With the promulgation last year of “Traditionis Custodes” (Pope Francis’ restrictions on celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass) and the ensuing debate over the liturgical legacy of the Second Vatican Council, now is the perfect time to revisit what the council actually said regarding the reform of the liturgy.
People may have varying preferences and opinions, but, as the council reminds us, “regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church ... therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority” (“Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy” 22). So what does the Church actually say?
The first thing to understand is that the Second Vatican Council did not produce the Mass we have today. That was promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1969, four years after the close of the council. The council did call for “a general reform of the liturgy” (SC 21) and issued principles under which that reform was to take place.
In fact, it was the first topic the Council Fathers took up.
The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, “Sacrosanctum Concilium,” was the first document promulgated by the council on Dec. 4, 1963, with an overwhelming majority vote by the bishops of 2,147 to 4. The Council Fathers clearly state that this was not to be a rupture from the past but rather something done in continuity with what came before. “There must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing” (SC 23).
The introduction of the vernacular is one of the things people associate most with the conciliar reforms. Regarding the language used in the liturgy, the Fathers state, “The use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites. But since the use of the mother tongue ... 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” (SC 36). In other words, the Council Fathers did not view this as a question of using either Latin or the vernacular, but of making good use of both. This is echoed later in the constitution when it says, “In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue,” but then adds, “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).
Similarly, regarding liturgical music, nowhere does the council say out with the old and in with the new. In fact, they assert the opposite, saying, “The musical tradition of the universal Church is a treasure of inestimable value” (SC 112). It goes on: “The treasure of sacred music is to be preserved and fostered with great care” (SC 114), and “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” (SC 116).
Does that mean only one style of music is permitted? No. The council also says, “In certain parts of the world, especially mission lands, there are peoples who have their own musical traditions, and these play a great part in their religious and social life. For this reason due importance is to be attached to their music, and a suitable place is to be given to it” (SC 119). Again, we have a case of the council calling for a both/and rather than an either/or approach.
As the Council Fathers explain, “Even in the liturgy, the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters which do not implicate the faith or the good of the whole community ... Provisions shall also be made, when revising the liturgical books, for legitimate variations and adaptations to different groups, regions, and peoples, especially in mission lands, provided that the substantial unity of the Roman rite is preserved” (SC 37, 38).
A major hallmark of the council’s liturgical reform is a call for the active participation of the laity. “Sacrosanctum Concilium” never speaks of this in terms of giving the laity more jobs to do, but instead as a call for the sacred truths of our faith to be communicated effectively through our rituals, so that people may enter into the liturgy more intentionally and prayerfully. The whole project of reform is undertaken with this in mind. “Both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community” (SC 21). “The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear, and ... within the people’s powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation” (SC 34).
Regarding many other things people typically associate with the reforms of Vatican II, such as the posture of the priest at Mass, or certain styles of vestments or church furnishings, the Second Vatican Council is silent. It states only that liturgical art and furnishings “should worthily and beautifully serve the dignity of worship” (SC 122), noting, “The Church has not adopted any particular style of art as her very own; she has admitted styles from every period according to the natural talents and circumstances of peoples, and the needs of the various rites ... provided that it adorns the sacred buildings and holy rites with due reverence and honor” (SC 123).
I should also point out that “Sacrosanctum Concilium” does not concern itself only with the Mass. A large section deals with the Divine Office (the Liturgy of the Hours), including a call for pastors to celebrate “the chief hours, especially Vespers ... in common in church on Sundays and the more solemn feasts” (SC 100).
One cannot escape the irony that today a parish where Vespers is routinely prayed, Latin is used together with the vernacular at Mass, and Gregorian chant is given a place of honor alongside popular hymns, will undoubtedly be accused of being a “pre-Vatican II” parish, even though a straightforward reading of the conciliar text indicates this is precisely what we should be doing.
I will conclude with a personal observation. As a college campus minister, I often hear it said both that young people relate more to contemporary worship and that they are attracted to more traditional liturgy. Fifteen years of working with young adults have taught me this: young people have different liturgical preferences, just like anyone else. One notable difference I have observed is that young adults are less likely to attach ideological significance to their preferences or to anathematize those with different opinions. I believe this is because, to them, Vatican II is a matter of history. They did not live through the tumultuous years when the conciliar reforms were being introduced, allowing them to approach the subject a bit more dispassionately and therefore more charitably. The both/and approach expressed by the council to them just seems like common sense. This should give us all hope for the future.
Deacon Matthew Newsome is the Catholic campus minister at Western Carolina University and the regional faith formation coordinator for the Smoky Mountain Vicariate.