Why is there opposition to Vatican 2?

[straykat]

No, that’s ridiculous. I’d be literally dead or in some gutter if I hadn’t heard God’s word. You could put a gun to my head and I still won’t budge. It’s the centerpoint of my entire salvation… hearing God’s word as I did, and encountering Jesus in the Gospel.

“Read the scriptures”, the voice said, like it did to St. Augustine.

It didn’t compromise me. I was enveloped with the Holy Spirit. The only thing compromised was my ego… but not my faith.

 

[Bartholo]

What i remember were the long lines of people going to confession; nuns wearing habits; “communion rails”, etc. I really miss that, and one parish nearby is bringing back the “communion rails”, and facing the altar.

Pope John 23rd i think wanted to bring more people back into the Catholic church, by compromising in Christian ways. Mass said in a person’s own language, the choice of how to “abstain” on Fridays, and most of all, helping people not to be afraid of God.

God’s true nature of love, peace, and truth were emphasized a lot more as well. What happened since, no clue!

I too like communion rails and ad orientem Mass. And am in favor of getting them back.

I don’t think it is accurate to describe St. John XXIII’s intentions that way. I don’t think he wanted to “compromise Christian ways.” For one, most of the things listed are not strictly speaking sett in stone. But also, most of these things were not done by him, but by his successor. Concerning Latin for example, he even wrote a letter outlining the reasons he wanted to retain Latin.

 

[JimG]

From our perspective, Liturgy is the primary source of catechesis . . .

The reason I was blown away the first time I encountered the Divine Liturgy is that it’s a rather complete statement of the Fatih.

hawk

Of course the Mass can’t help but be catechetical. There is the Liturgy of the Word as well as the homily. And one learns what we believe by how we worship.

But the point is, the Eucharistic Liturgy is a re-presentation of the sacrifice of Calvary, an offering to the Father, and the worship owed by a creature to his Creator. It is not for our edification or entertainment. It is our worship offered to God.

 

[gracepoole]

Is it your view that those of the past who attended Mass “out of societal pressure” benefited less from participation?

 

[gracepoole]

No, that’s ridiculous. I’d be literally dead or in some gutter if I hadn’t heard God’s word. You could put a gun to my head and I still won’t budge. It’s the centerpoint of my entire salvation… hearing God’s word as I did, and encountering Jesus in the Gospel.

“Read the scriptures”, the voice said, like it did to St. Augustine.

I am way confused. So saying the Mass in the vernacular is not a Christian act meant to welcome others? Sure sounds like you’re firmly stating that it is.

 

[goout]

I am not the one making this point.

 

[gracepoole]

So you’re not going to answer the question, then? Because I didn’t make the comment that people of the past only attended Mass because of societal expectations. I brought up the Middle Ages – you got to your own theory all on your own from there.

 

[straykat]

I am way confused. So saying the Mass in the vernacular is not a Christian act meant to welcome others? Sure sounds like you’re firmly stating that it is.

I’m confused now too. I’ve tried to be as plain as day on this. People need to hear God’s word as they are. That’s my first and last concern.

 

[goout]

You made the point that in the middle ages the Church didn’t innovate, and it thrived. (which is not true anyway, as Latin was an innovation at some point…going back to the early centuries.)

You are making a connection between a static Church and a growing, thriving Church. That doesn’t follow in Christian thought.

 

[gracepoole]

I think, from post #158, you may have clarified it for me. It’s the word “compromise” that doesn’t jibe with your view, yes?

 

[gracepoole]

Okay. I’m not sure what to do with your claim about the reason people of the past attended Mass but as you don’t want to explain further, that’s fine.

 

[straykat]

Indeed. There’s no way God’s word can be compromised. I suggest people actually read the word of God to see that is so.

“The word of God is living and effective, sharper than any two-edged sword, penetrating even between soul and spirit, joints and marrow, and able to discern reflections and thoughts of the heart.” - Hebrews 4:12

 

[goout]

You brought it up. I replied to you.

My point to which you interjected the middle ages issue was this:
Where I live, Hispanic Catholic culture is thriving. Traditional European Catholic culture is not.
Hispanic Catholic worship has it’s own flavor, instruments, language. Why would we force them to adopt other instruments, language, instruments?

 

[semper_catholicus]

Because they don’t like the things that came about afterwards, and falsely assume that they came about as a direct result of Vatican II.

 

[gracepoole]

Okay, in this case, I think we’re simply understanding that word differently. I saw margaret42 including the Mass being said in the vernacular as a means of outreach rather than some kind of concession or lowering of standards or…

 

[gracepoole]

No. I brought up the topic of the Middle Ages. I didn’t claim that people of the past attended Mass because of societal pressures. You did. You can claim that the Church and the Mass weren’t static even then – but that doesn’t explain your claim about why people attended Mass.

 

[straykat]

I’ve kind of lost track of all the trains of thought in this thread. Sorry. I’m kind of just replying to notifications… I’m not sure if I injected myself into a post by margeret42 or not.

 

[gracepoole]

I’ve kind of lost track of all the trains of thought in this thread. Sorry. I’m kind of just replying to notifications… I’m not sure if I injected myself into a post by margeret42 or not.

I so like your honesty, straykat. I get what you mean.

 

[JimG]

I personally like the Mass in the vernacular, especially since the English translation now more accurately reflects the Latin. It helps if it is celebrated reverently and if the priest keeps in mind that he is addressing the Eucharistic Prayer to the Father and not to the congregation.

But I can certainly testify that neither my parents nor grandparents nor older siblings were faithful to the Mass for their entire lives for the sake of social pressure. No, they were faithful out of conviction. Even as a child, I was faithful to Mass voluntarily because I knew that at Mass, something happened; it was not just a ‘service.’

Vatican II had only one major ill effect on some Catholics I knew, and that was due to the disastrous lack of catechesis that occurred in the early post V-II years. Some fell away from the Faith because they were simply never taught the Faith and so never knew the Faith. Vatican II never decreed that catechesis should consist of making banners and singing about love.

 

[goout]

No. I brought up the topic of the Middle Ages. I didn’t claim that people of the past attended Mass because of societal pressures. You did. You can claim that the Church and the Mass weren’t static even then – but that doesn’t explain your claim about why people attended Mass.

Why did my parents and older siblings attend Mass? They were made to go. There was a societal and familial pressure to go. Some people had very positive experiences of this wedding between state, culture, and Church, more had very negative experiences of it.
Please note…going to Mass out of fear of popular momentum is not faith. Given the freedom to make a choice for the faith, these generations have found no compelling reason to be practicing Catholics. So how did the uniformity of practice work out? If uniformity of practice were so compelling, we should have all the legions of former Catholic school students and their children attending Mass. Where are they?

And at the same time, we have Africans and Asians and Hispanics leading the way, worshiping in their authentic Catholic way.
Faithful children are not the result of Mass language or music. Those items are always important. Reverence, orthodoxy, and excellence are important, but those are not the seed of faith. The family is the incubator of faith.