Vatican ii Paved the Road

Рет қаралды 474

Ай бұрын

Looking back at the mis-shaping of the liturgy.
Amazon Affiliate Links:
The Shape of The Liturgy: amzn.to/45t6IoJ
Signs of Life: amzn.to/45Blf1t
Strong, Loving and Wise: amzn.to/45zig9J
The Harp of the Spirit: amzn.to/3xrMxe5
Glory, Laud and Honour: amzn.to/3KVE1qI

Пікірлер: 20

@josephjude1290 Ай бұрын

Im Orthodox but I sometimes stop in my local Roman Catholic Church the liturgy has gotten much better then when I was younger; nothing like the Orthodox but hopefully it gets there one day

@pertinaciousD Ай бұрын

I grew up with the Vatican 2 mass, in the 80's it wasn't called that, it was just 'The Mass', so it wasn't until years later when I started exploring Christianity in more depth that I realised just how much change Vatican 2 had wrought. While I'm not really much of a church goer, I did try to be for a long time, and got to know both versions of the liturgy quite well, and the older rite whilst interesting seemed much more complex and har to understand than the new, but at the same time didn't white wash so much and assume the congregation were children incapable of comprehending the mysteries they purported to enact at the mass. On the other hand, my explorations into the liturgical movement soon showed me that there was a strong conservative bias that made me distinctly uncomfortable, but then that was as I was getting to know Christianity better and was starting to wonder about the validity of the whole thing anyway. These days, I don't think I'd be particularly worried about which kind of mass I went to if any, both have their merits and demerits, but I do shy away from the liturgical reform movement as a whole in that it aligns itself with forces I regard as regressive.

@WayneDrake-uk1gg Ай бұрын

Speaking of Ecumenical Councils and Clown Services, do you have any thoughts on the Southern Baptist Convention rejecting the Nicene Creed?

@dalecaldwell Ай бұрын

Not much. If one is going to claim to be non-creedal, then that seems the right action. After all, when Peter baptized his jailor (and apparently his kids as well) he didn't seem to have used a creed.

@WayneDrake-uk1gg Ай бұрын

@@dalecaldwell ya. I agree that rejecting in on the grounds of being non-creedal was a consistent move, but then there's some hairsplitting with "Creed" (in the sense in which they would've used it) vs "Baptist Faith and Mission Statement". I'd guess we're all implicitly creedal at minimum, and inescapably so

@PadraigTomas Ай бұрын

"The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible." From the Athanasian Creed. Many years ago, during the eighties, I listened while a man on NYC radio spoke of the change in the Catholic Church which was inflicted upon the world. What he said was this, prior to the change he observed an unmistakable piety. During mass people could be seen praying the rosary. This was correctly seen as participation. There are devotions in which such prayer is linked to the Mass. By contrast he observed that the new Mass didn't have this easily observable piety on display. Someones ideas of what piety should look like had been imposed. That this phenomenon was more wide spread then I had known is wounding. The surveys which show an amazing degree of ignorance of the fundamentals of the faith are becoming known. A recent survey shows evidence that many Christians seem not to recognize the divinity of Christ. Lex orendi. Lex credendi. As to clowns, I have not seen any lately. I'll mention one thing that I did see, ten years ago. At my mother's funeral Mass, the priest wore white vestments. This is a recent innovation. As Christians we have hope, but for a longer time then anyone can remember the Church wore black. The Church wore black because the Church morns with her children just as Christ wept when he saw how Lazarus' family grieved for him. Jesus wept. The men who decided that white was to be the color of the day, they seem worse than heartless. Can one imagine our savior smiling instead of weeping? The priest who said the mass seemed a goodly man, and I wasn't angry with him. I can't blame him for decisions made before he was born. He is one man amongst thousands. But faults can be amended, sins can be forgiven, and prayers of reparation can be said. Remember how we got where we are today is part of that work. Thank you.

@hollyshippy7417 Ай бұрын

So, we're asked to have a "relationship" with an "incomprehensible" entity? The only way that works is to engage one's imagination and to conjure forth a being similarly to reading a novel and inventing a character, based on the narrative, descriptive elements and dialog. What we have with Jesus is a relationship with someone we've conjured up. There is no other way to do it. We read the Gospels and our imagination does the rest.

@PadraigTomas Ай бұрын

@@hollyshippy7417Yes. Though there is a sense in which the Lord is comprehensible, there is a greater sense in which we can not comprehend. Our understanding is limited, which is why the liturgy of Saint John Chrysostum speaks God "the inexpressible, the incomprehensible, the invisible, the ungraspable." Thomas Aquinas tells us, "concerning God, we cannot grasp what he is, but only what he is not, and how other beings stand in relation to him." And yet, John tells us in his first epistle, "No man has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us." The Apostle instructs us that God is love, and so "he who loves is born of God and knows God." While warning that if we lack love we will remain ignorant.

@PadraigTomas Ай бұрын

@@hollyshippy7417John's answer in 1john4 is convincing and to me, memorably beautiful

@hollyshippy7417 Ай бұрын

@@PadraigTomas Sorry, but 1 John 4 does not address the problem of attempting to have a "relationship" with an "Incomprehensible" entity. Relating to actual human beings is one thing, but relating to "incomprehensible" entities requires we incorporate the human imagination. There's a lot of woo-woo metaphysics in 1 John 4, but it does not address either the "philosophical" or "real life" issue of having an "actual relationship" with an "incomprehensible" entity. What our minds do, regarding almost anything "metaphysical" is to "imagine" it, or its presence, in real time and space, to fill in the gap between what is "comprehensible" in actual time and space ... matter ... and what is not. What we are talking about is our ability to distinguish between that which is "material' and that which is "incorporeal." The former, we are surrounded. The latter, consisting of no matter, by it's very nature, we must "imagine" as if it were material ... and to "subjectively" feel we are in its presence. 1John 4 says to "test the "spirits." Meaning that we are charged with testing "invisible," "incomprehensible" entities." As a skeptic, I would say that "testing" invisible ... "incomprehensible" spirits is something the average person doesn't even contemplate, much less achieve. And given that there are so many divisions, large and small, concerning all manner of doctrine, theology, faith and belief, it would be safe to say that any "testing" involved comes down to ... believing exactly the religion one believes, while discarding as false, all those they don't practice. In other words, since 1 John 4 is appropriated by many Christians of so many religious persuasions ... and is used to "justify" their religion and belief system, while discounting all others as false, it doesn't say much for the validity of "testing" the spirits, as 1 John 4 instructs. Meaning that having whatever "relationship" with whatever "incomprehensible" entity one believes they are relating ... and given the subjective nature of the human imagination and feelings ... the woo-woo metaphysics of 1 John 4 has so many invisible loopholes as to invite whoever reads it to read into it whatever true spirit they subjectively believe they possess. It is simply used to validate ones own presupposition, and backed by ones imagination and subjective feelings. It is circular and meaningless ... and memorably beautiful.

@Steadfast-Lutheran Ай бұрын

Vatican II brought a lot of positive changes to the Catholic Church from a Protestant point of view. If I ever left Lutheranism to become Roman Catholic, it would be in large part because of Vatican II.

@dalecaldwell Ай бұрын

It felt as if Vatican ii was a b ig move towards a more Lutheran view of church doctrine, but it also seems that Francis is pushing the church beyond lutheran to a sort of puritanism joined with Ultramontine papism that Luther would I suspect not have embraced.

@WT-Sherman Ай бұрын

I’m fortunate to have a Traditional Latin Mass nearby - which, rumor has it, and it’s a strong rumor, is about to be further squashed by the Vatican. Yes, the Sacred Mysteries are meant to be a mystery. Calls for a Sacred Language. Everything in the Mass should be other worldly and radically different than what we experience outside the Mass.

@WayneDrake-uk1gg Ай бұрын

Well of course the Church has concluded Luther was basically correct about Justification. Sure, it took ~500 years, but maintaining an aura of Infallibility often requires arriving fashionably late

@dalecaldwell Ай бұрын

@@WayneDrake-uk1gg Welll, it took about that long to pay for St Peter's Basilica.

@WayneDrake-uk1gg Ай бұрын

This channel needs to be recommended to the 500K goofballs who think Ryan Reeves is the only game in town for Christian History ASMR

@dalecaldwell Ай бұрын

Go for it. I guess I need to start begging for folks to like and share, but I grew up in the south, and somehow such activities feel presumptuous.

@BrianDuffy-kh9fe Ай бұрын

The South? No wonder I keep thinking I’m listening to my late bishop when I hear you!

@AmericanShia786 Ай бұрын

I am too young to remember the Traditional Mass in Latin. I was only 4 when the Traditional Mass began to be said in English. But, I do remember that English Trad Mass. So, that first Sunday in 1969 when our parish got the New Mass (as we got the changes early in Minneapolis-Saint Paul Minnesota), I didn't like the New Mass. But, we were told the Mass was closer to what it was like in the time of the Apostles. In Junior High, the Catholic School told us we should attend the Teen Mass in the basement. No clowns, thankfully. But, I just couldn't get into the Guitar Mass. So, since the changes led my father to quit the Church, I quit going as well. In 2017, my Catholic wife took me to the local Catholic Parish for Easter Sunday. No clowns or guitars. However, since there are many African immigrants in my suburb, everyone was dancing. Even the priest, who was White. Everyone looked happy. But, it was neither the English Traditional Mass of my youth, nor the Traditional Latin Mass I visited in adult life. However, the translation of the New Mass was better than what we got when the New Mass was first introduced. I will give it that. My wife, from the Philippines, was used to a more conservative Novus Ordo Mass, but did not complain about the dancing as that Easter Sunday Mass.

@PapaJoe00001 Ай бұрын

I am thankful that in the small Lutheran Church I attend we kneel at the Altar rail to receive the sacrament. In my mind it helps to emphasize how sacred the moment is, to receive the God of all creation above, under, and within the Bread and Wine. (This is how we describe the sacrament, we don't believe in Transubstantiation, but we do believe that it is the real body and blood of Christ because our Lord says it is).