Here’s to you and Berkley!

Thanks for your comment. I am sorry we got off on the wrong foot. Born in the waning months of the Council, I must be ahead of you in age somewhat. But, I lived through more wackiness by far than the average victim. I am glad that the Extraordinary Form is available, but I have yet to experience one in person. It is a real landmark for the Church which I hope will have its effects on the way we celebrate the reformed liturgy. Nothing would please me more than to experience the reformed liturgy with the spirit of the ages.

I completely agree with your final two paragraphs. And, as part of a return to the ancient spirit of the liturgy, it is important that Catholics learn what actually happened in the liturgical reforms and why. And, that is what I am trying to do in these posts.

An Anglican once told me that for Catholics liturgy is a blood sport. You and I have demonstrated this in a mild way. That we argue about liturgy isn’t our best foot forward, but it does me we care passionately for the Lord and our worship of him. And that is all good.

Too often in presentations on the Liturgy, the suggestion is made (however slight) that the changes that took place after the Council were somehow linked, inspired or mandated by the venerable Council. We are told that everything changed in order to facilitate the “full, active participation” of the faithful. We even have missals that claim to be “Vatican 2.”

As you know, the changes after the Council made to the Ordinary Use were contrary to the decree of the Council. These changes were made by committees of liturgists over time. A casual reading of Sacrosanctum concilium would be enough to demonstrate the clear inadequacies and inner contradictions of the Ordinary Use. Even the term “active participation” is incorrect as the Council called for “actual participation.”

I was born after the Council. I grew up going to parochial schools with well meaning nuns who taught us to sing “hymns” at Mass from Broadway classics like, “Jesus Christ Superstar.” I remember reading the documents of the Council in college. I remember asking myself, “where is this Mass?”

I know that most priests are trained to be experts in Liturgical Silliness. I know. I’ve taken these courses alongside of them. Some seminaries go further to train these good men in Liturgical Stupidity that has nothing to do with Vatican II or our Roman tradition. These good men go into their parishes and continue to pass on the Liturgical Crimes and Misdemeanors dreamed up after the Council. (I’m sure that you are not one of them.)

We have ugly churches, ugly Masses, ugly music and homilies about nothing and we wonder why people run out before Mass is even over. :)

I’m not an apologist for the Extraordinary Form. I simply wish that Roman Catholics could experience what Vatican 2 actually called for. :)

You are right, there is a conflict between the documents of SVC and the acts of the Concilium. It is a good point. But this point does not contradict anything I have written. I simply have not written about either. I have written about changes in the liturgy without reference to their origin at all. This is intentional as it is a complicated subject deserving its own post.

I am not interested in any particular point of view, progressive, traditional or otherwise. I am sorry that you feel you have pegged me somehow. I have no intention of discussing my opinions, but to discuss the actual acts and teachings of the Church.

Frankly, I find discussion of liturgy or Church teaching from a political point of view tiring and dull. I could not care less about it. I am happy to say that I am not a victim of anyone’s training per se, and have tried consciously to reject all ideologies from my thinking which in my experience stifle real thought rather than promote it.

As for the alteration of the priest’s role in the mass in relation to the people, I believe this is also true in the Latin, though intensified perhaps by the ICEL translation.

I will have to do some work with the Latin on this.

The fact that changes did indeed take place is, of course, demonstrable by walking into any parish. My point was that these changes were made contrary to the express decree and spirit of the Council.

I also agree with you that there was an alteration in emphasis regarding the role of the priest in the liturgical texts. However, this change was contrary to the Council and present only in the English translation of the liturgy. Because the English was fashioned as a “dynamic equivalent” to the Latin texts, the English liturgy bears little resemblance to its Latin parent.

Regarding “active participation,” note that the council called for actual rather than active participation. I think I agree with you regarding the rubric of quiet during Low Mass. Missa Cantata and the Dialog Masses prior to the council did anticipate our modern rubric.

BTW, my graduate courses in Liturgy were at least as progressive as yours. I’ll wager far beyond yours.

I appreciate your points about the Council not making the changes. But, I did not say that the Council called for the changes. I said they took place “following the Second Vatican Council.” I plan to write more posts on this subject, one of which will be the difference between SVC and the Concilium, which were two very different things. Still, the vernacular WAS used prior to the Council for the readings.

I will be glad to do a post giving a textual analysis supporting the thesis that the reforms altered the role of the priest in the liturgical texts. That is very easily demonstrated. But, you are correct, those changes had nothing to do with the SVC and one will not find justification for them in its documents.

I did not say that a priest saying a prayer quietly robs the laity of their participation. However, if you are willing to look into this further, you will see that prior to the 1950’s it was common for the priest to say the entire canon quietly, or at least not in an easily audible voice. The responses were offered not by the people but by deacons or altar servers.

I agree with you that our priests should be more informed about the various documents on the liturgy and everything else. But, I did not refer to the SVC as the origin of the changes. Perhaps you could do a bit more research into the actual process that brought about the changes between 1950 and 1970.

The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy actually called on Latin to be preserved in the Latin rites (36).

The use of the vernacular was to be restricted to “readings, directives and in some prayers and chants (ibid).”

Further, the Council called that “care must be taken to ensure that the faithful may also be able to say or sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them (54).”

The Council also decreed that “the Latin language is to be retained by clerics in the divine office (101).”

Vatican II also decreed that Gregorian Chant be given “pride of place in liturgical services (116).”

Have these directives of the Council been implemented? Sadly, no.

The rubrics of the Ordinary Use of the Roman Rite assume that the celebrant is facing the same direction as the congregation rather than facing the congregation. The celebrant is continually directed by the rubrics to “turn and face the congregation.”

Vatican II did not authorize the abolishment of the altar rail. In fact the Instruction on the Manner of Distributing Holy Communion (Memoriale Domini) says explicitly, “the Holy Father has decided NOT to change the existing way of administering holy communion to the faithful.”

The claim that the council decided to “de-emphasize” the uniqueness of the priest is simply rubbish on its face and has nothing to do with any document of the Council.

There are many prayers in the Ordinary Use of the Roman Ritual that are said in a quiet voice. The General Instruction in fact states that all of the prayers of Preparation of the Gifts should be said quietly. It is silly to assert that when the priest prays quietly that somehow the laity who assist are locked out of active participation.

The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy states “we beg the Lord in the Sacrifice of the Mass that receiving the offering of the Spiritual Victim he may fashion us for himself as an eternal gift (12).” I’m missing where the Council called on the sacrificial language to be “partially reduced.”

Our priests should be more familiar with what Vatican II actually called for rather than the latest fashionable liturgical trends.