What good has come out of Vatican II?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jacafamala
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oops, we missed this at my local church - the splendor, charm, beauty, part. It’s like a meeting.
 
James0235 said:
He asked a question. No bashing of any type is even remotely implied by the OP.
Click to expand...
I noticed that the first response to this thread was met with suspicion, for which he was chastised. Yet already, the criticisms of people’s* opinion* have multiplied for those who give sincere answers. So which was are we going? Was bpbasilphx right and unfairly criticized? Are we actually going to have good things to add about VII? Time will tell.
 
bear06 said:
It’s true. Modernism abounds, there are still protestants, etc.
Click to expand...
Let me note one strange side effect from VII that appeals to the more traditionally minded. Modernism, defined as a philosophy, was condemned by Pius X. That is because he too faced the issue of modernism. The modernist liturgical movement had its roots in the 1930’s according to the preface in Spirit of the Liturgy. The point is that these forces were active already at the time of VII. They did not spring from the council. The liturgy was supposed to give guidelines to contain exuberance, not unleash it.

Those of you that enjoy a very strict TLM with no nuttiness owe it to VII, because the same priest influenced by modernism and liberalism would be your priest messing around with the TLM.
 
pnewton;Let me note one strange side effect from VII that appeals to the more traditionally minded. Modernism, defined as a philosophy, was condemned by Pius X. That is because he too faced the issue of modernism. The modernist liturgical movement had its roots in the 1930’s according to the preface in Spirit of the Liturgy. The point is that these forces were active already at the time of VII. They did not spring from the council. The liturgy was supposed to give guidelines to contain exuberance, not unleash it.
Click to expand...
I’ve read theories that there were Communists infiltrating the clergy pre-VII. Why not? I don’t think it’s half-baked; there were USSR spies everywhere else, so why not the Church?

When you say that “the liturgy is supposed to give guidelines”, what exactly do you mean?
Those of you that enjoy a very strict TLM with no nuttiness owe it to VII, because the same priest influenced by modernism and liberalism would be your priest messing around with the TLM.
Click to expand...
I don’t know how you could possibly prove this. This is mere conjecture.
 
pnewton said:
Let me note one strange side effect from VII that appeals to the more traditionally minded. Modernism, defined as a philosophy, was condemned by Pius X. That is because he too faced the issue of modernism. The modernist liturgical movement had its roots in the 1930’s according to the preface in Spirit of the Liturgy. The point is that these forces were active already at the time of VII. They did not spring from the council. The liturgy was supposed to give guidelines to contain exuberance, not unleash it.

Those of you that enjoy a very strict TLM with no nuttiness owe it to VII, because the same priest influenced by modernism and liberalism would be your priest messing around with the TLM.
Click to expand...
Sin and heresy have always existed,. Traditionalists do not argue to the contrary. They have existed in St.Paul’s day, to before VII, to now. So you Conservatives can’t say “see this was going on before VII so this crisis has nothing to do with VII”. The fact of the matter is that VII, with its wording, it’s Liberal backers and spirit, provided Modernism a fertile ground to grow, expand, and conquer. And modernism knew with the EF out of the way, there was hardly anything to stop it. The fruits are evident
 
KingAlfred said:
Many reasons. For instance, why a Latin Mass when congregants don’t speak Latin?
Click to expand...
Because this is the Roman Catholic tradition. A better question to my mind is, why not Latin?

If you don’t speak Latin, get a missal.
 
keepitreal said:
The fact of the matter is that VII, with its wording, it’s Liberal backers and spirit, provided Modernism a fertile ground to grow, expand, and conquer. And modernism knew with the EF out of the way, there was hardly anything to stop it. The fruits are evident
Click to expand...
And you consider this a good thing?:confused:
 
Jacafamala said:
Because this is the Roman Catholic tradition. A better question to my mind is, why not Latin?

If you don’t speak Latin, get a missal.
Click to expand...
I wonder how many people argued the same thing when the Romans switched their liturgy from Greek to Latin. “If you don’t understand Greek, get a missal!”
 
I stopped attending the CC before Vatican II and when I returned 27 years later I was moved to see a vibrant laity as never before.

I do feel that having the Mass in the vernacular is very good indeed because I can follow the Mass more easily.

I am sorry traditionalists but I like the Priest to face us.

Having said that I love the old Latin singing. The chanting is so beautiful. We should have more of this. Catholics should bring down with song. However, at Communion time I feel that the organ should not be played loudly.

But I have to say, the role of the laity for me is perhaps the most precious thing.

:yup: :love:
 
All I know is that if it weren’t for Vatican II I would probably not have the great job that I have, or should I say ministry that I am engaged in.
 
Joannm said:
All I know is that if it weren’t for Vatican II I would probably not have the great job that I have, or should I say ministry that I am engaged in.
Click to expand...
"Missionaries of the 21st century is the laity!

👍 :love: :yup:
 
Neil_Anthony said:
I wonder how many people argued the same thing when the Romans switched their liturgy from Greek to Latin. “If you don’t understand Greek, get a missal!”
Click to expand...
If you haven’t already, read the old prayers sometime.🙂
 
Jacafamala said:
Because this is the Roman Catholic tradition. A better question to my mind is, why not Latin?

If you don’t speak Latin, get a missal.
Click to expand...
To me, that renders the liturgy incomprehensible; hence, the message of the Mass goes unheeded. Not a good practice. Right outside our doors are Protestant ‘wolves’, as John Paul II called them, waiting to devour our flock. They exploit the theme of ‘relevance’ most skillfully.
 
KingAlfred said:
Many reasons. For instance, why a Latin Mass when congregants don’t speak Latin?
Click to expand...
Why can’t the congregants speak the slightest bit of (liturgical) Latin? Where did the Church err in that regard? Before, during, and after Vatican II, the Church was adamant about the people being able to say (and sing!) the responses of the Mass in Latin. Pope Paul VI was clear about this even in 1974. And Pope John Paul II was too, and Pope Benedict XVI is too.

So when will our pastors get around to teaching us, ever so slowly and gently and carefully, a bit of the Latin of the ordinary of the Mass so that we can participate in Mass the way the Church has intended us to for centuries?!
 
japhy said:
Why can’t the congregants speak the slightest bit of (liturgical) Latin? Where did the Church err in that regard? Before, during, and after Vatican II, the Church was adamant about the people being able to say (and sing!) the responses of the Mass in Latin. Pope Paul VI was clear about this even in 1974. And Pope John Paul II was too, and Pope Benedict XVI is too.

So when will our pastors get around to teaching us, ever so slowly and gently and carefully, a bit of the Latin of the ordinary of the Mass so that we can participate in Mass the way the Church has intended us to for centuries?!
Click to expand...
I speak French and Portuguese and the latter has a lot of similarities with latin. In fact it might be closer to latin than Italian. I can understand Spanish and have conversed with people who can only speak Italian and got by. However, I would not want the Mass in Latin because I really wouldn’t understand. Understand 10 or 15% isn’t enough.

Chanting in latin is a different thing but do not say the Mass in Latin. Why? Because it gives you a fuzzy feeling? When you pray to God do you pray in Latin? Or do you communicate with God in your language?

:gopray2: :signofcross: :ehh: :hmmm:
 
KingAlfred said:
To me, that renders the liturgy incomprehensible; hence, the message of the Mass goes unheeded. Not a good practice. Right outside our doors are Protestant ‘wolves’, as John Paul II called them, waiting to devour our flock. They exploit the theme of ‘relevance’ most skillfully.
Click to expand...
That’s only the case if no personal effort is put forth. Do you consider putting forth personal effort to faithfully and fully participate in the making present of Calvary in the sacrifice of the Mass to be reasonable? I’m sure you do.

It is simply not that difficult to learn enough Latin to easily follow the Mass. I did it myself in just a few weeks’ time, with very little personal study, and I had never before studied any foreign language. With missals with the Latin on the left and English on the right, it is simply a completely empty argument to insist that the Latin puts a barrier between you and the Mass. If you want to insist you simply like the vernacular better (despite the beauty and universality of Latin), well, fine.

Christ used a liturgical language. The Hebrew used at Passover and other Jewish feasts was as to their daily Aramaic as Latin is to our vernacular. The Jews knew the value of a sacred language devoted to the liturgy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top