Do the documents of Vatican II say


There has always been change and reform in the Church, right since its foundation. The Mass of Paul VI was simply another part of the continuity of reform that has always existed in the Church. A change to the Liturgy does not represent a change in doctrine.


Ah; so how do you account for those years between about the 12th century and the beginning of the 20th century, where there were only extremely minor changes to the Office and order of Mass?

Saying there’s “always been change” is moving the goalpost.


The 1970 Mass was promulgated in Latin, with allowance for approved translations. AFAIK, any changes to the Mass, such as addition of St. Joseph in the EP, are usually done to the Latin first, and that includes the IGMR. Translations into several hundred vernaculars, as you might guess, is an extremely delicate and sometimes overwhelming task. Definitely mutable.I understand some vernaculars still have the “for all” language in the consecration, even though the Latin consecration has not changed, save for maybe moving the mysterium fidei in 1970.


That’s correct. The Mass IS still in Latin today. Any (licit) priest is allowed to celebrate the OF entirely in Latin at any time, no permission required from anybody. The only vernacular parts allowed are translated directly from the Latin.


It was changed to the vernacular, not everybody’s vernacular was/is English.

One could almost look at it and being reminded of the first Pentecost, spoken of in the bible, when everyone heard what was said in their own language.

Some people do look at Vatican II as a “breath of fresh air” where the “laity” became part of, rather than observers of, the Mass.


I agree, Brendan.

Anything not revealed or instituted by Christ can be changed or modified by proper church authority.

This why I accept the Mass said in English. Oh, sure I liked the “old Mass” in Latin. I thought it set us Catholics apart. One could go to any country and participate at Mass and not face a language barrier. As a kid, I thought it was pretty cool for Catholics to have our own “secret” language.

But things change.

I wonder, was it worth the change? The main purpose of Vatican II was not to “update” the liturgy and I don’t remember hoards of Catholics leaving the Church because Mass was not said in the vernacular.


That’s all true, Pro, but I am still wondering who or what had the authority to nullify the Apostolic Constitution, *Veterum Sapientia * by Pope John XXIII.


Maybe just as importantly, who has/had the authority to disregard Jubilate Deo?

Pope Paul VI gave permission for the selections in Jubilate Deo to be freely reprinted. The booklet was accompanied by a letter in which the Holy Father made this request of the bishops:

“Would you therefore, in collaboration with the competent diocesan and national agencies for the liturgy, sacred music and catechetics, decide on the best ways of teaching the faithful the Latin chants of Jubilate Deo and of having them sing them…. You will thus be performing a new service for the Church in the domain of liturgical renewal” (Voluntati Obsequens).

Jubilate Deo contains simple chant settings in Latin of the parts of the Ordinary of the Mass: Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Memorial Acclamation, Agnus Dei. It also provides musical settings for the dialogues between priest and people, such as before the Preface, and the Ite Missa est, the response to the Prayer of the Faithful, and others.

An, expanded edition of Jubilate Deo was later issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1987.


It’s quite simple. Paul VI had the authority to disregard John’s decree, and the local ordinaries worldwide had the authority to disregard Jubilate Deo.

Just as they continue to disregard the musical provisions of Church documents promulgated for the whole Roman Rite, that is their perogative as liturgical authority for their particular Churches.

I think it is more accurate to understand the ordinaries as the ones caught in the middle, between the parish priests and Rome. Rome says one thing, and the priests do another. Ordinaries are unwilling to correct their priests and so these practices contrary to Rome’s wishes become entrenched. Eventually some of those priests become bishops and the cycle of disregard reinforces itself.


I think you can include the publishers too, who see the opportunity to sell translations, music, and printed material. No money to be made if Jubilate Deo becomes universally used.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit