15 Replies to “The Fathers of the Council had no intention of changing the liturgy, and therefore also (did not intend to change) sacred music in its relationship to it”

  1. The liturgy, in its essence did not change. Only the peripherals associated with it, including musical genres. Participation in music is part of the faithful's participation in the priestly office of Jesus Christ, something that was usurped or allowed to atrophy in the Counter Reformation. Vatican II was an important corrective in allowing the liturgy to develop a new level of power in the lives of the faithful. It was a start.

    Todd

  2. Todd,

    Is it really true that musical genres are "peripherals" for the liturgy? I'm not so sure.

    – Jake

  3. I thought the sacred liturgy was about worshipping God? If the faithful wanted a new level of power through the liturgy, if the faithful truly shared that vision, we'd see an increase in mass attendance. The reverse has happened.

    The idea that music is peripheral to the liturgy… is that anywhere to be found in Catholic teaching? Rather, we find the idea that the treasury of sacred music is a great gift, worthy of preservation and cultivation.

    Thanks for linking the interview.

  4. Part 1 – It is undeniable that The Novus Ordo centrally changed the liturgy, not peripherals. The hi-most prayer of The Mass, the Roman Canon, was universally suppressed. Other profound prayers, such as the opening "Ad Altare Dei" are wiped out of Catholic consciousness by the Novus Ordo.

    As a 57 yr old man who served as an altar boy using the 1962 Missal in Latin, and then an English translation of the 1962 Missal, and then the 1973 ICEL translation of the Novus Ordo – I saw the whole transition. The Mass under the Novus Ordo, especially in its universal form, with the so-called Eucharistic Prayer #2, has been skinned and gutted of Roman Catholic cult and culture.

  5. Part 2 – This is not to say that the Mass in 1962 couldn't have been enhanced by an approach that had real reverence for and faith in tradition. Nor is the Mass of 1962 held to be the best example of Roman Catholic liturgy, as I have learned from reading Lazslo Dobzsay – a profound expert in the Roman Catholic liturgy and its music. Some good things exist in the Novus Ordo. But on balance – the Novus Ordo severed the Church's connection to Roman Catholic culture. You can't have a cult without a culture.

  6. "The reverse has happened."

    I sense there's a new man in the Chair of Peter. Leadership isn't everything, but it matters a lot, especially for the local parish.

    Music is far from peripheral, but the particular selections of repertoire and genre are.

    Todd

  7. Either you are right, or Cardinal Bartolucci is wrong. Actually, I am more inclined to say that Bartolucci is flat wrong, since the Fathers of the Council so clearly did intend changes in the liturgy. This is evident from what they approved in Sacrosanctum Concilium, which is full of "adapt," "revise," "reform," "not only may but ought to be changed," etc., etc. It is further evident from the very behavior of all (or about 99.8%) of those Fathers on returning home to their own dioceses. Cardinal Bartolucci comes across as, at best, benignly deluded here.

  10. No, I think Dwayne has it. Practically every bishop knew what was happening, and actually endorsed the rush job in 1964-1970 because they didn't want the curia putting the clamp on reform like they attempted with the conciliar agenda.

    Todd

  11. Part 1 – It is surely correct that Sacrosanctum Concilium intended changes to the liturgy. Per the Introduction: "where necessary, the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition, and that they be given new vigor…." And Chap. I, Part III: "holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself. For the liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change. These …ought to be changed … 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."

  12. Part 2 – But the Bugnini Committee's "new Mass" is not faithful to the principles in Sacrosanctum Concilium. Per CH I, Part III, A) General Norms (para 23) "That sound tradition may be retained, and yet the way remain open to legitimate progress …. Finally, 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."

  13. Part 1 – It is surely correct that Sacrosanctum Concilium intended changes to the liturgy. Per the Introduction: "where necessary, the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition, and that they be given new vigor…." And Chap. I, Part III: "holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself. For the liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change. These …ought to be changed … 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."

  14. Part 2 – But the Bugnini Committee's "new Mass" is not faithful to the principles in Sacrosanctum Concilium. Per CH I, Part III, A) General Norms (para 23) "That sound tradition may be retained, and yet the way remain open to legitimate progress …. Finally, 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."

  15. Read "A Chronicle of the Reform: Catholic Music in the 20th Century" by Mnsr. Schuter. It describes how the some folks with agendas really ran with the ball, suppressed information, and essentially did not do as directed; or they cut out a nice niche in liturgucal "loopholes."

    It strikes me, as a student of music history, how Church music always moved at a more conservative pace after 1600 or so. And then, SNAP-CRACKLE-POP! in 1965. If the growth had been more organic than forced, if the art had been cultivated, a lot of banality and ugliness would have been avoided.

Comments are closed.