Follow @PoliticsIE
 
 
 
Page 1 of 17 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 161

Thread: What If There Was No Vatican 2?

  1. #1
    Politics.ie Member General Urko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    15,682
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default What If There Was No Vatican 2?

    Now that we have got yet another conservative pope in what are turbulent times for the Roman Catholic church, what if there had never been a second Vatican council at all? John Charles on coming back from it said - nothing has changed!
    Did the church undermine its own authority by convening it? Is it time for a Vatican 3?

  2. #2
    Politics.ie Member Cruimh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    County Londonderry
    Posts
    35,439
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by General Urko View Post
    John Charles on coming back from it said - nothing has changed!
    Not true.

  3. #3
    Politics.ie Member General Urko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    15,682
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    There was an observation at the time that with changes brought about under it, The Roman Catholic church in Ireland moved unstoppably into the middle ages!

  4. #4
    Politics.ie Member General Urko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    15,682
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cruimh View Post
    Not true.
    How do you know?

  5. #5
    Politics.ie Member Cruimh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    County Londonderry
    Posts
    35,439
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by General Urko View Post
    How do you know?
    It is on record what he actually said -

    He spoke in the Pro-Cathedral, Dublin, on return from the final session of the Council,
    December 1965. The text of his address was issued by the Diocesan Press Office:

    ... You may, in the last four years, have been disturbed at times by reports about the Council. May I who have assisted at every meeting of the Council reassure you that the Council was a wondrous example of dignity and seriousness and courtesy. You may have been worried by much talk of changes to come. Allow me to reassure you. No change will worry the tranquillity of your Christian lives.
    Page 95

    Hold Firm John Charles McQuaid and the Second Vatican Council, Francis Xavier Carty.

    Rather different from what the OP claims.

  6. #6
    Politics.ie Member General Urko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    15,682
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    In fairness that Cavan man would certainly have preferred no changes!

  7. #7
    Politics.ie Member General Urko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    15,682
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Does the surprising lack of response to this thread indicate how irrelevant they have made themselves (RCC) perhaps due to Vatican 2 or the lack of a Vatican 3?
    Certainly, what I posted in my OP, even in more enlightened post Vatican 2 times would have been regarded in many quarters as heretical and would have stirred interest!

  8. #8
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    22,721
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Latin.

    Latin would still be taught properly, and practicing or even cultural Catholics would hear it on a regular basis.

    The teaching of English would therefore be a breeze, because familiarity with Latin would have taught people that words have specific and inalienable meanings....they come with a history and a context, so that it is just not a matter of merely having a run at a word and hoping that something sounding vaguely like the original emerges...

    The "Lord I am not worthy..." prayer, familiar to all of us attending Mass in pre-Vatican Two days, and repeated every Sunday by the congregation, might be a start: Domine, non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum....

  9. #9
    Politics.ie Member General Urko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    15,682
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gatsbygirl20 View Post
    Latin.

    Latin would still be taught properly, and practicing or even cultural Catholics would hear it on a regular basis.

    The teaching of English would therefore be a breeze, because familiarity with Latin would have taught people that words have specific and inalienable meanings....they come with a history and a context, so that it is just not a matter of merely having a run at a word and hoping that something sounding vaguely like the original emerges...

    The "Lord I am not worthy..." prayer, familiar to all of us attending Mass in pre-Vatican Two days, and repeated every Sunday by the congregation, might be a start: Domine, non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum....
    So it would all have been worth it then?
    I got a grade B in honours Latin in my LC in the mid 80s!
    Latin had long ceased to be the lingua Franca of the world prior to Vatican 2!
    BTW doing the leaving cert Latin exam was a breeze and a pleasure compared to the ass holes we had to put up with, who were teaching it to us! My 2 Latin teachers (although, they knew their stuff) should never have been teaching children!

  10. #10
    Politics.ie Royalty toxic avenger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    19,031
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    There was nothing wrong with Vatican II. What went wrong was what happened afterwards - it was taken as license by many in the Catholic Church to abuse the spirit of reform to push their own agendas, to embrace modernism, relativism, and permissive liberalism.

    The destruction of the use of the ancient liturgy was a bad mistake, very bad indeed - the Mass was made mundane rather than a transcendent and mystical experience - too much replying by the laity, the removal of beautiful ancient music and rubrics to be replaced with 1970s folk hippie music, the turning in on themselves of the priest and congregation so that, rather than the priest leading the congregation in looking outwards towards God ad orientem, the priest himself became the focal point of the Mass. The use of sub-standard materials and priestly robes, all rainbow colours, wooden altar tables, etc., the building of modernist churches that look like community centres, circular congregations with glass everywhere, and the creeping in of a sloppiness in the celebration of the Mass rather than the very careful reverence of before - all these things were extraordinarily bad.

    Pope Benedict recognized this and tried to move to rectify some of the problems. Unfortunately he was ignored by many priests and bishops. And one cause for concern on the election of Pope Francis is that, while overall I think he is a great choice of Pope, his record on e.g. implementing Summorum Pontificum on the extended use of the old rite was awful (and I am by no means one of the extreme SSPX fruitloops who were attacking and demeaning him within an hour of his election). I'd be concerned that his Papacy sees his position being downgraded to being a mere first among equals - I think a Pope should retain a certain air of apartness and not just be 'one of the lads'. Having said that, his other qualities, especially his humility, and his excellent record on reform and administration, make him, in my view, the right man at the right time.

    The chances of Francis continuing Benedict's 'reform of the reform' to rectify the post-Vatican II abuses seem small, and that is a pity. But right now the priority is cleaning out the filth which has infested the Church, particularly the Curia nut also elsewhere. And I am optimistic that Francis will go a long way towards doing that.

Page 1 of 17 1234511 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •