The following appeared on the Church Militant site (a great site for Catholics)-- my comments appear in red:
Did the Second Vatican Council Change the Mass?
Examining the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy and the average
mass today
In a
previous article on the Second Vatican Council, it was asserted that the
council did not change the Faith. Some responded by saying that the Second Vatican
Council changed the Mass, and as a result, changed the Faith. But is that true?
(If it is,
it did, under lex orandi lex oredendi)
The
Second Vatican Council began to reform the Roman Rite through its first
constitution, known as Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Constitution on the Sacred
Liturgy. The reforms taken by the Council were modest and explicitly
intended to keep the substance of the Mass the same, only changing some of the
elements that were not divinely instituted:
For the
liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and of elements
subject to change. These not only may but ought to be changed with the passage
of time if they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony
with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become unsuited to it.
The Council sought to guard against extreme novelty
by prohibiting priests from changing the liturgy. "Therefore no other
person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the
liturgy on his own authority."
It
requested that the revisions made to the liturgy would maintain "sound
tradition": "That sound tradition may be retained, and yet the way
remain open to legitimate progress careful investigation is always to be made
into each part of the liturgy which is to be revised."
It also
put further restrictions on legitimate progress by stating, "Finally,
there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and
certainly requires them."
The
Council cautioned against the laity performing functions not proper to their
role, and the same for priests. "In liturgical celebrations each person,
minister or layman, who has an office to perform, should do all of, but only,
those parts which pertain to his office by the nature of the rite and the principles
of liturgy."
It also
wished to preserve Latin in the Mass. "Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be
preserved in the Latin rites." (bolded mine)
It even
gave Gregorian chant the highest position of honor in the liturgy. "The Church acknowledges Gregorian
chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being
equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services." (bolded
mine)
The reforms of the
liturgy requested by the Second Vatican Council were implemented faithfully in
the revision of the Mass made in 1965. This liturgy was almost very much like
the liturgy before the Second Vatican Council, with only a few changes. Pope
Paul VI claimed this edition of the Roman Missal was the faithful
implementation of the Second Vatican Council: "The singular characteristic
and primary importance of this new edition [the 1965 edition of the Mass] is
that it reflects completely the intent of the council's Consitution on
the Sacred Liturgy" (Klaus Gamber, Reform of the Roman Liturgy, 33).
Though the 1965 Roman
Missal was a faithful and complete fulfillment of what the Council requested, Pope Paul VI allowed for a further refom of
the Mass by Abp. Annibale Bugnini and his Consilium, which went way beyond, and
perhaps at times against, the instructions laid out by the Second Vatican
Council. The
result was the 1969 edition of the Roman Missal, the edition used today (though
this edition has been revised several times). It was this edition that made the
many changes we see between it and the Mass prior to the Second Vatican
Council. But even the current edition didn't change the direction the people
face during Mass, nor did it require Communion in the hand and the overuse of
Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.
What
was requested by the Second Vatican Council is not what we see in the average
parish today. In fact, we are twice removed from what they requested, as
the 1969 edition of the Roman Missal that Novus Ordo parishes use
today is not a faithful implementation of the reforms of the Second Vatican
Council, and much of what we see in the average Novus Ordo parish isn't even
faithful to the 1969 edition of the Roman Missal. For this reason, the Second
Vatican Council itself cannot be faulted for the liturgy we often see in the
average Novus Ordo parish today.
As outlined in my book, this
development resulted from the failure of those bishops who, perhaps because
they felt intimidated by the liturgical “experts,” allowed them to propagate
teachings at odds with Sacrosanctum
Concilium. In effect, the bishops allowed the imposition of newfangled
liturgical “reforms” on their flocks, resulting in a liturgy which has proven
“spiritually destabilizing” in many cases. The question which continues to
puzzle is, why such poor shepherding? If the maxim lex orendi, lex credendi is true, and it is, then the lack of
resemblance between what the Church teaches concerning the Holy Sacrifice of
the Mass and the reality of what is taking place in its celebration in parishes
in the United States today warrants that we come to understand those
developments in the Liturgical Movement under the influence of modernist
thinking, and their impact on the Church. This is one
reason I penned Smoke.
