I won't be able to post for the next two weeks because I'll be touring Europe. I'm going to London, Venice, Rome (Easter Mass with Pope Benedict XVI), Paris, Versailles, Dublin, and one or two other places.
Well, today I wanted to talk about Vatican II. This will be the first part, with two other parts coming later. This first part is going to focus on the good of Vatican II, the second the bad, and the last will talk about the misunderstandings of Vatican II.
The Good:
1. The first is the change in Mass. The change in Mass was not really a change in Mass. After all, though the look may change, the essance has never changed, and it is, therefore, the same Mass. The biggest change, though, was from the Latin to the Vernacular. Latin is a beautiful and ancient language, the official language of the Church. The good of changing the Mass to the Vernacular is that more people understand it. Granted, most people could follow along during Mass while it was in Latin, and knew what was going on. The Vernacular opens up the Mass to Protestants and potential converts, who wouldn't know Latin (like myself). Furthermore, everyone can now understand it, not just most people. The Vernacular, furthermore, is still a beautiful language, and allows even the poorest to participate in worship.
2. A change in Ecumenism. The Catholic Church had been very closed. But after Vatican II it opened its doors to many people, those of other faiths and those within Protestantism. I don't at all mean that they changed doctrine or accommodated anyone. Rather, the Catholic Church started making very strong attempts at bringing others to the Faith. It's confusing that some people think that Vatican II asked for discouragement of conversion. This is simply not true, but rather called for a new kind of conversion. This conversion is through dialogue and action, an action like that of Saint Francis. This has done away with most anger between Catholicism and those of Protestant denominations (with some exceptions). I believe that previous to Vatican II, my family would have been ripped apart by my decision to convert (though it was by no means a peaceful conversion anyway). Lumen Gentium 8 says this: "this is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority,which He erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth". This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him." The document the immediately adds "although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure." In essence the Church stated that the fullness and completeness of Truth is found IN ONLY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (I want to make this clear). However, other denominations and, and even religions, have degrees of this Truth (some to greater and lesser extents). I think this is good, and obvious! After all, most Protestants recognize the Trinity, the Incarnation, Original Sin, etc., and so they share in those Truths.
3. Scripture was given renewed vigor! My uncle, who used to be Catholic, says that he remembers having a family bible... but they never opened it (however, I think that some, if not most, of this should be attributed simply to his family). Scripture was put in the foreground for people's lives, as well as the lives of the Clergy.
4. The final one that I want to talk about is the rise in importance of the bishops. Now, they had always been important, but what Vatican II did was solidify the importance of regional Conferences of Bishops, and bringing back to the foregroundmuch autonomy of the bishops and their Sees.
Those are the four that I wanted to mention, and they are the four that, to me, are the most important.
Here's what I want to know:
1. What other things came out of Vatican II that you think are good (we'll talk about the bad later)?
2. Which, if any, of the ones that I listed do you agree or disagree with?
Please keep comments focused on the good. Those of you that disagree will have a chance for that when I come back.
No comments:
Post a Comment