What good has come out of Vatican II?

[pnewton]

ok, then could you paraphrase that sentence to show me the context ?

No, you will have to let Alfred speak for himself. But modern can mean nothing but new, as in what is new about the times today. The Church has never shied away from the concept of responding to things which are new, as in Jesus’ example of using new wine in new wineskin. The new things of this generation, such as an increase in eduacation among a broade group of people, the high speed information age, the communication and media revolution, are all things which the Church can (and should) respond to without doctrinal compromise.

 

[I_Believe]

No, you will have to let Alfred speak for himself.

Oh, well, thank you for letting him.

I’ll work on building my vocabulary while you work on your spelling. Fair enough ?

broade ? Is that the “modernized” spelling of broad ?

Seriously though, if he just means that the Church needed to respond to modern society by adapting, then that approach would have to be seen as unprecedented as far as previous Councils are concerned. A striking departure I’d say.

 

[KingAlfred]

How? Maybe paraphrasing but does this mean it’s more understandable? Or just adds to confusion?

More accessible to whom exactly? Protestants? Atheists? Muslims?

The average Catholic, that’s who. I don’t want a Latin Mass because I don’t speak Latin. And I don’t want to live in a church that’s heavy-handed in the enforcement of its ancient rules. I’m human, and want humane treatment.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

More accessible to whom exactly? Protestants? Atheists? Muslims?

To people who don’t live in medieval rome and hence don’t speak latin.

 

[japhy]

The average Catholic, that’s who. I don’t want a Latin Mass because I don’t speak Latin.

Well, the Church wants you to be able to speak a small amount of Latin, which you can learn pretty quickly, and should be able to understand (that is, if you understand what you’re saying already in the vernacular).

And I don’t want to live in a church that’s heavy-handed in the enforcement of its ancient rules. I’m human, and want humane treatment.

What ancient rules might those be? How do those rules preclude your receiving humane treatment?

 

[Fran65]

Well, the Church wants you to be able to speak a small amount of Latin.

I’m sorry I didn’t know this. I converted 24 years ago and was not told this and have never been told this in that time.

I have picked up ‘bits and bobs’ of latin from my teaching and from wider reading in the faith. But I didn’t know I should be able to understand some latin.

If this was published more widely the decline in the study of Classics would be halted.

The other thing is, I have never known anything but post Vatican II. Am I somehow deficient in my understanding, my practice or my faith? That is a sincere question from someone who considers herself a traditional Catholic.

Having read another thread I gues I should clarify ‘traditional’. I believe in everything the Church teaches and trust the magisterium to get things right. I’m not keen on ‘change’ for change sake, don’t like ‘contemporary’ worship and like my Churches and Mass ‘traditional’ too.

For example, I was dismayed to see our local anglican church ‘advertising’ an ‘informal communion’ service. I still can’t get over that!!
God Bless

Karen

 

[minkymurph]

I started a post on Vatican II myself in the past and got jumped all over and accused of having an agenda! I would like to explain however why I believe good has come out of Vatican II.

I live in the North of Ireland and Vatican II has been of great help to the peace process here. I believe the Church cannot divorce itself from the attempts that are being made to promote good relations between the two communities. If they did, they would be adding fuel to a fire which has not yet been extinguished and continues to smoulder sufficiently enough to allow it to ignite again. I now have two young children and I have no desire to see them grow up in the environment I grew up in.

I would also say that attitudes to women have improved as a result of Vatican II. God himself prophecied at Gen 3:15 that women would be oppressed and dominated by men and they have been. I think Vatican II has helped in that regard as we now have greater insights into male and female natures and their relationship with God. I believe St Augustine said that women where more sexual in nature than men and didn’t share the imaging of God equally with men.

I would like to add however, that I have only been a Catholic for five years and therefore am ignorant of pre-Vatican II times. What I would know is what I have read and heard. I have no personal experience of it. In the North of Ireland here, older people who do remember have accepted the changes quite peaceably and by and large, even those who would support Vatican II enthusiastically would still be considered conservative in comparison to supporters of Vatican II in other parts of the world.

As far as Latin goes, people here would like the Mass to be said in Irish to promote Irish culture. Although Latin is not used now, I have started to learn prayers and hymns in Latin simply because I think it’s a nice language and at Christmas, some of the carols are sang in Latin at the Mass and I like to join in. I also went on a pilgrimage to Rome where parts of the Mass where said in Latin which inspired me to learn some. I went to an International Mass in Lourdes one time and I would say that it would be nice if everyone could say the Mass in Latin. On the other hand however, there is something to be said for attending a Mass, which I have done, where people speak different languages and yet can still say the prayers and responses and language is not a barrier, making Catholicism a truly universal faith.

I appreciate however that not all would share my point of view as we all have different experiences, good and bad.

 

[Jacafamala]

I started a post on Vatican II myself in the past and got jumped all over and accused of having an agenda! I would like to explain however why I believe good has come out of Vatican II.

At least I’m not alone here.

 

[Jacafamala]

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.

The Mass is Jesus, Cat. It’s His life right there–for us–at the Mass.

 

[japhy]

I’m sorry I didn’t know this. I converted 24 years ago and was not told this and have never been told this in that time.

I was born and raised Catholic (I’m 26) and I didn’t know it until ~2 years ago.

If this was published more widely the decline in the study of Classics would be halted.

Yeah. Latin is a great aid, not only in religious studies, but in secular life as well. The English language (and many others) owe a lot to Latin.

The other thing is, I have never known anything but post Vatican II. Am I somehow deficient in my understanding, my practice or my faith? That is a sincere question from someone who considers herself a traditional Catholic.

The funny (not really) thing is, Latin has an issue brought up by the Vatican II and post-Vatican II Church… it’s just that certain people in the Church who don’t like Latin keep these things (and consequently, Latin) from the faithful.

Here’s a brief summary for you, and I’d be happy to continue this conversation over private messages or email.

In February 1962, just months before Vatican II, Pope John XXIII wrote the Apostolic Constitution Veterum Sapientia, “On the Promotion of the Study of Latin”. He praised Latin and resolved to uphold its study and use in the Church.

In December of 1963, the first document of Vatican II, Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, said that “Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites” (art. 36.1) and that, while the Church would investigate the inclusion of the vernacular in the liturgy, “Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.” (art. 54). The same document also said that Gregorian chant is the music proper to the Roman Rite and must preserve the chief place in liturgy actions (cf. art. 116).

In 1974, Pope Paul VI had a booklet of Gregorian Chant (Jubilate Deo) produced and sent to the bishops of the Church, with an accompanying letter. This booklet was supposed to be the bare minimum repertoire of chant for parishes. The bishops were supposed to “decide on the best ways of teaching the faithful the Latin chants of Jubilate Deo and of having them sing them, and also of promoting the preservation and execution of Gregorian chant in the communities mentioned above.” They would “thus be performing a new service for the Church in the domain of liturgical renewal”.

Yes, the Church believes that the restoration of Latin and Gregorian chant to the Mass is part of the liturgical renewal called for over the past century, Vatican II included.

And there are some people in the Church who would rather you didn’t know that, and insist that you are too dumb to understand Latin (any Latin!), and even too dumb to understand faithful English translations of Latin.

That is why we say “and also with you” instead of “and with your spirit”. That is why the prayers of the Mass are “translated” poorly from Latin to English, and often miss the point. This is why the names of the PARTS of Mass are translated poorly, and we go from Collecta to “Opening Prayer” (rather than “Collect”, which tells you that, more than “opening” the liturgy, it “collects” the intentions of the liturgy and presents them to the Father); and from the Offertorio and Super oblata to the “Presentation of the Gifts” and “Prayer over the Gifts”, which aren’t clear about their purpose (rather than the “Offertory” and “Prayer over the Offerings”, since “offering” has a distinctly different connotation than “gift”).

That is why in the current English translation of the Creed, we say that God is the “maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen”. The proper translation is “visible and invisible”, and there is a difference. I have not seen many stars or galaxies or planets. I have not seen the bottom of the ocean floor or the molten core of the earth. I have not seen inside the Forbidden Temple in China. I have seen very little with my own eyes, really. But all those things I mentioned are visible even though to me (and many others) they are unseen. There are things that are visible that NO human has ever seen! But that’s not what the Creed is talking about. The Creed is talking about the visible world – the material realm – and the invisible world – the spiritual realm. God created all that is visible – matter, physical stuff – and invisible – angels, souls, spiritual stuff.

The Creed is serious stuff. It’s not just a statement of what we believe in a round-about way. It was devised as a refutation of things that heretics believed. There were some heretics – Gnostics and Marcionites, for example – who believed that the material world was inherently evil and was not created by the same God who created the spiritual world. They believed that Jesus didn’t have a physical body (it was an illusion) and that the God of the New Testament was not the God of the Old Testament. For them, the true God did not create “all things, visible and invisible”, but only those which were invisible: spiritual things. Jesus’s message, therefore, was about escaping from the physical realm to become purely spiritual beings. There was no resurrection of the flesh! The only thing that matters is the soul, not the body.

The Creed refutes that heresy. The true God created all things, visible and invisible. And there is a resurrection of the flesh! The Apostles’ Creed made that clear.

 

[Cat]

The Mass is Jesus, Cat. It’s His life right there–for us–at the Mass.

That’s true. But I was thinking more of someone who converts because they like the music, the homilist, the decor, the kneeling–IOW, the “experience.”

 

[Jacafamala]

That’s true. But I was thinking more of someone who converts because they like the music, the homilist, the decor, the kneeling–IOW, the “experience.”

Ah, yes that would be true, I see your point, but do you think there are many people like that?

 

[keepitreal]

That’s true. But I was thinking more of someone who converts because they like the music, the homilist, the decor, the kneeling–IOW, the “experience.”

The "experience"of the Traditional Mass is the “experience” of 95% of the Saints of the Church. It is an “experience” of “lex orandi lex credenti” We want the "experience: of traditional Catholicism, not the experience created by a comitee of "experts"in the 60’s.

 

[pnewton]

Seriously though, if he just means that the Church needed to respond to modern society by adapting, then that approach would have to be seen as unprecedented as far as previous Councils are concerned. A striking departure I’d say.

Not without precedent. Reading through Acts you have the early Church responding to the culture shock of bringing in all the Gentiles as the Church departed from being mostly Jewish followers. In our generation we have seen things no other generation has see. Exponential technology growth may call for solutions and answer not used since the begining of the Church.

 

[Genesis315]

I don’t know if this has been posted, but after the first two Ecumenical Councils, St. Gregory Nazienzen lamented:

“To tell the truth, I am convinced that every assembly of bishops is to be avoided, for I have never experienced a happy ending to any council; not even the abolition of abuses…”

What good comes of the decrees of a Council depend on the response of the faithful. For the few who desired to know the truth of Christ’s divinity, Nicea I brought good, but from appearances, it seemed to bring little good at all as Arianism became stronger than ever.

If you want good to come of the Council, read the decrees and put into action those that pertain to your state in life.

 

[Genesis315]

The "experience"of the Traditional Mass is the “experience” of 95% of the Saints of the Church.

As an aside, this statement probably wasn’t true until John Paul II’s “saint factory”

 

[elts1956]

I was born and raised Catholic (I’m 26) and I didn’t know it until ~2 years ago.

Yeah. Latin is a great aid, not only in religious studies, but in secular life as well. The English language (and many others) owe a lot to Latin.

The funny (not really) thing is, Latin has an issue brought up by the Vatican II and post-Vatican II Church… it’s just that certain people in the Church who don’t like Latin keep these things (and consequently, Latin) from the faithful.

Here’s a brief summary for you, and I’d be happy to continue this conversation over private messages or email.

In February 1962, just months before Vatican II, Pope John XXIII wrote the Apostolic Constitution Veterum Sapientia, “On the Promotion of the Study of Latin”. He praised Latin and resolved to uphold its study and use in the Church.

In December of 1963, the first document of Vatican II, Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, said that “Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites” (art. 36.1) and that, while the Church would investigate the inclusion of the vernacular in the liturgy, “Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.” (art. 54). The same document also said that Gregorian chant is the music proper to the Roman Rite and must preserve the chief place in liturgy actions (cf. art. 116).

In 1974, Pope Paul VI had a booklet of Gregorian Chant (Jubilate Deo) produced and sent to the bishops of the Church, with an accompanying letter. This booklet was supposed to be the bare minimum repertoire of chant for parishes. The bishops were supposed to “decide on the best ways of teaching the faithful the Latin chants of Jubilate Deo and of having them sing them, and also of promoting the preservation and execution of Gregorian chant in the communities mentioned above.” They would “thus be performing a new service for the Church in the domain of liturgical renewal”.

Yes, the Church believes that the restoration of Latin and Gregorian chant to the Mass is part of the liturgical renewal called for over the past century, Vatican II included.

And there are some people in the Church who would rather you didn’t know that, and insist that you are too dumb to understand Latin (any Latin!), and even too dumb to understand faithful English translations of Latin.

That is why we say “and also with you” instead of “and with your spirit”. That is why the prayers of the Mass are “translated” poorly from Latin to English, and often miss the point. This is why the names of the PARTS of Mass are translated poorly, and we go from Collecta to “Opening Prayer” (rather than “Collect”, which tells you that, more than “opening” the liturgy, it “collects” the intentions of the liturgy and presents them to the Father); and from the Offertorio and Super oblata to the “Presentation of the Gifts” and “Prayer over the Gifts”, which aren’t clear about their purpose (rather than the “Offertory” and “Prayer over the Offerings”, since “offering” has a distinctly different connotation than “gift”).

That is why in the current English translation of the Creed, we say that God is the “maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen”. The proper translation is “visible and invisible”, and there is a difference. I have not seen many stars or galaxies or planets. I have not seen the bottom of the ocean floor or the molten core of the earth. I have not seen inside the Forbidden Temple in China. I have seen very little with my own eyes, really. But all those things I mentioned are visible even though to me (and many others) they are unseen. There are things that are visible that NO human has ever seen! But that’s not what the Creed is talking about. The Creed is talking about the visible world – the material realm – and the invisible world – the spiritual realm. God created all that is visible – matter, physical stuff – and invisible – angels, souls, spiritual stuff.

The Creed is serious stuff. It’s not just a statement of what we believe in a round-about way. It was devised as a refutation of things that heretics believed. There were some heretics – Gnostics and Marcionites, for example – who believed that the material world was inherently evil and was not created by the same God who created the spiritual world. They believed that Jesus didn’t have a physical body (it was an illusion) and that the God of the New Testament was not the God of the Old Testament. For them, the true God did not create “all things, visible and invisible”, but only those which were invisible: spiritual things. Jesus’s message, therefore, was about escaping from the physical realm to become purely spiritual beings. There was no resurrection of the flesh! The only thing that matters is the soul, not the body.

The Creed refutes that heresy. The true God created all things, visible and invisible. And there is a resurrection of the flesh! The Apostles’ Creed made that clear.

All I know is, one Sunday I went to Mass and heard nary a Latin Word. Since I have existed in a vacuum for over thirty years, doing just what I am told to do by the Church, yep, really faithful, non-questioning Catholic, that I am, I have missed a LOT.
In December of 1963, the first document of Vatican II, Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, said that “Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites” (art. 36.1) and that, while the Church would investigate the inclusion of the vernacular in the liturgy, “Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.” (art. 54). The same document also said that Gregorian chant is the music proper to the Roman Rite and must preserve the chief place in liturgy actions (cf. art. 116).

The problem is, there were NO Latin Rites left, at least not in abundance. What happened to my Church when I wasn’t looking??:crying: :blushing: Did this happen in Europe too?

 

[elts1956]

The "experience"of the Traditional Mass is the “experience” of 95% of the Saints of the Church. It is an “experience” of “lex orandi lex credenti” We want the "experience: of traditional Catholicism, not the experience created by a comitee of "experts"in the 60’s.

While you, I, we are “wanting” let’s remember that 95% of the Saints after Vatican II experience the NO. Reverence is in the heart of the reverent. TLM, while beautiful, is foreign to most Catholics who were born, raised, or converted after Vatican II. And I agree we see/hear of much irreverence toward the Mass since Vatican II. But if we had looked around, I think much of the same would have been evident before Vatican II. The traditions, the small things we who experienced the TLM in its hey day are missed so very much and are no longer around unless we emphasize them to our children in our homes. Hopefully much of this will return. It was a part of the Catholic culture and part of what identified us as Catholic.

 

[Fran65]

I only know one Church ‘locally’ i.e. around 60 miles from home that has a Latin Mass. That is St Aloysius in Oxford. (UK).

I would love to participate in a latin mass, but haven’t yet found anywhere closer.

Thank you for sharing the information about Veterum Sapientia and the Jubilate Deo.

We teach Latin at our school, I think I’m going to try and pick some more up!
God Bless
Karen

 

[Jacafamala]

I only know one Church ‘locally’ i.e. around 60 miles from home that has a Latin Mass. That is St Aloysius in Oxford. (UK).

I would love to participate in a latin mass, but haven’t yet found anywhere closer.

Thank you for sharing the information about Veterum Sapientia and the Jubilate Deo.

We teach Latin at our school, I think I’m going to try and pick some more up!
God Bless
Karen

Don’t just look to your Diocesan parishes for a TLM. Check any Shrines, Monasteries and Priories in your area. There’s a Monastery here in my area that offers the TLM once a week. I only found out about this a year ago, and it’s been offered there, less than ten minutes away all this time!

So check, because you never know. It’s possible there’s a nearby TLM near you sometime during the week.