Liturgical Books and Sacrosanctum Concilium

[Legionary90]

Is anybody else bothered by the fact that we do not have liturgical books (Roman Missal, Breviary) in conformity with Sacrosanctum Concilium? All seem to have been radically reformed to an extent not called for by the Sacrosanctum Concilium.

 

[ncjohn]

This is a common argument made that just isn’t true. SC did not write a prescription for what the revised order of Mass would look like. It laid down some bare guidelines and thoughts about what was anticipated but left, intentionally, lots of room for modification dependent on what the various conferences of bishops would find their constituents to most respond to and what would bring out the increased participation they were seeking. The charge was for the bishops to find out that information and bring it back.

Even the section regarding use of the vernacular talks about the readings, etc, at the least being in the vernacular. That was not a limit, but a starting point. The initial implementation attempt that followed the mixed language model was roundly rejected by pretty much everyone, both laity and clergy.

Did things go TOO far? Did we get the best possible result? Very subjective questions and I don’t know if anyone has ever done any valid statistical analysis to see what the concensus answer might be. Certainly there were liberties taken beyond even what was promulgated that are now having to be dealt with. And I think that a great many would rightfully argue that we have lost far too much of our latin language and musical heritage. And of course there is the constant situation that for any given change a few will absolutely love it, a few will absolutely hate it, and the overwhelming majority will just go along with whatever is the norm.

I have found absolutely nothing, however to indicate that it was the intent of SC to dictate a particular form. And that would be supported pretty well by the fact that there was no outcry from the council fathers after the implementation–with a few notable individuals–that they got something completely different from what they wanted or expected. I’m sure it will continue to get tweaked where necessary and that the actual abuses will continue to be stamped out. Everything I’ve heard though says it took almost 100 years for the change at Trent to be fully implemented so we’ve still got a bit of time by that standard.

Peace,

 

[AJV]

Is anybody else bothered by the fact that we do not have liturgical books (Roman Missal, Breviary) in conformity with Sacrosanctum Concilium? All seem to have been radically reformed to an extent not called for by the Sacrosanctum Concilium.

Perhaps. But I also think the people have not seen some of the supporting documentation. Amogn other points, the declarationes, initally omitted and then made available to the Council Fathers, forecast what the wording meant. So (and this is my paraphrase as accurate as possible; the actual wording [even in Latin] can be provided if anyone so wishes) they called for:
i) the priest officiating from the chair for the Liturgy of the Word or ambo
ii) a removal of the Gallican elements that crept in due to fusion of the Roman liturgy in Gaul. Under this title was included:

a) reduction in the sign of the cross, kissing of the altar, genuflections, bows “and other such things”
b) a decrease in the slength of the Prayers oat the Foot of the altar, and even a redaction in a simpler form
c) Readings proclaimed toward the people
d) restoration of the Offertory procession, a revision of the prayers of the Offertory “that bring out the sense of an oblation of gifts to be later consecrated” [essentially, this means the removal of proleptic references]. The Prayer over the Offerings is to be recited aloud.
e) The number of Prefaces are to be increased
f) the Embolism to the Lord’s Prayer is to be recited aloud, and the fraction moved from the end
g) The fraction and Peace are to be better arranged
h) Restrictions on which Masses they faithful can receive communion are to be removed.
i) The formula ofor the distribution of Holy Communion is to be shorter e.g. Corpus Christi
j) Mass should end with the blessing of the priest and “Ite missa est”

It also calls for a simplified pontifical ceremony, and Mass without a subdeacon and revision of rubrics,etc. in general terms

So no, they did not forsee everything in the Order of the Mass, nor call for everything. But some of their given categories are sufficiently broad.

 

[diggerdomer]

Is anybody else bothered by the fact that we do not have liturgical books (Roman Missal, Breviary) in conformity with Sacrosanctum Concilium? All seem to have been radically reformed to an extent not called for by the Sacrosanctum Concilium.

In addition to what’s already been shared, look at the books themselves. Inevitably you’ll find them referring to Sacrosanctum Concilium as an authority (e.g. in the promulgation document/decree, or preface, or introduction). So it sure seems as though the Church claims the ritual books are in accord with Sacrosanctum Concilium.

Do you have an example of something not in conformity?

 

[Legionary90]

I would personally like to see the 1962 Missal be celebrated with the modifications found in Inter Oecumenici (a.k.a. the 1965 Ordo Missae), which bring the Missal of 1962 in to conformity with the Council for the most part (except for the readings). There is an easy solution to bring the readings into conformity with the directives of Vatican II, which is to follow the 1967 Ferial Lectionary approved by Pope Paul VI.