Innovations following Vatican 2 - References Only

[JKirkLVNV]

Lux_et_veritas:

I took dumspiro to be talking about* preference. *However, since this thread is about which of these things were actually written in to Vatican 2 as opposed to being implemented after, then lets dig into this one too. It is history that I am after.

I’m trying to establish or ascertain if there were practices put into place prior to the approval of the Holy See. This would, of course, exclude any indults granted for specific parishes. Maybe no parish implemented all of these things before they were actually written into some form of document granting them. However, from all that I have heard from people who have been with the church since pre-v2, is that changes were implemented before approvals.** I’m attempting to identify which ones.**

Okay (and some of this stuff is stuff I don’t care for), but to what end? If it is NOW approved, it’s no longer an abuse (I’m not sure it was an abuse before, that word gets batted around a lot. What some see as an abuse others may simply see as a variation. We haven’t always had GIRM and bishops have always had a degree of discretion). I do not think that the orans, for example, is an abuse. It also certainly wasn’t mandated by Vatican II (I do not care for it, as I’m concerned about a blurring between the priesthood and the laity). If I’m not mistaken, it was something that came to be present (a creeping presence) as a result of the charismatic movement in the Catholic Church, approved of by Paul VI and John Paul II. One of the “hallmarks” of this “style” of worship is the orans position. Even if there’s never been a document approving of it, in and of itself, there’s two popes on record as approving the movement of which the orans is a hallmark. See what I mean? AND the altar girl thing: I can see good reasons for excluding girls, but the Holy See has permitted it or at least permitted it to be determined by episcopal conferences. We can point out until the cows come home that it started as an innovation (I’m sure that the post “VII” innovations are not the first ones that the Vatican has had to prune or approve in the history of the Church), but now its approved by the competant authority.

 

[fix]

JKirkLVNV:

Okay (and some of this stuff is stuff I don’t care for), but to what end? If it is NOW approved, it’s no longer an abuse (I’m not sure it was an abuse before, that word gets batted around a lot. What some see as an abuse others may simply see as a variation. We haven’t always had GIRM and bishops have always had a degree of discretion). I do not think that the orans, for example, is an abuse. It also certainly wasn’t mandated by Vatican II (I do not care for it, as I’m concerned about a blurring between the priesthood and the laity). If I’m not mistaken, it was something that came to be present (a creeping presence) as a result of the charismatic movement in the Catholic Church, approved of by Paul VI and John Paul II. One of the “hallmarks” of this “style” of worship is the orans position. Even if there’s never been a document approving of it, in and of itself, there’s two popes on record as approving the movement of which the orans is a hallmark. See what I mean? AND the altar girl thing: I can see good reasons for excluding girls, but the Holy See has permitted it or at least permitted it to be determined by episcopal conferences. We can point out until the cows come home that it started as an innovation (I’m sure that the post “VII” innovations are not the first ones that the Vatican has had to prune or approve in the history of the Church), but now its approved by the competant authority.

For me, such information is interesting because if there are things that were introduced simply by one’s own initiative, then legitimized by the proper authority, it may lend credibility to the idea we may “push” for what we want and eventually it will be granted. I think those ideas and behaviors are not helpful.

I do not want to hijack the thread, but your question goes to issues like hand holding. It is not official yet, but let us say some day the church mandates it. Now, to me it was started without proper approval and many do it because they know no better or feel compelled to for the sake of “unity”. So, if it becomes a “norm” it would seem to be started by a few, foisted on the many and that is not organic growth at all.

 

[Joysong]

http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P3.HTM

From Canon Law:

TITLE

II: CUSTOM (Can. 23 - 28)

Can. 26 Unless it has been specifically approved by the competent legislator, a custom which is contrary to the canon law currently in force, or is apart from the canon law, acquires the force of law only when it has been lawfully observed for a period of thirty continuous and complete years. Only a centennial or immemorial custom can prevail over a canonical law which carries a clause forbidding future customs.

Can. 27 Custom is the best interpreter of laws.

Can. 28 Without prejudice to the provisions of can. 5, a custom, whether contrary to or apart from the law, is revoked by a contrary custom or law. But unless the law makes express mention of them, it does not revoke centennial or immemorial customs, nor does a universal law revoke particular customs.

Dear JKirk,

I agree with you wholeheartedly. Even if some of these practices were merely customs which ultimately obtained the force of law, it does not abrogate the law unless the hierarchy sees that it is harmful to the faithful and issues a document to specifically revoke them. .

As Can.26 stipulates a period of 30 years, we can quickly observe that V-II ended in 1965, so it has now been 40 years for some of these to obtain the force of law.

Carole

 

[JKirkLVNV]

fix:

I do not want to hijack the thread, but your question goes to issues like hand holding. It is not official yet, but let us say some day the church mandates it. Now, to me it was started without proper approval and many do it because they know no better or feel compelled to for the sake of “unity”. So, if it becomes a “norm” it would seem to be started by a few, foisted on the many and that is not organic growth at all.

Well, I certainly see that, BUT…what’s organic REALLY mean? Does it just happen naturally and then gets approved? That seems “organic.” To have a few people suggest it and get approval for it might also be seen as “organic,” esp. if you see a practice spreading from those people went and got permission in the first place. I guess what is NOT organic would be for it to either be forced, out of the blue, on the hierarchy or the hierarchy to force it on us (and I don’t mean the Holy See, since I tend to think in this instance she has historically been, outside of a council, acting as a moderator on what is permissible and what steps over the line. What I mean is a bishop forcing us to stand for the consecration or forbidding us to kneel, etc.). The most we can say is that if the Holy See approves it, it isn’t an abuse. And that’s what the Holy See does, really, in practice. It moderates (that doesn’t detract from it’s authority to dictate, when it deems it necessary), ie., it says,“That’s okay, yes, yes, that’s alright, too,…what, are you out of your mind???”

 

[fix]

…The many aberrations that the faithful experience in the liturgy are not the evolution of a legitimate custom; rather, they are abuses. Nonetheless, how often is the dictum emanating from a priest, deacon or liturgy consultant misrepresented as an act emanating from the community of the faithful? Moreover, how often can it be said that the community wished to obligate itself to the new practice? Indeed, as we can see in “Straws in the Wind,” many of the complaints today arise from the rightful objections and resistance of the community of faith to the spurious directives from sacred ministers or leaders in the liturgical apostolate.

If that were not enough, these same dissidents from ecclesial discipline suggest that their misdeeds, if protracted beyond thirty years, are now “blessed” with the “force of the law.” …Abuse is corruption and not lawful custom.

st-joseph-foundation.org/newsletter/2001/cfd19-3b.htm

 

[bear06]

I’d just like to throw out something that popped into my head this morning regarding disciplines. Yes, this is off the original topic but goes to the heart of the some of the last few posts.

Remember when God, via Moses, led the Israelites into the desert? Objectively we might say (although we’d be really wrong) that it wasn’t a great thing. They wandered for years, started worshipping idols, rebelled against Moses, divorced (something that Moses allowed due to the hardness of their hearts - sound familiar), etc., etc., etc. The “fruit” of this trek wasn’t always good. Now, was it wrong for the Israelites to follow Moses, God’s appointed leader, into the desert? I think it’s our turn in the desert and while we may not always see the things our leader is doing as wise, that is probably not the situation.

Well anyways, it might not be one of my more thought through ideas but it popped into my head while reading this. Sorry if it’s off topic.

 

[Joysong]

Dear Fix,

Your article does not carry much influence, but seems to be somewhat of a contrarian’s personal viewpoint. It is important to understand Can. 28, whereby the Holy See has the authority to override the force of custom and revoke these practices, if they are found to be unworthy or harmful, with a new document.

Can. 28 Without prejudice to the provisions of can. 5, a custom, whether contrary to or apart from the law, is revoked by a contrary custom or law. But unless the law makes express mention of them, it does not revoke centennial or immemorial customs, nor does a universal law revoke particular customs.

What is the point you are trying to make? That because they are not presently revoked by the Church, therefore they are abuses? We have already proven that those practices which have been reputed to be innovative, have been given the force of law through official documents we provided earlier in the thread, even though they may have been initiated through custom.

While your link may seem impressive for the traditionalists’ cause, it does not carry the full weight of Church teaching as expressed through her documents. Catholics should always uphold what the Church teaches through the Holy See.

 

[fix]

Joysong:

Dear Fix,

Your article does not carry much influence, but seems to be somewhat of a contrarian’s personal viewpoint. It is important to understand Can. 28, whereby the Holy See has the authority to override the force of custom and revoke these practices, if they are found to be unworthy or harmful, with a new document.

Can. 28 Without prejudice to the provisions of can. 5, a custom, whether contrary to or apart from the law, is revoked by a contrary custom or law. But unless the law makes express mention of them, it does not revoke centennial or immemorial customs, nor does a universal law revoke particular customs.

What is the point you are trying to make? That because they are not presently revoked by the Church, therefore they are abuses? We have already proven that those practices which have been reputed to be innovative, have been given the force of law through official documents we provided earlier in the thread, even though they may have been initiated through custom.

While your link may seem impressive for the traditionalists’ cause, it does not carry the full weight of Church teaching as expressed through her documents. Catholics should always uphold what the Church teaches through the Holy See.

I believe the link was attempting to show that certain things which go on right now, do not have the approval of the church, yet some local authorities claim it is a custom and so such things are legitimate.

Here is the example they gave:

If that were not enough, these same dissidents from ecclesial discipline suggest that their misdeeds, if protracted beyond thirty years, are now “blessed” with the “force of the law.” As an example, if an extraordinary minister of the Eucharist has been reposing the Most Holy Eucharist in the tabernacle following the distribution of communion and doing this unlawfully for thirty years, that same extraordinary minister may claim this corruption as a reserved right to the exclusion of the sacred minister. Only a few years remain before some communities may make that claim. If, for example, the application of norms on music in the liturgy have been ignored for thirty years, and some parishes already have passed that milestone, the contrary practice or corruption would obtain the force of law.

Also, I am not sure how you are defining the term traditionalist. The foundation in question is orthodox and I do not know if they would use the term traditionalist or not.

 

[fix]

Joysong:

Dear Fix,That because they are not presently revoked by the Church, therefore they are abuses? We have already proven that those practices which have been reputed to be innovative, have been given the force of law through official documents we provided earlier in the thread, even though they may have been initiated through custom.

Specifically in regards to some of the items already mentioned I have a question. Let’s use female servers as the example.

I have read many times this was done before Rome gave a ruling. The usual response is some canon lawyer interpreted a a particular canon to say it was allowed even though there was no specific approval from Rome or any recent history allowing such.

Now one canon says :

                      CAN. 23                                       Only that custom introduced by a community of the faithful and approved by the legislator according to the norm of the following canons has the force of law.

Who is the legislator? Is it Rome or a local bishop? If it is Rome, then how was allowing female servers before Rome allowed it a custom? *
*

 

[Joysong]

Dear Fix,

I believe the link was attempting to show that certain things which go on right now, do not have the approval of the church, yet some local authorities claim it is a custom and so such things are legitimate.

Oh, I see then. Thanks for clearing it up for me. I could not connect it to the present, since Diane was asking for those things from the V2 era.

Who is the legislator? Is it Rome or a local bishop? If it is Rome, then how was allowing female servers before Rome allowed it a custom? **
**

That’s a good question. My understanding is that the V-2 document on the Liturgy gives specific authority to the Bishops to legislate matters for the liturgy. Since this is not a universal custom of using female altar servers, it would not need to have Rome’s approval for wider dissemination.

The Bishops are permitted to oversee their dioceses, and this is the problem we encountered with the “kneeling” perogative in the USA for the Eucharistic Prayer. Other countries stand, but the Holy See granted us approval due to our customary expressions of piety. I remember seeing a specific request for this somewhere among the many documents on line. If need be, I can look for it.

CONSTITUTION
ON THE SACRED LITURGY
SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY
HIS HOLINESS

1. 1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See **and, as laws may determine, on the bishop. **
2. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.

Carole

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Lux_et_veritas:

Hi Deacon Ed,

I understand there are historical issues that go all the way back to the time of Christ on some of the things I raised. These are fine, but it is modern history that I am looking for. The years leading up to Vatican 2, Vatican 2 itself, and the years following Vatican 2. I should have clarified that.

Thanks!

Diane,

The problem that I see in your request is that you ask for documentation for things that were never ordered. For example, the removal of altar rails was never ordered by Vatican II (or any other offical Church document) nor has any official document addressed the removal of altar rails. Rather, they were removed by some well-meaning people who were attempting to do what they *thought *Vatican II was saying by emphasizing the priesthood of all believers. Unfortunately, they got it wrong! By removing the altar rails they helped to remove the sense of the sacred that has led to much of the loss of reverence we see in the Latin Rite Church today.

1. Was distribution of Holy Communion from the tongue to the hand part of Vatican 2 instruction? Please provide any history.

Yes, and no. Communion in the hand is now practiced in numerous countries as an indult (exception to the law) granted by Rome. EWTN has the appropriate documentation. There were dioceses in Europe (specifically in Holland) that were experimenting with this prior to any official permission.

1. Was distribution of Holy Communion while standing part of Vatican 2 instruction? Please provide any history.

At the Second Vatican Council Patriarch Maximos of the Melkites made an intervention in which he suggested that this practice, still normative in the Byzantine Rite Churches (all 14 of them) should be restored in the Latin Rite. This was the traditional posture in the Latin Churches but, beginning in the 6th century, slowly disappeared and was completely gone by the 9th century (see Fr. Josef Jungmann’s The Mass of the Roman Rite).

1. Was orans posture part of Vatican 2 instruction? Please provide any history.

No. This has arisen spontaneously from the people, but harkens back to the early days of the Church. It is neither prohibited nor endorsed by the Church.

1. Altar server attire from cassock to white, hooded robes - Vatican 2 instruction or not? Please provide history.

Again, there is no official position by the Church with regard to this. The basic understanding is that the cassock and surplice are the “choir dress” of clerics who are attending Mass but not serving. Therefore, it should not be used by altar servers. Rather, in keeping with the traditions of the Eastern Churches, they should wear an alb which, technically, is the baptismal garment. The presence of hoods is neither here nor there – these are usually found in parishes that have religious who, as part of their habits, have hoods (notably the Franciscans and Servites). Altar server vesture varies from place to place across the country. As a side note, when I was an altar server (long before Vatican II) I wore a black cassock and white surplice, and my fellow servers and I were always in awe of those parishes where the servers wore red cassocks and white surplices – they looked so sharp!

1. Sign of Peace - Vatican 2 instruction? Provide history.

Yes, the sign of peace was restored to the liturgy as a result of the Vatican II. It was not ordered per se but, rather, came out of the consilium for the liturgy where many ancient practices (including the general intercessions and offertory procession) were brought back. See Bugnini’s Reform of the Liturgy for more detail on this.

1. Position of Tabernacle outside of sanctuary - PRovide History.

The history of this is too complex for a single post. It would take several long posts to even being to do justice to the topic.

Deacon Ed

 

[netmilsmom]

Deacon Ed:

The problem that I see in your request is that you ask for documentation for things that were never ordered.

I think that’s the point.
Things were done in the “Spirit of Vatican II” that were never ordered with Vatican II.

 

[fix]

Joysong:

CONSTITUTION
ON THE SACRED LITURGY
SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY
HIS HOLINESS

1. 1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See **and, as laws may determine, on the bishop. **
2. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.

Carole

Right, now someone can tell us what that authority to regulate means? Let me clarify. Do bishops and bishop conferences have authority to change or add to the liturgy without the approval of Rome? I ask this because Rome had to clarify the female server issue. Why was it asked of Rome if it is clear bishop’s have this authority?

 

[AJV]

Lux_et_veritas:

I
5) Altar server attire from cassock to white, hooded robes - Vatican 2 instruction or not? Please provide history…

Someone knowledgeable can correct me, but I believe there has never been any instruction on what altar boys (or servers however you wish to call them) should wear. They generally imitated the customary wear of acolytes (cassock and surplice) with variations of their own- such as the colour of the cassock.

However, even the cassock and surplice/cotta bit was not always the norm. (if you want to read an amusing account of altar server costumes click here) In some medieval Uses (enthusiastically revived by the Anglo-Catholic branch of Anglicanism), the acolytes/servers wore apparelled albs and amices. Something like this:

http://www.orthodoxresurgence.co.uk/Petroc/censing.jpg

Of course, liturgists probably brought in the albs for the reasons Deacon Ed has already articulated. But they aren’t by any means some new concoction.

Also, I don’t know if anyone has seen this, but in the churches I’ve visited in India, its common for the servers to wear green cassocks in ordinary time.

Sorry for rambling. Just my :twocents:

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Hmmm…much activity and I must leave in a few minutes. I’m going to address this one first.
Joysong provided text...:

TITLE

II: CUSTOM (Can. 23 - 28)

Can. 26 Unless it has been specifically approved by the competent legislator, a custom which is contrary to the canon law currently in force, or is apart from the canon law, acquires the force of law only when it has been lawfully observed for a period of thirty continuous and complete years. Only a centennial or immemorial custom can prevail over a canonical law which carries a clause forbidding future customs.

Can. 27 Custom is the best interpreter of laws.

Can. 28 Without prejudice to the provisions of can. 5, a custom, whether contrary to or apart from the law, is revoked by a contrary custom or law. But unless the law makes express mention of them, it does not revoke centennial or immemorial customs, nor does a universal law revoke particular customs.

Notice the word “lawfully” in red. If a parish or diocese/region has been given some kind of permission - lawful permission - to do something, and they continued for 30 years with a particular, shall we say, temporarily lawful custom, then I agree with this paragraph.

Accounts I’ve heard from many peoeople who were adults and children at the time Vatican 2 occured, is that things like standing for Communion, Communion int he hand, etc., were forced on them literally overnight. As I stated earlier, the accounts I’ve heard would place these actions before the 1969 approval of the Holy See. This practice spread, then years later, an approval is granted.

Point to be made here is that there was no wording in Vatican 2 documentation that gave bishops and priests the right to change postures for reception of Holy Communion.

One objective of this thread is to explore what did Vatican 2 explicitly authorize and to distinguish that from what people passed off as “authentic” Vatican 2 changes, that were far from authentic.

I believe there are many fallacies floating around about what Vatican 2 actually changed and what kinds of things were innovations that worked their way in.

If they are approved today, then fine. That is not the point of this thread. Many of the things in my original list are approved in the GIRM and I am not disputing that legitimacy.

So, lets please keep it on topic for that.

Find me something in Vatican 2 documentation that told bishops and priests to make people stand for Holy Communion, or to begin distribution in the hands.

I don’t believe I’ll see anything because I don’t believe it exists.

Is this discussion fruitless? Hardly. It will serve as an educational process for anyone who believes Vatican 2 “authorized” these changes.

Can the Vatican make a move to change some of these things that were later approved since these practices were already underway, without lawful permission (someone please prove to me that lawful permission was involved)? Absolutely and the idea was toyed with at the recent synod when some bishops pleaded for a return to Communion on the tongue.

But, I’ll bet you don’t see patens in most parishes, which the GIRM requires to be retained for those who receive on the tongue due to choice or intinction. One more innovation - the elimination of the paten. It must be almost 30 years since I’ve seen one in my old parish. I guess that will become law now (not using it)

 

[AJV]

Lux_et_veritas:

But, I’ll bet you don’t see patens in most parishes, which the GIRM requires to be retained for those who receive on the tongue due to choice or intinction. One more innovation - the elimination of the paten. It must be almost 30 years since I’ve seen one in my old parish. I guess that will become law now (not using it)

Maybe I just live in a more conservative part of the world but in every Catholic Church I’ve been to, there’s always a paten held under the chin/hand.

 

[bear06]

AJV:

Maybe I just live in a more conservative part of the world but in every Catholic Church I’ve been to, there’s always a paten held under the chin/hand.

You’d be lucky. It’s not the norm here - at least yet!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Lux_et_veritas:

Can the Vatican make a move to change some of these things that were later approved since these practices were already underway, without lawful permission (someone please prove to me that lawful permission was involved)? Absolutely and the idea was toyed with at the recent synod when some bishops pleaded for a return to Communion on the tongue.

In my reading of the links on EWTN, I only read of one bishop who spoke up for this. It was not mentioned in the final document (s) at all. Can you provide links that show what other bishops favored this?

 

[Joysong]

Dear Fix,

Right, now someone can tell us what that authority to regulate means? Let me clarify. Do bishops and bishop conferences have authority to change or add to the liturgy without the approval of Rome? I ask this because Rome had to clarify the female server issue. Why was it asked of Rome if it is clear bishop’s have this authority?

SACRAM LITURGIAM
Pope Paul VI Motu Proprio of His Holiness issued on January 25, 1964
**X. **Since in accord with Article 22, paragraph 2, the direction of the liturgy within geographical limits comes within the competence of the legitimately constituted territorial episcopal conferences of various kinds, we establish that the term “territorial” be understood as meaning national.

In addition to the residential bishops, all who are mentioned in Canon 292 of the Code of Canon Law may participate in these national conferences, with the right to vote.

In addition, coadjutor and auxiliary bishops may also be called to these conferences.

In these conferences, legitimate approval of decrees requires two-thirds majority, with the voting secret.

This will help clarify the former Art. 22 of the V-2 Document on Liturgy. Additionally, Art. 39 spells out some of their jurisdiction:

Within the limits set by the typical editions of the liturgical books, it shall be for the competent **territorial **ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, Sect. 2, to specify adaptations, especially in the case of the administration of the sacraments, the sacramentals, processions, liturgical language, sacred music and the arts, but according to the fundamental norms laid down in this Constitution.

Maybe the issue of female altar servers is not among those duties spelled out above. But the Bishops know what areas they are able to administer. We do not know, as lay people. It requires trust. If our trust is misused, we always have recourse to higher authority.

Art. 40 allows the Bishops more leverage in making preliminary experiments among certain groups suited for the purpose. This is the infamous article cited by those who think it went too far with the innovations, but it was not unlawful to proceed with them. Possibly this is where the Bishops reported a positive acceptance to the Holy See, and they were granted permanent permission in a more formal manner with one of the encyclicals or letters, such as communion in the hand. (I’m only guessing here, Fix)

That could be the problem Diane is having understanding where these originated. Since this was all so close in time to V-2, many unknowing persons attributed any change that was new to them as an innovation of the original documents. Not all directives for changes within the Church are confined to V-2, nor should they be.

There are many things allowed to Bishops and clergy in Canon Law that are several pages long. V-2 also established a commission to implement a lot of changes, which were not all written in the originals, but flowed from the directive to implement them in accord with their authority. So a casual observer of the documents would be up in arms ready to fight to the death over those things which they cannot find written within them.

An analogy might help if we think about our Constitution. If one does not read the Amendments to find therein those things which flowed from the original, they would be highly upset that someone is violating the Constitution, per se.

We lay people are not privy to the convening of the Bishops in their Councils where so many of these things are discussed and voted upon, nor do we see the many letters of Bishops’ correspondence that are ruled upon by Rome. As such, we err if we arrogate to our understanding a judgment of the Bishops as destroyers of the Church. (A bit overstated, I know, but some really get adamant)

From Sacram Liturgiam: In order that this work may be carried out with the necessary wisdom and prudence, we are establishing a special commission whose principal task will be to implement in the best possible way the prescriptions of the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy itself.

Carole

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Lux_et_veritas:

Point to be made here is that there was no wording in Vatican 2 documentation that gave bishops and priests the right to change postures for reception of Holy Communion.

One objective of this thread is to explore what did Vatican 2 explicitly authorize and to distinguish that from what people passed off as “authentic” Vatican 2 changes, that were far from authentic.

I believe there are many fallacies floating around about what Vatican 2 actually changed and what kinds of things were innovations that worked their way in.

If they are approved today, then fine. That is not the point of this thread. Many of the things in my original list are approved in the GIRM and I am not disputing that legitimacy.

So, lets please keep it on topic for that.

Find me something in Vatican 2 documentation that told bishops and priests to make people stand for Holy Communion, or to begin distribution in the hands.

Again, you are asking the wrong question. The documents of the Second Vatican Council directed the experts to revise the Mass. They did not make specific changes at the Council.

The Council also desires that, where necessary, the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition, and that they be given new vigor to meet present-day circumstances and needs. (Sacrosanctum Concilium, #4)

Following this paragraph there are some “general principles for the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy” – but these are just that, general principles. The actual revision of the liturgy was turned over to a committee of experts in liturgy, theology, history, and related areas. It was these experts who, in conjunction with Pope Paul VI, produced the Mass of Paul VI that we celebrate today.

The issue of communion in the hand has been addressed: I provided the documents that show that it is a legitimate option in the United States.

continued in next post…