"Irreversible reform" and "Local Liturgical Translations" ~ A Quick Review of Sacrosanctum Concilium

Click here to share on FaceBook.

Recently, the Holy Father has made pronouncements regarding the liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council, as well as who the proper governing bodies are when it comes to the translation of liturgical texts.

It's pointless for us moderns to discuss these issues without first looking more carefully at what "liturgical reforms" were actually called for by the Second Vatican Council. For the record, here's what Sacrosanctum Concilium, the primary document from Vatican II regarding the liturgy, had to say on certain key points. First, here are the stated goals of the document:

This sacred Council has several aims in view: it desires to impart an ever increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful; to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change; to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church. [SC, 1]

Keep these goals in mind as you read further. In the document's introduction, it is also stated clearly that:

...in faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that holy Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way. The Council also desires that, where necessary, the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition. [SC, 4]

As regards the language of the liturgy, SC says the following:

Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites. [SC, 36.1]

With reference to the use of the vernacular, SC says:

...since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters. [SC, 36.2]

Did you notice that? Use of the vernacular "may be extended." Nowhere does it say Latin must be abolished or that the vernacular should be mandated. Later, the instruction is reiterated, showing more clearly which parts of the Mass were to allow vernacular usage, and which parts should be retained in Latin:

In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and "the common prayer," but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to the norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution. Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them. [SC, 54]

Regarding sacred music, SC uses some surprisingly superlative terminology:

The musical tradition of the universal Church is a treasure of inestimable value, greater even than that of any other art. The main reason for this pre-eminence is that, as sacred song united to the words, it forms a necessary or integral part of the solemn liturgy. [SC, 112]

Given this, the document goes on to say:

The treasure of sacred music is to be preserved and fostered with great care. [SC, 114]

As if that were not clear enough, SC is even more specific about what types of music are to be preferred:

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. But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action... [SC, 116]

Has this been faithfully followed in most dioceses and parishes? Outside of an Extraordinary Form Mass, have you ever heard Gregorian chant or polyphony used? How often? Think about what we hear in most parishes on a weekly basis. Is this anything close to what is intended by SC?

With reference works of art to be used in the liturgical setting, SC exhorts as follows:

Let bishops carefully remove from the house of God and from other sacred places those works of artists which are repugnant to faith, morals, and Christian piety, and which offend true religious sense either by depraved forms or by lack of artistic worth, mediocrity and pretense. [SC, 124]

Having visited numerous parishes around the US during my travels, I can say that "depraved forms" lacking in artistic worth may be found in many if not most Catholic churches and basilicas. Closely following this, SC warns that:

Ordinaries must be very careful to see that sacred furnishings and works of value are not disposed of or dispersed. [SC, 126]

All one need do is visit an antique or thrift shop and you find countless examples of pre-Vatican II sacred furnishings that were disposed of and dispersed.

I would encourage you to read the entire document which is quite revelatory about what the Council intended to happen, versus what actually did happen. For even more on this topic, see Fr. Fessio's essay entitled, The Mass of Vatican II.

Now, based on the above excerpts, ask yourself a few questions:

1. Have our bishops faithfully followed these instructions over the past fifty years?
2. Have the liturgical reforms successfully imparted "an ever increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful"?
3. Have the reforms fostered "whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ"?
4. Have the reforms helped to "call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church"?
5. What have been the fruits of the efforts at liturgical reform over the same period? In other words, where do you see the growth, dynamism, and green shoots in the Church today? Where are things decaying, dying and crumbling into dust?

Given the lack of fruit and, let's face it, bad fruit produced by the Church in America over the past 50 years, isn't it time for our leaders to humbly admit their abject failure to live up to the high expectations laid out in Sacrosanctam Consiliam? Isn't it time for them to admit that the places where the traditional liturgy, art, and music are used most avidly, the Faith is alive and well, while in places where traditional practices are actively spurned, the Faith is in free-fall?

Finally, isn't it time for our bishops to apologize most sincerely to younger Catholics born after 1970 for the tragic loss of our liturgical, artistic and musical patrimony—a treasure of inestimable value—and is replacement with mediocre, depraved forms lacking in artistic worth and which are repugnant to faith and morals?

If you want to bring the younger generations back into the Church, this is the place to start. Don't give them a Mass that attempts to mimic the grotesque popular culture, but rather draw upon our magnificent heritage to create a renaissance of authentic Catholic liturgy.