What good has come out of Vatican II?

[Paul_Folbrecht]

I just want to say I think we’re having a good discussion right here that is civil and productive.

This is a real debate, with substance, and hopefully it will be beneficial to someone, or to many.

 

[Jacafamala]

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

Ah, yes well… that’s because new people show up and want to hash out issues that others have already beaten into the ground. Every thread isn’t going to interest everyone, right?

 

[Pro_Domina]

I just want to say I think we’re having a good discussion right here that is civil and productive.

This is a real debate, with substance, and hopefully it will be beneficial to someone, or to many.

Interesting you mention it. It isn’t common where people shoot out simple-minded, personal opinion and would rather die than admit that they would be wrong.

Being wrong is the most common thing in the world. That is why we learn things together. Because one who knows will correct the other and than another will say something to the older one which will leave him awed and so on.

We need to learn, especially in elevated subjects like Catholicism (if not the most elevated) that we are here to perfect our knowledge of God so we may increase in our enthusiam for Him.
I mean who isn’t enthused when you learn that Our Lord Jesus Christ would have suffered all that He did for just one of us that needed it.
I mean after that, we should all be like St. Mary Magdalene, she never cried a single sin but rather was a brazing fire of love for Him, because as bad as we may have been or are, He died so that we can walk into a confessional worthy of eternal punishement and out stronger than all of Hell combined!

 

[I_Believe]

Ah, yes well… that’s because new people show up and want to hash out issues that others have already beaten into the ground. Every thread isn’t going to interest everyone, right?

Fair enough I suppose we all have a desire to speak against error. A duty even.

I’m still trying to figure out who the boogie man is.

 

[I_Believe]

We have attended services at Protestant churches and find them like a concert with preaching.

I took a Jewish Mother and daughter to Schul for one of their big celebrations (can’t spell it - begins with R) and stayed. I tried to follow the service from the prayer book but it was in English and the service was in Hewbrew! I choir sang beautifully but I noticed that one guy was chewing gum throughout.

The service was very long and people were socialising - here and there there were people talking. There were a few devout people against the wall bowing constantly and there was one young woman who was deep in prayer near me. Otherwise it was a social thing. I was disappointed. Also the Rabbi was rattling the prayers off like some formula 1 racing car and even the others who read from the big book were rattling. I have great respect for the Jews and am sure that this was an exception.

I think that the people who attend Mass these days do so out of devotion, real devotion. In the old days it was out of obligation…

Hi Cinette, that service you described would fit some Novus Ordo Masses here in the US

As far as reasons for attending Mass, I’ve noticed two groups here in the US. It’s the weekday Mass goers who seem most devout. The Sunday Novus Ordo Masses are where I sense the presence of those who are there out of obligation. Not all attending, but far too many.

 

[Jacafamala]

Fair enough I suppose we all have a desire to speak against error. A duty even.

I’m still trying to figure out who the boogie man is.

he’s satan.

 

[pnewton]

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

Perhaps you could explain the positives of Vatican II in light of this. It is not just you, but several others going on about what you do not like about VII.

Post two, someone said this would just be another slam on VII thread. He was roundly criticized for his cynicism. Oh well, I guess time did tell.

 

[ProVobis]

Perhaps you could explain the positives of Vatican II in light of this. It is not just you, but several others going on about what you do not like about VII.

Post two, someone said this would just be another slam on VII thread. He was roundly criticized for his cynicism. Oh well, I guess time did tell.

I admit part of the guilt here but I think we need to distinguish between Vatican II and the “spirit” of Vatican II. For example a good thing would have been an attempt to find common ground between all religions. And so forth.

While we are on this thought, why can’t we discuss what Pope John attempted to accomplish with the council and were his goals met?

 

[Cinette]

Hi Cinette, that service you described would fit some Novus Ordo Masses here in the US

As far as reasons for attending Mass, I’ve noticed two groups here in the US. It’s the weekday Mass goers who seem most devout. The Sunday Novus Ordo Masses are where I sense the presence of those who are there out of obligation. Not all attending, but far too many.

You might suggest to your Parish Priest that one Sunday, instead of the Homily, he does a running commentary on the Mass, explaining why we do this and why we do that and what this and that signifies etc. You will be amazed at the effects .

 

[Neil_Anthony]

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?

The liturgy in Rome gradually shifted from Greek to Latin because the people there switched from speaking greek to speaking latin. We should follow their example and use the language of the people to worship. latin wasn’t originally a liturgical language; it was a vernacular language.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

The liturgy in Rome gradually shifted from Greek to Latin because the people there switched from speaking greek to speaking latin. We should follow their example and use the language of the people to worship. latin wasn’t originally a liturgical language; it was a vernacular language.

Should we? According to whom?

It seems that the evidence is very thin indeed that an all-or-mostly vernacular Mass was desired by any but those with a modernist agenda. And not by our current Pope, I think. It seems there is much evidence that the current state was not the intent of the council or Paul VI or John XXIII.

Latin may have been an in-use language at the time but it was still a universal language. I think this really squashes most of your argument. There were not Masses in English, French, Germanic, or any of their dialects even though all those languages were spoken, and probably known much better (by region) than Latin was by most of the people. So, the point then was most certainly not to have Mass in ‘the vernacular’.

[By the way, since you apparently admire Bugnini enough to put his quote in your signature, what do you think was the reason for his exile? Not that I’m trying to change the subject.]

 

[elts1956]

Hi Cinette, that service you described would fit some Novus Ordo Masses here in the US

As far as reasons for attending Mass, I’ve noticed two groups here in the US. It’s the weekday Mass goers who seem most devout. The Sunday Novus Ordo Masses are where I sense the presence of those who are there out of obligation. Not all attending, but far too many.

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.”

 

[PrayforMallory2]

Nevertheless, I also wonder if perhaps your passion for the Church and nostalgia for the traditional format does not border a little on hysteria? Please do not be offended. I believe you have a great love for the Church - no doubt about that.

Well, I was in a melodramatic mood at the time. I like to try and make my posts entertaining, and sometimes they run the risk of being silly. We have the same arguments over and over on these forums, so maybe at least the melodrama will be entertaining to some, hopefully.

I’m not really as intense in real life as in the things I write.

 

[Cinette]

Well, I was in a melodramatic mood at the time. I like to try and make my posts entertaining, and sometimes they run the risk of being silly. We have the same arguments over and over on these forums, so maybe at least the melodrama will be entertaining to some, hopefully.

I’m not really as intense in real life as in the things I write.

I think you are a very nice person. Thank you for your insight.

Just don’t forget Jesus’ promise. The Holy Spirit will never abandon us.

The inward signs are more important than the outward signs.

God bless you

 

[ProVobis]

We should follow their example and use the language of the people to worship.

Then why didn’t Trent do it? Or any other council in the last 1500 years? Fact is that Latin caught on and became the language of the people in their worship. It still may be.

Ever been to an Italian opera? Just curious.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Then why didn’t Trent do it? Or any other council in the last 1500 years? Fact is that Latin caught on and became the language of the people in their worship. It still may be.

Ever been to an Italian opera? Just curious.

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.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

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.

The Church was really screwed up for those 1400 years or so, I guess.

 

[pnewton]

The Church was really screwed up for those 1400 years or so, I guess.

Or things have changed, like have a greater literacy rate among the people, or development and re-examination of the purpose of the Church. I do not think anyone who has state they like Mass in the vernacular has stated that the Church screwed up in the past. That would be applying 21st century thinking to the middle ages and later.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

Or things have changed, like have a greater literacy rate among the people, or development and re-examination of the purpose of the Church. I do not think anyone who has state they like Mass in the vernacular has stated that the Church screwed up in the past. That would be applying 21st century thinking to the middle ages and later.

Well, that’s just not true at all - I can’t recall the number of times I’ve heard or read the Tridentine rite bashed, here and elsewhere.

Certainly, those people are saying that the Mass had major, major problems, that could evidently be fixed by using the vernacular (and by the priest facing away from the tabernacle, making it look largely like a community meal, etc.).

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. When someones says “I like the Mass in the vernacular”, this obviously also means “I don’t like the Mass in Latin”, and when they say “I like the priest to face me” this also means “I don’t like the priest to face the tabernacle, the same direction I’m facing, since that puts his back to me”. (Of course, nobody who wants the priest facing them thinks of it that way!) In other words, since these are mutually exclusive things, preference for one does imply un-preference for the other.

You might say now that these people would argue that while the LM is not good for us now, it was in the past. That just doesn’t make sense, though.

For example, what does the people being literate have to do with using a liturgical language or not? It seems it argues in the opposite direction, if anything - literate people are surely better able to cope with learning the basics of a 2nd, liturgical language?

Surely, I would not deny there may have been problems in the Church in past centuries - surely there were! And quite possibly more emphasis on education - teaching people how to pray the Mass with the priest - should have been done.

So, to say that those who believed in the reform and love the Mass we got would not criticize the old form and thus the Church’s past doesn’t really square.

 

[Sir_Anthony]

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.