As we have talked much in class about the the church in reform, we see now that Vatican II was probably the most radical and necessary reform the Church has ever seen. It defined the church, described its mission in the world, reformed the liturgy, and explained how to interpret scriptures. Here are summaries of some of the major documents of the council.
LUMEN GENTIUM: THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH
The Church sought to define itself as the sign of unity with God on earth as established by Jesus Christ and carried on through tradition. It is the body of Christ the people united to Christ so intimately that they are the image Him on this earth. The Church is the hand and feet of Christ in whom Christ resides and through whom Christ works on this earth. Because of this identity in the love of Christ, they are called to holiness and love for all of humanity.
GAUDIUM ET SPES: THE CHURCH IN THE MODERN WORLD
Gaudium et Spes emphasize the dignity of every human person. It stresses the necessity for the Church to reach out to all of humanity and to proclaim Jesus Christ and the salvation he brings to the ends of the earth. Under the guidance of the Spirit, the Church is to be a witness to the truth. These themes allow Vatican II to open the door to all sorts of interreligious dialogue in hopes of reconciliation with all Christians and even all people. It hopes for and urges movement toward a united community of all humanity guided by the Spirit and rooted in a love for Jesus Christ. All of humanity is potentially the Church.
SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM: DIVINE LITURGY
Vatican II also made the Church more accessible and easily understandable for the everyday Catholic. The entire liturgy was retranslated so that masses could be said in the native languages of the people. This revolutionized and personalized the liturgical experience for Catholics.
DEI VERBUM: SCRIPTURE
As we read earlier this semester, the council explains how the Christian should read and interpret Scripture. We recall that it affirms scripture's nature as God's writing through the pens of men and that it calls for a particular reading of scripture in light of the context and intention of the author and the context of the Sacred tradition.
The Council also promulgated other documents concerning social media, ecumenism, the eastern rite of the Church, missionary activity, religious freedom, the ministry of priests, bishops, Christian education, educating priests, Jewish-Christian relations, and the role of the laity.
As you can see Vatican II clarified and defined the beliefs, traditions, identity, and purpose of the Catholic Church.
Why was Vatican II necessary?
How have the changes of Vatican II affected your own experience or opinion on the Church?
In light of the reform of Vatican II, how would you define reform? Clarification, revision, change, adjustment to circumstances?
Also, in light of Vatican II and our recent reform of the Roman Missal, (in the spirit of the Church is always in need of Reform) do you see places in the Church that are in need of reform? (i.e. women's involvement in the church, papal ruling, gay rights, abortion, contraception, education, social justice....)
How adequately do you feel Catholic Church councils respond to the changing of the times and how well do you think the public is informed in the matters of defending and refuting the Catholic Church?
Jackie and Amber
The Industrial Revolution really turned the world on its head. Such rapid change really was not heard of culturally or technologically. Things were moving so quickly and the world went so far in only 50 years (beginning in the 1820s or so). Then another 100 years passed. The world was so different in the 1960s from the 1820s. Unrecognizable really. Everyone was compensating, governments, universities, industries. Everyone but the Catholic Church who was still following many centuries old protocol. I do think that the Vatican II was completely necessary. The Church was like a shack, livable but not functional, in need of repair. The Vatican II reform repaired the house and made it comfortable, but I really think that it must continue to be vigorously reformed. The age we live in is moving even faster than the Industrial Revolution. The 1960s was only about 50 years ago, and already, our parents childhood seem alien to us! I believe the Church has the means and following to keep up with the times. Since the Vatican II, I do not feel that the Catholic Church councils respond to changing times very well at all, most reforms seem half spirited and it is hurting the Churches reputation.
ReplyDeleteChris what half spirited reforms do you speak of and what reforms within the CHurch are specifically needed?
DeleteI agree with what Chris said, especially about how the Catholic Church councils do not respond very well to the changing times because although the Church does get reformed it is often way later than it needs. For example, until 1965, after Vatican II, all Catholic mass was said in Latin. I don't know any people who understand Latin and speak it well but I do know a lot of people who went to Catholic mass before 1965. What I'm trying to say is that a lot of people, like my grandparents for instance, have been going to Catholic mass for their whole lives (since 1930s roughly) but they never spoke Latin. Learning Latin was much more common before my, or any of our grandparents, were even born but they still may have attended mass that was not said in English. That being said, I think this shows that the Catholic Church was a little behind in changing the mass to be in the vernacular. It was only 47 years ago that it was still said in Latin and that is longer than a couple of lifetimes for us, but in the grand scheme of things this really wasn't that long ago. We all know people who are alive today who were also alive when mass was still said in Latin and I don't know how anyone else feels about this, but it kind of makes me stop and think for a second on how contemporary the Catholic Church is. I appreciate the fact that it is traditional and in some ways I think that the traditions work, but in my personal opinion there are some things that the Church should consider changing that they haven't addressed still and it seems a bit silly for them to wait so long to attend to some obvious long-standing issues. How some of us feel about particular problems in the Catholic Church is possibly how our grandparents felt about mass being said in Latin when they were our age.
ReplyDeletethanks for sharing Lindsay, it is very true that our grandparents generation and those before were not offered the mass in the vernacular which can obviously be very frustrating and seemingly pointless for them.
DeleteGoing off of what Chris and Lindsay said, I do think that it is important for the Church to “keep up with the times” as far as adopting or eradicating practices when need be. However, these practices should only be altered if they are merely methods of worship that are outdated (e.g. saying the mass only in Latin) and not if they are important Catholic beliefs; rather, it is important that the Church stands firm in matters of theological and moral significance in the face of contemporary criticism. For instance, there are many people today, Catholic and non-Catholic, who condemn the Church's stance on the issue of abortion, but that does not mean that the Church should alter its position on this subject simply because with the changing times came a louder voice in favor of abortion.
ReplyDeletei agree, the Catholic Church takes pride in being in the world but not of the world. actually, when visiting the National Cathedral, the man we spoke to was very proud of the fact that they are a true reflection of society, if so then in what way are they upholding moral standards and speaking of truth for, as we all know, society does not always endorse and support the truth.
DeleteAlright, both Chris and Lindsay seem to believe that the Church needs to change in response to the changing times. However, both are vague and give no example of what aspect or in regards to what issue, the Church needs to change. I am interested to know specifically in regards to what they are talking about. I agree that the Church is always in need of reform--it is always growing. But the Church should not change simply because society has different views than it. The times are changing, that does not mean they are changing for the better. The same values, the same beliefs, the same answers to moral issues, that were true in the past are still true today. And the Church remaining firm on these issues is most certainly a good thing. Simply because society says something is acceptable does not make it so. The Church is right to defy and continue it's teaching on what is right. And in regards to tradition, that should certainly not be changed either. The rich tradition of the Church allows us not only to connect to the past but enables us to have a deeper and more beautiful experience. The beauty of Catholicism that is all too often missing in other religions is due, in large part, to it's tradition. The fact that the Church has remained so constant in it's teaching and traditions is a wonderful and comforting thing.
ReplyDeleteThey are not reforming to "fit in" with the times so much as they are reforming to "address" the current social world. Reforming does not imply that they threw Scripture and Tradition out the window. Reform is an active response to society, though it does imply a certain "reactiveness" of the Church, as opposed to a desired "proactiveness." That said, as Lindsay mentioned, the times were changing so rapidly that it was hard to predict the future. Vatican II laid groundwork that not only addressed the past and current situations, but also the future (as the word dogma implies; since it is not subject to change, it MUST encompass the future and all time!).
DeleteLumen Genitum and Gaudium et Spes were clearly both a response to WWII and the Holocaust, but also laid groundwork for future generations in order to prevent such a catastrophe from ever happening again. Sacrosanctum makes the previous two possible. Dei Verbum is a long-awaited response to Luther's complaints, as well as an addition to Sacrosanctum's main goal: to make the Church more accessible, and more easily understood. That's the main focus of the entire Reform of Vatican II: applying the consistency of Scripture and Tradition to the modern world, and explaining it as necessary so that the reasons behind it are better understood. The fact that the Church realizes that people are educated and not complete buffoons is rather liberating, rather than just being told "that's just the way it is" ....*starts singing "Changes"*
Just found this quote, which illustrates what I've been trying to say perfectly:
Delete"A good teacher adapts himself to what his pupils can understand" (Athanasius, "On the Incarnation")
GAUDIUM ET SPES - Introductory Statement: Thus, in language intelligible to each generation, she can respond to the perennial questions which men ask about this present life and the life to come, and about the relationship of one to the other.
DeleteI really like Dan's commentary; the Catholic Church is notorious for sticking to traditional beliefs and values, and because of this it gets thrown into a lot of heat amongst political/social debates in today's society. I think - although adaptability is great - that a firm tradition and consistency in values is what makes Catholicism so comforting and wonderful, as Dan has said. Therefore I don't see reform as adjustment according to the times, but rather as a means to clarify and correct, that these values and practices may be implemented and applicable to all circumstances and situations. Yes, change does allude to some acknowledgment of err, but the response was meant to correct once, not change again.
DeleteAs a lover of the old Tridentine Latin Mass, I'd have to agree with Dan. The question arises, how much should be changed? What are the reasons behind changing specific things? Are things being changed for the sake of change? It's important to remember that Truth never changes, so there must be something consistent within a Church that claims to have the Truth. Sometimes people claim that Vatican II was a break with the past; I, however, disagree. If we break with the past, we nullify it; if we nullify the past, we risk losing sight of the continuity that is so important in our Faith. Church teachings must never change, else we will begin claiming that the Church can err in matters of faith and morals. This goes for Catholic social teachings especially--just because society says gay marriage is acceptable and abortion should be allowed does not mean that these things should be adopted as acceptable by the Church. That said, of course the Church has to change its way of proclaiming the Faith. A major theme of the Second Vatican Council was re-evaluating how the Faith was lived out in the world, especially among the laity. The laypeople must consecrate the world to Christ. This goes into the New Evangelization. The Church must "re-propose the Gospel" to a world that thinks it knows what the Church is about.
ReplyDeletevery valid point Jason thanks for sharing. what you said reminded me of a quote by St. Joseph of Leonessa: "every christina is called to be a living book wherein one can read the gospel. " it is our duty and joy.
DeleteAmber - every christina... darn auto-correct!
DeleteA few things: first of all, the masses at my church back home were always in Latin. You'd be surprised at how similar it is to a mass in English, you get used to it very fast and I can't remember anyone having a huge problem with it. At the same time, it was a great idea to switch to the vernacular because it helped a lot of people understand the mass better. It's a slightly different mode of worship and there's something to be said for both, but really they are the same. This brings me to the point I want to make: the word "reform" is made up of "re" and "form", so you are re-forming someone that was already there. The thing has not changed in essence, only in the way it is shaped. When the church goes through radical changes it is not actually changing in essence, just pulling itself back to the true, pure form of the religion when it gets out of whack and, in the case of something like Vatican 2, applying its precepts to new situations and technologies. Sometimes the church is behind the times, and needs to address modern issues, but it does so by applying the same values it has always had to these new challenges, not by changing its values to fit the times.
ReplyDeleteI think that Lumen Gentium Chapter 5 defines how Vatican II has changed my experience in the Church. Each person can worship in the way that brings them closer to God. Although the Church is staunch in its dogma on what you should believe in your faith, it allows all to search for a closer faith in God. And the coolest part is that we are all continuously developing that faith. There is no one achievement like a medal that you get for having a strong faith. One is expected to continuously grow and unite with the church to grow closer with God. This doctrine goes further in depth, but I find myself having a great connection with what is said in Chapter 5. I love my faith and The Church!
ReplyDeleteVatican II was and is still so important because it made so many changes to engage the people of God. The liturgical changes, specifically, the change to the vernacular and the use of laity as ministers (laity as ministers of the word as lectors and extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion) got people involved in understanding their faith. Vatican II shifted some power from the Priest and the laity, which is important because the laity are important evangelists of God's word. Going forward, the laity will become more involved in the Catholic Church as a whole. For example, in parishes, lay men and women help plan liturgies and teach the faith to both children and adults. The Church is also looking for them to run the Universities (CUA and Seton Hall University have recently named lay men as Presidents of their University. Previously, Priests have been President for decades). The Church will depend on the laity more and more in the future and Vatican II calls and empowers the laity to be involved in their faith and in the church.
ReplyDeleteI want to echo Andrew and also comment on how Vatican II empowered laypeople in the Church. I think the fact that laypeople are so involved now is absolutely wonderful. Additionally, I also like how, in Gaudium et Spes specifically, Vatican II calls upon all people to use their faith in their everyday lives and carry on the mission of the Church even though they are not ordained religious people. As far as reform in the Church is concerned, I agree that the Church is always in need of reform. The recent new translation of the mass is an example of what the Church has done to reform itself. However, I do not think that the Church's responsibility is to keep up with the times. I highly agree with Dan in that just because society likes something doesn't mean it is good. I'm currently reading a fantastic book called "Confessions of a Mega Church Pastor" by Allen Hunt, a former pastor at a large Methodist church. Hunt talks a lot about how, as a Methodist pastor, he honestly had know idea what Methodists even believed about certain things. One thing about the Catholic Church to which he was drawn was the fact that the Catholic Church is steadfast in her beliefs and also very stable. He was struck by how he could go to a variety of different Catholic Churches, and the services would be roughly the same. Stability and steadfastness are what make the Catholic Church what it is. If the Church decided to fluctuate as much as society does, then the Church would simply not be as strong and holy as it is today.
ReplyDeleteI like what you had to say, Lauren. It reminded me of a certain religious organization, which will remain nameless, which used to support polygamy. However, the United States government outlawed polygamy, and conveniently this organization was "inspired" to change its teaching on polygamy and decided to adopt the government's position. It makes me happy that the Catholic Church remains constant in its teaching. For instance when the government says that people are obligated to pay for things that the Church says are wrong, the Church remains true to its teaching and does not change its morals because the government says that she should.
DeleteTo go off of Lauren's point about the Church keeping up with society, I too agree that the role of the Church is not to keep up with society. In fact that has never been her role (i.e. Jesus's treatment of women was radical.) The Church's role is to stand up for and defends universal truths, these truths that have ben revealed to us through Christ. Truth is timeless, it is not of time or in time. Therefore the Chruch seeks to be the bearer of truth no matter what society "thinks" is right. After all, ideas and culture in society often change (Ex. slavery in America was considered okay at one time) but the Church's stance has been solid for 2,000 years (that doens't mean she has always abided by those truths, but she saw them for what they were.)
ReplyDeleteVatican II was so important not because it kept the Church "up to date" (many would argue she is still outdated), but because it reasserted these Truths that became muddled.
• This discussion about reform has made me think of the new translation that was implemented last Advent. I know that I have heard many different opinions about these changes. I personally think that the new translation of the Roman Missal is a great reform in the Church. The new phrases made me think about the responses and allow for a greater connection with the liturgy. Instead of the responses just being rote and familiar, I actually have to think about what I am saying and the meaning the words. And at the same time, these reforms bring greater unity to the Church. Because the liturgy has been translated differently, the text is uniform no matter what language it is translated to. It shows that our Church really is a universal institution. Vatican II also resulted in reforms that enriched the Church, leading to greater unity and cohesion among the members. I agree with what has been previously said about reform in the Church, however. Something that I love about the Church is its consistency and firmness in the face of opposition. In times of trouble or confusion, I know that I can look to the Church. And I know that the reforms that the Church implements result from much deliberation and discussion among knowledgeable leaders.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteVatican II is a great example of how the Church is remaining true to the truth and values, while also making the faith accessible to modern man. This is a symbol of the Church's openness to the modern world and helped the Church to be more realistic and reasonable. Vatican II was so necessary because it helped clarify and promote the purpose of the Catholic Church. Vatican II was also helpful because it changed the mass into the vernacular and it allowed people to be on a more personal level with the Church. Furthermore, it is important for the Church because it has engaged and encouraged many people to read the Bible for themselves, outside of the mass.
ReplyDeleteI'm really liking what Jason has to say on the matter. The truth doesn't change! This reminds me of what Aristotle says about prudence, or practical wisdom. Prudence is knowing the universal and applying it to the particular. For example, if you know that jumping out of a third story window is dangerous, but you're trapped on the third story of a building on fire, you may decide to jump, knowing that being caught in the building would be more hazardous than jumping out. You sacrifice a few possibly broken bones for your health. Terrible example, I know...
ReplyDeleteAnyway, the church kept the mass in Latin for so long because the mass was originally written in Latin, not long after Christ. So they wanted to retain the words with their original meaning and nuance in order that they would take on their most sacred meaning. Also, it was a great sign of unity in the universal church for everyone to say the same words. However, as time changed, more and more people entered the faith, many of whom did not speak romance languages (closely tied to Latin) and fewer people in general knew Latin (dead language). Therefore, they decided to sacrifice the closeness to the language of the early followers of christ and also the unifying element of a common language for the good of everyone understanding what is said in the mass.
Vatican II was called and lead to a call for universal happiness. This is very essential to note because it allows for all of humanity to take into heart how one should act within this earthly sphere while keeping in mind the christian ideals. Vatican II also illustrated the communal interest in promoting the well-being of the universal human race. What is also noted is that Vatican II was needed because during this the method of self contemplation and revelation were revealed as well as the contemporary means by which we can understand our spiritual connections within ourselves as well as with others in turn.
ReplyDeleteBecause we did not live through the first wave of changes in the mass, I feel that we can only understand this reform through a more historic perspective than personal one. Particularly when reading Gaudium et Spes, I realized how much of the theological beliefs I was taught growing up came from Vatican II. When my parents were teaching me about my faith, all of the ideas articulated through Vatican II had already become a part of Catholic culture.
ReplyDeleteI like what Hannah had to say concerning the implementation of the New Roman Missal this past Advent. The Church really is in need of constant reform, but at the same time it is built with truth, the Word, at its core. The new translation is an excellent example of how we continue to practically apply reform: always acknowledging the merits and essential truth of past teachings, but modifying them slightly as we obtain and refine our knowledge.
When I think about the New Roman Missal and how I struggled with the responses at first, it makes me think of how difficult it must have been for Catholics after Vatican II to adjust to an entirely new translation - the mass in the vernacular. While I sometimes complained about the little adjustments here and there (frankly, I miss the old Gloria), thinking about Vatican II really puts things into perspective! It may have been difficult at first to memorize the new changes, but imagine how difficult it must have been for Catholics after Vatican II! Yet, the Mass in the vernacular is now an integral part of the practice of Catholicism. Much good has come from this change, as I am sure many good changes will come from the New Roman Missal. The Church is in constant need of reform, as it is in constant search for the truth. The pursuit of the truth is the guiding light in reformation.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lauren that the truth does not change, so "keeping up with society" is not a central goal of the Church. The truth is constant, only our understanding and interpretations of it change. It is these changes that affect our Church, not changes in the truth itself.
I have to agree with Lauren and Gina that the Church isn't meant to keep up with society, yet must adapt to changing time to have the furthest reach. That the Church is always in need of reform is an absolute truth, and not just in the sense that there's now a new translation every once and a while. The church has gone through major changes before to reconsider society and the people who fill it. For instance, the church has revised its position on slavery and african americans greatly since Puritan times, no longer are african american people the social pariahs they once were. Just as I think the church will have to deal with the homosexual community today. Not to make this an argument about rights in the church for same-sex couples, but homosexual people are part of todays society whether the church condones them or not and sooner than later the church is going to have to find a way to adapt to the changing society.
ReplyDeleteHowever this isn't to subtract from the importance the church has with maintaing order amongst it's different parishes. As was mentioned the church is in search of universal happiness, and they must be concerned with the world in it's entirety. Thus the importance of vatican councils becomes apparent- the Church must be able to change, but also maintain order.
I think that Vatican II was necessary because it helped to clarify what problems in the world were at the forefront in the Catholic Church's mind and how they could respond to those problems. Things like the economic situations, atheism, Civil Rights, and especially all of the violence of the time needed to be addressed. I think that the reforms implemented through Vatican II, having to do with the mass etc., were good because not many people understood what was going on, especially because of the fact that everything was in Latin. Making the masses to be celebrated in the vernacular was a smart move in my opinion, although it should still be optional to celebrate the Latin mass (which some parishes still do).
ReplyDeleteAs previously stated by others, the Church is always in need of reform, however, it still has dogmas and beliefs that must be upheld and should never be changed. Yes, some reforms have to do with the changes in the modern world, however, I don't think that the Church should change it's policy about things like abortion and gay marriage because those decisions are founded on ancient church tradition and dogma. Vatican II was also important because of that fact. Like Philip said before me, the Church is subject to change and councils are the methods used for this change. However, the reason those councils do not tend to happen often is because it must remain constant in the most important of it's doctrines. Plus, if it implemented all the changes that it's followers want, it would no longer be recognized as the Catholic Church. Also, they just don't have time to address many of the controversial issues because some of the councils and doctrines formed in the past are still being examined today, in their meaning and content. The Church changes and reforms, but that change is not solely based upon the changing beliefs of society, but mostly for the benefit of believers. The church cares more for the faithful than the ingenuity of the outside world.
Vatican II was necessary in that the Church distanced itself from the believer. The believer needed a vernacular mass. The believer also needed solace now that he or she had to confront birth control, globalization, nuclear weaponry, feminism, and the homosexual rights movement. I feel that a Vatican III needs to occur to address the issues of the 21st century. The way the Church treats women is simply medieval. If women are supposed vessels of life and champions of nurturing compassion, what should stop them from ministering to God's people like a male priest can? Along this line of thinking, why does the Church still ban premarital sex? This sort of behavior isn't newfangled, it is a stage of development for young people. I do not underscore the importance of marriage, but doesn't the firm, loving disposition of an unmarried couple amount to anything? Why is the pope infallible? Didn't popes of old call crusades and engage in debauchery? The reform of the Church should have the entirety of the world in mind, for those are God's people. People still label Catholics as people who shove their beliefs down the throats of others. We as Catholics should understand that upstanding faith is not the right to judgment and that Christ would have taken in those that we condemn.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Andrew and Lauren are saying. Vatican II changed the Church from an "exclusive" thing that only a select few could relate to to something more approachable. I think the change to the vernacular, as well as the other changes, really helped the Church ease into the new century. I agree that the Church is always in need of reform and that such changes are necessary for the Church to stay relevant.
ReplyDelete