What Vatican II said—and didn’t say—about the liturgy

FROM LIFESITE NEWS!

December 4, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Today is the 55th anniversary of the promulgation of the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, which
took place on December 4, 1963. It is a cause for amazement just how
much nonsense people have attributed to it, how much harm they have
justified by airy appeals to its supposed requirements.

Today, there are few who could tell you accurately what Vatican II actually did say about the liturgy—and more importantly, what it did not
say. It may be helpful, therefore, to offer a brief overview of the
most salient features of the Council’s teaching on the liturgy.

The introduction of Sacrosanctum Concilium exhibits a
mystical, contemplative, symbolic vision of liturgy. The remainder
enunciates two controlling principles for renewal: first, “Mother Church
earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that full,
conscious, and active participation (actuosa participatio) in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy” (§14); second, “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” (§23).

In a 1998 address, John Paul II explained the meaning of the first principle:

Active participation certainly means that, in gesture, word, song,
and service, all the members of the community take part in an act of
worship, which is anything but inert or passive. Yet active
participation does not preclude the active passivity of silence,
stillness, and listening: indeed, it demands it. … In a culture which
neither favors nor fosters meditative quiet, the art of interior
listening is learned only with difficulty. Here we see how the liturgy,
though it must always be properly inculturated, must also be
countercultural.

As for the second principle, the Constitution generally models the
modesty it recommends. It brings forward various proposals, yet there is
a surprising absence of the very things people most often associate with Vatican II.

Thus, the Council never said that Mass should cease to be in Latin
and should only be in the vernacular. The Constitution reaffirmed that
the fixed parts of the Mass would continue to be in Latin, the very language of the Roman Rite, but gave permission to vernacularize some
parts, such as the readings and the general intercessions (§36; cf.
§101). After stating that the people’s language may be used for some
parts, the Council added: “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” (§54). Latin
remains, to this day, the official language of the Roman Catholic Church
and of her liturgy. It is surprising, to say the least, that the
aforementioned desiderata of Vatican II are only rarely achieved.

The Council never said that Gregorian chant should be set aside in
favor of new songs. On the contrary, the Council acknowledged Gregorian
chant as “specially suited to the Roman liturgy” and deserving “foremost
place” (principum locum) in the celebration of Mass, along with the great musical compositions of our heritage (§114–§117). New songs could be added as long as they suited the liturgy—which most of the new songs after the Council didn’t and still don’t.

The Council breathed not a word about the priest “facing the people”
over a table. The Council assumed that Mass would continue to be offered
at an altar by a priest facing eastwards, so that priest and people
were together aligned towards the East, symbol of the Christ who is to
come—the universal custom of all liturgical rites, Eastern and Western, from the beginning. In fact, the rubrics of the Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI presuppose that the priest is facing eastwards.

The Council never dictated that tabernacles be moved from the center
of the church, that sanctuaries be “reordered,” or that altar rails be
removed. It said nothing about receiving communion in the hand while
standing. It assumed that communion under both species would continue to
be of rare occurrence among the non-ordained (cf. §55); extraordinary
ministers of holy communion are nowhere mentioned. Lastly, the Council
did not downplay or discourage traditional practices of piety such as
Eucharistic adoration and Marian devotions.

Consider how Pope John Paul II, in a 2001 address, explained the essence of the Mass:

The celebration of the Liturgy is an act of the virtue of religion
that, consistent with its nature, must be characterized by a profound
sense of the sacred. In this, man and the entire community must be aware
of being, in a special way, in the presence of Him who is thrice-holy
and transcendent. Consequently, the attitude of imploring cannot but be
permeated by reverence and by the sense of awe that comes from knowing
that one is in the presence of the majesty of God. … [The Mass] has, as
its primary aim, to present to the Divine Majesty the living, pure, and
holy sacrifice offered on Calvary once and for all by the Lord Jesus,
who is present each time the Church celebrates Holy Mass, and to express
the worship due to God in spirit and truth.

Anyone who attends a Catholic liturgy ought to be able to see, hear,
and internalize the attitude and the aim of which the late Holy Father
speaks. Pope Benedict XVI taught us, in word and in deed, the very same
lessons. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger wrote many years ago:

In the history of the postconciliar period, the Constitution on the
Liturgy was certainly no longer understood from the viewpoint of the
basic primacy of adoration, but rather as a recipe book of what we can
do with the liturgy. In the meantime, the fact that the liturgy is
actually ‘made’ for God and not for ourselves seems to have escaped the
minds of those who are busy pondering how to give the liturgy an ever
more attractive and communicable shape, actively involving an ever
greater number of people. However, the more we make it for ourselves,
the less attractive it is, because everyone perceives clearly that the
essential focus on God has increasingly been lost.

Thanks to many acts and documents of Benedict XVI, above all Summorum Pontificum, the
future of Catholic liturgy looks bright again—if only we will trust and
embrace the age-old tradition of the Church. This treasury of wisdom
and beauty is far more valuable than the wares of the so-called experts
who set up their trade in the temple. When the Lord in His mercy wills
it, He will prepare a whip of cords and drive them out.

The Christian people who have suffered so much from the “spirit of
Vatican II” deserve to know what Vatican II really taught and did not
teach about the liturgy—what it asked for, and what it did not ask for. Sacrosanctum Concilium will
not come off looking blameless, but it cannot be blamed for the most
obviously disastrous things that happened to the liturgy in the mid- to
late 1960s. For this, the blame lies largely elsewhere, as a new biography shows with utmost clarity.

Casti Connubi on Contraception

17. Since,
however, We have spoken fully elsewhere on the Christian education of
youth,[18] let Us sum it all up by quoting once more the words of St.
Augustine: “As regards the offspring it is provided that they should be begotten
lovingly and educated religiously,”[19] – and this is also expressed
succinctly in the Code of Canon Law – “The primary end of marriage is the
procreation

53. And now, Venerable
Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of the benefits
of matrimony. First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the
boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to
be carefully avoided by married people not through virtuous continence (which
Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent) but by
frustrating the marriage act. Some justify this criminal abuse on the ground
that they are weary of children and wish to gratify their desires without their
consequent burden. Others say that they cannot on the one hand remain continent
nor on the other can they have children because of the difficulties whether on
the part of the mother or on the part of family circumstances.

54. But no reason, however
grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may
become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal
act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in
exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against
nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.

55. Small wonder,
therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with
greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death.
As St. Augustine
notes, “Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked
where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did
this and the Lord killed him for it.”[45]

56. Since, therefore,
openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have
judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this
question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the
integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin
which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial
union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her
divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever
of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in
its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of
nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave
sin.

57. We admonish, therefore,
priests who hear confessions and others who have the care of souls, in virtue
of Our supreme authority and in Our solicitude for the salvation of souls, not
to allow the faithful entrusted to them to err regarding this most grave law of
God; much more, that they keep themselves immune from such false opinions, in
no way conniving in them. If any confessor or pastor of souls, which may God
forbid, lead the faithful entrusted to him into these errors or should at least
confirm them by approval or by guilty silence, let him be mindful of the fact
that he must render a strict account to God, the Supreme Judge, for the
betrayal of his sacred trust, and let him take to himself the words of Christ:
“They are blind and leaders of the blind: and if the blind lead the blind,
both fall into the pit.[46]

58. As regards the evil use
of matrimony, to pass over the arguments which are shameful, not infrequently
others that are false and exaggerated are put forward. Holy Mother Church
very well understands and clearly appreciates all that is said regarding the
health of the mother and the danger to her life. And who would not grieve to
think of these things? Who is not filled with the greatest admiration when he
sees a mother risking her life with heroic fortitude, that she may preserve the
life of the offspring which she has conceived? God alone, all bountiful and all
merciful as He is, can reward her for the fulfillment of the office allotted to
her by nature, and will assuredly repay her in a measure full to
overflowing.[47]

59. Holy Church
knows well that not infrequently one of the parties is sinned against rather
than sinning, when for a grave cause he or she reluctantly allows the
perversion of the right order. In such a case, there is no sin, provided that,
mindful of the law of charity, he or she does not neglect to seek to dissuade
and to deter the partner from sin. Nor are those considered as acting against
nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although
on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life
cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the
matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the
cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and
wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the
primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.

60. We are deeply touched
by the sufferings of those parents who, in extreme want, experience great
difficulty in rearing their children.

61. However, they should
take care lest the calamitous state of their external affairs should be the
occasion for a much more calamitous error. No difficulty can arise that
justifies the putting aside of the law of God which forbids all acts
intrinsically evil. There is no possible circumstance in which husband and wife
cannot, strengthened by the grace of God, fulfill faithfully their duties and
preserve in wedlock their chastity unspotted. This truth of Christian Faith is
expressed by the teaching of the Council of Trent. “Let no one be so rash
as to assert that which the Fathers of the Council have placed under anathema,
namely, that there are precepts of God impossible for the just to observe. God
does not ask the impossible, but by His commands, instructs you to do what you
are able, to pray for what you are not able that He may help you.”[48]

62. This same doctrine was
again solemnly repeated and confirmed by the Church in the condemnation of the
Jansenist heresy which dared to utter this blasphemy against the goodness of
God: “Some precepts of God are, when one considers the powers which man
possesses, impossible of fulfillment even to the just who wish to keep the law
and strive to do so; grace is lacking whereby these laws could be
fulfilled.”[49]