What good has come out of Vatican II?

[Cinette]

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.

I firmly believe that every teenager who is being confirmed should do a Life in the Spirit Seminar]I am not a Charismatic in my manifestations but I have seen how people are transformed by doing the seminar - this is a lasting transformation and the benefits for young people is spectacular

Of course one must constantly be converted and renewed. But the infusion of the HS thru the Seminar is unbelievable!

don’t forget that it is necessary to network and have fellowship - through a Chrismatic Group that is the best - did you know that the Catholic church has the largest number of Charismatics in the world.

I speak in tongues but do not consider it the prime thing. I love the teachings and the Healing Seminars are something very important also.

Remember also that the missionaries of the 21st century are the laity!

 

[elts1956]

This is the question I ask myself often. Anyone?

How is it we started out asking what good has come out of Vatican II and we end up comparing the TLM and the NO? As I have stated, I think the biggest problem, and whether the irreverence seen at a lot of Masses started with Vatican II, or not, is a moot point. It is lack of leadership and education of all, including our young people by the clergy.

I doubt very much, if many in the present day show the reverence due at Mass only because it is either a TLM or NO, because a lot of people are lacking knowledge of their faith. If those who do not know the meaning of reverence and grew up knowing only the NO were to go to a TLM Mass, they still wouldn’t know how to be reverent and v.v. The ignorance is astounding. Including mine.

In other words, it isn’t only the form of the Mass, even if reverently done, which brings about the reverence, but the reverence gained through knowledge and proper education which make the Mass.

 

[japhy]

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

Speaking in Latin is not comparable to “speaking in tongues”.

 

[japhy]

In other words, it isn’t only the form of the Mass, even if reverently done, which brings about the reverence, but the reverence gained through knowledge and proper education which make the Mass.

Sacrosanctum Concilium says as much, that the (then-current) liturgy was a great source of piety and holiness for the faithful as well as the source and summit of the Church’s life, and a most worthy means of praising God by offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Eucharist. It also says that people need to be educated about it.

This is why I believe that the future of the Roman Rite will be a re-application (or re-interpretation) of the reforms called for by Vatican II to the 1962 Missal, using the 1969 Missal as a not-always-positive, not-always-negative example. Because there’s no reason the 1962 Missal can’t be reverent and edifying.

 

[ac_claire]

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.

But such “caste systems” do exist, unfortunately. If we generalize in either direction (ie, saying that it “doesn’t happen” or on the other hand saying that all lay ministers/parish councils are corrupt and prideful) then we’re missing the point. The point is, sometimes it works out well, other times it’s had a very negative effect on parishes.

One reason why more people don’t volunteer, at least judging by some of the churches I’ve gone to, is precicely because it’s the same 20% who do everything. These Parish councils and committees can become ridiculously cliquish.

But of course not all lay ministers and catechists are like this. The question is has the increased involvement of the laity post-VII ultimatley done more harm or more good to Catholic paroshes? Generally speaking, I think it’s done more harm.

 

[Cat]

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.

Thank you. I was thinking the same thing. To assume that because someone prefers something means that they hate other things is just inaccurate. I prefer Peeps and circus peanuts, but that doesn’t mean that I hate chocolate.

 

[Cat]

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!

(Refer to boldfaced question above) Why?

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

Thank you. I was thinking the same thing. To assume that because someone prefers something means that they hate other things is just inaccurate. I prefer Peeps and circus peanuts, but that doesn’t mean that I hate chocolate.

Notice that nobody said that (certainly your use of the word ‘hate’ is hyperbole).

I was pointing out that there simply are many people who have quite a bit of negativity about the TLM, and do put it down in all kinds of ways. And, that does imply they thought the Church, at least, had some major problems in the liturgy for 14 centuries or so - whether they say that or not!

Dismissive comments about the TLM I’d bet we’ve all heard:

“It’s a show put on by a priest.”

“It’s ALL ABOUT the pomp and ceremony.”

“The priest doesn’t even look at you.”

“Nobody has any idea what’s going on.”

“People are so bored and confused they daydream or pray the rosary.” (In other words, it’s the Mass’s fault and the Church’s fault if people don’t pray the Mass or even pay attention).

Have you heard those types of comments?

Regarding the posture, I can’t say how many times I’d heard in my life, when TLM was something from a dim past I’d never known and never thought much about, I’d heard that line “The priest puts his back to the people.” Well, that is, at the least, editorializing right there - it’s said by people who are either ignorant (like I was) or trying to make a point. But, of course, the right way to look at it, because it actually speaks to the intent of the posture, is to say “The priest faces the same way as the people” and/or “The priest faces Christ.”

So,

1. Preferences between mutually exclusives (such as liturgical language/vernacular) do imply a like/like less or like/not like relationship (even that much is frequently not acknowledged).
2. There is no shortage of harsh criticism for TLM from many quarters (not even considering the Protestants).

 

[Cat]

How is it we started out asking what good has come out of Vatican II and we end up comparing the TLM and the NO? As I have stated, I think the biggest problem, and whether the irreverence seen at a lot of Masses started with Vatican II, or not, is a moot point. It is lack of leadership and education of all, including our young people by the clergy.

I doubt very much, if many in the present day show the reverence due at Mass only because it is either a TLM or NO, because a lot of people are lacking knowledge of their faith. If those who do not know the meaning of reverence and grew up knowing only the NO were to go to a TLM Mass, they still wouldn’t know how to be reverent and v.v. The ignorance is astounding. Including mine.

In other words, it isn’t only the form of the Mass, even if reverently done, which brings about the reverence, but the reverence gained through knowledge and proper education which make the Mass.

I’m not sure that lack of knowledge and education is the main reason why people are irreverent and uninterested in Mass.

I think it’s a question of discipline.

In the U.S., this is not a popular word at all. We join gyms and never go because we don’t discipline ourselves to schedule a regular workout. We vow to take better care of ourselves and give up unhealthy habits, but we keep abusing our bodies because we lack the discipline to stop eating and drinking everything that appeals to us.

We spend money that we don’t have on objects that we don’t need.

We want to write a novel, plant a flower garden, paint the house, play more with our children, subscribe to the opera season, learn to play an instrument, etc.–but we never do. We just turn on the TV or open a People Magazine.

And when it comes to teaching our children discipline, we don’t because we’re afraid they won’t like us anymore. So 50% of our children are overweight or obese, and the truancy rate in many cities (including ours) is over 25%. The dropout rate in some cities (including ours) is around 50%. And many of these kids DON’T get jobs, but instead, join gangs to make money the “easy” way–the discipline of actually getting a job is incomprehensible.

So IMO, many of the Catholics who DO know all about their faith simply don’t discipine themselves to practice it. Scheduling a weekly Holy Hour of Reparation, praying several times a day, a daily Rosary, a 3 P.M. Divine Mercy Chaplet, a half-hour of reading Sacred Scripture, a daily Mass (if you don’t work outside the home), regular trips to the Confessional, attending the parish mission, giving a tithe or at least an offering–these things are Disciplines! And we don’t do discipline well in the U.S.

I grew up and was active in evangelical Protestant churches. These churches teach a “ticket to heaven” theology in which a “Sinner’s Prayer” is good enough to get you to heaven because “Jesus paid it all.”

Well, obviously this encourages slack discipline. In fact, I was taught that any efforts on our part are “works of man” and are insulting to Jesus, as He has already done the “work” for us. We need to “let go and let God.”

I personally think this is one of the main reasons why people are attracted to evangelical Christianity–it is an “easy” Christianity that involves no discipline whatsoever. It’s the Dream that we all have–“Staying Thin with NO SPECIAL DIET and NO EXERCISE!”

And those of us who convert to Catholicism bring with us this lifetime of little or no discipline and our lifetime of wrong thinking about works and faith. We can intellectually assent that all the teachings of the Catholic Church are true, and that we should be working out our salvation. But knowledge and education don’t always translate into change of life and establishment of better habits. Just ask all the people who have known all their lives about the health risks of smoking, and yet continue to smoke.

There comes a time when knowledge is sufficient, and we have to step up and say, I WILL do this thing," and then follow through.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I

I’ve wracked my brain to try and understand the contemporary situation.

C.S. Lewis once said, “I am a converted pagan living among apostate puritans.” The first part of the statement applies to me (though the latter does not apply to my opponents on this forum). I am a former liberal postmodernist, who denied the existence of God, objective truth, traditional gender roles, sexuality, etc. I dismissed everything Christian as social constructs. As culturally-based illusions. Unfortunately, many of these pseudo-pagan elements still flare up from time to time. I have to fight them off.

The proponents of Vatican II cannot see what to me is so obvious- that the world has changed dramatically since 1970, and the Spirit of Vatican II is no longer relevant to modern life.

So when I analyze Vatican II and its aftermath, I don’t look to the past. I don’t care about situations in which little old ladies said their rosaries because they couldn’t understand the Mass. I look to the future and see a society that will eventually become paganized. Pope Benedict said that, “We cannot stand idly by while society descends into paganism.” Well, he was right on the money. That is happening all around us.

What do I do? When I was a postmodernist, I was praised by virtually everyone I knew. I even had the opportunity to present a paper at an academic convention in San Francisco. Unfortunately for my mentors, I started to read more about Catholicism right before I was going to submit my abstract, and changed my mind. I moved. I went to the traditional Mass, and now my friends think I am a lunatic. And I admit, sometimes I look at my child in her chapel veil at Mass and I question whether or not I am raising her in a faith for which she or her children might one day be legally persecuted by a secular society which is degenerating into paganism.

What does all of this have to do with Vatican II? Since Vatican II, we have developed what I like to call a “soft” religion.
Cont…

What a remarkable post! “…the Sprit of VII is no longer relevant.” I am not a Lefebveite, or even an exclusive Traditionalist But there does seem to be a sort of generalized inability to see that paganism really is the threat, particularly to the young. It isn’t exclusively expressed in politics, but it is certainly expressed there. “Pro choice” Catholic politicians don’t sacrifice newborns before a big stone image of Moloch, but their “Moloch” is “success”, and they as readily sacrifice children to that “invisible Moloch” as Carthaginians did to the more tangible image by which they represented him.

Paganism is hard to define with precision because it’s an imprecise thing. Still, a certain worship of the natural as somehow being more elevating and elevated than its tangible reality is part of it. Thus, we worship sex (or at least passively attend Eros’ worship services every time we turn on the television set). We worship Gaia and Neptune when we overly focus on environmentalism as if it is a religion. We attend their services all the time. (Lest I be misunderstood, I have no objection to a rational conservationism. But the focus is so intense and its “priests” so sanctified by the societal elites, it does approach a religious status.)

And Christianity is where in all of this? In my view, it is in a state of confusion. Last Sunday I was in another city and decided to attend the local Tridentine Mass. I have no problem with all the men in suits and ties. I wear them to Mass myself, no matter where or when. But if one did not know better, one would have sworn the women and girls were Amish. The only difference was that they wore mantillas instead of those little lace caps. “Homeschoolers” was my first mental association. Now, I’m not criticizing those people. I’m sure they’re holy and earnest, and I would doubtless do well to emulate their fervor. But still, it told me they represented a radical departure, not only from American society at large, but from their brothers and sisters in the “Pauline Church”. I could mentally picture their descending into catacombs soon, leaving the rest above ground in the pagan maelstrom to survive the best they could. It gave me a sense of unease, not just because of the seeming “divorce” they represent, but because I suspect there is the perception on their part that paganism is winning. And I don’t know that they’re wrong.

On the other hand, I recall Flannery O’Connor’s prediction that Southern Fundamentalists would one day be the greatest single source of converts to the Church. Judging by the conversions in my Bible Belt parish, it’s not hard to credit her with prescience. And I think, when reflecting on that, that the Pauline Mass is just exactly what the moment required. I know a lot of those people, and their almost exclusive attractions to the Church are moral certitude and the Eucharist; the latter more than the former. And I wonder whether those conversions would have taken place had the Mass in my parish been Tridentine. I’m not sure, but I have my doubts.

But is a fairly plain, dignified, vernacular Pauline Mass really what people critique when they complain about V II changes? Or is it the tribute that is sometimes paid to paganism with excessive innovation?

Catechesis is an entirely additional subject. I agree that it has been terrible much of the time since V II.

 

[pnewton]

Speaking in Latin is not comparable to “speaking in tongues”.

Of course not. I just quoted the whole passage to give backgorund to the principles listed, as opposed to a lot of omissions. For example, one can not give an assent of “Amen” to what does not understand. Also, the need to focus on the edification of the people. Yes, sometimes the “Holy Sacrifice of the Mass” is also about the edification of the faithful. I know this has been out of balance in some churches, but it does not make it untrue, as this passage points out. This is one good thing that came out of Vatican II: a new balance between focus on God and focus on the faithful. So the pendulum had to swing a time or two.

 

[pnewton]

I prefer Peeps and circus peanuts,…

ou are a sick individual.

 

[water]

One of many good things is to realize how difficult it is to keep obedience than to celibacy for many of the religious men/women.

 

[Cat]

Notice that nobody said that (certainly your use of the word ‘hate’ is hyperbole).

I was pointing out that there simply are many people who have quite a bit of negativity about the TLM, and do put it down in all kinds of ways. And, that does imply they thought the Church, at least, had some major problems in the liturgy for 14 centuries or so - whether they say that or not!

Dismissive comments about the TLM I’d bet we’ve all heard:

“It’s a show put on by a priest.”

“It’s ALL ABOUT the pomp and ceremony.”

“The priest doesn’t even look at you.”

“Nobody has any idea what’s going on.”

“People are so bored and confused they daydream or pray the rosary.” (In other words, it’s the Mass’s fault and the Church’s fault if people don’t pray the Mass or even pay attention).

Have you heard those types of comments?

Regarding the posture, I can’t say how many times I’d heard in my life, when TLM was something from a dim past I’d never known and never thought much about, I’d heard that line “The priest puts his back to the people.” Well, that is, at the least, editorializing right there - it’s said by people who are either ignorant (like I was) or trying to make a point. But, of course, the right way to look at it, because it actually speaks to the intent of the posture, is to say “The priest faces the same way as the people” and/or “The priest faces Christ.”

So,

1. Preferences between mutually exclusives (such as liturgical language/vernacular) do imply a like/like less or like/not like relationship (even that much is frequently not acknowledged).
2. There is no shortage of harsh criticism for TLM from many quarters (not even considering the Protestants).

As a Protestant, I had no idea that there were two different forms of Mass. I knew absolutely nothing about Mass. I think most evangelical Protestants are the same way.

 

[chrisb]

Grace and Peace,

Liturgy of the Hours simple enough most Laymen and women can pray it.

 

[Cat]

Notice that nobody said that (certainly your use of the word ‘hate’ is hyperbole).

I was pointing out that there simply are many people who have quite a bit of negativity about the TLM, and do put it down in all kinds of ways. And, that does imply they thought the Church, at least, had some major problems in the liturgy for 14 centuries or so - whether they say that or not!

Dismissive comments about the TLM I’d bet we’ve all heard:

“It’s a show put on by a priest.”

“It’s ALL ABOUT the pomp and ceremony.”

“The priest doesn’t even look at you.”

“Nobody has any idea what’s going on.”

“People are so bored and confused they daydream or pray the rosary.” (In other words, it’s the Mass’s fault and the Church’s fault if people don’t pray the Mass or even pay attention).

Have you heard those types of comments?

Regarding the posture, I can’t say how many times I’d heard in my life, when TLM was something from a dim past I’d never known and never thought much about, I’d heard that line “The priest puts his back to the people.” Well, that is, at the least, editorializing right there - it’s said by people who are either ignorant (like I was) or trying to make a point. But, of course, the right way to look at it, because it actually speaks to the intent of the posture, is to say “The priest faces the same way as the people” and/or “The priest faces Christ.”

So,

1. Preferences between mutually exclusives (such as liturgical language/vernacular) do imply a like/like less or like/not like relationship (even that much is frequently not acknowledged).
2. There is no shortage of harsh criticism for TLM from many quarters (not even considering the Protestants).

I think if you continue to insist upon this, you are going to alienate people and make them frustrated and eventually angry at you.

Some of us are trying to explain to you that your claim isn’t true at all. There is no “negativity” implied when someone prefers one thing over another. I think you might be approaching this whole thing a little too mathematically (or logically, like Mr. Spock). If A = A and B = B, then A cannot equal B.

Well, that’s fine in Math. But in real life, A can indeed equal B!

Please forgive me if I am not using the correct “logical proof.” I had one philosphy class in college, and I didn’t understand any of it.

The point is, people cannot be subjected to mathematical or logical proofs. Haven’t you ever met up with a person who knows good and darn well that spiders won’t hurt you and spiders are good, but they are still terrified of spiders and won’t even go into the room until the spider is disposed of? Totally illogical, but that’s the way people are.

I used the word “hate.” I think you read a whole lot more into it than what I meant. Hyperbole? C’mon… I used the word the way most people in the U.S. in the 21st Century use the word i.e., “I hate cod liver oil.” That’s not the same as saying, “I hate sin.”

Paul, don’t do this. Don’t read things into people’s comments. It’s not fair to throw people’s words at them and insist that they mean “something” that they really didn’t mean at all. Please give people the benefit of the doubt, and I think you will be pleasantly surprised. But keep up with this tact, and people will not be very happy around you.

 

[pnewton]

As a Protestant, I had no idea that there were two different forms of Mass. I knew absolutely nothing about Mass. I think most evangelical Protestants are the same way.

No, but there were a lot of stereotypes and prejudice arise from it, as in “hocus-pocus”, “smells and bells”. The Hollywood image of Catholicism is also colored by the image of the TLM. Another principle from Pauls letter to the Corinthians above, is that we also keep things where even unbelievers can understand, lest they misinterpret what Catholicism is all about. One of the biggest boons from Vatican II is and will continue to be a lessening of prejudice from Protestants, as Mass is now more understandable for the completely uninformed. I look for this to have long-term fruit in ecumenical dialogue over the next century. More to the point, I believe it makes conversion to Catholicism much easier and is part of the reason for the increase in converts.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

used the word “hate.” I think you read a whole lot more into it than what I meant. Hyperbole? C’mon… I used the word the way most people in the U.S. in the 21st Century use the word i.e., “I hate cod liver oil.” That’s not the same as saying, “I hate sin.”

Paul, don’t do this. Don’t read things into people’s comments. It’s not fair to throw people’s words at them and insist that they mean “something” that they really didn’t mean at all. Please give people the benefit of the doubt, and I think you will be pleasantly surprised. But keep up with this tact, and people will not be very happy around you.

I objected to the use of the word hate since you were paraphrasing someone (probably me) and that word just really wasn’t accurate.

I’m not reading anything into peoples’ comments. I think you’re mostly just not following what I’m saying. Let me try again, and I’ll try to be brief.

1. Nobody should go around stating that the vast majority of NO proponents have “nothing against” TLM (or however else you might put it) because it just isn’t true. There have been heaps of slander upon TLM since shortly after the Council and into modern times, to the point where much of it is based on mythology and almost seems to parody itself at times. If this wasn’t clear, I didn’t mean to imply you’re in such a circle. I’ve gathered from your posts you’re rather positive and probably (let me know if I’m wrong) more or less neutral on TLM.
2. A strong preference for the NO over the LM does directly imply a strong de-preference for the LM - obviously (I just said the same thing twice). And if one feels that the NO was a huge step in the right direction, and fixed something terribly broken, as the language of many of the proponents suggests, then this is an implicit criticism of the liturgy & thus the Church before the NO was - well, constructed. That is a fact, and whether or not the people who have these beliefs ever think through the logical ramifications of them or not doesn’t change that.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

No, but there were a lot of stereotypes and prejudice arise from it, as in “hocus-pocus”, “smells and bells”. The Hollywood image of Catholicism is also colored by the image of the TLM. Another principle from Pauls letter to the Corinthians above, is that we also keep things where even unbelievers can understand, lest they misinterpret what Catholicism is all about. One of the biggest boons from Vatican II is and will continue to be a lessening of prejudice from Protestants, as Mass is now more understandable for the completely uninformed. I look for this to have long-term fruit in ecumenical dialogue over the next century. More to the point, I believe it makes conversion to Catholicism much easier and is part of the reason for the increase in converts.

First, what is your source that there are more conversions, per-capita, now than before V2? I would love to see that, because data I’ve seen suggests otherwise, and there were certainly WAY more vocations per capita before the council. And far higher Mass attendance. And far higher belief in Catholic doctrine by Catholics.

So, you note that there were criticisms of the liturgy from outside Catholicism (hocus pocus & smells and bells) and happily observe that these have been neutered by getting rid of the objectionable stuff. But, what about the other things Protestants don’t like about the Church? What about honoring Mary? What about icons and statues? What about Purgatory? What about the real presence in the Eucharist and this horrible doctrine that suffering is necessary and good? And the horrible heresy of re-crucifying Christ in every Mass?

The way it should be - the way it always was - was that converts were drawn to the Church by her intrinsic beauty - the beauty of Truth. The notion that we should, instead, change the Church to make it more like Protestantism, more like the world, is horribly flawed from the get-go.

You may say that you’re talking ONLY of the liturgy and you’d never extend that logic to doctrine & dogma. Yet, they are intrinsically linked - the theology of the Church was made clear by TLM - the solemnity of the liturgy, the obviously sacrificial nature. And that’s exactly what Protestants objected to!

Funny, but almost all the converts I know - all the serious converts, not those who joined because their spouse was a Catholic - love the liturgical elements, and love the Catholic theology of the Mass. They don’t all love the old liturgy, but most have not been exposed to it either. My wife, for example, who graduated from a Baptist seminary, was initially more enthusiastic about the Latin rite than I was (I had to understand it a bit better first). These are the types of converts we’re really after.

 

[pnewton]

Funny, but almost all the converts I know - all the serious converts, not those who joined because their spouse was a Catholic - love the liturgical elements, and love the Catholic theology of the Mass. They don’t all love the old liturgy, but most have not been exposed to it either.

Your experience may be different than mine, but I do not know the difference between serious converts and, uh… would that be layed-back converts? I have tried to post on topic of what good I have seen come out of Vatican II. Just out of curiosity, is that what you are doing, or are you trying to demonstrate the opposite?