican had been pushing for the laity to become more familiar with Scripture long before anyone even thought of Vatican II, so I don’t think the Council should rightfully get creditt for that.

No I think overall the increased involvement of the laity has come at far too great a price overall.

Just my opinion.
 
I think a greater role for the laity in the church has been a positive thing. There are so many people out there that can offer their time and talents that before may have gone underutilized or skipped over all together.

In regards to catechisis, I just wanted to say that not all catechists are bad or poorly informed or go for “cover them in love” sort of teaching strategy. I think there plenty of good and faithful lay Catholics out there that want to pass on the faith unadulterated to either children or those in RCIA. I went through RCIA and in our parish it was a good solid orthodox program that didn’t have any of that theological speculation or dissent that seems to be rampant elsewhere judging from some posts I see on here.

ChadS
 
Jacafamala said:
This is the question I ask myself often. Anyone?
Click to expand...
I never thought I’d read that come out of you, Jaca 😉
Sacrosactum Concilium:
Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing
Click to expand...
This caveat confuses me daily.
 
palmas85 said:
It has also led to a heirarchy if you will in the Parishes with the involved feeling that they occupy a higher level than those who are not so involved. And they in many cases tend to lord over the others in the Parish. The tremendously self important and self righteous attitudes of the multitudes of Extraordinary Ministers, Ushers, why do we even need ushers in the first place, can someone explain that?. come to mind right off the bat and lets not forget the Liturgical Committees:eek: in all their radiant glory.
Click to expand...
I disagree with this. In any parish, it is usually 20% of people doing most of the work for ministries inside and outside of mass. There are always recruitment drives going on to try to fill those positions, yet most people you just cannot reach (that 80% or so in the pews). Anyone is welcome to join any ministry in the parish, and they will be welcomed.

There will always be personal disagreements on a personal level doing any task, that is just part of being human and humans working together. There is no supposed parish caste system like you are inferring.
 
Jacafamala said:
This is the question I ask myself often. Anyone?
Click to expand...
I know this won’t likely be popular on this thread but I think having the Mass in the vernacular and having the congregation respond was a great good that came out of Vatican II. I remember the latin Mass as I’m pretty old and most of the congregation were saying rosaries, reading the church bulletin etc. waiting for a bell to ring that meant something happened.

I know there have been abuses of the OF but all in all I would not trade it for the old latin Mass.
 
Kscrawler said:
I know this won’t likely be popular on this thread but I think having the Mass in the vernacular and having the congregation respond was a great good that came out of Vatican II.
Click to expand...
I think you have been misinformed. Vatican II voted to preserve Latin in the liturgy. Said absolutely nothing about having all-English Masses.
 
According to the Archbishop in charge of it, “restoring splendor and charm, youthful beauty, trenchancy, and a sweet fragrance to the public prayer of the Church” came out of Vatican II
 
Neil_Anthony said:
According to the Archbishop in charge of it, “restoring splendor and charm, youthful beauty, trenchancy, and a sweet fragrance to the public prayer of the Church” came out of Vatican II
Click to expand...
Which Archbishop? In charge of what? :confused:
 
ProVobis said:
I think you have been misinformed. Vatican II voted to preserve Latin in the liturgy. Said absolutely nothing about having all-English Masses.
Click to expand...
Here’s where Vatican II said to say the mass more in English:
    1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
Click to expand...
  1. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.
Click to expand...
From SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM
 
Thanks for all the replies so far. This is helpful. 🙂 I’m just going to sit back and take it all in here. I want to believe that somehow VII was worth it all. I can’t help but wish it had never happened at all, but God’s will not mine.
 
palmas85 said:
.

Almost all catechisis is now done by lay people, a great many who apparently really don’t have a grasp on what they are teaching.

Many priests seem to have their own view on things as well.

The whole emphasis in many areas is focus on love love love and let everything else go.

***This was Jesus GREATEST commandment that superceded EVERYTHING - LOVE - ***

No I think overall the increased involvement of the laity has come at far too great a price overall.

I disagree. We need even more involvement - even in the area of how priests and dioceses are using their funds, ie, coverups etc…

Just my opinion.
Click to expand...
Duly noted - and just mine as well 🙂
 
SuscipeMeDomine said:
A universal call to holiness.

The restoration of the adult catechumenate and development of the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults.

The changes in other sacraments to make their communal aspects more clear (baptism, penance).

The restoration of the permanent diaconate.
Click to expand...
Are you joking??
 
keepitreal said:
Are you joking??
Click to expand...
I know that sometimes it’s hard to recognize someone’s tone when you read a message and perhaps that’s true in this case. To make it clear, no I was not joking.

Do you find a universal call to holiness something funny? Do you laugh at the sacraments? Do you find our clergy amusing?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top