Vatican II

[Madonna]

I have been doing some reading, and I think the Council was misinterpreted on many different accounts. I think the liturgy in the Catholic Church in America is somewhat bent up, and I wish they would modify the missal so the translation was a little more in line with how the Mass is traditionally said. I'm a fan of the 1965 missal (in writing, that is) because it is in the vernacular, but not a new missal.

Besides that, I think Vatican II was fantastic and caused the Church to come out from behind its "fortress" and really relate with the rest of the world.

[amarkich]

Madonna, the 1965 Missal has many errors in it (I will offer some books if you are interested, or simply present the reasoning myself; N.B., I do not think any of the post-1965 Missals are good, either). The 1965 Missal, however, did not call for vernacular as the norm; this is a radical departure from Church history and tradition. For just one account as to why Latin should be used and not the vernacular, read Pope Pius XII's Encyclical [i]Mediator Dei[/i] which specifically states:

"11. If in this encyclical letter We treat chiefly of the Latin liturgy, it is not because We esteem less highly the venerable liturgies of the Eastern Church, whose ancient and honorable ritual traditions are just as dear to Us. The reason lies rather in a [i]special situation prevailing in the Western Church, of sufficient importance, it would seem, to require this exercise of Our authority[/i]." (emphasis added)

Pope Pius XII is speaking of the liturgical revolution, the regime of novelty attempting to attack the liturgy and the Church Herself. He goes on to give reasoning that Latin must remain the language of the Mass and that to change this would be a horrible mistake. In any event, you can read this Encyclical on the EWTN website at the following address:
[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P12MEDIA.HTM"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P12MEDIA.HTM[/url]

Another great website for citing Encyclicals is www.papalencyclicals.net. The only problem with this website is that it groups Papal Bulls (infallible) with Papal Encyclicals (not infallible) all under the title of Papal Encyclicals. It is still a great source, though.

[Ash Wednesday]

I'm tired of modernist Catholics using Vatican II as an excuse for just about everything, as if this was the only Catholic council that ever existed.

[amarkich]

Ash, I think most Modernists believe the Church started with Vatican II. An example of this is a feminist, liberal girl who attends my old "Catholic" school. I presented an argument for what is acceptable as Sacred Music (she is in the Mass "band"). In it I included a decree from Pope Saint Pius X which states:

"19. The employment of the piano is forbidden in church, as is also that of noisy or frivolous instruments such as drums, cymbals, bells and the like." c.f., Motu Proprio of Saint Pius X on Sacred Music

Her response was, "I am not reading that! That is dated 1903!" This is typical of the Modernists. The little piece of paper I had presented also had Vatican II documents and all the other Church's decrees (so that they can be taken in light of Tradition). She refused to read even the Vatican II decrees (which do not allow drums, piano, cymbals, etc). God bless.

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
8/12 - Nineteenth Thursday

Yeah, but there's a manual out, printed in the late 60s (I believe) entitled [i]Sacred Music After Vatican II[/i], edited by Msgr. Richard Schuler, the pastor-emeritus at St. Agnes Catholic Church in St. Paul, MN. This book is the practical application of the general norms laid down in [i]Sacrosanctum Concilium[/i]. It does permit for things like piano, though I'm unsure of other "band-y" instruments.

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

Many people blame the council, but I believe the council could have said ANYTHING and the liberal Catholics would be acting and construing the points they believe in were in Vatican II. The thing is that the cardinals and bishops have come out and said what needs to be done and many Catholics still don't recognize them. There are parishes out there that still haven't implemented -- or even addressed -- most of the big 'changes' from the GIRM.

[toledo_jesus]

I can understand the piano, but the songs are the real problem. They just don't seem reverent to me. I get uneasy when we speak as Jesus or God in a song.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

Since you all are discussing music... that's one of my issues with Mass.

I just have a problem with using music by people who either a) aren't Catholic, or b) do not represent the faith.

A few of the more popular ones:

Michael Joncas is a priest who in his own liturgies has everyone stand around the altar to concelebrate. He refers to the prayers of the Mass as "table prayers". He's most popular for his "On Eagle's Wings" song.

David Haas: Refers to God as a woman, has a music compilation called "Dear Sister God" and has spoken at workshops on the responsibility to purge exclusive language (such as "his", "him", "he" etc.) He's most popular for his "Blest Are They" song (among others).

Marty Haugen isn't even a Catholic, he's Lutheran. He's the one who wrote probably the most popular Mass setting in the United States called "The Mass of Creation". He also wrote a LOT of songs used by many Catholic parishes in the Mass.


You can also read more:
[url="http://www.adoremus.org/1102MassMusic.html"]http://www.adoremus.org/1102MassMusic.html[/url]
(edited to add another link, I forgot the first time!) [url="http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=21821"]http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=21821[/url]

And most of this info. (and more) can be found if you do a search on yahoo for any of the well-known musicians.
I'm not a fan of GIA publications. But I'm not sure how one goes about telling a pastor that he should get all new hymnals, etc. and avoid GIA publications like the plague.

Edited August 12, 2004 by Fides_et_Ratio

[toledo_jesus]

oh gross I hate those fluffy songs. They're like cotton candy: sweet and full of nothing but air...and they rot your teeth. well, not literally but...you follow me.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

I am happy to see an intelligent conversation about this subject here! I would like to put in a friendly reminder to be careful of the thin lines when discussing said subject (not that anyone has yet). Please be thoughtful about replies and posts because I for one, would not like to see this subject turned into an ugly fight.

Please carry on!



and my .02 : fluffy songs = ewwwww

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

And to those who would say that the traditional music is boring, I have this to say. I'm tired of hearing one of the same 3 musically rendered psalms sung instead of the psalm from the missalette. I'm tired of hearing one of the same 5 closing hymns. It seems that 'modern' choir directors seem to find a few favorite songs to sing and those are the ones that get most of the attention.

That being said, my parish isn't that bad. We do have good hymns sung much of the time, but I think a big problem is that the hymns aren't related to what the readings and homily for that day. It seems like you can hear a homily about how we encounter Christ in the Eucharist and the choir goes off singing about loving your neighbor. Yes, loving your neighbor is an important part of Catholicism, but sing about it when the readings and homily relate to it. Many more appropriate hymns could be sung.

And I've had enough of 'City of God' being sung at the end of Mass. That song has been ruined for me for a while.

Edited August 12, 2004 by 1337 k4th0l1x0r

[Iacobus]

I loved Vatican II and what it was meant to do. Some people have twisted what it said and have preformed abuses but VII was a good thing and if taken properly would be even greater now. Someday it will be, somday.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Kilroy the Ninja' date='Aug 12 2004, 01:54 PM'] and my .02  :  fluffy songs = ewwwww [/quote]
When I was still Roman Rite Catholic I despised most of the hymns being sung at Mass, because they were so banal and lacking in any theological content. But now as a Byzantine Rite Catholic that is not a problem, because in the Byzantine Rite we don't sing hymns during the Divine Liturgy; instead, we sing the Divine Liturgy itself. The whole of the prayers of the liturgy are sung, and it's quite beautiful.

God bless,
Todd

Edited August 12, 2004 by Apotheoun

[amarkich]

Iacobus, any evidence for the "someday" crowd has yet to be seen (let's just leave it at that and continue any more comments about that topic in the Neo-conservatives thread).

1337 k4th0l1x0r, I agree with your intentions and what you say about the disastrous songs at a typical New Mass today, but it is actually quite traditional to sing hymns which correlate to the season as the Recessional Hymn. There are up to 24 weeks after Pentecost (in the old calendar), yet our parish (as do many other parishes) sings the [i]Salve Regina [/i]after most, if not all, of these weeks. For the Immaculate Conception this Sunday, there will most likely be a different hymn, but the [i]Salve Regina [/i]and other Marian hymns are typical of the Sundays after Pentecost. Likewise, songs which correlate to Christmas are sung during the Christmas season and songs which correlate to Easter are sung during Paschal tide. Hymns which correlate to Pentecost are sung during the Octave, etc, etc, etc. You are absolutely correct in condemning the arbitrary decision to play the Schola Director's favorite hymn (especially when it is a syrupy, Protestant hymn). You should contact your parish about this problem!

[dUSt]

This makes me want to get the video of the mass we had at the Phatmass04 event up... How I wish every mass was like the one we had...