I heard bishop voted for Vatican II liturgy document understanding nothing was to change concerning ordinary?


#1

I need some help! I have a friend who is extraordinarily well read in all aspects Church teaching in history. Seriously! This guy knows his stuff, but he has gone away to seminary and I don't have him at disposal to answer questions. In a discussion we had recently he made mention that while at the Vatican II Council, bishops had an understanding or there was a statement made that many voted for Sacrosanctum concilium with the understanding that no major or dramatic change was to occur within the ordinary of the litrugy. If this is true this truly disturbs me regarding the outcome of the liturgical renovations after V2. Can anyone enlighten me whether this is true or nopt and where I could go to read about this particular issue. Thank you!


#2

I’m posting to become subscribed to this thread also so that I have something to quote others.

But yes, free-standing altars, removal of altar rails, Mass facing the people, standing for Communion and Communion in the hand were never called for. The latter two things were only permitted after widespread abuse in Belgium & Holland and was never intended to have gotten the way it is now.


#3

He's mostly correct, according to my understanding. Even Latin was meant to be retained in large part.


#4

Liturgical study began late in the 19th century, and was one of the elements that brought about the call of Vat II. Any bishop who believed there would be no major changes must have had his head buried in the sand. Most Christian denominations were in on that study, and most reformed their styles of worship in that period. There was no sleight-of hand ot trickery. This was a major move of Christianity in the mid-to-late 20th century, most certainly well supported by scholarship, including the coming of age of Biblical Archaeology. Nostalgia seems to be the driving motive for un-doing those reforms.


#5

Sacrosannctum Concilium, Consitution on the Sacred Liturgy was promulgated in 1963. I included the link just for the information of members who may not be familiar. We should keep in mind that things that are not required or disallowed are optional and at the discretion of the Bishops. Some things are at the discretion of the Pastor, which does not change the Liturgy.


#6

How anyone who knew how the Mass had developed until Trent could read the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, particularly #21 & #34, and think there would be few to no changes is beyond me.

OTOH, no reading of the CSL could have ever prepared anyone for the wanton destruction of church interiors that we witnessed after Vat. II. It's not sentimentality that makes me sad to recall what my village church looked like before and see what it looks like now. My sadness stems from the sledgehammers taken to works of beauty that could have been preserved rather than broken to pieces and trucked to the dump. Nothing would have prevented the building of a new altar in front of the high altar, there was enough space.

And certainly, just reading the CSL would never make anyone believe that Latin could be totally abandoned in most parishes in favour of the vernacular, particularly when the CSL calls for everyone to be taught the Ordinary of the Mass in Latin (& Greek).


#7

Phemie,
I agree that there was no excuse for the wanton destruction of our churches’ architectural beauty. Perhaps you are of an age sufficient to recall what I call the “Burlap Period” of liturgy. What were we thinking?


#8

[quote="RevDon, post:7, topic:312620"]
Phemie,
I agree that there was no excuse for the wanton destruction of our churches' architectural beauty. Perhaps you are of an age sufficient to recall what I call the "Burlap Period" of liturgy. What were we thinking?

[/quote]

Oh, yes, I recall that period. Unfortunately it's one that not all parishes have outgrown. I know that left to their own devices those who work with children in our parish would have our church filled with those again - must be their own nostalgia for bad folk art.


#9

Here is a document that often gets overlooked. This may help to shed some light on the subject.


#10

[quote="POJIUJH, post:2, topic:312620"]
I'm posting to become subscribed to this thread also so that I have something to quote others.

But yes, free-standing altars, removal of altar rails, Mass facing the people, standing for Communion and Communion in the hand were never called for. The latter two things were only permitted after widespread abuse in Belgium & Holland and was never intended to have gotten the way it is now.

[/quote]

[quote="Oneofthewomen, post:9, topic:312620"]
Here is a document that often gets overlooked. This may help to shed some light on the subject.

[/quote]

The link is to:
Inter oecumenici
Instruction on implementing liturgical norms
Consilium (of Sacred Congregation of Rites) - September 26, 1964

II. MAIN ALTAR

  1. The main altar should preferably be freestanding, to permit walking around it and celebration facing the people. Its location in the place of worship should be truly central so that the attention of the whole congregation naturally focuses there.

I guess the free-standing Altar and celebration facing the people were called for.


#11

For researching this issue, I recommend: The History of Vatican II, Vol. 2: The Formation of the Council's Identity, First Period and Intersession, October 1962-September 1963, edited by Giuseppe Alberigo, Joseph A. Komonchak (see here).

In particular, Chapter 3, pages 107-166, The Liturgy Debate, by Mathijs Lamberigts goes into exhaustive detail. In skimming that chapter, the closest I can find is some concern about paragraphs 37-40 of the Sacrosanctum Concilium, "Norms for adapting the Liturgy to the culture and traditions of peoples", which address variations between differences between local celebrations of the liturgy, and not changes from the prior liturgy.


#12

I would also suggest reading the late, great Prof. Lazlo Dobszay's tract "The Bugnini Liturgy:and the Reform of the Reform" to get a detail chronology and exegesis of where subtle and not so subtle left turns were taken in the story.


closed #13

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