You keep repeating that, but not explaining WHY people of little faith can’t have proper liturgical music?
A good music minster is one who has a deeper level of faith.
They’re not there to entertain, but to lead the congregation in worship.
A person with little faith will choose music that is not in accord with the readings and such.
I actually like the Gregorian Chants more than the contemporary songs that play during the mass.
I don’t like labels (traditional, neoconservative?, liberal) except for the label of “Catholic.”
Our church is a big ship, room enough for all, rubbing off our rough edges on each other, journeying together to the same destination. I really hope no one here actually rejects the second Vatican Council.
The trouble with labels is that they invite broad generalizations. Some forum topics invite labelling, where you will soon see people supposedly united by a common faith, nevertheless quickly divide up on opposing sides.
I would invite migration to What is Vatican II and why?
If the Holy Spirit guided our recent popes to call a Council, we would do well to immerse ourselves in the why, where & how.
When people complain about the “post concilliar Church” they usually mean they don’t like the way people used the council to push a secular agenda. I sat through a lot of sermons, read a lot of Catholic newspapers, which were essentially copy-and-paste from the secular media; and if you disagreed with their opinion, you were “against Vatican II”.
Much of the good stuff that was written in the documents reflects what was more or less partly underway before Vatican II. Laity were extremely active in bringing Christian ideals to secular society, more active than they are now.
Religious orders were already seeking renewal, Catholic educators and media people were adapting to changing society. There were some new ideas, such as more emphasis on Scripture, which most traditional Catholics would not object to, along with some new developments.
Some people inaccurately applaud the Council for having invented the wheel and everything good, while others denounce it as a pact with Modernism. Both are wrong. Unfortunately the Council Fathers never foresaw the massive wave of secularism driven by a combination of government, media, and education. They also never predicted the assault on Catholic doctrine, both from secular society and from parts of the Church itself. The council is not to blame for either the secular assault, or for those in the Church who exploited the open windows for their private agenda.
St. JP II and Pope Benedict had to do a lot of foundation rebuilding, which was necessary to preserve the actual Vatican II, and meet the unexpected challenges and underminers.
Very well written. Having lived through the period, the transitions occurring in society and in the Church were not that keenly felt until it was a bit late for some. We loved our priests and nuns. There were more intact families. We were more trusting of experts and the government. As the assault continued inside and outside the Church, I was keenly aware of it and at a loss, at first, to understand why it was happening. As the years passed, various changes, which are being added to today, kept fragmenting what was going on outside and inside the Church. The most memorable people that helped to right the Church during all this were Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict. I believe Pope Francis is doing the best he can under the present circumstances. But back to the subject.
Twice, before he stepped down as Pope, Pope Benedict made it very clear that the people saw the Council through the media’s version of what happened and not that of the Council Fathers. And regarding Traditional Catholics, it was common to have a family Bible which also had pages to record births and deaths.
I don’t reject Vat2, but I believe how it was implemented has caused great damage to the faith.
Could you give a few examples of what you mean?
I am uncomfortable with the notion of qualifying one’s Catholicism at all beyond distinctions the Church herself makes. What is the significant implication of “trad” or “progressive” that warrants equal billing alongside “Catholic”? Why is it a distinction that one would feel it is important to make?
No, I do not reject Vatican II.
There are whole books written about Vat2.
My point was to publish the opening speech by Pope John XXIII so that people would not have to read entire books. I think reading the original words, unfiltered, is the best starting point.
I don’t like what happened afterwards (poor catechesis, mass removal of altar rails), but I’m not sure they’re directly related.
I don’t get what the big deal about II is that upsets people.
Those fortunate to hear a schola of Allegri’s - Miserere mei, Deus especially during Holy Week is blessed. If they can find someone that can sing High C, it is truly heavenly. Indeed bring back the old Casavant organs, or get them retuned. This 10 year old was put to silence whenever latin was sung and I didn’t know the words except the responsorial parts. Our missals were latin/english though.
Vatican II was fine. But, others, to spread confusion and to cover their taking away of things that were in Churches, like statues, communion rails, etc., and knowing that would upset people, would write: “Vatican II made us do it!” Which was and is a lie. Vatican II did not even suggest any of the above. But I’ve seen that claim that Vatican II did it posted here on more than one occasion.
Imagine walking into Church and seeing things that were there for years missing. It’s one thing if a thief breaks into your home and takes things, but robbing the House of God? And poor catechesis is another thing. Dissidents inside Catholic schools began to deviate from Catholic teaching. One prominent dissident of the time had his authority to teach revoked by Pope John Paul II.
Why would he be forced to resign?
They say that a cabaal of liberal cardinals forced him out because he was too comservative for them.
It was for different reasons.