What good has come out of Vatican II?

[elts1956]

Then I will now in the interest of fairness admit I might be wrong. I am speaking only from my own experience and unaware of the numbers of converts world wide. I know my parish is at least a third converts. The names you mentioned earlier, two of the four were converts. I do not delve too much into statistics because of the temptation to attach cause and effect where none exists. That and I know how easily they can be skewed. We’ve done that to death here. Also, I am trying to stay on topic.

And elts, I will attempt to turn down the rhetoric. I apologize about what I said earlier about “a few traditionalists”. The topic has been heavy on me lately that we as Catholics (all) often fall into the same patterns that the Pharisees did.

Meaning we keep the rules, but don’t acknowledge the Spirit?

 

[elts1956]

Then I will now in the interest of fairness admit I might be wrong. I am speaking only from my own experience and unaware of the numbers of converts world wide. I know my parish is at least a third converts. The names you mentioned earlier, two of the four were converts. I do not delve too much into statistics because of the temptation to attach cause and effect where none exists. That and I know how easily they can be skewed. We’ve done that to death here. Also, I am trying to stay on topic.

And elts, I will attempt to turn down the rhetoric. I apologize about what I said earlier about “a few traditionalists”. The topic has been heavy on me lately that we as Catholics (all) often fall into the same patterns that the Pharisees did.

Let me ask you a question. How many people who attend the New Mass “understand” what is going on?/QUOTE]

I don’t think any of us can answer that for anyone else whether they attend TLM or NO. It would be interesting to know what the age the folks are who attend the TLM?. Are they pre-Vatican II Catholics, ie. grew up as I did in the 40s and 50s when our Catholic Schools were still strong, our priests and Bishops toed the line etc. or are they newbies who have really studied the Catholic religion, like the TLM and they think it is more reverent than the NO?

Personally, I don’t think the form of the Mass is what leads to one’s reverence, but understanding and education of what is going on. I don’t know how many folks who prefer the NO have had the advantage some of us oldies had by attending real Catholic Schools that compare “to me” at least with some of the watered down ?stuff Catholics who grew up after Vatican II are given as being the essence of Faith.

I would really like to hear opinions on that. Maybe I’ll start another thread with a poll? Any suggestions on how to word it? I would like to cover as many bases as possible.

 

[ProVobis]

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.

I have a serious problem with the moral ramifications of that last statement.

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.

Would you then have any problem with accepting BOTH Latin and the vernacular in the Mass, one reinforcing the other with Christ’s message? Or do we want to continue to find excuses not to waste even a second of our time learning that which the Church holds as parts of its treasures? I still have yet to find someone 60-something advocating an all-English Mass who will not stop to ridicule the study of Latin. For this reason, I think the all-vernacular Mass was a serious mistake. Sadly, the all-vernacular Masses which erupted like jiffy popcorn in the 60’s ended up robbing many Catholics of their only identity with the Church. Such love of Catholic culture replaced with our own.

As far as trying to understand doctrine, can’t we just accept doctrine such as Three Persons in One God et al without having to write major theses on it? Is it beneficial to confuse people more than they already are?

 

[elts1956]

I have a serious problem with the moral ramifications of that last statement.

Would you then have any problem with accepting BOTH Latin and the vernacular in the Mass, one reinforcing the other with Christ’s message? Or do we want to continue to find excuses not to waste even a second of our time learning that which the Church holds as parts of its treasures? I still have yet to find someone 60-something advocating an all-English Mass who will not stop to ridicule the study of Latin. For this reason, I think the all-vernacular Mass was a serious mistake. Sadly, the all-vernacular Masses which erupted like jiffy popcorn in the 60’s ended up robbing many Catholics of their only identity with the Church. Such love of Catholic culture replaced with our own.

As far as trying to understand doctrine, can’t we just accept doctrine such as Three Persons in One God et al without having to write major theses on it? Is it beneficial to confuse people more than they already are?

TREASURES, YES. I like that. And we did have our treasures back before Vatican II. BUT we tend to forget, that those folks who have come after Vatican II and love the NO also have their treasures. They may not be pre-Vatican II TREASURES as defined by those who are pre., but to them, those rituals, traditions and everything else that they have learned of the Catholic Faith are “their” treasures and they hold them dearly. They, as those who hold with the the older practices, are not to be mocked.

I, for one, would like to see some of the disciplines of the Pre-Vatican II Council come back, such as our identity, our emphasis on OUR Catholic culture, our strong spirit for Catholic Unity, Novenas, Forty hours adoration of the Eucharist, Wow, did I get calouses on my knees and on and on. Boy, BACK THEN you could tell if one was Catholic without looking, you know, you would hear the click of the rosary when they walked.

I attend an NO Mass on Sundays which is done in a very reverent way. I am studying more about my Faith, trying to know what I missed in spite of 14 years of Catholic Education. I am enjoying it very much. I wish more folks would join me.

 

[SFD]

pnewton:

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.

What you say is true, however what is at issue is the scope of those changes. Are you saying they were merely accidental? Or was there an agenda?

SFD

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

Then you freely support all that Vatican II did and how the Church there handed down the tradition in this most recent council. Good. We all agree on extra ecclessia null salus and all see it the same. The there is no false ecumenism.

Excuse me? I don’t speak Latin.

I don’t believe I’ve stated that I “freely support all that V2 did”. I know I don’t support the way the Council was implemented; I believe there is a large amount of evidence that this implementation was contrary to the general intent of the Council, and of Paul VI.

Do you see why I doubt your connections? I never said, nor do I believe the all-vernacular Mass is the way to go. In fact, I stated, “That can be Latin in some cases, but not all, although this is just my opinion.” Does this sound like I believe in all vernacular Mass to you? Instead of assuming my position and stating your against it, maybe you should take what I say at face value. Begging the question. I am sure you are familiar with that one. If I thought it was used insensibly, I would not have used it. I have yet to here anyone say why the principle Paul used to address the problems with tongues being unintelligible and thereby leading the unbelievers to confusion, does* not* apply. If it is not sensible, then why? If it not something that should be considered, then why?

You doubt my “connections”?

I think Paul’s quote applied to his audience at the time and the condition of the Church at that time (underground, hidden, persecuted).

And like I pointed out the pitfalls that some traditionalists fall in, let me take a jab at the rest of us. This is the danger we must not give into. In effort to fulfill the goals of Vatican II, respect for God and for the Mass can not waiver.

Yes; this is why I’d expect anyone even contemplating any change whatsoever to the liturgy in order to accommodate Protestants to say something like “But we MUSTN’T contaminate the faith! We MUSTN’T give one inch to Luther!”. But - we didn’t really hear that from the innovators, or their supporters.

[Luther, of course, made it his goal to ‘destroy the Mass’, as he put it. I would assume (and he probably said this explicitly as well) that the way he intended to do this was to turn it into his own Protestant ‘community meal’. And - the NO sure got us closer to that. But you know else? Today, at the NO I attend, I intentionally counted the references to the sacrificial nature of the event, and there are still several. The question I always ask myself is, “Is the Mass still the making present of Calvary because of or in spite of the innovators efforts?” Meaning, I believe the Holy Spirit will, if need be, ensure the validity of the Mass.]

I am not angry. I am not against traditionalism. I am no cheerleader for a modernist liturgy. I am loyal to the Church and believe in the Vatican II council for the same reason I believe in the Council of Trent, Ephesus and so one back to Jerusalem. I would change in any manner the Church desired tomorrow if it was asked.

Changing if ordered is good, but believing every practical matter is the best possible choice is not necesssary.

As far as using false logic, it happens all the time. Often an authority figure is called for witness as if his name alone gives weight. Pope Benedict XVI is no modernist, but he also spoke well of the liturgy as he also once called it banal. We must take everything he said into consideration, not one statement.

Oh, it certainly happens all the time, but I don’t make a habit of it.

The Pope is a very long way from a modernist of any kind. Of course he sees the good in the NO, and knows it is a valid Mass (!), as do I, but I personally think he prefers the old rite by a longshot. At the very least, he prefers the old rite as it was typically practiced to the new rite as it is typically - or at least frequently - practiced.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

Then I will now in the interest of fairness admit I might be wrong. I am speaking only from my own experience and unaware of the numbers of converts world wide. I know my parish is at least a third converts. The names you mentioned earlier, two of the four were converts. I do not delve too much into statistics because of the temptation to attach cause and effect where none exists. That and I know how easily they can be skewed. We’ve done that to death here. Also, I am trying to stay on topic.

And elts, I will attempt to turn down the rhetoric. I apologize about what I said earlier about “a few traditionalists”. The topic has been heavy on me lately that we as Catholics (all) often fall into the same patterns that the Pharisees did.

Yes, PNewton, I’d have to say you are very much like the Pharisees indeed.

Juust kidding!!

This post was generous of you. I have some slight regret over rhetoric in this exchange as well. Frankly (and you may take offense at this too) I think you are well-meaning and sincere but a bit misguided on a few things.

I don’t know everything either.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

I would hope that people don’t convert to Catholicism because of Mass. To me that would indicate that they are converting to an “experience” rather than Jesus.

At any rate, I and my husband converted, and I will boldly say that it was the “New Mass” as you call it where we were confronted with Catholicism and its teachings.

Obviously the Lord can work in strange ways, and certainly He can work in a foreign language Mass to convert people.

But I honestly don’t think we would ever have given Catholicism a glance if the Mass were in a foreign language.

Evangelical Protestants emphasize teaching and learning. They are not impressed by beauty. The plainer the better.

Evangelicals tend to despise the flesh and they try very hard to separate the sensual from the spiritual. Yes, it is a heresy, but it’s the way evangelicals are. Calling it a heresy doesn’t mean it isn’t happening among evangelicals.

Evangelicals also tend to reject “traditions of man,” which is what they see liturgy as.

Knowing these things, you can see why a TLM will NOT appeal to most evangelical Protestants.

They can’t be taught or learn if they can’t understand the language.

The “beauty” and “ceremony” means nothing to them except a pageant or stage production.

And liturgy in the OF of the Mass is detestable to them; liturgy in a foreign language Mass is so much gibberish to them.

I am NOT saying that Catholics should try to accomodate the evangelical Protestants by eliminating TLM and other Church traditions. Never.

But at least the OF of the Mass is something that will not repell evangelicals.

And of course, many of you know exceptions, evangelical Protestants who LOVE TLM and embrace all the traditions. Please always remember that these people are EXCEPTIONS. You should not make a conclusion based on the out-liers.

Several people in this thread have said that Vatican II opened the doors of the Church to Protestants. I would wholeheartedly agree with this. There are still a lot of Protestants (evangelical) who refuse to enter a Catholic Church, as they consider it pagan or even Satanic. But at least if they DO enter it now, they will be able to understand the language and follow what’s going on.

Cat,

You make some good points here.

Yet, you persist in espousing what I would call some flawed logic, and in over generalization as well regarding evangelicals.

The flawed logic: Yes, I agree that evangelicals are likely to have a harder time with a LM than a NO. But, evangelicals have a very hard time with many aspects of Catholicism: that is why they are evangelicals and not Catholics. Do you think a Mass in Latin is harder for them to swallow than the Assumption? Than abandoning sola scriptura and yielding to Tradition? Than papal infallibility? I seriously doubt it!

The main event in an evangelical becoming a Catholic is an evangelical becoming a Catholic. Do you see what I mean? There are many hurdles, and a Latin Mass would not be among the highest.

Regarding the generalization: not all former evangelicals think or feel as you do towards Latin and the Latin Mass. My wife, who you’ve had some private conversations with, is one of them.

 

[elts1956]

In the context I used it, I meant literacy as in reading and being able to write in one’s native tongue, not having obtained mulit-linguistic skills. I only meant to say that society today is not like it was 1000 years ago. One can believe that Vatican II was beneficial for the time in which it was held without the implication that the last 1500 years was screwed up. That is all.

Except for a few incidents, the Church has done a wonderful job the last 1500 years, but I would extend that back to the pre-Latin era and the post Vatican II era. In other words from inception to the present, I believe the Holy Spirit has led, is leading the Church, and will lead His Church.

AMEN AMEN pnewton! Not to make a pun, but it is the SPIRIT that matters.

 

[pnewton]

Meaning we keep the rules, but don’t acknowledge the Spirit?

Yes, but also we are quick to load with a burden of rules a burden as great as that of Judaism. Again, I am not saying Catholics do this, or that the Church does this. Rather the danger exists to fall into legalism by some individuals.

 

[pnewton]

I have a serious problem with the moral ramifications of that last statement.

I understand, yet change is vital to all living beings and the life of any organization. We do not meet in homes for Mass as did the first century. Therefore, we have to acknowledge that a great deal of change has occured since that first century. Every Council that met through the centuries did so to address a new concern for that time. Change, and even compromise, does imply that the Church should change or compromise any essentials of the faith or that changes in the world should have any impact at all on doctrine.

 

[pnewton]

I just can across an interesting quote that shows I was not far from the mark.
catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0211fea4.asp

One of Vatican II’s explicit goals was “to adapt more closely to the needs of our age those institutions which are subject to change” (*Sacrosanctum Concilium *1).

I also mentions how this goal can be really messed up, what the author called “hyper-accommodation.”

 

[Cat]

Cat,

You make some good points here.

Yet, you persist in espousing what I would call some flawed logic, and in over generalization as well regarding evangelicals.

The flawed logic: Yes, I agree that evangelicals are likely to have a harder time with a LM than a NO. But, evangelicals have a very hard time with many aspects of Catholicism: that is why they are evangelicals and not Catholics. Do you think a Mass in Latin is harder for them to swallow than the Assumption? Than abandoning sola scriptura and yielding to Tradition? Than papal infallibility? I seriously doubt it!

The main event in an evangelical becoming a Catholic is an evangelical becoming a Catholic. Do you see what I mean? There are many hurdles, and a Latin Mass would not be among the highest.

**Regarding the generalization: not all former evangelicals think or feel as you do towards Latin and the Latin Mass. My wife, who you’ve had some private conversations with, is one of them./**QUOTE]

Regarding boldface–I said that in my post. I agree with you. But I insist that the majority of evangelicals WILL feel the way I and my husband do towards Latin. Good heavens above, most evangelicals who are not charismatic think that the Pentecostal worship services are not acceptable because of the “foreign languages!” The point is, to evangelicals, teaching is everything.

Again, everyone, I am NOT saying that the Mass should accomodate evangelicals. But IF you are seeking to win the souls of evangelicals, you MUST understand their background and their understanding of religion in order to prepare to explain various things about the Catholic Church to them.

Also, I agree that the issues of papal infallibility, assumption of Mary, etc. are big issues indeed. The BIGGEST issue for an evangelical is Church Authority. Settle that issue, and all other issues fall into place for the evangelical.

The problem is, when various Catholics argue AGAINST Church authority and claim that most churches are NOT implementing Vatican II the way it was intended to be implemented, THAT’S when you will utterly lose evangelical Protestants. It’s especially bad when Catholics claim that we are free to disobey the Church IF we determine that the Church is incorrect.

The evangelical will say, “Hey, wait a minute. The Church can’t be incorrect, especially when it comes to Mass. Then how can you disobey?”

If the Authority issue is muddied, that’s the end of it as far as they’re concerned. They’ll walk.

And IMO, the person who confuses an evangelical Protestant over the issue of Church Authority and turns them away from the Catholic Church will have to answer to JESUS for the soul of the Protestant.

So it’s very important with evangelicals to maintain and honor the Authority of the Catholic Church.

And actually, I DO think a “Latin Mass” WOULD be a high hurdle for many evangelicals because of the teaching aspect. If the parish that did TLM also offered teaching and learning opportunities, then it would be OK.

 

[japhy]

Change, and even compromise, does imply that the Church should change or compromise any essentials of the faith or that changes in the world should have any impact at all on doctrine.

Surely you meant “doesn’t”?

 

[ChadS]

I don’t kniow one single person who has converted because of the New Mass. And, I don’t know anybody who knows anybody who has converted because of the New Mass. I know a lot of people who have left the Church beacuse of the New Mass. I know a heck of a lot of people who have converted because of the Traditional Mass, both before the “Springtime” of VII and after. All these claims are** pure ****fantasy ** but mostly fear. Fear of what the New Mass is and what it has really done.

I don’t know if I converted to Catholicism due only to the Mass, but the one thing that influenced me a lot was the Catechism of the Catholic Church. That document was written in light of V2 and I believe it presents the faith in a way that is much more coherent and unified than anything you’ll find in any Protestant church.

In my experiences at church most if not all the people there understand what is going on. The vast majority are also very reverent, love the Eucharist, and truly yearn to find Him in the Mass. During my conversion process I read Scott Hahn’s “The Lamb’s Supper” and for anybody that believes the NO mass is simply a Catholic version of a Protestant service is missing the rich symbolic and real meanings that are still present in the Mass.

ChadS

 

[pnewton]

Surely you meant “doesn’t”?

Oh yes. Thank you.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

I don’t know if I converted to Catholicism due only to the Mass, but the one thing that influenced me a lot was the Catechism of the Catholic Church. That document was written in light of V2 and I believe it presents the faith in a way that is much more coherent and unified than anything you’ll find in any Protestant church.

In my experiences at church most if not all the people there understand what is going on. The vast majority are also very reverent, love the Eucharist, and truly yearn to find Him in the Mass. During my conversion process I read Scott Hahn’s “The Lamb’s Supper” and for anybody that believes the NO mass is simply a Catholic version of a Protestant service is missing the rich symbolic and real meanings that are still present in the Mass.

ChadS

I agree that the Catechism is very good, and very inspiring indeed.

And, as a matter of fact, I have used the existence of this Catechism as evidence to doubters that the Church is indeed the True Church, for it demonstrates the power of the Holy Spirit in protecting the Magisterium from error very vividly. The fact that this document could be completely orthodox (it is) considering what was going on in the Church at the time and the sort of clergy occupying many positions is almost miraculous.

 

[ProVobis]

One of Vatican II’s explicit goals was “to adapt more closely to the needs of our age those institutions which are subject to change” (*Sacrosanctum Concilium *1).

So how could anyone dislike Vatican II as it provided enough ambiguity to please everyone?

 

[pnewton]

So how could anyone dislike Vatican II as it provided enough ambiguity to please everyone?

[1 Cor 9:22](http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=46&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=22) To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

 

[Jacafamala]

So how could anyone dislike Vatican II as it provided enough ambiguity to please everyone?

That (I think), was the problem: too much wiggle room.