What good has come out of Vatican II?

[japhy]

“… a venacular Mass” … This has been the official practice and policy of the Church since 1965. I was taught the precepts of Vatican II my entire life, BY THE CHURCH. Are you saying everything I was taught was wrong?

A mass completely in the vernacular was certainly NOT the intention of Vatican II… if it, wouldn’t it have been “the official policy of the Church” since 1963 when the Constitution on the Liturgy was promulgated.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

The implicit argument here is a non-sequitur. The main point is having a universal liturgical language, not what that language happens to be.

Following this logic… it was a serious error for Rome to switch its liturgical language from Greek to Latin. History proves this too: Latin led to a separate development of theology in the west which helped cause the schism.

 

[Pro_Domina]

As I have said before, the richness of the liturgical texts was greatly improved.
We got years A, B and C and then those have year I and II.
That means it takes six years to see the same liturgy. Contrary to the old one which was the same for the whole week!

Now I do say that many important things were taken out.

The Mass now only mentions Our Lady like once, compared to several of the older one.

Plus, for small religious communities that do not have priests were able to recieve communion daily without exiting for an outside mass by means of an extraordinary communion minister.

There are good things and bad things.

No doubt there was a renew neccesary. But the intentions of those who did it were not always pure.

And several authorities have even dared say it publicly.

That is why they voted for smart man like Benedict XVI.

Some order had to be put in.

He does everything like a crushing German Panzer but with the diplomacy that only the Church has.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

There are those who say such things should be “offered up,” as if the state of the Church and the Mass is some kind of burden to be carried around with us. I say no. I say fight it. Not with sticks and stones, but with knowledge of Catholic doctrine and with the traditional Mass. Go to trad Masses where there will be no scandal for you. Where your children can hear about salvation and the saints, and not about the “new administration” we are all supposedly hoping for in Washington.

I’m so happy that my own parish is nothing like that. We have a communion rail, and sermons often talk about the saint whose feast day is being observed. I’ve never heard anything there that I find scandalous. But the mass is in English, except for the occasional hymn in Latin.

I’m glad that I don’t have to go to a mass that’s all in Latin to hear orthodox sermons. I’m sorry that those are your only choices in your city, because I think the Latin must be a stumbling block to lots of orthodox-minded Catholics who appreciate being able to understand everything in the mass just by listening.

 

[Jacafamala]

Following this logic… it was a serious error for Rome to switch its liturgical language from Greek to Latin. History proves this too: Latin led to a separate development of theology in the west which helped cause the schism.

It’s true that misunderstandings because of language barriors caused the Church to suffer schism. But actually, the opposite is true today. Latin allows us unity. Latin is essential to the Church. Latin is the official language of the Church because it is a dead language, and the meanings of the words won’t ever change. So there can never be any question as to the intentions of the Church when Latin is used in expressing Her doctrines.

 

[Cat]

Yes, there is. You might not want to admit it but there is. And believe me that 20% is usually pretty proud of the fact that they are in that 20% and I wouldn’t be surprised if that wasn’t one of the main reasons they are there in the first place, judging by many I’ve seen over the years…

This is a terrible thing to say or think. How can you possibly know the hearts and minds of the majority of those who offer their services to the Lord and His Body?

At some point, you must have met up with a real corker of a volunteer who soured you on “service.” My advice is to put this corker into the small minority, and consider the majority of volunteers to be sincere and good.

 

[Cat]

Here’s where Vatican II said to say the mass more in English:

From SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM

Thank you for posting this. It is a comfort and a re-assurance that my bishop and priests are actually competent.

For those of us who are fairly new Catholics, it is frightening and disturbing to hear someone say that everything we have been taught and the Mass we attend is wrong.

 

[ProVobis]

I think the Latin must be a stumbling block to lots of orthodox-minded Catholics who appreciate being able to understand everything in the mass just by listening.

And I think this is exactly how Martin Luther and Cranmer thought.

TV and radio evangelists have a field day with the concept too.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

And I think this is exactly how Martin Luther and Cranmer thought.

TV and radio evangelists have a field day with the concept too.

Yes, and Vatican II said that we should be willing to see the good in other people’s beliefs as well as the bad.

To reject something just because your ‘enemy’ accepts it is a logical fallacy.

 

[rlg94086]

Thank you for posting this. It is a comfort and a re-assurance that my bishop and priests are actually competent.

For those of us who are fairly new Catholics, it is frightening and disturbing to hear someone say that everything we have been taught and the Mass we attend is wrong.

Cat,

It is not that the Mass is “wrong.” The Mass can be said in the vernacular - wider use of the vernacular was “permitted.” Where Neil Anthony is in error is when he says “Vatican II said to say…” It was not a mandate, as it said the “**limits of its employment may be extended.” **Allowing extension of a limit is not the same as mandating. Please read the article I posted by Fr. Fessio. He explains Sancrosanctum Concilium very well.

BTW…depending on the parish it is possible, and disturbing, that new Catholics can be taught many erroneous things. It appears that the problem with Vatican II (the opposite of the subject of this thread ) is that many priests/bishops took it as carte blance for making major changes to “modernize” their parishes.

 

[I_Believe]

“Why do we continue to bicker about this, and argue for a venacular Mass?”

No one is ‘bickering’ about this but you traditionalists. This has been the official practice and policy of the Church since 1965. I was taught the precepts of Vatican II my entire life, *BY THE CHURCH. *Are you saying everything I was taught was wrong?

What exactly has been the official practice and policy since '65 ? If whatever you are talking about is indeed official, then it should be easy to produce a document. I cited my source, the VS of John XXII. Where is yours ?

Precepts of VII ? Could you list them and cite a source please ?

I’m not trying to discredit you or your opinions, but hot air is hot air.

 

[I_Believe]

Useless for you, maybe but I think I finally have an answer to my question. I have an answer as to what good has come out of VII on a personal level. Definately. So, for me this thread has been most useful.

I’m still a little unsure of the ultimate good VII has had for the Church as a whole, but I trust God with this. And I’ve been interested in the replies regarding this.

I was speaking of the ongoing debates in general, not this specific thread. We are running in circles.

 

[I_Believe]

As I have said before, the richness of the liturgical texts was greatly improved.
We got years A, B and C and then those have year I and II.
That means it takes six years to see the same liturgy. Contrary to the old one which was the same for the whole week!

Now I do say that many important things were taken out.

The Mass now only mentions Our Lady like once, compared to several of the older one.

Plus, for small religious communities that do not have priests were able to recieve communion daily without exiting for an outside mass by means of an extraordinary communion minister.

There are good things and bad things.

**No doubt there was a renew neccesary. But the intentions of those who did it were not always pure.

And several authorities have even dared say it publicly.

That is why they voted for smart man like Benedict XVI.

Some order had to be put in.

He does everything like a crushing German Panzer but with the diplomacy that only the Church has.**

Ding Ding Ding Ding !

Bravo friend !

I wish the most extreme of liberals, and the most hard hearted and bitter of traditionalists would understand what you just acknowledged. And everyone in between.

It makes me so angry to hear a traditionalist greet everything BXVI does with suspicion. Wake up folks, BXVI was elected. The conclave knew what they were getting, just as BXVI knew what he was getting when he welcomed the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer back into full communion.

His election was an acknowledgement that something has to be done. It’s, at long last, an effort to fix the mess.

Pro Domina, you have my vote for best post of '08 !

 

[ProVobis]

Yes, and Vatican II said that we should be willing to see the good in other people’s beliefs as well as the bad.

To reject something just because your ‘enemy’ accepts it is a logical fallacy.

You still haven’t made a “good” case for the universal all-English Mass besides your own personal preferences for it. Do I wish the whole world were to speak the language that I understand perfectly? You bet, but that is not reality, neil, and it is to my advantage to learn as many as possible, at least those which involve my faith.

 

[ProVobis]

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.

Just out of curiosity, how did you arrive at this 20%, may I ask? Besides the priests, his secretary, EMHCs, altar servers, speakers, ushers, organist, who else are you including? Even with all the kids in church in the sanctuary, I wouldn’t call it 20%.

 

[notsmart]

This is the question I ask myself often. Anyone?

I dont know what it was like before, but I would say even if its different, my goal for when I am a catholic is to simply be grateful for what I have and not care about details that can keep me from being an obedient faithful catholic, and ignore anyone who is.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

Looking back from 2008

Just wanted to offer a big of support.

I could have written 90% of that. You are right on the money.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

Following this logic… it was a serious error for Rome to switch its liturgical language from Greek to Latin. History proves this too: Latin led to a separate development of theology in the west which helped cause the schism.

Maybe it was! I’m not prepared to debate that one.

What does that have to do with going from the use of a liturgical language to no liturgical language?

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

Following this logic… it was a serious error for Rome to switch its liturgical language from Greek to Latin. History proves this too: Latin led to a separate development of theology in the west which helped cause the schism.

Thank you for posting this. It is a comfort and a re-assurance that my bishop and priests are actually competent.

For those of us who are fairly new Catholics, it is frightening and disturbing to hear someone say that everything we have been taught and the Mass we attend is wrong.

Very people around here say that.

However, the Pope said something not terribly far from that when he called the new Mass (as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) “banal”, didn’t he? I’m still surprised, frankly, he went that far. How does that strike you?

Yes, these times have been confusing for Catholics new and old indeed, haven’t they?

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

Following this logic… it was a serious error for Rome to switch its liturgical language from Greek to Latin. History proves this too: Latin led to a separate development of theology in the west which helped cause the schism.

I’m so happy that my own parish is nothing like that. We have a communion rail, and sermons often talk about the saint whose feast day is being observed. I’ve never heard anything there that I find scandalous. But the mass is in English, except for the occasional hymn in Latin.

I’m glad that I don’t have to go to a mass that’s all in Latin to hear orthodox sermons. I’m sorry that those are your only choices in your city, because I think the Latin must be a stumbling block to lots of orthodox-minded Catholics who appreciate being able to understand everything in the mass just by listening.

Neil, if this is the way it had always been everywhere after the Council - reverence and ORTHODOXY - then surely we’d not have seen the crisis we did.

I also enjoy a reverent NO several times per week, as I’ve posted here many times.

However, alas, I think the changes to the liturgy and the unorthodoxy and irreverence that followed to have at least some correlation. Orthodoxy, obedience, and reverence most certainly could have survived in the NO climate, yet the old liturgy is simply a bit better suited (I think) to preserving them - because it is more overtly Catholic in it’s theology. That is, is makes the nature of the Mass - the making-present of Calvary - more obvious. Everything about it is ‘more Catholic’.

And, I have a hard time seeing how anyone could really argue against that, given that it seems everyone acknowledges that the NO was designed at least in part to draw in Protestants and look more Protestant.

(I used to think it would be shocking for many to discovered that Bugnini stated this, but I was naive.)